Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view

JJ6000

Mahatma coat wrote: »

You just dont f'n get it do you. no matter how its explained to you. I doubt you will ever understand my point on that, and I wont derail this thread any further.
Until you brilliantly outdid yourself when it was pointed out



did I say any of the above?? No I F'n Didn't I would very much apreciate it if you could limit your responses to things I actualy say rather than your imaginary tangents of what you think I might imply, cos as we've seen previously you really dont get a lot of what I say, or else you do and you chose to deliberatley play dumb

So what are you trying to say here?

Do you, or do you not believe it may have been a nuclear demolition?

If you Do believe it was a nuke, would you care to give ANY basis for this theory?? (other than it's theoretically "possible" it was some sort of next generation nuke...which, of course, you have zero evidence for).

Do you think the nuke theory is a more likely explanation than the NIST report and if so WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT?????? Would you rebut thousands of pages of scientific evidence and qualified opinions with a Fantasy?

Alternatively, if, in fact, you do NOT believe it may have been a nuke...then why the hell did you even mention it in the first place, unless of course you were being sarcastic (I doubt you were though). So, were you being sarcastic or were you just spouting verbal diarrhea?

You complain that Diogeness was putting words in your mouth...well then, why dont you answer the questions above and clarify it for us then???

Mahatma coat

well the buildings were basicly a steel mesh frame so it Could have been possible to rig up a kinda Faraday cage to contain the EMP

JJ6000

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well the buildings were basicly a steel mesh frame so it Could have been possible to rig up a kinda Faraday cage to contain the EMP

I cannot believe what I am seeing.

This is conspiracy theory personified. You are picking very very far fetched possibilities from mid-air and pointing to them as if they are more likely than the official story. You have not got a shred of evidence to back up the fact that it was a nuke. Seriosuly, where did you even come up with the idea of a nuke?? Name a SINGLE piece of evidence that would point you in that direction? I might as well say my pet dog knocked down the building because he thought there was a bone buried beneath. THeres about as much evidence for that as there is for most of the conspiracy theories.

I could sit here all day and come up with "possibilities". Is there any evidence for them? No. Which would make them worthless. Possibilites without sufficient evidence (or ANY evidence with most of the conspiracy theories) are, quite simply, worthless.

And PLEASE, for the love of god, explain how the EMP is supposed to be contained? A faraday cage, you say? Please explain how that would work????? A faraday cage would NOT work for the most obvious reason in the world. It would be destroyed by the blast.......obviously!! You have also seen the gaping holw in the face of WTC7. A faraday cage would not work with a big gaping hole in it either. A moments consideration and this becomes glaringly apparent....yet most conspiracy theorists will become so embroiled in their own fantasy that they overlook teh very basic errors in their theories.

Also, while your at it, why dont you explain how the radioactive fall-out would be contained??

I actually can not believe you are continuing this absurd line of argument.

These theories become mroe and more absurd as the thread goes on. Saying it was a nuke really is clutching at straws.

AIR-AUSSIE

Ok maybe his ideas are edging on far fetched. But do you really know all the technologies the American Government may have? How can you rule out something you don't know?

Anything is impossible, many things maybe not be, but I can't see any difference between believing ALL of the official theory with all its holes or believing that maybe parts of it have benn fabricated.

Do you believe everything of the official story to be true?

What about not finding all the black boxes?
BUT finding a passport of one of the HIJACKERS explain that one.

OR how some of the hijackers are still ALIVE according to the BBC, hmmm?

Has anybody cleared these?

JJ6000

Ok maybe his ideas are edging on far fetched. But do you really know all the technologies the American Government may have? How can you rule out something you don't know?

Again, you can sit there and theorise about all the wonderful possibilities for which ZERO evidence exists. You can theorise about technology could possibly exist but again, there is no evidence for.
Fact is, without evidence, NONE of those theories are remotely plausible. They are simply BASELESS FANTASY. They are not rooted in any sort of facts....they are merely rooted in the "unknown".
Hey, maybe it was aliens. I mean, it's entirely possible they fired a death ray from space.

Anything is impossible, many things maybe not be, but I can't see any difference between believing ALL of the official theory with all its holes or believing that maybe parts of it have benn fabricated.

Do you believe everything of the official story to be true?

I dont know every single detail but for the major details (such as how the collapse occurred, the mechanics of the event etc) then yes, I certainly believe it. It is the theory with BY FAR the greatest weight of evidence behind it.

What about not finding all the black boxes?

I'm not sure what the official explanation is for this but I am sure it is out there if anyone feels compelled to look. Off the top of my head though, I know that black boxes are NOT designed to withstand Millions of tons of concrete slamming onto them so it would seem entirely possible to me that they were destroyed.

BUT finding a passport of one of the HIJACKERS explain that one.

Not fully familiar with this one...but again....what does that really prove. It's hardly a fact you can reasonably use, in itself, to form a plausible alternative theory.

OR how some of the hijackers are still ALIVE according to the BBC, hmmm?

Wow...the BBC?? REALLY?
Eh, sorry to burst your bubble but just because the BBC says it, it does not mean it's true. THey are a NEWS AGENCY....and if they believe they will get ratings for reporting something they will probably report it....even if it is not true.

In any case, the claim arose from ONE BBC report a few years back that the Saudi embassy had reported that people WITH THE SAME NAMES AS THE HIJACKERS turned up saying that they were alive and wernet involved in the attack at all.

Um, isnt it possible there are lot's of people with the same name that could reasonably be mixed up with the alleged hijackers???

What other "evidence" other than ONE bbc report, is there that the hijackers are verifiably alive and well???? Do you have pics of them? Have they released statements? No...they havent. Hmmmm, I wonder why. Perhaps because they are, in fact, quite dead.

oscarBravo

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Ok maybe his ideas are edging on far fetched. But do you really know all the technologies the American Government may have? How can you rule out something you don't know?

That argument can be used to justify the possibility of demolition by cloaked Romulan Warbird, or invisible unicorns.

If you decide to evaluate a possible explanation based only on the impossibility of disproving it, then every possible explanation is equally valid.

This clearly isn't the case, so it becomes necessary to filter possibilities in some way. This is where the scientific method comes in: for a hypothesis to be considered, it has to be falsifiable and testable.

Sure, WTC could have been brought down by a nuke. I reckon it didn't happen, so I postulate a hypothesis: that it was demolished with a nuclear device. How would I know if this was the case? Well, a nuclear detonation has a number of characteristics. There's an EMP pulse, there's radiactive residue, and (being an explosion) a distinctive seismic signature.

So, we check to see if any of those were present: nope, nope and nope. Therefore, my hypothesis is shown to be invalid.

At this point, you can hypothesise ways in which these characteristics would be absent, such as a faraday cage for the EMP pulse. Unfortunately, even if that was practical (and a valid hypothesis would explain how it was), it doesn't explain the lack of radiation or seismic signature.

The thing about the "official story" is that it presents a consistent hypothesis, which explains the observed facts.

What about not finding all the black boxes?
BUT finding a passport of one of the HIJACKERS explain that one.

OR how some of the hijackers are still ALIVE according to the BBC, hmmm?

Has anybody cleared these?

Ad bloody nauseam, pal. Ad bloody nauseam.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well the buildings were basicly a steel mesh frame so it Could have been possible to rig up a kinda Faraday cage to contain the EMP

So let me get this clear. Your logic is that they didn't want to go to the trouble and hassle of rigging the building for a convential controlled demolition, so they used "mini nukes", only to control the EMP they then shielded the building the largest Faraday cage in history.

How does that make sense to you? Surely the act of creating the Faraday cage would have created as much disruption as rigging the building.

And surely someone would have noticed that suddenly it was impossible to get cellphone, tv and radio reception in the building during the construction of the cage!

AIR AUSSIE wrote:

Ok maybe his ideas are edging on far fetched. But do you really know all the technologies the American Government may have? How can you rule out something you don't know?

Anything is impossible, many things maybe not be, but I can't see any difference between believing ALL of the official theory with all its holes or believing that maybe parts of it have benn fabricated.

Air Aussie, you claim to be a civil engineer yet in several pages of posting you've not contributed a single technical reason why you think the building collapse is suspicious.

Now you're reduced to "well maybe they have super secret government weapons that done it" Well maybe a bloody wizard blew it down with a fireball coming out of his arse, but until you contribute some technical reason why the collapse of WTC 7 wasn't caused by it being hit by debris and uncontrolled fires, I'm not going to give you the time of day.

Do you believe everything of the official story to be true?

What about not finding all the black boxes?
BUT finding a passport of one of the HIJACKERS explain that one.

Personal effects from passengers, like passports, identification, and luggage were all recovered from all three locations, you're seizing on this one passport as if it was the only personal effect of anyone who was killed.

It's a grossly over simplified argument.

OR how some of the hijackers are still ALIVE according to the BBC, hmmm?

Has anybody cleared these?

YES THE SODDING BBC DID!!!!!

Christ in the hours of the aftermath of the attack there was reports in the mainstream media that a bomb had gone off at the capital building. Hmmm does this mean that the capital hill bomb needs to be debunked?

In the week following the attack loads of erroneous stories surfaced it's understandable in the confusion and chaos of a major world event.

THE BBC wrote:

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

Christ if I hear this particular piece of bull**** from another truther.

Look Air Aussie and Mahatma Coat, your conspiracy high priests have been repeating this piece of crap for over half a decade. If they hijackers were alive, all anyone like Alex Jones would have to do, is take a camera, fly to the middle east, interview one, and the only question left for him would be "Would Sir like his Pulitzer Prize money in cash or cheque?"

These CTers don't do this because it's easier to con gullible chumps with half truths and lies.

Nick_oliveri

Jesus man calm down. no need to resort to large ass text. Just say its been debunked numerous times already and move on.

You seem to be so caught up in this bull****, your getting pissed off with the same questions? Ever thought it might be time to take a break or something?

I find the best thing to do is picture the situation as an entertainment piece. Which it is really.

I mean what are you even doing dealing with

gullible chumps

? The whole thing has passed its sell by date yet you still see you all clinging on to it, debunking, reiterating, CTing......

pointless.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Jesus man calm down. no need to resort to large ass text. Just say its been debunked numerous times already and move on.

Tell you what Nick you get something right for a change and you can sympathise with me.

You seem to be so caught up in this bull****, your getting pissed off with the same questions? Ever thought it might be time to take a break or something?

In the words of Bill Hicks "why don't excuse me for a moment while I plaster a smile on my face and deal with same old tired bull**** again".

If a conspiracy theorist tries to come onto this forum and try and present what is essentially something that has been debunked 15 times on this forum already, never mind on the greater internet incredibly comprehensibly, as new and exciting information well sod me if I'd don't erupt in a thrill ride of exciting specific debunking. Should I just like this stale bull**** lie there like a fresh turd, or should I just point out that I'm not bothering with same tired worn out bull**** again. And maybe the new poster should search out this forum and see if there is anything new he can bring to this discussion, or his just rehashing the same old crap.

Which I hasten to add Air Aussie is. For christ's sake "Passports" and "Hijackers alive?" Christ these are so old and so discredited these are turin shrouds of 911 conspiracy theories.

I find the best thing to do is picture the situation as an entertainment piece. Which it is really.

A friend of mine witness'd the pentagon strike. According to CTers she's a CIA agent, she's received death threats. A friend of mine from Galway lost her brother in the twin towers, she finds conspiracy theorists about his death deeply offensive. Val McClatchy who filmed the mushroom cloud from United 93 has received death threats and accusations from CTers on her home and business phone.

Nick Kollerstrom a 7/7 conspiracy theorist hassles the family members of victims at court hearings.

Your conspiracy theorists harm and hurt and accuse people who are the victims of mass trauma and their families of being complicit. lets look at your statement again

I find the best thing to do is picture the situation as an entertainment piece. Which it is really.

The fact that you consider this whole situation as "entertainment" is frankly loathsome. These are the brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren, siblings, and friends of victims, and you feel that making up stories about the how and why they died is reprehensible. My friend was looking forward to her brother's wedding in turin in November 2001. He died in the north tower. Another friend of mine was traumatized watching the the plane crashing into the pentagon.

Entertainment pieces? Hundreds of thousands of people watched the collapse of the towers fearful for the lives of their loved ones. Thousands of people watched and learnt their loved ones day.

The fact that you could describe such an event as a "entertainment piece" is frankly, just disturbing.

I mean what are you even doing dealing with ? The whole thing has passed its sell by date yet you still see you all clinging on to it, debunking, reiterating, CTing......

pointless.

Yeah because challenging people ignorance and frankly shocking disinterest in value of human life isn't important.

Your behavior is just disgusting

Mahatma coat

Well said Nick, tis all mainly just entertainment at this stage.

Diogeness, frankly your Moral outrage is more disgusting than anything Nick has just said.

Traumatised eh, so we should pussyfoot around the issue in case we hurt someones feelings. I accept that there are limits to what are acceptable in these situations, but at the same time we should be made to feel that we are doing something wrong in asking questions

Nick_oliveri

So i suppose it was hurtfull when south park spurned the 911x1000 joke. I think arguements on both sides are entertainment, not the event. Your moral outrage is misdirected.

Tell you what Nick you get something right for a change and you can sympathise with me.

It seems i touched a nerve. Wtf????

Your behavior is just disgusting

Lol.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well said Nick, tis all mainly just entertainment at this stage.

Diogeness, frankly your Moral outrage is more disgusting than anything Nick has just said.

You're someone who defines the Jewish death toll in the holocaust as

"2 mil max"

I find it hard pressed to find you as a barometer of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

But no please go back to telling us how they cloaked the EMP, seismic record and Radiation from your "mini nuke".

Nick Oliveri wrote:

It seems i touched a nerve. Wtf????

Nick if you want to speculate on fiction find the WWF forum, or the Desperate House wives forum. If you find some entertainment in making up conspiracy theories about an immensely traumatic and deeply painful event, then you have my pity.

JJ6000

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well said Nick, tis all mainly just entertainment at this stage.

Diogeness, frankly your Moral outrage is more disgusting than anything Nick has just said.

Traumatised eh, so we should pussyfoot around the issue in case we hurt someones feelings. I accept that there are limits to what are acceptable in these situations, but at the same time we should be made to feel that we are doing something wrong in asking questions

WTF??

THis is a pretty substantial change in your tune.

It's all an entertainment piece now? WHat, exactly, do you find entertaining about making up facts and frankly offensive theories about the way thousands of people died?
Are you telling us that you were being sarcastic the entire way through?

The fact that you would seek entertainment through such an incredibly traumatising event is, quite obviously, disgusting. WHy not seek entertainment elsewhere?
What's next? How about we sit around and joke about the holocaust?
How about we sit around a joke about the Omagh bomb?? Oh yeah....that's a hilarious one. The omagh bomb....my god, what a laugh. Ho ho ho. A mother and her unborn twins were killed...oh god....that is just so funny. Hows about we make up some lies about that one? I mean, who cares about the feelings we hurt. Pathetic.

The fact that you find some kind of "entertainment" from these events really shows you deeply juvenile and immature personality. I find this offensive and absolutley pathetic.

Diogenes, and many others effected by the event, have every right to express Moral outrage at the kind of crap you spout.

There is nothing wrong with asking a question. However, as has been said before....many many times already in this thread.....YOU ARE NOT MERELY ASKING QUESTIONS. You are formulating answers which are offensive to those effected by the event, have no factual or evidential justification whatsoever and then passing this crap off as fact.....or even containing a shred of credibility. ANd the way most of the CT'ers go about their "investigation" is EXTREMELY morally reprehensible.

ANd yes, you should be concerned about peoples trauma. So should all the other conspiracy theorists. Dylan Avery, for example, without a shred of evidence publically postulated that the father of a young boy on FLight 77 had deliberately skipped the flight and then knowingly SENT HIS OWN SON TO DIE?? AND THIS IS OK??
This is acceptable? Accusing a man of killing his own son??

I consider this kind of behaviour to be the refuge of the most pathetic human beings. Your lack of concern for anyones trauma is pitiful.

JJ6000

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

So i suppose it was hurtfull when south park spurned the 911x1000 joke. I think arguements on both sides are entertainment, not the event. Your moral outrage is misdirected.

Southpark is political satire. Also, the joke came from Team America, not southpark. Team AMerica was also political satire.
Not the same thing as what you are doing.....not by a long shot.

Arguments concerning the event are, in effect, discussing the event itself. THerefore, you appear to find discussing the event and spreading lies & mistruths about the event itself to be entertaining. Is it entertaining that you lie about the way thousands of innocent people perished that day. oh yes, hilarious.
It's the equivalent of me sitting here and writing about how I reckon the f*cking CARE BEARS carried out the omagh bombing (actually, what you are doing is worse as 9/11 was a far larger tradgedy) Would you find that funny?? Should the victims of the Omagh Bomb not be offended? I mean, I'm "only asking questions", right? You have a pretty juvenile and demented sense of humour.

It seems i touched a nerve. Wtf????


Lol.

Of course you touched a nerve....what did you think you were going to do?

Are you so naive and caught up in your own fantasy as to be oblivious to the fact that some people might actually take personal offence to the lies you spread??

Are you truly that juvenile? Are you so pitiful as to find this entire thing "funny"? (I note the insertion of a "LOL" in your text)

Nick_oliveri

Southpark is political satire. Also, the joke came from Team America, not southpark. Team AMerica was also political satire.
Not the same thing as what you are doing.....not by a long shot.

Arguments concerning the event are, in effect, discussing the event itself. THerefore, you appear to find discussing the event and spreading lies & mistruths about the event itself to be entertaining. Is it entertaining that you lie about the way thousands of innocent people perished that day. oh yes, hilarious.

I, aint discussing ****, its you guys thats discussing. Thats right, lump me in with the CT'ers to defend your friend. I LIE about the way thousands of people died? I think you may get your **** straight.

Are you truly that juvenile? Are you so pitiful as to find this entire thing "funny"? (I note the insertion of a "LOL" in your text)

Did you notice now? Oh rly? I find the arguement funny. Goes round in circles, both sides with an "anti ignorance mission". SUE ME.

diogenes wrote:

Nick if you want to speculate on fiction find the WWF forum, or the Desperate House wives forum. If you find some entertainment in making up conspiracy theories about an immensely traumatic and deeply painful event, then you have my pity.

Whos making up conspiracy theories? You are both jokers trying to lump anyone with a different viewpoint into a CT'er. That time i posted this:http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55915400&postcount=3 you reiterated about the fat Bin Laden thing, i went back to another thread and read up more about the NTSC conversion. And you were right. Diogenes and J600, IMHO you guys really need to step back and be less aggressive. If you cant see the hilarity of people spouting the same crap (me included at one stage) then it is me that shall have the pity.

If your boys at Randi can chuckle about it, then so can i. Except i laugh at both sides. Omg wont someone please think of the children.

Though this whole thread there has been one guy that been factual and has focused on the evidence at hand without getting all emotional or aggressive. You know him Diogenes. He deserves some sort of award TBH, his posts are a joy to read.

But i guess im just another gullible chump..

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

it still dosent show a building engulfed by fire tho does it.

You're right. It doesn't.

It also doesn't show the south face of the building, so it doesn't show the structural damage inflicted by the collapse of WTC1. It doesn't show any fires which may have been burning at the south-side of the building, particularly where structural damage had been incurred.

Interestingly, NIST don't rely on a claim that the building was engulfed by fire. I'm at a complete loss as to why anyone on either side is so consumed with the issue. It seems you collectively have gotten caught up in showing the other person/side to be wrong rather than sticking to the issue at hand.

As to this whole distraction about whether this issue is distasteful or entertainment, I would make the following observations (and would point out that I do not apply them to any side).

If you don't actually believe in the argument you are putting forward, but are taking sides merely for entertainment, you should genuinely ask yourself what the difference is between your participation here and trolling.

If you do believe in the argument you are putting forward, then you should have the honesty to admit that you are arguing from belief, not merely participating for entertainment.

Above all, if you wish to claim you're not taking sides, then don't be guilty of sophistry. There are any number of sides I'm not taking...but doesn't imply there isn't one that I have taken.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Thats right, lump me in with the CT'ers

When's the last time you criticised one of their arguments, supporting that of one of those who you're not being lumped with?

Nick_oliveri

Theres not criticizing, and theres getting accused of "making up conspiracy theories" and that I "lie about the way thousands of innocent people perished that day".

Thems mostly direct quotes from the posts above. And why should i criticise, when its the same thing over and over again, like i said earlier about going round in circles.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Whos making up conspiracy theories? You are both jokers trying to lump anyone with a different viewpoint into a CT'er. That time i posted this:http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55915400&postcount=3 you reiterated about the fat Bin Laden thing, i went back to another thread and read up more about the NTSC conversion. And you were right. Diogenes and J600, IMHO you guys really need to step back and be less aggressive.

I'm sorry Nick, you made one post on that thread were you talked about the "fat Bin Laden" thats it. You didn't come onto that thread and say "Y'know what, I looked into this and, guess what? I was wrong?"

How exactly am I supposed to know you've changed your mind if you don't tell anyone your mind has been changed?

Thems mostly direct quotes from the posts above. And why should i criticise, when its the same thing over and over again, like i said earlier about going round in circles.

But apparently we're not going round in circles, you've changed your mind. You just didn't have the courtesy to let people know, but are more than happy to get indignant when people assume you still hold the same opinion.

JJ6000

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Theres not criticizing, and theres getting accused of "making up conspiracy theories" and that I "lie about the way thousands of innocent people perished that day".

Thems mostly direct quotes from the posts above. And why should i criticise, when its the same thing over and over again, like i said earlier about going round in circles.

From the way your post sounded, I was understandably under the impression you were adhering to the conspiracy theorists point of view.....perhaps I also misinterpreted what you meant by finding this thing entertaining.

In any case, fair enough, I understand what you meant now.

Apologies for any offence caused.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote: »

How exactly am I supposed to know you've changed your mind if you don't tell anyone your mind has been changed?

Tbh i felt like a bit of a tit about the Bin Laden thing. :pac:

I wasn't completley swayed either way there for a while, but as you said before the evidence would eventually out if there was something sinister going on. Someone would fold and fold hard.

But it is a carousel until anything new happens. And its going to be that until theres a rebuttal, arguement or dismissal to the eventual WTC7 report, or the "movement" fizzles out.

And who can blame me for being swayed more to one side, with all this energy weapon, aliens, mini nukes....holograms...

Maybe i should have said you were right about that earlier, maybe i was "too proud".

JJ6000, thats ok bud. But im still under the impression that you guys need to relax a bit. You are only goin to get real fired up fighting about the same **** all the time with neither side really acknowledging each other or backing down.

Flamed Diving

Lads, its only a t'internet forum. Who cares, eh?

OP, Jim Corr should not be praised for offering an alternative view. Just because it is alternative doesn't make it any less hair-brained, and doesn't make him any less of a looper.

citytillidie

Maybe he forseen the future do you remember the video to the song So Young?

Jim Corr and his sisters where thrown paper airoplanes about in what looks like New York

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n2V8YouPhg&feature=related

Kernel

citytillidie wrote: »

Maybe he forseen the future do you remember the video to the song So Young?

Jim Corr and his sisters where thrown paper airoplanes about in what looks like New York

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n2V8YouPhg&feature=related

No need to post that in 2 forums. It's not a great joke.

Jesus Juice

anyone who doubts just watch painful deceptions

Diogenes

Jesus Juice wrote: »

anyone who doubts just watch painful deceptions

I found it painful to watch. Perhaps you could summerise why I should care?