Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

conspiraloons

Status
Not open for further replies.
foo said:
zArk, have you got WTC tourettes?
Superb! :D

I think it may be time to show zArk the door as he seems stuck in some strange, endless cycle of conspiraloonery and I suspect things aren't going to get any better.
 

Attachments

  • loons6.jpg
    loons6.jpg
    8.5 KB · Views: 58
editor said:
Superb! :D

I think it may be time to show zArk the door as he seems stuck in some strange, endless cycle of conspiraloonery and I suspect things aren't going to get any better.

???????
 
zArk said:
You're just posting up the same fact-free fruitloop shit and repeating yourself endlessly like some weird mantra.

It's dull, it's boring and not what these boards were set up for.

We've already 'done' 9/11. About a million fucking times, in fact.
 
editor said:
You're just posting up the same fact-free fruitloop shit and repeating yourself endlessly like some weird mantra.

It's dull, it's boring and not what these boards were set up for.

We've already 'done' 9/11. About a million fucking times, in fact.

i was replying to donna, please check the thread postings.
I didnt bring up 9/11 from nowhere, it was inline with the thread postings and was a response to a post.

specifically post 478

Originally Posted by Donna Ferentes
This doesn't really obscure the reality that Meacher, never more than a minor government minister, is in no better position to know what happened on 9/11 than any of the rest of us.
 
zArK,if I were you,I'd give it a rest.

You may not have bought the topic of 911 up,but you did spout a load of funny,conspiracy drivvel about it.

Please,for your own sake,stop with the CT.
 
xes said:
zArK,if I were you,I'd give it a rest.

You may not have bought the topic of 911 up,but you did spout a load of funny,conspiracy drivvel about it.

Please,for your own sake,stop with the CT.

ermmm i think you are in the wrong thread.

this is a 'conspiraloon' thread begun by someone who is interested in the psychology of CT.

now there is plenty of material for them to look at

Badgerkitten
What is the most popular conspiracy theory on the site? Is it the liberal mono-thought ban-police cartel theory? Or the new world order baby eating owl worshipper thing? Or 9/11? And do other sites get as much debate on the subject of conspiracy theories, and interaction with conspiracy theorists as this one?

I ask because friend is doing Psychology MA and she said she is thinking of doing a study of them because she has got rivited by them as well, so I sent her to a few conspiracy boards where I had got drawn into ding-dongs (following conspiracy theorist invasion of my blog.) U75 seems to me to be unusual both in the amount of enagagement with, and frustration with conspiracy theorists: strikes me people will engage with enthusiam if only for the fun of a great big argument with them. Kind of like the resident arch-Tory on a forum I used to frequent: life would have been much duller without him there to disagree with. But my God it could get tiresome as well.
 
zArk said:
i've got the most amazing video on bittorrent called

"911 Eyewitness"

excellent quality

worth 1hr 40mins of anyones time

I'd rather eat Maggie Thatchers shit than waste any of my life reading such drivel.

Utter cretinous bollocks. There were no explosives just planes filled with fuel going very fast. If you had spent some of your teenage years like I did playing with flammable stuff on wasteground then you would have realised that kerosine under the right conditions makes a huge bang.

There is a Viz cartoon just for gullible fruitloops like you -- its called Grassy Knollington :D except that 99.99% of conspiraloon nonsense is just that - nonsense.

Grassy Knollington
 
Maybe zArK. Or maybe you're in the wrong thread,if it's a thread about the phsycology of CT and not about CTs themselves.

I asked you to give it a rest,not cos I'm bored of CT,or the discussion,but I fear that you may be banned if you continue to spout out endless "theories" with not a shred of evidence.

Your call.
 
zArk said:
9/11 WTC 1,2, 7
1. there were explosives in WTC 1,2 and 7
2. the buildings were brrought down by controlled demolition
3. the FAA, NORAD and the pentagon were conducting exercise drills that morning which directly affected NORADS response to the hijackings
4. the hijackers were government agents part of the exercise
5. not only was it an attack to push the US into global war [money money money] but it was also a bank robbery of billions of dollars of gold from WTC and a major distraction from the theft of $3.3 trillion dollars from the pentagon 1999-2000

Like a recently disinfected shit-house, you’re clean round the bend.

2003-january-john-cooper-clarke.jpg
 
Flashman said:
Like a recently disinfected shit-house, you’re clean round the bend.

2003-january-john-cooper-clarke.jpg

so, great, i am now in a quandry. do i argue and defend my position with the likely hood of being kicked because i engage the issue that admin has told me not to

or

do i allow people, however misinformed, to abuse me.

i am amazing and dont deserve this situation.
 
zArk said:
so, great, i am now in a quandry. do i argue and defend my position with the likely hood of being kicked because i engage the issue that admin has told me not to
If your 'position' is repeatedly posting up your five point fantasy of fact-free fruitloopery, then your position here is undefendable.
 
If you can't see the difference between supporting your assertions with credible, well researched sources and spilling out a load of fruitloopy pet theories, backed by laugably put-together conspiracy videos with dubious 'experts', then there's little hope for you.
 
zArk said:
i am amazing and dont deserve this situation.

i'm afraid zArk that you have brought this on yourself and do deserve it. If you hadn't posted up totally unprovable fact free bolloks then people wouldn't be havin a go.

A lot of the 911 fruitloopery comes from sites that sail dangerous waters re antisemitism and lizardary bollocks that tends to degrade any sensible debate about 911 that may well be had.
 
zArk said:
i am amazing and dont deserve this situation.

If you weren't continually spouting barking-mad conspiracy-theory drivel then you wouldn't be in 'this situation' to begin with.

Can't work out whether you and Azrael23 are quite as bonkers as you seem to be or whether you're both trolling, frankly.
 
Loontastic!!

A lucky dip selection of random, unconnected, disparate stories -- with the onlt common theme being corrupt big money. You don't need to be a conspiraloon to believe in the dangers of high level financial corruption, or in the evils of capitalism, but a serious reaercher into those would do best to avoid thoroughly compromised sources such as prisonplanet, "911research" or similar.

All the same, aspects of some of the above stories (not on prisonplanet, etc.) may well be true.

But, most important, only a denizen of the Planet zArk would line them all together into one big overarching conspiracy.

And in no way do any of them, separately or together, prove your cobblers babble earlier about 9/11 ...
 
William of Walworth said:
but a serious reaercher into those would do best to avoid thoroughly compromised sources such as prisonplanet, "911research" or similar.

you havent even read the articles or watched the cynthia mckinney video, have you?


i refer you to this
 
Problem is zArk your theory is only presentable along the lines of people who speak an awful lot and dress their theory in the clothing of historical fact, but when you get down to it, they are making huge leaps, and they are the only people making those same leaps.

I have read a ton of these books at the insistence of my friend who was much like you, clearly convinced that there was something going on and we should all learn about it.

Fact is those books are poorly researched, generally make a wild leap early on then continue with this false assumption, never quite proving anything unless you believe the wild leap at the start.

You want to prove something, then it should be able to do it with reputable sources. Solid facts. Indisputable history.

Instead its supposition, this one guy says and if you believe him and then you believe this guy, and you beleive this guys interpretation of history then really the lizards are in control.

Well I don't believe that guy, and there is no reason I should, he generally is saying what he is saying to sell you a book, it wouldn't be a very good book if he said, there is no conspiracy, on page 1. So no, he has alterior motives, unless the evidence he produces is actually compelling, I am inclined to dismiss him.
 
zArk said:
<link-a-thon snipped>
Do you argue with people in real life by throwing a great pile of books at them?

This isn't debate or discussion. It's a waste of fucking time.
 
zArk said:
you havent even read the articles or watched the cynthia mckinney video, have you?
There is no point, they will be exactly like all the other CT shite - badly done, no real facts, and based on paranoid delusion.

Back up your assertions with facts, evidence and rational argument, not idiots trying to flog a book.
 
zArk said:
you havent even read the articles or watched the cynthia mckinney video, have you?


i refer you to this
For the last time. Either present a condensed, coherent argument that isn't made up of nothing more than a hotchpotch of random links or give it up.

Expecting people to trawl through endless videos, dubious sites and random articles to get some idea of whatever it is you're banging on about is not acceptable.

So stop it, please.
 
editor said:
Do you argue with people in real life by throwing a great pile of books at them?

This isn't debate or discussion. It's a waste of fucking time.

i provided links to my assertations posted previously.

i have asked if people wish to discuss
"conspiracy of silence"

i am willing to discuss anything.
 
editor said:
For the last time. Either present a condensed, coherent argument that isn't made up of nothing more than a hotchpotch of random links or give it up.

Expecting people to trawl through endless videos, dubious sites and random articles to get some idea of whatever it is you're banging on about is not acceptable.

So stop it, please.

my arguments are based on the premise

follow the money

providing a link to my other post is legitimate. no-one has to click on it. it is entirely up to them and i am not re-posting previous statements that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom