Guestbook entries for Temujin

• Circuitsboard : Howdy on December 10, 2008

  Been a while, sir. Sir?
  I was thinking of when I frequented this site and remembered reading some good writing from you, and wanted to stop by and say that for whatever reason, your personality and ability are memorable.
  I hope all is well and Life is treating you kindly...
• greengable on February 20, 2007

  I believe that the “rule”: one must not end a sentence with a preposition to be a common erroneous belief. Somewhere in the vast history of language some pretentious wanker (Robert Lowth – I think you will find this blunder is attributed to) came up with this unnecessary need to “round off” one’s sentences. I am very fond, in fact, of finishing my sentences with a preposition and I will continue to do so!
  It is not the breaking of an age old lingual commandment and the only potential justification behind me changing my ways is that it doesn’t ‘alf make one sound thick, innit.  (Or possibly your incessant nagging!)
  
• Temujin on July 31, 2006

  Some say that Central Asia peaked under his reign, so he wouldn't be a bad namesake. I'm only kidding; I don't really care =)
• Christina Prince on July 29, 2006

  No I don't speak the language,, but I do admire Genghis Khan. Would you rather I be Fausta P Timur the Lame?
• natari on November 20, 2005

  Ok no lobsters lol.Yes my real name is Helen
• Temujin on November 20, 2005

  There's a cat in the moon!!! That's psychedelic. So, let me get this straight... that's gotta be a nom de plume, you can't be called Natari Moon :-|
  
  Anyway, if I said you had a nice name, would you hold me against 3,000 lobsters? I think that's how it goes.
• natari on November 19, 2005

  Ok I'll hold you to those lobsters You can get the book at
  www.amazon.co.uk or at least admire the freaky cover It's called Lunar Tides. Ten years hmmm that's a long time to wait you know.
• natari on November 19, 2005

  You seem to like causing a little commotion
• Temujin on November 18, 2005

  If you will insist on adorning my author page with your keyboard-mashing, I shall have no recourse but to direct people to the poem in question:
  
  allpoetry.com/Poem/1638177
  
  Completely fair, I'm sure you'll agree.
• HazelBeauty on November 18, 2005

  If you hate my poems so much don't waste you fuckin time readin them because you don't know my life or what I've been through so waste your comments on someone else!!
• Temujin on November 17, 2005

  I see. When you eat, be careful not to chew your tongue.
• HazelBeauty on November 17, 2005

  How do I start? Your response to my poem was different than most! Most absorb the entire meaning and think about the questions that I asked. You just concentrated on one thing which means your not that open-minded, but you call yourself a poet. Right? maybe I'm wrong, but next time try to understand the entire poem and don't answer my questions for me, because at the end the questions are really for people who don't think. Like You!!!
• Temujin on November 11, 2005

  Hey, next time I'm on the class A train to cloudsville I'll tell the Wizard that my friend the Tin Lady needs the brain smartish. He'll be down with that and you'll thank me.
• piccola on November 11, 2005

  I can't get into this; I'm waiting for the wizard of Oz to bring me a brain.. you people are too smart for your own good (Walks away happy in her orgazmic ignorance..)
• Tatenda on September 24, 2005

  mmmm, that is why I find it amusing.
  
  
• Temujin on September 22, 2005

  you know that it's true.
• Tatenda on September 21, 2005

  we finally have a choice between childish praise and elitist drivel...
  
  LOL
• Thats Absurd on August 22, 2005

  AWESOME BRO....Dood my Duck army is in position to attack france....YESSSS....Viva la Ducks
• Ninetysixer on August 20, 2005

  I have the word selection I am going to give to you right now but it too early in the day for that. My new poem is cretain to tick you off so; Enjoy!
  Pancaking
• Temujin on August 19, 2005

  that was a much better response because you weren't resorting to insults.
  
  about the steel protection being blasted away by the debris and exposing the steel - what was it exposing it to? temperatures that were clearly too cool to melt it? wouldn't a lot more than one corner of a building need to be exposed, even though the fire was too cool and the pancaking effect was impossible?
  
  "You keep talking about how the laws of nature were compromised thus allowing the buildings to drop at unexplaned rates.
  You can't give a definite answer to why."
  
  i did not say that the laws of nature were compromised - i wrote that the official, US government explanation of events defies basic scientific laws. any media hack can investigate and understand that a building cannot fall at the same rate as or FASTER THAN an object in freefall. it just cannot happen. some of the debris of the buildings as they fell was ejected horizontally 70 metres: that looks to me like detonations on every floor. if you have another explanation then please provide one and i'll be glad to listen. the official story is a load of crap, though.
  
  "I can't give a definite answer to why the fuel melted the steel, but it did."
  
  you should not go about your life giving that kind of answer. "i don't know why it did, but it did" is no response: you should want to know why. the fact here is that it was quite impossible for the steel to have melted. i will accept that the steel could have softened and buckled, however as you can see from all of the photos, there is black smoke, indicating a much cooler fire which would be too cool even for that - and even IF it were, a few softened supports would never cause a single floor to collapse, never mind an amazingly strong entire building, faster than is scientifically possible.
  
  regarding the pennsylvania crash site, i hereby offer you a challenge: find me a documented plane crash, from any news site, from anywhere in the world, from any decade, where the aircraft has crashed and not left wreckage. you will not find any evidence because aircraft ALWAYS leave wreckage. even the colombus space shuttle crash left wreckage!!! if you do not find wreckage, then you are probably not looking at a genuine crash site!
  also, could you PLEASE show me these large sections of wing outside the pentagon because i have seen no such photos (and believe me when i say i've gone through a lot of images of the pentagon site).
  
  the rest of what you wrote, touching as it may be, has no place in an objective debate. if you want to mourn the dead from 9/11, then do so, i have no problem with that - what happened was terrible. but there is absolutely no way that the official story holds up. you pledge allegiance to the united states of america, not your president and not your flag, but 9/11 has been used as a political tool by your government, to garner support and strengthen the very strange idea that questioning anything official is unpatriotic.
  
  if people REALLY cared at all about the people that died on 9/11, they would ask questions and debate the subject sensibly rather than saying "i don't know" or switching to sentimentality. it is not hard to ask questions about your government and it shouldn't be, but in george w. bush's own words:
  
  "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
  
  or in other words, don't think.
• Ninetysixer on August 19, 2005

  I've been over this: The steel protection was blown away by plane debris, thus exposing the steel.
  You keep talking about how the laws of nature were compromised thus allowing the buildings to drop at unexplaned rates.
  You can't give a definite answer to why.
  I can't give a definite answer to why the fuel melted the steel, but it did.
  I can't give an explantion to why the building desinger made the building only able to stand up to a 707,but he did.
  I can't tell you why we are here, but we are.
  
  On a lighter note I do find it cool that the towers reacted the way they did, if of course you are telling the truth, and of course you were told the truth.
  
  Note on one of your misconceptions as I am writing this refutal I am looking at the crash site in Pennsylvania right after they found the plane, I see almost no plane (its in very small pieces, over a very large area), and NO GRASS IN THE PIT.
  I am looking at the defaced Pentagon, I see two very large wings (each in at lest 3 pieces) and a plane's tail end more pieces of the plane, and pieces of the outer walls dangeling by steel wires.
  I am looking at the fire in the WTC I see red goo, and people falling.
  I am looking at you and I see a pessimist.
  I am looking at the fixed up Pentagon and I see a sign for the real 'Let's Roll!'.
  I am looking at pictures of a North Carolinian, Jim Gallucci, he works with the waste steel from Ground Zero, I see steel that is bent all over and some of the beams have rounded end indicating they were almost liquid a short while ago,note steel does not have to be liquid to blend break or to give way to too much weight so it didn't need to reach 1500c.
  I am looking at two pictures of Rudy Giuliani reciving his honorary Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II.
  I see a picture of Manu Dhingra, who was burned over 40% of his body, he is wearing a black shirt.
  I see my main man Bush giving "The World We Have Entered" speach to the graduates of West Point, that year. He is doing that streasted sylable thing with his lips. Bush is as of right now taking his 5 week vacation, which is way too long.
  I am looking at white smoke rising from the WTC site 5 days after the attack.
  I am looking at the clean up phases of Ground Zero, and I am thinking of why the Terrosist attacked London and Spain as well.
  I am looking at the Skylight memorial, with all it's 88 searchlights pointed at Heaven, and I wonder how these pictures could be seen as anything except else as tragic and heroic.
• Thats Absurd on August 18, 2005

  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh VIVA LA REBELION!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Yours truley
  (nazi rebelion)
• Temujin on August 16, 2005

  - pentagon/WTC: what i see is that you've ignored my point about the impossibility of a plane having hit the pentagon. not only this, but you are trying to suggest that the WTC was designed to withstand a 707 but NOT a 747 even though these were in production at the time, which means you are also suggesting that the engineers left no extra capacity. in any case, i'd like to know why YOU think the WTC collapsed, because you clearly enough state "molten steel" as a cause.
  
  - fuel: regarding your "personal favourite" (molten steel), could you PLEASE direct me to the video of this, because it is plainly impossible. let's do some basic science (very basic):
  
  steel melts at about 1500 degrees celsius. got that?
  jet fuel, which is essentially kerosine, burns at 800 degrees celsius, possibly a little over 900 degrees with the right proportion of oxygen, EXCEPT that we see black smoke coming from the buildings which indicates a relatively cool fire. it must also be remembered that large amounts of the jet fuel exploded outside of the building, the exterior columns were exposed to the air on three sides and naturally would dissolve heat at a fast rate, and the beams and columns were coated with fire proof materials. all of these things mean that the fire would never have been able to melt steel. so, "molten steel" pouring from the building looks to me like you don't know what you are looking at.
  
  - as for making your points, do you think that a 65,000 ton plane, disintegrated or not, makes much difference to a building the size of the WTC, which is specifically designed to withstand plane impacts? no, i don't think so, either.
  
  - freefall speeds:
  
  facts are very stubborn especially if you're dealing with science; to say that the next facts are false is to deny what science has proved, so enjoy the facts. this is very important, so read carefully.
  according to the law of falling bodies as put forward by galileo (1564 - 1642) and is still accepted today by all scientists as described in the world book encyclopedia:
  "The Law of Falling Bodies: The total distance travelled at the end of any specific time in a total vacuum"
  
  this is calculated by this formula:
  
  distance (D) = (32.16 divided by 2) x time in seconds squared;
  
  if there is any resistance then the speed of the falling body slows down, in relation to this resistance.
  
  in the case of the WTC north and south we know that the towers are 1350 feet tall. thus this equation follows:
  
  1350 = (32.16 / 2) x time in seconds squared.
  
  this works out to be 9.1627 seconds as the absolute fastest time these buildings could come down (this is without resistance! but as we know there is resistance, obviously).
  
  this presents some very interesting questions because the WTC south tower came down in (estimated) 10.4 seconds, and the WTC north tower came down in (estimated) 8.1 seconds.
  
  to add there was resistance, and plenty of it. the resistance was the massive lower sections of the buildings that were stabilized by over 250 major interior and exterior steel columns and thousands of steel trusses - so obviously plenty of resistance.
  
  now here is the major problem with the speed of collapse: it defies the laws of gravity! thus either:
  
  - the height of the buildings is inaccurate;
  - the time of the falls is inaccurate;
  - the scientific calculations used, which have been used over hundreds of years are inaccurate;
  - or something pulled down these buildings at a faster rate.
  
  time to start thinking logically - remember this is all science, no opinions, just facts.
  
  to believe the official bullshit about 9/11, you have to really want to - really REALLY want to.
  Edited on Aug 16, 11:54 because ''.
• Ninetysixer on August 15, 2005

  LOTS of homework get back to ya later
  but for now:
  Jan Demczur was the man with the window squeegee.
  As for every thing else :
  You made my point about the WTC being alot less of a building, in past respects, compaired to The Pentogon.
  I will treat the 1968/747 info. as fact, but the irrefutable still remains the WTC was made for a 707.
  About the fuel: look at the collopse videos and you will see things falling from the WTCs they are people, papers, other office paraphernalia, glass, and my personal favorite: a red-orange fluid that turned black as it fell (molten steel).
  65,000 tons + normal building weight = too heavy = fall over. Ya keep making my points.
  What is your proof of free fall speeds?
  Ps: keep your nutt buddies out of this.
  spelling error on purpose, figure it out.
  
  pancaking
• nolonger on August 13, 2005

  Thank you for the comment on my poem "small acheing love poem" somehow I never got it till now So thank you very much
• Temujin on August 7, 2005

  FUN FACT: people who insult their opponent during the course of a debate commonly do so to hide their logical failings. pointing out typos is acceptable but i strongly recommend that it is not a game in which you should indulge. shall we proceed like grown-ups?
  
  "Pentagon- walls of concrete 2 feet thick reinforced with a net of steel wires that are 1 inch in diameter
  World trade center- glass, drywall that can be cut by a window squeegee ( true story ) , fire proof foam which was blasted off when the derbies from the plane hit, very light steel that is used in every skyscraper around the world ( this steel is also very soft so it can bend in the wind ), and carpet
  Which do ya think is the better building when it comes to a 747 hitting it at full speed?"
  
  i think the pentagon, but here are some interesting points for you to consider:
  
  the pentagon consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. each ring of building is about 30 to 35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. the object which penetrated the pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 foot diameter through three rings (six walls). a little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. since the "plane" responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.
  
  some more information about planes: planes do not vaporise, not ever. please explain to me why there is no wreckage of these planes if one hit the pentagon and two hit the WTC, which is particularly of interest to me since the WTC could apparently be penetrated by a "window squeegee".
  
  FOR YOUR INFORMATION: although the 747 is much bigger than the 707, the WTC was built in the early 70's and the first 747 was actually built in 1968. additionally, if the engineers who built the WTC were not thinking about plane fuel, then you are suggesting that plane fuel contributed to the collapse - effectively, you think that not only did the planes vaporise on impact (with a 65,000 ton plane, this equates to about 151 lbs of metal for every gallon of plane fuel, which is basically kerosine), but the fuel burned again at a temperature greater than that at which kerosine burns (800 degrees), defying the law of entropy: a given portion of fuel can only burn once. advocates of the "terrorists did it" theory cite temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees, but as plane fuel cannot burn at this temperature, this disregards a physical law.
  
  i hope that my history and research is meeting your high standards.
  
  - pancaking. let us ignore your presupposition that there was a fire burning for an hour at a temperature hot enough to melt steel after vaporising a 65,000 ton plane and pouring down the building to melt the steel elsewhere, perhaps via the elevator shafts - we have "pancaking" and the issue of freefall; the towers fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it is physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. the 'pancaking' theory defies the laws of gravity.
  
  but then, you already ditched the law of entropy and made a funny about fish in a bucket - who needs the laws of gravity?
  
  i shall be very interested in reading your forthright replies to the points i have discussed.
  Edited on Aug 07, 8:56 p.m. because ''.
• Ninetysixer on August 6, 2005

  #1) Pentagon- walls of concrete 2 feet thick reinforced with a net of steel wires that are 1 inch in diameter
  World trade center- glass, drywall that can be cut by a window squeegee ( true story ) , fire proof foam which was blasted off when the derbies from the plane hit, very light steel that is used in every skyscraper around the world ( this steel is also very soft so it can bend in the wind ), and carpet
  Which do ya think is the better building when it comes to a 747 hitting it at full speed?
  
  FOR YOUR INFORMATION: the 707 was the biggest plane in the world when the tape was cut at the World Trade Centers. So the plane proof buildings were plane proof to planes the size of a 707 or smaller (PS. the engineers who built the WTC did not think about plane fuel one more reason the plan worked.)
  - read history and do your own research you twit.
  
  #2) Weather Balloon? it doesn't even look like a weather balloon not to say anything about up-drafts
  
  #3)Pancakes are severed staked one on top of another; thus the term that many scientists from around the world who studied what really happened came up with
  If you watch the video of the plane collapsing you will see the core was left standing for 3 seconds after the floors started to pancake, right on top of one another.
  OOOOOOOhhhhhhhh freefall. what do you mean by "it would not, which it did"? What, there was never a skyscraper or something? The fire that DID melt the steel destroyed the connecting horizontal support beams thus making it so nothing was holding the outside to the inside thus the walls split was they fell outward thus pancaking of the floors was achieved.
  
  Just to see if you eat what people tell you: What is the rate of ‘drop’ an object has in freefall towards earth?
  -an 8th grader would know this, well an American 8th grader the answer will be posted on ‘Liberals!!!’
  
  *skyscraper* typo on your part in your 3)
  
  #4) No, Not Fish in a Bucket. You are right about that. I being grossly unfair to the fish when I compare them to you.
• Temujin on August 4, 2005

  fish in a bucket, eh?
  
  1) if the plane that hit the pentagon 'vaporised', then why did the planes that hit the towers not only fail to vaporise, but also plough into these supports, and also dump their entire fuel load (plane fuel is basically kerosine) inside which supposedly burned for over an hour at a consistent steel-melting temperature? one vaporises, the other punches out the support of a building specifically designed to withstand aircraft impacts.
  
  2) the sun? or a weather balloon, perhaps?
  
  3) "pancaking". this term is idiotic. even if such an effect could be achieved, an entire skyscraper would not collapse at the same speed as an object in freefall, which it did.
  Edited on Aug 07, 9:03 because ''.
• Ninetysixer on August 4, 2005

  I read three articles on the 'retarded' site. Then came to the conclusion that it is retarded.
  PS:when a plane hits something at over 300mph they tend to vaporize, they'er basically just aluminum plating. The Pentagon was built with a concrete and wire structual base- bomb proof. Thus leading to no plane and minimal damage. The 'proof' of a controled demolistions at the WTC's was actully the floors pancaking on to one another and blowing out the windows. A little engineering for you, The WTC was designed to be an office buliding that made maximum use of the space that they had to work with' IE: no support beams in the middle of desk space. So they moved all of the support beams to the outside wall as well as the elevator core. O'stupid's people knew this so they hit the towers in two ways, to make sure at lest one worked. The video 'proof' hit (south tower) on 911wasalie shows the plane entering at an angle about 75 degrees to the tower's face, thus to take out the support beams on the corner. Let me ask you a question 'What would do more damage; one whole wall being taken out, or a corner with a half of 2 walls being taken out?' Answer; 2nd one. The north tower was hit in a different way an angle of 90 degrees to the face of the tower so it would take out the core of the tower. Unfortunatly, both turned out to work perfectly.
  
  Pss. The white flash of light is the sun.
  
  Psss. If O'stupid was a puppet of Bush's WHY did he try to destroy the WTC in the Clinton years with a truck full of C4?
  
  www.rushlimbaugh.com
  
  or try Glenn Beck
  
  LIKE FISH IN A BUCKET.
• Temujin on August 1, 2005

  i think you mean rush limbaugh. i know plenty about him already, but thanks.
  
  just to be clear then, you think that the site, or content of www.911wasalie.com is "retarded", even though you did not read it?
• Ninetysixer on August 1, 2005

  I did not find it offensive, I found it retarded. You plick. JK
  I will give it another try if you go here:
  www.rushlimbugh.com
• Temujin on August 1, 2005

  i do not actually think i am voltaire or copy him, i just like his name. regarding the link i gave you, i am saving myself a lot of time by simply sending you there - and of course, you don't even want to speak about it. your mind is closed. if you do not wish to discuss anything, then do not come to my author page asking about my views.
  
  since you have deleted the link, i'll post it on my own page:
  
  www.911wasalie.com
  
  it is not in any way offensive to the memory of the dead. the point is that the culprits are different. i cannot imagine why an alternative explanation would be offensive to you.
  Edited on Aug 01, 7:02 because ''.
• Ninetysixer on July 31, 2005

  About the 2nd hyperlink, I'm not going to give you the fight you want, i just want you to never to talk to me about that ever again.
  I see you can't conclude your own opinions, otherwise you would have answered my question. Try a little harder next time.
  
  You told me what you hate, not what you stand for. - The battle cry of the defeated.
• Ninetysixer on July 31, 2005

  Voltaire- outcast, nut, poet, scientist,liberal
  On a seperate note he seemed to be in a constant battle with the world and every one in it (and lost most of the time)- this is probably where the cynicism comes from.
  ON a note to you don't live your life being like him and thinking everyone is out to get you it is a waste.
  Ps God has a great sense of humor
• Ninetysixer on July 28, 2005

  Just out of curiosity, What are your views on various issues, what makes you politically you? I just want to know, I don't want to start any fights.
  PS How you guys holding up?
  Pss Who is Voltaire?
  Please answer!!!
  
• playswithsquirrels on July 24, 2005

  awesome man
  
• Thats Absurd on July 22, 2005

  im just messing with u i dont really care...i guess....lol....but anyway.VIVA LA FRANCE.....lmao....love to say that...
• Temujin on July 22, 2005

  you crazy fool - so what if you're german/italian? that doesn't mean my words affect you in some way. anyway, the nazis i'm referring to are the american right.
• Thats Absurd on July 22, 2005

  OUUUUCH......"ONCE THE FUCKING NAZIS" OUUUUCH.....that hurts....lol....DOOOOOOOD...not kewl.....lol...Im german...and that hurts...lol....and im italian....OUCH....lol....all part of the nazi party....lol....that hurts man...:'( anyway...im over it now...nice nice nice...PEACE
• Temujin on July 21, 2005

  ah but c'mon, this is clearly after the sex has taken place - so the bed must be all tilted!
• Ninetysixer on July 16, 2005

  Sorry, I haven't been in touch, my computer died. I am glad to see that I really get under your skin like a festering splinter. As of right now I have one more thing to say...
  Cheerio!
• Temujin on July 8, 2005

  yes, because i'm the crazy one, with the book of cheesy expressions.
• Ninetysixer on July 8, 2005

  From where do you come from? Russia? Germany? The UK?
  OH well. I guess i'll meet you in dystopia some day, your probably getting bored. You seem to create a world you feel safe in, discounting facts that disrupt the 'balance' that you put in place. Mind you if you are always in a battle you have already lost. I could not understaind where you were coming from in your comment on LIBERALS!!!, I'd like to see you write something clearly I really would.
  here are some bulletpoints for you:
  i never attacked bunnies or farmers
  you never gave a reson for why debt relief is bad after you tried to kill mine
  you strayed from your topic and didn't reenforce your facts
  i didn't say anything about the effing french
  your in one of the big bad rich countries
  And no you missed it, nutjob
  
  I know the question that is in the back of your mind somewhere: Why am I the one who always has to change my views to make other people happy?
  Answer: Because you're the crazy one.
  
• Temujin on July 2, 2005

  words that only go before other words, not at the end of sentences - but you knew that. anyway, yours rhymed which is why i only said "technically" :-)
• donnz on July 2, 2005

  ref: 'ending in a preposition.' Apologies ___ I dropped out of High School, damned if I even know what a preposition IS. lol
• Temujin on June 29, 2005

  yeah, but you should check out my boer accent. i know myrataal actually, she's a lovely gal.
• donnz on June 29, 2005

  ref:'Myrataal. Is a Christian woman / Poet, from South Africa.
  You ___ are not.
• SpeakLikeAChild on May 15, 2005

  Lol, oh, no. Just a fun little word to describe my crazy little self.
• Temujin on May 15, 2005

  oh, i see. well, it isn't much different from a beatnik in that case. what i thought it sounded like was a beatnik that uses rohypnol, i.e. a hippie that has renounced ethics.
• SpeakLikeAChild on May 15, 2005

  Oh, a bohipnik is a work I invented to describe myself; bo=bohemian, hip=hippie, nik=beatnik. Lol, that's me *smile*.
  ~Rhea~

Related Links

• View guestbooks by Temujin

Sign up for FREE

A free account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free!

Already a member?

About Allpoetry

Please Support Allpoetry