It's much the same thing, especially the way he proclaims it to be absolute truth and then ducks when people actually do his own research for him which demonstrates his bold assertions to be complete bullshit. I don't recall you posting on his disasterous "American Airlines planes never existed!" or his shameful "Ian Huntley is innocent!" threads.fubert said:
Reopen 911 Forums and film screenings
- Thread starter sparticus
- Start date
Loki said:
i remember the american airlines planes ones, vaguely. all his 911 stuff does seem a little disjointed to say the least.
(he hasn't hit the illuminati invisible death ray used to collapse towers though, which surprises me)
i remember questioning them to say the least. i never read any huntly or kelly threads. still, don't shoot the messenger
like i said, i don't think he sits at home dreaming this stuff up do you ?
No, but he is easily guided by the conspiraloons out there and has a hugely annoying habit of pronouncing their delusions as solid fact, not open to question, without bothering to do any investigation himself first.fubert said:
The "American Airlines planes missing!" thread was personally the most annoying, as both myself and Fridgey went to the trouble to email the relevant authorities, who replied with perfectly satisfactory explanations which we BOTH posted up. DrJazzz continued to ignore our findings for several pages, despite me repeatedly pointing out that the whole premise of his thread had been shown to be bollocks
He's got a record as long as my arm of ducking points that blow his theories apart. And he still hasn't apologised for his disgraceful Huntley thread.
I was told that the 2 newspapers had refused to run the adverts, pulling them late on Thursday when I spoke to the man responsible for trying to place these adverts on Thursday evening. I could name the papers and probably get you the proof if I could be arsed and choose to do so. To be honest I can't be arsed and I choose not to further sour relations with these papers by doing so.
I would say that makes me better informed than the rest of you on this particular red herring.
I don't deny that there is disinformation and inaccuracies in the evidence presented by sites challenging the official version. The 9/11 truth movement is a very broad movement that certainly includes people like David Icke who have controversial views.
It also includes people who can not be dismissed as gullible conspiraloons (unless you are being spectacularly dishonest). For example, Michael Meacher, Scott Ritter and these endorsers http://www.septembereleventh.org/alerts/endorsers.php and that's without searching. The editor continues to side track or bin debate, focussing on red herrings and straw men, pretending that all the challengers to Bush's version of events are tin foil hat wearing, conspiraloon bullshitters.
So now I answered your question how about you answer mine ed.
"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?"
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116635
I would say that makes me better informed than the rest of you on this particular red herring.
I don't deny that there is disinformation and inaccuracies in the evidence presented by sites challenging the official version. The 9/11 truth movement is a very broad movement that certainly includes people like David Icke who have controversial views.
It also includes people who can not be dismissed as gullible conspiraloons (unless you are being spectacularly dishonest). For example, Michael Meacher, Scott Ritter and these endorsers http://www.septembereleventh.org/alerts/endorsers.php and that's without searching. The editor continues to side track or bin debate, focussing on red herrings and straw men, pretending that all the challengers to Bush's version of events are tin foil hat wearing, conspiraloon bullshitters.
So now I answered your question how about you answer mine ed.
"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?"
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116635
sparticus said:
What makes you think it would "sour" relations with "these papers" by asking a simple straightforward question?
As for "red herring" it wasn't us sceptics who claimed national papers refused to run the ad, only to be proved embarrasingly wrong. That would be you and DrJ.
editor
hiraethified
Don't believe you, I'm afraid. Why can't you name these papers who supposedly refused to run the ads?sparticus said:
Papers would have to give an explanation for suddenly turning away a client. What was the reason?
And if you won't answer my questions, then don't expect me to answer yours.
Yes, but considering it was advertised in the Metro/Standard/Observer, the attendance figures are rather lame. I'd expect several hundred journos to turn up, never mind the public, if they for a moment thought there was any credibility to the claims. It would after all be the news story of the century.neilh said:
right, i just supposed that as the last ones had been publicised more than this one on here, that they'd have a similar amount of publicity in general; didn't realise this wasn't the case.Loki said:
at the same time, i think it's the kind of thing that would be more likely to attract folk from word of mouth, internet, etc than adverts in national papers.
and as for the journalists, that doesn't necesarrily say much about how interested folk in general are about it; and the fact that the more something like this is publicised, the less high standing those same journalists would be held in, that could be a factor too.
In the USA for sure, journos have been stigmatised by the far right for daring to report anything different. It doesn't apply to UK journos, and even less so for Al-Jazeera journalists and other journos working in countries hostile to Bush. None of whom have seen fit to print a single story about this "9/11 conspiracy", despite the fact that they'd love nothing better than to see Bush impeached and wouldn't have any fears about reporting such a scoop.neilh said:
right, the impression i've got was that papers in many non-western countries have been printing stuff about the USG's story about 9/11 not being true. can't say i've been following foreign press coverage of 9/11 though; mebbe if anyone else does have examples they could give links, but i find it unlikely that there's not been a single story printed about it, considering there's even been stuff printed in mainstream british papers (like the thing someone linked to in the guardian a week or 2 back).Loki said:
but even if they were interested, not many are gonna journey to something over here, so it's a bit irrelevant to the turnout to that thing.
Loki said:
Loki, why not visit the links on my post on this thread that the editor saw fit to place in the bin after two posts for spurious reasons
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116635
There you will find loads of links to mainstream media running stories that cast doubt on Bush's version of events. You really don't know shit do you?
there's a difference, though, between stories which talk about, or propose, a "9/11 conspiracy" and the links on that thread, which may be to things like hijackers turning up, which some would say cast doubt on the story, but which don't themselves say anything about a "9/11 conspiracy".
fair enough. but i understand how folk get pissed off when folk'll debate something one minute, then when folk come back wi replies change to just saying they're bored, or it's all a load of conspiraloon nonsense, or whatever, then later when they've got points to make switching back to arguing about it.
I can only guess you're not aware of how many threads the conspiracy loons on here have started, or how offensive they have been (the Ian Huntley thread standing out as a shining example of offensiveness, and for which DrJazzz has failed to apologise for despite given ample opportunity).
there have been a lot of threads, but no more than on other topics that others are interested in; i tend to just ignore the ones i find boring. as for offensiveness, i never find them in my experience anyway to be that hateful or offensive to me, i suppose different folk get offended by different things, but personally i dont get offended by someone having a different opinion on what's going on/happened, no matter how unlikely it seems, as long as they're just saying what they believe to be true; i can understand how folk would get more offended at posts where folk say what should happen and what we should do about things, and theres plenty of that in the p&p forums. (mebbe i haven't explained that point clearly; what i mean is, i can understand folk getting offended at folk saying bring back capital punishment, legalise this, make this illegal, or stuff like that but not at folk saying "i think this happened/these people done this for this reason, no matter how ridiculous it seems. as long as it's not been done to deliberately scapegoat some group of people ie asylum seekers, young folk, any ethnic group, and as far as i can see, that doesn't seem to be the intention of the folk yous call "conspiriloons" and suchlike, and theres plenty of that kind of stuff anyway on threads about "chavs" and the like)Loki said:
as for the huntley thing, i missed that thread, and have only heard of it, it seems to be brought up a lot by folk, but i'm not willing to offer any opinion on the thread or the offensiveness/inoffensiveness of it's contents having not seen it.
Well I hate to dredge this thread up again, but I find a lot of DrJazzz's and fellow conspiraloons' threads distasteful, if not offensive. Well you missed the Huntley thread; I can assure you it was utterly disgraceful. I would forgive DrJ if he had ever taken the opportunity (offered to him ample times) to apologise; but his attitude is "well I'll just post up this thing I found and nah, I can't be bothered to research it." And when it's torn to shreds DrJ is long gone. He doesn't believe in defending his corner once he's been shown to be plain wrong. He's admitted as much himself!
I don't see why I or anyone else should put up with this on my favourite bulletin board.
I don't see why I or anyone else should put up with this on my favourite bulletin board.
Similar threads
