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 was supposed to be private
by aya on Wed Sep 13, 06 8:20am
[+]
Maybe they believe that 3 valid votes plus 25 votes by them and their aliases (vs 27 votes by others) constitutes a majority support of their position(s). 
Voted : yes
God, y'all. That's weak. Kind of like K-Fed's stage act. 
Voted : yes
^ lol
by mojo on Wed Sep 13, 06 10:47am
[+]
What cathexis said sums it up quite well.
You guys are so funny. I've missed you all! ;)
I think if you knew just how many names are aliases it would be rather shocking. I don't have concrete proof, but some people really really sound a lot like some other people, including using word for word comments just like the others. Namely the "9/11 Conspiracy Clones", I'm guessing that of the 12 to 15 of them, there are 2 to 3 total people behind the different names.
^ Yep, I agree with my Jappy name.
Note the way we didn't use the word alias. We think it's such an ugly word.
"9/11 Conspiracy Clones"
i call them drones
"we are the bush. your life, as it has been, is over. lower your defenses and surrender your oil. we will add your cultural and economic distinctiveness to our own. your money will adapt to service us. resistence is futile. you will be liberated."
"evidence is irrelevant, the united nations is irrelevant. from this time forward, you will serviceus. you must comply"
You guys are so funny. I've missed you all! ;)
by Tadema
Welcome backs Tads! Where the Hell have you been - we missed you!!! (o:
Some people can see both sides of the coin.. even the less popular opinion.. but hey are reluctant to stand up against the majority to announce their beliefs and why.. with an alias... they get to explain both sides of the coin and let the people decide for themselves.. I don't have one but I certainly see the appeal for one! ;)
that qualifies for someone with only one alias stating the objective argument. that being me.
neothe1, you all but openly admitted that you also used the alias GrassyKnoll after seeing the idea for that tactic on wikipedia which you employed (so poorly).
** karma **
I feel as though I have been in a coma.
ah, now i remember which one grassy knoll was. the one i proved was you.
never tell lies, neothe1, didn't your mommy tell you that?
GrassyKnoll not only IS you with an alias, everyone KNOWS it.
i proved that was you. you accused him of having a matrix "theme" when he'd only made one matrix related comment. that means that you created that name planning to give it a matrix theme, so you could point that out in one of your reglar accounts. but you were impatient and pointed it out after only 1 such reference.
and you wil come to learn, murderer, that you are not everyone. your kind are a very small minority, the rest of the united states and everywhere else in the world is against you and your government, and we will bring you down, and you will pay for the people you've killed.
stop telling LIES neothe1.
Everyone can read your stupid LIES on ballot 97082 and see where you first started to try that particular game of yours - because you so blatantly and outrageously lied about MrFatNose being Osama bin Laden in that OBVIOUSLY FAKE "confession video" and nobody was going to accept yur lies.
Tank_Girl had NOT posted ballot 98784, but YOU LIED as is already proven and stated that she'd said on that ballot that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", since she didn't post on that ballot at all, then she OBVIOUSLY didn't say anything of the kind. YOU then LIED AGAIN and tried to claim that I had stated WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", and yet again YOU were caught LYING, this time by Meteor7 who pointed out that YOU were playing a strawman argument and attempting to misrepresent what I had stated
We KNOW that you defend the Bush Administration's criminal actions because you, neothe1, go out of your way to make personal attacks on all those who are sceptical of the 9/11 Official Lies, and tell great big whopping lies in their defence. It's CLEAR AS DAY that you are a government shill because you ALWAYS make personal attacks against 9/11 sceptics like me and you ALWAYS try to defend the Official Pile of Utter Bullshit and LIES. You're a shill, and a very obvious one.
By the way, you STILL have not provided ANY EVIDENCE to show that those cellphone calls were possible.
It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions
** karma **
|
|
