Reopen 911 Forums and film screenings

[editor]

Why do you imagine I would like to answer those questions (I have nothing to hide, I just can't be arsed with the conversation) when you dumped the last 911 thread I posted in the bin after 2 posts?

Feel free to stop wriggling and answer my points.

Or is it a case of the "truth seekers" being caught out on a whopper with these paranoid claims about the national press refusing to run their adverts?

Why can't you back up your claims?
Why were these adverts supposedly banned?

You claimed that you could verify this banning - so where's your proof?

 

[sparticus]

No it is not that I can't, it's because I can't be arsed getting in another pointless exchange with an arsehole like yourself. I thought I made that clear

 

[editor]

No it is not that I can't, it's because I can't be arsed getting in another pointless exchange with an arsehole like yourself. I thought I made that clear

Come on wriggler! You made the big bold claims about The Man banning adverts for this fruitloop convention.

Either you can back it up with credible evidence, or you can't (which rather suggests that you made it up).

Which is it?

 

[pk]

So you can't provide any proof, in other words you're bullshitting again.

Someone ban this cunt, and bin this thread.

Too many fucking conspiranoids here anyway - Carole K was rightly banned for her offensive bonkers fruitloopery and she shouldn't be the last. IMO.

 

[fubert]

Come on wriggler! You made the big bold claims about The Man banning adverts for this fruitloop convention.

do you have some kind of problem with the people who went to it ? what's so "fruitloop" about being willing to listen to someone else's opinion on it ?

 

[editor]

do you have some kind of problem with the people who went to it ? what's so "fruitloop" about being willing to listen to someone else's opinion on it ?

Err, what the fuck are you on about?

Sparticus claimed to be able to "verify" claims that national newspapers "refused" to run an advert for this convention.

I'm simply asking him to produce his proof.

Oh, and I haven't got any problem with people wanting to attend sparsely attended chats, but I have a problem with people posting up what appears to be conspiraloon bullshit about censorship.

 

[fubert]

Err, what the fuck are you on about?

why did you refer to it as a "fruitloop convention" ?

 

[editor]

why did you refer to it as a "fruitloop convention" ?

Oh, it was a throwaway remark based on some of the people who were attending.

After all, if Dr "invisible missiles in pods" Jazzz was there, there's one fruitloop at least - and I'd wager there'd be a few more there too (just like at the 9/11 sites for examples).

Care to address my point about the lack of proof for sparticus's claims about censorship now?

 

[editor]

Oh, and the main site carrying information about the convention (linked from the first post) is stuffed to the brim full of laughable UFO/alien bonkers shite and links to al the usual 'mind control', 'magick' nonsense

http://tinyurl.com/aytxg

Q.E.D.

 

[fubert]

Oh, it was a throwaway remark based on some of the people who were attending.

After all, if Dr "invisible missiles in pods" Jazzz was there, there's one fruitloop at least - and I'd wager there'd be a few more there too (just like at the 9/11 sites for examples).

so it's not a 9/11 kellogs connection then. some people may find such throwaway marks a little bit insulting though.

Care to address my point about the lack of proof for sparticus's claims about censorship now?

why ? sparticus made them, not me. he's a big boy he can address them himself.

 

[editor]

why ? sparticus made them, not me. he's a big boy he can address them himself.

Ah. So you're only interested in petty nitpicking rather than addressing the bold, unsubstantiated claims about The Man 'censoring' the truth then?

Oh, and you'll find Sparticus seems singularly unable to support his claims to date, preferring an elongated wriggle.

 

[pk]

Anyone taking theories of holographic planes and missiles is definitely fruitloop nutty bonkers.

 

[fubert]

Ah. So you're only interested in petty nitpicking rather than addressing the bold, unsubstantiated claims about The Man 'censoring' the truth being made then?

if you want to call it that fine. petty insults call for petty nitpicking.

 

[editor]

if you want to call it that fine. petty insults call for petty nitpicking.

So do you believe The Man censored the adverts?

 

[fubert]

So do you believe The Man censored the adverts?

personally i find it unlikely that one newspaper group would choose to run them and another not.

...and i'll go you one further, if i was advertising an event like this in london i probably wouldn't advertise outside london.

 

[Loki]

An add in the Metro should guarantee an absolutely packed event; that is, if anyone's interested.

 

[editor]

personally i find it unlikely that one newspaper group would choose to run them and another not.

...and i'll go you one further, if i was advertising an event like this in london i probably wouldn't advertise outside london.

So you think Sparticus and DrJazzz were lying then?

They clearly claimed that national newspapers "refused" to run the adverts, with sparticus claiming he could verify some of these "facts".

 

[fubert]

So you think Sparticus and DrJazzz were lying then?

i think they may have got their facts wrong. or been misled. i don't think either of them has deliberatley set out to deceive anyone or anybody.

so, no, i don't think they're lying.

 

[editor]

i think they may have got their facts wrong. or been misled. i don't think either of them has deliberatley set out to deceive anyone or anybody.

so, no, i don't think they're lying.

Sparticus claimed he could "verify" the "facts" about national newspapers "refusing" to run these adverts and yet won't produce a single shred of proof when repeatedly asked. Sure smells like a lie to me!

Still - conspiracy fans posting up wild conspiraloon statements without bothering to check the facts first?

Nothing new there, then.

 

[pk]

Either that or the Metro and the Standard are all part of the Bilderberg shapeshifting lizards network, and wouldn't want to publicise an event that seeks to assist David Icke and his mates in uncovering their rampant shape-shifting, baby-eating, and global holographic illusions - under which we are all but helpless guinea-pigs.

*sniggers with barely concealed contempt*

 

[fubert]

Sparticus claimed he could "verify" the "facts" about national newspapers "refusing" to run these adverts and yet won't produce a single shred of proof when repeatedly asked. Sure smells like a lie to me!

did drjazz claim he could prove it as well ?

 

[editor]

did drjazz claim he could prove it as well ?

He simply announced that "the national press refused to run the adverts".

Unless he's a compulsive liar, I can only assume that he'll be along shortly with some credible facts to support his emphatic and unequivocal statement of nationwide media censorship.

 

[fubert]

Unless he's a compulsive liar, I can only assume that he'll be along shortly with some credible facts to support his emphatic and unequivocal statement of nationwide media censorship.

well unless he does suffer from sort of problem that does cause him not to tell the truth, he hasn't actually said or claimed he could back it up. as i said, getting your facts wrong, being misled does not necessarily make you a liar.

 

[pk]

Come off it fubert - you don't seriously believe his advert was actually censored by the newspapers do you?

More likely he couldn't cough up the fee in time...

 

[fubert]

Come off it fubert - you don't seriously believe his advert was actually censored by the newspapers do you?

More likely he couldn't cough up the fee in time...

i did say earlier in the thread i thought it was unlikely. i can't see why one set of papers would run it and another would refuse.

 

[pk]

So you admit the possibility of a reknowned conspiracy theorist talking shit when he says that newspapers have refused to run his advert, in order to add even more allure and mystery to this screening - in order to draw twice the crowd this time. Four people.

 

[fubert]

So you admit the possibility of a reknowned conspiracy theorist talking shit when he says that newspapers have refused to run his advert, in order to add even more allure and mystery to this screening - in order to draw twice the crowd this time. Four people.

i haven't actually seen anywhere where he's claimed that the adverts were banned.

either way if someone does produce a link, then some people will no doubt laugh as they don't consider it a reliable source, some won't.... and thus the sordid u75 911 conspiracly circle is perpetuated.

 

[neilh]

so how many folk did show then?

 

[editor]

well unless he does suffer from sort of problem that does cause him not to tell the truth, he hasn't actually said or claimed he could back it up. as i said, getting your facts wrong, being misled does not necessarily make you a liar.

It does when you subsequently refuse point blank to admit you made it up/got it wrong when challenged.

 

[editor]

i haven't actually seen anywhere where he's claimed that the adverts were banned.

Both DrJ and sparticus have emphatically claimed that the national press refused to run the adverts.