pap

Life after impotence.

Mark the post. Verbal's assumption filter finally gets one right. I suppose even a broken clock is correct twice a day. As for the whole Frig Society thing, didn't mention it because I thought it was common knowledge. It's not a deep dark secret, Verbs. See this thread from last year in which I link to the blog several times, which you actually replied to. The only reason I posted it there instead of here is because the original thread got locked. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?38418-Car-hire-company-woes&highlight=hire+woes Oh dear, assumption filter is on the blink again. The original is on YouTube. You can get to the original by clicking "Watch on Youtube" icon in the right corner of your screen. I take it you didn't know this, or didn't do this, which is why your awesome investigative skills have failed you on this occasion. Shame, you could have visited this chap's official Facebook page while you were at it. I still think it to be a likely possibility. Are they? Just clear this up please (see below) You see, I really don't get this line of questioning. The person who posted the vid on YouTube is making no claim about the blood on the hands, and as we've discovered on this thread, that person is not me. Furthermore, the video was posted on the 22nd May, the same day as the attack. Enough time to do the polished job you accuse the faker of doing? Also, given that it was available on the 22nd May, why did your students elect to post much worse footage? From what I've seen on here, you know little of honesty and honour, let alone the things you claim you do know about.

Bazza wanted proof that the pictures were faked. It's right there in his post. CB, as I said before, you are an excellent p!ss taker, but I think you've over stretched yourself in the last two days. You're either using words you don't know the meaning to, or purposefully using words you do know incorrectly. For what reason, who can say? Maybe it's the product of your wilful contrarianism, perhaps you are involved in a noble effort to add further nuance to our beautiful language, or you might just be thick. Who can say, but at least they are theories nipper.

Hehe. Your understanding of theory is on a par with your appreciation of (mass) genocide.

You call that a theory, I call it a couple of points, and ones that have not been diminished by the rebuttals on offer. I find it a bit odd that you can call that a theory. See Verbal's post. While I don't necessarily agree with it, it's at least indicative of what a theory is.

Nah, it's not that. I haven't put forward a single theory on Woolwich. Verbal has though. It's not very good.

Wow. I really don't know where to start with this. Do we open with the observation that Verbal, hater of conspiracy theorists, is now creating his own conspiracy theories? Do we once again point out the strawman nature of this argument? Perhaps we should look at all the other times when Verbal has made assumptions and got it so very wrong. Just on this thread alone we have classics such as "pap, the technician who lies about skyscrapers" and "pap, the loner with no family" and "A Thousand Bummings Outside Northwoods", the touching story of how JFK and the joint chiefs really got along. After considering all of the options, I'm going to elect for none of the above. You see I saw a comment earlier in the thread in which Verbal said that I was feeling hurt. I would like to clear this up. There is a vast difference between pointing out the painfully transparent tactics of an ageing scoundrel and feeling personally affronted by each and every jab. I just don't want anyone mistaking your copy for discussion.

There is already video evidence of molten metal snaking down the side of the building. Evidence of nanothermite has been found in some of the few samples it was possible to procure. There are numerous accounts from those in an official capacity that pools of molten steel were burning for weeks afterwards. There is plenty of evidence for controlled demolition, but when investigations begin with the starting point that fires caused the collapse, and that starting point is non-negotiable, then those investigations are inherently flawed and evidence to the contrary is ignored.

Nope, I'm saying that if he did know, he certainly didn't direct it. W Bush was a figurehead. Are you saying that he dreamt up and implemented policy?

Do you even know what genocide is, CB Fry? I ask because I understand it to be something quite different. This'd be George W Bush, the President who spent a large part of his pre-9/11 presidency on holiday. A "C-student president with smart advisors", or perhaps less charitably, an idiotic moron. Yes, he was on the ball. Did I say that? So in short, you've gone for "sneering sarcasm" It's one of my favourite CB Fry flavours, right next to "top blokes at Stoke".

Cheers, ottery st mary. I do so love it when you chip in.

This is brilliant stuff Verbal; keep it up. I'm not quite sure how many times I've called your crap out in one thread. I've been pretty decent at answering a lot of your line-items, but I'm not going to do the same here. When proved wrong over your assertion that JFK and the joint chiefs only clashed on Northwoods, you deftly sidestepped it (in your mind, at least) by quoting the one bit of the post you thought you could have a bash at and started making up a load of sh!t. Then, a little later on, when I describe the hoi-polloi of working in very tall buildings, you accuse me of lying again, once again making up a load of sh!t. Now, that wee notion thoroughly dismissed, you take a swipe at my appearance, assume that I have no family, making up a load of sh!t. I'm sure my dad can confirm he has grand-daughters and that they are not figments of my imagination. As for the scenario you're asking me to entertain, I'd want any incident involving a loved one to be thoroughly investigated to a legal standard. I have to contend with the opinions of people on the internet all the time; I wouldn't be so quick to label them nobodies. I do find it a little hypocritical that an internet nobody is asking me to hypothesise on tragic scenarios involving my own family, but we'll leave that there. All I'll say is that on every assumption you've made about me, you've been off the mark. How well do you think this little campaign to discredit me is going when all your assumptions are a load of sh!te?

Again, to provide the context you're so willing to omit. The original claim was that any wiring up of the building would be impossible due to the thousands of people working there. I've worked in a skyscraper; people come and go all day long for different reasons. No obvious reason? Big chortles from yours truly. Did sir happen to observe the radical change in US foreign policy post-911, how the country was able to prosecute two wars with our help. Has sir ever read Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which a number of hawkish neocons, many of whom went into the Bush Administration, said that fighting many wars at once was something the US should be doing, but that the public probably wouldn't go for it without a New Pearl Harbor. The fact that war plans for Iraq existed well before 9/11? It's only not obvious because you're wilfully stuffing your fingers into your ears. You are an excellent p!ss-taker, CB Fry - one of the best on here. I commend you for the style of your post, but I take issue with the substance.

Ah quiet, CB Fry. In case there is anyone else out there intending to reply to this post in as dimwitted a fashion, I was replying to Verbal's accusation that I'd never worked in a skyscraper and was telling porkies, nowt else. I thank you, although I can't take the credit for "brilliantly played". The set-up was all Verbal.

I really am sorry to disappoint you, Verbal. I was in the US, in one of these aforementioned skyscrapers, last August. It's the fourth time I've worked in that particular building, and I've spent eight weeks of my working life there. I have even been to the top of said skyscraper on a guided tour. Could this be just another example of where you've imagined something about me to be true and have made up a load of boll*cks? I think so.

I've just watched No Retreat No Surrender for the first time in 27 years, and cannot let the experience go unremarked. It's a B-Movie version of the Karate Kid, and is notable for being one of Jean Claude Van Damme's first Western appearances. It is gloriously awful. No one can act. I sh!t you not when I tell you that Van Damme's Russian with a Belgian accent is probably the best performance in the film. The portrayal of African Americans borders on racially offensive. The hero's best mate RJ is an African American nipper, with hair constantly greased in Soul Glo. In his first scene, he's got a ghetto blaster with him. He is variously depicted skateboarding, breakdancing, body-popping or dressing up as Michael Jackson. The plot, if you can call it that, kicks off when Jason, a young martial artist from Los Angeles, has to move to Seattle with his family because his Dad's karate dojo has been taken over by some New York karate mob heavies. JCVD is their man man for dishing out flamboyant beatings. Anyways, after they move to Seattle, Jason discovers that Bruce Lee is buried there, so after getting the crap kicked out of him, he whines over Bruce Lee's grave for a bit. He is eventually visited by the "ghost of Bruce Lee", another questionable choice (he looks nothing like him) and taught high-grade karate from a dead kung fu master for some unspecified purpose. Eventually, the evil New York karate mob predictably arrive in Seattle to muscle in on the martial arts scene, and the hero's purpose is revealed. Fight JCVD at the end. To be fair, it looks like they cast based on physical talent than acting capability, but the result is an utter mess of a film which is unintentionally hilarious. The training scenes in particular. I just wonder. What were they thinking? (check out 42s onwards)

So, er, when you doing that then? From the analysis above, it looks like you stopped scratching immediately. I could make brekkie for twenty with the unsubstantiated waffle on offer. "Clearly fell at the area of impact of both planes" - that may explain everything above it. It doesn't account for the concrete and steel mass being crushed by the same weight it was able to support for decades. You've also neglected to mention WTC7, the other building that came down, which wasn't hit by a plane at all. Plenty of evidence from the day to suggest foreknowledge that the building was going to come down. "Wire up the whole building for demolition (impossible)". I have a couple of probs with this. First, you'd never wire a whole building; the clue to the eventual aim is controlled demolition. The object is not to get the edifice to explode Death Star style. The second is your qualification of impossible. Controlled demolition is something that happens normally, isn't it? They manage. Difficult and time consuming, most certainly. Impossible? Not a bit of it. "And the wired up explosives (or melting metal demolition technology that doesn't even exist)" ... in aintforever's memory. Look up thermite/thermate "would have to be done under the noses of the thousands who worked there" ...which isn't necessarily a problem. I've worked in skyscrapers before; huge buildings populated by loads of different companies, new people in and out of the building every day, including tradesmen, contractors, etc. "and be able to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet and still function effectively an hour or so later" The only two steel-framed buildings in existence that have ever gone down like the two WTC towers after a plane crash are the two WTC towers. Others have had fires rage in them for days without turning to dust. You're essentially using two unexplained mysteries as proof of how buildings are supposed to come down in these circumstances. All the pre-911 information tells us that buildings may not "effectively function" an hour or so later, but neither do they explode into dust. Have another scratch, aintforever

I'm fairly undecided on both this and Boston; both still have the legal cases to run and the full legislative consequences are yet to be determined. Motive is a difficult thing to determine upfront, and is sometimes only apparent with the benefit of hindsight. I find Boston interesting because of the huge deployment of personnel used to find and track the brothers. I also find aspects of it highly suspicious and/or convenient, such as the state of the brothers between being arrested and getting into custody. CISPA is back on the cards in the US, an Internet snoopers bill is one of the two pieces of legislation that is back under discussion in the UK. It's a little more than buildings collapsing in an unusual way. It's the assertion that two skyscrapers, able to support their intact mass of concrete and steel for decades without problems, were unable to support the same mass when it was dispersed. The collapses bear all the hallmarks of controlled demolition, The presence of molten metal, burning weeks after the events of 9/11 has been independently reported from numerous sources, and are corroborated by thermal imaging - important because it is claimed that the controlled demolition involved melting the steel support columns. WTC7 was almost forgotten entirely. The official story is not only at odds with all of that, but also video evidence from the day that shows explosions, and certainly foreknowledge of the impending implosion of WTC7. If the controlled demolition hypothesis is correct, then you immediately have a conspiracy. Cheers for playing nice.

I think "mere ambiguities" is selling the scale of some of the discrepancies a little short. The thoughts did cross my mind, but it didn't deter me enough from asking. Let's be honest, a big part of why it isn't worth the effort is the sort of dressing downs you get for your efforts I speak from a fair bit of experience on this one. That doesn't mean the strength of the case is diminished in any scientific sense; the central tenet of the NIST pancake theory is ridiculous. Even that was a reaction to criticism of the original account. Credible is the operative word. Who gets to decide whether something is credible or not? Largely, it's the media and court of public opinion. It's why the most common response to conspiracy theory ideas is to discredit the person espousing them. It's an admirably ruthless approach; destroying the "platform" the idea is built on instead of the idea itself. Evidence is only really any good if it is weighed into consideration.

It is rather amusing, reading it back. I shall endeavour to maintain this gold standard of comedy.

If your definition of "opposed it effectively" is gaining the assent of the speaking board, then you're right. I've totally failed. I assume no support from frightened lurkers, or regular posters who are choosing not to comment. However, in the midst of all of the flak, there have been some worthwhile discussions. Rough with the smooth. You can't possibly back this up with logic. People mock conspiracy theorists for harvesting the information that appears on conspiracy sites to the exclusion of all else but contacting a journo at a respected broadcaster is wrong too! Can't really win, can I? Could sir perhaps provide the correct procedure for those seeking to prove a conspiracy orchestrated by those in power? Preferably one that involves long life afterwards I've heard the "as good as a religion" argument only once before. The idea does have some merit. Part of the reason I was turned off in the mid-2000s was the near-religious subscription to particular 9/11 theories, such as "no planes" or whatever. It was a complete joke; people who suspected broadly the same things arguing the toss over details, losing focus on elements of common agreement - or incorporating everything into the framework of a single, over-arching world view (lizards, etc) which blinded them to fresh evidence or alternate explanations. So yep, I take that on-board and I can acknowledge that I've met one person who'd fit the wide-eyed loon tag like a glove. Shame really, because these people devalue valid questions by tying them up with their personal worldview. Makes it so easy for someone to roll onto a board that discusses conspiracy matters, cherry pick a few choice comments and present them as the whole. That ain't even conspiracy theory - that's the general standard of politics and debate in this age.

No problem, Bear. Without doubt, you (ahem) is the best in that vid, (oh no) yos! Them other bears (oh f**k, what is happening?), gots (eek!) nuttin' (scouse break) on you. I hope you is (f**k f**k f**k) their boss, yos. In a considerably less bracketed sense, it is good to have you back. No probs on vociferous support - I was planning on starting a conspiracy thread about how Gary Coleman (Diff'rent Strokes) and Verne Troyer (Mini Me from Austin Powers) were the same person, but spent the effort trying my best to get you out of ban jail, which seemed equally plausible.

Interesting link, caped crusader (in the medieval age sense, of course ). I do find it sickly amusing, that from a pure headline perspective, a democratic government might end up banning a group called Unite Against Fascists in 2013.

You reckon? At one point, so did I Take a look at this thread, and the others I've been involved with on this topic. The questions aren't unreasonable, but some of the responses completely are. I've posted a few bits and pieces on this topic, and depressingly often, the starter for ten has been "pap has to be a nutter". Fair comment from a certain perspective, but it's a small scale version of what often happens higher up. Mentioned before that I was into this in the mid-2000s. I actually emailed a BBC journalist about one of the more concrete aspects of 9/11, namely the controlled demolition. The response was a two sentence shutdown, and while I attribute no specific meaning to that, the complete lack of interest did deter me from pursuing it through such channels again. You talk as if a smartphone could break the whole thing open, but I think that the reaction on this thread demonstrates that freedom of speech means you can say what you like, but you better be prepared to take some flak for it. When the big boys are involved in smearing you, you can pretty much expect to lose your career. I think it's important not to underestimate the massive power of the media, and the relative lack of plurality. I had hoped that stuff like social media would perhaps lead to democratisation of opinion, but the exact same principle exists there. That's not always the case. The much maligned David Icke forums got the Savile story ahead of anybody, and while it isn't a traditional conspiracy theory, it does somewhat disprove Verbal's notion that the conspiracy community has never uncovered anything of any value. Hmm, a theory, eh? Do I have your assurances that if I lay out a theory, you won't pretend it's what I actually believe and start saying I have Aspergers or something?

Much respect for posting an image from one of the best episodes of telly, ever.