Reopen 911 Forums and film screenings

[sparticus]

Both believers and sceptics of the official version of 9/11 are invited to 3 UK 9/11 forum and film screenings. Further details here

http://www.rinf.com/news/may-05/24.html and here

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/

http://www.reopen911.org.uk/

London Forum - Friday 27th May

7.00 pm - Friends House
173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ



London Film Screenings - Thursday 2nd June

Prince Charles Cinema
Leicester Place, London WC2

9/11: Confronting The Evidence – 5.30 pm
Painful Deceptions – 8.05 pm
The Great Conspiracy – 9.40 pm

The Great Conspiracy will be introduced by Barrie Zwicker



London Forum - Friday 3rd June

7.00 pm - Friends House
173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ



Manchester Forum - Saturday 4th June

7.00 pm - Great Hall
Manchester Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester, M60 2LA

 

[In Bloom]

 

[editor]

Both believers and sceptics of the official version of 9/11 are invited to 3 UK 9/11 forum and film screenings.

Are you hoping for a bigger turn out than your last 'exclusive 9/11 screening'?

Here's how many people turned up last time:

Nice to see you've got the "holocaust denier" Barrie Zwicker on board!

 

[sparticus]

1) Unless you've something else that link most certainly does not show Barrie Zwicker to be a holocaust denier.

2) It's not my show

3) That individual speakers will be challenged and on occasion be shown to be in error or associated with controversial (or fruitloop in your dictionary) ideas may happen. So what? As well you know 9/11 truth movement is a broad church not just those you label fruitloops and holocaust deniers

The case for reopening 9/11 is based on the totality of the evidence challenging the Kean/Zelikow Inquiry. To me and many others that case is overwhelming.

So much of the controversy regarding the pentagon or tower collapses for example could be cleared up with the release of evidence and the opeing of a further inquiry. I would have thought you would support that basic call

 

[pk]

Has anyone told CaroleK?



Sounds like a good comedy night though, I like a good laugh on a Friday night.

Will there be a bar?

 

[editor]

9/11: Confronting The Tedious Obsessives – 5.30 pm
Painful Fruitloops'r'Us – 8.05 pm
The Great Conspiraloons – 9.40 pm


I wonder why the all-powerful "they" haven't banned these meetings?

Be careful Sparticus! Maybe "they'll" be flying pod-toting, pretend aircraft firing invisible missiles into the buildings where the meetings are taking place!

THEY'RE AFTER YOU!
RUN! RUN I SAY!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

 

[sparticus]

I'm sure you are being overly paranoid editor, but just for the record I have no suicidal thoughts, history of depression or tendency to take late night walks in woodland

 

[fubert]

I wonder why the all-powerful "they" haven't banned these meetings?

icke's been banned from talking in several places. canada won't allow interviews with him to be aired.

 

[tarannau]

icke's been banned from talking in several places. canada won't allow interviews with him to be aired.

Any proof for this? (and the Icke website doesn't count) Are you sure that the Canuck govt have slapped a ban on Icke - and for what reasons - or do some media companies in Canada just think that Icke is a bit of fruitloop prone to spouting fantastic nonsense that's best not to broadcast...

 

[fubert]

Any proof for this? (and the Icke website doesn't count) Are you sure that the Canuck govt have slapped a ban on Icke - and for what reasons - or do some media companies in Canada just think that Icke is a bit of fruitloop prone to spouting fantastic nonsense that's best not to broadcast...

why doesn't his own website count ?

what proof do you have that he's lying about it ?

 

[editor]

why doesn't his own website count ?

what proof do you have that he's lying about it ?

Come on: if you're claiming that the government of Canada has "banned" Icke, it's up to you to provide credible proof.

If I posted up a claim that I was crowned king of America on my website, would you believe that too?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't think he's been banned in Canada; he writes about speaking there (though he doesn't *date* any of his articles so it's hard to say *when*).

 

[fubert]

Come on: if you're claiming that the government of Canada has "banned" Icke, it's up to you to provide credible proof.

If I posted up a claim that I was crowned king of America on my website, would you believe that too?

this newstation claim that the chum network which they broadcast on banned an interview they did with him, radio station report

where did i say the ban was by the canadian government ?

 

[editor]

this newstation claim that the chum network which they broadcast on banned an interview they did with him, radio station report

where did i say the ban was by the canadian government ?

You claimed that "Canada" (the nation) "won't allow interviews with him to be aired." I believe only the government would have the power to 'ban' someone completely off the airwaves in a country.

You've yet to prove that claim, and that website hardly fits the description of a "credible source" in my book either.

 

[fubert]

You claimed that "Canada" (the nation) "won't allow interviews with him to be aired"

You've yet to prove that claim, and that website hardly fits the description of a "credible source" in my book either.

fair enough, so do you think the radio station that conducted the interview is lying ?

what would you consider a credible source before i waste more of my time ?

 

[tarannau]

icke's been banned from talking in several places. canada won't allow interviews with him to be aired.

Actually that should read that one media organisation in Canada granted Icke an interview, but then did not broadcast it (probably because he spoke a load of ridiculous and nonsensical rubbish)

That's a whole world from saying authoratatively that 'canada won't allow interviews with him to be aired.' For christsakes, that's a ludicrous inaccuracy and misrepresentation of the facts - if you want people to take conspiracy theories and posters more seriously then why not put your own sources of info under more scrutiny? You're more than willing to pick minute holes in Govt information, yet you can't even observe the most basic standards of integrity and accuracy in your own reporting...

 

[editor]

fair enough.

what would you consider a credible source before i waste more of my time ?

Something that isn't full of laughable, moronic shite about UFOs and ghosts would be a start.

DID WE SEE A UFO DURING THIS LIVE BROADCAST?? -- JAMES GILLILAND OF E.C.E.T.I. - Enlightened Contact with Extra Terrestrials - - -..this rivetting guest is back with more news of daily alien ship visitations to his Washington State Ranch.

SEEING GHOSTS February 21 / 22, 2004 - DID PARANORMAL ACTIVITY HAPPEN RIGHT IN THE STUDIO DURING THIS SHOW??

Only a fucking idiot would believe anything written on that site.

 

[fubert]

Actually that should read that one media organisation in Canada granted Icke an interview, but then did not broadcast it (probably because he spoke a load of ridiculous and nonsensical rubbish)

yeah i agree with that. i'll pm my posts to you in future so you can make sure they're ok.

 

[fubert]

Something that isn't full of laughable, moronic shite about UFOs and ghosts would be a start.

Only a fucking idiot would believe anything written on that site.

so do you think they're just lying or mentally ill then ?

if you read the headers you've pasted they're asking questions not making statements...

 

[tarannau]

yeah i agree with that. i'll pm my posts to you in future so you can make sure they're ok.

No need for that. I'd settle for you getting a bit of a grip, a little accuracy and perspective. These would seem to be important factors in helping you avoid making a plonker of yourself - carelessness is one thing, but spouting a load of unverified, inaccurate exaggerations of the real facts would seem to impact on your credibility. Particularly if you want to criticise the honesty and accuracy of other organisations and sources. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[fubert]

No need for that. I'd settle for you getting a bit of a grip, a little accuracy and perspective. These would seem to be important factors in helping you avoid making a plonker of yourself - carelessness is one thing, but spouting a load of unverified, inaccurate exaggerations of the real facts would seem to impact on your credibility. Particularly if you want to criticise the honesty and accuracy of other organisations and sources. Wouldn't you agree?

how does one statement translate into "spouting a load" ?

ok, i'll level with you. if i was taking this more seriously i would have gone into anal mode, but i didn't think people took these threads that seriously. i have a passing interest in all this. mrs fubert and i both do, she's a psychiatrist and has heard more than her fair share of "the lizards are coming" so we thought we'd see what the fuss was about.

 

[tarannau]

how does one statement translate into "spouting a load" ?

Because you're still arguing the point. And you still haven't a leg to stand on. What does that tell you about the strength of your central point?

 

[fubert]

Because you're still arguing the point. And you still haven't a leg to stand on. What does that tell you about the strength of your central point?

i'd check the edit if i were you

(one statement isn't a load though)

 

[editor]

so do you think they're just lying or mentally ill then ?

if you read the headers you've pasted they're asking questions not making statements...

They're not 'asking questions' - they're making claims:

Hear some clips from paranormal activity encountered by David 'the oracle' Pilz & NFTS host Nicole Whitney during the two previous on-air "ghost hunt" investigations ....

Do you believe them? Do you believe David Icke?
Why?

Of course, none of this has got anything to do with your still-unsupported assertion that "Canada" (the nation) won't allow interviews with Icke to be aired.

 

[fubert]

They're not 'asking questions' - they're making claims:
Do you believe them? Do you believe David Icke?
Why?

Of course, none of this has got anything to do with your still-unsupported assertion that "Canada" (the nation) won't allow interviews with Icke to be aired.

do i believe them ?

well i don't think they have any reason to lie.

do i believe david icke ?

i honestly don't know if i do. i hadn't spent that much time thinking about whether or not i believe him. i do accept his right to a different opinion without having to be ridiculed for those specific opinions.

and the canada thing, i fucked up with the statement yeah. that's life.

 

[pk]

LMFAO!!

 

[neilh]

the turqouise shell suit/mullet combination is a bit of a shocker ; doesn't really say much bout 9/11 either way though, that one person who doesn't believe the official story has a shocking sense of taste regarding clothes and hair.
mebbe he'd rise in popularity if he spiked it up at the front like's so common now.
imo, though, short hair is neat hair. in need of some clippers.

 

[Jazzz]

Back to the topic.

I'll be there and it should be an interesting evening.

People who simply accept the official theory need not attend. Are we a nation of them? Maybe. I for one hope not.

 

[Loki]

how does one statement translate into "spouting a load" ?

ok, i'll level with you. if i was taking this more seriously i would have gone into anal mode, but i didn't think people took these threads that seriously.

Nothing in your initial posts suggested you had your tongue in cheek. Several posters here take this sort of thing seriously. How are we supposed to guess you were joking?