911 In plane sight screening this evening

[flimsier]

We held a 'let's have a beer in the Albert' meeting the very same night.

Despite only being advertised the day before and in one thread, it attracted more people than the 9/11 exposing UK video premiere UK!

'Nuff said, I believe.

So it's your fault. Everyone who was going to go went to the Albert.

You really are working for the USG, aren't you?

 

[Jazzz]

How could anybody mistake a 'sold out' venue that's turning people away for one that is 75% empty?

They couldn't. It was not '75%' empty. As you said, the seated capacity is just over 2000. By your own evidence, we have more than 1000 people there and we don't have a maximum.

The evidence of two people I know were there - first hand eyewitness reports - and have told me about the event both flatly contradict the assertion that it was significantly underbooked.

 

[sihhi]

Six people viewing out of the 7.2 million population of London is 0.000008333%... hardly a figure to be dismissed

Very funny

 

[flimsier]

They couldn't. It was not '75%' empty. As you said, the seated capacity is just over 2000. By your own evidence, we have more than 1000 people there and we don't have a maximum.

The evidence of two people I know were there - first hand eyewitness reports - and have told me about the event both flatly contradict the assertion that it was significantly underbooked.

You began by stating that David Icke had sold out Brixton Academy.

You said someone you know said it was sold out.

Only when it was revealed that this was a lie, did you reveal that your 'evidence' suggested that you had two friends with different reports - one said it wasn't and there were spaces.

So why should we believe your evidence, when you use it so very selectively?

 

[Jazzz]

You began by stating that David Icke had sold out Brixton Academy.

You said someone you know said it was sold out.

Only when it was revealed that this was a lie, did you reveal that your 'evidence' suggested that you had two friends with different reports - one said it wasn't and there were spaces.

So why should we believe your evidence, when you use it so very selectively?

The other friend had told me a while ago - I had asked it was only half-full and he corrected me, I thought he said it was nearly full but couldn't exactly remember - except that I know he denied my suggestion that it was heavily underbooked.

The other guy I met much more recently and was adamant that it was a sell-out, and I checked this with him yesterday.

So I have this first-hand report - and my firm memory of the other report is that it was at least nearly full.

What you believe is of course up to you, but bear in mind that editor has provided absolutely nothing to say that it wasn't nearly full to seating capacity (and of course, no-one is going to stand for a seven-hour lecture, ffs.)

 

[Citizen66]

the inverse of 'lots of people going to laugh at icke but not agreeing with him' is categorically NOT 'lots of people not going to see a movie but agreeing with its content.'.

that's just pisspoor logic, citizen

pisspoor logic?

Because clearly, rather than you listening to what he had to say in aforementioned event, you observed the (how many?) people's individual reactions and perhaps got signatures on a piece of paper as to how they all felt about it afterwards?

Or did the crowd have a certain 'feel' about it that inspired you to draw these conclusions from and now use as your arguing point?

And you talk about untrustworthy websites?

How many people in the audience were on drugs dub?

 

[editor]

They couldn't. It was not '75%' empty. As you said, the seated capacity is just over 2000. By your own evidence, we have more than 1000 people there and we don't have a maximum.

Strange. You never mentioned seating until I brought it up. But seeing as you have, could you answer this question: was the evening all seater YES/NO?

The evidence of two people I know were there - first hand eyewitness reports - and have told me about the event both flatly contradict the assertion that it was significantly underbooked.

How come no independent media report states that the evening was 'sold out' and people were being 'turned away' as you claimed?

Don't tell me. It must be another of your evidence-free, reality-untroubled 'conspiracies'!

Still, all this doesn't detract from the absolute fact that a pitiful six people bothered to turn up for the UK premiere of a video that claimed to reveal the true story of 9/11.

Why do you think so few people bothered to show up, despite the endless, persistent plugging here? I mean, if it was a credible video exposing the truth why wasn't the place packed to the rafters?

Any ideas?

 

[Citizen66]

We held a 'let's have a beer in the Albert' meeting the very same night.

Despite only being advertised the day before and in one thread, it attracted more people than the 9/11 exposing UK video premiere UK!

'Nuff said, I believe.

Well, no. Because U75 is littered with Saaafff-London-based drinking pals of yours who regularly meet at the Albert for a social quaff at a moments notice. Not a clever comparison.

 

[editor]

Well, no. Because U75 is littered with Saaafff-London-based drinking pals of yours who regularly meet at the Albert for a social quaff at a moments notice. Not a clever comparison.

Really? The 9/11 video was advertised for weeks on end in non-Brixton forums and I'll think you'll find the vast majority of posters on these boards - and in those particular forums - don't live in Brixton.

But seeing as some of the people who turned up for the u75 drink had travelled from north of the river, that rather makes your 'point' look foolish. Not everyone who turned up lived in Brixton.

But you tell me: why do you think so few people bothered to turn up for a free video showing in central London promising to reveal 'the truth' behind 9/11?

It was advertised relentlessly here for weeks on end. So how come barely a soul bothered to show up?

 

[Citizen66]

But you tell me: why do you think so few people bothered to turn up for a free video showing in central London promising to reveal 'the truth' behind 9/11?

Because perhaps they were more interested in drinking with you?

Just because there wasn't a big turnout doesn't mean it holds no worth. That's a non argument. Until you hold a census as to how many people attend any of the events that are plugged in the announcement forum against the cliquey shindigs, then I feel you're just using the fact of people's non-interest/non-attendance in the event/subject as some kind of measure of the truth of the subject.

so like, eh?

Is Will Young the best musical artist nowadays? He has a fairly weighty audience following him so he must be.

 

[editor]

Just because there wasn't a big turnout doesn't mean it holds no worth. That's a non argument. Until you hold a census as to how many people attend any of the events that are plugged in the announcement forum against the cliquey shindigs, then I feel you're just using the fact of people's non-interest/non-attendance in the event/subject as some kind of measure of the truth of the subject.

Forget your irrelevent pop music comparisons: this film is supposed to be full of 'astonishing photos' which "expose one of the largest conspiracies ever uncovered"

So why do you think that barely a soul bothered to show up to the heavily plugged UK video premiere of a film claiming to have 'powerful and convincing footage' about what would be the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known?

Why was the place deserted?

I mean, with an intro like this, why wasn't the place packed to the rafters?

With the pounding force of a sledgehammer you will find yourself horrified and astonished at the shear scope of the largest transgressions ever carried out against the people of the United States and indeed... of the entire world.

I'd say the complete lack of interest from just about everyone speaks volumes about the credibility of the video and the authors. But what do you think?

Why was there such a pitifully small turnout?

Any ideas?

 

[Citizen66]

Forget your irrelevent pop music comparisons: this film is supposed to be full of 'astonishing photos' and "exposing one of the largest conspiracies ever uncovered"

So why do you think that barely a soul bothered to show up to the heavily plugged UK video premiere of a film claiming to have 'powerful and convincing footage' about what would be the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known?



So why was the place deserted?

I mean, with an intro like this, why wasn't the place packed to the rafters?

I'd say the complete lack of interest from just about everyone speaks volumes about the credibility of the video. But what do you think?

Why was there such a pitifully small turnout?

Any ideas?

You've just completely ignored what I've said and come back with the same questions from a post earlier that I suggested you shouldn't use and gave you the reasons why I felt that.

I'd feel that I'm making a worthwhile contribution to this debate if you actually acknowleged the things I have to say rather than ignoring them and repeating yourself. Seriously, I heard you the first time. Please debate with the answers I provided and stop repeating your initial point.

You're the editor, sort it out.

 

[editor]

You've just completely ignored what I've said and come back with the same questions from a post earlier that I suggested you shouldn't use and gave you the reasons why I felt that.

There are people on these boards persistently claiming that we've all been fooled by the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known.

They've had ample opportunity to state their case and endlessly regurgitate their 'evidence', yet - three years down the line - they still can't drag more than half a dozen people to the UK premiere of a video proclaiming to expose 'the truth'.

So why do you think that is?

Is there any chance of you offering a straightforward opinion or will you be churning out another of your embarrassingly irrelevant Will Young analogies?

 

[Citizen66]

There are people on these boards persistently claiming that we've all been fooled by the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known.

They've had ample opportunity to state their case and endlessly regurgitate their 'evidence', yet - three years down the line - they still can't drag more than half a dozen people to the UK premiere of a video proclaiming to expose 'the truth'.

So why do you think that is?

Is there any chance of you offering a straightforward opinion or will you be churning out another of your embarrassingly irrelevant Will Young analogies?

Hey, it's a subject I find interesting. I read what is on offer and I enjoy reading it. But what usually happens whenever I read these whacky threads is that ever-so-sane people like yourself come along to ridicule to your heart's content. To the simple observer, such as myself, I'm no longer reading a "crazy tin-foil-hat-wearing" conspiracy discussion, but the psychology behind how people deal with issues that are largely only media generated in the first place.

I believe that nobody on these boards were present on 9/11? But you *ALL* know the answers, eh?

Such an interesting set of reactions that I can feast my eyes over. You do write from the perspective that you are right, where-as Dr Jazzz is asking questions and treating you as a mere hindrance in the thought process around a difficult topic.

Do you not find that kind of thing interesting (peoples' reactions?) Or do you just like fulfilling your self-appointed role toward the editorial of this site?

 

[editor]

You do write from the perspective that you are right, where-as Dr Jazzz is asking questions and treating you as a mere hindrance in the thought process around a difficult topic.

And I'll think you'll find it is DrJ who thinks he is right, starting endless, evidence-free threads containing bold claims completely unsupported by facts ('9/11: here's how they did it', 'Huntley proved innocent', 'Flights AA11 and AA77 on Sep.11 2001 did not exist' etc etc)

Whenever he makes such claims, I - and others - quite reasonably ask him to produce some credible evidence to support his emphatic claims - something he fails to do with depressingly regularity.

Constantly reposting the same old shite causes disruption and has just about killed off any hope of a reasonable discussion about 9/11 - that's why so few people bother getting involved now (and that's probably why they could only muster a pathetic 6 people to a UK 9/11 video premiere).

Or do you just like fulfilling your self-appointed role toward the editorial of this site?

The boards are not 'editorial' material and people are free to post what they want (within the FAQ).

But as I have patiently explained, I do not want this site to become associated with unchallenged, endlessly repeated wacko conspiracy theories.

And if you want to know why that this, try taking a look at other conspiracy-tastic boards, conspiracy newsgroups on usenet or even DrJ's bonkers boards.

(shudder)

 

[Loki]

'Flights AA11 and AA77 on Sep.11 2001 did not exist' etc etc)

Whenever he makes such claims, I - and others - quite reasonably ask him to produce some credible evidence to support his emphatic claims - something he fails to do with depressingly regularity.

That missing flights thread was particularly embarrasing for DrJ. Both myself and Fridge took the trouble to email the authorities asking why the data was missing for these flights and we both got back polite replies with a perfectly reasonable explanation, we both posted them up on the thread and ... DrJazzz didn't bother addressing them, even though they shot down his argument in flames.

It seems to be a common trait in conspiracy fans to simply not want to address facts that blow a hole through their argument

 

[Citizen66]

And if you want to know why that this, try taking a look at other conspiracy-tastic boards, conspiracy newsgroups on usenet or even DrJ's bonkers boards.

(shudder)

Dr J has his own boards?

 

[editor]

Dr J has his own boards?

Oh yes. And they were as successful as his Dissensus conspiracy forum (i.e. totally deserted save for the occasional fruitcake posting up about chemtrails).

I believe he's abandoned them through lack of interest.

 

[neilh]

Strange. You never mentioned seating until I brought it up.

if your memory fails you reread the thread; i think you'll find you never mentioned seating before I brought it up.

 

[Jazzz]

And I'll think you'll find it is DrJ who thinks he is right, starting endless, evidence-free threads containing bold claims completely unsupported by facts ('9/11: here's how they did it', 'Huntley proved innocent', 'Flights AA11 and AA77 on Sep.11 2001 did not exist' etc etc)

Whenever he makes such claims, I - and others - quite reasonably ask him to produce some credible evidence to support his emphatic claims - something he fails to do with depressingly regularity.

Constantly reposting the same old shite causes disruption and has just about killed off any hope of a reasonable discussion about 9/11 - that's why so few people bother getting involved now (and that's probably why they could only muster a pathetic 6 people to a UK 9/11 video premiere).
The boards are not 'editorial' material and people are free to post what they want (within the FAQ).

But as I have patiently explained, I do not want this site to become associated with unchallenged, endlessly repeated wacko conspiracy theories.

And if you want to know why that this, try taking a look at other conspiracy-tastic boards, conspiracy newsgroups on usenet or even DrJ's bonkers boards.

(shudder)

The '9-11 - here's how they did it' still stands up as outlining a plausible theory of what happened that day. I even mentioned the planes firing missiles before hitting the WTC - and that's before www.letsroll911.org showed the famous footage in slow motion asserting that they did just that.

Incidentally, that slow-motion footage is something that is well covered in the 'In Plane Site' documentary.

The 'flight XX did not exist' is still something I am very interested in. The replies received by fridgemagnet and Loki said, officially, very little except that they weren't going to insist that the data be submitted. However, I don't want to start that thread again here.

When editor runs out of anything to say, he resorts to going on about the Huntley thread, or when he is really being really low, mentions other failed board attempts.

There have been two recent threads on 9-11 in World Politics and they have both been very reasonable.

 

[Lock&Light]

When editor runs out of anything to say, he resorts to going on about the Huntley thread

I'm afraid, Dr. Jazzz, that the 'Huntley' thread on its own was more than enough to discredit you, never mind any other foolishness you have posted here.

 

[Loki]

When editor runs out of anything to say, he resorts to going on about the Huntley thread, or when he is really being really low, mentions other failed board attempts.

I don't blame him for mentioning the Huntley thread. You made an utter disgrace of yourself there mate. And on several other CT threads like the missing AA flights thread. Why shouldn't we bring these up? Do you think that just because they have been deleted they never existed?

 

[editor]

The '9-11 - here's how they did it' still stands up as outlining a plausible theory of what happened that day.

Err, a theory is normally presented like this "Here's how they could have done it".

You, on the other hand, are in the habit of making bold, emphatic claims declaring "here's how they did it".

And that's why your credibility is at an all time low.

I rather hoped you might have learnt your lesson after you posted up a list of filthy lies proclaiming a mass murdering child killer to be the victim of a bonkers USG cover up.

With each fuckwit claim you damage your case. If you choose to believe in fairy tales about untraceable experts posting on invisible bulletin boards, dangerous low flying invisible planes and all the rest of the shite you dredge up from the sites of CD-shifting clowns, that's your call.

But don't complain if people have trouble taking you seriously.

 

[editor]

The '9-11 - here's how they did it' still stands up as outlining a plausible theory of what happened that day. I even mentioned the planes firing missiles before hitting the WTC - and that's before www.letsroll911.org showed the famous footage in slow motion asserting that they did just that..

I don't recall you making that claim two years ago.

 

[Jazzz]

I don't recall you making that claim two years ago.

It was a suggestion, not a claim - which I distinctly remember making in the title post.

 

[editor]

It was a suggestion, not a claim - which I distinctly remember making in the title post.

Nope. I definitely don't recall any such thread with a title claiming that missile spewing, remotely control, pretend passenger aircraft attacked the WTC and I generally remember your more bonkers claims.

 

[Jazzz]

Nope. I definitely don't recall any such thread with a title claiming that missile spewing, remotely control, pretend passenger aircraft attacked the WTC and I generally remember your more bonkers claims.

Title post (meaning the first post on the thread), editor, not thread title. I mentioned that you want big Hollywood explosions, so the remotely-controlled craft would fire in a missile just before entry.

That was before any of us had seen the slow-motion footage of the impacts that you can view at www.letsroll911.org, or on the In Plane Site documentary.

There is nothing bonkers about it, I fear. And my feeling - having spent far too many hours discussing 9-11 with you - is that you rarely pay attention to a word I say, unless it's something that you feel you can launch an attack on.

 

[editor]

There is nothing bonkers about it, I fear. And my feeling - having spent far too many hours discussing 9-11 with you - is that you rarely pay attention to a word I say, unless it's something that you feel you can launch an attack on.

This from the hypocrite who recently called me a 'TWAT'.

Look: if you're so sure you know 'the truth' and the rest of us are all too stupid and propaganda-fed to see the 'obvious' conspiracy that you keep repeating here, why don't you get off your arse and start your own site?

That way you won't have to put up with people like me questioning your pitifully weak 'evidence' (invisible 'experts' posting on untraceable bulletin boards, anyone?) and you can repeat the same thing over and over and over again without criticism.

But of course, we both know the reason why you have to keep posting up here, and that's because no one's interested in your barking theories. Your own boards were a complete flop, as was the 'UK premiere' of the 9/11 video, as was your forum on 'that other site'.

So piggy backing your marginal beliefs on to the popularity of this site is the only way your loopy Mike Yarwood fantasy conspiracies will ever be heard by anyone, yet you seem unable to comprehend the fact that the more 'evidence' you post up, the less interest there is.

Why is that, do you think? I've asked you this several times but you've lived up to your reputation as a wriggler every time.

Oh, and do you still think Joe Vialls is a credible source? You used to cite him al the time. And do you still believe his Huntley bullshit?