Sanctuary cities start to cave

Let the record show, Max, that the seriousness of the topic that everyone is trying desperately to avoid is just too troubling, starkly honest as it is.

Let the record show, Camlok; you are a silly person that no one is taking seriously.

And that is the last response you will get from me until you say something intelligent (and it would be nice if it were on topic too... you can often tell the topic of a thread by reading the title).

Okay, I'm willing to discuss with you how this is related to immigrants, immigration and sanctuary cities.

The black perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKZD1FiBf0g

What do you have against science, Max? Could you point out one science issue I raised and describe how it is in error?

That's not simply a Black perspective, that's a US perspective, the same one that has been used countless times since before 1787. It was used by Washington and Jefferson against Blacks.

It has been used against the Irish, the Italians, the Germans, the Russians, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the ... .

And now it is being used against a broad group. The propagandists are creaming their jeans. Say Muslim and it extends to Arabs, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, people of Islam, people from Yemen, ... .

And all because of another huge LIE. The Japanese Americans didn't do anything wrong and they were FALSELY ACCUSED and imprisoned. The alleged Arab hijackers didn't cause the destruction of the three WTC towers yet they, and the wide blanket that has been thrown has heaped blame on many folks [see partial list above] who did nothing.

1. The alleged hijackers COULD NOT HAVE caused WTC7 to fall at free fall speed.

2. The only sane logical, scientific result that can be drawn from that is that there was a controlled demolition.

3. The alleged hijackers COULD NOT HAVE set up a controlled demolition in a building that they never came within 200 yards of.

I meant the black perspective on the original topic of the thread, not on 9/11 or what brought the towers down. Basically a black perspective on the relationship between demmunist "elites" and their new favorite voting block...

My discussion is right on "I meant the black perspective on the original topic of the thread".

That very angry Black man was ranting about Arabs, the very people who have been falsely accused of doing what they could not have done, namely, blow up three WTC towers.

Also, as I mentioned, the false Arab accusations have been greatly expanded to include many other groups and a religion that has been intimately associated with and implicated in, by those false accusations.

How folks can suggest that my comments are not on focus is most ludicrous, and you and I both know that that patently false accusation is also false, a complete red herring, meant to divert attention away from thee seminal event that is causing all these problems.

How do you explain the smoke rising from the Pentagon into the stratosphere and it taking over a month to get the fires out if no airplane was involved? Did somebody drive two or three tanker trucks full of aviation fuel into the pentagon before they lit some sort of a bomb off or hit their own building with a cruise missile? I mean, bombs and cruise missiles generally don't send smoke into the stratosphere...

GS: How do you explain the smoke rising from the Pentagon into the stratosphere
----------------------

I would have to know what you are talking about before I could discuss it. Do you have a source?


GS: and it taking over a month to get the fires out if no airplane was involved?
---------

Over a month, where?

GS: How do you explain ... it taking over a month to get the fires out if no airplane was involved?
================

How do you explain the following?

"Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February [2002] seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Conventional fires doused by millions of gallons of water over a 5 month period do not burn hot enough to melt steel.

The notion that the fires in the WTC wreckage were conventional defies rational belief.

Thermite provides an explanation for the duration and high temperatures of the fires:

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html

My own eyes... I was living about four miles south of the Pentagon on the section of I95 inside the DC beltway which is called 395 at the time i.e. the old Shirley Highway and working across the street from Union Station. They let the whole city go at 10:45 that morning and getting home over the 14'th st. bridge was not an option. I rode (an old 800cc BMW bike) out over the South Capital St. bridge and then over the Wilson bridge and from the Wilson bridge you could see the smoke from the pentagon basically rising into the stratosphere.

Again it was four or five weeks before they had all those fires out. There were fire crews from every engine company within 50 miles working there in shifts all that time.

I have no idea why that might have happened. Are you sure it extended into the stratosphere?

GS: Again it was four or five weeks before they had all those fires out. There were fire crews from every engine company within 50 miles working there in shifts all that time.

What was the fuel source, the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld had said was missing from the Pentagon on September 10, 2001?