John Hill acquited

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Evidence that Loughner was a 9/11 "fan" pleeeease-

Why, you'll shift the goalposts to that he was a atheist, or something else.

The original demand was I was asked to prove that people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories have gone on killing sprees, and I've proved that.

Remember the post that started this off;

Mahatma Coat wrote:

OK, Please provide links to 9/11 'fans' who have gone on shooting sprees.

thebullkf

Seems like the doubters are now using pedantry,and mis direction to disguise the fact that diogenes gave them what was asked, and are now moving the goalposts, fair play diogenes.;)

humanji

jackiebaron wrote: »

But what's he guilty of?

Attempting to pervert the course of justice by supplying falsified evidence to a jury.

Mahatma coat

Yes, thats what I asked, and I qualified it by saying I was most interested in their 9/11 fan-ness, as has been shown it wasnt a driving force for the people you linked to, White supremacists and anti authoritarian figures seem to be the driving force behind the attacks, very little to do with their position on 9/11.

Mahatma coat

humanji wrote: »

Attempting to pervert the course of justice by supplying falsified evidence to a jury.

subjective conclusions and a one sided portrayal of the events probably, but Falsefied maybe is a strong claim

humanji

Mahatma coat wrote: »

subjective conclusions and a one sided portrayal of the events probably, but Falsefied maybe is a strong claim

Actually you're right. He does most likely mean everything that he put in the video.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Why, you'll shift the goalposts to that he was a atheist, or something else.

The original demand was I was asked to prove that people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories have gone on killing sprees, and I've proved that.

Remember the post that started this off;

That wasn't the post that started it off, this by you was

I never said I wanted him imprisoned. Better sending some DVDs then the shooting sprees some CTers get up to.

Why do you think I am asking for evidence that Loughner was a 9/11 "fan"? You made the claim that he was. Either you can provide it or admit you were wrong.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That wasn't the post that started it off, this by you was

And Mahatma asked for proof.

This petulant little argument started

Di0genes wrote: »

I never said I wanted him imprisoned. Better sending some DVDs then the shooting sprees some CTers get up to.

Di0genes wrote: »

Several 9/11 conspiracy fans have gone on killing sprees.

Now for three pages there's arguments go on like "James W Von Brown doesn't count as a killing spree he only shot like one person!"

and

"John Patrick Bedell doesn't count he only wounded two people!".

And well he wasn't really a 9/11 conspiracy theorist he was a more white supremacist".




I have never said that a believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories means you're more likely to start killing people.

It's just that several crazy people who believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories have gone on killing sprees.

John Hill is ****ing mental. He's a hatstand! He wants to dig up the hill of Tara to find the arc of covenant! He thinks he's the true King of England and Jerusalem.

I made a offhand comment along the lines that "Hey a least a crazy who believes in 9/11 nonsense just sent a bunch of DVDs instead of going on a Killing Spree" and have endure three pages of nonsense.

Christ I'll be glad to get back to work

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you think I am asking for evidence that Loughner was a 9/11 "fan"? You made the claim that he was. Either you can provide it or admit you were wrong.

Hi ladies,
According to his 'friends' or those who knew him Lougher believed that 9/11 was an inside job.

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) —
The friends’ comments paint a picture bolstered by other former classmates and Loughner’s own Internet postings: that of a social outcast with nihilistic, almost indecipherable beliefs steeped in mistrust and paranoia.

Mistrust of government was Loughner’s defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system (“a New World Order currency” one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.

Di0genes

studiorat wrote: »

Hi ladies,
According to his 'friends' or those who knew him Lougher believed that 9/11 was an inside job.

You are a beautiful human being.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Hi ladies,
According to his 'friends' or those who knew him Lougher believed that 9/11 was an inside job.

.......... "Both friends spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they wanted to avoid the publicity surrounding the case."

A single anonymous source. :pac: . Pull the other one.

Feckin conspiracy theorists and their "evidence". I was actually looking for some real evidence not anonymously sourced hearsay.

WakeUp

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Feckin conspiracy theorists and their "evidence". I was actually looking for some real evidence not anonymously sourced hearsay.

:D:D

EarlERizer

Di0genes wrote: »

pedantry.

Is that a self description or are you admitting to been pedantic? from the little i've read of your posts/replies here and on other threads it's sums you up to a T.

You bark on at posters to back up their posts with "source" & "prove it's" and when asked to do the same you offer up information as hole ridden as some of the CT posts you pour scorn on.

So what is it Di0genes? are you closed minded? is it your word is bond and everyone else that writes to the contrary,wrong? is it the world according to you and only that? big ego? pompous? or an inferiority complex you try to mask with playing the keyboard warrior on boards.ie?

Should anyone thinking of starting a topic in the CT forum run their idea by you first n then you can write the gospel on the subject and save us all the time of giving an opinion? We'll all just take your word for it.

I think you are intoxicated in the exubberance of your own verbosity!

......or in my childish nature

Di0genes

EarlERizer wrote: »

Is that a self description or are you admitting to been pedantic? from the little i've read of your posts/replies here and on other threads it's sums you up to a T.

You bark on at posters to back up their posts with "source" & "prove it's" and when asked to do the same you offer up information as hole ridden as some of the CT posts you pour scorn on.

So what is it Di0genes? are you closed minded? is it your word is bond and everyone else that writes to the contrary,wrong? is it the world according to you and only that? big ego? pompous? or an inferiority complex you try to mask with playing the keyboard warrior on boards.ie?

Should anyone thinking of starting a topic in the CT forum run their idea by you first n then you can write the gospel on the subject and save us all the time of giving an opinion? We'll all just take your word for it.

I think you are intoxicated in the exubberance of your own verbosity!

You're claiming John Patrick Bedell doesn't count as a killing spree because he was stopped by security before he started.

So it was a intended prevented killing spree. Hence pedantry.

......or in my childish nature

Are you 4?

Care to go back to the 911 threads and answer some of the points you ran away from?

Mahatma coat

I cant speak for anyone else here, but the way I see it is that in the Examples that you gaave the main driving force behind the attacks were Racialy motivated or motivated by a deep distrust of the Government and the fear of their encroachment on the civil liberties of the shooters, the position of those individuals with regard 9/11 or any other of the CT's we discuss here (besides the NWO obviously) had no real bearing on their actions, these guys were what both sides of the debate would consider nutjobs, the underlying theme is that these guys believed that it was their duty to take up arms to further their aims, thats entirely different from what you initially stated and has no relevance what so ever to John Hill.


Oh BTW 'Petulant'

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

.......... "Both friends spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they wanted to avoid the publicity surrounding the case."

Them wanting to remain anonymous in the circumstances isn't plausible?

So you are saying, someone like Loughner who though grammar was a conspiracy, the banking system was a conspiracy, the calendar was a conspiracy, the moon landing etc... and thinks the world is nothing but an illusion, wouldn't believe that 911 was an inside job?

Cop on, that's stretching pedantry to new lengths for the sake of it.

The attacks IMO were because she dissed him if it wasn't her it would have been someone else eventually.

EarlERizer

Di0genes wrote: »

You're claiming John Patrick Bedell doesn't count as a killing spree because he was stopped by security before he started.

So it was a intended prevented killing spree. Hence pedantry.



Are you 4?

Care to go back to the 911 threads and answer some of the points you ran away from?

Re: John Bedell .... Prove it

Re: Age - yeah sometimes, in order to level the playing field on boards i'm forced to act younger to engage with certain boardies who throw their toys from the pen when noone listens to their childlike arguments.

Re: the 911 threads - of the one i posted on didn't you state you had become bored with it? or words to that effect? I thought "no point flogging a dead horse" but yeah,sure i'll revisit it and answer whatever you levelled at me.

and I still think your pedantry comments are a case of pot & the kettle! are you willing to agree on that much?

For the record,I dont come on here to have tit for tat slanging matches,I give my opinions (pointed out ad nauseum)unfortunately I let myself down when I allow certain posters drag me down that path.

Just because I dont agree with your point of veiw doesnt make mine right and vice versa. If you are ok with poking holes in a posters points atleast allow the same be done to yours, you have to admit they're not as solid as you might think they are (and again vice versa)

EarlERizer

thebullkf wrote: »

Seems like the doubters are now using pedantry,and mis direction to disguise the fact that diogenes gave them what was asked, and are now moving the goalposts, fair play diogenes.;)

Doubters? there are doubts on both sides of the topic as well as the use of pedantry.

The goalposts are still firmly in place, it's wheter or not the ball has crossed the line!! in this case the evidence and the reasoning provided is disputable.

Penn

There is no need for childish remarks or snide comments. Discuss things in a civil manner. Please take the time to read the forum charter. Stay on topic and attack the post, not the poster.