video debunking 9/11 conspiracies
- Thread starter Blagsta
- Start date
DrJ: the problem for you is there are so many issues where you've been exposed as talking bollocks (with respect).
But, huntley is the biggest one. If it wasn't huntley, it'd be something else.
It's one thing to ask questions; it's another to make assertions. You make assertions - and that's why Huntley is a good reason to say you're talking shit.
Anyway, scrabble league will start soon - and not before time...!
But, huntley is the biggest one. If it wasn't huntley, it'd be something else.
It's one thing to ask questions; it's another to make assertions. You make assertions - and that's why Huntley is a good reason to say you're talking shit.
Anyway, scrabble league will start soon - and not before time...!
Well, you'll have to ask to what purpose the FBI destroyed hours of radar records. Where's the testimony from the operators that tracked flights 11 and 175? We know flight 77 disappeared from radar, mysteriously, so that one is taken care of.editor said:
Oh, and Lord Lucan is buried in my backyard.
Loki said:
Don't worry, Loki. Flimsey probably didn't mean it like it sounded. That's what he always used to say to me, at least.
Lock&Light said:
BTW, when the ed said 'don't call him CocknShite and he won't call you flimsy fart' - ie messing with usernames, did you pay attention.
Because you'll notice that I haven't called you the above since, but you've said the offensive towards me eight times (I was going to wait until double figures)...
Just that I have tried to be friendly, as I'm sure you'll agree. I'm still trying. I publicly apologised -and would have privately. YOu don't seem able to accept - and youstill unfortunately seem to wade in to other threads....!
flimsier said:BTW, when the ed said 'don't call him CocknShite and he won't call you flimsy fart' - ie messing with usernames, did you pay attention.
Because you'll notice that I haven't called you the above since, but you've said the offensive towards me eight times (I was going to wait until double figures)...
Just that I have tried to be friendly, as I'm sure you'll agree. I'm still trying. I publicly apologised -and would have privately. YOu don't seem able to accept - and youstill unfortunately seem to wade in to other threads....!
I was talking to someone else.
BTW, I am not of the opinion that you have ever apologised to me at all.
I appreciate the assistance flimsier but I didn't apologise for being wrong about Huntely per se, I apologised wholeheartedly for one particularly heated thread about the BBC commiting perjury (which was wrong) and accepted that it looked like Huntely was guilty after all once his previous came out. I am sorry the whole thing caused such a ruckus, and my tone would be different if it happened all over again. But I don't think I should apologise specifically for being 'wrong' and suggesting that a man not yet found guilty might be innocent (I never said I was certain of that). No-one's ever apologised to me on the threads where they have been wrong - there's been many, many occasions of that. why should they? We are free to get it 'wrong'. It would be nice, however, if there wasn't so much personal abuse flying around.flimsier said:
DrJazzz said:
I've been following your postings for years. When have you ever been proved right? Any occasion whould do as an example.
flimsier said:
I haven't, but I fear for you.
Oh gosh, I diverted a thread about 9-11 conspiracy theories with my discussion of 9-11 conspiracy theory. Pretty big diversion, huh? Especially when it had settled into talking about moon landings.pk said:
Go and bother someone else pk. I don't think anyone much admires your 'unending stream of piss' posting behaviour these days, anyway, apart from a few newbies who reason it's better to be on your side of the stream.
Lock&light: this is being derailed. PM me with a response, and if you get an abusive response, ignore me or something, but I think you'll agree that I've tried!
I'd say 'please' but it's too desperate.
And you've baited me twice in the last month and I've purposely not responded for the sake of peace.
Otherwise I'm happy to be a 'web-enemy' but I don't want to be. Entertaining but pointless, is the pont.
I'd say 'please' but it's too desperate.
And you've baited me twice in the last month and I've purposely not responded for the sake of peace.
Otherwise I'm happy to be a 'web-enemy' but I don't want to be. Entertaining but pointless, is the pont.
flimsier said:
Flimsier, my dear chap. Please understand that until you started attacking me the only reason I had to notice you was because of your rather dramatic adventures during the terrible tsunami.
After you started to attack me, and then obsessivly follow me around, I grew to rather dislike you. But you are not my enemy, flimsier, because you don't register enough on my radar.
Pingu said:
I'd come back from lunch, if I was you. A lot has happened since you went out.
Loki said:
You may think it was off topic. I'll withdraw from the debate. You do suck up to the owner of the site (from my perspective). No disrespect intended - I just couldn't live with myself if I didn't say what I think.
Saying what you think and not behind people's backs is what everyone wishes they did. I'm trying to be honest. It will wind people up; but everyone thinks that if someone said it of them they'd be ok about it because they can take genuine criticism. Usually, it results in them begin very upset and plotting their revenge. My point is that I am calling it as I see it, rather than chatting about it (as I heard on Sunday) at an urbanites meet. What's funny is that the posters who read my posts telling the truth are more upset with me than those who talk about them being wankers behind their backs.
Well ok then.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
DrJazzz said:Oh gosh, I diverted a thread about 9-11 conspiracy theories with my discussion of 9-11 conspiracy theory. Pretty big diversion, huh? Especially when it had settled into talking about moon landings.
Go and bother someone else pk. I don't think anyone much admires your 'unending stream of piss' posting behaviour these days, anyway, apart from a few newbies who reason it's better to be on your side of the stream.
Of course, your ludicrous claims regarding 9/11 are admired by all and sundry aren't they?
Your claims that all vaccines are more harmful than the diseases themselves, and you having the nerve to attempt to talk worried parents out of giving their children potentially lifesaving injections such as the MMR, and you wonder why there's so much personal abuse flying your way.
I insult you because I think you're a paranoid full-of-shit twat who should just stick to playing piano.
But nothing I can say to you is as insulting as your insistance that calls made from aircraft to their loved ones before the planes hit on 9/11 were actually placed by impersinators.
Or that the hundreds of people who saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon actually saw a missile instead, according to your David Icke bollocks.
flimsier said:
How is it possible to talk behind anyone's back on a bulletin board?
Similar threads
