pap

Wheel them out and I'll happily concede the point.

Alps, meant to get back to you on this days ago. I've been otherwise engaged. Sir is of course, correct. In disgust, I have torn a stripe from my geek uniform and will be sending it to Austria forthwith. I only hope that it, and this delightful piece of starship porn, will placate you after my shocking faux pas. (Pulaski is in it, tho')

It makes a huge difference. How many times do you hear of a London stabbing on national news? Do we talk of allocating 3bn from the welfare budget every time it happens? What about the reliability of the witnesses who claim they saw things that, as it turned out, didn't actually happen? For me, it's not even an either-or proposition. Both descriptions go some way to achieving their desired effect, demonstrating the apparent barbarism of the Islamic world. The whole full bus you mention is the same bus containing the kids referring to it as a film "set". Road was blocked off at both ends. I acknowledge seeing scores of people, but only one or two got close. No-one was "inspecting" the body, btw. The one person who did spend a bit of time there spent her time stroking, talking to and comforting the prone figure. Closedown attempt #68? I'm losing count. Please explain why someone was talking to, stroking and comforting a dead body. Were they shot? There's no blood in the picture I linked earlier. Your evidence is a video of some people getting shot, right? Besides, if they were assets to start with, they're not young muslims. They're people pretending to be. Yeah, you keep saying that, but return anyway to discuss it further. We'll all be looking forward to that day.

You're half-right on one of your points. I've played fair in this thread. Everything you asked for, you got - whether it was my opinion on the wider conspiracy, or the more granular details of how I think it can be plausibly achieved. Without exception, you're rebuttals have been in two camps. 1) I don't believe it because I personally consider it implausible 2) I'm "fairly sure"* that x can't work like y. Special K was absolutely right to pull me up on vague boll*cks like "fairly sure". He knew that the implicit uncertainty of the term meant that I hadn't done my research on standard armed response unit operational procedure, and I'll concede this; I know bugger all on the subject; my observations on the photo were that of a layman, asking the same questions as before. I'd like you to qualify what you feel is "enough" when it comes to your experience in reading about the security services. You arrived on this thread with some false assumptions, so I'm wondering how the lack of general knowledge (talking about decapitation in August 2013) reconciles itself with your claim of specific knowledge of the security services. There's an inherent contradiction here. You say you're clued up about security matters, but you were unaware of the basic facts of the incident until informed otherwise. You've invented just as much to dismiss where I think it could be plausible. You keep announcing individual points as game-changers, argument-enders, when they're really nothing of the sort. Great example; "the perps are in nick so it must be legit". There are a myriad of ways that could happen without it ending all discussion, ever, on the topic. You suggested one yourself; that the security services may have done a number on him. Equally, they could be in the nick and looked after. Yes, yes - I know that there are reports of one of them being attacked, but prison is an even more controlled environment than the streets of Woolwich. News only gets out if people want it out. You're free to characterise my posts in whichever way you fancy, but you may want to question some of the inconsistencies in your own analysis. Paranoia an interesting suggestion, but it's not something I feel is applicable. If I had to say what inspired me most, it'd be the essential decentness of most people you meet. As a Brit, those are the qualities I feel proudest about. Liberal tradition, a reputation for being fair and polite - at least, that's how we display our decentness. It's my default setting for new people; I assume all those things and adjust according to experience. Any sense of hope I've got in the world rests on the principle that the common man is a more decent chap than those who direct international affairs. Constrain a little, and I'd definitely fess to being distrustful of authority. Indeed, it's not something I can easily deny given my posting pedigree. You don't want to be as specific or surgical. Indeed, the entire term "conspiracy theorist" covers a whole range of things, mostly of a pejorative nature, from JFK to UFO. It's never positive, hence those with legitimate questions about a single issue are lumped in with people that think we're ruled by Icke-flavoured Silurians in addition to all the tropes that Verbal trots out. Not good enough, skip. It's as p!ss-poor as "fairly sure". Not headless. Never decapitated. Photo from top of bus shows blurry head. Video of woman shows her comforting and talking to prone figure. How many times? No it isn't. You just have a couple of big blokes telling people they can't go through, a couple of large vehicles and you're sorted. All these things were present. Well I'm glad you're finally theorising in support of the theory here. I've seen that mentioned as a possibility, and like other theories, does fit the facts. We're left with a question more philosophical than legal on the question of evidence, the ol' "if a tree fell in a forest and no-one mentioned it, did it happen" argument. No evidence of something happening doesn't mean that it didn't happen. There was no evidence of Savile's activities for decades, but it happened regardless. Again, you're half right. Of course politicians use major events in an opportunistic way. A more interesting question is what happens when opportunity doesn't knock and you have a pre-existing plan. As for your repeated assumptions about my intelligence, I'll defer to other people to that assessment, I'd like to know how you feel qualified to make that assessment, when despite all the stuff that has been posted in this thread, and when even CB Fry acknowledges that Rigby was not beheaded, you continue to employ it in your arguments as if it happened. I said you were half-right on your original point. I keep saying that something could have happened in a certain way, yet you retort "AIN'T". Forever. There is no point in arguing.

I've mentioned The Omen before. Finally got around to watching its sequels this week. Damien: Omen II is basically more of the same, with a less stellar cast. People think there is something wrong with Damien, try to kill him and end up getting bumped off in misadventure. Wasn't really very impressed; doubt I'll watch it again. Third film is almost excellent. Damien, now an adult, is appointed Ambassador for England, while at the same time, Christ is reborn - hence the subtitle, The Final Conflict. Contains a very good Herod like sequence, and feels a lot darker than the other films. Excellent right up until the final part of the film, which is a huge pile of arse.

Good find, capitalsaint.

I'll continue to talk about plausiblity, something you're consistently trying to stretch through your re-interpretations. You seem to be arguing that these kind of things are impossible, and would require collaboration on a massive scale. It's simply not the case. The work of the intelligence services has always involved deception, psychological operations, murder and infiltration. Logic would suggest that the scene of any operation like this be as controlled as an environment as possible. The two or three passers-by you saw are likely to be part of the operation. Passers-by, incidentally, are one of the easiest things for actors to do No-one is talking about belief, aintforever. We're talking about alternate explanations to an event, largely because much of it doesn't make any sense, to me at least. I doubt you've ever met anyone who "seriously needs help", mate - and if you have, you'll know that your comparison here is unwarranted. We've got a few friends of the family who fell into this category and ended up in the DOP. There is a huge difference between someone who is mentally ill and someone who disagrees with an account of an event, and the collective attempt to ascribe such qualities to me says as much about your attitudes to mental illness as anything else. Besides, attitudes shift massively depending on the cultural bubble you're in. Even in the West, there are a healthy number of people questioning official dogma. Further afield, those opinions are much more widespread. The Middle East must have one hell of a mental illness/cognitive deficiency problem.

Nice. I'm sure that's really adding to the strength of your argument on each post

I work on an evidence-based approach, mucker http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/search.php?searchid=637528 He's either paid to stalk me, or he's doing it for free. Which camp do you think he's in?

Actually a lot less barmy than your interpretation of it, as we'll see. Er, no. I'd imagine that if the victim were already dead, they would not drag a corpse of someone else into the street. A far easier plan would involve using a live actor to play the role of the victim.. Another consequence of your chosen interpretation. First, all you suggest might be true. Various people in the barracks could by lying, CCTV could have been faked, etc. Second, if Rigby had died at an earlier point in the day, then none of the various co-conspirators you list are required. Even what you're suggesting isn't impossible, and certainly wouldn't require the assent of the whole barracks, just one or two people ( or even an official log ) could corroborate a person's appearance. Again, no. You don't have to do what you suggest. A live actor is playing the role of victim under my theory, so it makes no sense to drag a corpse anywhere. Far easier to have it ready to go in a separate vehicle ready for a switch. Well, you're at least thinking along the right lines here. A body switch removes all your objections about conspiratorial ambulance workers, coroners and the like. Not so sure on the mutilation part though. Earlier you were telling me that the OB did nowt because they were waiting for an Armed Response Unit. Apart from recording the film, the terrorists did nowt until the unit arrived either. When the Armed Response Unit did arrive, the attackers obligingly ran into its gunfire. My take on the regular OB is that they didn't know it was a serious incident. As indicated above, don't think entire Met or Army is involved. Perfectly conceivable that a limited number of people are embedded to facilitation purposes, but met-wide or Army-wide conspiracies are something you're suggesting, not me. One of your best questions so far. While I'm happy to entertain different motives, I can't accept the lack of capability or political will. First, we've had recent governments exposed for lying to the British public and facilitating 1,000,000. The chief weapons inspector reportedly committed suicide at around the same time. Norman Baker MP believes that Dr David Kelly was murdered, and I don't think you'll have too many people calling that assertion far-fetched. So let's not pretend our governments are fluffy, innocent and would never do something like that. We're a mature civilisation that has been playing the Grand Old Game for centuries. If we didn't have it in our locker, we simply wouldn't be here. FWIW, let me repeat my point of agreement that I don't believe that the entire Met or Army is involved. With the chain of command structure that operates in both institutions, they just don't need to be. If this is the way you assess the feasibility of a potential conspiracy, then I'm unsurprised that you don't place much stock in them. After all, if the way you go about things involves inventing big obstacles in inventive ways. I think it's be classless for me to call your plan completely nuts, but it does have a lot of crazy assumptions you've introduced to make it less plausible. As for me being completely nuts? Well, possibly - but if your body-dragging plan is anything to go by, I'm in good company.

"To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise." Voltaire.

Sane people who pretend to be their own girlfriends?

Barring outright attacks, I've been pretty consistent in addressing the points raised to me, and kept a civil tongue in most of my exchanges. CB Fry was accused of getting his news from the tabloids, as was aintforever. Verbal was called a shill. I felt justified in all cases. Apart from a brief interlude espousing the work of Ben Stiller and JJ Cale, Verbal has spent a significant fraction of his three a day addressing my posts and a significant portion of that associating me with neo-Nazis. I think the shill tag is justified, unless he's just an unpaid obsessive. Ultimately though, it's difficult to get too concerned about the opinions of people you have no respect for. Yes, yes, I know that works the other way too. Don't waste hours of your life formulating an appropriate one liner to point that out. It's all been in vain so far.

No doubt, and it's the usual suspects on every thread when such subjects are discussed. This thread has generated a massive amount of interest and covered a lot of interesting material. I'm sure a few posters'll be floored by the polysyllabic prowess of our resident refusenik, but my hope is that a lot see straight through it. I'm honestly not sure what Verbal is, whether he's a genuine poster or someone paid to promote ideas. I'm leaning toward the latter. Like you said, the sole purpose was to close the thread down. I wonder how many times his buzzwords would crop up if ran through some simple language analysis tools. Since his return, he's followed my input on threads obsessively and despite the lack of foul language, is one of the most consistently abusive and dishonest posters I've ever encountered. Like yourself, I'm not fooled by the simplistic over-use of taboos and misdirection to close a discussion down. Others won't be, either.

I think it means they're done. Make of that what you will. Assessing their performance over the course of this, and other threads, the pattern is exactly the same. Ignore the inconvenient stuff, attack the poster, in some cases to actionable levels. Honestly not sure where I stand on defamation of character, but it'll be interesting to find out. One of the consequences of taking someone to court is getting to find out who they are. I wonder if buctootim would be as handy with his remote diagnoses ( this is the third time he's made the connection ) if he knew his comments could be attributed to him. Cheers for the sterling support as always, osm. Don't worry about ol' Verbs calling you an anti-semite. He does that to everyone.

Hmm. Inventing things that aren't there, eh?

Diagnosis first, skip.

You're adding 2+2 to come up with 5 in an attempt to suggest I have a mental disorder, and that it's clouding my judgment. Here's me again. You're addressing a real person. https://twitter.com/papingu I propose the following. Make a solid claim about the state of my health. I'll go and get a diagnosis based on your recommendation. If you're right, what have I lost? At least I'll be aware of it. If not, I'll get a court order. Deal?

Great. Can I get Disability Living Allowance with that, Tim?

Gave you one ages ago on my wider views, but hey, in for a penny. Everybody else? Or just the few posters that are bothering to post, minus Ottery? Surely your points are strong enough to stand on their own. One possibility is that Rigby was already dead and that someone else played the part of the victim. Another, as you suggest, is that Lee Rigby played his own part, and is still alive. I think this less likely; his image is widely known and I doubt he'd be able to pass in public without being recognised. I've often argued that not everyone in a conspiracy knows they're in a conspiracy. Not so in this case. I think it likely that both perpetrators were knowing participants, largely on account of their inexplicable behaviour (the waiting 20 mins & running into a hail of gunfire thing y'all keep ignoring). Viewed from a false-flag perspective, Woolwich was almost the perfect op. it reminded us that Muslims were mental, had a tremendous psychological impact, and was wrapped up neatly by the security services. The plan of the terrorists actually makes sense. Wait around until the right coppers turn up and get shot by them. As reported, none of it tracks.

I'm fairly sure that police standard operational procedure when detaining a suspect is better than this:- Suspect isn't cuffed, has his hands free and a gun in reach. Also, as I keep saying, there's no blood. Bit weird for someone with a load of rounds just put in him. We're not talking fibre-level forensics here. I'm asking basic questions, like why was the terrorists' plan so crap. Why did they hang around for the armed response unit then run into their bullets? If their intention was to film, why not bring a camera? All very basic stuff which has yet to be addressed ( in CB Fry land, I only made two points! ) You're free to call me callous, Special K. I prefer to think of it as having no sacred cows. You're playing the emotional angle to shut down the debate, labelling into the process. What's unbelievable is that you still think it'll work.

Is that's what's happening? I'm putting content forward and pulling people up on stuff they've said. The idiots I'm arguing with are inventing arguments, attempting character assassination by association, cherry pick as if they're making the most important Bakewell tart in the world, cast aspersions on both my intelligence and my sanity or simply say "No it isn't/wasn't" Arguments!

It certainly wasn't trying to stimulate it, and indicated how clued up you were to start with. Not very. ... and all the other points I listed, such as the perpetrators hanging around for 20 minutes before running toward the police to get shot. You accuse me of cherry picking, but you continue to respond to a fraction of those posts and then pretend that my argument is based on one or two things. And that's true because you say it is, right? Like the beheading you said happened? You've repeatedly admitted that you only believe that a conspiracy existed if you see it in mainstream media, yet I'm the one who is brainwashed and is lacking in critical thought. Mate, you weren't even aware of the facts. C'mon now. You're using the same trick twice in a single post. I've enumerated several reasons, yet you're homing in on just one I don't think you've quite got the style to damn with faint praise. However, your claim is another example of you inventing arguments. Let's see it for what it is, shall we? The old "you're a loon" classic to finish us off, eh? Fk mate, you're not even original.

Where'd do get the idea that I think Sandy Hook was dodge? CB Fry? Another case of a lie travelling around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. You aren't arguing any case except "anyone who think x is y". Very poor standard.