Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.
In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.
Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.
However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
TRADUZIONE AUTOMATICA IN ITALIANO (fate copia e incolla dell'indirizzo)
Allora Ufò? Chi è che davvero non ci vuole stare? [}:)]
_________________ "…stanno uscendo allo scoperto ora, amano annunciare cosa stanno per fare, adorano la paura che esso può creare. E’ come la bassa modulazione nel ruggito di una tigre che paralizza la vittima prima del colpo. Inoltre, la paura nei cuori delle masse risuona come un dolce inno per il loro signore". (Capire la propaganda, R. Winfield)
"Onesto è colui che cambia il proprio pensiero per accordarlo alla verità. Disonesto è colui che cambia la verità per accordarla al proprio pensiero". Proverbio Arabo
Bèh, allora dai! facciamo un rivolta mondiale enon se ne parla più; perché anch'io mi stufo di essere preso in giro! Mano ai mitra e ... andiamo ... Se è tutta una perculata! Non so cosa dire siamo davvero tutti "bambocci"! Cosa vogliamo fare?
_________________ Operatore Radar Difesa Aerea (1962 - 1996) U.F.O. "Astronavi da altri Mondi?" - (Opinioni personali e avvenimenti accaduti nel passato): viewtopic.php?p=363955#p363955 Nient'altro che una CONSTATAZIONE di fatti e Cose che sembrano avvenire nei nostri cieli; IRRIPRODUCIBILI, per ora, dalla nostra attuale civiltà.
Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.
In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.
Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.
However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
_________________ "…stanno uscendo allo scoperto ora, amano annunciare cosa stanno per fare, adorano la paura che esso può creare. E’ come la bassa modulazione nel ruggito di una tigre che paralizza la vittima prima del colpo. Inoltre, la paura nei cuori delle masse risuona come un dolce inno per il loro signore". (Capire la propaganda, R. Winfield)
"Onesto è colui che cambia il proprio pensiero per accordarlo alla verità. Disonesto è colui che cambia la verità per accordarla al proprio pensiero". Proverbio Arabo
Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, April 23, 2010
cut..
Ancora.... Quante volte l'ho detto? Si attaccano sempre alle stesse cose, e subito il codazzo dietro. Finitela di farvi prendere in giro!!!! Smoking gun , bombshell. Bastaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
_________________ E molto piu` facile parlare di cospirazione, quando si ignorano le cause ed i motivi.
Pain is weakness leaving the body. US Marine Corps
Si attaccano sempre alle stesse cose, e subito il codazzo dietro. Finitela di farvi prendere in giro!!!!
Se siamo qui a discutere di questo argomento, è proprio perchè non intendiamo farci predere in giro. Noi cerchiamo di ragionare con la nostra testa..... tu invece ragioni con la testa di chi ha redatto la versione ufficiale. Sostanzialmente è solo questa la differenza.....
_________________ "…stanno uscendo allo scoperto ora, amano annunciare cosa stanno per fare, adorano la paura che esso può creare. E’ come la bassa modulazione nel ruggito di una tigre che paralizza la vittima prima del colpo. Inoltre, la paura nei cuori delle masse risuona come un dolce inno per il loro signore". (Capire la propaganda, R. Winfield)
"Onesto è colui che cambia il proprio pensiero per accordarlo alla verità. Disonesto è colui che cambia la verità per accordarla al proprio pensiero". Proverbio Arabo
Che vedete "complotti" dappertutto, altrimenti di cosa parlereste ...?! (L'importante poi è svergongare l'America, e non dirmi la solita frase: il governo!)
_________________ Operatore Radar Difesa Aerea (1962 - 1996) U.F.O. "Astronavi da altri Mondi?" - (Opinioni personali e avvenimenti accaduti nel passato): viewtopic.php?p=363955#p363955 Nient'altro che una CONSTATAZIONE di fatti e Cose che sembrano avvenire nei nostri cieli; IRRIPRODUCIBILI, per ora, dalla nostra attuale civiltà.
Ufologo 555 ha scritto: L'importante poi è svergongare l'America, e non dirmi la solita frase: il governo!
E invece te la dico. Negli Stati Uniti d'America ci sono più di 300 milioni di abitanti...e noi stiamo parlando di un gruppo composto da poche decine di persone. Quindi non ci provare...... anche perchè io non sono affatto un antiamericano. Fattene una ragione.
_________________ "…stanno uscendo allo scoperto ora, amano annunciare cosa stanno per fare, adorano la paura che esso può creare. E’ come la bassa modulazione nel ruggito di una tigre che paralizza la vittima prima del colpo. Inoltre, la paura nei cuori delle masse risuona come un dolce inno per il loro signore". (Capire la propaganda, R. Winfield)
"Onesto è colui che cambia il proprio pensiero per accordarlo alla verità. Disonesto è colui che cambia la verità per accordarla al proprio pensiero". Proverbio Arabo
Chi? Gli americani? Mah! (mi sa che ci credete solo ... voi!)
_________________ Operatore Radar Difesa Aerea (1962 - 1996) U.F.O. "Astronavi da altri Mondi?" - (Opinioni personali e avvenimenti accaduti nel passato): viewtopic.php?p=363955#p363955 Nient'altro che una CONSTATAZIONE di fatti e Cose che sembrano avvenire nei nostri cieli; IRRIPRODUCIBILI, per ora, dalla nostra attuale civiltà.
Bèh, se ce l'hai con me (ed altri nel "sottobosco) ti sbagli; almeno io sono tranquillissimo! Di solito "je rode" a chi vuol stravolgere per forza un fatto, non credi?
_________________ Operatore Radar Difesa Aerea (1962 - 1996) U.F.O. "Astronavi da altri Mondi?" - (Opinioni personali e avvenimenti accaduti nel passato): viewtopic.php?p=363955#p363955 Nient'altro che una CONSTATAZIONE di fatti e Cose che sembrano avvenire nei nostri cieli; IRRIPRODUCIBILI, per ora, dalla nostra attuale civiltà.
La formula è: Chi detiene il potere, fà porcherie in base alla consistenza della sua area d' influenza. Non è colpa degli americani, ma di chi detiene il potere che non è limitato agli Stati Uniti, ma è mondiale. L' umiltà non è ancora prerogativa del comando.
_________________ Nutrirsi di fantasia, ingrassa la mente.
greenwarrior ha scritto: Non è colpa degli americani, ma di chi detiene il potere che non è limitato agli Stati Uniti, ma è mondiale.
Infatti io non ho mai definito gli americani come "il male che attanaglia il mondo". Ma ho sempre parlato (e sfido chiunque a dimostrare il contrario) di "potere transnazionale", di "Elite che governa il mondo", di Illuminati, di Gruppo Bilderberg etc...
Quindi, questa goccia cinese dell'antiamericanismo che cade sistematicamente in ogni topic come i cavoli a merenda, oltre ad essere fuori luogo, è decisamente immotivata. Eppure.......
_________________ "…stanno uscendo allo scoperto ora, amano annunciare cosa stanno per fare, adorano la paura che esso può creare. E’ come la bassa modulazione nel ruggito di una tigre che paralizza la vittima prima del colpo. Inoltre, la paura nei cuori delle masse risuona come un dolce inno per il loro signore". (Capire la propaganda, R. Winfield)
"Onesto è colui che cambia il proprio pensiero per accordarlo alla verità. Disonesto è colui che cambia la verità per accordarla al proprio pensiero". Proverbio Arabo
Si attaccano sempre alle stesse cose, e subito il codazzo dietro. Finitela di farvi prendere in giro!!!!
Se siamo qui a discutere di questo argomento, è proprio perchè non intendiamo farci predere in giro. Noi cerchiamo di ragionare con la nostra testa..... tu invece ragioni con la testa di chi ha redatto la versione ufficiale. Sostanzialmente è solo questa la differenza.....
No. Io di solito dimostro, con materiale da fonti non ufficiali, che sono dei pagliacci. Voi invece aspettate di sentire quello che vi piace, per gasarvi con i smoking gun, bomshell e le varie trite e ritrite versioni di tutte le fregnacciate sbrodolate in nove anni di delirio
Ultima modifica di BlitzKrieg il 26/04/2010, 00:48, modificato 1 volta in totale.
_________________ E molto piu` facile parlare di cospirazione, quando si ignorano le cause ed i motivi.
Pain is weakness leaving the body. US Marine Corps
Non puoi aprire nuovi argomenti Non puoi rispondere negli argomenti Non puoi modificare i tuoi messaggi Non puoi cancellare i tuoi messaggi Non puoi inviare allegati
Login
Iscriviti
FAQ
Cerca
![[8)]](./images/smilies/UF/icon_smile_shy.gif "Compiaciuto"){kind=icon}
Nonno sapiente
![[:o)]](./images/smilies/UF/icon_smile_clown.gif "Clown"){kind=icon}
![[;)]](./images/smilies/UF/icon_smile_wink.gif "Occhiolino"){kind=icon}
![[8D]](./images/smilies/UF/icon_smile_cool.gif "Caldo"){kind=icon}
