UK courtroom to hear evidence against the official narrative of 9/11

[Jazzz]

You made them up.

Indeed, they were simply my reasoning, which is precisely what Wilf asked for. Your question was utterly ridiculous (as if there is some central database which definitively states which terror attacks were false flags and which weren't!) and my response was blatantly sarcastic. To my amazement you couldn't spot that and continued to press the matter! Seeing as your MO is to appear extremely clever without the substance to back it up and highly aggressive with it you may expect me to take you down.

 

[Yossarian]

Well this one has false flag written all over it.

Your mum's got false flag written all over her.

 

[butchersapron]

Indeed, they were simply my reasoning, which is precisely what Wilf asked for. Your question was utterly ridiculous (as if there is some central database which definitively states which terror attacks were false flags and which weren't!) and my response was blatantly sarcastic. To my amazement you couldn't spot that and continued to press the matter! Seeing as your MO is to appear extremely clever without the substance to back it up and highly aggressive with it you may expect me to take you down.

No, you have been caught out. Again. You said:

They are official criteria.

Now they are

simply my reasoning

So they are not official criteria. Why did you say that they are?

 

[brogdale]

No, you have been caught out. Again. You said:



Now they are



So they are not official criteria. Why did you say that they are?

But didn't you see the Joooooos dancing on the roof?

 

[equationgirl]

Indeed, they were simply my reasoning, which is precisely what Wilf asked for. Your question was utterly ridiculous (as if there is some central database which definitively states which terror attacks were false flags and which weren't!) and my response was blatantly sarcastic. To my amazement you couldn't spot that and continued to press the matter! Seeing as your MO is to appear extremely clever without the substance to back it up and highly aggressive with it you may expect me to take you down.

Like butchersapron said, YOU said they were official criteria. Not me.

How have any of my posts been 'highly aggressive' ? And 'expect me to take you down'? Really?

It's not me that's without substance or highly aggressive, Jazzz.

 

[Harry Webb]

I'd like to know what it takes to not question Building Seven? Blind faith?

 

[Jazzz]

So they are not official criteria. Why did you say that they are?

Of course they are not 'official criteria'. How could there be 'official criteria' for determining a false-flag terror event?

To anyone with half a brain it really was quite apparent that I was taking the piss.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I'd like to know what it takes to not question Building Seven? Blind faith?

You'd know all about blind faith Cliff.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course they are not 'official criteria'. How could there be 'official criteria' for determining a false-flag terror event? To anyone with half a brain, it should have been really quite apparent that I was taking the piss.

Or, rather more obviously, you blundered and made claims that you couldn't back up and are now gracelessly and transparently attempting to manufacture some post-facto excuse. Again.

 

[Jazzz]

Or, rather more obviously, you blundered and made claims that you couldn't back up and are now gracelessly and transparently attempting to manufacture some post-facto excuse. Again.

Or rather, in your desire to pounce on any attack on me going, you've got far too excited and haven't bothered to actually read the thread to see how ridiculous the exchange was.

 

[equationgirl]

Or rather, in your desire to pounce on any attack on me going, you've got far too excited and haven't bothered to actually read the thread to see how ridiculous the exchange was.

More likely you were making it all up again.

 

[Harry Webb]

You'd know all about blind faith Cliff.

Indeed. What I mean is, we all know western governments are completely transparent in every aspect of their administration, right?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Indeed. What I mean is, we all know western governments are completely transparent in every aspect of their administration, right?

Yep, with you so far.

 

[Jazzz]

This is hilarious

 

[Harry Webb]

Yep, with you so far.

I can't think of any occasion where a politician has been caught out on a lie or a made a decision that resulted in the deaths of the people they represent.

 

[equationgirl]

This is hilarious

Like all the threads you start.

 

[butchersapron]

Or rather, in your desire to pounce on any attack on me going, you've got far too excited and haven't bothered to actually read the thread to see how ridiculous the exchange was.

Or not. As for not having read the thread, well i have 92 posts out of 1000 in total, nearly 10% of them and have helped expose a number of your idiocies from the very first page onward. You have half that number and have managed to get yourself caught out as a credulous, naive, ill-informed, illogical and evasive buffoon in them. Onto the actual exchange - you were asked to say what terrorist events you would consider as genuine and what grounds you would use to reach that conclusion - you responded by offering a short list of bizarre reasons and failed to respond substantively to either part of the question asked of you. When challenged on your reply you offered a defence of your post that claimed you were offering official criteria - a defence that you have now withdrawn (leaving the original question aimed at you unanswered still) claiming it was just a joke. Yeah, i think i've read the thread alright.

 

[shifting gears]

Indeed. What I mean is, we all know western governments are completely transparent in every aspect of their administration, right?

Yep, you won't find many around these boards who'd disagree with that.

Right, sheeple?

 

[goldenecitrone]

I can't think of any occasion where a politician has been caught out on a lie or a made a decision that resulted in the deaths of the people they represent.

If you say so Harry.

 

[butchersapron]

I can't think of any occasion where a politician has been caught out on a lie or a made a decision that resulted in the deaths of the people they represent.

Conclusive proof. Ta, saved us all some time.

 

[existentialist]

Indeed, it becomes a crime. But the people involved in assisting it won't know that. Law enforcement that might otherwise intervene won't know that. Indeed, the very people who are carrying out the crime might not know it.

The answer to your question is, are you really that stupid?

And there was I, talking about one-upmanship, then along comes Jazzz and starts to insult the intelligence of his interlocutors, rather than actually answer their point

 

[existentialist]

Indeed, they were simply my reasoning, which is precisely what Wilf asked for. Your question was utterly ridiculous (as if there is some central database which definitively states which terror attacks were false flags and which weren't!) and my response was blatantly sarcastic. To my amazement you couldn't spot that and continued to press the matter! Seeing as your MO is to appear extremely clever without the substance to back it up and highly aggressive with it you may expect me to take you down.

Jazzz, the day you display anything remotely resembling reasoning is the day I take all of my clothes off, paint my wedding tackle with woad, stand on my head in a bucket of custard, recite Jabberwocky backwards, and film it for the Naked Urbanites thread.

Let's just say I'm not ordering too much custard in...

 

[Harry Webb]

Conclusive proof. Ta, saved us all some time.

You're welcome. And the Troofers might like to consider how dumb terrorists actually are. There were hundreds of IRA attacks in the UK and the majority of those guilty of these crimes were identified and convicted within weeks. Pretty sloppy bunch I think you'll agree.

 

[existentialist]

Of course they are not 'official criteria'. How could there be 'official criteria' for determining a false-flag terror event?

To anyone with half a brain it really was quite apparent that I was taking the piss.

Since you inadvertently take the piss pretty much every time you post, I think people can be forgiven for failing to notice when you do it deliberately...

 

[Jazzz]

Or not. As for not having read the thread, well i have 92 posts out of 1000 in total, nearly 10% of them and have helped expose a number of your idiocies from the very first page onward. You have half that number and have managed to get yourself caught out as a credulous, naive, ill-informed, illogical and evasive buffoon in them. Onto the actual exchange - you were asked to say what terrorist events you would consider as genuine and what grounds you would use to reach that conclusion - you responded by offering a short list of bizarre reasons and failed to respond substantively to either part of the question asked of you. When challenged on your reply you offered a defence of your post that claimed you were offering official criteria - a defence that you have now withdrawn (leaving the original question aimed at you unanswered still) claiming it was just a joke. Yeah, i think i've read the thread alright.

Jazzz, can you envisage a terrorist event that you wouldn't regard as NWO/false flag/bloodlines related? What would it be about that event that would stop you seeing it in those terms? And if you are willing to answer those questions, can you see where I'm going?

Well okay Wilf. Genuine terrorist events (rather than 'false flags') tend to have three things: [lists three things]

Wilf asks for my reasoning and I give it

Please can you post some substantiation for these claims, for example can you link to any credible sources examining a number of attacks around the world over the past few decades (needed for a reasonable sample size)?

Thank you.

note: utterly ridiculous question. How can there by some official database of false-flag terror when we are dealing with secrecy and deception? I answer:

No.

(already bored)

equationgirl follows up:

So these are your musings then? Your opinions? Or are these generally accepted by the conspiracy theorist ?

How tedious! I responded quite sarcastically

They are official criteria.

Part of me knew that equationgirl would take that response seriously, knowing how her mind works. I'm amazed to find that someone else did.

 

[butchersapron]

No, not buying it for one second - i've seen far too many (and i'm sure others have too) casually thrown in little tidbits like this ("They are official criteria.") from you when you think that you can get away with it - the Cynthia Mckinney one springs immediately to mind - situations where you adopt a superior tone and attempt to sneak a lie/something you have no idea is true/a laughable misreading/etc through as stone cold fact, and far far too many equally pathetic and wretched attempts to extricate yourself from the shit you've landed yourself in when you are pulled up on these attempts. Like now. In short, i've seen you pull facts from your arse and claim they're somehow official or authorised or some equivalent.

edit: and you've got that go away little girl whiff off you again - go and have a wash.

 

[equationgirl]

Wilf asks for my reasoning and I give it



note: utterly ridiculous question. How can there by some official database of false-flag terror when we are dealing with secrecy and deception? I answer:

(already bored)

equationgirl follows up:


How tedious! I responded quite sarcastically



Part of me knew that equationgirl would take that response seriously, knowing how her mind works. I'm amazed to find that someone else did.

You know absolutely nothing about how my mind works. You have never met me in real life. Don't presume to know me.

You are extremely bothered by the fact that I challenge your unsubstantiated posts, and every time you descend into insults and personal attacks (I presume we'll see more of those shortly) with some misogyny thrown in for good measure.

And you should know as well as anyone that the written word rarely conveys sarcasm.

 

[existentialist]

Wilf asks for my reasoning and I give it



note: utterly ridiculous question. How can there by some official database of false-flag terror when we are dealing with secrecy and deception? I answer:

(already bored)

equationgirl follows up:


How tedious! I responded quite sarcastically



Part of me knew that equationgirl would take that response seriously, knowing how her mind works. I'm amazed to find that someone else did.

Cptin Fceplm Rides Again.

 

[Jazzz]

No, not buying it for one second - i've seen far too many (and i'm sure others have too) casually thrown in little tidbits like this ("They are official criteria.") from you when you think that you can get away with it

How can you possibly have "official criteria" for determining what is a complete deception of officialdom?

Congratulations to you, equationgirl, beesonthewhatnow, and existentialist on falling for my little joke.

 

[butchersapron]

How can you possibly have "official criteria" for determining what is a complete deception of officialdom?

Congratulations to you, equationgirl, beesonthewhatnow, and existentialist on falling for my little joke.

No one said that you can or that there is such criteria (though they undoubtedly have criteria for ranking threats and analysing who had carried out attacks) , they have said that this is the sort of idiocy that you believe and have pushed as fact.