1. Post #161
    "Gold Member"
    Dennab
    May 2007
    13,705 Posts

    This is publicly available, transparent information, which is how it was discovered.


    I fail to see your point.

    Edited:

    This money went somewhere. Someone got it.

    ARe you retarded


    it fucking lists where the entire budget went what the fuck point are you trying to make
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  2. Post #162
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    Well, sorry for misinterpreting you.
    Everyone is attacking me and trying to group me in as an obsessed and paranoid conspiracy theorist. I am only trying to debate the points David Chandler does in his video.
    im not callin you crazy or anything, i'm just saying you have to analyze every little bit of what you say. if your argument is that WTC7 couldn't have fallen at freefall speed without demolition charges, you have a lot of things to explain first, like:

    - did it really fall at freefall speed?
    - how do you know it's not possible for it to have fallen due to internal damage?
    - how did a busy office building have demolition charges placed in it without anyone noticing?
    - if it was a controlled demolition, why can you observe the collapse of the penthouses from east to west, showing that the internal structure was collapsing shortly before the "free fall" began?
    - why are there no signs of explosion?
    - how did the charges remain operable after 7 hours of fires had their chance to burn up the wires and ruin detonators?

  3. Post #163
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    ARe you retarded
    it fucking lists where the entire budget went what the fuck point are you trying to make
    I don't understand your point entirely. Wtf are you even talking about. Can you read at all?
    I still don't see the significance of it being public. Yes it's public. So? If it's public then no one got this money? It disappeared, what?

    This money went somewhere. Someone got it. I never meant it as "somewhere we don't know" nor "someone we don't know".
    We can see where it all went. SO FUCKING WHAT? WHATS THE FUCKING POINT??
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Poland Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  4. Post #164
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    I don't understand your point entirely. Wtf are you even talking about. Can you read at all?

    We can see where it all went. SO FUCKING WHAT? WHATS THE FUCKING POINT??
    i don't understand your point, you're speaking gibberish

    what money are you referring to, and what do you want to know about it?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  5. Post #165
    "Gold Member"
    Dennab
    May 2007
    13,705 Posts
    I don't understand your point entirely. Wtf are you even talking about. Can you read at all?

    We can see where it all went. SO FUCKING WHAT? WHATS THE FUCKING POINT??
    You implied the US funded the terror group which attacked the twin towers.

    I don't see how funding a terrorist cell by someone with power and money who's gonna profit off a war is such an insane idea. I mean the US has spent few trillion dollars? This money went somewhere. Of course I'm not saying that it all went to one pocket, but there has to be someone who got rich on this.


    Why is that more insane than some angry religious fanatics from a small village in middle east accomplishing all that without funding?

    I just pointed out why you're wrong.

  6. Post #166
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    October 2008
    1,912 Posts
    This is publicly available, transparent information
    so transparent that it was discovered by chance 3-4 years later

    $7.7 trillion
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  7. Post #167
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    i don't understand your point, you're speaking gibberish

    what money are you referring to, and what do you want to know about it?
    Sigh. Have someone earned on the war? Or everyone lost and the money disappeared? I was under the impression that if I spend 100$ someone else will have it.
    You implied the US funded the terror group which attacked the twin towers.

    I just pointed out why you're wrong.
    Where did I say it was the US? I said "someone with power and money". You really can't read.

    And someone explain this to me because I don't understand. I have a very hard time comprehending it. Why are there only 2 ways this could have been done? It was either a group of religious fanatics or it was thousands of fbi agents, firefighters, demoliiton experts, scientists, CIA, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, NSA, the majority of the House of Representatives, air traffic control, high-level military contractors, and the entire Bush administration.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Poland Show Events Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  8. Post #168
    "Gold Member"
    Dennab
    May 2007
    13,705 Posts
    so transparent that it was discovered by chance 3-4 years later

    $7.7 trillion


    I wouldn't call a systematic analysis of the US budget "by chance"
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  9. Post #169
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    so transparent that it was discovered by chance 3-4 years later

    $7.7 trillion
    what about it? what 7.7 trillion are you referring to, the bank bailouts? what does that have to do with 9/11?

    Sigh. Have someone earned on the war? Or everyone lost and the money disappeared? I was under the impression that if I spend 100$ someone else will have it.
    ok so you want to know everybody who has profited/lost money as a result of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror?

    that's a pretty big list dude. haliburton gained a shitload of military contracts as a result of the war though, and i think Dick Cheney was the CEO/President of the company or something, so if that's what you're looking for then yeah the Bush Administration profited from 9/11, but imo it was them seizing the opportunity and taking advantage of the crisis rather than orchestrating the greatest conspiracy in human history for a relatively meager profit, especially when they could have made more money much more easily through other methods

  10. Post #170
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    ok so you want to know everybody who has profited/lost money as a result of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror?

    that's a pretty big list dude. haliburton gained a shitload of military contracts as a result of the war though, and i think Dick Cheney was the CEO/President of the company or something, so if that's what you're looking for then yeah the Bush Administration profited from 9/11, but imo it was them seizing the opportunity and taking advantage of the crisis rather than orchestrating the greatest conspiracy in human history for a relatively meager profit, especially when they could have made more money much more easily through other methods
    I'm just saying that someone out of that list could've funded the terrorists. I wouldn't think it was all of them.

  11. Post #171
    The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
    Bobie's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,289 Posts
    what about it? what 7.7 trillion are you referring to, the bank bailouts? what does that have to do with 9/11?



    ok so you want to know everybody who has profited/lost money as a result of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror?

    that's a pretty big list dude. haliburton gained a shitload of military contracts as a result of the war though, and i think Dick Cheney was the CEO/President of the company or something, so if that's what you're looking for then yeah the Bush Administration profited from 9/11, but imo it was them seizing the opportunity and taking advantage of the crisis rather than orchestrating the greatest conspiracy in human history for a relatively meager profit, especially when they could have made more money much more easily through other methods
    i wouldn't say bush directly profited from 9/11, he probably lost alot in the long term (as a government, not as an individual) but gained alot in the short term through military contracts.
    if anything, the military industrial complex grew massively as a result of 9/11, nothing else. the military in america also has alot of leverage over congress from what i know, in terms of lobbying and bribes.

  12. Post #172
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    I'm just saying that someone out of that list could've funded the terrorists. I wouldn't think it was all of them.
    is english your first language because i'm really having a hard time understanding you

    you're saying that you think it's possible someone other than the USA/Al Qaeda funded the terrorists? i guess that's "possible" but there's literally no evidence to indicate it so i don't see what point you're even trying to make here other than posing hypotheticals that will lead nowhere
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  13. Post #173
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    It says something about America's ego that they have to come up with these wild, inane conspiracies just so they can deny the fact that some po-dunk, backwater assholes from the Middle East managed to catch us off guard.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 10Dumb Dumb x 4Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  14. Post #174
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    is english your first language because i'm really having a hard time understanding you

    you're saying that you think it's possible someone other than the USA/Al Qaeda funded the terrorists? i guess that's "possible" but there's literally no evidence to indicate it so i don't see what point you're even trying to make here other than posing hypotheticals that will lead nowhere
    Why does it have to be the entire USA? Why can't it be someone who benefited from the war? When you're looking for suspects you look for those who somehow benefited from the situation. Simplest explanation.

  15. Post #175
    "Gold Member"
    Dennab
    May 2007
    13,705 Posts
    It says something about America's ego that they have to come up with these wild, inane conspiracies just so they can deny the fact that some po-dunk, backwater assholes from the Middle East managed to catch us off guard.

    Yes thank you please ignore the sane americans in this thread arguing against it I mean it's not like anywhere else in the world has crazy, ignorant, or misinformed people LOL

  16. Post #176
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Yes thank you please ignore the sane americans in this thread arguing against it I mean it's not like anywhere else in the world has crazy, ignorant, or misinformed people LOL
    "They" refers to conspiracy theorists.

    When I said "us," that implies I'm American LOL

    Be more jingoistic please.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  17. Post #177
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    Why does it have to be the entire USA? Why can't it be someone who benefited from the war? When you're looking for suspects you look for those who somehow benefited from the situation. Simplest explanation.
    ok well how about, instead of going through the massive list of people who have benefited from the events that unfolded after 9/11, you come up with a list of people that are actually linked with Al Qaeda and then filter it down from there. until then your point is worthless and completely hypothetical

  18. Post #178
    "Gold Member"
    Dennab
    May 2007
    13,705 Posts
    "They" refers to conspiracy theorists.

    When I said "us," that implies I'm American LOL

    Be more jingoistic please.

    Ah yes I'm a jingoist because I'm arguing that America is on the same level as the rest of the world.


    It says something about your ego that you're generalizing any country or race in such a way.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  19. Post #179
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Ah yes I'm a jingoist because I'm arguing that America is on the same level as the rest of the world.


    It says something about your ego that you're generalizing any country or race in such a way.
    I'm American.

    I live here.

    I ain't generalizing shit.

    You're jingoistic because you automatically assume I am foreign because you don't like what I said.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #180
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,014 Posts
    1. did it really fall at freefall speed?
    2. how do you know it's not possible for it to have fallen due to internal damage?
    3. how did a busy office building have demolition charges placed in it without anyone noticing?
    4. if it was a controlled demolition, why can you observe the collapse of the penthouses from east to west, showing that the internal structure was collapsing shortly before the "free fall" began?
    5. why are there no signs of explosion?
    6. how did the charges remain operable after 7 hours of fires had their chance to burn up the wires and ruin detonators?
    1. The footage that was shown and the breakdown step by step analysis of David Chandler little course of physics really shows in way that everyone can understand, that the building might have fallen in free fall speed. Now I don't know if the video is perhaps speeded up due to the recording process but then again the NIST probably had to rely on the same video to create their report.

    2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process.

    3. They must have been really sneaky!

    4. I don't know.

    5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition.

    6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring!

    EDIT:
    Your turn.
    My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it isn't true why would the free fall part of the destruction of the building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 8 (list)

  21. Post #181
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    1. The footage that was shown and the breakdown step by step analysis of David Chandler little course of physics really shows in way that everyone can understand, that the building might have fallen in free fall speed. Now I don't know if the video is perhaps speeded up due to the recording process but then again the NIST probably had to rely on the same video to create their report.

    2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process.

    3. They must have been really sneaky!

    4. I don't know.

    5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition.

    6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring!
    so essentially all you know is that it fell at freefall speed. the rest is guesswork.

    and this is supposed to prove that the Bush Administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 6Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  22. Post #182
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    ok well how about, instead of going through the massive list of people who have benefited from the events that unfolded after 9/11, you come up with a list of people that are actually linked with Al Qaeda and then filter it down from there. until then your point is worthless and completely hypothetical
    My point is: the whole argument that it was either entire Bush administration or Al Qaeda is retarded on both ends. If anything it should be "someone who actually benefited on the war" vs Al Qaeda. And frankly I think it would be much easier for them if they did have funding. And since the list of people who benefited on the war is long I think it's probable that the person/people who did it are on the list, if it actually was funded by someone who wanted to benefit on the war. Although this is purely hypothetical, since I don't have any information about any of these people being linked with Al Qaeda (how the hell would I even obtain it) it still makes much more sense than Bush administration doing it.

  23. Post #183
    skynrdfan3's Avatar
    June 2010
    3,929 Posts
    9/11 never actually happened. all the flouride in the water just made us think that it happened.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 11Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  24. Post #184
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,014 Posts
    so essentially all you know is that it fell at freefall speed. the rest is guesswork.

    and this is supposed to prove that the Bush Administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind?
    The only thing I am trying to prove is that there has been lying and that if there is one lie there might be more.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  25. Post #185
    Mixed Sources's Avatar
    May 2011
    822 Posts
    1. The footage that was shown and the breakdown step by step analysis of David Chandler little course of physics really shows in way that everyone can understand, that the building might have fallen in free fall speed. Now I don't know if the video is perhaps speeded up due to the recording process but then again the NIST probably had to rely on the same video to create their report.

    2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process.

    3. They must have been really sneaky!

    4. I don't know.

    5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition.

    6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring!
    The fact remains we have no idea how a steel supported structure would react to uncontrolled fires raging for 7 hours. This is because it has never happened! Back in the 1900's little was understood about how iron and steel becomes incredibly brittle as low temperatures. The titanic sunk, among other reasons because the rivets where brittle and snapped where they should have bent.

    Ive just finished a module in metallurgy where these two ideas where experimented on and would you believe it? When steel gets hot it turns into butter. Form your own opinions and don't just regurgitated what a voice over the internet tells you.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac United Kingdom Show Events Informative Informative x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  26. Post #186
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    The only thing I am trying to prove is that there has been lying and that if there is one lie there might be more.
    you haven't proven that there have been any lies, and saying "theres one lie, there might be more.." is useless/meaningless without any other evidence to link to

    My point is: the whole argument that it was either entire Bush administration or Al Qaeda is retarded on both ends. If anything it should be "someone who actually benefited on the war" vs Al Qaeda. And frankly I think it would be much easier for them if they did have funding. And since the list of people who benefited on the war is long I think it's probable that the person/people who did it are on the list, if it actually was funded by someone who wanted to benefit on the war. Although this is purely hypothetical, since I don't have any information about any of these people being linked with Al Qaeda (how the hell would I even obtain it) it still makes much more sense than Bush administration doing it.
    ok.. i give up then

  27. Post #187
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    Fun fact: Osama Bin Laden has been threatening to attack the United States since the beginning of the Clinton Administration.

    Just thought that little tidbit would put to rest the idea that Bin Laden was invented by the Bush Administration.

  28. Post #188
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,014 Posts
    you haven't proven that there have been any lies, and saying "theres one lie, there might be more.." is useless/meaningless without any other evidence to link to
    I have tried to prove it as best as I can. Please watch the video one more time because I don't want to repeat myself anymore.

    My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it you don't believe it... why would the free fall part of the destruction of a building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Late Late x 1 (list)

  29. Post #189
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    ok.. i give up then
    Don't you agree with me? That it's much more plausible that if the terrorists were funded it would be by a smaller group who actually benefited on the war and not by the entire Bush administration who lost on it?

  30. Post #190
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    Don't you agree with me? That it's much more plausible that if the terrorists were funded it would be by a smaller group who actually benefited on the war and not by the entire Bush administration who lost on it?
    not really, i'm just not bothering trying to understand your point because there's no real reason to. unless you can say "hey, i bet these dudes funded al qaeda because they had something to gain from it", theorizing that someone else funded them is useless and doesn't help anything

  31. Post #191
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    not really, i'm just not bothering trying to understand your point because there's no real reason to. unless you can say "hey, i bet these dudes funded al qaeda because they had something to gain from it", theorizing that someone else funded them is useless and doesn't help anything
    So if it was funded it would be by the entire Bush administration. Okay I give up then.

  32. Post #192
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    I have tried to prove it as best as I can. Please watch the video one more time because I don't want to repeat myself anymore.

    My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it you don't believe it... why would the free fall part of the destruction of a building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?
    the NIST didn't "falsify" their reports, they just claimed they were full of shit because their computer simulations didn't match up with theirs. most of their claims regarding falsification and "covering up" of data relies on them crying that the official investigation didn't search specifically for bomb residue and things of that nature, which is stupid because it wasn't the NISTs job in the first place.

    Edited:

    So if it was funded it would be by the entire Bush administration. Okay I give up then.
    uh no it was funded by osama bin laden, an insanely rich saudi who headed the organization

  33. Post #193
    I ROLL THE NICKELS
    CodeMonkey3's Avatar
    October 2008
    18,070 Posts
    911 Conspiracy Thread V.31 - Where We Barely Grasp What 'Freefall' Speed is or What it Even Means

  34. Post #194
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    5,105 Posts
    uh no it was funded by osama bin laden, an insanely rich saudi who headed the organization
    Yeah but the only other understandable possibility is that the entire Bush administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy ever (which isn't true). There are no other possibilities. Those are the only two. Which is a fight between utterly retarded possibility and plausible possibility. Which is a pretty easy choice. Why would you confuse yourself with any other possibilities that maybe aren't utterly retarded. Having only these two things to consider is simple.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Poland Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  35. Post #195
    [B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacos"]Tacos![/URL][/B]
    Jurikuer's Avatar
    April 2008
    5,450 Posts
    1. The military does not run airports
    2. It's quite easy to dismiss an off-course plane (See: Pearl Harbor)
    3. If they did find out, they wouldn't send in a fighter to shoot down a civilian aircraft
    1 The military monitors all air traffic. Ever heard of NORAD?
    2 One off course plane, sure. But Two or three planes, dozens of miles off course? I dunno man.
    3 Intercept, not shoot down. If deemed a serious enough threat I'm sure they'd shoot it down.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Dumb Dumb x 8 (list)

  36. Post #196
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    1 The military monitors all air traffic. Ever heard of NORAD?
    2 One off course plane, sure. But Two or three planes, dozens of miles off course? I dunno man.
    3 Intercept, not shoot down. If deemed a serious enough threat I'm sure they'd shoot it down.
    uh what exactly do you expect them to do in terms of interception, if not shooting them down?

    and if you did a bit of research you would know they actually did end up deciding to try taking the planes down, by ramming them with jets because by the time they knew what was going on, they had no time to load weapons systems. when a plane starts going off track and isn't responding, your first response isn't "shoot down the passenger aircraft!", it's "figure out whats happening!", which they did, until the towers had planes in them
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  37. Post #197
    [B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacos"]Tacos![/URL][/B]
    Jurikuer's Avatar
    April 2008
    5,450 Posts
    uh what exactly do you expect them to do in terms of interception, if not shooting them down?

    and if you did a bit of research you would know they actually did end up deciding to try taking the planes down, by ramming them with jets because by the time they knew what was going on, they had no time to load weapons systems. when a plane starts going off track and isn't responding, your first response isn't "shoot down the passenger aircraft!", it's "figure out whats happening!", which they did, until the towers had planes in them
    Okay fair enough. But they had plenty of time to figure out there was a huge problem. Especially with passengers calling in a hijacking as it was happening.

    I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Dumb Dumb x 8 (list)

  38. Post #198
    "Gold Member"
    Dennab
    May 2007
    13,705 Posts
    Okay fair enough. But they had plenty of time to figure out there was a huge problem. Especially with passengers calling in a hijacking as it was happening.

    I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.

    Yes of course! That's why we invaded afghanistan in 2001!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  39. Post #199
    Gold Member
    Disotrtion's Avatar
    February 2012
    2,382 Posts
    It says something about America's ego that they have to come up with these wild, inane conspiracies just so they can deny the fact that some po-dunk, backwater assholes from the Middle East managed to catch us off guard.
    America is the home of conspiracy theories. Seriously, go look up some of the theories people came up with when President Lincoln was shot.

  40. Post #200
    [B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacos"]Tacos![/URL][/B]
    Jurikuer's Avatar
    April 2008
    5,450 Posts
    America is the home of conspiracy theories. Seriously, go look up some of the theories people came up with when President Lincoln was shot.
    It's obvious Professor Farnsworth did it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)