• 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Glorbo;37630652]They had previous training in the US in both light Cessna aircraft and commercial aircraft simulators.[/QUOTE] And there's this. If you're familiar with how aircraft controls work at all, I can't imagine it'd be hard to hit a skyscraper. It's a pretty big target. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Glorbo;37630652]No, the recording clearly showed that they were the ones who flew the planes. Plus, what pilot would agree to fly his plane into a building? Might as well fly it at the ground if you're gonna die anyway.[/QUOTE] Point is, there's more alternatives and variables and you can't just say "pilots don't normally fly planes into buildings on purpose, this is a conspiracy!!!"
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37630461][citation needed][/QUOTE] Come on dude, there's conspiracy then there is history. In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2: At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7] and regarding August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[8]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37630666]And there's this. If you're familiar with how aircraft controls work at all, I can't imagine it'd be hard to hit a skyscraper. It's a pretty big target. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] Point is, there's more alternatives and variables and you can't just say "pilots don't normally fly planes into buildings on purpose, this is a conspiracy!!!"[/QUOTE] Why not instead of saying "I imagine it wouldnt be hard to hit a skyscraper" Listen or read about the hundreds of pilots who state it would actually be extremely hard and even harder to crash into the pentagon. The planes were also traveling much faster then they were designed for only making it harder. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37630648]Who says they had to? They can just hold the pilot at gunpoint.[/QUOTE] They had box cutters and possibly mace.
The Pentagon, I'll give you that, but if there's a false flag going on with the Twin Towers, it wasn't a controlled demolition. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read how architecture in skyscrapers work, and then it's pretty obvious how the towers fell. It has something to do with how the heat from the fire made the support beams start bowing (as metal gets warmer it gets weaker) and then they finally broke and it's a long way down from there
It's been 11 fucking years of this arguing, is there anything new or is this just going over the standard bullshit
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37631073]The Pentagon, I'll give you that, but if there's a false flag going on with the Twin Towers, it wasn't a controlled demolition. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read how architecture in skyscrapers work, and then it's pretty obvious how the towers fell. It has something to do with how the heat from the fire made the support beams start bowing (as metal gets warmer it gets weaker) and then they finally broke and it's a long way down from there[/QUOTE] No, even so there is some debate there. From scientists who claim to have found particles to do with thermate. NIST(I think) released heat graphs showing fire only got to roughly 1100 degrees at its highest. Steel melts at 1600. Also the fact they did zero tests for explosives. And that this is the only steel highrise to ever collapse due to fires.
It doesn't have to melt to be weak. Why do you think other metal things heat up when you bend them? There was that one guy who bent cast-iron pots and the worst part about it was how warm the pots became.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;37631109]No, even so there is some debate there. From scientists who claim to have found particles to do with thermate. NIST(I think) released heat graphs showing fire only got to roughly 1100 degrees at its highest. Steel melts at 1600. Also the fact they did zero tests for explosives. And that this is the only steel highrise to ever collapse due to fires.[/QUOTE] [url]http://911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html[/url] No. This is also the only steel high rise to have a large passenger plane full of jet full smash into the side of it smarty. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MadPro119;37631008]Why not instead of saying "I imagine it wouldnt be hard to hit a skyscraper" Listen or read about the hundreds of pilots who state it would actually be extremely hard and even harder to crash into the pentagon. The planes were also traveling much faster then they were designed for only making it harder. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] They had box cutters and possibly mace.[/QUOTE] Too bad it is proven they crashed into the pentagon, or are you assuming either: A. The government mysteriously ran in and planted the destroyed plane pieces. B. It was a missile they fired cause why not and then the government planted destroyed plane pieces.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;37631109]No, even so there is some debate there. From scientists who claim to have found particles to do with thermate. NIST(I think) released heat graphs showing fire only got to roughly 1100 degrees at its highest. Steel melts at 1600. Also the fact they did zero tests for explosives. And that this is the only steel highrise to ever collapse due to fires.[/QUOTE] lol those are literally the oldest arguments
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37630354]I gave up trying to convince people 9/11 was a false flag a long time ago. Just wait a few decades (if we all live that long) and anti truthers will all be proven wrong.[/quote] No, no they won't. [quote]It's now come out that the gulf of Tonkin was a false flag hoax to ignite the Vietnam war so why is it so hard to understand that this too could easily be a well planned cover up designed to incite enough public anger that the US is justified in doing absolutely anything it wants?[/quote] Okay genius, here's why it's a bit hard to believe. Because the Gulf of Tonkin incident was miles different. in the GOT incident, they fired on broken down ships. On 9/11 they killed over 3000 people in an exceptionally well coordinated and Impossibly well covered up attack. You don't see the differences between these? [quote]Don't just rate me dumb for having a different opinion than you. Actually sit back and take off your patriot goggles to try and see the world and how it works from a different perspective.[/quote] I'm rating you dumb because you have no idea what you're talking about. [quote]I also dismiss claims that further investigation into 9/11 is hurtful to the memories of the dead and their loved ones.[/quote] No one said this. [quote]If I had been killed in such an attack I would welcome any attempt at studying how and why I died. I think it's just another way of acknowledging that they had value as human beings, not just a death toll in the papers :([/quote] You're arguing a non existent point. [quote](you can rate me boxes now, all you sheep out there)[/quote] You know who the real sheep is? It's you. You take the opposition out of paranoia and ignorance. There's no such thing as a well informed conspiracy theorist. You eat up everything George Noory or Alex Jones says without question. You defend people like him
Stop living in the past
[QUOTE=Lufttygger306;37631614]Stop living in the past[/QUOTE] And there's this. Like, even if we proved the 9/11 incident to be fraudulent, what the fuck would we do about it... 11 years later? Who would be held responsible? There's just too much effort being put into conspiracy theories. And for what result? Closure?
This is why I gave up trying to convince people. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, What do you know? Are you an architect? A pilot? I highly doubt it. You know as much as I yet seem to think your more clued up. A little paranoia never hurt anyone. People say that ignorance is bliss to which I disagree heartily. When I look at the world trade center attacks I simply can't believe the official story and you telling me I'm a fan of Alex Jones or some other wacko won't change my opinion. Finally, your arguments are as flimsy as the wtc steel beams. Logical fallacies and straw man arguments everywhere hurr durr.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;37621675]I agree. To be honest I don't see why this is getting so many dumbs. False flags have been done before (Operation Northwoods) and a lot of things seem pretty off about 9/11... like a missing 2.3 trillion dollars.[/QUOTE] "Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag [B]proposals[/B]" wow you're dumb
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37631731]And there's this. Like, even if we proved the 9/11 incident to be fraudulent, what the fuck would we do about it... 11 years later? Who would be held responsible? There's just too much effort being put into conspiracy theories. And for what result? Closure?[/QUOTE] Well, I look into conspiracy theories just because I think they are interesting and fun. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;37631839]"Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag [B]proposals[/B]" wow you're dumb[/QUOTE] Sorry, your right that was poor wording on my point. I should have said False Flags have been proposed before. No need to insult. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771]This is why I gave up trying to convince people. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, What do you know? Are you an architect? A pilot? I highly doubt it. You know as much as I yet seem to think your more clued up. A little paranoia never hurt anyone. People say that ignorance is bliss to which I disagree heartily. When I look at the world trade center attacks I simply can't believe the official story and you telling me I'm a fan of Alex Jones or some other wacko won't change my opinion. Finally, your arguments are as flimsy as the wtc steel beams. Logical fallacies and straw man arguments everywhere hurr durr.[/QUOTE] Look mate, don't "debate" or discuss like that. Don't call people sheep even if you think you are right, also avoid "hurr durr"
I think the american government and pretty much everyone around just immediately jumped on the occasion to take advantage of the event, but I don't think they actually prepare it themselves. All the conspiracy theories always brag on about how the government is secretly plotting for money/power/invasion/whatever while it was just a bunch of crazy guys who crashed planes into towers, and opportunists took advantage of the situation.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771]This is why I gave up trying to convince people. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, What do you know? Are you an architect? A pilot? I highly doubt it. You know as much as I yet seem to think your more clued up. A little paranoia never hurt anyone. People say that ignorance is bliss to which I disagree heartily. When I look at the world trade center attacks I simply can't believe the official story and you telling me I'm a fan of Alex Jones or some other wacko won't change my opinion. Finally, your arguments are as flimsy as the wtc steel beams. Logical fallacies and straw man arguments everywhere hurr durr.[/QUOTE] Except those who do agree with us ARE pilots and architects and scientists. You have cited no one but yourself and loons.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771]This is why I gave up trying to convince people. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, What do you know? Are you an architect? A pilot? I highly doubt it. You know as much as I yet seem to think your more clued up. [/quote] The difference is, you back your opinions on the sheer desperation and need of satisfying answers and I base mine on the feedback of actually trained people, such as architects and pilots. [QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771] A little paranoia never hurt anyone. [/quote] There is paranoia and there is desperation. [QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771] People say that ignorance is bliss to which I disagree heartily. [/quote] Only dumb fucks say that. [QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771] When I look at the world trade center attacks I simply can't believe the official story and you telling me I'm a fan of Alex Jones or some other wacko won't change my opinion. [/quote] You can't believe them because you are desperate and feel like the official, plausible explanation is not satisfying because it's the crude reality : a lot of people died because of a few men's crazy beliefs.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37631201][url]http://911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html[/url] No. [/QUOTE] [quote]Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No. Just assumptions, and avoidance of alternative explanations for the presence of these elements. That’s just fine when you’re telling an audience what they want to believe, but convincing the rest of the world is going to take considerably more evidence than is displayed here.[/quote] This is fine, but some people support a reinvestigation because NIST never did tests themselves for explosives at the time.
[QUOTE=zzzz;37621850]this has been stated many times, and it points out the absolute ridiculousness of the theory that the world trade centers were a false flag attack So you have two massive buildings that would require billions of dollars or more, supposedly, to ensure their destruction, according to conspiracy theorists. Flying a fully fueled jet plane into a building with inadequate protection from, you know, planes, isn't enough to bring them down. What you need is a shitload of explosives somehow planted in the building without a single person noticing. Yes, filling two massive office buildings with explosives that are completely hidden from view whilst not a single person has any suspicion or notices that explosives have been planted. Then what you need to do is find some dudes willing to kill themselves from flying airplanes into buildings. Once you have all of that down, you need to fly the planes into the building, and allow the buildings to burn in such a way as to not make it obvious that the buildings aren't falling due to the fire and structural weakness (as if some guys flying planes into buildings isn't enough of a false flag, because for some reason the buildings actually need to fall for you to declare war on terrorists??). Then once you've got the fires set up, the publicity, the headlines secured, you need to detonate the explosives in both buildings and somehow coordinate their complete destruction while making it not obvious to the thousands of cameras filming every inch of every second of the buildings. You must do all of this, too, without it ever being leaked by anyone involved who feels bad about killing thousands of innocent people. SOUNDS PRETTY EASY HUH[/QUOTE] THE PLANES WERE REMOTE CONTROLLED! NOW IGNORE THE FACT THAT I'M IGNORING EVERY OTHER POINT THAT YOU MAKE AND ACCEPT THAT YOU HAVE NO PROOF! [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg/220px-ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37631933]Except those who do agree with us ARE pilots and architects and scientists. You have cited no one but yourself and loons.[/QUOTE] Please Take Notice That: On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. Sincerely, The Undersigned Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired) Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Lic: C19220 B. Arch. Berkeley, CA Daniel B. Barnum, FAIA Lic: TX3741 BArch, Rice University Houston, TX David Paul Helpern, FAIA Lic: NY 03 010070 Ny, NY Kevin A. Kelly, FAIA Lic: TX7724 Austin, TX Paul Stevenson Oles, FAIA Lic: MASSACHUSETTS 2754 MArch, Architecture, Yale Santa Fe, NM Eason Cross, FAIA Lic: Virginia and Maryland BA Harvard, MArch. HGSD Alexandria, VA Harry G. Robinson III, FAIA Lic: Architect 2667, Washington, DC B Arch and MCP Harvard U. / MCPUD Harvar Washington, DC Abby Goodman, VP Lic: ARC4744 BS Psychology Washington, DC Alan Anderson Jr, Architect Lic: C10835 CA BS Architecture, Cal Poly SLO Fair Oaks, CA Alan Haymond, Architect Lic: 025143 B Arch., Rensselaer Polytechnic Greenwich, NY Alan D. Kato, Architect Lic: 001-010128 Bachelor of Science Morton Grove, IL Alan Shulman, Architect Lic: 1165 NH B. of Architecture New London, NH Alan Tyson Zorthian, Architect Lic: C22838 B.A. Altadena, CA Alexander Davidson Dority, Architect Lic: Arizona license No. 8380 B.A. Architecture, Stanford 1962 Santa Fe, NM Alice F. Dodson, AIA Lic: NC 6304 Asheville, NC Allen Kitselman, Architect Lic: 6642 BA Arch Berryville, VA Andrew Wolff, Architect, AIA,LEED Lic: 30395 CA M Arch, Yale University Los Angeles, CA Andus H. Brandt, Architect Lic: Cal. Architect's license C27998 B.A. Architecture Berkeley, CA Anne Lee, AIA Lic: AR-10177 MA M.Arch Boston, MA April Wethe Palencia, Aia, Architect Lic: C31675 Bach of Architecture, Univ. of Miami Santa Barbara, CA Arlene Hopkins, Architect & Educator Lic: California (28239) & Nevada (2267) M.Arch & M.A. Education Santa Monica, CA Arpad A. Chabafy, Architect Lic: California Licensed Architect C-9141 Architecture, Masters / Post Earthquake Newport Beach, CA Barry Koren, Architect Lic: 3281-005 WI B.Arch, City College of NY. Oak Park, IL Barry NewDelman, Architect, ALA, NCARB Lic: 01-006448 Ill, 3113-5 WI B. Arch., University of Illinois Portland, OR Bassam Altwal, V.P. Architecture Lic: 1576A2 (overseas) Masters in Architecture Concord, CA Bertie McKinney Bonner, AIA Lic: RA009013X M. Arch Media, PA Brad Will, AIA, LEED AP Lic: 028572-1 NY B. Arch. Woodstock, NY Bradley J. Marczuk, Architect Lic: AR-1814 B.Arch - UofO, M.Arch- UofW Boise, ID Brandon M. Chouinard, Architect Lic: A5550 OK B. Arch, U. of Oklahoma Oklahoma City, OK Brian Van Hromadka, AIA Lic: 50076 MA M. Architecture, Boston Architectural Co Newburyport, MA Bruce B. Maxwell, Architect Lic: C27715 M.Arch. Oakland, CA Bryan Evan Westgate, Architect Lic: arc.0914988 Master Of Architecture Cleveland, OH C Matthew Taylor, Architect Lic: South Carolina Architect's License #AR .4827 I, ex B.A. Architecture, U. of Cincinnati Hilton Head Island, SC C. Michael Henry, Sr., President B. Arch. Newport News, VA C.J. Richards, R.A., B. Arch Lic: 7505-5 WI B.A., Architecture, U-Minnesota Milwaukee, WI Cary J. Spiegel, AIA Lic: NY 03022495, NJ 21AI01239900 B. Arch, City College, NY Plainfield, NJ Charles W. Ekstedt Sr., B. Arch. Lic: MN #: 19398 B. Arch., U of Minnesota Saint Paul, MN Charles Ralph Traylor, Architect Lic: Texas 4179 also NCARB certificate 21435 B Arch Texas Tech Dallas, TX Christian Mungenast, AIA, Architect Lic: Massachusetts Architect's License #8856, exp. 8/08 Arlington, MA Christine R. Balint, Architect Lic: Architect in NY, NJ, PA & MI B. Arch. Aberdeen, NJ Christopher C. Allen, AIA Lic: 1301037464 Ann Arbor, MI Christopher Free, Architect Lic: 56914 MI M. Arch., Architecture, U.of Illinois Brighton, MI Crystal Danielle Nanney, AIA Lic: FL AR93662 B. Arch, University of Detroit Mercy Savannah, GA Cynthia Howard, AIA Lic: MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MA Biddeford Pool, ME Dale R. Port, Architect Lic: Lic. # 1760 State of Iowa Waterloo, IA Dale Williams, Landscape Architect Lic: 2384 CA MS in Land Arch, Univ of Arizona Cameron Park, CA Damon C. Smith, AIA Lic: AR94915 B.A, Carnegie Mellon University Orlando, FL Dan Bartlett, AIA Lic: New Hampshire Architect's license 2919 B. Arch Keene, NH Daniel R. Hirtler, architect Lic: 023012-NY B.Arch. Ithaca, NY Daniel La Pan, Executive Director, Facility Services Lic: Michigan License #1301034243 BS, M Arch Saginaw, MI Daniel Roach, B.Arch, AIA Lic: OR 3978 B.Arch Drury University Salem, OR Dante Amato, AIA+NCARB+LEED AP - Architect Lic: CA: C28394; NV: 6224; CO: ARC 203438; NM: 00479 BA Environmental Des./Arch. UC Berkeley Las Vegas, NV Dartmond Cherk, Architect Lic: C3743 B.A., Architecture, UC Berkeley Mill Valley, CA Dave E. Arnoth, NCARB Lic: 201812 CO (Colorado) M. Arch, University of New Mexico Los Angeles, CA David Joiner, AIA Lic: KS 3700 Bachelor of architecture Shawnee Mission, KS David Ray Solomon, Architect Lic: State of Colo. 202351 BA Architecture Denver, CO David A. Techau, AIA Lic: 12496 BArch-Az. State, MSc, Cornell Kula, HI Deane Rykerson, AIA NCARB LEED AP Lic: MA 8400 BArch Boston AC MDes Harvard Cambridge, MA Dennis R. Holloway, Architect Lic: New Mexico Architect License #002569 B.Arch., Univ. of Mich., MAUD, Harvard G Rio Rancho, NM Dennis L. Lippert, Architect Lic: Montana #1829 & Colorado #400695 Montana State University Missoula, MT Dennis E. Teske, Architect Lic: C-7351 CA Foster City, CA Dohn C. Swedberg, Architect Lic: 2272 B.A. Architecture Tacoma, WA And many many many more [url]http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php[/url]
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37631771]This is why I gave up trying to convince people. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, What do you know? Are you an architect? A pilot? I highly doubt it. You know as much as I yet seem to think your more clued up. A little paranoia never hurt anyone. People say that ignorance is bliss to which I disagree heartily. When I look at the world trade center attacks I simply can't believe the official story and you telling me I'm a fan of Alex Jones or some other wacko won't change my opinion. Finally, your arguments are as flimsy as the wtc steel beams. Logical fallacies and straw man arguments everywhere hurr durr.[/QUOTE] What POSSIBLE reason would there be for the government to destroy three buildings, attack the pentagon, and attempt to crash another plane somewhere in pennsylvania?
I do think that 9/11 conspiracy theories were always a bit far fetched and still believe what i hear in the media, but we still shouldn't excuse the massive insurance policy on the building taken out soon before, and the witnesses who claim to have seen a military plane, not a commercial plane.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37622782]See, this is how you do it. A barley understandable sentence referring to some tiny abnormality.[/QUOTE] But didn't you know? Anything that pops up as "odd" about a group of people hijacking a plane and ramming them into some buildings [I]has[/I] to be a sign of something more going on. I find it silly how conspiracy theorists jump on even the tiniest shred of evidence of something odd going on and cry how it's proof everything else was wrong, it's like saying, "the shooter drank a mocha on the day of the rampage but he normally orders decaf, doesn't that strike you as [I]strange?!"[/I]
When will America get over 9/11? Even though official statements on it are cryptic and seem fabricated. (My opinion), I still think we need to get over it. It's been 11 years now? Bad things happen. People die. Just my thoughts.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;37632123]But didn't you know? Anything that pops up as "odd" about a group of people hijacking a plane and ramming them into some buildings [I]has[/I] to be a sign of something more going on. I find it silly how conspiracy theorists jump on even the tiniest shred of evidence of something odd going on and cry how it's proof everything else was wrong, it's like saying, "the shooter drank a mocha on the day of the rampage but he normally orders decaf, doesn't that strike you as [I]strange?!"[/I][/QUOTE] Sorta like saying that. But also a hundred other things that don't add up. It isnt one thing that makes me go "Hmm maybe there is more to this" but the combination of a hundred different ideas. Like a passport surviving an inferno. Men who were supposed to be hijackers reported alive. The defense secretary Rumsfield announcing 2.3 trillion dollars missing. The air defense drills running on the same day. Why did Bush stay reading to the children if the nation was under attack, his life could have been in danger. Dick Cheney (Vice President) was CEO of Haliburton, one of the largest oilfield companies in the world. etc.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;37632044]Please Take Notice That:[/QUOTE] First off, I fail to see why you had to quote all of those names as though it'll get your point across. Secondly they may have degrees in Architecture, but realize architecture is a [I]very[/I] big field of study. Landscape architecture is a major, and that's essentially gardening. Thirdly, I don't see why the government should go out of it's way to appease a bunch of people screaming that 9/11 was an inside job, because it's a [I]lost cause from the get-go.[/I] Not only will it do nothing but stroke their egos because they're finally getting the recognition they want, but any evidence and conclusion to the contrary of "government did 9/11" will be taken as a further government cover-up (either because the government is doing the investigation, or because anyone else is either in on the conspiracy, is on the government payroll, or simply "is an ignorant sheeple.") Why should anyone waste taxpayer dollars (or their own money) when the conclusion will always point to the exact same thing?
[QUOTE=MadPro119;37632170]Sorta like saying that. But also a hundred other things that don't add up. It isnt one thing that makes me go "Hmm maybe there is more to this" but the combination of a hundred different ideas. Like a passport surviving an inferno. Men who were supposed to be hijackers reported alive. etc.[/QUOTE] Stranger things have happened, and the "alive hijackers" thing is completely fake.
So I googled tinfoil for my previous post and have discovered that there are some pretty elaborate and outright amazing tinfoil hats. [IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/4946934997_b83ea512f8.jpg[/IMG] I don't know about you, but I could totally see several people I know wearing this with black clothing. EDIT: [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mUMCG8cxEAQ/THpUiLAJYiI/AAAAAAAAANI/uqYezz2b_nk/s1600/fh2.JPG[/img] My hat is a starship, your argument is invalid.
-oops meant to edit-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.