'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[Pickman's model]

It seems a monstrous injustice, but such is life. I'll live.

more's the pity

 

[Corax]

Shall we do MMR now?

 

[Fedayn]

what was that you were saying about sweary people again?

I fear you're labouring under the misapprehension that phillip is in any way consistent in regards to his ramblings on here or anywhere else.

 

[kyser_soze]

One of the more recent threads suggests there is a "racist theme" to the "truth" movement in any suggestion that "arabs in a cave" couldnt have pulled off 911.

It's a valid criticism of a great many in the 'Truth' movement.

 

[8den]

Aw - you were doing so well.

Oh like I give a fuck.

ETA: at least it's open in being a "skeptic" site. One of the more recent threads suggests there is a "racist theme" to the "truth" movement

There is.

in any suggestion that "arabs in a cave" couldnt have pulled off 911.

Funnily enough Jazzz has used that exact term on this forum. It's a derogatory term suggesting that Al Qaeda are a bunch of cavemen, incapable of such a feat. It ignores the fact that many of the senior members of Al Qaeda, and the hijackers where highly educated.

 

[trevhagl]

Oh like I give a fuck.



There is.



Funnily enough Jazzz has used that exact term on this forum. It's a derogatory term suggesting that Al Qaeda are a bunch of cavemen, incapable of such a feat. It ignores the fact that many of the senior members of Al Qaeda, and the hijackers where highly educated.

certainly higher educated than people who think there was nowt suspicious about Diana's death !!!

Let the battle recommence!

 

[8den]

certainly higher educated than people who think there was nowt suspicious about Diana's death !!!

Are these people able to construct coherent sentences?
"certainly higher educated than people who think?"

I think I need my English/Moron Moron/English dictionary.

Let the battle recommence!

"What are you going to do Trev? Bleed on us?

 

[claphamboy]

certainly higher educated than people who think there was nowt suspicious about Diana's death !!!

Let the battle recommence!

Looks like the twatomagnet has been activated again.

 

[William of Walworth]

Beanburger, seems to me phildwyer has you down to the proverbial T. It's painful seeing you try to ingratiate yourself with nothing but childish abuse and sycophantic posts. .

From what I've seen of this guy, I'd have to agree.

Who, Beanburger?

What a bizarre post ....

If you look at pages 63 and 64 of this thread especially, the abuse (and trolling) has all come from a dwyerward direction

The general agreement on this thread that that's what dwyer's been up to is neither ingratiating nor sycophantic.

Not all consensus is wrong.

 

[trevhagl]

Looks like the twatomagnet has been activated again.

i will never disappoint you

 

[Corax]

Who, Beanburger?

What a bizarre post ....

JC's always enjoyed picking on new(ish) posters who get too vocal hasn't he?

 

[Jazzz]

Ahem Jazzz firstly all this righteous indignation over my language looks really really fucking pathetic when you consistently tell people to sod off. Tell me whats so wrong with my swearing, but what's okay with yours? Is it the words? Tell me what words are okay, what terms, and which ones are boo boos?

Secondly Posts 1555, and 1556 Jazzz, when you're not busy saying mean things to posters could you respond?

Let's make this very clear so you can get it.

I have a 'no personal abuse' policy. So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).

However, there are rare exceptions when I might be rude. I might retaliate under intense provocation. Also, what occasionally happens is that a poster turns up who has no point to make except to play 'jeer at the heretic' and I find that they can't resist playing the game even on threads which are entirely non-controversial. So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'.

I will indeed demolish your post 1555, as I have done with all your other ones. After that, I feel the thread is perhaps coming to an end for me, as editor's behaviour is becoming ridiculous, highly emotional and aggressive with misuse of moderation threats. The idea that he might get an independent moderator to deal with threads where he is a highly emotional and aggressive participant - well I don't have my hopes up too high.

 

[Beanburger]

From what I've seen of this guy, I'd have to agree.

Agree with what exactly, big boy?

 

[claphamboy]

How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? .

Facts?

When have you ever allowed facts to get in your way?

 

[editor]

Let's make this very clear so you can get it.

I have a 'no personal abuse' policy. So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).

Hi Jazzz. I've been very polite to you, yet still you rudely refuse to answer questions directly related to your own claims.

If you've no interest in discussing the issues you personally introduce to the debate, then what's the point of you posting here?

Here's my post again. Please have the courtesy of answering it.

I am asking you come up with a remotely sane explanation of events that would make your evidence-free, gore-fest remotely possible.

You see, when you start wildly accusing people of being involved in mass murders, gross human mutilations, mass slaughters of passengers, plane disappearing tricks and cover ups involving the tacit involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people, it's up to you to explain how this act may have been achieved.

However, if you don't have a single shred of evidence to support your murderous accusations then I advise you to stop posting them because the ghoulish human slash'n'burn fantasies you're posting up here are positively sick.

Oh, and for the SEVENTH time: could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?

 

[8den]

Let's make this very clear so you can get it.

I have a 'no personal abuse' policy.

I missed that press release.

So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts?

How does telling someone to "sod off" marry to that?

It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).

Y'know thats sort of lovely. To suggest "we are one and same" and to equate that we are equal spiritual beings, and in the next breath to suggest that I am somewhat inferior to you, man thats special. It's like saying we're all higher beings but I'm more higher than you.

You arrogant pretentious twat.

However, there are rare exceptions when I might be rude. I might retaliate under intense provocation.

Yeah, cause the way you lost under the provocation of rational reasoned facts from the architect was all his fault.

Also, what occasionally happens is that a poster turns up who has no point to make except to play 'jeer at the heretic' and I find that they can't resist playing the game even on threads which are entirely non-controversial. So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'.

Oh dear, so calling you a "fucking asshole" is wrong, but telling beanburger to "sod off" is okay.

Hey you accuse people of being involved in conspiracies to murder thousands on non existent evidence, but you get to be the moral judge of acceptable language.

I will indeed demolish your post 1555,

Post 1555, and 1556.

as I have done with all your other ones.

Um, wait, what?

After that, I feel the thread is perhaps coming to an end for me, as editor's behaviour is becoming ridiculous, highly emotional and aggressive with misuse of moderation threats. The idea that he might get an independent moderator to deal with threads where he is a highly emotional and aggressive participant - well I don't have my hopes up too high.

BRAVE SIR JAZZZ RAN AWAY!!!!!

 

[8den]

Hi Jazzz. I've been very polite to you, yet still you rudely refuse to answer questions directly related to your own claims.

If you've no interest in discussing the issues you personally introduce to the debate, then what's the point of you posting here?

Here's my post again. Please have the courtesy of answering it.

Seriously Editor it's been what 8 years since 9/11.

Since then no one has offered a single coherent alternative theory to the 9/11 attacks.

In fact when Jazzz was pushed on this matter he could not offer a single piece of evidence that could convince him that 9/11 wasn't a "inside job".

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Let's make this very clear so you can get it.

I have a 'no personal abuse' policy. So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).

However, there are rare exceptions when I might be rude. I might retaliate under intense provocation. Also, what occasionally happens is that a poster turns up who has no point to make except to play 'jeer at the heretic' and I find that they can't resist playing the game even on threads which are entirely non-controversial. So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'.

I will indeed demolish your post 1555, as I have done with all your other ones. After that, I feel the thread is perhaps coming to an end for me, as editor's behaviour is becoming ridiculous, highly emotional and aggressive with misuse of moderation threats. The idea that he might get an independent moderator to deal with threads where he is a highly emotional and aggressive participant - well I don't have my hopes up too high.

You pompous, delusional prick.

Get help.

 

[Corax]

When you get down to it, the problem is a linguistic one.

We use the term 'discussion' board.

It should be a 'vent and then fuck off to the pub and then vent some more when you've come back pissed' board.

 

[Beanburger]

So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'.

Actually, Mr Love, that was a friendly, tongue-in-cheek comment. You'll notice I'm not in the habit of going around calling you names at every opportunity. You've probably got an easier time off me than most other people in this thread.

Oh, and you told me to "sod off" in this thread too, IIRC.

misuse of moderation threats.

Fuck me, have you actually read the original post? You've participated in the hijacking and derailing of this thread (almost single-handedly), dragged it way off topic, used it as another platform for pursuing your own personal crusade, and you're whining about the moderation policy?

You seriously have nothing to complain about. I could pick you out five forums off the top of my head that would've banned you for what you've done to this thread.

 

[toblerone3]

Seriously Editor it's been what 8 years since 9/11.

Since then no one has offered a single coherent alternative theory to the 9/11 attacks.

In fact when Jazzz was pushed on this matter he could not offer a single piece of evidence that could convince him that 9/11 wasn't a "inside job".

Well we could ask him again.

Jazzz - what single piece of evidence would convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

 

[Pickman's model]

Well we could ask him again.

Jazzz - what single piece of evidence would convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

evidence? he doesn't need your stinking evidence

 

[Beanburger]

Jazzz - what single piece of evidence would convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

 

[toblerone3]

No need for insults. Just a simple question for Jazzz.

 

[Beanburger]

No need for insults.

It's not an insult - it's humour. In case it's not clear, I don't actually believe that Jazzz needs sectioning. Although I do believe in all sincerity that he might benefit from a little counselling.

 

[toblerone3]

I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?

 

[Beanburger]

I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?

I really doubt it. The mindset is similar to religious fanatics. They don't follow where the evidence leads - they drag the evidence to where they want it to lead. I mean you'd think dinosaur fossils would've been the clincher with christian fundies, but they still manage to twist it to fit their beliefs.... "god planted the bones to test our faith". Similarly, whatever evidence emerges to "prove" the official version of 9/11, the conspiraloons will regard it as falsified or otherwise irrelevant. They've decided what they want to believe, and they'll continue believing it because they want to.

 

[8den]

I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?

A confession from someone involved on a practical level on the conspiracy.

A credible peer reviewed study that cast doubt on the official reports.

A coherent rational alternative theory that tied together all the conspiracy theories together.

 

[8den]

I really doubt it. The mindset is similar to religious fanatics. They don't follow where the evidence leads - they drag the evidence to where they want it to lead. I mean you'd think dinosaur fossils would've been the clincher with christian fundies, but they still manage to twist it to fit their beliefs.... "god planted the bones to test our faith". Similarly, whatever evidence emerges to "prove" the official version of 9/11, the conspiraloons will regard it as falsified or otherwise irrelevant. They've decided what they want to believe, and they'll continue believing it because they want to.

Bean you completely missed the thread of his point.

 

[Beanburger]

Bean you completely missed the thread of his point.

Doh. He confused me by changing tack.

It would take a pretty big smoking gun to convince me that it was an inside job, purely because the alleged conspiracy doesn't make any sense.

• Why blow the pentagon up with a cruise missile when a perfectly good jumbo jet would have avoided a whole load of awkward questions?

• Why demolish the towers when the planes had already done a good job of trashing them?

• If you can pull of such a stunning conspiracy, why not plant some WMD in Iraq?

• Why bother crashing a plane into a field? Who the fuck even remembers that?

• Why stop at the pentagon? Wouldn't the white house have been a better target for a false flag op?

The whole thing is nonsensical and riddled with holes.