Off Topic Paris Attacks !

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Treble said:
Extremist fanatics like ISIS? Yes I bet they would. However, as has been said, they wouldnt necessarily be considered muslim.

Well I was watching Channel 4 news and the chap asked a woman passer-by and asked if she agreed with her president that this was war? I wouldnt have blamed her for saying yes, but instead she said no, it was a time to show freedom and our way of life is our strength and what they cannot destroy. I was kind of pleased the jingoistic sabre rattling which rarely solves anything wasnt at least in the minds of many French.
Click to expand...

Yes, like Isis, backed by... Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.
 
donga kloppo said:
You ****ing big fibber! I said Bush snr had been a naval aviator in WWII only years before you stated that Nixon had been recruited by the Bush family IN THE 40's (you later revised that to the 60's) and that he couldn't have been head of the CIA at that time. I was proved right, and it was indeed granddad Bush that had done the 40's recruiting, and that Nixon had been recruited by another, sinister power group in the 60's years after the Bushes had indeed dropped him. This is another example of why people just switch off after the 243'rd cut-and-paste you lob on here trying to 'prove' your unprovable point - you are just completely oblivious to any counter-point or fact raised against you. As for the looking one mistake argument, that's the whole basis of conspiracy theory, although it's not one 'mistake' as such, but inconsistency. So let's turn the inconsistnecy argument around - how do you explain the 'inconsistency' of the tinfoil hat argument about 9/11 that several thousand eyewitnesses both in and around the Twin Towers that day, plus hundreds of news agencies and even the NYFD, ffs (who filmed the ****ing 757 going into the North Tower) said they saw the planes fly into the buildings? All of them were CIA stooges? Like the parents of the massacred children at Sandy Hook?

You're a paranoid schizophrenic (doubtless exacerbated by your drug use) who's replaced man as their Godhead because they can't accepts a chaotic, unfair random world, and need to believe something/someone is in control. You have deep father issues, feller. I hope you don't pass this **** down another generation.
Click to expand...


No you said how is that possibe as he was serving in the pacific. If you can back that up with a post number I can read I'll happily retract that statement.

You were questioning the probability of my claim that Bush did the legwork for dad Prescott. Saying he was in the war was irrelevant, he WAS with the family WHEN Nixon was recruited.

According to Nixon's biography, he was recruited in 46, George Bush was homourable discharged in Spetember 1945. Recruited, not turned into anything instantly, Bush could easily have had a part in it as not, but you used that to "disprove" the whole debate on the Bush family, like I said you use miner errors to try pull the whole thing down, in this case, it was prescott who recruited him, but it was irrelevant in terms of the point I was making about what the Bush family have managed to pull off over the years. That was lost in your irrelevant point about HW Bush, but I did accept you were correct about prescott at that time calling the shots.

That's the thing with you in your little list of things, plane model wrong, Monarch name, and my brainfart of placing Luistainia in WWII, even I thought what the **** when you pointed that out <laugh> Those are details in a wider debate, none of which actually changed the main premise, yet you use these to pull down a whole argument cos once you see a mistake you go off on one of your arrogant slating games, rational debate ends at that point. same **** over and over, I don't even be talking to you and you come at me like this muppet, but that's easy on a forum aint it me little coward.

Let me give you an example of your troll logic.

Claim, A man stole a red brick, Donga logic dictates that if the brick was blue then no crime was committed

There was not hundreds of news agencies liar, there was 5. All the footage was shot by 5 networks.

All of the witnesses that claimed on that moring to see AA planes were employees or relatives of employees of those networks.

You still have not answered a basic physics question, how does this leave no hole. This is what you saw on BBC that day. There is no ****ing way that happens. End of
You must log in or register to see images
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
No you said how is that possibe as he was serving in the pacific. If you can back that up with a post number I can read I'll happily retract that statement.

You were questioning the probability of my claim that Bush did the legwork for dad Prescott. Saying he was in the war was irrelevant, he WAS with the family WHEN Nixon was recruited.

According to Nixon's biography, he was recruited in 46, George Bush was homourable discharged in Spetember 1945. Recruited, not turned into anything instantly, Bush could easily have had a part in it as not, but you used that to "disprove" the whole debate on the Bush family, like I said you use miner errors to try pull the whole thing down, in this case, it was prescott who recruited him, but it was irrelevant in terms of the point I was making about what the Bush family have managed to pull off over the years. That was lost in your irrelevant point about HW Bush, but I did accept you were correct about prescott at that time calling the shots.

That's the thing with you in your little list of things, plane model wrong, Monarch name, and my brainfart of placing Luistainia in WWII, even I thought what the **** when you pointed that out <laugh> Those are details in a wider debate, none of which actually changed the main premise, yet you use these to pull down a whole argument cos once you see a mistake you go off on one of your arrogant slating games, rational debate ends at that point. same **** over and over, I don't even be talking to you and you come at me like this muppet, but that's easy on a forum aint it me little coward.

Let me give you an example of your troll logic.

Claim, A man stole a red brick, Donga logic dictates that if the brick was blue then no crime was committed

There was not hundreds of news agencies liar, there was 5. All the footage was shot by 5 networks.

All of the witnesses that claimed on that moring to see AA planes were employees or relatives of employees of those networks.

You still have not answered a basic physics question, how does this leave no hole. This is what you say on BBC that day. There is no ****ing way that happens. End of
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
Thats twice you posted that link, is there something on it you want to share? if so post it. I'm not launching the link
Click to expand...
I've actually posted it about half a dozen times and will continue doing so every time I come across your latest crackpot nonsense

Try reading it <ok>
 
Tobes as usual when left with nowhere to run qwont answer a simple question. how does a tinfoil plane pass through a fortress of a building intact and leave no hole.

That's all I want to know, even a remotely plausible explanation will do.
 
Send in Mr t, he'd sort bush out.
 

Attachments

  • 1447617944342.jpg
    1447617944342.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 12
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
"Lizards?" he said said:
Tobes as usual when left with nowhere to run qwont answer a simple question. how does a tinfoil plane pass through a fortress of a building intact and leave no hole.

That's all I want to know, even a remotely plausible explanation will do.
Click to expand...
Is this the basis of your, let's be honest, mad as a bicycle theory? Tens of thousands of people were clearly in on the conspiracy because you can't see what you consider to be acceptable damage to the building in that photo? Cast iron case you've got there fella!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
Tobes said:
It refutes everything you've ever said on the subject <laugh>
Click to expand...

really, fancy that, a link speaks for you, surely you an make an argument with the contents of your backup, which does prove what I say about you, a 3 minute expert, doesn't know ****, comes back with links, magic.

So what exactly in that link explains the plane magic, post it if you have it nailed.
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
Tobes as usual when left with nowhere to run qwont answer a simple question. how does a tinfoil plane pass through a fortress of a building intact and leave no hole.

That's all I want to know, even a remotely plausible explanation will do.
Click to expand...
Nowhere to run? <laugh>

And here's me thinking that it was you that was the one posing the batshit mental conspiracies...

You're ****ing hilarious
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
really, fancy that, a link speaks for you, surely you an make an argument with the contents of your backup, which does prove what I say about you, a 3 minute expert, doesn't know ****, comes back with links, magic.

So what exactly in that link explains the plane magic, post it if you have it nailed.
Click to expand...
Did you read the one I posted earlier that floors your previous incorrect assertion about the plane speed btw?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back