911 - please don't flame me

[fela fan]

fela fan:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,265

That's a lot of non-reliance, fela, and your response to Mike is very disingenuous.

How is that 'reliance' mate?

And how was i disingeneous? Asking only because i can't see either.

 

[fela fan]

Where else do you get to freely publish your fascinating gems about 9/11, fela?

It's a fair question. But i post on 911 threads because they're here. Urban comes first to me. If they weren't on urban, then i'd not post on 911 threads, because i don't go to any other boards.

I came to this board to debate about whatever. I'm a debater, not a 911 obsessive!

Posting on 911 threads is a consequence of me being on urban. Not the other way round.

That is why i didn't accept the word 'rely upon'. Because i don't have to, nor need to, post on 911. I do coz i can, and it's fun. If i can't, life goes on.

 

[Jazzz]

some very basic physics

here's an experiment, one that involves some pretty basic physics.

1) Throw a paper passport as far as you can
2) Throw a cricket ball (or baseball, for US posters) as far as you can

now... which one went further?

I haven't actually performed this experiment, but I think I know what the answer is going to be. One will not go very far at all being extremely unaerodynamic compared to its weight.

While an engine might make some progress a paper passport just isn't going to get anywhere where fireballs are concerned - and is it not the most extraordinary coincidence that the one paper object which survive happens to be a hijacker's passport which can be used to sell the official 9-11 story?

No-one has commented on the other totally implausible claims - the rows of seats with passengers in them, or the complete hijacker (who strangely, didn't get identified for at least 18 months). Like here.

 

[bigfish]

No-one has commented on the other totally implausible claims - the rows of seats with passengers in them, or the complete hijacker (who strangely, didn't get identified for at least 18 months). Like here.

I don't know if you've been following the story in the mainstream press over recent days Doc, but the NY Times has been thoroughly rumbled as a willing accomplice and conduit for spook planted stories about imaginary WMD's in Iraq.

What's the betting the "tethered hands" story is genuine now?

 

[editor]

What's the betting the "tethered hands" story is genuine now?

Have you actually bothered to read the NY Times report? Do you know who the author was? Have you tried to find out which rescue worker found the remains?

No. Of course not. That's waaay to logical an approach to finding out the truth.

Much better to spin out yet another evidence-free exciting conspiracy tale.

 

[editor]

I haven't actually performed this experiment....

That doesn't seem to have stopped you reaching an exciting conspiracy-tastic conclusion though, has it?

 

[bigfish]

Have you actually bothered to read the NY Times report? Do you know who the author was? Have you tried to find out which rescue worker found the remains?

Listen editor, you're the one citing a report from a discredited newspaper not me. Therefore it's you who needs to urgently find out which 'rescue worker' it was who found the 'remains' not me. Given other evidence and the fact the NY Times is a proven purveyor of spook disinformation and bare faced lies, I have every confidence the story is complete horseshit.

 

[WouldBe]

here's an experiment, one that involves some pretty basic physics.

1) Throw a paper passport as far as you can
2) Throw a cricket ball (or baseball, for US posters) as far as you can

now... which one went further?

I haven't actually performed this experiment, but I think I know what the answer is going to be. One will not go very far at all being extremely unaerodynamic compared to its weight.

Of course how stupid of me

The Wright brothers and all aircraft makers since have obviously got it all wrong. Wings should be cricket ball shaped as they are more aerodynamic

Which out of the cricket ball / passport most resembles a wing? Or is that too difficult a question for you.

 

[WouldBe]

One will not go very far at all being extremely unaerodynamic compared to its weight.

Or as the fuel is going to rapidly break up into droplets which do you think is then going to weigh more, the passport or a few milligrams of fuel?

So by your own logic the passport will travel further.

 

[editor]

Listen editor, you're the one citing a report from a discredited newspaper not me. Therefore it's you who needs to urgently find out which 'rescue worker' it was who found the 'remains' not me. Given other evidence and the fact the NY Times is a proven purveyor of spook disinformation and bare faced lies, I have every confidence the story is complete horseshit.

Sorry. I didn't realise the entire staff of the NY Times had been "discredited".

Mind you, I'd be careful repeating that allegation as it might get you in hot water.

What's your rock-solid, credible source, by the way?
And who wrote it? What's their background?
Any idea?

Or are you as clueless about that as you are about the contents of the NY Times article and its author?

 

[bigfish]

Sorry. I didn't realise the entire staff of the NY Times had been "discredited".

Ooh look, yet another fabrication. You just can't stop putting your words into my mouth can you?

"The entire staff of the NY Times" is your own formulation not mine. My own assertion was clearly that the NY Times as a news gathering institution has been discredited. It's been caught red handed publishing fabricated stories serving to bolster the lying claims of the warmongering Bush administration, thereby violating it own slogan at the very same time.

"All the news fit to print" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny anymore does it?

 

[editor]

"The entire staff of the NY Times" is your own formulation not mine.

It's not actually, but if you're unable to recall your own words, that's your problem , not mine.

But seeing as you're trying to weasel and back-pedal your way out of the mess your big mouth got you into, could you tell me the name of the journalist who wrote the article that you've dismissed as "complete horseshit"?

I've asked you three times and each time you've managed to ignore the question.

But I'm sure you'll be right along to explain why you're so sure that the article was 'horseshit'.

Err, won't you?

Oh, and why you're wriggling away, I'll remind you of the questions you've also conveniently ignored.

Perhaps you'll have the honesty to answer them now because they're entirely relevant:

What's your rock-solid, credible source, by the way?
And who wrote it? What's their background?
Any idea?

 

[editor]

"All the news fit to print" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny anymore does it?

So where do you get your news from?

Conspiracy-tastic websites?

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

 

[cemertyone]

whats happening when i post??

ok dude..i was wondering if i`m under some sort of punishment with reguards to my posts ???as everytime i try to post a long reply...it just gets whisked off into the blue yonder????It appears that short replies are ok..but long ones are not whats going on???
if i`m under a sanction...could you let me know why???i`m aware that some of my posts are close to the wire...but????freedom of expression and all that

So where do you get your news from?

Conspiracy-tastic websites?

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

 

[editor]

ok dude..i was wondering if i`m under some sort of punishment with reguards to my posts ???as everytime i try to post a long reply...it just gets whisked off into the blue yonder????It appears that short replies are ok..but long ones are not whats going on???
if i`m under a sanction...could you let me know why???i`m aware that some of my posts are close to the wire...but????freedom of expression and all that

Err, no one's touched your posts and I don't think it's even possible for me to automatically curtail anyone's posts (not that I would anyway).

If you've got a problem, I sugest you check your browser and maybe run a virus checker. And definitely upgrade your opinion of me. I'm not in the business of curtailing regular poster's freedom of expression through devious means.

That accusation is quite insulting, the more I think about it.

 

[cemertyone]

Safe...i never had a bad opinion of ya anyway

 

[bigfish]

I mean, the NYT have a proven track record of assisting the US government with planted stories as evinced by the recent case of Judith 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' Miller, who got caught red handed fabricating and planting such stories and who is obviously a spook who the NYT must know is a spook.

...the NY Times has been thoroughly rumbled as a willing accomplice and conduit for spook planted stories about imaginary WMD's in Iraq. What's the betting the "tethered hands" story is genuine now?

Listen editor, you're the one citing a report from a discredited newspaper not me... Given other evidence and the fact the NY Times is a proven purveyor of spook disinformation and bare faced lies, I have every confidence the story is complete horseshit.

Sorry. I didn't realise the entire staff of the NY Times had been "discredited".

"The entire staff of the NY Times" is your own formulation not mine. My own assertion was clearly that the NY Times as a news gathering institution has been discredited.

It's not actually, but if you're unable to recall your own words, that's your problem, not mine.

As everyone can see, none of my earlier comments relating to the NY Times contain the phrase you insist on attributing to me. That must mean then that the "problem" of "recall" belongs entirely to you. The reason you're able to "recall" the phrase while I'm not is because it was you who actually fabricated it, not me. My words are reproduced above and I stand by them.

The NY Times has been thoroughly discredited as a news gathering organization. As an institution its reputation lies in tatters. Not only did Miller conspire with the Pentagon in concocting bogus WMD stories, but the publisher and senior newsroom editors played a critical part in the deceptions too. They suspended their better judgment for politically tendentious reasons and endorsed an entirely fraudulent pretext for invading Iraq. A pretext by and large manufactured out of thin air by Miller who was acting all along for the War Party. Her reports were then given front page coverage. Only a fool would place any trust in reports the NY Times has had a hand in producing now.

What must be puzzling a lot of people on here is how is it possible for you to place any confidence in the NY Times "Tethered Hands" story cited in support of your own argument. After all, if you're able to satisfy yourself that information sources like Rense and Serendipity are untrustworthy on the basis that some article or other mentions a UFO, then how is it possible for you to place any trust in an information source like the NY Times after it has been caught red handed publishing completely fabricated lead stories on its front page?

Is it because you view the publication of harmless UFO stories to be a far more serious offence than the front page publication of scrofulous lies serving to deceive the American public into believing an illegal war was justified? A war that has since resulted in tens of thousands of innocent Arabs losing their lives and limbs and the death and maiming of thousands of American soldiers?

 

[pbman]

I'm going to have to agree with bigfish, the NYT has some seriouse cridiblity problems.

But even a blind squirel finds and acorn now and then.

 

[fela fan]

I'm going to have to agree with bigfish, the NYT has some seriouse cridiblity problems.

But even a blind squirel finds and acorn now and then.

Good to see you seeing reason for once mate.

Since this thread is still alive and kicking, i'd like to register my distaste at my thread that was discussing banning 911 threads, suddenly being liquidised.

It simply disappeared out of the ether, not even relegated to the bin. Just gone, totally.

I wonder why editor chose to liquidise it? Was it because i rumbled him on his constant claims that the 911 threads were infested with hordes of conspiracy fans? And finally after repeated questioning, he only came up with FOUR names? Including me who is not one.

Hordes my arse. When put on the spot, he comes up with four names, only one of which could arguably be a conspiracy fan (not from my corner though).

And then he flicks the switch, and the whole thread (100s of replies) just evaporates. From atoms to no atoms...

 

[fela fan]

I guess that means this one is soon to hit the dust... truth hurts eh? Oh man, does truth hurt.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So you drag this thread up just to have a pop at the editor, then, eh?

Bra. Vo.

*slow hand clap*

If you want to bitch about policy, take it to Community. If you want to bitch about people, take it to PMs.

I'm locking this now; feel free to start a thread about how unfair that is in the correct forum.