Quantcast

The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

irish 2011/09/15 13:59:39


The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?






Global Research

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts



The short answer to the question in the title is no.



The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.



Let’s examine the case against "the truthers" presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.



But first let’s define who "the truthers" are.



The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to
rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of
"9/11 conspiracy theorists".



Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.



Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.



9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside
job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence
apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and
the US Air Force.



For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.



The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.



The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web
sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of
whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.



It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of
Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his
credit and physicist Steven Jones.



It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.



It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who
personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including
explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11
families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could
possibly occur.



The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of
years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are
speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that
exists.



When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months
studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces
of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they
announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and
explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.



When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by
other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge
that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.



When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten
steel--and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris
of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can
bet your life the molten steel was there.



When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge
quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your
life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction
remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.



When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no
theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known
evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission
Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided
is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to
discover the truth about the event.



It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that
the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.



That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.



What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says:
“Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed
by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent
three years in engineering school.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm



Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel
building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of
nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with
university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering
airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors,
and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not
hear or experience?



Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment
about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager
understanding by a large amount.



Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with
these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick
culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a
people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything:
self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a
general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here.
http://barnhardt.biz/



Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”



Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think
logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek
truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are
antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in
physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of
steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense
imaginable.



Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking
about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and
professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a
video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked
with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.



Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know
him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual
conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly
qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official
government story of 9/11.



Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on
parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers
“pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents--scores of them--methodically
planted demolition charges.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911-conspiracists-...



Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world
who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who
have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The
experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the
official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists
has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and
explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed,
they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by
repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex
then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged
conspiracy.”



Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers
“pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was
tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of
the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.



Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is
second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face.
For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there
ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by
the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next
to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I
just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got
out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the
terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”



If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon,
they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied
to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to
release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from
all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon
critic such as Spinney.



I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if
he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small
airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it
sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of
automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling
down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up
16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.



Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that
Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to
him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is
what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers
during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes,
essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had
merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that
there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of
massively thick steel beams.



Cockburn's willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts
on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of
passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a
letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural
integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.



Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel
high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do.
Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at
least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in
their arguments.



Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this.
How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a
nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications
to his credit?



They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment
on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is
an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.



Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that
many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information.
Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that
information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to
fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they
are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation
upon which NIST bases its conclusion.



There is no 9/11 debate.



On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems
in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who
denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.



The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their
detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state
of the debate.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • DeeB 2011/09/15 14:31:43
    DeeB
    +5
    The only reason a lot of people do blame the government and call it an inside job is their refusal to investigate, which leads people to think that they surely must have something to hide. All the other other evidence of the happenings besides the falling buildings also plays a big part. We cannot just look at the buildings, but who would profit from such an event.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • cchris874 2013/05/13 19:24:29
    cchris874
    +1
    Paul Craig Roberts wrote,

    "On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems
    in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who
    denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks."

    That is hardly the case at all. "Credentialed experts" were, after all, involved by the dozens with the NIST report. Then we have the demolition industry that, as a whole, has not endorsed the CD theories. There are plenty of commercial pilots also- in effect, experts in the art of flying, who don't agree the Hanjour maneuver was impossible. Go to an airport and ask them, as I have done. The vast majority don't agree with 9/11 truth. If you want to talk structural engineers, there's the man who designed the WTC himself, Leslie Robertson. No, he doesn't support CD. Is he not credentialed?

    There are also the "credentialed scientists" who A) Question NIST; but B) do not support controlled demolition: such as Frank Greening, James Quintiere, Asif Usmani, and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, all of whom have authored sceintific papers on the collapses. This also illustrates NIST is not a closed system, but welcomes and publishes comments on scientists critical of their conclusions. One can also point to Thomas Eager of MIT ;and Keith Seffen, who published his article in "Jou...

    Paul Craig Roberts wrote,

    "On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems
    in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who
    denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks."

    That is hardly the case at all. "Credentialed experts" were, after all, involved by the dozens with the NIST report. Then we have the demolition industry that, as a whole, has not endorsed the CD theories. There are plenty of commercial pilots also- in effect, experts in the art of flying, who don't agree the Hanjour maneuver was impossible. Go to an airport and ask them, as I have done. The vast majority don't agree with 9/11 truth. If you want to talk structural engineers, there's the man who designed the WTC himself, Leslie Robertson. No, he doesn't support CD. Is he not credentialed?

    There are also the "credentialed scientists" who A) Question NIST; but B) do not support controlled demolition: such as Frank Greening, James Quintiere, Asif Usmani, and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, all of whom have authored sceintific papers on the collapses. This also illustrates NIST is not a closed system, but welcomes and publishes comments on scientists critical of their conclusions. One can also point to Thomas Eager of MIT ;and Keith Seffen, who published his article in "Journal of Engineering Mechanics."

    I suppose all these people must really be truthers in disguise, since by your account, there are no experts supporting the gravity collapse.
    (more)
  • irish cchris874 2013/05/14 12:14:22
    irish
    the ones who say the plane maneuver was impossible meant it was impossible for UNSKILLED pilots to use.
  • cchris874 irish 2013/05/30 05:04:16
    cchris874
    It really doesn't matter what anyone says of unskilled pilots because there are plenty of commercial pilots (the vast majority that I have spoken with) who say there is nothing suspicious in their minds about Hanjour being able to do what he did. Thus, there is 1) no proof offered he couldn't do this; 2) No consensus among commercial pilots he couldn't do this. There is only the opinion expressed by some that he could not. Do you have a proof they are right?
  • Beccy 2011/09/16 03:41:14
    Beccy
    +2
    People will believe the idiot little george before they believe someone with 40 years experience. Priceless isn't it people idiot george 40 years experience priceless george bush reading my pet goat on 911
  • irish Beccy 2011/09/16 12:05:49
    irish
    +2
    isn't it??
  • Beccy irish 2011/09/17 19:51:20
    Beccy
    +1
    yes it is
  • Mark P. 2011/09/15 19:29:54
    Mark P.
    +1
    Total BS. For starters jet fuel is designed to produce heat for thrust. Second at the height of the crash their is always a stiff breeze blowing which is causing the buildings to act like a forge heating the the steal beams hot enough to fail. Plus all the wood plastic and other combustible material. And are you forgetting Bin Laden made his fortune in construction. OBL declared war on this country a long time ago. BTW I worked on jets for a good while.
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/16 12:07:53
    irish
    +1
    LOL LOL explain how there were people looking out of the hole after the plane hit if the fire was so intense??? lol lol explain people hole plane hit fire intense woman at  plane  hole after  wtc hit lol lol explain people hole plane hit fire intense woman at  plane  hole after  wtc hit
  • Mark P. irish 2011/09/16 12:40:02
    Mark P.
    you mean the fireman standing there
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/16 12:49:40
    irish
    +1
    no,the people who worked there. if the fire was sooooooo intense to melt steel ,how is it people were seen standing in the hole? or the poor ones who threw themselves out?? a fire that intense wouldn't have allowed anyone to survive.
  • Mark P. irish 2011/09/16 12:51:48
    Mark P.
    The pic you posted is a fireman. People threw themselves out of the window to escape the fire.
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/16 13:00:58
    irish
    +1
    no it is not! yeah,but how did they do that if the fire was intense enough to melt steel?? they should have been incinerated.
  • Mark P. irish 2011/09/16 13:05:22
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/16 13:12:21
    irish
    +1
    really? and you believe that?? how do explain the molten steel seen falling from the building? or the molten steel in the crater after it was demolished?? tsk tsk tsk! falling building molten steel crater demolished tsk tsk tsk molten steel  falling from wtc
  • Mark P. irish 2011/09/16 13:18:05
    Mark P.
    +1
    You make no sense. One minute your saying one thing then something else. Find a big cushy room and lock yourself away. Explosives would not have melted the steel. You must have missed the planes flying into the building.
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/16 13:42:49
    irish
    +1
    i make no sense?? au contraire,i have followed your nonsense perfectly. i guess you have run out of false facts.
    planes don't melt steel. did i say explosives melted steel?? no i didn't. something did and sure wasn't jet fuel! facts planes melt steel explosives melted steel jet fuel  dees jet fuel
  • Mark P. irish 2011/09/16 13:23:04
    Mark P.
    Explosives would not have melted the steel. You make no sense. The beams that support the building failed. The skin of the building melted. explosives melted steel beams support building skin building melted popular mechanics 911 All the nonsense you spouted was debunked. Read it.
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/16 13:47:32
    irish
    +1
    LMAO!! that lie by popular mechanics has been proven to be a huge lie!LOL

    "Popular Mechanics states that "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F". Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and kerosene ignites at 444°F (229°C) according to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/... The temperature then reached depends on the combustion rate (which depends on the oxygen supply) and the rate at which the heat generated can be dispersed. Videos of the Twin Towers show that the fires were moderate (certainly not of the "raging inferno" type) and the large volumes of black, sooty, smoke show that the fires were oxygen-deprived, not the sort of combustion that will generate high temperatures. Moreover, the jet fuel burnt itself out in about ten minutes (see below), and both buildings stood for over forty minutes thereafter.

    A fire never burns hot enough to melt steel except under exceptional and controlled conditions, such as (i) in a blast furnace, where preheated air is pumped into the fire under pressure, and (ii) in an oxyacetylene torch, where oxygen is mixed with acetylene. This is why you can cook food in a steel pot over a gas flame and why jet engines can be made of steel.

    The question of whether the fires provided sufficient explanation for the co...










    LMAO!! that lie by popular mechanics has been proven to be a huge lie!LOL

    "Popular Mechanics states that "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F". Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and kerosene ignites at 444°F (229°C) according to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/... The temperature then reached depends on the combustion rate (which depends on the oxygen supply) and the rate at which the heat generated can be dispersed. Videos of the Twin Towers show that the fires were moderate (certainly not of the "raging inferno" type) and the large volumes of black, sooty, smoke show that the fires were oxygen-deprived, not the sort of combustion that will generate high temperatures. Moreover, the jet fuel burnt itself out in about ten minutes (see below), and both buildings stood for over forty minutes thereafter.

    A fire never burns hot enough to melt steel except under exceptional and controlled conditions, such as (i) in a blast furnace, where preheated air is pumped into the fire under pressure, and (ii) in an oxyacetylene torch, where oxygen is mixed with acetylene. This is why you can cook food in a steel pot over a gas flame and why jet engines can be made of steel.

    The question of whether the fires provided sufficient explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers was addressed by several people soon after the event, and it was shown that this was not a sufficient explanation, but Popular Mechanics ignored these analyses (if it was ever aware of them). For example, over three years ago, on 2001-11-25 Carol Valentine published J. McMichael's Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics (also available on this website: Part I and Part II). Popular Mechanics' "experts" were apparently unaware of the points to which J. McMichael drew attention (or perhaps they were aware but Popular Mechanics chose to ignore things like this):

    The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire. Oxygen-poor fires do not produce high temperatures.
    The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.
    Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?
    Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
    Fire tests in open sided car parks in four countries revealed that the maximum temperature reached was 680°F (360°C), far below that needed to cause steel to weaken significantly.




    So the jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Popular Mechanics states (erroneously, and completely ignoring the safety margins that architects use when designing buildings) that "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F". So we are expected to believe that burning "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper" can produce temperatures of 1100°F. But according to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/... paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper".
    (more)
  • Autarchic irish 2011/09/16 16:35:34
    Autarchic
    +1
    I couldn't help but notice he didn't come back! LOL
  • irish Autarchic 2011/09/16 17:09:59
    irish
    +1
    you are right!LOL
  • Mark P. Autarchic 2011/09/16 18:31:44
    Mark P.
    Some of us actually have a life other than living in a basement. Jet fuel also has gasoline in it. that is why it burns hotter. I worked on jets long enough to verify that it does burn hotter. Like I said earlier, the wind at that height turned the gaping hole in the WTC into a furnace.
  • Autarchic Mark P. 2011/09/16 19:32:43 (edited)
    Autarchic
    +1
    I care not what you've done, you learned nonsense!
  • Mark P. Autarchic 2011/09/17 11:33:26
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/17 11:36:11
    irish
    +1
    so thats where you learned how to be who you are! thanks for letting us know!
  • Mark P. irish 2011/09/17 11:38:22
    Mark P.
    No, thats you discounting anyone who doesn't believe what you do.
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/17 11:49:53
    irish
    +1
    tsk tsk tsk,it sure looks like and sounds like you! you actually believe the govt fairy tale,so the book cover has your pic right on it!
  • irish Mark P. 2011/09/17 11:09:22
    irish
    +1
    LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... it did not! explain how people were standing in this "inferno" then? shouldn't they have been incinerated? lmao explain people standing inferno incinerated people looking out of hole of wtc
  • knowledgeispower 2011/09/15 18:32:18
  • big bobber 2011/09/15 17:02:08
  • Boblawbla big bobber 2011/09/15 18:40:00
    Boblawbla
    +2
    I have tried to tell her many times.... Irish, you just have to resign from that "antio american" party. LOL

    Hey, big bobber, while you're at it..... BOB ON THIS!!!
  • DeeB big bobber 2011/09/15 22:34:16
    DeeB
    +2
    I bet you everything I own that if this happened when Obama was in office you would be saying the total opposite!
  • irish big bobber 2011/09/16 12:13:35
    irish
    +1
    really?? and yet there was this! woman at  plane  hole after  wtc hit
    and this
  • gkirmani 2011/09/15 15:38:24
    gkirmani
    +2
    Howsoever best speaker or writer one is ............No one on earth has power to HIDE the truth by his mastery of words or muscle power.............the history is replete with the fact that sooner or later the TRUTH is revealed and the lie is BUSTED...........fortunately or unfortunately the truth in case of 9/11 got exposed immediately after the dirt act by the organisers............how can you convince in this logical world logically about the pre & post sequence of events.........

    Please dont be a partner of LIES but be honest to yourself
    Think for future
    Think for peace
    Think for prosperty
    Think for moveing ahead
    dont keep on beating the bush
    it will not take you anywhere
    Think Positive
  • dallasjoe 2011/09/15 15:33:13
    dallasjoe
    +3
    Water baord Bush and Cheney until they tell the truth
  • Live Free Or Die 2011/09/15 14:47:29
    Live Free Or Die
    +4
    I honestly don't know, but I think it is OK to ask questions. The bottom line here to me is that someone did it on purpose. They did it for a reason. The U.S. government had an idea that something was going to happen and they do know why, but aren't telling us. I never bought for a minute that the attackers are jealous of our freedom. If anything, I think they resent U.S. imperialism.
  • DeeB 2011/09/15 14:31:43
    DeeB
    +5
    The only reason a lot of people do blame the government and call it an inside job is their refusal to investigate, which leads people to think that they surely must have something to hide. All the other other evidence of the happenings besides the falling buildings also plays a big part. We cannot just look at the buildings, but who would profit from such an event.
  • Live Fr... DeeB 2011/09/15 14:48:51
    Live Free Or Die
    +3
    And because they do and did try to hide so much of it, they should expect that there will be ongoing questions and suspicions.
  • DeeB Live Fr... 2011/09/15 14:57:31
    DeeB
    +5
    Absolutely!
  • Live Fr... DeeB 2011/09/15 15:02:41
    Live Free Or Die
    +3
    I know it, but so many were satisfied with that answer !!

    satisfied answer ostrich with head in the sand
  • Risk DeeB 2011/09/15 15:50:40

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/02 14:57:42

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals