50 Questions They Can’t Answer About 9/11 [Part 3 of 3]

Submitted by: monkwarrior 2 weeks ago in News & Politics


9/11/2001 is a sensitive topic for some people, so viewers discretion is advised for this video and/or the comments. 
 
This new investigative documentary, about the events on September 11th 2001, is an eye-opening and straightforward factual examination into the specifics surrounding what has become known as 9/11.
 
The final installment of this investigation really wraps it up. It leaves no ground for the ‘official report’ or the ‘debunker’ to stand on, as it continues to explore the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, their aftermaths, and the collapse of WTC 7 that suspiciously ‘fell due to fire’ without any plane hitting it. The final of the 50 questions are raised, truly exposing the reality that the ‘official report’ is false, and that a new investigation is not only warranted, but needed, into the events of 9/11.
 
If you’ve watched all three installments of this documentary (part 1 & part 2), you have learned a great deal of facts about 9/11. Granted, the usual crowd of deniers will no doubt continue to throw the usual mud at you for speaking of it, common among those who fear the truth. But it just goes to show it’s much better to live understanding the truth.
 
Were you able to answer the two questions at 1:23:50? I was, and i think it would be interesting to see the IAB answers on those! So, for me, i think it’s more unpatriotic to turn a blind eye to such evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist, and i think that trust would be served by bringing those suspected to accountability into a court of law. What about you?

 I hope you enjoyed this series, and learned something valuable through this series!
There are 251 comments:
Male 2,552
50 questions, not transcribed, instead spread out over several hours of video. Meanwhile, monkwarrior refuses to discuss a few streamlined points with markust123 , and attempts to respond with more links, used not as sources/citations, but arguments in of themselves.

This 3 part series is a shotgun argumentation fallacy.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
jaysingrimm Unfortunately as noted, the questions were answered, and as markust123 clearly stated: "I'm not going to click on your links and watch any more", signalling their ignorance to the answers presented, and triggering a legit green light to not waste time answer any further questions until they had responded to the previous batch.  Your post simply confirms your intellectual dishonesty on the topic, and your nature to troll (which has already been exposed)
0
Reply
Male 4,847
jaysingrimm He doesn't want to get to the truth. This horrific event is the perfect mechanism for trolls to do what they do best - make people frustrated and angry. Look how excited he is bellow about his negative ratings. This site would be a lot better if they got rid of this prick.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123  Unfortunately as noted, the questions were answered, and as you clearly stated: "I'm not going to click on your links and watch any more", signalling your ignorance to the answers presented.  Thus, you triggered a legit green light to not waste time answer any further questions until you had responded to the previous batch, which you chose not to do out of ignorance or the fraglity of your world-view.
0
Reply
Male 4,691
Amazing, i hope this becomes the most downvoted post in the history of I-A-B!  What an honour in this day and age!  Surely someone will have to ask why and come here to find the truth!  And the truth of how petty people act when their fragile world-view is threatened!

C'mon juvies, i you know you can put it under -1k!


EDIT:  WOOH! @ 7:57EST ON SEPTEMBER 6th, 2017


MINUS



I have never been so excited for an up/down vote rating in my life!!


EDIT: Boo, someone came back and decided to give it + votes and now it's around 800. oh well, it was fun while it lasted!
-1
Reply
Male 4,847
OK, I watched as much as I could stomach of video three.  I was told that from 6:36 forward to the next segment would disprove my link (A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint). Here are my notes.

  • How can there have been a controlled demolition before the collapse without windows blowing out before hand?
  • They totally ignore that floors sagging from being weakened by heat would cause the bowing seen. Just saying "the only explanation" does not make it the only explanation. Monkwarrior pulls that crap all the time.
  • They talk about the initial free fall of the building but they never answer the important question. (1) Where were the small explosions that weakened the columns? Where were the large explosions that blew the columns? You don't see windows in the floor below blowing out before the free fall. You don't see the structure below move at all until they are caught up in the pancake effect. (2) How did the explosives that supposedly blew up the support columns survive the impact and the immense heat from the fire? I mean come on. Those would have to be some magical explosives. They also never answer why they set the explosives so high up in the building and why it was at the exact spot of the impact of the planes. Were the terrorists working with our government? The planes don't make sudden height adjustments to hit the right spot - they hit were they hit. How did the government know the terrorists were going to hit the WTC? How did they know what day? (3) They never talk about the extensive damage the planes impact would have done to some of the support columns and floor beams. These were huge 767's traveling at 400+ mph. The damage inside would have been tremendous.
  • They act like blowing just the core columns would make the building fall. You need to weaken almost all the columns on the floor for it to fall. All the rest of the outer support columns were in places people would see explosives being applied. Even if they were able to fit the explosives in tight enough to put all the dry wall back they would have at least have seen all the wires connecting the bombs together.
  • People heard heavy equipment moving around on the floors above them weeks before. Uh renovations. Deliveries. Etc.
  • Bomb sniffing dogs were removed on the 6th according to a security guard who is not shown. I mean seriously guys he said that. Trust me.
  • Bringing up bomb sniffing dogs just brings up another question. There were bomb sniffing dogs. How did they not sniff out the explosives used to take down the building. That's a lot of explosives. The dogs would have been going crazy as these were bringing brought into the building.
  • There was a shutdown the weekend before that allowed people to come and go without being seen???? If this was the case there would have been guards posted checking credentials. You don't just let people come in and wander around an office building. Especially one that is as big a target as the WTC. It just doesn't happen. This is one of the more stupider lies of this show.  
  • They say the debunkers are correct it would have been very hard to bring in the explosives without people knowing and in the same breath say it would have been possible. No explanation. How on earth would it be possible to remove the office furniture, the wallboards to get to the columns, apply the explosives and keep them there, and all the wires hooking them together with no one noticing? It takes months to setup a controlled demolition of the scale needed to bring these buildings down.
  • People heard explosions but you never see windows being blown out beforehand. My guess is a lot of that were jumpers landing on things or things falling and hitting the hard pavement and echoing off the surrounding buildings. Something heavy falling from that high up would definitely sound like an explosion to the novice. There were probably some explosions in the fire also. As a kid my neighbor threw a hairspray can in his bonfire fire and it exploded so large the fire was gone. It blew it up. There was no fire. My mom heard it two blocks away and thought the Millmacks (six houses south) were lighting dynamite off. Dynamite - from one hairspray can. That was her assessment.
  • The second explosion people were talking about was the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shaft after the second impact and sending a fireball into the lobby. That was totally deceptive editing. 
  • The guy in the basement who got thrown to the floor was disoriented. The explosion he was witness to was the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shaft. The guy was confused on the timing same as the other twenty people that said the same thing. During traumatic events your brain will even completely blank out what happened.  
  • The recording from the office down the street was of the plane hitting then the explosion from the basement - not a bomb going off before hand. Watch any video of the first tower being struck. That first sound is the horrifying sound of the first plane hitting. I will never forget that sound. It still gave me chills just hearing it (without the visuals). If there was an explosion before hand there would have been three explosions in the recording (bomb in basement, plane hitting, and explosion in lobby from fireball going down elevator shaft). I don't know how much of this stupidity I can handle and I am only 14 minutes in. 
  • They say there are no elevators that go all the way to the top. Then they follow that up with there are two maintenance elevators that span the whole distance???? And then they say a guy was in one so it couldn't have been those. Totally ignoring that they just said there were two maintenance elevators.
  • This supposed ball of fire? Fuck you. People were hit by this "supposed" ball of fire in the lobby and burned to death. Fucking disrespectful assholes.
  • All the people talking about the explosion an hour later were in the other tower. They were talking about the first tower falling and the debris slamming into their building destroying the lobby. Jesus Christ this video is deceptive. I can't take this idiocy. I'm turning this off at 20 minutes. I feel dumber for having watched it.

My conclusion. The assessment from the explosive experts in my link stands even more solid after the obvious deception in this video. 
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 I'll take the time to answer your questions with Clicks or BOLD ANSWERS click to see the answer.  Ironically these were mostly in this video, so some selective reasoning is taking place with you, but whatever, as i said:


  • How can there have been a controlled demolition before the collapse without windows blowing out before hand?  Click
  • They totally ignore that floors sagging from being weakened by heat would cause the bowing seen. Just saying "the only explanation" does not make it the only explanation. Monkwarrior pulls that crap all the time. Click  (also, fallacies?  Really man, you know i pick those out)
  • They talk about the initial free fall of the building but they never answer the important question. (1) Where were the small explosions that weakened the columns? Where were the large explosions that blew the columns? You don't see windows in the floor below blowing out before the free fall. You don't see the structure below move at all until they are caught up in the pancake effect. CLICK(2) How did the explosives that supposedly blew up the support columns survive the impact and the immense heat from the fire? CLICK (THIS IS BASED ON YOUR BLIND ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT WAS TOLD) I mean come on. Those would have to be some magical explosives. (MW: ASSUMPTION.) They also never answer why they set the explosives so high up in the building and why it was at the exact spot of the impact of the planes (SEE PREVIOUSLINK NOTES). Were the terrorists working with our government? (RE-INVESTIGATION WILL DISCOVER THIS)The planes don't make sudden height adjustments to hit the right spot - they hit were they hit. How did the government know the terrorists were going to hit the WTC? (RE-INVESTIGATION WILL DISCOVER THIS, QUESTION BASED ON ASSSUMPTION )How did they know what day? (RE-INVESTIGATION WILL DISCOVER THIS)(3) They never talk about the extensive damage the planes impact would have done to some of the support columns and floor beams. These were huge 767's traveling at 400+ mph. The damage inside would have been tremendous. CLICK (previous video)
  • They act like blowing just the core columns would make the building fall. You need to weaken almost all the columns on the floor for it to fall. All the rest of the outer support columns were in places people would see explosives being applied. Even if they were able to fit the explosives in tight enough to put all the dry wall back they would have at least have seen all the wires connecting the bombs together. CLICK
  • People heard heavy equipment moving around on the floors above them weeks before. Uh renovations. Deliveries. Etc. CLICK (They were closed off with special access required)
  • Bomb sniffing dogs were removed on the 6th according to a security guard who is not shown. I mean seriously guys he said that. Trust me. (APPEAL TO IGNORANCE? WHY MAN? JUST TO PROTECT YOUR FRAGILE WORLD VIEW?)
  • Bringing up bomb sniffing dogs just brings up another question. There were bomb sniffing dogs. How did they not sniff out the explosives used to take down the building. That's a lot of explosives. The dogs would have been going crazy as these were bringing brought into the building. (THEY WERE REMOVED AS YOU PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED YOU SAW)
  • There was a shutdown the weekend before that allowed people to come and go without being seen???? If this was the case there would have been guards posted checking credentials. (YET THERE WASN'T) You don't just let people come in and wander around an office building. (UNLESS YOU NEED IT FOR A COVER)Especially one that is as big a target as the WTC. It just doesn't happen. (SEE PREVIOUS BOLD) This is one of the more stupider lies of this show.  (SO YOU ASSUME)
  • They say the debunkers are correct it would have been very hard to bring in the explosives without people knowing and in the same breath say it would have been possible. (HARD != IMPOSSIBLE) No explanation. (RE-INVESTIGATION WILL REVEAL) How on earth would it be possible to remove the office furniture, the wallboards to get to the columns, apply the explosives and keep them there, and all the wires hooking them together with no one noticing? It takes months to setup a controlled demolition of the scale needed to bring these buildings down. (AND MONTHS BEFORE AND TO THE LEAD UP LOUD NOISES WERE HEARD, WHAT YOU WANT TO IGNORE)
  • People heard explosions but you never see windows being blown out beforehand. My guess is a lot of that were jumpers landing on things or things falling and hitting the hard pavement and echoing off the surrounding buildings. Something heavy falling from that high up would definitely sound like an explosion to the novice. There were probably some explosions in the fire also. As a kid my neighbor threw a hairspray can in his bonfire fire and it exploded so large the fire was gone. It blew it up. There was no fire. My mom heard it two blocks away and thought the Millmacks (six houses south) were lighting dynamite off. Dynamite - from one hairspray can. That was her assessment. CLICK (COMPLETE ASSUMPTION ON THIS WHOLE POINT, VIDEO EXPLAINS IT BUT YOU DONT WANT TO SEE)
  • The second explosion people were talking about was the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shaft after the second impact and sending a fireball into the lobby. That was totally deceptive editing. CLICK (MORE HEAD IN THE SAND STATEMENTS?)
  • The guy in the basement who got thrown to the floor was disoriented. The explosion he was witness to was the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shaft. The guy was confused on the timing same as the other twenty people that said the same thing. During traumatic events your brain will even completely blank out what happened.  CLICK (UNFORTUNATELY SEVERAL PEOPLE WITNESSED AND EXPERIENCED IT BEFORE THE IMPACTS.)
  • The recording from the office down the street was of the plane hitting then the explosion from the basement - not a bomb going off before hand. Watch any video of the first tower being struck. That first sound is the horrifying sound of the first plane hitting. I will never forget that sound. It still gave me chills just hearing it (without the visuals). If there was an explosion before hand there would have been three explosions in the recording (bomb in basement, plane hitting, and explosion in lobby from fireball going down elevator shaft). I don't know how much of this stupidity I can handle and I am only 14 minutes in. CLICK (explosives were heard, FIRST RESPONDERS KNOW AN EXPLOSION WHEN THEY HEAR IT i can see why you think it's stupid, i'm getting tired of yours.)
  • They say there are no elevators that go all the way to the top. Then they follow that up with there are two maintenance elevators that span the whole distance???? And then they say a guy was in one so it couldn't have been those. Totally ignoring that they just said there were two maintenance elevators. CLICK ( AND YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORING THIS)
  • This supposed ball of fire? Fuck you. People were hit by this "supposed" ball of fire in the lobby and burned to death. Fucking disrespectful assholes. (YOU'RE DISRESPECTFUL, AS YOU JUST SAID "The guy in the basement who got thrown to the floor was disoriented", YOU DISRESPECTFUL AND FRAGILE WORLD-VIEW HOLDING PERSON)
  • All the people talking about the explosion an hour later were in the other tower. They were talking about the first tower falling and the debris slamming into their building destroying the lobby. Jesus Christ this video is deceptive. I can't take this idiocy. I'm turning this off at 20 minutes. I feel dumber for having watched it.  (YOU WERE STUPID TO BEGIN WITH TO IGNORE THE FACTS, AND THINK YOU HAD ANYTHING IN THIS 'REBUTTAL' ANY FURTHER THAN IGNORANCE GOES)

-1
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior I'm not going to click on your links and watch any more of your idiot video. Why don't you just try answering these questions about the two main towers yourself since you are soooo superior to us all:

  1. Where were the small explosions that weakened the outer columns? Even a small explosion in this visible of a location would have made a flash that could be seen. Where were the large explosions that blew the outer columns? Surely an explosion at the outer columns would have been very visible. You don't see windows, shrapnel, dust or anything blow out at or below the position of the start of the fall. You start to see crap blow out after it starts falling but that is from the compression of the pancaking layers. You don't see this before the building starts to fall.
  2. If you think they only blew the core columns where were the large explosions from those blasts? You need large final detonations to blow the columns. Where were these explosions? Again you don't see windows, shrapnel, dust or anything blow out at or below the position of the start of the fall. You start to see crap blow out after it starts falling but that is from the compression of the pancaking layers. You don't see this before the building starts to fall.
  3. How did the explosives that supposedly blew up the support columns survive the impact and the immense heat from the fire?
  4. It takes months to set explosives to bring a building of this size down. How did they know to put the explosives in the exact location where the planes hit?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 You don't want to see the answers, so why should i bother wasting time answering further questions, when you'll simply just call them 'idiotic' due to the fragility of your world view?

Face it:  You don't like facts that expose the fraglity of the world view, or the western media delusions that were preached to you as fact, and that you accept as fact.  You don't like to hear that what was preached to you, and that you blindly accepted, being lies, with whatever evidence.

You won't ever accept the facts until the majority of people around start telling you that the facts point to the explosive evidence, and you hear it from the media, AND you realize it would be embarrassing to continue supporting the 'official report'.  These are the reasons you support the denial of the facts now: Emotional reasons, not factual.
-1
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior I didn't think you would answer them. You're just a troll. I'm out of here. You are a shanker on the penis of productivity.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 Again, why would i bother when i took the time to answer your questions, but you came back saying " I'm not going to click on your links and watch any more of your idiot video".

You wanted answers but then ignored them for emotional reasons.  It's clear you're trolling here.  It's clear you are leaving because of the fragility of your world view.  You know i can answer them, and i would gladly answer them if you would have taken the time to respond to the points that i took the time to respond to in your post. 

Come back that and i'll answer your questions.  It's all on you.


-1
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior Oh my God why did I have to look again. You talk like a first year college freshman who thinks he knows everything. Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? I am really out of here now. Enjoy the silence.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 You talk like someone wound up on the western media delusion, accepting everything it says as fact, and who thinks by it they know everything.  Do you understand how your fragile your world view is ridiculous yet?  Of course not.
-1
Reply
Male 40,277
Hey FancyLad, -515? It is obvious someone(s) has found a way to vote repeatedly, eh?
-4
Reply
Male 7,790
5cats Negative, I just tested and downvoted monkwarrior 3 times and it went up by 3 from -515 to -518.  It's an aggregate of negative votes in the thread as well.
-3
Reply
Male 40,277
normalfreak2 Well, that would still mean IT IS BROKEN yes? Which is what I meant, and others were saying.

I wonder if all the posts do that? I cannot +/- unless I use Chrome, and that freezes my PC every 10-15 minutes so... not happening. :-\
-2
Reply
Male 4,847
normalfreak2 Just to be clear you down-voted three different comments he made not one comment three times right?
-4
Reply
Male 7,790
markust123 I down voted 3 separate comments.
-3
Reply
Male 4,847
normalfreak2 Ah, good. I still think it is crap that votes in the comments affect the overall vote. Someone could get a bunch of positive votes because they proved how full of shit the person posting the post was being and yet that would show as approval of the post. Makes no sense.
-4
Reply
Male 40,277
markust123 It never occurred to me that was the cause... ah well.
It's in all the posts like that? It would explain a few things eh? But yeah, makes no sense because it is not a reflection of the Post's quality at all.
-2
Reply
Male 220

9/11 causes autism.

-5
Reply
Male 3,093
poor lil guy, no one cares about your 4 words or your moron logic. keep on fighting the derp fight, while life passes you by and you die alone clinging to your theories as if they were actual loved ones or friends
-4
Reply
Male 3,093
i pooped today
-4
Reply
Male 40,277
Um? There are comments from another thread that are 2 years old at the very bottom here, eh? Just thought FancyLad should know about them...
-7
Reply
Male 9,498
5cats Funny huh? I actually commented that when the post first appeared. It's a sign the conspiracy is real!
-2
Reply
Male 3,090
My problem is, the idea of sitting down and watching these 6 hours feels a bit too much like homework.  I never liked homework.
-3
Reply
Male 4,369

For what it's worth, here's my two cents.

Everyone has a right to ask questions, and I don't have anything against an occasional 9/11 truther post. I think anyone asking these questions has to be sensitive to the fact that unless you are 100% certain that it was all a hoax--and how could anyone be certain of that?--you're talking about events in which thousands of American civilians died, many of them horribly. Some of their friends and families are going to read what you write. So I very much appreciated the viewer discretion warning before these posts.

Parts 1 and 3 were long--way too long for my tastes. There's a lot of 9/11 conspiracy video online--countless hours of it--and I'm more interested in the thoughts of any one IAB'er than what's in one of those videos, even it it's a matter of summarizing evidence presented elsewhere. To that end, I liked the paragraphs of original thought and content in Part 3 and would have liked to see more of same throughout the series.

One concern I have about this material is that I think a lot of teens and twenty-somethings get sucked into it because they spend so much time online getting amateur- or peer-produced content. Many of them haven't developed the critical thinking skills or the judgment to recognize the kinds of assumptions, innuendoes, and hearsay these kinds of videos are so often filled with. I worry that there are kids out there who've watched six or more hours of conspiracy videos about 9/11, but have never watched a single two-hour documentary produced by a more reputable source such as the BBC or NPR.

Markust, I liked your link to the study by the demolition experts. I hadn't seen it before and it was excellent.

Lastly, I suppose I should put my cards on the table here. I believe 9/11 unfolded as the official reports have it with one exception: I have always believed Flight 93 was brought down by an air-to-air missile by one of our fighter jets that was tailing it. I do think the passengers had begun to mount an attack on the hijackers, but I think the missile brought down the plane in the beginning stages of that attack. I believe this because at the time Flight 93 went down, 10:03 AM, the nation had known for a full hour and a half that we were under attack and airliners were being used as weapons. Vice President Cheney had already given the go-ahead to the military on shooting down any passenger airliner deemed to be a terrorist weapon. Our fighters had been following Flight 93 and it was widely understood that the airliner was headed for either the U.S. Capitol Building or the White House. The plane was downed over the last wooded area on the flight path to Washington, D.C., and I don't think that was a coincidence.

I believe the downing of Flight 93 by an air-to-air missile was kept secret because the nation was already in a state of trauma. People were looking for both heroes and for scapegoats. The Bush administration was unwilling to trigger still more national trauma and face the anger from the passengers' family members that would've come with revealing the painful truth.

That's the extent of my conspiratorial thinking when it comes to 9/11. Of course, if anyone has a different opinion regarding Flight 93, I'd be happy to listen. I don't know anything. I have only my suspicions and I'm amenable to looking at facts contrary to my opinion.
-1
Reply
Male 4,847
squrlz4ever The first question about flight 93 that I would ask you is the same question that blows the lid on pretty much every conspiracy theory - how have they kept that a secret all these years? There were many people that saw the low flying plane, how did not one person see the missile or the smoke trail leading back to the jet? Yes, the government gave permission to shoot down the plane but I think they were quite relieved that they didn't have to. The main question I have though is by all accounts I can find, the fighter jets arrived after the crash. The military confirms this. Air traffic control confirmed this. And the two jets that were sent to intercept 93 did not have time to be armed with missiles. The pilots were planning on giving their lives to run into the plane. The passengers were trying to take back control of flight 93 when the terrorist at the wheel drove the plane into the ground. I don't see any reason to not believe this to be the case. The passengers that rushed the cockpit were absolute heroes. I'm not sure I could have been that brave.
-3
Reply
Male 4,369
markust123 I've been busy and have to get to bed now, Markust, but I'll address your comments sometime tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've been trying to stay abreast of this exchange you and Monk are having. Break out the popcorn!
0
Reply
Male 298
Wow -126 points 6 hours after getting posted... that must be some kind of a record or a bug. 

Anyway, this asks leading questions and provides no solid answers. 
-4
Reply
Male 40,277
boredhuman Some intrepid IABers have figured out that all the +/- votes in the comments change the Post score too... and they had a 'downboat battle' here :-)
-1
Reply
Male 3,093
boredhuman boredmonk please. you defended your derpy post earlier this week then said you were being sarcastic. pulleaseee. 
-3
Reply
Male 298
rumham Please what? And what do you call "defended" my post
It took me a few hours to realize that people weren't checking the links at all. Most of the links were debunking the conspiracy theory, and the few that didn't were there to illustrate how stupid it was.  
Don't worry, next time, if i decide to make a sarcastic post, I'll make it more obvious. This time I specifically asked fancylad not to reveal it was sarcastic to see what will happen. 
-5
Reply
Male 3,093
boredhuman your post spoke for itself.  
-4
Reply
Male 40,277
boredhuman There has been some very strange scoring lately, bots or bugs? Sonny will figure it out :D
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
boredhuman that's what a re-investigation will achieve, which is the ultimate goal of this investigation.  As for the points, a few juvenile I-A-B'ers, namely holyGod who apparently thinks he's the overseer and knows what the 'community' wants best, decided to start a petty mission to down vote every comment in this thread, to bring the points down.  It's childish since the points really have no bearing in I-A-B.
-5
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior A few? The post is -514 right now. People hate this shit.

You keep saying the points don't matter, but since you have mentioned it over and over it seems they matter to you.
-1
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod Doesn't matter to me, but apparently it seems to matter to you.  We already covered your juvenile attuitude on the topic that you fear because it exposes the fragility of your world view.  I was simply pointing out to boredhuman the reason for the posts' abnormal downvoting.
-2
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior Every time you try to sound smart all I can see is someone who thinks the Earth might be flat.
-1
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod juveniles would have such a petty world-view.
-1
Reply
Male 3,093
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham if you say so.
-5
Reply
Male 3,093
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham if you say so
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
I'd like to also point out that europhysics news has done a report that shows it was very likely controlled demolitions (it starts on page 21 (printed at the bottom right hand of the page, for the lesser reasonable among us in need of extreme precision))  In fact, it says, and i quote:


"Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation 
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously 
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not 
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a 
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began 
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was 
caused by fires"

So NIST had a story, and tried to find evidence to make that story work.  That's known as 'scientism', not science.
-5
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior given the nature of snow towers i gain power.
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham looks like you backtracked
-3
Reply
Male 3,093
wooo do a shot everytime monk says troll. you'll be dead in no time
-4
Reply
Male 414
  So our government killed thousands of people in a massive operation involving hundreds of people who never leaked a word of it, but they can't kill the small handful of people trying to expose them? Have the people who made these videos gone into hiding, or are they out walking around in public? If they're out in public with no concerns, then even they don't believe their own nonsense.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
DerryNH Who knows, but a re-investigation is needed so that we can find out who to mete out justice on.
-6
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior the bag of douche
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham that would be for a re-investigation to discover.
-4
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior you need more fiber
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham so you say
-3
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior you give me power by saying this! 
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham im happy you are happy
-3
Reply
Male 686
The final two questions don't even direct themselves towards the video.  They're assuming that all the evidence provided is solid.  It's almost a bully tactic for people to buy into the conspiracy.  
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 so say most people who are afraid of facing the facts, and trolls.  Those who prefer to live by the delusions of the media, because they're too afraid to face the fact that their world-view is too fragile, and might be wrong.
-5
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior troll troll troll troll troll troll troll. etc etc. to infinity and beyond!
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham You've already been gnawed to the bone, so it really means nothing.
-4
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior i've given you power to stand over me right?
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham unfortunately so, your choice.
-5
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior chewbacca
-5
Reply
Male 4,369
-1
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham if you say so
-5
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior more power! i rule you!
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior So looking at the actual wording of the two questions where do they reference anything in the 5 hours of video?  They don't.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01  keep trolling ignorantly by ignoring the videos that those questions referenced, it does you no good. 
-6
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior You said you took 10 hours watching these videos twice.  Please take a couple of minutes and transcribe the two questions so they can be discussed properly.

They don't reference anything in the videos.  They ask "If you were provided with solid evidence" or something to that effect.  What is the solid evidence they're refering to?  It doesn't even say "In these past 5 hours we've provided you with solid evidence".

-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01  Why would i?  You didn't watch them, and you are so against them that you've dived head-long into trolling because it causes you to face the fagility of your world-view.  And trolls hate that.

You can't even prove it's worth my time.
-6
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Yes I did watch them -- not in one go but in pieces.  
Who'se the one making assumptions?

And why would you transcribe the questions?  Maybe because it's your post and it would make for a more  solid discussion.  You're the one that asked "How would you answer the last two questions.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 you're the one ignoring the precise time that was also provided.  keep trolling, it does you no good. 
-6
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Sorry there's no question at 1:23:50.  There's the first one that starts at 1:24:01 followed by the second one.  Those are the ones I'm refering to.  At the time you stated it towards the end of the McCain interview
0
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 so you'd rather complain about the lead-up to the questions, but now that you know where to find them you don't want to answer them?  Care to answer which is more unpatriotic and how would trust be better served?
(obviously you'll have to re-read those questions again in the video at the time you mentioned, as the questions here are an abbreviated version to help you spot what the questions were, due to your trolling nature).
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01  oh, 11 seconds is an issue for you?  Oh my, how percise trolls require others to be, but yet never of themselves. keep trolling, it does you no good.  
-6
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior  you're the one ignoring the precise time that was also provided.   I can provide you with a dictionary if need be.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Well then if the lead up to the question (which most would consider it to be part of the questions, even if it's 11 seconds) is considered the 'wrong time' for you, then keep trolling, it does you no good,  and it's too bad you're not even good at it, but juvenile about it.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior so is the lead up to the question the 5 hours of video or just the McCain interview segment?
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01  You already know, but like i said, keep trolling, it does you no good, and only hurts you and your credibility more than anything else.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior How could I know?  The question doesn't refer to any specific in the video.

You asked "how would you answer the questions?"  I'm asking for clarification.

This is like banging my head against the wall.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Because it refers to the overall series, and you already know exactly where the questions are.  So, keep trolling, it does you no good
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior You could have said that in the first place.  What indicator is there that it refers to the entire series -- especially when it's broken down into 3 parts.

  So I'll go back to my comment an hour ago.

So asking for clarification is trolling?
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 no, trolling as you are trolling is trolling.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior How does that even make sense?  It's a form of begging the question.  I could ask "Why am I trolling and you answer back "because you're trolling".


-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 I understand it can get difficult for trolls.  If you don't want to try to understand words with your dictionary, perhaps you shouldn't have chose to troll then?
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Again it's not a question of vocabulary.  Do we have to get back on definitions?  Because you owe me more than a couple.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 i don't owe you anything.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Then stop using terms, that you've created, you're unwilling to provide defintions for.  
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 As i said, you're experiencing it, keep trolling, it does you no good.  
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior So whe you say you're a troll eater I going to assume -- no I have to make an assumption because after asking dozens of time you won't tell me what it means.  I'll assume that you litterally eat trolls.  You go out hunt them in you back woods, capture trolls and eat them.  Do you eat them alive or do you bake them first?
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 is that what you're experiencing?  As i said,  keep trolling, it does you no good.   
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior No I've asked you for a definition of troll eating and you can't provide one for me so I made up my own.  I've searched for one and I can't find it so...
-3
Reply
Male 4,847
Again, I'll save you the five hours with a short and precise 12 page analysis from explosives and demolition experts: A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint. 

The authors spent a great deal of energy simplifying the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible so that it is easy to read and understand. These experts blow up (pun intended) the assertion that explosives brought down the buildings. Their explanations disproving Assertion 1 is their mic drop. In one and a half pages the main assertion of the Truthers is demolished (pun intended).
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 I'm glad you posted.  I wanted to tell you your article was debunked already in today's episode at 6:36 and forward to the next segment.  Nice try, but you're simply pointing to a link that has been debunked already.
-4
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior Saying it was debunked does not make it so. I will take the word of the demolition experts over this crap you've soiled IAB with.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 Demolition experts have said "DEMOLITIONS WERE USED", you're simply being selective about which demolitions experts you listened to, and seem to prefer the ones that preach what you want to hear: that which your media tells you is 'true' (even though mounting evidence exposes the lie).
-5
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior Where in the video is a demolition expert?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
Male 4,847
monkwarrior So when I ask where in the video is a demolition expert you give me a completely different video of someone who is not a demolition expert but just a Powder Carrier. Here are his credentials. So I will ask again. Where in the video is a demolition expert?
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 Sure, discredit them all you want, ther'es more, such as  Danny Jawenko, a Dutch controlled demolition expert What's next?  Quickly find a way to discredit him so you can satisfy your fragile world view taught to you by the media and exposed as a lie more and more, every year that passes?
-4
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior Again when I ask where in the video is a demolition expert you give me a completely different video. At least this time the guy is a demolition expert. Too bad he also claims that the collapse of the two main WTC buildings started at the point of impact and could not have been explosives. I will ask again. Where in the video is a demolition expert?
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 ah, so you chose to ignore the fact that the man has been around numerous demolitions and has seen them first hand, due to his credentials, like i said it's up to you if you want to.  But Danny Jawenko clearly said (in dutch through the subtitles) "It was imploded, it was a hired job"  Here's more about him

I'd also like to point out this article which debunks  Brent Blanchard's post (the one you rely on).  But i suspect you've already made up your mind, as your wording indicates, and hold Brent's word to be factual even though it has been exposed as fallacious.


-4
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior Danny Jawenko was talking about B7 not the two main towers. And he saying this while seeing the video for the first time with no understanding of the damage caused to them by falling debris or fires. For the collapse of the two main buildings he claims that these started to fall at the point of impact and could not have been caused by explosives. Your demolition expert reinforces the main point of my article that explosives could not have been used to bring the two buildings down in the fashion that they fell. Unless you know of magical explosives that can withstand a direct impact from a plane and the fire created after it, your whole fantasy that the buildings were taken down by explosives is ridiculous.
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 Because WTC7 is a smoking gun, that leads people to question the other two.  Like i siad, i don't expect you to understand it though, and you're simply doing what the media taught you to do, which is what NIST taught them to do:  make a story, find scientism stories that can make it somewhat believable, then stick with it and shout it from the rooftops as if it's fact. Especially louder in light of the evidence that shows it to be false.

Most people know better though, and even your document you linked is now debunked so you have nothing.
-4
Reply
Male 4,847
monkwarrior Yeah, "the smoking gun". Your expert, Danny Jawenko, even says the two buildings fell on their own from the fires and the damage caused by the airplanes. I like how you just ignore that inconvenience. You guys ignore everything that disproves your ridiculous claims. I'm jumping off this thread before I get sucked too far down the derp vortex.
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
markust123 That's fine, i was only commenting to point out your post and link was nothing of value, as it had been debunked, in the event anyone thought it might be valid or valuable.  Pointing out the fragility of your world-view was simply just a side stint.
-4
Reply
Male 4,847
If my link is too long for you. Here are the demolition experts main points of their response to the assumption that The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions:

"Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse."

...

"Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation."
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
Fancylad, thanks so much for this excellent presentation!  You did a smashing job!!

Everyone else, part 1 and 2 had many commenters who just echoed what the 'debunkers' were saying, even though the video series was proving each of the 'debunkers' points wrong.  Even markust123 (who had the best debunker comment/link) was shown to be wrong today with part 3. moldysod had the best insight (on part 2), where he noticed of the commenters "All you bootlickers can do is call someone names for bringing up valid questions and facts that don't fit your comfortable world view."  With the exception of a few posters, i was inclined to agree.

So what were your thoughts on the 3 part series (if you watched it)?  I know the usual crowd of deniers will ignore and mock it and claim some more baloney which has already been debunked in the 3 part series, which they'll still want to air regardless.  I personally thought it was a fantastic series, and i learned a lot about 9/11 that i never knew before.

Can you answer the question the video presented  at 1:23:50?
-6
Reply
Male 1,689
monkwarrior

The issue I have with these videos is that they are long, boring, and meandering. I would love to go through the videos point by point, and analyze the evidence from every objective angle, but the videos are, in total, 5 hours long. Given that it typically takes about 5-10x the time to gather and analyze objective evidence, a rough estimate gives me about 25 hours to 50 hours to actually go through the video, gather objective evidence from multiple sources about each point, and then go back and give you my input.

Which is typically the case with these conspiracy theory videos/websites. I tend to take the Occam's Razor point of view. Looking at the totality of evidence easily available to me, what is the simplest explanation? That is probably the most likely explanation.

Regarding that question, that all depends on your definition of "patriotism." As we all know, people will answer all over the place depending on how they define that word (and if you're a conspiracy theorist, you will probably answer that question for the people you claim are part of the conspiracy).
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
bliznik I will admit it is a long series.  But they do go through the situation point for point.  Personally i have watched it 2 times, 10 hours in total (and this year), and it's very in-depth, covering the entire day.  Understand, we are talking about key points of 8 hours being condensed into a 5 hour video.  If you need more help to view it, the youtube pages for each video has information you can expand to find more links to points in the video, that you can view at your leisure.

I strongly urge you, or anyone who hasn't, to take the time to go through it though.  If you feel you can debunk it please do, but i'll be honest, this is the most in-depths video I've seen on the topic to date and not one that will be easy to completely debunk (especially that it took anything the 'debunkers' had to stand on).  Other videos may focus on specific things, but this series provided a well-rounded investigation into the entire day.  Based on its findings i feel it's reasonable to believe that a conspiracy took place, but at the very least to show that a re-investigation is needed.  I also feel it's unreasonable to dismiss it off hand without a serious look, especially in light of all the evidence that has been discovered in the 16 years since that day, which tells a different story from what the 'official report' tried to tell.
-7
Reply
Male 9,498
Whoa.

The comments on a 9/11 conspiracy post from less than a half hour ago have comments from 2 years ago.

That pretty much proves that the government doesn't want this information to get out.
-5
Reply
Male 686
holygod remember that an up vote for any comment in this thread is an up vote for the post as a whole.  That's why the last post was ove 175 up votes.
-4
Reply
Male 4,369
lockner01 Holy Heck! I never knew that upvotes in-thread affected the votes for the overall post. (I had to test it to be sure--and you're absolutely correct.) Whoah. I think this design is ill-considered for obvious reasons. When I upvote a critic of a post for exposing said post's weaknesses, I sure as heck don't want my upvote to be interpreted as an endorsement of the post.

Update:  Seriously? Someone downvoted this comment? ~SMH~
-2
Reply
Male 9,498
squrlz4ever I down voted it to down vote the post. Down vote mine too. :)
-4
Reply
Male 4,369
holygod Ha! Take that!
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
squrlz4ever it's ill-considered, but has no serious consequences.  Except of course, for those trolls of leather who will flock together to downvote things, and then try to make a big scene (like in part 2 of this series), that because the 'majority' are downvoting it that it should be silenced.  Petty to say the least, but since they have nothing to grasp on to i'm happy they have at least this to give some semblance of 'success' where their fragile world-view is too fearful to tread.
-4
Reply
Male 4,369
monkwarrior Well, steering clear of the dispute you describe, I think the design of the votes is a big problem. I wish I'd spotted it during beta testing. Apparently, there is no distinction made between post-votes and comment-votes, which means that fixing this--and it should be fixed if the post votes on this site are to have any meaning at all--will be a lot of work.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
squrlz4ever personally i think up and down voting is lame.  It's a trolls paradise.  If you ever visit stackoverflow you'll see how bad the voting system is.  not due to trolls, but solutions that are better and newer are further down from older and higher rated, yet poorer solutions.
-6
Reply
Male 4,369
monkwarrior Valid criticism and I see your point. I'd say that different voting schemes each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Some websites only allow upvotes. That has the advantage of eliminating the use of downvotes as a form of spite, something that we seem to be experiencing. There are a few users on here who can't make any comment at all without it being swiftly downvoted by someone who clearly has an axe to grind. Other sites allow you to see who has upvoted and downvoted a comment or a post. That, of course, makes people use the votes more responsibly.

Unfortunately, our current state of affairs is worse than having a voting scheme that is less than ideal. We've got a voting scheme with a design flaw that provides misleading information. As I've said, I was a beta tester for this new website design and I missed this. I'm partly to blame here. I should have caught it and didn't.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
squrlz4ever Personally it doesn't bother me if i have 1000 smileys or -1000. But if the votes actually meant something or affected how the site was, yeah i'd be up in arms about it too.
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 so you finally clued in and the question comes up, do you have any apologies for making claims that i was using a 'fake account' to increase the smiley's?
-6
Reply
Male 3,619
monkwarrior Oh, you and your logical fallacies!
No accusations had been made. You're only making assumptions that accusations had been made. Seems like you got caught up in some sort of western media delusions!

(Did I leave any out?)
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
DuckBoy87 Assuming what you don't know again?  Yep,

lockner01
"..It would be pretty easy to make a bunch of fake IAB accounts to up vote your own posts. I think you're probably insecure enough to actually do just that." Proof: said by lockner here





-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior So what wrong with that quote?

A) It would be very easy to make a bunch of IAB acounts.

B) It's my opinion that you are an insecure individual.  My opinion is based on the number of times you have personally insulted me.  In my experience someone who resorts to personal insults, in a debate, is insecure.

-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 The point is you don't want to admit you were wrong, even though you have been proven wrong, just like most trolls do.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior If you can provide me solid evidence that I'm wrong I would be more than happy to offer an apology.  But until then it's a plausible theory.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 I don't need to, you've proven you're a troll enough as it is.  Your pride and ego blinds you to the self-introspection you think you know, for the sake of selfishness.  Hopefully someday when you're older you'll realize the foolishness of your trolling ways. 

Sorry i deleted the last one by accident when i meant to edit.

See how easy that was to apologize?
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Firstly you should try to use simpler language.  Secondly I see you're going back to using condescending personal insults.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 keep trolling, it does you no good.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior So because you insulted me -- I'm the troll?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 no, you've proven you're a troll.   keep trolling, it does you no good. 
-5
Reply
Male 2,552
Hey monkwarrior / 747Pilot / GuySmiley

K9L (former IAB admin): "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules." link

How are you?
-3
Reply
Male 164
jaysingrimm 

Called it!
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
jaysingrimm Welcome back troll (reference proof), i knew you would be along.  After all, trolls of leather flock together.  In fact it wouldn't surprise me if you're taking over for lockner01 now. Yeah!
-4
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior trolls of leather. isnt that a gay biker gang
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham i dont know, you tell us.
-4
Reply
Male 3,093
monkwarrior you don't tell, know us i
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
rumham ...
-3
Reply
Male 2,552
monkwarrior 
"Welcome back troll (reference proof)"

Thank you for your warm greeting, it's the nicest thing you've said to anyone here :)

Although, here are some actual quotes from your link (Thanks for sharing it):

Monk: "I'm not trolling now jay" ; "Yes i i am a troll to your.." ; "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.."

-3
Reply
Male 686
jaysingrimm Thanks Jay -- before my time here but good to know.
-3
Reply
Male 2,552
lockner01 
You're welcome!
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
jaysingrimm trolling trolls for the sake of troll-eating is always good for the non-troll, but devastating for the trolls, as you know.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior You still haven't explained what you mean by troll eater -- and yet you've admitted to being a troll.  hmmmmm
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 I understand how trolls consider me a troll, i understand they hate it.  A point will come where they will give up.  I'm a troll eater in that sense.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior No -- you admitted to being a troll.  uncatagorically.  You've self indentified as a troll -- there's no question.  Evidence has been provided.

Yet you haven't answered what a troll-eater is.  Ever.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 You're experiencing it.  And yes, i fully admit that a troll would see me as a troll when they're being troll-eaten.
-3
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Here's a quote that Jay provided of you saying you're a troll:

"Monk: "I'm not trolling now jay" ; "Yes i i am a troll to your.." ; "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.."

How can I see it any other way?  Even if I was a troll -- which I'm not.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 yes, rely on what another troll says to troll further.  keep trolling, it does you no good.  
-4
Reply
Male 2,552
monkwarrior 
One of the quotes is from the 5th comment down (ranked newest) in your link, here now, in its entirety:

Monk: "I'm not trolling now jay, but clearly you are. I understand your need to paint me as the troll when you've been exposed as one, and that it's your last refuge in this thread (which you seem to fear admitting even though we can all see)."
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
jaysingrimm yes, poor hurt troll can't let the past go.  Troll on Jay, we both know you have nothing, and so does anyone else who views this.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior um I think jaysingrimm just provided you with something.  "and so does anyone else who views this": isn't that an assumption?
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 most sensible people can easily see the nature of trolls.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior You're making assumptions.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Unfortunately a lot of people can see the nature of trolls.  For me it comes easy, usually just a few words is all i need.  You've given plenty, and it was obvious on your first post.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I've seen the primary evidence.  Read the thread -- it talks about how many times you've been banned for being completely disrespectful.

Deny it all you want the proof is there.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 oh, so poor upset troll is upset.   Keep trolling, it does you no good.   
-3
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior This is the thing I don't get.  You try to provide solid evidence about 9/11. Whether you call it the truth a conspiracy whatever.  You posts a 5 hour video that you claim is solid evidence about 9/11 and how most of it is a lie.

If people don't accept this they are either a troll, mud-slinging, debunkers, have poor reading comprehension, might learn when they get older, are unwilling to learn anything new etc.

However when you are provided with direct primary evidence of you admitting to being a troll and making false acussations you outright deny it.  
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Just because you want to ignore it and troll doesn't mean others might see the value in it the investigation.  And again, i fully understand how a troll would see me as a troll, as i've mentioned to you many times, i'm a troll eater, and that irks trolls.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I've been willing to discuss it with you.  Everytime I ask a question for clarification you call me a troll.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Well, that's what happens when you come out of the gate as a troll.  Perhaps you shouldn't do that if you want to be serious?
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Yeah that didn't happen.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Unfoutunately it did, you've been trolling me constantly looking for a hook to latch on to, and finding nothing.  Keep trolling, it does you no good.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior nope I trolled you in one specific instance and I admitted to it right away.  In fact I wasn't even trolling you.  I thought I had hurt your feeling and thought if I told you I was just trolling -- or in other words joking; you would have let it go.

We can revisit the post if you want to.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 yet you keep on trolling.  it does you no good.
-4
Reply
Male 686
DuckBoy87 To be fair I did make this comment in the first of these posts:

lockner01 1 day ago 
DuckBoy87 I was wondering the same thing.  I suspect monkwarrior has made a bunch of fake accounts to up vote it.  It would have to be more than 21 as I'm sure a number of people down voted it.


-2
Reply
Male 3,619
lockner01 Yes, but that wasn't an accusation. That was a suspicion.
An accusation is saying you have the evidence.
A suspicion is saying you have an educated guess.

You even used the word 'suspect'.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior no apologies -- I was just posing a theory which may or may not have been wrong. I didn't accuse you I just said "I suspect that you may have multiple accounts".
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 So you don't take it back?  Wheres your self-introspection?
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Why would I take it back?  I posted a theory that is very plausible.  I didn't claim it as fact. I didn't accuse you.

It would be very easy to make 21 fake hotmail emails and create 21 fake IAB accounts to up-vote your own post.

Or doing you have a problem with people posting plausible theories?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01
"It would be pretty easy to make a bunch of fake IAB accounts to up vote your own posts. I think you're probably insecure enough to actually do just that." - lockner01

The least you could say is "i'm sorry for accusing you it turns out i was wrong, and you didn't do that"

So you're too prideful to admit you're wrong, or don't want to admit when you're wrong.  I'm just pointing it out because you're a known troll and that's the nature of trolls, so i really don't expect you to do that. But it could go a long way if you did to resolve your trolling nature, an olive branch.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior But there isn't any evidence that I'm wrong.  


-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 the point is, you clearly stated  "It would be pretty easy to make a bunch of fake IAB accounts to up vote your own posts. I think you're probably insecure enough to actually do just that."  and now that you know how the 'smiley/sadface' works, you're to afraid to admit you're wrong, proving you're a troll.
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I've already answered this accusation.

Now you're at the point of bullying an apology out of me.  
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Not at all, as i previously mentioned, i dont' expect you to apologize at all, you have made your ego, pride, and arrogance well visible over the last few days.  You're a troll who is full of it, which is why you won't apologize, and why you're so adamant to not give it.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I said I suspect something -- a very plausible theory. If I hurt your feelings, I am sorry. Not an appologize but legitimately sorry.  If you are telling the truth than I appologize.  However I'm not going to appologize for making the comment.

 I originally said "I suspect" -- it was a theory.  Is it wrong? I don't know. Is it right I don't know?  

There are theories made on this website all the time with now evidence. 

So yes I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.  No I am not trolling you. 
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01  
You aren't suspecting at all here:

 "It would be pretty easy to make a bunch of fake IAB accounts to up vote your own posts. I think you're probably insecure enough to actually do just that." 

you are actively saying you think that i have made a bunch of fake IAB accounts to upvote my own posts.  If fancylad comes in and says "no he wasn't using multiple accounts from the same IP to do that", i bet you would STILL go on saying some trollish thing like "ip addresses can be spoofed", all out of the pride and ego you are full of.

keep trolling, it does you no good. You could have just said "im sorry, i was wrong to imply you did that there"
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior you can bet all you want but I stand by my words.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 of course that's the nature of trolls, don't want to admit you were wrong, even though you have been proven wrong, just like most trolls do. 
-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Are these your paranormal abilities you're using?

-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01   keep trolling, it does you no good. 
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior

monkwarrior 46 minutes ago
lockner01 I'm an empath so i know what it means more than others.  The way you are talking makes me see you can't teach me on the topic, but that i could be your teacher.  Troll-eater has been explained enough to you already for you to get the rough idea.

Sorry when you claim to have paranormal abilities it starts to raise flags.  This is a direct quote from you so I'm not making a false claim.


-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 selective trolling huh?  ignoring the clear correction i've made?  Yep, clearly you are a troll.  keep trolling, it does you no good. 
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I'm not the one that made the claim.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Anyone can see your selective trolling.  keep trolling, it does you no good. 

-5
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior So you claim to be an empath and then personally insult me and I'm the troll?
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 still feigning ignorance?   keep trolling, it does you no good. 

-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior You've linked to a post where you've insulted my reading comprehension multiple times. I'm not claiming ingorance.  
You claimed to be light years beyond me. 

I pointed out that a light year was a measure of distance and not time; so I asked if you were claiming to be from a different galaxy.

You then claimed to be an empath. So I provided the defintion:

em·path
ˈempaTH/
noun

  1. (chiefly in science fiction) a person with the paranormal ability to apprehend the mental or emotional state of another individual.

And asked you claiming to have paranormal ability.

You then back tracked and said you were empathic:

em·path·ic
emˈpaTHik/
adjective

  1. showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

  1. "an attentive, empathic listener"

The difference is in the first sentence you said you were AN empath.  Not I'm empath -- which could be taken as a typo -- you were claiming to be AN empath.

Then you back tracked and said you meant to say "I'm empathic".

There's a huge difference.
-3
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I would be more than happy for anyone to follow that link to see how abusive you can actually be to someone who was trying to make peace.  But I don't think anyone needs to.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Peace?  I'd love to make peace with trolls, unfortunately, trolls just want to troll, so i'm left to eat them up.  You can always resort to going back under your bridge like some beat up trolls have done already.  Maybe you can discuss tactics, or how the argument slipped right off that monkwarrior guy on I-A-B.  I'm sure it will brighten your spirits discussing with like-minded individuals, like they say, trolls of leather flock together.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I've reached out a number of times but this is why I think you have a persicution complex.

But when I've asked you sincere open questions you still just call me a troll.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Yes you've reached out a number of times insincerely, and refused to even admit you were wrong when you were offered an 'olive branch' to do so.  I understand your projecting, hopefully you get over your persecution complex soon.  Perhaps you might choose to avoid trolling in the future if it happens to you so often?
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Everytime I've reached out it has been with all sincerety.  

You're actually claiming that you offered me an olive-branch?  Wow.


-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 sincerely trolling maybe, making an issue about where a question was when it was 11 seconds earlier, but included necessary information to lead up to the question is hardly sincere.  But no one can doubt it is sincerely trolling.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior Sorry you pointed out in a very condescending manner that you had pointed out the precise time.  I asked for clarification in a very neutral tone -- yet you called it trolling.

I've been sincere everytime -- however you've made a choice not to accept that.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Oh sorry, you werent' sincere in reality, but i agree you were sincerely trolling.  The problem is if you want to keep on trolling, eventually you're going to be called out as a troll.  So maybe you need to sit back, under your bridge, out of the sun and moon light, and in the shade, maybe ring up brother troll jaysingrimm , share a boogie or two, and discuss the situation in depth, sincerely.  Perhaps you can come to the realization it's futile, and perhaps you might even question your choice to troll in the future.  I think it would be a good thing to consider not trolling.  As fun as it is, it makes me feel sad for the trolls who try so hard, but get nowhere, like you are.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior I can see that you're getting a little emotionally worked up.  I have to go to bed.

I hope you have a good sleep -- and keep fighting your fight -- as crazy as it might be.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 im not emotional at all, keep trolling, like i said, it does you no good.
-4
Reply
Male 686
monkwarrior monkwarrior (link): "i absolutely love it when people criticise and hate on me, it's like people willingly give me their energy to stand above them.. weird, but true.  They expend energy for me to take, and i can use it effectively to become better.  Always baffles me why people do that with their energy, i'd never give it away so foolishly." 

So do you love it or find it sad?

I'm not trolling just asking a question.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
lockner01 Oh i love it, but it's sad to see a troll try so hard and get nowhere, it's such a waste of their energy, as it saps away, turning them weaker.  I get stronger regardless.  Like i've been saying, keep trolling, it does you no good.   
-4
Reply
Male 9,498
lockner01 Yep. Downvote me. I downvoted you. ;)
-5
Reply
Male 3,619
holygod Downvotes! Downvotes for all!

And the more comments made, the more downvotes to be given!!
-4
Reply
Male 4,369
DuckBoy87 ~sensing a good business opportunity, Squrlz puts on a "DOWNVOTES FOR SALE" sandwich board and paper hat~

Get your downvotes here! Downvotes for only 99 cents! Can't express your opinion without a downvote! 99 cents each or three for $2! Get your downvotes here!

~sees that this comment has been downvoted~ Okay, then! Everything everywhere gets massively downvoted. Woohoo!
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
DuckBoy87 I expect the usual deniers of the facts to act so ridiculously petty.  But don't let me stop you, keep showing the world how insecure some people (like yourself) are when faced with the facts that stand against their world view!  lol downvote it all you like - it has no effect on a post in i-a-b, but it will show any viewers/readers how some people are afraid of the truth.  As for me i'll keep commenting, as smiles or sad faces have no affect on me in the slightest!
-6
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior Well it is a little ridiculous that your other post got a score of 170+ because we were all upvoting the comments about how dumb it was.
-3
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod so you're butt-hurt over the facts presented in this video and throw a tantrum like a teenager because you don't like it?  Real mature, dude.
-6
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior No I'm saying the score the post receives should reflect what the community thinks about the content. That did not as the score read high because of how much we hated it. Understand?
-3
Reply
Male 4,369
holygod I have to agree about the voting design being a real problem. Only today did I learn via Lockner's comment that there is no distinction made between comment-votes and post-votes. That's a big problem and will take a lot of work to fix. I wish I'd spotted it in beta testing but it never even occurred to me to test for it. I think I have to shoulder some of the blame here.

What's concerning to me is that I don't know if Fancy will be willing to pay to have it fixed because it isn't an easy fix. Until it's fixed, it means the post votes displayed on the main page are meaningless or, worse, misleading. It also makes me want to not use the vote feature at all. Ugh.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod And who are you to say what the community thinks about the content?  You think that just because 8-9 people who agree with you represents the whole community?  What if the WHOLE WORLD COMMUNITY thinks that the 'OFFICIAL REPORT' is a lie (as this video has shown, and as most people outside of your nation agree with) and people who don't comment thumbed it up?  Do you want to be a tyrant, "people must only like what i like, and if they don't they must be punished in the way i see fit"?

That's right, you're throwing a tantrum like a teenager who doesn't get their way or like something that exposes the fragile world view they have.  Understand?
-5
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior Well you have posted three posts. How many people commented positively about them? 1? The other 30 people calling it bullshit are all just trolls right?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod so because of 30 people who agree with you, you feel it represents the whole community, and this is how you justify your tantrum and tyrant mindset? Pretty juvenile if you ask me.

I never called them trolls, some people are like you, juvenile and fallacious.
-5
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior Let's try a second time. How many people commented positively about them?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod oh so you want to try force your opinion with fallacies of false equivocal?  Didn't i just point out your fallacious and juvenile reasoning, and you want to bring out a fallacy to support your juvenile stance?  you're laughable. 
-5
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior OK. Maybe third time is a charm. How many people commented positively about them? 
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod  force your opinion with fallacies of false equivocal and appeal to ignorance now?? Good one.  

You aren't in the position to speak for the 'community'.  you may be able to speak for those who agree with you if they want you to, but if you want to be a juvenile tyrant, you'll be called out.
-5
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior OK. Well. Here is how debating goes. I say the community, as a whole, hates this. You say they don't.

We both agree that the voting system is meaningless.

I present the comments of which the overwhlming majority outwardly despise this as reasonable evidence of my position.

The evidence that supports your position is..... what? Copying and pasting words from your list of fallacies is not really an argument.
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod This isn't a debate.  No matter what becomes of it, you still aren't the 'spokesperson' for the 'community', and nothing of any 'debate' here will make do anything for you.  You're simply throwing a tantrum because the evidence in this investigative series exposes the fragility of your world view, and because you feel that the up and down votes have some kind of meaning, you came in here to encourage downvotinig of everything.  This shows how juvenile your reasoning is, and should be enough to explain to just about anyone why you aren't the 'spokesperson for the 'community', just a butt-hurt i-a-b user who is throwing a tantrum over something they don't like, and trying to force their way.  suck it up buttercup.
-5
Reply
Male 4,369
0
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior LOL. You are a joke on here to pretty much everyone. You try to sound smart by copying and pasting the same phrases ad nauseum and that just makes you a bigger joke.

Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It applies to you quite well.

The fact that someone can whole heartedly believe the bible verbatim because of "testimony", and  believe shit like this because someone made a youtube video full of stuff they don't understand WHILE simultaneously believing the earth might not be round and we didn't go to the moon is literally astounding. 
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod so you say, but the reality is your arguments are a joke, as you continually crash and burn like you are here, and so stoop even lower into your juvenile box of pettiness like an emotional  tantrum throwing teenager when you realize you're not succeeding.  I get it that your world view is so fragile that you need to do it, anyone reading your posts here can see it.  But your insults and judgments better apply to you, so keep complaining because your butt-hurt is now so obvious that you can't keep yourself from crashing and burning again. So you ight as well throw the towel in and call it a day.
-4
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior I'll ask you a question I've asked 5cats before.

You seem to think you are more knowledgeable and smarter than every person on IAB, including me. Is there anything in life that has happened to lead you to believe in your intellectual superiority?

Are you a member of a high IQ society? Did you perform exceptionally on standardized tests? Did you earn some advanced degree? Have you won awards? Invented things? Become a successful entrepreneur? Anything?

That's a serious question because if the answers are no then maybe you need to start questioning if you are as smart as you think you are.

If EVERYONE else is "crashing and burning" when they debate you is it possible that in fact you are the one crashing and burning but you aren't smart enough to realize it?
-2
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod It's an interesting question you should ask yourself.  You continually act like such a ridiculous tantrum throwing juvenile, but somehow think you're right.  And even when you have been proven to be wrong constantly on one topic, over and over, and offered reasons as to why, you hardly ever learn, just repeat your same old fallacies and juvenile tantrums when it's pointed out.  

I chalk this up to your anti-theism, and the ridiculous mindset among that group where they pat each other on the back and claim they are more intelligent than others.  I've studied it for 10 years and am pretty amazed at its ridiculousness, arrogance, and mindset (like you display). I could be wrong, but that's what you've revealed in our correspondence.  Unfortunately intelligence doesn't work that way, and people who are intelligent, or anyone with an ounce of rationale can see the ridiculousness of it.

And no, it's not  "everyone" who is crashing and burning.  Understand, just because you do it on a regular basis on topics you think you know better on but prove you don't, doesn't mean it's everyone.  You continually do it, and a few others do too, but 'everyone'?  no that's simply another juvenile claim.

As for me, I'm well aware that anti-theists hate the fact that i can expose the ridiculousness of their arguments.  I have my strengths and weaknesses, and unfortunately you try to take me on where I'm strong, so it would seem as you've expressed, but the reality is you're simply relying on poor and fallacious reasoning in those areas.

It's really too bad that it makes you act so juvenile, throwing tantrums as you do, and making sweeping generalizations.  As i've said many times before, it's only hurting you, and your best bet would to remain silent.  Ultimately, it is your life, and your choice to embrace ridiculousness and fallacies.  But you can't say its others fault, or that they think they're smarter, when it's you who can't defend your own words or reasoning without such devices.
-3
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior So I will take that as a hard "no" then. There is nothing you've done or achieved that leads you to believe you are smarter than everyone other than your own opinion. That's a problem. See, stupid people are too stupid to realize they are stupid just like crazy people are too crazy to realize they are crazy. That is why you periodically have to check with outside forces.

It is "everyone" that is crashing and burning. I have seen you use that phrase in debates with me, sqrlz, megrendel, rumham, boredhuman, normalfreak, etc. Pretty much anyone who debates you ends up "crashing and burning" in your estimation. Weird.

It's a question I ask myself all the time. It's the other half of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I constantly underestimate my capabilities and re assess. If you were to ask me some things I have done or achieved that lead me to believe I am smarter than most it would be:

1. Gaining membership to Mensa at 18 the first time I took the test.
2. Taking multiple standarized IQ tests administered by professionals and scoring in a range of 127 - 144.
3. Testing in the 98-99 percentile on the SAT, ACT, and 3 sections of the ASVAB without studying or prepping for any of them.
4. Being 1 of 3 kids in my high school that tested into college placement math in 9th grade.
5. Starting and successfully running 3 small businesses.

I could go on. See, I think it is important to gauge myself to reaffirm that my own perceived intelligence is not merely a construct of a weaker mind as yours appears to be.
-1
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod unfortunately many of your posts in relation to religions, or on issues like 9/11, where you fear the fragility of your world view, shows you clearly over-estimate yourself.  As you continually crash and burn from the ridiculousness you rely on as you speak against them.

You're quite the insecure person, desperate to down vote what you don't like, desperate to try make yourself seem more wiser than you are, desperate to mock and belittle others, and yes, even to try show why you think you're smarter than most.  I regularly score over 130 on IQ tests myself, but it's a ridiculous thing, IQ tests, and it means nothing to me.  If you were wise, you would understand at least that much about IQ tests.  A better test would be a WQ test, which isn't around.

But no, your 'gauges' of how you prove to yourself that you consider yourself better than others are simply just fallible constructs, and are as petty and ridiculous as most of your comments in this thread.  It also dangerously inflates your ego, as i've seen many times in you and many others.  So it's no surprise now you are so biased and butt hurt when your world-view is challenged: You apparently think you're right and of superb intelligence, and can't stand it that you might be wrong.  It makes sense why you always have such a hissy-fit when you lose (like you are here).  Clearly, Dunning Kruger is at work with you, and you're not assessing yourself properly in regards to it.  But it's no surprise to me, i knew this many years ago.

It must make you really mad that someone as 'intelligent' as yourself is wiped up and down the street by a lesser 'peon' like you perceive me as.

Want to know how i view myself?  I am the low of the low because that's how i can stay humble, and sharp.  That's how you can avoid the dangerous ego you've developed (which will take immense work to undo), where you throw tantrums at the slightest bad wind.  I could survive world war 3 and come out smiling, something i strongly doubt you could ever do.

When bombs are falling all around you and things are going to hell, no one is going to care about your IQ, how intelligent you view yourself, how many businesses you've brought up, or what you scored in school.  They're going to be looking for those who can roll with the change, those with sturdy foundations, and that's not something someone full of ego is going to do well at, but someone who stayed humble will.
-2
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior There it is again, hilarious. I'm "crashing and burning". Conversing with you is like talking to bad A.I. that only has a set number of responses programmed in. Give me your address. I'll send you a Thesaurus. 

"More wiser" lol.

"I regularly score over 130 on IQ tests myself" I'm not talking about online tests. Those are meaningless. I'm talking going someplace and taking a standardized written test of a couple hundred questions administered by a professional. You "regularly" take those? Sure you do.

"It must make you really mad that someone as 'intelligent' as yourself is wiped up and down the street by a lesser 'peon' like you perceive me as."

Not at all. Do you want to know why? Because the only place you "wipe me up and down" is in your own head. Seriously. Dunning-Kruger. Look into it.
-1
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod Unfortunately, you've never won an argument against me, and you know it.  Of course, you won't admit it at all.  As usual, you always always fall into the tantrum zone bringing out ridiculousness and fallacies, shooting your engines out trying to catch up, then crash and burn and curse me from the ground as i'm sailing away.  Most people with a 'high IQ' wouldn't bother to do that, and FYI i have been tested for a high IQ, despite your continued fallacious attempt to ignore that fact (just like you're ignoring the facts about 9/11 that expose the fragility of your world view).
-1
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior Seriously. Dunning-Kruger. Look into it.
0
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod seriously, you should.  You've proven that you really should maybe get independently evaluated, since you're not capable of seeing flaws in yourself, even though others have, and let you know. (you just want to ignore and throw tantrums).
-1
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior Seriously. Dunning-Kruger. Look into it.

0
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod  seriously, you should.  You've proven that you really should maybe get independently evaluated, since you're not capable of seeing flaws in yourself, even though others have, and let you know, it's just like you want to ignore them and throw tantrums.   People like you are the reason why i care little for my own IQ #, what good is intelligence if you're acting like a ridiculous fool? Seriously, get independently evaluated.

BTW, here's a tune for you to help you consider, it reminds me of you.  It's an easy one, it mainly has just 5 words.
-1
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior A ridiculous fool? Says the guy who thinks the Earth might be flat. Do people laugh out loud at you in person?

0
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod ahaha still peddling your unintelligent claims? ahahaha that's minus 10 points for your IQ!  

Give it a rest kid, you lost, fair and square.  Gave it your best, but it just wasn't enough and you still had no hope.
-1
Reply
Male 9,498
monkwarrior only in your mind. Remember what I said?

Stupid people are too stupid to realize they are stupid.

Feel free to have the last word. I'm done wasting my time with someone dumb enough to think the Earth might be flat. LOL.
0
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod i remember what you said, but it's only in your mind that you're succeeding.  And you're right, stupid people like yourself are too stupid to realize you're stupid.  Thanks for pointing that out, what a great way to seal the end of your complete failure in light of the facts.  Remember.
-1
Reply
Male 3,619
monkwarrior lol, just like boredhuman's satirical post, you didn't catch my satire either.

But to be fair, boredhuman did a fantastic job at his satire. Fooled a lot of people that day.
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
DuckBoy87 Yes, i noticed he 'fooled' many of the deniers of the facts, like yourself. 
-5
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod so, you're an insecure troll.
-7
Reply
Male 4,691
holygod seems like a mistake if you ask me.
-6
Reply
Male 13,630
10Bears

annoying and pointless. hate it.
---------------
Story of my life mate
-5
Reply
Male 5,872
Tch.
-5
Reply
Male 40,277
Hard to even tell which keys do anything, especially in 4 seconds...

The guy who made this has made 78 other games, he`s an actual genius! :-)
-7
Reply
Male 3,231
Im relieved, I thought it might have been compilation of my dating experiences.
-4
Reply
Male 488
annoying and pointless. hate it.
-4
Reply
Male 4,691
Link: 4 Second &ames [Play+] [Rate Link] - &e quick!
-7
Reply