created by: inquiring minds | Jan 4, 2013

Top Stories

17,784 votes

Was 911 an Inside Job

Click on an option to vote

  • YES
  • No
  • Don't know
  • Possibly
Comments
821 - 840 of 4,996 Comments Last updated Jul 8, 2014
Alejandro

Elgin, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#878
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, one does not need a degree in physics to understand the concept of a controlled demolition and how they function. You have yet to prove the one or more you seem to believe in to even be necessary on 9/11, let alone to have actually occurred. You give us traces of theoretically existing explosives that no one else can seem to find [snip]
This chemical engineer independently found nanothermite in the WTC dust



USGS found spheres that were once molten
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IR...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IR...

RJ lee also found spheres
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/94901801/130-Libe... #
http://911research.com/essays/thermite/docs/s...
Alejandro

Elgin, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#879
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry sweetie, all I still see is non-flimsy incontrovertible proof of you needing help and I don't think it's just me. Prove to me what you say is happening in that 9 seconds is actually what is happening in that 9 seconds and you might have something, but all you have offered thus far is clear proof of you being crazy.
hilarious! The government is speculating about the bldg's interior in their report and you accept that speculation as gospel truth, but when it comes to interpreting the stuff that you can see in videos, the outside of the bldg, you're clueless!
Alejandro

Elgin, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#880
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Dr_Zorderz wrote:
A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes
Anthony Lawson for Salem-News.com
.
Another seriously undeniable flaw in the 'official' 9/11 story.
.
(BANGKOK)- Extract:...it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised 'War on Terror' would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.
.
It is not a theory but a fact—one that is well known within the 9/11 truth movement—that the 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on September 11, 2001.
.
One does not need to be a Harvard Law School graduate to know that the first and most important requirement in any murder investigation is to determine the cause of death, which often leads to a requirement to identify, and trace to its origins, a murder weapon, or, in the case of 9/11: weapons.
.
And there can be no doubt that each of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked on the morning 9/11 was posited as being a murder weapon, by the U.S. administration and the 9/11 Commission, yet there is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.
.
In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.
.
And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.
.
The planes in question were alleged to have been:
.
American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA), North Tower;
.
United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), South Tower;
.
American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), which supposedly crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But the truth is that they could well have been different planes that had arrived on the scenes from quite different locations, because the crash debris recovered from those four crash sites has never been forensically linked to the planes that allegedly took off from Logan International, Boston; Dulles International, Washington and Newark International, New Jersey, and which were, allegedly, hijacked shortly thereafter.
.
Therefore they cannot possibly be linked, without a reasonable doubt, to breaches of security at those airports.
.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march18201...

.
This is preposterous. All aircraft crashes, criminal or accidental are thoroughly and routinely investigated through matching of serial numbered parts back to the planes maintenance and other records.
.
Interesting!
Aidan Monaghan has submitted all kinds of "Freedom of Information Act" requests for any FBI documents that show there was an attempt to positively identify any of the 9/11 plane wreckage, and IIRC the FBI responded with "no such documents exist." Monaghan has a new book out, "Declassifying 9/11: A Between The Lines And Behind The Scenes Look At The September 11 Attacks"

http://www.amazon.com/Declassifying-11-Betwee...

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#881
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, one does not need a degree in physics to understand the concept of a controlled demolition and how they function. You have yet to prove the one or more you seem to believe in to even be necessary on 9/11, let alone to have actually occurred. You give us traces of theoretically existing explosives that no one else can seem to find and an ambiguous unproven plot involving a cast and crew bigger than Ben Hur as "proof" and yet you wonder why I question your sanity? I'm just being honest hon, you come off like a kook in a tin foil hat, passing eccentric and camping in downtown crazy with computer access and an inability to discern fact from fantasy.
Flimsy minds will see everything as flimsy because without substance you have nothing to compare it to. So just be condescending to convince those other flimsy minds your argument has merit.

Im sure Wastewater and Charlie think you're brilliant.

For those who can think, here's what was missed by NIST.

A&E911 free fall proof of building 7

http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I

NIST admitting their free fall mistake

http://youtu.be/mtRlOVymmz8

Why NIST's investigation was unscientific.

http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg

But if you believe free fall is a natural by product of accidental structural failure of a building, nothing will convince you otherwise.

Condescension is easy, but

Insults Are Easier
Leo Tolstoy

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#882
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

4

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them beforehand; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if in his mind he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.”
Leo Tolstoy

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Those who believe the government fairy tale of 9/11 are the ones who:

"in their mind are firmly persuaded that they already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before them."

Who could possibly know why they think this way but they do.

Truth seekers, on the contrary, are not at all convinced of exactly "what" happened as much as that the various official government reports, the 9/11 Commission, the NIST, the Pentaboom report etc do not tell the truth.

Furthermore the truth was not looked for and in fact truth seeking was interfered with, relevant facts obfuscated, cameras removed, eyewitnesses not interviewed, NYFD not interviewed, etc the list goes on and on.

What we got here is the fox guarding the henhouse.

9/11 was a pure WAG THE DOG false flag black op from the top down.
Leo Tolstoy

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#883
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

4

Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Flimsy minds will see everything as flimsy because without substance you have nothing to compare it to. So just be condescending to convince those other flimsy minds your argument has merit.
Im sure Wastewater and Charlie think you're brilliant.
For those who can think, here's what was missed by NIST.
A&E911 free fall proof of building 7
http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I
NIST admitting their free fall mistake
http://youtu.be/mtRlOVymmz8
Why NIST's investigation was unscientific.
http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg
But if you believe free fall is a natural by product of accidental structural failure of a building, nothing will convince you otherwise.
Condescension is easy, but
Insults Are Easier
A purely gravity driven collapse at near free fall acceleration?

Absolutely impossible!
Leo Tolstoy

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#884
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

4

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, one does not need a degree in physics to understand the concept of a controlled demolition and how they function. You have yet to prove the one or more you seem to believe in to even be necessary on 9/11, let alone to have actually occurred. You give us traces of theoretically existing explosives that no one else can seem to find and an ambiguous unproven plot involving a cast and crew bigger than Ben Hur as "proof" and yet you wonder why I question your sanity? I'm just being honest hon, you come off like a kook in a tin foil hat, passing eccentric and camping in downtown crazy with computer access and an inability to discern fact from fantasy.
And why exactly should anybody be concerned with proving anything to YOU?

Who the fuhk do you think you are? Some kind of a referee or something?

What you think matters very very little. And if you don't like what is expressed on this forum, so what?

Fuhk off and Shut The Fuhk Up!?!?!?!?!?

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Westbury, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#885
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

and who knows more about flimsy minds then you !?!?!?!?!?

NIST very clearly explained the brief ~2.5 seconds of near free fall accceleration and it;s not our problem if you can't understand it or refuse to understand it
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Flimsy minds will see everything as flimsy because without substance you have nothing to compare it to. So just be condescending to convince those other flimsy minds your argument has merit.
Im sure Wastewater and Charlie think you're brilliant.
For those who can think, here's what was missed by NIST.
A&E911 free fall proof of building 7
http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I
NIST admitting their free fall mistake
http://youtu.be/mtRlOVymmz8
Why NIST's investigation was unscientific.
http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg
But if you believe free fall is a natural by product of accidental structural failure of a building, nothing will convince you otherwise.
Condescension is easy, but
Insults Are Easier
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#886
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RADEKT wrote:
and who knows more about flimsy minds then you !?!?!?!?!?
NIST very clearly explained the brief ~2.5 seconds of near free fall accceleration and it;s not our problem if you can't understand it or refuse to understand it
<quoted text>
Prove that claim idiot boy !?!?!?!?!?

Since: Dec 09

Cleveland, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#887
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, one does not need a degree in physics to understand the concept of a controlled demolition and how they function. You have yet to prove the one or more you seem to believe in to even be necessary on 9/11, let alone to have actually occurred. You give us traces of theoretically existing explosives that no one else can seem to find and an ambiguous unproven plot involving a cast and crew bigger than Ben Hur as "proof" and yet you wonder why I question your sanity? I'm just being honest hon, you come off like a kook in a tin foil hat, passing eccentric and camping in downtown crazy with computer access and an inability to discern fact from fantasy.
All of the condescending "sweeties" and "hons" don't really work the same here as they do in certain other types of threads where you and I tend to argue on the same side of the fence. Failure to acknowledge questions of things that don't make sense doesn't make them go away.

As I've stated previously, I don't know who may have pulled off what. But I'm pretty sure these buildings were designed to withstand some fire. Look at pictures of the Oklahoma bombing. That's a pretty significantly damaged building, yet the rest of it remained standing. Nothing significant was seen hitting WTC7. No explosive aircraft fuel tanks. Just some fires on a few floors. But that building inexplicably fell in the same way as the others.

And take the time to look at some pictures of Penn. crash site, or the pentagon, especially BEFORE the front wall and roof collapse, and try to tell yourself it looks at all like a large passenger aircraft crashed there. I find it very hard to believe. And it's certainly not out of lunacy.

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Westbury, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#888
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

who said there were some fires on a few floors !?!?!?!?
MarkD_ wrote:
<quoted text>All of the condescending "sweeties" and "hons" don't really work the same here as they do in certain other types of threads where you and I tend to argue on the same side of the fence. Failure to acknowledge questions of things that don't make sense doesn't make them go away.
As I've stated previously, I don't know who may have pulled off what. But I'm pretty sure these buildings were designed to withstand some fire. Look at pictures of the Oklahoma bombing. That's a pretty significantly damaged building, yet the rest of it remained standing. Nothing significant was seen hitting WTC7. No explosive aircraft fuel tanks. Just some fires on a few floors. But that building inexplicably fell in the same way as the others.
And take the time to look at some pictures of Penn. crash site, or the pentagon, especially BEFORE the front wall and roof collapse, and try to tell yourself it looks at all like a large passenger aircraft crashed there. I find it very hard to believe. And it's certainly not out of lunacy.

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Westbury, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#889
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Read the NIST report on WTC 7 IGNORAMUS !!!
Guise Faux wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove that claim idiot boy !?!?!?!?!?
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#890
Feb 3, 2013
 
You mean this NIST report?

The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." [3]

These questions are not answered for simple reasons:

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4]

Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.

Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out "[t]he probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse." [5]

In other words, "Even without the modeling of the progressive collapse we had to postpone the publication of the reports four times so we just didn't have time to do that.

And besides, the lower parts of the buildings simply did not slow down the collapse, as everyone could see on TV, so why bother?"

In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if!-- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped.

If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed.

On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse.

Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble.

These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor.[8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 ºC are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated.

Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC." [9]

NIST's collapse creed, repeated eleven times with identical wording (and once with a slightly different one) in the report of project 6 dealing with the collapse sequences, is this:

"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued." [10]

In other words: "Once the top started coming down, it was so heavy that the damaged columns could not stop it. Neither could the undamaged columns of dozens of floors do that, it seems. But we didn't need to model that for we've all seen that down it came."

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

Thorough, open, independent? Hardly!?!?!?!?

Total hogwash.

A complete fraud and waste of taxpayer money.

There is nothing worthwhile in the NIST report.
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#891
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

A theme of vagueness and handwaving runs throughout the explanations of the collapses, including that by the The National Institute for Standards and Technology,(NIST), which spent more than $20,000,000 ostensibly to study the collapses.

The extent of NIST's explanation of the total collapses of the Twin Towers (which is identical in both cases) is the following:

Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.

NIST's theory is only the most recent and refined of a menu of theories advanced since the attack to defend the core tenet of the official story that the collapses were the result of the jetliner crashes.

Every one of these theories relies on handwaving as a substitute for quantitative analysis of the collapses.

The fires melted the structural steel of the Twin Towers.

The Twin Towers were crushed because their tops acted as pile drivers.

The Twin Towers collapsed because of a chain-reaction of pancaking floors.

The Twin Towers collapsed as fast as they did because a shockwave broke them up ahead of the falling rubble.

(Now this might be plausible if you consider a mini nuke buried 70 meters in the bedrock under the lowest sub-level.)

The collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were examples of progressive collapse.

The Twin Towers were shoddily constructed and therefore prone to collapse.

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/index.ht...

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Westbury, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#892
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In August 2008, NIST issued their report on the Structural Fire Response and
Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, for Public Comment.
This brief report contains feedback from the Council on Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat on the NIST report. The Council’s key interest in the NIST
study is an understanding of the collapse sequence and one of NIST's key
objectives, which was to "identify, as specifically as possible, areas in the
current building and fire codes, standards and practices that warrant revision.”
The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the
cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of the
probable causes. The Council has several technical questions about details of
the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that
the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns
resulting in global failure.

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.- David Scott, Chairman, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

I think I'll go with the CTBUH says instead of a foul mouthed loser in Cali
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#893
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

e x c e r p t
title: Structural engineer describes collapse of the World Trade Center towers
authors: Mark Shwarz

Hamburger and his colleagues have not yet determined which of these scenarios occurred on Sept. 11, but there is little doubt that the collapse of the upper floors of the WTC towers brought down both structures.

"Think of the impact of dropping a 25-story building straight down," Hamburger told the audience. "It was like a pile driver, which is why it collapsed as it did."
site: news-service.stanford.edu page: news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5...

e x c e r p t
title: WTC collapse forces skyscraper rethink
authors: Dr. David Whitehouse

The towers' central steel spines were weakened by the intense heat from the burning aviation fuel, and eventually gave way when they could no longer support the weight of the floors above the crash zones - that is the accepted analysis.

When those upper floors began to fall, they forced everything below them to collapse in a "piledriver" effect.

site: news.bbc.co.uk page: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1 579092.stm

Exercise: Find the Pile Driver

Can you find the pile driver in this image or any of the other images of the collapses of the Twin Towers?

Even if the pile driver is hidden within the dust cloud, it would only have a fraction of the mass of the former top of the building, since most of it was clearly falling outside of the building's profile.

Moreover it is noteworthy that the rubble falling outside of the tower's profile is falling at about the same rate at which the Tower is disappearing.

Even the largest and heaviest pieces of rubble at the bottom edges of the rubble cloud are falling less than twice as fast as rubble falling inside the Tower's profile.

But the rubble falling inside the Tower's profile is, according to the official explanation, crushing the building.

See for yourself:
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/piledriv...

Where’s the piledriver?
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#894
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RADEKT wrote:
In August 2008, NIST issued their report on the Structural Fire Response and
Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, for Public Comment.
This brief report contains feedback from the Council on Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat on the NIST report. The Council’s key interest in the NIST
study is an understanding of the collapse sequence and one of NIST's key
objectives, which was to "identify, as specifically as possible, areas in the
current building and fire codes, standards and practices that warrant revision.”
The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the
cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of the
probable causes. The Council has several technical questions about details of
the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that
the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns
resulting in global failure.
The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.- David Scott, Chairman, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
I think I'll go with the CTBUH says instead of a foul mouthed loser in Cali
Again what does it matter who YOU will go with?

You are nobody who believes whatever pablum the govie gives you.
A self described “WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”.

What you think is a foregone conclusion and means nothing.

Of course you go with what the govie tells you. You can't think for yourself.

Your "Master" is obvious. Your agenda is intact. Who cares ? Certainly not I !?!?!?!?!?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#895
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Alejandro wrote:
This chemical engineer independently found nanothermite in the WTC dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RrhSDgFtwCgXX
An apparently unpublished find by a guy with just a BS in Chemical engineering that is trying to raise money off his alleged find. Credibility? Little, if any at all.
Alejandro wrote:
I'm sure you had some sort of point you were trying to make and are offering me microscopic iron spheres as some sort of proof of a technology that you can't prove actually exists, let alone was used, but you seem to have forgotten it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#896
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Alejandro wrote:
hilarious! The government is speculating about the bldg's interior in their report and you accept that speculation as gospel truth, but when it comes to interpreting the stuff that you can see in videos, the outside of the bldg, you're clueless!
Honey, YOU are speculating that a merely theorized as existing nanothermite technology was used in controlled demolition of the building with absolutely no idea as to how or even when such explosives were installed in a building with access by people who worked in it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with absolutely no one noticing. I really don't mind breaking this to you hon, but your version of events, if you actually have one is far less credible than the government speculations as to the cause of the collapse.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#897
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Leo Tolstoy wrote:
And why exactly should anybody be concerned with proving anything to YOU?
Who the fuhk do you think you are? Some kind of a referee or something?
What you think matters very very little. And if you don't like what is expressed on this forum, so what?
Fuhk off and Shut The Fuhk Up!?!?!?!?!?
Pudding, you will never be man enough to make me, so you might as well put that little fantasy of yours to rest right now. If you don't like what I have to say, that is your problem, not mine dear. No one is forcing you to be on this site let alone forcing you to read and respond to my posts assh*le. I will continue to challenge these fools and their irrational flights of fancy whether you like it or not and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Buck Crick 732,433
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 6 min Naveen kumar 5,277
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 11 min ocxz 117,937
Last Word + 2 14 min killing time 482
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 15 min DeAngelo of Memphis 2,405
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 21 min Roberta G 173,254
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 21 min CunningLinguist 226,142
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 23 min mike 599,725
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr confrinting with ... 538,578
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr JudgeNJury 257,744
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••