Amadinejad says he is "su**CENSORED**ious" of 9/11 events

[VinBucFan]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

[Durango 95]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

Dunno. Apparently it's been removed.

[VinBucFan]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

Dunno. Apparently it's been removed.

hahahahahahaaa . . . .  omg . . . . you're a piece o work . . .  . you deleted it.  Man, that takes the cake

"apparently its been removed" . . .  lol . .  um . .  yeah .. .  PR would remove a thread created by you that had NOTHING in it but evidence of your trolling but leave this thread here in the Cove:

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1303025.0.html

Hahaha, you were exposed for the troll you are and so you deleted your own thread.  wow

[Durango 95]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

Dunno. Apparently it's been removed.

hahahahahahaaa . . . .  omg . . . . you're a piece o work . . .  . you deleted it.  Man, that takes the cake

I know you're not a particularly bright individual but if you took a moment or two to think about it you would realize that what I did w/ that poll adds some weight to your assertion that you did not use the poll in Illuminators thread to have him suspended, muted or whatever. Perhaps it might also occur to you that the verbiage I chose in option 3 in the Morgan poll was identical to the verbiage he used in his. The only difference was that Morgans name replaced yours. Why do I have to explain these things to you. You're grown man and she be capable of figuring this stuff out on your own. I suppose it's difficult for you to grasp these concepts because you're not exactly known as a man that stands behind what he posts. But unlike you I do and would not delete that thread. Regardless of all that, I do have a query into PR to find out why it was removed so when and if I get a response I'll be happy to share it w/ you.

No need thank me for my efforts, Vin.

[VinBucFan]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

Dunno. Apparently it's been removed.

hahahahahahaaa . . . .  omg . . . . you're a piece o work . . .  . you deleted it.  Man, that takes the cake

I know you're not a particularly bright individual but if you took a moment or two to think about it you would realize that what I did w/ that poll adds some weight to your assertion that you did not use the poll in Illuminators thread to have him suspended, muted or whatever. Perhaps it might also occur to you that the verbiage I chose in option 3 in the Morgan poll was identical to the verbiage he used in his. The only difference was that Morgans name replaced yours. Why do I have to explain these things to you. You're grown man and she be capable of figuring this stuff out on your own. I suppose it's difficult for you to grasp these concepts because you're not exactly known as a man that stands behind what he posts. But unlike you I do and would not delete that thread. Regardless of all that, I do have a query into PR to find out why it was removed so when and if I get a response I'll be happy to share it w/ you.

No need thank me for my efforts, Vin.

lol, what dirtbag liar.  You were angry that I exposed you (thats all that was in the thread) and so you deleted it.

[CBWx2]

Michael Shermer, huh? You must have really dug hard to come up w/ that. He may be a good bike rider, entrepreneur / self-promoter but an engineer, architect or demolition expert he is not. Doesn't matter if you agree w/ the proposition or not,  but quoting someone like Shermer? I would normally assume something a little better than that from you.

Summarily dismissed w/ extreme prejudice.

Don't like Shermer? Fair enough. But he didn't write the second link I posted, it was from a magazine contributor, and in every single point he makes in the piece, he cites his source material. Many of the sources he cites are indeed from engineers, architects, and demolition experts. Here's just one source cited, from an engineering professor...

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Oct01/Collapse_of_WTC.pdf

[Durango 95]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

Dunno. Apparently it's been removed.

hahahahahahaaa . . . .  omg . . . . you're a piece o work . . .  . you deleted it.  Man, that takes the cake

I know you're not a particularly bright individual but if you took a moment or two to think about it you would realize that what I did w/ that poll adds some weight to your assertion that you did not use the poll in Illuminators thread to have him suspended, muted or whatever. Perhaps it might also occur to you that the verbiage I chose in option 3 in the Morgan poll was identical to the verbiage he used in his. The only difference was that Morgans name replaced yours. Why do I have to explain these things to you. You're grown man and she be capable of figuring this stuff out on your own. I suppose it's difficult for you to grasp these concepts because you're not exactly known as a man that stands behind what he posts. But unlike you I do and would not delete that thread. Regardless of all that, I do have a query into PR to find out why it was removed so when and if I get a response I'll be happy to share it w/ you.

No need thank me for my efforts, Vin.

lol, what dirtbag liar.  You were angry that I exposed you (thats all that was in the thread) and so you deleted it.

You're just not a very bright guy. Now stop derailing the thread.

[VinBucFan]

lol - sad

[Durango 95]

Michael Shermer, huh? You must have really dug hard to come up w/ that. He may be a good bike rider, entrepreneur / self-promoter but an engineer, architect or demolition expert he is not. Doesn't matter if you agree w/ the proposition or not,  but quoting someone like Shermer? I would normally assume something a little better than that from you.

Summarily dismissed w/ extreme prejudice.

Don't like Shermer? Fair enough. But he didn't write the second link I posted, it was from a magazine contributor, and in every single point he makes in the piece, he cites his source material. Many of the sources he cites are indeed from engineers, architects, and demolition experts. Here's just one source cited, from an engineering professor...

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Oct01/Collapse_of_WTC.pdf

Thanks for the links I did spend some time reading.

I'm not exactly sure why you're bothering to post this stuff as I've pretty much acknowledged all of this previously. I think what you may be doing here is attempting to rehash the accepted theory and somehow thinking that reposting it again somehow bolsters its validity. I have seen much of it before in fact one of those links you posted comes from about the year 2000 (which seems a bit odd) and starts with a conclusion and works backwards to explain why it could have happened that way. But for many that have taken in this information and much more it falls woefully short of a serious investigation. By way of example someone earlier posted that NIST found no evidence of explosives, which sounds good at first blush except when you realize they never looked for evidence of explosives. Regardless of what YOU have concluded on the subject is of little consequence to  the very real scientific questions that have been raised by a multitude of qualified experts that require a real and thorough investigation. I can tell you as a complete layman that the odds of these three buildings falling identical on that day when none have done that before is a dubious pill to swallow to start with. So yes, what you posted is easily accessible and quite plausible. But much as been done since that time that requires a very thorough examination.

[VinBucFan]

Lol. It's a conspiracy! ( and yet none of the many required have cracked, not a single one )

Conspiracy theories are created by overwhelmed minds looking for simple explanations for thing they don't understand.

[Biggs3535]

Did Durango delete his own thread?

Nope.

where's the poll?

Dunno. Apparently it's been removed.

hahahahahahaaa . . . .  omg . . . . you're a piece o work . . .  . you deleted it.  Man, that takes the cake

I know you're not a particularly bright individual but if you took a moment or two to think about it you would realize that what I did w/ that poll adds some weight to your assertion that you did not use the poll in Illuminators thread to have him suspended, muted or whatever. Perhaps it might also occur to you that the verbiage I chose in option 3 in the Morgan poll was identical to the verbiage he used in his. The only difference was that Morgans name replaced yours. Why do I have to explain these things to you. You're grown man and she be capable of figuring this stuff out on your own. I suppose it's difficult for you to grasp these concepts because you're not exactly known as a man that stands behind what he posts. But unlike you I do and would not delete that thread. Regardless of all that, I do have a query into PR to find out why it was removed so when and if I get a response I'll be happy to share it w/ you.

No need thank me for my efforts, Vin.

lol, what dirtbag liar.  You were angry that I exposed you (thats all that was in the thread) and so you deleted it.

Thread starters can't delete threads, dips***.  Only board admin can do that.  I'm guessing either you or Morgana whined about that thread and they deleted it for some reason.

Now apologize to Durango, like a good little PeanutButterCheeseBoy.

[VinBucFan]

Buggsy, you really are dumber than dirt. Think about your post and what is actually happening. Man ...

[Biggs3535]

Buggsy, you really are dumber than dirt. Think about your post and what is actually happening. Man ...

Go try to delete one of the threads you created and then locked.  Let me know how that goes, dips***.

[Durango 95]

"Thread starters can't delete threads, dips***.  Only board admin can do that.  I'm guessing either you or Morgana whined about that thread and they deleted it for some reason."


Looks like "the twice suspended, Buggsy" just owned your silly ass, again.

Must really suck to be psycho peanut butter boy. lol.

[CBWx2]

Michael Shermer, huh? You must have really dug hard to come up w/ that. He may be a good bike rider, entrepreneur / self-promoter but an engineer, architect or demolition expert he is not. Doesn't matter if you agree w/ the proposition or not,  but quoting someone like Shermer? I would normally assume something a little better than that from you.

Summarily dismissed w/ extreme prejudice.

Don't like Shermer? Fair enough. But he didn't write the second link I posted, it was from a magazine contributor, and in every single point he makes in the piece, he cites his source material. Many of the sources he cites are indeed from engineers, architects, and demolition experts. Here's just one source cited, from an engineering professor...

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Oct01/Collapse_of_WTC.pdf

Thanks for the links I did spend some time reading.

I'm not exactly sure why you're bothering to post this stuff as I've pretty much acknowledged all of this previously. I think what you may be doing here is attempting to rehash the accepted theory and somehow thinking that reposting it again somehow bolsters its validity. I have seen much of it before in fact one of those links you posted comes from about the year 2000 (which seems a bit odd) and starts with a conclusion and works backwards to explain why it could have happened that way. But for many that have taken in this information and much more it falls woefully short of a serious investigation. By way of example someone earlier posted that NIST found no evidence of explosives, which sounds good at first blush except when you realize they never looked for evidence of explosives. Regardless of what YOU have concluded on the subject is of little consequence to  the very real scientific questions that have been raised by a multitude of qualified experts that require a real and thorough investigation. I can tell you as a complete layman that the odds of these three buildings falling identical on that day when none have done that before is a dubious pill to swallow to start with. So yes, what you posted is easily accessible and quite plausible. But much as been done since that time that requires a very thorough examination.

From what it sounds like, the thorough examination has already been done by the 9-11 truth movement, and nothing short of an admission of foul play will be accepted as a legitimate conclusion. There have been even more engineers, demolitionists, etc. that have said that it is not only possible, but extremely likely that the planes are what caused the buildings to collapse. Another cited source

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

You are dismissive of those engineers, and only seem to want to grant validity to the truther engineers, so where exactly do you think another investigation will get you? If it comes back with the same results, I sincerely doubt that that would be the end of it.

BTW, my guess is that the reason the professors material had a copyright of 2000 is because that's when he had his lecture materials copywritten, not because that's when he wrote the analysis, or claimed to have written it.