#1 WTC Demolitions Thread

[DouglasReed]

9/11 is so much fun. You can start absolutley anywhere, and you're bound to run into a wall of b.s. in no more than 3 minutes.

Meet CeeCee Lyles.

http://www.unitedafa.org/afa/honors/...ecee_lyles.htm

CeeCee was the one of the people with magic cell phones that work in air planes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyles.ogg

There was no plane wreckage in Shanksville, but luckily they did recover CeeCee Lyles' driver's license to use in the Moussaoui case.


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...n/P200069.html

Good work guys. But apparently not enough coordination. CeeCee was supposed to be married to somebody named Castrillo when she got her driver's license in the name Lyles.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2616

These "people" on the planes are all complete fictions.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4840

Everything about 9/11 is fiction.

[Bernie]

Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88

It's getting to the point where he doesn't even care what he says, so long as he clutters the thread.

This is a very old thread. I said much the same here about this and numerous other maggots a long time ago. The anonymity of the internet enables the Jews to have thousands of vermin like Rumpelforeskin all over the internet, especially sites where their 911 mass murder of 3,000 innocent Goy schmuks is discussed.

There is no prospect of any American Government EVER investigating the 911 INSIDE job until every last Jew is removed from positions of influence in the Media, Military, Government, Law enforcement, Judiciary, Banking and Education. That won't happen until the murderous bastards finally overreach themselves and then........ show time!

Heads on every lamp post in the USA

[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

What plane crashes look like

Basically your argument is that a plane has only crashed when there are big chunks left openly and visibly at the impact zone then?
Your logic here dictates that, for example, that UA Flight 585 didn't crash, or Swissair Flight 111 etc.

Not all plane crashes look alike, and as you've been shown there are several crashes that leave little discernable debris left in the way many other plane crashes do.

9/11 is so much fun. You can start absolutley anywhere, and you're bound to run into a wall of b.s. in no more than 3 minutes.

Yepp, usually bs from truthers.

CeeCee was the one of the people with magic cell phones that work in air planes

Ah yes, I should have figured you would bring up this as well, that cell phones can't function on airplanes while en route. You just believe anything you hear as long as it is pro 9/11 conspiracy, don't you Martin? Hook line and sinker, sans actually researching it?

Here's a bit information of why some cell phone calls made it through, but why they didn't last more than seconds or so:

Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

"On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast," she explained. "Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage."

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

"They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked," she said.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/...final_contact/

Here's a brief and concised article on cell phone calls from planes:
*Mobiles at Altitude
A few excerpts from this article:

An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Making Calls From The Air , by Brad Smith
September 24, 2001 c 2003, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.

When several passengers aboard the hijacked airliners made calls to family and spouses from their wireless phones on the now-infamous Sept. 11, it came as a surprise to many that the calls actually were completed.

Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

The technology is there to support such airborne mobile connections. Take the Colorado company Aircell Inc., which uses FCC-approved equipment for wireless phone service.

But how does a terrestrial technology work in the sky?

First, altitude in itself is not a problem. Earthbound wireless phones can talk to base stations up to 10 miles away, depending on the terrain, while a typical passenger jet flies at an altitude of about six and a half miles. Since cell site antennas are configured to pick up signals horizontally and not from overhead, performance is usually compromised in calls from above. Nevertheless, cell sites can pick up signals from the air from great distances.

Toby Seay, vice president of national field operations for AT&T Wireless, says the technological limits to using a cell phone aboard a plane include the signal strength, potential signal inhibitors and "free space loss" as the signal gradually loses strength. The frequency used can make a difference, too. A signal using an 800 MHz cellular frequency can travel farther than a 1900 MHz PCS signal because of the different propagation characteristics of the two wavelengths.

The biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That's why wireless calls from jetliners don't last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.

No, there is nothing "magic" about it.

Good work guys. But apparently not enough coordination. CeeCee was supposed to be married to somebody named Castrillo when she got her driver's license in the name Lyles.

I do not get this part. Do you believe she was not a real person who died? I suspect you'd be ready to confront her husband with that information would you, seeing as you have made a lot ado about being the big guy and confronting people in the flesh. Why don't you accuse her family, husband and sons of being liars then? That she never existed or whatever your argument is.

Disgusting truther nonsense is what it is, which knows no bounds in my experience. It reminds me of when Alex Jones accused the FDNY guys of being complicit of murder on 9/11.

Btw here's a skeptic who checked the name-controversy up:

Just got done emailing the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles about Cee Cee Lyles Drivers License.

Her license, which was recovered from the crash site in PA, is indeed CORRECT and the dates do indeed match her situation as far as last names, marriages, etc.

Cee Cee Lyles went in to the FL DMV in June of 2001, and changed her name. Her new license included the ORIGINAL ISSUE date of 1997 and the DUPLICATE DATE of 2001.

From the FL DMV ----"That is correct. It will show both the original and duplicate dates."

First, my email to the FL Drivers License Office:

From: XXXXXXXXXXX [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:49 PM
To: XXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Re: Customer number XXXXXXXX Email Tracking System Updated Record

Just to clarify, if someone was issued an original license in 1997, then changed their name in 2001, would the new license say "issue date 1997" AND duplicate date "2001"?

Thank you,

XXXXXXXXXX

02/12/08

And the response from the FL Drivers License Office, my emphasis added.

Subject: RE: Customer number XXXXXXX Email Tracking System Updated Record
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:04:48 -0500
From: "XXXXXXXXXX" <[email protected]> Add Mobile Alert
To: "XXXXXXXXX" <[email protected]>
That is correct. It will show both the original and duplicate dates.

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer service survey at www.hsmv.state.fl.us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For future references your customer number is XXXXXXX

Please visit our website at http://casey.hsmv.state.fl.us/ddl/em...lrecordadd.cfm

------------------------------

Oh well, there goes ANOTHER "smoking gun" of the movement!!!!

You guys got anything else?

[Slamin2]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

9/11 is so much fun. You can start absolutley anywhere, and you're bound to run into a wall of b.s. in no more than 3 minutes.

Meet CeeCee Lyles.

http://www.unitedafa.org/afa/honors/...ecee_lyles.htm

CeeCee was the one of the people with magic cell phones that work in air planes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyles.ogg

There was no plane wreckage in Shanksville, but luckily they did recover CeeCee Lyles' driver's license to use in the Moussaoui case.


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...n/P200069.html

Good work guys. But apparently not enough coordination. CeeCee was supposed to be married to somebody named Castrillo when she got her driver's license in the name Lyles.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2616

These "people" on the planes are all complete fictions.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4840

Everything about 9/11 is fiction.

Doug

When Jonoleth crushes your arguments, like the CeeCee thing, does that cause you pause or do you just move to what you think is the next 'fact' you base your beliefs on?

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Slamin2

Doug, When Jonoleth crushes your arguments, like the CeeCee thing, does that cause you pause or do you just move to what you think is the next 'fact' you base your beliefs on?

Oh lordy.

My argument is crushed is it? I see. So the fact that Mrs. Lyles was, according to all official sources, named Mrs. Castrillo when her 1997 license -- recovered from an airplane that wasn't there, and entered into evidence by lawyers in a Federal trial -- was issued is now no longer relevant, eh? How did that happen? I didn't see it. It was too fast for me. My argument got crushed so fast I completely missed it.

What Stiltskin does is try to bury you in a bunch mostly irrelevant noise so that hopefully you forget the impact of the simple points being made. Here he drones on about cell phones. Cell phones are something I actually know something about. There's about 15 different transmission modes used in the modern protocol. I don't know what it was like in 2001, but obviously it was not as good as today. The signal strength is being constantly evaluated so that the phone can hop between modes depending on which will give better results. Some are optimized for lower signal but a stationary transmission, so like when you're inside a building. Others are better for someone driving down a highway in a car. Some are better depending on how much data traffic there is, or where you're located within the cell, in the center or towards the edge. In the case of somebody driving down a highway, the session will have to be handed off to different base stations as you move through different cells. The modes optimized for a moving signal are capable of dealing with the hand off so it seems seemless to the person on the phone. That's for somebody going 60 miles an hour. I guarantee you, there are no modes optimized for -- or that could even begin to deal with -- a cell phone moving 500 miles an hour. It would pass in and out of cells so quickly that it would never even get through the initial handshake.

Go back a few pages to the post where I had the recording of the air traffic controller talking to the pilots. That's on a radio system optimized for communicating with an airplane. Now go back up three posts and listen to the recording of the "cell phone" call from "Mrs. Lyles." Isn't the quality just stunning?

Get a clue, baby. Better yet, go try your cell phone out next time you're on an airplane 30,000 feet in the air.

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin

Basically your argument is ...

No, Jon baby, don't tell me what my argument is. I'll make my arguments say exactly what I mean them to say. As for your "responses" that are mostly quotes that profess to refute what you claim my argument is, I will now, and intend in the future, to simply ignore them. I'll scan them for however many seconds they seem to merit, but if you think I'm going to waste my time taking issue with them you're dreaming. And I recommend you respond in your own words if you expect anyone else to do more.

Ah yes, I should have figured you would bring up this as well, that cell phones can't function on airplanes while en route.

They most certainly cannot, which is well-known to anyone in the industry. Not now, and certainly not eight years ago. People on planes are typically told to turn them off, simply to avoid interference with the plane's own equipment. But you go right ahead and try making a cell phone call from an airplane and see what happens.

You just believe anything you hear as long as it is pro 9/11 conspiracy, don't you Martin? Hook line and sinker, sans actually researching it?

Oh yeah, the old I'm-a-stupid-person-who-parrots-things-I-read-on-the-Internet line. I'll bet lots of people reading our exchange are taken in by that one.

Here's a bit information...

As I said, this kind of stuff goes in the trash where it belongs. It's just another part of your poor magician's repetoire. Try to get people to look off in another direction, and generally bore them to death if they oblige you.

No, there is nothing "magic" about it.

Agreed there.

I do not get this part. Do you believe she was not a real person who died?

Yes, that's what I believe. You managed to get that one right.

Disgusting truther nonsense ...

And again with the invective, in the affected tone of wounded saintliness. How about this: You're a disgusting non-truther, and it insults the intelligence of a Kwan to believe that anyone out there is taken in by your nonsense.

[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

No, Jon baby, don't tell me what my argument is. I'll make my arguments say exactly what I mean them to say.

Yeah, and I answered them on point, hence if you argue that the Flight 93 plane crash was fake, because there was not enough visible debris in the impact zone, then all other plane crashes that follow the same e.m.o would be equally fake right? Otherwise, if this is not your "logic", then you argument is hypocritical either way, so when you find yourself in a hole of a logical fallacy Martin, stop digging.

As for your "responses" that are mostly quotes that profess to refute what you claim my argument is, I will now, and intend in the future, to simply ignore them.

What else is new, this is what those desperately clinging to kooky claims tend to do when faced with the pesky facts that contradict their emotional attachments, they whine, they ignore, they lambast, anything but to put up or shut up. No offense.

And I recommend you respond in your own words if you expect anyone else to do more.

I do respond in my own words, however it just so happens that pertinent information if say quoted by an expert on wireless communcation, posted in Wireless Week, leaves me quite justified in quoting that bit of relevant information wouldn't you say?

They most certainly cannot, which is well-known to anyone in the industry. Not now, and certainly not eight years ago. People on planes are typically told to turn them off, simply to avoid interference with the plane's own equipment. But you go right ahead and try making a cell phone call from an airplane and see what happens.

I never said they would function well, or even for any notable long period of time. The case you were handed with was rather evident, cell phones can and have been used in planes while en route, usually it doesn't work but often enough for a period of time that it refutes your claim of magic cell-phone communication. Ergo, the case is that it is highly possible a smidgin number of cell phone calls made it through for a few seconds, from several hundred passangers who likely had them and possibly tried to call as well.

Oh yeah, the old I'm-a-stupid-person-who-parrots-things-I-read-on-the-Internet line. I'll bet lots of people reading our exchange are taken in by that one.

Well they should. Previously, you issued the "highjackers are still alive" canard, the "flight manifest" nonsense etc. Why else would you peddle such obvious and thoroughly debunked truthernoia unless you didn't care what was correct or not, as opposed to what confirmed your need for conspiratorial satisfaction?

As I said, this kind of stuff goes in the trash where it belongs. It's just another part of your poor magician's repetoire. Try to get people to look off in another direction, and generally bore them to death if they oblige you.

Erhm okay, pleading no contest I see, got it.

Yes, that's what I believe. You managed to get that one right.

Then your idea and belief on the matter is not only disturbing, but crazy, imo.

As I said earlier, then you'd be ready to confront her husband with that repulsive argument, telling him his wife and the mother of their children never existed, seeing as you have made a lot ado about being the big guy and confronting people in the flesh. Why don't you accuse her family, husband and sons of being delusional or liars then?

My argument is crushed is it? I see. So the fact that Mrs. Lyles was, according to all official sources, named Mrs. Castrillo when her 1997 license -- recovered from an airplane that wasn't there, and entered into evidence by lawyers in a Federal trial -- was issued is now no longer relevant, eh? How did that happen? I didn't see it. It was too fast for me. My argument got crushed so fast I completely missed it.

Yeah yeah, you clearly misssed.

"Cee Cee Lyles went in to the FL DMV in June of 2001, and changed her name. Her new license included the ORIGINAL ISSUE date of 1997 and the DUPLICATE DATE of 2001."

And the response from the FL Drivers License Office, my emphasis added.

That is correct. It will show both the original and duplicate dates.

My suggestion here Martin, is that you deny the whole thing as nonsense and keep ignoring it despite the facts telling you otherwise, because it is destructive to your argument.

Heck, on my wife's driver's license, even after renewal, still has her maiden name, for some reason that none of us has bothered to do anything about at the moment.

Oh oh, going by your reasong this means my wife doesn't exist, or the Swedish Secret Police is up to something. Holy cow, what on earth am I going to do?!?

I mean come on, Martin? You can't be serious, stop jesting.

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin

Yeah, and I answered them on point, hence if you argue that the Flight 93 plane crash was fake, because there was not enough visible debris in the impact zone, then all other plane crashes that follow the same e.m.o would be equally fake right?

So let's see if I understand how this works. Proof by analogy is allowed when it supports your side of the case, but not otherwise. So when steel frame buildings burn for hours and hours like raging infernos but still do not collapse, that's not important. However, giant planes can crash in empty fields and leave no visible evidence -- because hey, it happens all the time!

Groovy.

But of course you need those kinds of handicaps to even begin to make an argument that's going to sound somewhat plausible to not-very-curious people. Since every single aspect of 911 is a lie and an impossibility, you have to carefully explain how each impossibility was accomplished despite the odds, and how all these imposibilities happened one after the other on this impossible day.

For instance, cell phone calls simply cannot be made from airplanes. But you say:

I never said they would function well, or even for any notable long period of time. ... the case is that it is highly possible a smidgin number of cell phone calls made it through for a few seconds ...

As with the argument over the WTC towers, how about I give you a little ground for free and see what you can make of it? Another handicap. So cell phone calls "can make it through for a few seconds" is your assertion. So now what do we do with Madeline Sweeney's cell phone call of 25 minutes to Michael Woodward?

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...honecalls.html

[Oy Ze Hate]

Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin

Erhm, as can clearly be seen it was only the exterior scaffolding that burned, for four hours. I suppose you consider that to be the same thing?

I was up two thousand words on you. Here's a few more: where there's no smoke, there's no fire.

Where's the smoke?

[Oy Ze Hate]

Well, Douglas, the laws of evidence change when it comes to an epic Al CiaDuh attack on the blessed homeland.



I guess the giant airliner must have come down at such a steep angle that it all disappeared under the dirt. What else could explain the complete lack of visible aircraft remains? It's underground, of course.



Of course there's no "buried plane pit" at the Pentagon. The giant airliner simply vanished. Not a shred could be seen. Not even an engine, or a sheered off wing, or any pieces of the plane's bulkhead.

[DouglasReed]

This was the first 9/11 book that was available in at least semi-mainstream bookstores, like City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco where I got my copy. It's probably still a good read for people that haven't spent a lot of time looking into 9/11. There was nothing new in it in 2005, but it documented the earlier work quite completely. Griffin has written several books since, and is one of the most respected advocates for the 9/11 movement.

I took this text from the web a couple years ago and have not proofed it, but I went over it pretty carefully with my word processor's eye, so it shouldn't have too many typos.

http://www.mediafire.com/?hnzyecymnmn

There is a famous CSPAN presentation from April of 2005 that's plastered all over the web if you do a google search for it. It's quite good for a total newbie, but otherwise he's a bit tedious to listen to for any length of time.

[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

So let's see if I understand how this works. Proof by analogy is allowed when it supports your side of the case, but not otherwise. So when steel frame buildings burn for hours and hours like raging infernos but still do not collapse, that's not important. However, giant planes can crash in empty fields and leave no visible evidence -- because hey, it happens all the time!

No, you are obviously (purposely I bet) misconstructing what I've argued, i.e you're offering up your own straw-men and belittling it in the process.

Steel frame buildings that burn for hours, yet do not collapse, can or can not be important comparisons, it depends. Usually, the compaired buildings had notably steel reinforced concrete around the columns and so forth, the WTC's did not, that's an important difference.

Secondly, there were visible evidence in the Flight 93 crash, yet very little discernable ones at the impact crater which is not something that happens all the time, but it has happend before more than once. Therefor, Martin, you are either forced to retract that observation as invalid for purpose of denying there was a Flight 93 crash there and recognize that not all plane crashes are the same and leave a lot of large visible debris, or you are forced to consider the other formentioned crashes as faked/pipe dreams as well.

Since every single aspect of 911 is a lie and an impossibility, you have to carefully explain how each impossibility was accomplished despite the odds, and how all these imposibilities happened one after the other on this impossible day.

See, you are so far into this cultish truthernoia that you have started issuing one absolute after the other; "every single aspect... lie and an impossibility". Even when you keep those eyes closed and repeat that mantra, it doesn't make it true.

For instance, cell phone calls simply cannot be made from airplanes. But you say

It's a known fact, as you've been shown, that cell phone calls can be made from airplanes, it's highly problematic and very often doesn't function properly or even at all, but it has and does happen.

As with the argument over the WTC towers, how about I give you a little ground for free and see what you can make of it? Another handicap. So cell phone calls "can make it through for a few seconds" is your assertion. So now what do we do with Madeline Sweeney's cell phone call of 25 minutes to Michael Woodward?

See this is the kind of mixed baked truthernoia I'm talking about. It's commonly known, for anyone that has actually looked at the calls made from the airplanes, that Sweeney used the airphone, not a cell phone. She borrowed Sara Low's (flight attendant) card to use it.

[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by Oy Ze Hate

I was up two thousand words on you. Here's a few more: where there's no smoke, there's no fire.

Where's the smoke?

Well are you referring to a specific building or?

Of course there's no "buried plane pit" at the Pentagon. The giant airliner simply vanished. Not a shred could be seen. Not even an engine, or a sheered off wing, or any pieces of the plane's bulkhead.

Again more nonsense. Most of the debris naturally went into the building, since that's where the plane crashed into and fast.


However, there were several identifiable pieces up front.

the above image shows a diagram of the high pressure system within the RB211-535 engine. Also included are the objects identified in the Pentagon wreckage and their relative locations within the engine. As discussed in the main article, all three of these pieces of debris are identical matches to or at least consistent with the components found in the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan aboard a Boeing 757.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

Also compare a picture from one of the wheels of the landing gear (there are pictures of the landing gear too of course) with the picture of the 77 debris at the Pentagon:

[Slamin2]

When you have eliminated the inconvenient, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the twoof.

[DouglasReed]

I'm not participating thread in this or anything else on this forum until I get an apology or banned.

One thing I like about admins who piss me off is I get to say whatever the FUCK I want until they do something. All you Saviors of the White Race can now deal with someone who actually knows something about what's going on beyond your piddly obessions with fucking kikes, most of whom are just as in the dark as anybody else. I'm better read on your own fucking literature than you are, and I can tell you you're a bunch of imbiciles headed for jail time at best. We'll see how long it take for your poppy to kick me off and prove to you all that he has no other interest than to keep you on that track.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

literature than you are, and I can tell you you're a bunch of imbiciles

yo dawg, you be providin' humor like this, you're a lifer, budger-buddy!

frookin monkey.

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

yo dawg, you be providin' humor like this, you're a lifer, budger-buddy!

frookin monkey.

I'd be careful, if I were you, Mr. Linder. Unless you know exactly who it is you're dealing with.

Anyone who does not know what this is about, see the Apollo Thread in the "tards" section.

[Alex Linder]

Politics is all about pattern recognition.

Details, shmueltails.

All you need to know is the jews, the Mossadists in particular, have a history of producing false flags.

That is what this was. A Mossad-produced event intended to bring about the "New Pearl Harbor" necessary to inspire the Kwan-monkeys into the field to spread dumb-oxcracy, ie, pave the way to Greater Israel.

Those interested in the details of the production are, 90% of them, a bunch of queers discussing feng shui, and a handful of Whites who, by trade or interest, are honest historians.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

I'd be careful, if I were you, Mr. Linder. Unless you know exactly who it is you're dealing with.

Anyone who does not know what this is about, see the Apollo Thread in the "tards" section.

If you're not melcur, you're at least melcurious.

Stupid fag. Go lick Alex Jones' butt, loser.

You're up to no good, and you've already proven you can't keep your word. Didn't you say you were leaving since your Pollo-tard thread was WC'd? Why, bless my soul, you did. But you didn't.

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

If you're not melcur, you're at least melcurious.

Stupid fag. Go lick Alex Jones' butt, loser.

You're up to no good, and you've already proven you can't keep your word. Didn't you say you were leaving since your Pollo-tard thread was WC'd? Why, bless my soul, you did. But you didn't.

You go ahead and ban me. Then I won't be able to post anymore. Meanwhile I'll stick around and give your faithful followers a glipse of how respectable you can be.

Alternatively, you can take up the challenge. Show me how we went to the moon.

You want to act like a dictator and move threads around to cover either your ignorance or your agenda, then expect to encounter problems. So take it like a man. Admit you're wrong. We'll let bygones be.