Should Urban Ban 9/11 Conspiracy Drivel?

[Pickman's model]

Oh bring it on cunt!

- where and when have I been discredited?

- by whom?

there was something about anti-fascism, as i recall.

which is strange. considering yr bizarre ideas about pig's blood, injections and imams.

 

[editor]

Editor clutches head in hands as another of these interminable 9/11 threads goes off the rails.

 

[Pickman's model]

Editor clutches head in hands as another of these interminable 9/11 threads goes off the rails.

typing with yr nose?

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not keen on being misrepresented like this.

umm, is it 'misrepresenting' to state that you have - at least - implied on this thread that the entire global journalistic & media community have been coerced or otherwise forced into a conspiracy of silence and truth-disavowal over 9/11?

 

[Streathamite]

Editor clutches head in hands as another of these interminable 9/11 threads goes off the rails.

sorry mike, I shouldn't laugh, it's callous of me, but....

 

[Pickman's model]

umm, is it 'misrepresenting' to state that you have - at least - implied on this thread that the entire global journalistic & media community have been coerced or otherwise forced into a conspiracy of silence and truth-disavowal over 9/11?

you seem to think that what journalists write will get into papers and on tv &c.

why do you think people dislike murdoch and other media moguls?

 

[Streathamite]

you seem to think that what journalists write will get into papers and on tv &c.

why do you think people dislike murdoch and other media moguls?

no I don't think that, and I know half of the fuckers are prossies. but I do know that if there really was rock-solid, Ironclad evidence of a 9/11 fit-up along the lines DrJazzz suggested, ONE of them would run it, somehow, it's too big a story not to, and it would make a superstar of the hack and his Editor. DrJ thinks otherwise, and believes there is a global conspiracy of silence involving EVERY reporter, every news outlet, and EVERY editor and publisher. From my own media/publishing experience, that's not possible.

 

[editor]

you seem to think that what journalists write will get into papers and on tv &c.

why do you think people dislike murdoch and other media moguls?

Yes, but DrJ is asserting that there are thousands - if not millions - of journalists, producers, directors, freelancers etc - all conspiring to ensure that the 'hot' footage which 'proves' his loopy-loo missile firing, pod-toting, pretend passenger aircraft claims is never seen on TV.

(Despite the footage, err, already being widely available on the web, videos, DVDs etc.)

 

[Pickman's model]

no I don't think that, and I know half of the fuckers are prossies. but I do know that if there really was rock-solid, Ironclad evidence of a 9/11 fit-up along the lines DrJazzz suggested, ONE of them would run it, somehow, it's too big a story not to, and it would make a superstar of the hack and his Editor. DrJ thinks otherwise, and believes there is a global conspiracy of silence involving EVERY reporter, every news outlet, and EVERY editor and publisher. From my own media/publishing experience, that's not possible.

given the immense interest generated by the assassination of president john fitzgerald kennedy on november 22, 1963, one would have hoped that by now people would have come to some sort of consensus on who killed him. strangely, that does not appear to be the case.

similarly, with the attacks of september 11, 2001, there are a number of salient questions - some raised by michael moore - about events surrounding that day. as we are unlikely to uncover the truth surrounding the cover-ups we know about - the known unknowns in rumsfeld speak - for the next thirty years at least, i'm not surprised that some rather unrealistic suggestions are proposed.

btw, i didn't realise you worked in media or publishing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, but DrJ is asserting that there are thousands - if not millions - of journalists, producers, directors, freelancers etc - all conspiring to ensure that the 'hot' footage which 'proves' his loopy-loo missile firing, pod-toting, pretend passenger aircraft claims is never seen on TV.

(Despite the footage, err, already being widely available on the web, videos, DVDs etc.)

the number of journalists doesn't matter.

i'd suggest there are rather fewer media owners than there are journalists.

which doesn't make some of jazzz's ideas less barking, but does make any conspiracy much smaller.

 

[editor]

btw, i didn't realise you worked in media or publishing.

I do, and the notion that a piece of widely available footage is somehow being held back by the entire global media by some planet-spanning conspiracy of silence enforced by the USG is utterly ridiculous tosh of the highest order.

 

[Pickman's model]

I do, and the notion that a piece of widely available footage is somehow being held back by the entire global media by some planet-spanning conspiracy of silence enforced by the USG is utterly ridiculous tosh of the highest order.

i would refer you to the definition of conspiracy used at the angry brigade trial. i would also point out that significant incidents are often unpublicised due to self-censorship and without any real pressure being placed on the editor, publisher or journalists involved.

 

[Loki]

i would refer you to the definition of conspiracy used at the angry brigade trial. i would also point out that significant incidents are often unpublicised due to self-censorship and without any real pressure being placed on the editor, publisher or journalists involved.

I doubt organisations like aljazeera would self-censor if they had a story likely to lead to the impeachment of Dubya.

 

[Pickman's model]

You cannot think to bribe or twist,
thank God, the British journalist
For seeing what the man will do
unbribed there's no occasion to.

.

 

[Pickman's model]

I doubt organisations like aljazeera would self-censor if they had a story likely to lead to the impeachment of Dubya.

they're not really famous for their coverage of american politics, though, are they? you don't think they'd self-censor; i can think of any number of good reasons they might decide to.

 

[Loki]

they're not really famous for their coverage of american politics, though, are they? you don't think they'd self-censor; i can think of any number of good reasons they might decide to.

Yes they do cover American politics; there's a story here for ex. I can't think of a reason why every single journo on the planet would decide to self-censor over such an amazing "story".

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes they do cover American politics; there's a story here for ex. I can't think of a reason why every single journo on the planet would decide to self-censor over such an amazing "story".

benjamin duncan is not an al-jazeera journalist.

so all he has to do is self-censor, and that's the american congress stories gone.

 

[Loki]

benjamin duncan is not an al-jazeera journalist.

so all he has to do is self-censor, and that's the american congress stories gone.

OK but the story was published by aljazeera. Can you think of a reason why every single journo on the planet, including those in countries who would love to see the back of Dubya have decided to self-censor on such an amazing story which would quite possibly lead to his impeachment?

 

[editor]

i would refer you to the definition of conspiracy used at the angry brigade trial. i would also point out that significant incidents are often unpublicised due to self-censorship and without any real pressure being placed on the editor, publisher or journalists involved.

So they're all 'self censoring' this already widely-distributed piece of 'hot' footage which would amount to a ratins boosting, award winning, scoop of the century?!!

So who's pressuring them into this 'self censorship'?

Or have all the journalists and media organisations in the world spontaneously decided not to show this 'amazing' footage? (despite lots of dodgy conspiracy homepage authors seemingly having no problem publishing the wobbly footage)

 

[Jazzz]

I trust you're also acquainted with the section on personal abuse?

Oh bring it on cunt!

- where and when have I been discredited?

- by whom?

- for a newbie you have some bollocks, I'll give you that - but I think you know by now that I know who you are, and it's a bit sad you have to hide behind a new identity, if you're who I think you are you'll be quite comfortable repeating your shabby shite to my face.

Comfortable for a few seconds anyway...

Bring it on Yozz, you chicken-shit cunt.

I got your number, had it for a while haven't I, and you know that...

*waves fist around half-heartedly - seen it all before from shit-cunts like this*

Would this be the kind of thing Yozz should avoid, editor?

Actually I have to say pk's rants are increasingly just seeming comical these days

 

[Rocket Romano]

I haven't built up the Channel 4 documentary. I promoted the Sky one.

I have just been going on the review of the Ch4 documentary which editor provided - let's hope it's better than the review suggests.

I'm not keen on being misrepresented like this. I do hope we don't get more posters like you!

And for pk calling for bans quite takes the biscuit, I'm speechless

Misrepresented? As in every fact or point you've made on any 9/11 thread ever?! Making things up, missing out details such as erm, facts, and above all whining on when your caught out

As for Pickman, who seems to settle on a viewpoint by whichever direction the wind is blowing, calling for bans, whats the matter with that? Even if pickman has become something of a ranting elderberry (dunno where I picked that up) who has reverted to the clutching at straws and backtrack routine

And 'I hope we don't get more posters like you'?
Why, because someone has actually challenged or questioned your clip and paste attempts or bothered to look up Ellen Marian and expose your complete and utter bullshit attempts at controversy?

 

[editor]

Would this be the kind of thing Yozz should avoid, editor?

Yes. And hopefully he won't be bringing these boards into disrepute with an endless succession of ill researched, fact-free, offensive claims of murder, the innocence of multiple child killing scumbags, stupid people who can't recognise their own spouse's voices and all the other shite that gets regularly spewed up here.

Oh, and hopefully he won't get in the habit of making wild, bold, ignorant claims without troubling himself to do a 60 second search to verify the facts first.

 

[Streathamite]

given the immense interest generated by the assassination of president john fitzgerald kennedy on november 22, 1963, one would have hoped that by now people would have come to some sort of consensus on who killed him. strangely, that does not appear to be the case.

now c'mon, straw man here. there's been LOADS of speculative pieces in the press about the Kennedy assassination, it's just nobody's successfully proven conspiracy (I reckon a low-level CIA-cubans conspiracy did it myself)

similarly, with the attacks of september 11, 2001, there are a number of salient questions - some raised by michael moore - about events surrounding that day.

oh I agree, we ain't been told the full story - that rarely happens with any major event. but that's a long way from our resident CT fruitloop gang's favoured explanation of remote controlled jetliners flown by giant lizards from Mars. or whatever.
Also, the unwritten rules of the meejah apply 1000x with a story this big. If it ain't solid, and the implications are serious, don't print. hold off or even spike it. but if it IS solid, which means it passes the lawyers - to hell with the implications! run it! and a solid 9/11 conspiracy-proving piece would
a) treble the paper's circulation/channel's ratings
b) make a megastar of the reporter, and the editor
c) leave every competitor playing catchup.
They couldn't afford NOT to run it.

as we are unlikely to uncover the truth surrounding the cover-ups we know about - the known unknowns in rumsfeld speak - for the next thirty years at least, i'm not surprised that some rather unrealistic suggestions are proposed.

couldn't agree more that we're in for a long wait-but even so, I mean blimey1 where do these looneys get their tunes from?

btw, i didn't realise you worked in media or publishing

didn't tell you I did 8 years working for mostly large publishing houses? remiss of me.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK but the story was published by aljazeera. Can you think of a reason why every single journo on the planet, including those in countries who would love to see the back of Dubya have decided to self-censor on such an amazing story which would quite possibly lead to his impeachment?

i think you'll find the story was originally in whatever congressional business thing magazine duncan works for.

i'll repeat what i typed, for those who have trouble taking things in the first time:

It really doesn't matter what the journalists do if the editors won't run the story. And they won't run the story if the publisher is against it. And even if the publisher's for it, if it offends the advertisers it won't get in.

Given the number of stories which we all know are spiked are you really fucking surprised about a comparatively few 9/11 stories not making the papers?

 

[Pickman's model]

So they're all 'self censoring' this already widely-distributed piece of 'hot' footage which would amount to a ratins boosting, award winning, scoop of the century?!!

So who's pressuring them into this 'self censorship'?

Or have all the journalists and media organisations in the world spontaneously decided not to show this 'amazing' footage? (despite lots of dodgy conspiracy homepage authors seemingly having no problem publishing the wobbly footage)

american papers and tv channels are all after money from the democrats and republicans during the election. tv stations and newspapers which ran sept 11 stories would lose $$$ from the republicans - who have $100,000,000 to give away - if not money from the democrats. perhaps you didn't observe the way that disney (i think) tried to stop michael moore's film being shown in their cinemas. that was a welll-publicised case. now imagine that done a hundred times over to smaller articles and films - and perhaps after a while even the thickest fuckwit would get the message that writing stuff which doesn't stick to the official script is a bad idea.

those serious journalists and media types are probably steering well clear of self-publishing, fearing to get tarred with the same brush you and others like you use on conspiracy muppets.

 

[editor]

i'll repeat what i typed, for those who have trouble taking things in the first time:
(annoying pink text removed)

They could of course, make an absolute fortune and write a book revealing the Most Amazing Conspiracy The World Has Ever Seen and have it published in any one of a zillion countries.

Funnily enough, not one single credible journalist/writer has done that.

Any idea why?

Or do you believe that every single publishing house in the world is under orders to surpress this 'story'?

But by what authority?

 

[editor]

perhaps you didn't observe the way that disney (i think) tried to stop michael moore's film being shown in their cinemas. that was a welll-publicised case.

Tried and failed. Miserably.

That doesn't really help your case, does it?

 

[Pickman's model]

They could of course, make an absolute fortune and write a book revealing the Most Amazing Conspiracy The World Has Ever Seen and have it published in any one of a zillion countries.

Funnily enough, not one single credible journalist/writer has done that.

Any idea why?

Or do you believe that every single publishing house in the world is under orders to surpress this 'story'?

But by what authority?

you've not seen michael moore's latest book then?

 

[fela fan]

Coo, editor, that was the quickest binning i've ever seen.

 

[editor]

you've not seen michael moore's latest book then?

No. Has that been banned by 'them'?