Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,953 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#251435 Jan 10, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Heres a good vid on the improbability of the precise maneuvers being performed by untrained hands behind the controls of a commercial jet.

But repeating 20 pilots endlessly is funny to the unthinking, eh?

Insults Are Easier
http://youtu.be/jNoZKoQz8fs

Insults Are Easier
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#251436 Jan 10, 2013
Insults Are Expected wrote:
Heres a good vid on the improbability of the precise maneuvers being performed by untrained hands behind the controls of a commercial jet.
But repeating 20 pilots endlessly is funny to the unthinking, eh?
Insults Are Easier
The hijacker pilots had flight simulator time. they weren't "untrained."
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#251437 Jan 10, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Heres a good vid on the improbability of the precise maneuvers being performed by untrained hands behind the controls of a commercial jet.
But repeating 20 pilots endlessly is funny to the unthinking, eh?
Insults Are Easier
Yes, Who were those 20 pilots steel plating boy?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#251438 Jan 10, 2013
Conspiracy theories are for people who can't face reality.
onemale

Pana, IL

#251439 Jan 10, 2013
I cannot argue with 1500+ architects, engineers, physicists, scientists and other professionals. Most of these have from 20 to 30+ years experience.
All they want is an independent investigation.

That is the KEY here because IF an independent investigation proves them wrong, they would look like idiots. They have to be sure they are 100% correct. If they were proven wrong who would hire them? Their careers would be ruined.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251441 Jan 10, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
Is that code for the names of your 20 fake pilots who could not steer a plane?
<quoted text>
Yes that's it!

D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crush-down differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 &#8722; (z)] doc zorderz says dt + &#956;cl 2 [2 &#8722; (z)] dz dt ) &#8722; m(z)g = &#8722;Fc(z, z&#729;)(crush-down)(2) while the crush-up differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 &#8722; (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y&#729;)(crush-up)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crush-up. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, &#956;c = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z)= m0 + &#956;cl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height; Fc(z, z&#729;)= Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, Fb = Wd/(1 &#8722; )h (4) where Wd(z)= total energy dissipation up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Ba&#711;zant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z¨&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯&#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz voila an inside job!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha h ahah ah aha ha h
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !
Say the Truth

San Rafael, CA

#251442 Jan 10, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The hijacker pilots had flight simulator time. they weren't "untrained."
Is that why you still wear diapers and play with your shit?
Say the Truth

San Rafael, CA

#251443 Jan 10, 2013
continuated bifurcation of concrete slabs
Hey KEWL Dewd
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#251444 Jan 10, 2013
onemale wrote:
I cannot argue with 1500+ architects, engineers, physicists, scientists and other professionals. Most of these have from 20 to 30+ years experience.
All they want is an independent investigation.
That is the KEY here because IF an independent investigation proves them wrong, they would look like idiots. They have to be sure they are 100% correct. If they were proven wrong who would hire them? Their careers would be ruined.
Most in a field that knows knows nothing about structural engineering. Architects? LMAO but most are liberal arts majors.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251445 Jan 10, 2013
Bazant Quote:
“Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of controlled building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.”
.
Although in the entire history of tall buildings, progressive collapse as a mode of failure has never before happened, on 9/11/2001, within hours of each other 3 of New York City’s tallest and largest steel framed buildings collapsed all the way to the ground at near free fall acceleration with only fire in the upper floors as the primary cause.
.
Is this an incredible coincidence? The odds of this happening are astronomical at best.
.
It was rather like three ships the size of the Titanic all sinking on their maiden voyages within hours of each other on the same day from hitting the same iceberg!
.
Once collapse was initiated, there was no "dynamic" impact and cumulative weight loading. Just the opposite in fact. Where is the piledriver?
.
So as the progression continued, at near total free fall acceleration speed in air,(straight down along the line of supposed maximum resistance), the ejecting fountain-like debris plume chasing those outer perimeter steel frame pieces all the way to the ground, to within a mere second or two, the total load became increasingly weight-LESS!
.
(somehow the resistance of the bottom two thirds of all three of the buildings had magically disappeared)
.
Relative to, an increasingly stronger steel core structure + perimeter support, that had no fires burning anywhere near and since everything at this lower level was tapered ever thicker toward the bottom, to handle the entire load of the rest of the building.
.
Think about that, and then explain continual momentum at about free fall acceleration in air...? You cannot.
.
Not without altering the laws of physics, and nullifying the work of Newton and Galileo in the process.
.
That is who Bazant is up against the moment he tries to explain the actual collapse itself.
.
There are no experts on the WTC collapse. For the simple fact that the crime scene was not forensically studied. Instead as soon as it was determined there would be no more survivors it was immediately placed off-limits to forensic investigative personnel, cleanup started and thousands of tons of steel debris was taken away and sold at under-market rates.
.
troll on shills
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That’s a good one huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251446 Jan 10, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Most in a field that knows knows nothing about structural engineering. Architects? LMAO but most are liberal arts majors.
What are your qualifications in any field at all?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha h LOL
.
That's Even Funnier Than Your qualifications which are nonexistent.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#251447 Jan 10, 2013
Scientific illiteracy begins with people unable to see the official NIST investigation for what it is, a biased circular argument of no explosives were found, even though no explosives were looked for.

The scientific method was developed to test conclusions through a verifiable and repeatable process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and analysis.

NIST version of the scientific method was ignore observation, use a predetermined biased hypothesis, rig the experiment by using computer modeling to show what their physical recreation could not, then conclude their biased hypothesis was accurate all along.

Biased science isn't science, it's propaganda.

Heres a good breakdown of how insults and ridicule take the place of scientific discourse for people who champion the official lie.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/in...

Now scientific illiterates will tell ya they visually inspected it, before it was shipped off to China... Visual inspection is not verifiable, nor is it peer reviewable, nor is it science.

But NIST said they did? What else are they gonna say?

NIST investigators have been shown to be dishonest, much like the Topix trolls you see on this thread.

Eyes Wide Shut
http://youtu.be/fs_ogSbQFbM

This is why on this thread and generally,

Insults Are Easier

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251448 Jan 10, 2013
DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*
.
When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.
.
Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.
.
But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its center, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formula to reveal this theory's true nudity.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha h ah a
.
That's As Good An Insult As Any Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251449 Jan 10, 2013
Here is a good example of the caliber of work we have come to expect from Dr Bazant as he worked for NIST in their thrilling analysis of the 9/11 collapses. Excluding WTC 7 for which there is no explanation forthcoming.
.
As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z¨&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯&#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz = part of the impacted mass per unit height that remains within the tower perimeter. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. Upon setting v = z&#729;, Eq.(2) or (5) was converted to a system of two nonlinear first-order differential equations for unknowns v(t) and z(t), which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the Runge-Kutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant &#956; = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz&#729;)&#729; = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005).
.
I really like that "continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs." Gives me a woody!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ah
.
That's A Good One huh eh !
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#251450 Jan 10, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*
.
When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.
.
Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.
.
But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its center, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formula to reveal this theory's true nudity.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha h ah a
.
That's As Good An Insult As Any Huh eh !
So where's Gordo's paper?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#251451 Jan 10, 2013
onemale wrote:
I cannot argue with 1500+ architects, engineers, physicists, scientists and other professionals. Most of these have from 20 to 30+ years experience.
All they want is an independent investigation.
That is the KEY here because IF an independent investigation proves them wrong, they would look like idiots. They have to be sure they are 100% correct. If they were proven wrong who would hire them? Their careers would be ruined.
Where are their papers?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251452 Jan 10, 2013
The NIST Report is not a special case in which logic and rationality do not or should not apply. Given proper resources for investigation, there can be nothing mythical or unexplainable about the collapse of the towers. If the accumulated explanation falls short of making sense, it should give anyone—regardless of ideological leanings—a reason to be suspicious and a cause to look more deeply into what happened that day.
.
The official explanation should be a testable theory outlining a sequence of events. It should be able to explain the physical evidence and should not dismiss incongruous empirical data as irrelevant. On this, we can all agree.
.
Theoretical Adequacy
It is our contention that the conclusions proffered by the NIST report, if analyzed against data from within the report itself, demonstrate critical inconsistencies. The most obvious of these relates to the temperature at which the structural steel is likely to fail. The NIST report does not take into account the results of their own laboratory-controlled floor truss tests in which the steel reached temperatures in excess of 800º C without failure, as we shall see.
.
The fact that the test trusses survived temperatures far beyond the temperature possible in the towers, while heavily loaded, for far longer than either tower stood, should be indication enough that the NIST theory of collapse may be incomplete at best. However, the report authors seem unwilling to account for these disparities despite repeated written requests for redress of this and other pivotal issues.
.
[[1] Milgram, S.,“Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View”, 184, Harper Collins,(1974).
[2] Sunder, S.S. et al. NISTNCSTAR1: Final Report of the National Safety Team on the Collapse of the World Trade
Center Towers, http://wtc.nist.gov
Falsifiability & The NIST Report
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ha aha ha
.
That’s A Good One Huh eh !
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#251453 Jan 10, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes that's it!
D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crush-down differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 &#8722; (z)] doc zorderz says dt + &#956;cl 2 [2 &#8722; (z)] dz dt ) &#8722; m(z)g = &#8722;Fc(z, z&#729;)(crush-down)(2) while the crush-up differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 &#8722; (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y&#729;)(crush-up)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crush-up. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, &#956;c = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z)= m0 + &#956;cl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height; Fc(z, z&#729;)= Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, Fb = Wd/(1 &#8722; )h (4) where Wd(z)= total energy dissipation up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Ba&#711;zant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z¨&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯&#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz voila an inside job!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha h ahah ah aha ha h
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !
Crush up? LMAO!!
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#251454 Jan 10, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Here is a good example of the caliber of work we have come to expect from Dr Bazant as he worked for NIST in their thrilling analysis of the 9/11 collapses. Excluding WTC 7 for which there is no explanation forthcoming.
.
As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z¨&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯&#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz = part of the impacted mass per unit height that remains within the tower perimeter. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. Upon setting v = z&#729;, Eq.(2) or (5) was converted to a system of two nonlinear first-order differential equations for unknowns v(t) and z(t), which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the Runge-Kutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant &#956; = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz&#729;)&#729; = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005).
.
I really like that "continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs." Gives me a woody!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ah
.
That's A Good One huh eh !
Gazing at a portrait of Der Fuhrer gives you a woody.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#251455 Jan 10, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Gazing at a portrait of Der Fuhrer gives you a woody.
And you LIKE that don't you!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ahhahahaha
.
That's Really Funny Huh eh ! LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Dave Nelson 775,573
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 5 min Classic 1,902
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 6 min Al Capone 5,111
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min Ugly Truth from d... 605,040
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 31 min June VanDerMark 559,626
Thousands march in Holocaust memorial (Apr '06) 34 min Clear Dharma 35
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 40 min Lyndi 175,682
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Blk Thndr 441,784
More from around the web