9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
editor said:
Hey editor, sort yourself out man. I do not initiate personal abuse. And i normally wait quite a while before returning stuff that comes my way. Any poster who knows me from the last five years here will know that, even the likes of lock and others who are often at odds with me.
But when vile stuff comes my way, then i'm at liberty to throw some of it back. Anyway, why are you getting involved with my arguments with others? Or are you just here to be disruptive?
And no, you're right, it's not the same. But one is an example of the other. I thought as a writer you'd know such simple stuff, but hey, no worries.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Jazz, Protec, blah blah blah...
Structaural
in Chatsubo
fela fan said:
Unfortunately hope implies a certain amount of wishful thinking. In other words believing that a positive outcome is possible even when there's some evidence to the contrary.
I thought that report was very well researched, informed and neutral. It provided its evidence and theories intelligently and factually without recourse to speculation or outlandish theories. It was written by those who know of what they talk unlike a bunch of Adobe Premier using ill-informed geeks on teh interweb.
So at the moment I think that the buildings were not rigged to fall but fell because two fuck-off jet liners crashed into them spewing 36,000 tons of aviation fuel all over the place. I think the evidence of my own eyes sufficient as well. Did you see the amount of smoke that came off the towers prior to their collapse? What was burning that ferociously if most of the fuel burnt off in the impact?
I think it was a terrorist attack, meticulously planned and executed superbly. With consequences I doubt they ever foresaw; they must have been very proud. Deal with it.
Everything has been so thoroughly debunked now but CTers and/or Ikey's have such an over-riding belief in a worldwide conspiracy that they are incapable of accepting anything that challenges that faith. They are modern day devil dodgers and Armageddonists. I wish you luck.
editor said:
It's not an accusation. It's the truth, and i don't care how offensive the truth is. And you only need scroll back to see that it is indeed the truth.
But in any case, if you want offensiveness, then how does "you're a stalker" compare to things like "you rancid little prick"?
I've been here for over five years, and i've never been at the end of such disgusting language as from this den man. I've never used the ignore button once coz i don't believe in it. I believe in a certain honesty about one's postings, and dealing with any shit that comes by. But this den man wins hands down for abuse that's been aimed my way. To call him a stalker is absolutely the truth, not in any way wrong at all, and most certainly not an accusation. He is a disgusting poster. And a stalker.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Another day passes, another day where Jazzz fails yet again to address, well, anything
fela fan said:
Shut up you plonker. The briefest of glances at 8den's posting history tells you that the whole accusation of stalking is ludicrous. I know you've an arrogant streak a mile wide, but surely even you're not wrongheaded enough to believe that someone contributing to a public bulletin board is 'stalking' you.
Here's a tip: if you don't want people to point and laugh at you, then stop making a fool out of yourself with stupid posts and bimbleminded opinions. How's about dropping these pathetic 'stalking' accusations for a start - your shrill whining is doing you no favours. No wonder you've had a few deserved insults slung your way.
Structaural said:
I thought they went to ridiculous lengths to present their credentials. I also thought some of what they said seemed more than plausible. But i find it weird how much they wanted their readers to believe them.
You say things like "I think..." and "Everything has been so thoroughly debunked..." in the same post!! You are just as convinced about things as the 'CTers' you deride. Can you really not see this?
In short you are far more certain that it was not an inside job than i am that it was. I think it was, you are certain it wasn't. Yet look at how you describe others. Perhaps you ought to look inwards a bit more.
And anyway, why talk of a 'worldwide' conspiracy? Why not just a conspiracy? Which to remind you is exactly what those in power have been doing down centuries of history. So to think that the modern day hegemonists in yankland conspired to subvert justice is hardly the stuff of being a devil dodger. Laughable mate. Get your head outta the clouds.
tarannau said:
Now then tarannau (and what a surprise that you've popped up here), i don't give a fuck how much you or anyone laughs at me or points at me or abuses me. Yer all weird names on the internet. Do what you want you miserable bastard. And yes, you do that very well, your form is excellent in this regard. The fact that you believe a human being deserves insults says volumes. What a nasty piece of work you are.
But i will still call crap for being crap. Got that plonker? It ain't an 'accusation', it's the truth, and it seems unpalatable to you. Whatever the fuck it's got to do with you anyway.
Loki said:
No, you won't know the problem if you don't read things mate. Making his point? I hope he don't speak like that when 'making his point' to people face to face. I've never come across someone so rude and who uses such disgustingly abusive language.
But you weren't at the end of it, so of course, how could you see what the prob is?
Loki, you shouldn't be getting involved with this. You belong to the reasonable poster category. But if you want to see the problem, then you'll have to spare a few mins to scroll back and read some of his posts. Then you'll see. If you don't have the time, then resist the urge to join tarranau's ganglike mentality.
Structaural
in Chatsubo
fela fan said:
It's obvious to me that your arrogance far outweighs your intelligence. Maybe you could outline what exactly you find implausible in the protec report and we can continue from there.
I'm certainly more convinced of my point of view, considering it's based on evidence whereas yours seems to be based on paranoia and speculation. I may well be wrong but nothing you've said so far has changed my mind, as you bring little to the table other than self-aggrandising bollocks. I haven't got a problem with actual conspiracies themselves, I find them very fascinating, and thank fuck some people out there actually do do some proper research and investigation instead of sitting there looking at digital stills and making shit up, but I do have a problem with way-out conspiracy theories which are exactly that, speculation without evidence. And are a modern form of 'fear the devil' AFAIC.
America may well have an even more corrupt government than usual but that doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job, they've been heading for something like this for decades, and I think they knew it was coming.
Structaural said:
I'd be careful if i were you telling the forum your point of view is based on evidence. Because i'm now going to ask you to present this evidence to the forum. Since there's none out there it should be fun watching you provide it. But either way, that was my point: you are so convinced your point of view is correct, even to the point of imagining you have evidence to back up this POV. Amazing that you have the hypocrisy to go on about others' in the same vein.
And your last sentence is what they call LIHOP. Then knew it was coming, and never stopped it.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah come on fela, let's have a genuine refutation of where you think the Protec statement is incorrect. Which bits do you consider to be wrong?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Seems perfectly reasonable, considering the amount of people with bugger all credentials popping up to present half baked theories as science/fact.fela fan said:
MikeMcc said:
Mike, read it properly. He's come out and told me of this evidence he has to back up his POV. I've consistently said on this forum that nobody here has any evidence. I find it interesting how those that deride 'CTers' for being so sure about their version of events then come out to be even more sure about their own version, to the point of inventing evidence. He claims he's got some, so i'm asking him to show it.
And i've said about three times now my problems with this protec report. It spends an awful long time attempting to establish its credibility before it comes up with any statements. And to my mind, those that have credibility don't try and convince anyone of this.
I've also said that what they say about the towers coming down seems plausible enough to me, a layman. But I've also said i can't agree with those that have decided this report, an internet product, is conclusive evidence that the towers were not demolished.
And i've now said all this again!
And again, i find it funny how those that deride others of being so sure of their story, are so sure of their own story. It's amazing double standards really. Not to mention myopia.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Of course it's not conclusive evidence on its own, it's just one (rather strong) bit of evidence that helps to debunk the CD bullshit.fela fan said:
kyser_soze said:
To clarify yet again, i've not refuted any of their statements, and a few pages back i said this, but you've obviously not read that bit of the thread. I've said that to me, a layman, they seem plausible enough, but not the 'conclusive evidence' that others have claimed it to be.
What is also funny is that i've read countless times by those that deride 'CTers' how they scour the internet and quote dodgy sites to back up their theories.
That report is an internet product. The hypocrisy seems self-evident to me, but perhaps i'm insane. Never mind.
Read my post above this one for additional answers to your post.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
What on earth do you mean by this?fela fan said:
Are you seriously trying to say that the protec report has no more value than something from, say, prisonplanet?
beesonthewhatnow said:
Well then bees, we come down to the whole nub of this topic: it's all about opinions. Yours is different to mine over this. An expert does not spend loads of time telling others he is an expert. He just is.
And in any case i've seen any number of 'experts' to be wrong in life, and hence i in no way can accept an expert's say so as being conclusive proof or evidence of anything.
Yet i see so many on this forum rubbishing the 'CTers' for being so sure of their theories, and then i see the same folk telling me that this internet report by people nobody's ever heard of is evidence that there was no controlled demolition.
It's fucking amazing!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
But don't you see the difference between an opinion piece written by engineers who examine buildings and are involved in CD for a living and an opinion written by an unnamed, unqualified person who, on the same website, is also arguing that the moon landings didn't happen, that fluoride in water is a government conspiracy to rot the brains of ordinary folk?
Look at it this way - would you trust the opinion of a Dr to give you an accurate prognosis or someone who has no medical training, but thinks that if you should wear a tin foil hat to stop the government using microwaves to read your mind?
Well it's pretty obvious that you haven't read any of the report and haven't bothered looking at the source - Implosion Inc, who the Protect people work with are a specilist CD contractor who have explosively demolished 100s of buildings (indeed, Implosion Inc's website has lots of cool footage of buildings being CD-d).
I look forward to your thread on medical diagnosis by a layman who thinks crystals can help you recover from cancer...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
