user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
This is long, but take a minute to read it.
Most everyone now knows that Lovelynice, ColdCircuit, Tank_Girl and a couple of other usernames are really all the same person. Lets look at some facts and evidence to suppor what so many believe:
1). All are obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy
2). All seemingly highly crucial of USA, particularly the government (can’t fault them there)
3). All use identical words: shill, liar, “you’re lying” “stop telling lies” “strawman” “cite your sources, links and quotes.” They all use the same snide and rude comments and are very aggressive.
4). All pretty much just keep cutting and pasting their same exact words from ballot to ballot, essentially never actually showing new evidence or contributing anything new, but all have the nerve to demand from everyone else “evidence, sources, links and quotes.” Almost like they expect us to do their research for them
5). They call up their various user names to protect each other. You might have words with Lovelynice and then out of the blue, get hit with negative karma from ColdCircuit or Tank_Girl, even though you have never exchanged a word with them and it has been weeks since they were last on.
6). Their various aliases will also come blasting onto a ballot, usually one in which you are exchanging words with Lovelynice and they will not comment on the ballot or participate, but will instead attack you and pretty much do all the dirty work for Lovelynice Why? How do “they” know that words were being exchanged with a user and Lovelnice? Hmmmm.
7). All are very combative and rude to others, using name calling and negative karma, yet when anyone gives it back to them, they all start with the victim mentality and have the unbelievable nerve to act like they are the ones being abused or whine when they get negative Karma
8). We know that Tank_Girl, Cold Circuit, Numanx, Lovelynice and Meteor7 all live in Japan. Here are a few comments in relation to that fact:
National Age of Consent is Japan is currently 13 (since 1999). Prior to 1999 there was NO age of consent. I studied the law on this. In ONLY SEVEN prefectures (equivalent to states), it is illegal for OTHER people to give payment for sex with a girl under the age of 18. She can take the payment, but the payee can go to jail. The later law was created in most cases to stop "enjo-kosai" which is otherwise known as "compensated dating".
by Tank_Girl on Thu Apr 20, 06 10:03pm
The average Japanese IQ is 105, but I'm more impressed by the people of Finland.
by Coldcircuit on Thu Jul 13, 06 10:09pm
If you were talking about life in Japan, I'd have to say "Men" because Japanese men work incredibly long hours, but most Japanese women become housewives (which isn't easy, but they aren't dying from "Karoshi" which means "working to death")
by Coldcircuit on Wed Jul 12, 06 5:07pm
Yes I do. I happen to be half-Japanese and have lived in Japan for years.
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 18, 06 3:52pm
LOL. Actually, the speculation about the WTC and the whole 911 event being a hoax to get the USA into a war that the Bush administration wanted, has been rife in the commercial newsmedia in Japan, and throughout Asia. The Japanese national broadcaster, NHK has been the only news media organisation that hasnt mentioned it. The others just continue these days as if the whole event was a nasty hoax and react to all US media reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, and 911 related events with a great deal of scepticism. Even the government broadcaster (representing the Japanese government oppinion) will sometimes say things like "In the US media report they say this, of course its a blatant lie; here is what we have been able to discern of the real situation by intelligent analysis from many other sources instead".
by Numanx on Fri Dec 17, 04 6:12am
MORE SIMILARITIES
Note the comments below and note the words: “empirical data,” “never in the entire history,” “not once in the entire history,” “steel-framed tower…” “NIST” “Simulated,” “controlled demolitions.” Also note the use of caps by both ColdCircuit and Lovelynice to stress their rage?
NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel & concrete tower buildings has it been possible for a building to collapse at near freefall speed into their own footprint without it being a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
You should also be aware, that NIST could not prove it happened without an controlled demolition either. Their simulations repeatedly could not simulate the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2, with the empirical evidence, and they finally gave up and stopped at "poised for collapse" because the buildings would not collapse in the simulations. Everything after that in their report is just assumption to explain WHAT THEY COULD NOT SIMULATE WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA!
by Coldcircuit on Mon Jul 17, 06 6:24pm
NOT ONCE in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF STEEL-FRAMED TOWER BUILDINGS has such a building collapsed at nearly freefall into it's own footprint without a controlled demolition.
I dare you to cite such an event and prove it happened.
by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 21, 06 9:12pm
Let's not forget that nobody has yet simulated or modelled those collapses while ignoring controlled demlitions. NIST didn't, they stopped the simulations because they couldn't simulate the collapses with the empirical data, even in their worst case scenario! They gave up! Instead they added pages and pages of nonsense explanations, suppositions, and assumpions to cover what they couldn't simulate. ………Dr Francis Green is a chemist, not an engineer or a physicist, and he did a similar trick, deviating from real data to force his formula to simulate what was impossible with the empirical data. Nobody has been able to simulate those collapses, except as controlled demolitions.
by Lovelynice on Sun Aug 20, 06 7:55pm
Note the comments by Lovelynice in the following ballot, made on August 25, 2006. Keep in mind Lovelynice supposedly only joined the site on Dec. 13, 2005:
HOW DID SO MANY PEOPLE GET IT SO WRONG ABOUT 9-11?
serious ballot by wideheadofknowledge
ACTIVE Thu Aug 24, 06 - Mon Feb 09, 09
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 25, 06 5:53am
In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 25, 06 5:54am
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 25, 06 5:54am
'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators//NYDailyNews
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 25, 06 5:54am
Now, please notice the comments made by Numanx, on December 10, 2004, and you can see they are identical to the ones Lovelynice made above.
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED?
by Guest_597cc
ACTIVE Sun Jun 20, 04 - Fri Mar 16, 07
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York CityÂ’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
by Numanx on Fri Dec 10, 04 3:51pm
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
by Numanx on Fri Dec 10, 04 3:59pm
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
by Numanx on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:00pm
'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators//NYDailyNews
by Numanx on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:05pm
NOTE THE BALLOTS AND THE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL COMMENTS:
Note Tank_Girls comment on this ballot on Nov. 28 2004
OKAY, CERTAIN USERS LOVE TO PROMOTE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. WHICH OUTLANDISH THEORY ARE WE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT NEXT?
interesting ballot by jappy
ACTIVE Thu Nov 25, 04 - Tue Aug 21, 07
Kevin Ryan (an executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center) seriously questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. - From an email to Dr Frank Gayle (director of the government team)
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
by Tank_Girl on Sun Nov 28, 04 4:23am
NOW NOTE ON THIS BALLOT, NUMANX’s COMMENT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO TANK_GIRL’s ON Dec. 13 2004. Pay particular attention to the very last paragraphs.
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED?
by Guest_597cc
ACTIVE Sun Jun 20, 04 - Fri Mar 16, 07
Kevin Ryan (an executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center) seriously questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. - From an email to Dr Frank Gayle (director of the government team)
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
NOTICE it was pnly 250C (500F).
by Numanx on Mon Dec 13, 04 5:3
Meteor7 and Daughter_of_Khitai make the exact same comment on different ballots. Daughter_of_Khitai on May 4, 2005 and Meteor7 about 4 months later on September 9, 2005. Shows they are the same person.
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED?
by Guest_597cc
ACTIVE Sun Jun 20, 04 - Fri Mar 16, 07
The Betty Ong call is a strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;
MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?
BETTY ONG: Flight 12.
(a bit later, she's on a seat that doesn't exist)
FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?
BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: At 3R.
(There was no seat 3R on that plane. I checked to confirm this too)
Look at the time scale: The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. This was BEFORE the hijacking began! (Of course, the story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty rung up).
There are so many intrinsic oddities in the call and contradictions to Amy Sweeney's call that for me it's obvious that both calls were faked and the women doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight. The claimed times of the calls are way too long to be credible anyway, as if real hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for 25 minutes. Not believable.
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking.
No way! I don't believe it.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Wed May 04, 05 2:04pm
WHEN ARE THE CONSPIRACY NUTS GOING TO TAKE THEIR MEDICATION AND STOP SAYING THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
serious ballot by Corrupt
ACTIVE Fri Sep 09, 05 - Sat Sep 09, 06
The Betty Ong call is a strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;
MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?
BETTY ONG: Flight 12.
(a bit later, she's on a seat that doesn't exist)
FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?
BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: At 3R.
(There was no seat 3R on that plane. I checked to confirm this too)
Look at the time scale: The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. This was BEFORE the hijacking began! (Of course, the story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty rung up).
There are so many intrinsic oddities in the call and contradictions to Amy Sweeney's call that for me it's obvious that both calls were faked and the women doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight. The claimed times of the calls are way too long to be credible anyway, as if real hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for 25 minutes. Not believable.
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking.
No way! I don't believe it.
by Meteor7 on Fri Sep 09, 05 1:11pm
ColdCircuit and Lovelynice make virtually the exact same comment on different ballots. ColdCircuit August 7, 2005 and Lovelynice a year later on September 9, 2005. Shows they are the same person. Note the first part of the paragraph that starts with “The Japanese first…”
TRUMAN NUKING JAPAN - HOW MUCH WAS HE MOTIVATED BY TRYING TO SCARE SOVIETS?
by Tommo
ACTIVE Thu Aug 17, 06 - Fri Aug 17, 07
The Japanese government had tried repeatedly to offer surrender with only one condition; the emperor would be safe. Guess what; that's exactly the condition that the USA accepted at the end anyway
The Japanese first offered surrender straight after the Potsdam declaration. The ONLY condition they attached to their surrender was that the emperor would be protected. The USA refused to accept the Japanese offer of surrender. The Japanese tried again at least 3 times, two of those times via the Russians but the Russians apparently didn't pass the Japanese surrender offer onto the USA. The Japanese government also offered surrender by radio broadcasts, but again the leaders of the government of the USA refused to talk about it and pretended that they only wanted an unconditional surrender.
If the USA wanted to simply demonstrate the weapon, they could've used it at sea and told the Japanese military "Watch this!" and given some coordinates for where the bomb would be.
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, years later, declared that there was no need to attack Japan with "that awful thing,"
Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's wartime chief of staff, who chaired the Joint Chiefs, said "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ... in being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
The popular claim that the dropping of the nuclear bombs saved a million lives was fictional BS; McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.
by Lovelynice on Thu Aug 17, 06 9:27am
WAS THE ATOMIC BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI NECESSARY?
serious ballot by FiddleFaddleOnLSD
ACTIVE Sat Aug 06, 05 - Thu Aug 09, 07
Actually, the Japanese first offered surrender straight after the Potsdam declaration. The ONLY condition they attached to their surrender was that the emperor would be protected. The USA refused to accept the Japanese offer of surrender. The Japanese tried again at least 3 times, two of those times via the Russians but the Russians apparently didn't pass the Japanese surrender offer onto the USA. The Japanese government also offered surrender by radio broadcasts, but again the leaders of the government of the USA refused to talk about it and pretended that they only wanted an unconditional surrender.
In the final result, the single and only condition that the Japanese had asked for in their surrender (protection of the emperor) was in fact honoured by the USA anyway. But they could've accepted the Japanese offer of surrender weeks earlier.
The bombs were utterly unnecessary for defeating Japan.
by Coldcircuit on Sun Aug 07, 05 7:13pm
No one cares what your beliefs on 9/11 are. Totally your right to believe what you want. Where everyone has an issue with you is that you're the first to call people liar and shill. You're the first to go on the attack and shout people down and belittle them. You're the first to demand facts and evdidence, that once given, you proceed to scream at the person that they're making it up or that they're lying shills. We're all just a little tired of the abuse.
You do all this to other users behind fake usernames and to accuse people of being liars, shills and aliases, when that is what you're actually doing, it more hypocricy than most of us will let slide anymmore.
You should leard to be civil and not so agressive.
Meteor7 and Daughter_of_Khitai make the exact same comment on different ballots. Daughter_of_Khitai on May 4, 2005 and Meteor7 about 4 months later on September 9, 2005.
It's a copy and paste from the same webpage. That's why it's the same comment.
^ HE ADMITS IT FINALLY. LIKE ALL THE REST OF THE ALIAS/friends.
re; cut and pastes,
FF: Meteor7, that is a direct paste from a neo-Nazi website.
Meteor7: No, it isn't.
FF: Where did you get it from then?
Meteor7: (dead silence)
This ballot is a troll's ballot
1- false accusations
2- it's only purpose appears to be more of the same continuing personal attacks by Beauregard on Lovelynice
3- Yes and Yes are not choices. It's not a ballot.
4- I'm surprised this 'ballot' which is nothing more than more of the same personal attacks by Beauregard hasn't been wiped. It should be.
Good night. I have a radio show to do in the morning and have to be up early.
This non ballot is pointless.
Fucking hell Beauregard havent you been paying attention mate?
If you say anything to the conspiracy theorists they watch every word carefully. If they see one, just one anomaly in a statement they assume that they the whole statement or document is a lie. Therefore posting a long argument is like throwing petrol on a fire. If by any chance you ever nail them on any matter of substance you will be accused of answering "straw man" arguments of your own making.
Reasoning with a conspiracy theorist is like wrestling with smoke. You cannot ever win with them. They will never see reason.
You know, I would still love to believe that Ken from Dublin isn't one of these guys, but the way he keeps defending this user(s) who is doing this... I just don't know. There is NO doubt in my mind that this is the work of one, at most two people, using perhaps up to a dozen aliases. It's hard to keep track of all of them, and it's really sad, to be honest.
NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel & concrete tower buildings has it been possible for a building to collapse at near freefall speed into their own footprint without it being a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
You should also be aware, that NIST could not prove it happened without an controlled demolition either. Their simulations repeatedly could not simulate the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2, with the empirical evidence, and they finally gave up and stopped at "poised for collapse" because the buildings would not collapse in the simulations. Everything after that in their report is just assumption to explain WHAT THEY COULD NOT SIMULATE WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA!
by Coldcircuit on Mon Jul 17, 06 6:24pm
NOT ONCE in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF STEEL-FRAMED TOWER BUILDINGS has such a building collapsed at nearly freefall into it's own footprint without a controlled demolition.
I dare you to cite such an event and prove it happened.
by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 21, 06 9:12pm
^^ Yeah, and those are copy and pastes from another web site? No. Its you.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
NOTICE it was pnly 250C (500F).
by Numanx on Mon Dec 13, 04 5:3
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
by Tank_Girl on Sun Nov 28, 04 4:23am
^^ And these?
The Japanese government had tried repeatedly to offer surrender with only one condition; the emperor would be safe. Guess what; that's exactly the condition that the USA accepted at the end anyway
The Japanese first offered surrender straight after the Potsdam declaration. The ONLY condition they attached to their surrender was that the emperor would be protected. The USA refused to accept the Japanese offer of surrender. The Japanese tried again at least 3 times, two of those times via the Russians but the Russians apparently didn't pass the Japanese surrender offer onto the USA. The Japanese government also offered surrender by radio broadcasts, but again the leaders of the government of the USA refused to talk about it and pretended that they only wanted an unconditional surrender.
If the USA wanted to simply demonstrate the weapon, they could've used it at sea and told the Japanese military "Watch this!" and given some coordinates for where the bomb would be.
by Lovelynice on Thu Aug 17, 06 9:27am
Actually, the Japanese first offered surrender straight after the Potsdam declaration. The ONLY condition they attached to their surrender was that the emperor would be protected. The USA refused to accept the Japanese offer of surrender. The Japanese tried again at least 3 times, two of those times via the Russians but the Russians apparently didn't pass the Japanese surrender offer onto the USA. The Japanese government also offered surrender by radio broadcasts, but again the leaders of the government of the USA refused to talk about it and pretended that they only wanted an unconditional surrender.
In the final result, the single and only condition that the Japanese had asked for in their surrender (protection of the emperor) was in fact honoured by the USA anyway. But they could've accepted the Japanese offer of surrender weeks earlier.
The bombs were utterly unnecessary for defeating Japan.
by Coldcircuit on Sun Aug 07, 05 7:13pm
^^ And these? Its obvious you're tryin your hardest to back-peddle and try to lie your way out of it. Face it, you've been shown to be a liar. Just like how you accuse everyone else of being a liar, or paid government shill, or an idiot or a fool or some other insult. It looks like you're the liar who has been telling lies.
Seriously Beauregard, step backwards slowly, dont make eye contact and walk away from the crazy people. I have.
evertyhing else you have posted only demonstrates that when quoting facts and statements (example: the Kevin Ryan statement), the same quotes and facts will be repeated as they are going to be the same. It would be deception to change a quoted statement from another person.
Equally deceptive as taking some one's comments out of the context in which they were written in order to make a personal attack against them (example; Beauregard's stalking behaviour personal attacks against Lovelynice in multiple ballots without ever citing any facts related to the ballot subjects).
When you don't have facts to argue with, Beauregard demonstrates the option of dishonesty; insult and attack the other person instead.
When are you going to use facts and logic in your debates on the 9-11 ballots that you post your personal attacks on?
We're waiting and I'm getting old waiting.
by Coldcircuit on Fri Sep 01, 06 7:43am
^^ Really? Are you certain? Because how do you explain the identical comments on the Japanese surrend you and Lovelnice (you) make? Google this line from your comments :
The ONLY condition they attached to their surrender was that the emperor would be protected.
The only 3 places it comes up are indicated below. 2 of them are Best&Worst and the other is some site and surprise, the author of it is one Lovelynice.
1st Google Result is:
Rate this ballot.Truman Nuking Japan - How much was he motivated ...bestandworst.com is user rated best and worst list database. ... Ballot: TRUMAN NUKING JAPAN - HOW MUCH WAS HE MOTIVATED BY TRYING TO SCARE SOVIETS? ...
www.bestandworst.com/rate/ballot.php?id=100641 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
2nd Google result is:
TRUMAN NUKING JAPAN - HOW MUCH WAS HE MOTIVATED BY TRYING ...After Victory against NAzi Germany in Europe, The soviet Union continued the carniage in the countries that they had claimed to have freed from the Germans.
www.bestandworst.com/v/100641.htm - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
3rd result is:
lustfulroleplay :: View topic - Ring of Desire - History and other ...
So in fact, you can claim all you want there are no facts in this ballot, but that is all the ballot has. Facts. You can't claim that those comment both of you made, identical and on different ballots and at different times, are copied from any web site.
You made them first with your ColdCircuilt name on August 7, 2005 and then just copied them and used them again as your Lovelynice name on August 17, 2006.
For someone who demands proof, facts, links and sources from everyone, you sure are quick to deny facts when they show you to be the real liar.
Great. You've shown that you copy and paste comments too.
Btw, this for example;
((MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?
BETTY ONG: Flight 12.
(a bit later, she's on a seat that doesn't exist)
FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?
BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: At 3R.))
can be found on websites dealing with the cellphone calls EVERYWHERE.
by Coldcircuit on Fri Sep 01, 06 7:43am
^ Sure, but what you leave out is the fact that the comment is identical. Even if one of them had copied the top part, the dialog part from a web site, that still does not explain how Daughter_of_Khitai posted hers on Wed May 2004 and then Meteor7 posted the same exact comment on Fri Sep 09, 2005.
Lets examine this particular part of the comments:
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking.
No way! I don't believe it.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Wed May 04, 05 2:04pm
AND
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking.
No way! I don't believe it.
by Meteor7 on Fri Sep 09, 05 1:11pm
^^^^ Now, google
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking?
Where is the only place it comes up? On Best&Worst. So, how do you explain that away? Easy. They're the same person and they did NOT get it from some web site and just HAPPEN to both use the EXACT same quote. Any time you want to be truthful, let us know.
Stalking? Hardly. Google search. Anyone can do it. Stop telling lies about you? Stop being a liar! You want evidence and proof, you have it. You can't escape the facts and they are presented for all to see here.
And now I notice your new victim stance is to be you're being stalked? Get real and be very, very careful with making such statements.
If you're mad that you've been exposed ad being deceitful on this site, you should have thought about that before you went around insulting everyone and labeling them liar, shill, moron, fool and rude insulting personal attacks like that.
Facts are facts and anyone can plainly see you and your aliases have been exposed. The evidence speaks for itself.
If you're mad that its been exposed that you made that same comment on on another web site, tough. Thats the point with Google. You post it and it becomes part of cyber space available for all to see.
Grow up.
Holy sh*t!
Notice how these neoconscripts use the the phoney argument/accusations of my identity to try and discredit me and other truth movement users such as the brilliant Lovelynice and Coldcircuit of username duplicity, the sad last resort of lie mercenaries who are too spineless to confront us on our findings and facts, as if it made any difference to the intrinsically honest nature of our collective research.
We don't need to resort to the dirty tactics of what you lot no doubt get up to all the time, because you see we have TRUTH and FACTS on our side, something that you shills will NEVER have.
"we have TRUTH and FACTS on our side, something that you shills can only dream of ever having."
by Ken_from_Dublin on Fri Sep 01, 06 8:49pm
Far from it. You have lies, speculation, events that you can't explain and/or don't understand, misinformation, misdirection and pure, plain old ignorance.
You have nothing.
{You have nothing.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sat Sep 02, 06 1:42am}
Don't tell lies.
You already know that we have cited plenty of evidence
"You already know that we have cited plenty of evidence"
by Lovelynice
You certainly have provided us with lots to read, evaluate and investigate - I'll give you that.
However, there is not one shred of fact to back up your claims! They amount to nothing but conjecture, lies, distortions and logical fallacies!
You have no regard for the truth whatsoever.
Who do you think you're fooling Lovelynice? Please give us a little credit. Lets examine this again. Note that I say that the comments below are similar. Too similar in fact, to have been made by two different people. Have a look again :
MORE SIMILARITIES
Note the comments below and note the words:
“empirical data,”
“never in the entire history,”
“not once in the entire history,”
“steel-framed tower…”
“NIST”
“Simulated,”
“controlled demolitions.”
Also note the use of caps by both ColdCircuit and Lovelynice to stress their rage?
NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel & concrete tower buildings has it been possible for a building to collapse at near freefall speed into their own footprint without it being a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
You should also be aware, that NIST could not prove it happened without an controlled demolition either. Their simulations repeatedly could not simulate the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2, with the empirical evidence, and they finally gave up and stopped at "poised for collapse" because the buildings would not collapse in the simulations. Everything after that in their report is just assumption to explain WHAT THEY COULD NOT SIMULATE WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA!
by Coldcircuit on Mon Jul 17, 06 6:24pm
NOT ONCE in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF STEEL-FRAMED TOWER BUILDINGS has such a building collapsed at nearly freefall into it's own footprint without a controlled demolition.
I dare you to cite such an event and prove it happened.
by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 21, 06 9:12pm
Let's not forget that nobody has yet simulated or modelled those collapses while ignoring controlled demlitions. NIST didn't, they stopped the simulations because they couldn't simulate the collapses with the empirical data, even in their worst case scenario! They gave up! Instead they added pages and pages of nonsense explanations, suppositions, and assumpions to cover what they couldn't simulate. ………Dr Francis Green is a chemist, not an engineer or a physicist, and he did a similar trick, deviating from real data to force his formula to simulate what was impossible with the empirical data. Nobody has been able to simulate those collapses, except as controlled demolitions.
by Lovelynice on Sun Aug 20, 06 7:55pm
^^^ Now in your recent comment in which you try to cover your tracks, you try to pretend (you love that word) that the above comments are actually two different viewpoints. They are not. In fact, what you are saying, since you posted both, is that:
1). As writtend in both comments: NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel & concrete tower buildings has it been possible for a building to collapse at near freefall speed into their own footprint without it being a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
2. As conveyed in both comments: NIST could not prove it happened without an controlled demolition either.
3. As conveyed in both comments, they tried and gave up: Their simulations repeatedly could not simulate the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2, with the empirical evidence, and they finally gave up and stopped at "poised for collapse" because the buildings would not collapse in the simulations. Everything after that in their report is just assumption to explain WHAT THEY COULD NOT SIMULATE WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA!
4. What happened then? As conveyed in both comments, they gave up: Everything after that in their report is just assumption to explain WHAT THEY COULD NOT SIMULATE WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA!
Try as you may to pull the wool over all of our eyes with double talk just won't work. Oddly, you are silent about the identical comments.
Oh my gawd, I actually have to agree with Grapost. He makes a good logical point despite his nasty way of putting it.
by Lovelynice on Sun Jul 23, 06 8:36pm
OH MY GAWD, NOW THE FOOL IS CLAIMING THAT THE MAN HAS AN INFLATABLE NOSE!
by Tank_Girl on Sat Jul 15, 06 2:57am
There you go again engaging in personal attacks and never citing any facts. You can keep repeating my posts and other peoples as much as you like while pretending that everyone who argues against the 9/11 Official Lies is the same person, but since WE AREN'T, and you know it, then it's obvious that you have NOTHING ELSE TO ARGUE WITH.
You'd get further if you stopped engaging in personal attacks and pretending games, and actaully debated with facts.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH ABU ZARQAWI IF HE IS CAUGHT ALIVE?
by manofletters
Too late to catch him. He's dead, even if some political fools like to pretend otherwise. The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he is still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him, which is impossible since the guy is dead. DEAD. Completely dead. Never coming back and never will kind of dead. Can't torture him, because he's dead. Can't do any of those things listed on the ballot so far, because he's dead. Get over it, and stop being so gullible about believing that he's alive and leading al-Queda because he isn't.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Mon Oct 04, 04 7:34am
NOW THAT ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD...
by ABC
ACTIVE Thu Jun 08, 06 - Fri Jun 08, 07
The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he was still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video.
by Coldcircuit on Jun 12,2006 10:33:45 am
^^ More proof that we're dealing with multiple aliases here.
Found another
WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH ABU ZARQAWI IF HE IS CAUGHT ALIVE?
by manofletters
ACTIVE Tue Aug 03, 04 - Sun Jan 30, 05
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video. If he turns up alive, then he's either immortal, or an undead vampire.
by Numanx on Sat Sep 11, 04 6:47am
^^
Oh look, when ColdCircuit wrote virtually the same thing on June 12, 2006 in this ballot : WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH ABU ZARQAWI IF HE IS CAUGHT ALIVE?
He/She must have forgotten he/she had already written that very same line, almost word-for-word, as Numanx in the ballot shown above
Here again is what she/he wrote as his/her ColdCircuit alias on June 12, 2006 :
NOW THAT ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD...
by ABC
ACTIVE Thu Jun 08, 06 - Fri Jun 08, 07
“…………Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video.”
by Coldcircuit on Jun 12,2006 10:33:45 am :
WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH ABU ZARQAWI IF HE IS CAUGHT ALIVE?
by manofletters
ACTIVE Tue Aug 03, 04 - Sun Jan 30, 05
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video. If he turns up alive, then he's either immortal, or an undead vampire.
by Numanx on Sat Sep 11, 04 6:47am
Too late to catch him. He's dead, even if some political fools like to pretend otherwise.
The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house.
The claims that he is still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him, which is impossible since the guy is dead. DEAD. Completely dead. Never coming back and never will kind of dead.
Can't torture him, because he's dead. Can't do any of those things listed on the ballot so far, because he's dead. Get over it, and stop being so gullible about believing that he's alive and leading al-Queda because he isn't.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Mon Oct 04, 04 7:34am
NOW THAT ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD...
by ABC
ACTIVE Thu Jun 08, 06 - Fri Jun 08, 07
The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he was still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video.
by Coldcircuit on Jun 12,2006 10:33:45 am
^^ Okay since Lovelynice can't seem to read. Above are the 3 comments by 3 different users on 3 different dates. Here are the parts of the comments that you just can’t explain away as coincidence, now can you? No, you cannot:
The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he is still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Mon Oct 04, 04 7:34am
The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he was still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him
by Coldcircuit on Jun 12,2006 10:33:45 am
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video
Coldcircuit on Jun 12,2006 10:33:45 am
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video
by Numanx on Sat Sep 11, 04 6:47am
So Lovelynice, to make it easier for you to understand, though I suspect you already do, none of us buy the lie that those 3 different users, on 2 different ballots and on 3 differentdates in 2004 and 2006), just happened to have made pretty much the same comments. Sorry. Not buying it. And you if you think you can just deny it and it makes it true, then you really are arrogant. Everyone can read and see the truth. For someone who calls so many people liar, well it looks like you’re the liar.
So if this is a troll ballot, here’s a suggestion: Stay off of it.
Wow! Probably the best ballot I've seen here. Well done Beauregard!
Proves I'm guilty of cut and paste. So what?
(Well done Beauregard!
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Thu Sep 07, 06 12:14am)
More like what a lying fool you are Beauregard.
What I find particularly odd is that you would comment on this very old ballot Lovelynice. What do you do, troll around looking for these closed and old ballots just to post some ridiculous comment? And calling me a lying fool? You're the lying fool, using all of your aliases and forgetting to mask your words. How long are you going to keep this absurd charade up Lovelynice? No, DHOK, you and your aliases are the lying fools. Sad creatures.
Beauregard, all you are doing is engaging in Ad Hominem attack which is meaningless to debate. You can claim all day long for the next million years that I am Lovelynice, but sadly for your claims it will be never come true.
This is why I called a liar.
Instead of getting all weird and making strange paranoid accusations as to why I posted on this old ballot, you could've asked and I would've told you.
I was actually looking for a comment by Coldcircuit that he posted on this ballot. That's the only reason that I even noticed this ballot. If I'd known about it before, I would've posted on it. Since you seemed to have spent so much effort telling lies about me, the least you could've done would be send a private message at the time when this ballot was first posted offering me the right of reply to your unfounded accusations.
You didn't offer any right of reply, tried probably to avoid me knowing about it, and therefore I called you a liar.
"Oh my Gawd" is a common exclamation in British English. Australians use it. New Zealanders use it. I've even heard Pakistanis use it.
Claiming that use of "Oh my Gawd" shows that Lovelynice and Tank-Girl are the same person is pointless.
And if they happen to visit the same sites, as Coldcircuit pointed out, then of course they will copy & paste the same paragraphs.
Other people do that too. Ken from Dublin used to do it even more. I noticed that FiddleFaddleOnLSD and wideheadofknowledge both copy and pasted the exact same comment about Glynn in the past 2-3 days. Does that make them the same person? I don't think it does. They just used the same source, visited the same website.
Btw, why are there no ballot choices on this ballot?
WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH ABU ZARQAWI IF HE IS CAUGHT ALIVE?
by manofletters
Too late to catch him. He's dead, even if some political fools like to pretend otherwise. The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he is still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him, which is impossible since the guy is dead. DEAD. Completely dead. Never coming back and never will kind of dead. Can't torture him, because he's dead. Can't do any of those things listed on the ballot so far, because he's dead. Get over it, and stop being so gullible about believing that he's alive and leading al-Queda because he isn't.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Mon Oct 04, 04 7:34am
NOW THAT ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD...
by ABC
ACTIVE Thu Jun 08, 06 - Fri Jun 08, 07
The Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who had a prosthetic leg) was killed by the USA during their early bombing campaign in April 2003 when they blew up his house. The claims that he was still alive are false, and there are four COMPLETELY DIFFERENT voices on the beheading videos and audio-tapes that have all been claimed as being him. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed back in April 2003, over 1 & 1/2 years before the Bush & Blair lying govts started blaming him for the Nick Berg Beheading video.
by Coldcircuit on Jun 12,2006 10:33:45 am
^^ More proof that we're dealing with multiple aliases here.
Meteor7 and Daughter_of_Khitai make the exact same comment on different ballots.
Daughter_of_Khitai on May 4, 2005 and Meteor7 about 4 months later on September 9, 2005. Shows they are the same person.
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED?
by Guest_597cc
ACTIVE Sun Jun 20, 04 - Fri Mar 16, 07
The Betty Ong call is a strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;
MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?
BETTY ONG: Flight 12.
(a bit later, she's on a seat that doesn't exist)
FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?
BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: At 3R.
(There was no seat 3R on that plane. I checked to confirm this too)
Look at the time scale: The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. This was BEFORE the hijacking began! (Of course, the story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty rung up).
There are so many intrinsic oddities in the call and contradictions to Amy Sweeney's call that for me it's obvious that both calls were faked and the women doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight. The claimed times of the calls are way too long to be credible anyway, as if real hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for 25 minutes. Not believable.
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking.
No way! I don't believe it.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Wed May 04, 05 2:04pm
WHEN ARE THE CONSPIRACY NUTS GOING TO TAKE THEIR MEDICATION AND STOP SAYING THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
serious ballot by Corrupt
ACTIVE Fri Sep 09, 05 - Sat Sep 09, 06
The Betty Ong call is a strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;
MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?
BETTY ONG: Flight 12.
(a bit later, she's on a seat that doesn't exist)
FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?
BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: At 3R.
(There was no seat 3R on that plane. I checked to confirm this too)
Look at the time scale: The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. This was BEFORE the hijacking began! (Of course, the story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty rung up).
There are so many intrinsic oddities in the call and contradictions to Amy Sweeney's call that for me it's obvious that both calls were faked and the women doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight. The claimed times of the calls are way too long to be credible anyway, as if real hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for 25 minutes. Not believable.
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking.
No way! I don't believe it.
by Meteor7 on Fri Sep 09, 05 1:11pm
Facts speak for themselves. No way you both made the exact same comment so far apart. You've been caught and everyone on this site has seen the proof.
All you've shown is that people have copied and pasted from the same sites.
You haven't shown that they're the same person. You haven't cited any information about Operating Systems, Browsers, and IP addresses. Even if the IP addresses occassionally overlap it means nothing by itself because most people have dynamic IPs. Please cite information regarding the Operating Systems which they use, and the Browsers which they use.
This entire ballot is only an Ad Hominem argument, a tactic of making personal attack against the people instead of dealing with the facts which they have stated.
As Coldcircuit said before;
(Proves I'm guilty of cut and paste. So what?
by Coldcircuit on Tue Nov 14, 06 4:31am)
Well? What's his IP address, Operating System, Browser? What part of the world is he in? If it's the same COUNTRY, that's meaningless. If he's in the same CITY, that's meaningless too.
You need to show that he's using the same exact computer.
Lovelynice was accused of being Passiveson by no less than a Maintainer. Surely IC could see the IP addresses were different, but he immediately rated her down virtually into oblivion out of sheer spite. As far as I know, he never apologized for this, even when it became thoroughly clear that he was wrong.
Britvic55 made the same accusation against me, claiming that I was Passiveson - which was, and is, totally untrue.
I have no idea why he even jumped to that conclusion.
The reality is, I don't have to show "Operating Systems, Browsers, and IP addresses." Not at all.
You always throw up unsupported "evidence" in your arguments and claim that is fact. You ususally cite unsubstantiated sources and you usually claim that everythink you show is fact.
So this is the same case. I showed a tremendous amount of evidence that points to the same conclusion that you are all the same person.
You can't have it both ways DOK. You can't refute everyone's facts, opinions, etc. as being "lies" and wrong and then put up your own views and opinions and claim they are fact and real. You just cannot have it both ways. If you can do it, so can we. In this case, many have come to the conclusion based on a very abundant amount of evidence that points to the conclusion that you are all the same people. Circumstantial evidence, when present in large volumes, usually means it is safe to assume it is fact.
You say "so we cut and paste" like it was acceptable, when you yourself have attacked people for doing just that. And no one is buying it. Sorry to say, if you expect us to believe that you all just copy and paste each other's identical words, you must think us all to be ignorant. So we don't need to show anything more than the already clear evidence that has been presented.
This entire ballot is only an Ad Hominem argument, a tactic of making personal attack against the people instead of dealing with the facts which they have stated.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Tue Aug 21, 07 5:46pm
Which is something you do all the time, regardless of which user name you are signed in with. If ad hominem attacks is good enough for you to use, then they're good enough for me to use as well. But this is not an attack, it's stating fact so as to level the playing field and let others that you attack know that you use multiple user names to try and back the other up, so as to make it look like many others are of the same view as you. It's all just you.
Received karma rating of : -5 from Daughter_of_Khitai
For the Ballot comment#1176355 @ Bestandworst.com.
SPAM - telling lies is what you do apparently
Yes, and if you want a Karma war, you can have one.
Okay DOK. Here is a direct challenge to you. You seem to think you are free to post your BS and then when others post facts, you say they are not facts and proceed to demand proof.
Here are 2 comments you made. I demand to see your proof of these accusations you make against another user.
For a good example of FiddleFaddlOnLSD vote spamming and being caught, see ballot 112757
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Tue Aug 21, 07 2:21am
More of him being caught out the discussion on ballot 115603
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Tue Aug 21, 07 2:22am
So DOK, show your proof, or are you just engaging in AD HOMINEM attacks as you accuse me of? Prove what you accuse him of please.
Hey daughter_of_cack, IC and Britvic are the same person. Didn't you check the ip's?
By the way, I didn't accuse lovelynice of being pASSiveson, I accused Lovelynice of being that fat tub of lard Ken_from_dublin. Because she started giving me shit when I was arguin' with him/it whatever she is. Makes perfect sense to me.
I accused you of being pASSiveson for much the same reaseon. Have you and your aliases got that, or should I write it down in red crayon for you?
^ Wow, you sure know a lot about these people.
I've been coming to B&W since early 2003 and I couldn't tell you what operating systems most of the people, who I talk to, are using.
You're either a nosey bastard or.... well, you know the alternative. (smile:sneakyasswink)
That's really wonderful Beauregard, so why is it that your maintainer alias, whoever you really are, has been DELETING my posts that reply to your accusations?
Is it because you don't like anyone knowing the truth?
Okay, so you want to continue with the Ad Hominem campaign. Well, you really are proving me right....
All of this you're posting now has been dealt with already.
So, how about I just totally ignore everything you say from now on, and mention FACTS which are related the real argument that I was having with wideheadofknowledge before silly Beauregard came along to distract attention with his Ad Hominem abuse campaign?
And that's exactly what I will do. As far as I'm concerned, you've posted NOTHING relevant to debates about 9-11, debates about the Holocaust, or debates about anything else really. All you have done is engaged in a campaign of personal attack relying on copy & pasted comments taken out of context, that prove nothing more that many people on this site use copy & paste. You included.
You haven't shown evidence that any of those people were the same people because you've never even tried to find out about them really. So I will tell you what I know from what they have told me;
Meteor7 lived in Kyoto. He used Windows98 with Internet Explorer. His earliest posts are from when he lived in Sydney.
(ask LCD, he can check this)
Coldcircuit lived for awhile in Osaka. Then later moved to South Korea (Seoul, I think). He used WindowsXP with Opera, or so I've heard. He mentioned this before.
(Again, LCD can check this).
Tank_Girl lived in Kyoto. She used WindowsXP, and Internet Explorer.
(Again, LCD can check this).
Lovelynice lives in Shiga. She uses WindowsXP, and a Netscape browser.
(Again, LCD can check this).
I gained all this information by contacting these people.
I live in various parts of Japan, China, and sometimes post from Singapore. I use a Linux OS and Firefox browser. My IP address is very unlikely to match any of these other people. (again LCD can check this)
Sorry, I don't know anything about Numanx or his current whereabouts.
From now on, I'm just going to totally ignore your little Ad Hominem campaign and concentrate on FACTS which are relevant to debate about the subjects which I am debating. If you want to continue your Ad Hominems, fine, but you will be IGNORED since you're totally wrong anyway.
and deleting my posts in reply isn't going to work
I've been coming to B&W since early 2003 and I couldn't tell you what operating systems most of the people, who I talk to, are using.
by britvic55 on Wed Aug 22, 07 5:57pm
I asked them. Like, you know, by email.
OK, wink wink.
Okay, what? The point is that these things can be easily checked.
Beauregard, the real truth is that you hate it when people disagree with you.
People like you, who chose censorship over FACTS, and hated to see anyone deal your excuses about 9-11 any kind of blow, forced out most of the other people who were passionate about debating 9-11. You hated hearing anyone smash your arguments and tear apart the Official Conspiracy Theory promoted by the Bush Administration.
That is your ONLY motivation. Instead of debating 9-11 with RELEVANT FACTS, you chose to use Ad Hominem argument.
That's a load of crap and you know it. Remember you started in on me and attacked me first.
The comment is in this very ballot and this is it
Well done Beauregard!
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Thu Sep 07, 06 12:14am)
More like what a lying fool you are Beauregard.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Fri Aug 17, 07 8:31am
So DOK try telling the truth for a change. And you're saying the exact same words you said to me when you were using your Lovelynice alias. It's bull and you know it is.
This has nothing to do with your 9/11 beliefs and that I've made clear. You continue to be an abusive and rude person, screaming at people who disagree with you and calling them liar and shill and moron and all sorts of names.
Look, I saw how people are with you in those other forums you belong to and you have the same problems where ever you go. It's because you are just a nasty person who is so self-absorbed that you cant even see that you are out of line.
Hey I thought you were going to ignore me? Guess not. I can keep this going as long as you want. Only thing is, I'm prepared to present even more evidence now.
|
|
