Scientists find active 'super-thermite' in WTC dust

Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Dexter Sinister said:
Considering the attitude you've displayed in your recent posts in this thread, it'll be a frosty day in Hell before I'll take instructions or advice from you. That's not the way to convince anyone, you just shred your own credibility by coming on like such a dick.
Click to expand...


I care not MR Sinister

youre name say it all really
 
Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Cannuck said:
Here are some punctuation marks. Please use them.

...???'''''',,,,,

Do you actually have any evidence? I mean real evidence.
Click to expand...



NEW INFORMATION ON THE DEATH OF 911 EYEWITNESS BARRY JENNINGS SEEMS TO POINT TO FOUL PLAY

April 16, 2009 | 1comment | Evidence of Explosives used on 911

NEW INFORMATION ON THE DEATH OF 911 EYEWITNESS BARRY JENNINGS SEEMS TO POINT TO FOUL PLAY
By Jack Blood
Welcome To American Freedom Radio
Deadline Live with Jack Blood
<object width=”480″ height=”385″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/p/C051F6E7E399834F&hl=en&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/p/C051F6E7E399834F&hl=en&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”480″ height=”385″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed></object>
Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, passed away last August 2008 at age 53 from undisclosed circumstances. Mr. Jennings was an eyewitness to the devastation of the World Trade center towers on September 11th 2001.
On the morning of 911 Barry Jennings with Michael Hess, (one of Rudy Giuliani’s highest ranking appointed officials, New York city’s corporation counsel), entered the famed Building 7.
It was just after the first attack on the North tower, but before the second plane hit the South Tower, when Barry Jennings escorted Michael Hess to the World Trade Center Tower 7. Mr. Jennings recalls a large number of police officers in the lobby of WTC 7 when they arrived. The two men went up to the 23rd floor, but could not get in, so they went back to the lobby and the police took them up in the freight elevator for a second try. When they arrived on level 23, at the Office of Emergency Management (FEMA),) they found it had been recently deserted, “coffee that was on the desk, smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half eaten sandwiches”. At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to “leave, and leave right away”. Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing. This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.
When they made it to the lobby, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, “King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, (it was) so destroyed, I didn’t know where I was. So destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, that I believe the fire department made to get me out.” Shortly after he made it out, he was seen on several news channels telling his story.
Mr. Jennings was admittedly confused as to why Building 7 had to come down at all, and does not accept the official reason that the noises he heard were from a fuel oil tank, “I know what I heard, I heard explosions”.
Jennings testimony was recorded by Loose Change for the Final Cut version of the extremely popular documentary, but was edited out at the final stage due to Jennings misgivings about losing his job, and endangering his family.
The BBC later interviewed Jennings for a =93911 debunking special and Jennings seemed to retract the testimony given to Loose Change. Subsequently the creators of the film released the original interview to protect their own credibility.
Barry Jennings passed away shortly thereafter and coincidentally just a few days before the long awaited NIST report on Building 7 was released to the public. It is quite possible that Jennings would have exposed the cover story of NIST, and their overall excuse that the 47 story building was the first and only skyscraper felled by fire. He never got that chance.
NEW INFORMATION
Yesterday, April 15th 2009 I was contacted by Loose Change director, and narrator Dylan Avery who said that he had recently begun investigating the death of Barry Jennings, and had found some new information relating to his death.
It seems that there is a very good possibility that Jennings’ death could have been due to foul play. Though the investigations are on going, initial findings are somewhat alarming. The conclusion is still forthcoming, but I was shocked by what I heard.
It seems that Dylan had hired a private investigator to look into Jennings death which remains shrouded in mystery. His motive was simply to bring some closure to the life of Barry Jennings, and in doing so to honor the memory of this brave American. The Investigator ended up referring the case to Law enforcement before refunding his pay, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Very unusual to say the least. Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale.
Personally, something is really beginning to stink here. Why would a highly paid PI refuse to continue his investigation? Why did he refer the matter to police? He is not talking. What is he afraid of?
Was he warned to cease and desist? If so by whom?
These are some of the new questions revolving around the Jennings case.
In every major cover up from the JFK assassination to Iran Contra, we can see one common thread. The untimely death of eyewitnesses. Barry Jennings was not only an important and most credible eyewitness, but he openly refuted much of the government, and media version of events. He was a liability.
Dylan Avery will appear on DEADLINE LIVE today to tell the story.
AMERICAN FREEDOM RADIO. Welcome To American Freedom Radio
The show airs live at 3PM Central with no commercial interruptions.
The interview will be archived for free at Welcome To American Freedom Radio
Click to expand...
Ottawa 9-11 Truth :: Evidence of Explosives used on 911 :: NEW INFORMATION ON THE DEATH OF 911 EYEWITNESS BARRY JENNINGS SEEMS TO POINT TO FOUL PLAY


What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?

What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice?
Steven E. Jones
December 22, 2006 (updated Jan. 9, 2007) Consider this statement made a few weeks ago by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley and other (previous) members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc."
​
How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?
While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about 9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not need to endlessly debate all such issues. We can move on and focus on the solid forensic evidence which lends a hope of attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor and of holding up in court or before Congress.
As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply the Scientific Method. The Greek method was to look at the evidence (superficially) and then try to explain things through logic and debate. The Greeks came up with various ideas in this way -- such as the geocentric theory in which the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all the stars and planets revolved around the earth. There were problems with this geocentric explanation, but Plato insisted that they must "save the hypothesis," and plausible explanations were found to account for anomalies -- i such as the retrograde motion of Mars. The philosophical debates and discussions were seemingly endless; the Dark Ages ensued.
Along came Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others with their experiments and observations, and the centuries-old Greek philosophy-based notions began to crumble. Galileo observed through a telescope that Jupiter had moons -- which revolved around Jupiter (not the Earth). He was threatened with torture if he did not recant his explanation (that the Earth was not at the center). He suffered house arrest but not torture as he quietly continued his experiments.
In the lifetime of Newton, another experimenter who challenged the Greek approach, the scientific community worked out a system whereby scientific studies would be published after review by peers -- qualified experts who could judge the quality of the research. Peer-reviewed technical journals arose and the peer-review process brought order to the relative chaos of work up to that time. Now experiments could be done and written up, then peer-reviewed and published. Peer-reviewed papers would draw the attention of others. To give an example of using the modern scientific method, a few colleagues and I are doing experiments and making observations in a scientific approach to what really happened at the World Trade Center. It is NOT merely a plausible explanation or debates about "possibilities" that we seek. Rather, having seen strong indications of foul play (see journalof911studies.com/Intersecting_facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf ) we are looking for hard evidence that would clearly verify an intentional crime beyond that of 19 hijackers. Ours is a forensic investigation, looking for a "smoking gun," which would then lead to a serious criminal investigation.
I do not plan to make a career out of 9/11 research, and I am not making money from my investigations anyway. We need a formal, solid investigation of the 9/11 crimes committed, not a long-term study which endlessly debates all alternatives. I seek such solid evidence of an insider crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) that some of us will successfully demand a criminal investigation to confront key individuals who may have insider information -- within one year, if possible-- not many.
So what evidence is likely to lead to such a criminal investigation?
As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene. These four areas are:

  1. Fall time for WTC 7.
  2. Fall times for the Towers.
  3. Challenging the NIST report and Fact Sheet.
  4. Evidence for use of Thermate reactions: What the WTC dust and solidified metal reveal.

    * Please note that I do not focus only on the thermate-hypothesis, and I do research in all four areas above. Details are given in my talk, available here: Internet Archive: Free Download: Session 2: Analysis of the World Trade Center Destruction

    There are other lines that may compel a criminal investigation even before one of the above "hard science" research lines bears fruit:

  5. Whistleblower statements -- including some individuals yet to emerge
  6. Who made the stock-market "put-option" trades on American and United Air Lines in the week before 9/11, indicating clear foreknowledge of the attacks coupled with greed?
  7. The fact that the WTC dust was declared quite safe by the EPA/National Security Council when it fact scientists had proven it to be toxic, and the many people now clamoring for justice after being hurt and misled.
  8. Calls for impeachment for war issues, e.g., from a state legislature or Congress, which scrutinizes the "Bush Doctrine," then opens the 9/11 question.
  9. Pressure from 9/11 Family members, firemen and others for answers.
  10. Direct appeals to Senators and Congresspersons -- who are charged with an oversight role. I initiated a Petition to this effect, demanding release of government-held information related to 9/11, which has since been signed by over 10,000 people. And I am in contact now with the Congressman from my state, seeking information and remedy.
We have found evidence for thermates in the molten metal seen pouring from the South Tower minutes before its collapse, in the sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of WTC steel, and in the residues found in the WTC dust. (Our sample originated from an apartment at 113 Cedar Street across from the WTC; chain of custody direct from the collector J. MacKinlay to Dr. Steven Jones). Many other details are given in the peer-reviewed paper here: journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf. Other cutter-charges such as HMX and RDX may have also been used; but again, solid evidence for just one type of incendiary or explosive would be sufficient to compel a criminal investigation.
Experiments continue, as shown in the photos below, and the results are consistent with thermate having been used in on 9/11/2001. We have a series of experiments planned, along with analyses. This research takes time.
Click to expand...
My colleagues and I are pursuing the thermate data as strong evidence for foul-play, and I encourage researchers to pursue all worthwhile areas of inquiry. One person can hardly pursue every line of inquiry, but I'm confident that one of these lines (above) will bear fruit in getting us to a serious, evidence-based investigation that leaves no stone unturned.
In contrast the theory that no planes hit the towers does no stand up to scrutiny, as published in a peer-reviewed paper by Eric Salter, here: journalof911studies.com/v...Salter.pdf Salter shows that evidence for real planes hitting the Towers is compelling
Papers regarding the following notions have been or are being prepared for the new Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Mini-nukes exploding in the Towers on 9/11; Ray-beams used to bring the Towers down; comments/questions regarding papers by Reynolds and Wood. I anticipate and welcome questions regarding my published papers also. The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies invite questions and answers in the Letters section, as a means to bring the debate to a civilized, scientific forum. In Newton's day, there were various verbal attacks and debates among scientists, including attacks against Newton by Gottfried Leibniz and Robert Hooke. Considerable order was brought to the scientific community by requiring that articles and letters be published in peer-reviewed journals, so that the world would have a public record of the debates. This procedure also encouraged careful thought and respectful questioning and responding, and the use of scientific venues continues today. If questions are brought to me in this spirit of collegiality in this publication or another peer-reviewed Journal, I will be most happy to respond. Again, endless debates of a verbal or on-line-equivalent nature are not appropriate scientific venues and I do not intend to participate in those.
The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies will allow response Letters to be published in the Journal without formal peer-review, on a trial basis, to encourage public publication of various views. The requirements for publication will be: relevance, respectful civility, posing specific questions, answering all questions existing in the relevant Letter before posing new ones, and avoiding "straw-man" and ad hominem arguments. The scientific method (including publishing in Journals) includes evidence-based challenges to hypotheses, and rejection of hypotheses which fail to conform to the empirical data. Without this, we might still be debating whether the earth was flat, or at the center of the universe!
I have been asked, regarding the thermite-in-WTC hypothesis in my paper, "Exactly where did it need to be placed? ... How thick would it have to be against various steel columns, beams, concrete, etc.? How many hours of labor would it take to cover every surface of the building, carefully avoiding detection by WTC office workers? Exactly who placed all the alleged thermite there? Please give us their names, ages, and social security numbers for validation." (M. Reynolds and J. Wood, "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis," Dec. 2006)
Clearly, the answers to most of these questions will require a criminal investigation and cannot be determined from scientific analysis of the physical evidence. We cannot realistically be expected to answer all the "whodunit" and "exactly where" questions before a criminal investigation and trial begin! But that does not mean that scientific analysis is unimportant. For example, although various cutter-charges could have been used, if we can once establish that thermate-class residues are found in the WTC rubble and dust, then a criminal investigation will indeed be necessitated -- to determine who was responsible. Do you see the difference in focus, from unrealistically requiring all the answers up front, to seeking sufficient evidence to motivate a criminal investigation and trial to get at more answers? The NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations states:

  • "Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials."This is standard for fire and explosion investigations -- Why was the standard not applied to the WTC "crime scene"? I'm saying it should be. And as with other crime-scene investigations, once a pyrotechnic material's presence has been established, then the next step is a criminal investigation to determine who planted the pyrotechnic (such as thermate). It is not correct that I as a scientist in the laboratory have to answer the questions of names, ages, social security numbers, etc. anymore than an arson investigator, once he has demonstrated that accelerant residues were present so that a crime has been established, must himself provide the names and addresses of the arsonists who committed the crime. The identities will emerge from the criminal investigation that follows.
I encourage all serious researchers to join now the research effort to pin down hard evidences and work towards a criminal investigation -- perhaps by a Congressional committee, perhaps by a special prosecutor. Whatever body conducts the investigation, they will need hard evidences AND public support.
In conclusion, it is proposed that we:
1. Get very solid evidence that a crime was committed -- focusing on the best evidence, enough to "prove" the case.
2. Then, use that evidence to demand and support an investigation;
3. Get as much public support as possible to help encourage the investigation;
4. Have a goal of organizing such an investigation in 2007.
Anything that takes resources or distracts from these goals should be ignored.
​
So, we have some action items:
1. Continue good scientific research;
2. Work on getting the right contacts for starting an investigation;
3. Continue to inform the public. Keep that information campaign to the most convincing ideas and NOT muddy the waters with exotic theories. These can, however, be discussed via published Letters as explained above, so that we can sort out the wheat from the chaff scientifically.
​
Let's roll up our sleeves and focus, all of us who agree that the goal is to GET A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION rather than engaging in endless debates.
It is time to unite and seek an end to the 9/11 wars by bringing out the truth of what happened on 9/11. We seek truth, justice -- and peace.
Acknowledgments: Thanks for valuable input from Frank Legge, Shaun Taulbee, Victoria Ashley, Carl Weis, and Lon Waters.
Click to expand...

What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community? - 911truth.org
 
Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Dexter Sinister said:
Like you know what it really means... :roll:
Click to expand...




sin·is·ter (s
n
-st
r)adj.1. Suggesting or threatening evil: a sinister smile.
2. Presaging trouble; ominous: sinister storm clouds.
3. Attended by or causing disaster or inauspicious circumstances.
4. On the left side; left.
5. Heraldry Situated on or being the side of a shield on the wearer's left and the observer's right.

[Middle English sinistre, unfavorable, from Old French, from Latin sinister, on the left, unlucky.]
sin
is·ter·ly adv.
sin
is·ter·ness n.
Synonyms: sinister, baleful, malign
These adjectives apply to what is indicative of or threatens great harm, disaster, or evil. Sinister usually implies impending or lurking danger that makes its presence felt by ominous signs or portents: We heard a sinister laugh from behind the door.
Baleful intensifies the sense of menace; it suggests a deadly, virulent, or poisonous quality: The guard's baleful glare frightened the children.
Malign applies to what manifests an evil disposition, nature, influence, or intent: "The Devil . . . with jealous leer malign/Eyed them askance" (John Milton)
 
Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,019
8,532
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Enough with the Personal Attacks. Stick to the Thread Topic.
If anyone needs to resolve something with another...Take it
off the open Threads & into a STEEL CAGE.

There are some Posts containing Personal Attacks, or quoting
Personal Attacks that have been removed. Further posts
containing Personal Attacks will also be removed.
 
Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Colpy said:
He didn't say the fires were small, he said they were intense.

BIG difference.
Click to expand...

No Colpy i said they were small if your going to pick a bone make sure it is not your own leg your chewing

looks like you got youre foot in mouth pal
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Free your mind said:
sin·is·ter (s
n
-st
r)adj.1. Suggesting or threatening evil: a sinister smile.
2. Presaging trouble; ominous: sinister storm clouds.
3. Attended by or causing disaster or inauspicious circumstances.
4. On the left side; left.
5. Heraldry Situated on or being the side of a shield on the wearer's left and the observer's right.

[Middle English sinistre, unfavorable, from Old French, from Latin sinister, on the left, unlucky.]
sin
is·ter·ly adv.
sin
is·ter·ness n.
Synonyms: sinister, baleful, malign
These adjectives apply to what is indicative of or threatens great harm, disaster, or evil. Sinister usually implies impending or lurking danger that makes its presence felt by ominous signs or portents: We heard a sinister laugh from behind the door.
Baleful intensifies the sense of menace; it suggests a deadly, virulent, or poisonous quality: The guard's baleful glare frightened the children.
Malign applies to what manifests an evil disposition, nature, influence, or intent: "The Devil . . . with jealous leer malign/Eyed them askance" (John Milton)
Click to expand...

Dexter = on the right side

Sinister = on the left side

They are opposites....left brain - right brain kind of thing. No need to thank me.
 
Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Cannuck said:
Do you not know the difference between evidence and innuendo?
Click to expand...

Do you actually look at whats posted in the videos, or do you just read then comment in your fastidious manor, because there is plenty of evidence to show that things were not done as they should have been, also there are so many inconstancy's that it defy s logic even yours i suspect.
Bush Caught in a Lie
About the 9/11 WTC Attacks​
President Bush has stated on two occasions that he saw a plane hit World Trade Center 1:​
Occasion 1:
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
 [CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
RealMedia video download of comment
Occasion 2:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
[whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]
"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..." [Welcome to the White House]
WMA download of comment
​
There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit World Trade Center 2.
11 a.m. on 9/11. One of the first broadcasts of Flight 11's impact into WTC 1.WMV video download (831kB)
​
This Washington Times article states he didn't see the impact at the school...
The president entered a holding room at the school and picked up a secure telephone to speak with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice at the White House. She was sitting in her office, watching live coverage of the stricken north tower as it belched black smoke into a cloudless sky. "There's one terrible pilot," Mr. Bush muttered. Turning to Mr. Card, he speculated that the pilot must have suffered a heart attack. Mr. Bush, who had yet to see the TV images, drafted a statement pledging federal assistance.​
...and this is confirmed by Booker Elementary School Principal Gwen Rigell in this Propaganda Matrix posting:
I had the opportunity to talk with Principal Gwen Rigell of Booker Elementary school for about twenty minutes. ... I asked her if in fact the President had been watching the events of 9-11 unfold on TV before he went into that classroom and she told me "Absolutely not". There was no TV in the corridor or anywhere near that classroom.​
Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error, especially since warnings had surfaced of hijacked commercial aircraft attacking symbols of American culture:
U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals [in July 2001] that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture. [FromTheWilderness]FBI information [...] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. [President Bush Intelligence Briefing 8/6/2001]
​
If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Center then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time, and he saw it before arriving at Booker Elementary because he was en route to the school when the first plane struck WTC 1 - a closed-circuit live feed to his limo is the only way he could have seen this impact on TV.
Each of us will ... remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. [G.W. Bush, September 20, 2001]​
It must also be remembered that even after Andrew Card informed Bush of the second impact, by his own admission Bush knew America was being attacked, but he continued listening to the reading skills of a classroom full of children.
Just think about that for a while.
​
Click to expand...
Bush Caught in a Lie About the 9/11 WTC Attacks
 
Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Cannuck said:
Dexter = on the right side

Sinister = on the left side

They are opposites....left brain - right brain kind of thing. No need to thank me.
Click to expand...
sinister http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http://www.allwords.com/word-sinister.html
adjective
  1. inauspicious, ominous, unlucky
  2. evil, seeming to be evil.
  3. of the left side.
  4. (heraldry): the left side of a shield from the wearer's standpoint, and the right side to the viewer.
Translations:
  • Italian: sinistra
  • Spanish: siniestro , izquierdo
    (trans-bottom)
  • French: sénestre
  • German: linker
    (trans-mid)
Etymology: From Latin sinister "left hand".Old French Sinistra "left"Middle English Sinistre "unlucky"
 
Free your mind

Free your mind

Electoral Member
Apr 14, 2009
228
4
18
Cannuck said:
Doncha just hate it when you go through all the trouble of planning and carrying out such a top secret and dastardly plot only to have some nimrod blow it at a town hall meeting.
Click to expand...

So when ppl show you some proof of foul play ,you resort to failing to make a joke of it ,this seems to be the way all you doubters behave im not surprised just sorry for you
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Free your mind said:
So when ppl show you some proof of foul play ,you resort to failing to make a joke of it ,this seems to be the way all you doubters behave im not surprised just sorry for you
Click to expand...

That's not proof of foul play. I think this is the problem with the CT crowd. They don't seem to understand what constitutes proof or evidence.

And please...try and post something new and interesting. Posting the same old crap that has been done to death doesn't lend anything to your credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom