# Cynthia McKinney, Monday 8th March



## Jazzz (Mar 5, 2010)

Meeting organised by Reinvestigate 911

Behind the "War on Terror"​
*Cynthia McKinney*

Member of the US House of Representatives for 12 years and now a global campaigner for many causes including Palestine. Cynthia was targeted for removal from the US Congress after asking what the White House knew about 9/11 and when they knew it. Last year she was snatched by Israel from a ship trying to lift the blockade of Gaza and held illegally for a week.

*Dr Nafeez Ahmed*

UK based terrorism expert. He has questioned some of the key tenets of Bush’s “War on Terror”, a posture which has continued in all but name under the new administration. He is the author on The London Bombings and The War on Truth.

*Ian Henshall*

Is author of 911 The New Evidence and a co-ordinator for Reinvestigate 911

*Chair, Dr Jay Ginn*

Lecture room V211 SOAS Vernon Square Campus
7.00 for 7.30 Monday March 8
Entrance free, donations welcome.
Directions: King's Cross Tube, East on Pentonville Road, right onto King's Cross Road

Large old building, corner of King's Cross Road, Penton Rise and Vernon Rise. WC1X 9EW

Reinvestigate 911.org
Supported by Coffee Plant 180 Portobello Road, organic and Fairtrade coffee www.coffee.uk.com​


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 8, 2010)

***bump!***


----------



## purplex (Mar 8, 2010)

lol


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 9, 2010)

What an inspiring evening, Cynthia is a courageous lady.  The large, diverse audience was further proof that more and more Leftists and Greens  are waking up to the reality that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is a pack of lies and what happened on September 11th was a false-flag operation.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 9, 2010)

> Dr Nafeez Ahmed



"Executive Director" of the "Institute for Policy Research and Development" which I note has a staff of 4 and operates out of a block of flats in Paddington.

It must have been quite something to have a representative of such an august institution present.

Inspiring indeed.

What is funny about these loons is that on the one hand they are all about rejecting the mainstream, and yet they make up these institutions and the like in order to make themselves look like they are part of some kind of establishment. They try to generate an impression of credibility by mimicking exactly what they are supposedly opposing.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 9, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> What an inspiring evening, Cynthia is a courageous lady.  The large, diverse audience was further proof that more and more Leftists and Greens  are waking up to the reality that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is a pack of lies and what happened on September 11th was a false-flag operation.



You must be hard right winger who thinks it's ok to shoot people dead at the pentagon. Either that or you think alien bloodlines rule the world.  It could be a pathological hatred of jooooz as well. Anyone who questions anything about the official story is a nutjob. I learned as much from these very boards.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It must have been quite something to have a representative of such an august institution present.


You mean like Cynthia McKinney? Certainly.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 10, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You must be hard right winger who thinks it's ok to shoot people dead at the pentagon. Either that or you think alien bloodlines rule the world.  It could be a pathological hatred of jooooz as well. Anyone who questions anything about the official story is a nutjob. I learned as much from these very boards.



Rather than resort to pathetic and way off the mark insults, why don`t you  research the work and speeches of Cynthia McKinney, look up Cointelpro and the destruction of the black resistance movement.  How the CIA were behind the influx of crack and cocaine into the ghettoes, for instance.
I wonder if you would have the guts to tell her to her face that she was a nutjob conspiraloon (i doubt it).  You have to respect the opinions of people who have lived through oppression, and Cynthia along with many other black Americans have for their whole lives.  They understand how the oligarchy operates - it`s not conspiracy theory, it`s reality.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You must be hard right winger who thinks it's ok to shoot people dead at the pentagon. Either that or you think alien bloodlines rule the world.  It could be a pathological hatred of jooooz as well. Anyone who questions anything about the official story is a nutjob. I learned as much from these very boards.





mike desantos said:


> Rather than resort to pathetic and way off the mark insults, why don`t you  research the work and speeches of Cynthia McKinney, look up Cointelpro and the destruction of the black resistance movement.  How the CIA were behind the influx of crack and cocaine into the ghettoes, for instance.
> I wonder if you would have the guts to tell her to her face that she was a nutjob conspiraloon (i doubt it).  You have to respect the opinions of people who have lived through oppression, and Cynthia along with many other black Americans have for their whole lives.  They understand how the oligarchy operates - it`s not conspiracy theory, it`s reality.



Loon fail


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 10, 2010)

@ mike

You need to work on your irony and sarcasm detector - taffy's with you lot in the 'It wuz an inside job' camp.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Mar 10, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> The large, diverse audience was further proof that more and more Leftists and Greens  are waking up to the reality that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is a pack of lies and what happened on September 11th was a false-flag operation.




Which if true will guarantee the irrelevance of Greens and Leftists in our politics for a generation.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Mar 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> "Executive Director" of the "Institute for Policy Research and Development" which I note has a staff of 4 and operates out of a block of flats in Paddington.



Nafeez Ahmed likes to play both sides of the fence. As I reveal here, he is also an advisor to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. 

I think we can safely assume he is not telling them that 9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobs.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 10, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Rather than resort to pathetic and way off the mark insults, why don`t you  research the work and speeches of Cynthia McKinney, look up Cointelpro and the destruction of the black resistance movement.  How the CIA were behind the influx of crack and cocaine into the ghettoes, for instance.
> I wonder if you would have the guts to tell her to her face that she was a nutjob conspiraloon (i doubt it).  You have to respect the opinions of people who have lived through oppression, and Cynthia along with many other black Americans have for their whole lives.  They understand how the oligarchy operates - it`s not conspiracy theory, it`s reality.



So she strayed off-topic quite a bit then?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You mean like Cynthia McKinney? Certainly.



Does she believe the destruction of the WTC was a controlled demolition, rather than purely the result of the aeroplane impacts?

I can't find a statement on her website.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 10, 2010)

> The large, diverse audience was further proof that more and more Leftists and Greens are waking up to the reality that the *Official 911 Conspiracy Theory *is a pack of lies and *what happened on September 11th was a false-flag operation*



You see, this is typical of the false dichotomy people like you present in this argument - there's no room for grey area, only 'You either believe the 9/11 Commission and are therefore a sheeple, or you believe that the whole operation was orchestrated by the White House and *insert individual flavour of conspiracy here, be it holographic planes, CD or orbital-mass drivers/particle cannons* and therefore have a clear version of the truth.'

The truth, of course, will be far, far more complex than the simple 'It was a bunch of pissed off Arabs wot dun it' (which is in fact the proximate cause), and far more obscure on the 'What was known and when' question, leaving no clear path of blame to anywhere, because what actually happened was an institutional failure to act on intelligence, driven by infighting, worldview and personality (and ego) clashes between the key players in the room.

But hey, that kind of truth isn't satisfying, because it means that all the humans involved acted and behaved like human beings, not cyphers of perfection from a movie. I realise that this doesn't satisfy your need for a neatly tied off, here's a finger of blame ending, but hey, life's like that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> What an inspiring evening, Cynthia is a courageous lady.  The large, diverse audience was further proof that more and more Leftists and Greens  are waking up to the reality that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is a pack of lies and what happened on September 11th was a false-flag operation.



What is the political dynast CM's views on 911 then?  Did/does she argue as you suggest above?


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 10, 2010)

Hold tight mate, i think/hope Cynthia`s speech from Monday night will be on the internet soon, so you can learn for yourself what her views are.

One thing`s for sure, she doesn`t believe the Ofiicial Conspiracy theory.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Hold tight mate, i think/hope Cynthia`s speech from Monday night will be on the internet soon, so you can learn for yourself what her views are.
> 
> One thing`s for sure, she doesn`t believe the Ofiicial Conspiracy theory.



You were there though - can't you just say yes she believes it was a false flag operation, or no she doesn't?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 10, 2010)

> McKinney gained national attention for remarks she made following the 2001 US attacks, charging that the United States had advance knowledge of the attacks and that US President George W. Bush may have been aware of the incipient attack and allowed them to happen,[18] allegedly due to his father's business interests: "It is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group, had–at the time of the attacks–joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since September 11."



From Wiki, seems to sum her position up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> From Wiki, seems to sum her position up.



I know kyser, hence my wedge strategy, which you've now brought out into the open


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 10, 2010)

Whups, soz.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Does she believe the destruction of the WTC was a controlled demolition, rather than purely the result of the aeroplane impacts?
> 
> I can't find a statement on her website.



Do you think she would be appearing as a lead speaker in an event organised by www.reinvestigate911.org if she was not questioning all aspects of the official account?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Can you answer my question above jazzz?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Can you answer my question above jazzz?


Of course she does, I can tell you that with certainty. However, as she is the political face of the truth movement she may have to limit her pronouncements to what is proved and questions.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

You can tell me with certainty that she thinks 911 was a false flag operation?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You can tell me with certainty that she thinks 911 was a false flag operation?


I already did. What's so surprising about that? You have to be asleep not to realise it! And Cynthia McKinney is most certainly awake.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 10, 2010)

asheep surely?

Anyway, thread moved from announce to protest/activism.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Yet, she doesn't. Have you any supporting evidence for this definitive claim? Anything at all?

In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2010)

I was baffled by this thread till I realised it was nothing to do with the woman who kidnapped a Mormon and said she'd ski naked with a carnation up her nose for love for him 
 That was Joyce McKinney 
Still, maybe they're related.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yet, she doesn't. Have you any supporting evidence for this definitive claim? Anything at all?
> 
> In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?


You are floundering.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Joyce Mckinney re-appeared recently in connection with some fake or something - can't quite remember what.

( Joyce McKinney experience - good band)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You are floundering.



I'm really really not:

Have you any supporting evidence for this definitive claim? Anything at all?

In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm really really not:
> 
> Have you any supporting evidence for this definitive claim? Anything at all?
> 
> In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?


Look, were you at the meeting? Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)? Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2010)

That's a bit daft, Jazz. I never met Hazlitt or Bentham, nor was a personal friend of either, but I can comment on them and their outlook on politics.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2010)

....and another thing Jazz, you can't continue posting stuff here you know people think is a pile of wank and then get all tizzy when people say something you don't like. This is a bulletin board and I think it makes you look a complete tit to complain.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Look, were you at the meeting? Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)? Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?



Now, that's floundering. A bit pathetic too.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That's a bit daft, Jazz. I never met Hazlitt or Bentham, nor was a personal friend of either, but I can comment on them and their outlook on politics.



So why may I not comment on Cynthia McKinney given that I actually DO move in the same circles.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2010)

No one is saying you can't, Jazz. You got all heated when someone didn't fawn about them like you do.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ....and another thing Jazz, you can't continue posting stuff here you know people think is a pile of wank and then get all tizzy when people say something you don't like. This is a bulletin board and I think it makes you look a complete tit to complain.



Where did I complain? I am simply giving you the truth and answering questions put to me.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 10, 2010)

To my knowledeg CM has never stated it was. She does have quite a few issues and questions related to the events and she is far from alone.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Look, were you at the meeting? Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)? Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?


I beg your pardon Jazz, I mistook this for a complaint...obviously you are totally agreeing with someone and getting all warm and fuzzy about their opinion.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> No one is saying you can't, Jazz. You got all heated when someone didn't fawn about them like you do.


You are confused, the question was over what Cynthia McKinney believes and whether I can correctly identify it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2010)

Being as I have suddenly lost the ability to understand the meanings of words on a screen anymore, I shall bog off and listen to some Radio 3.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I beg your pardon Jazz, I mistook this for a complaint...obviously you are totally agreeing with someone and getting all warm and fuzzy about their opinion.


To disagree and to complain are not the same thing. I trust we are done.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Look, were you at the meeting? Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)? Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?



So no, no proof you just made it up and decided to ask why people dare ask you etc


----------



## 8den (Mar 10, 2010)

I love it that they call it reinvestigate911 as if any of you nutjobs don't "know" it was an inside job. 

Who exactly would led and be on this investigation?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Do you think she would be appearing as a lead speaker in an event organised by www.reinvestigate911.org if she was not questioning all aspects of the official account?


I don't know what can be concluded from someone's appearance at such an event other than they might be a bit of a nutcase. Why don't you just say yes, no or don't know? Sounds like an evasive kind of response to me.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 10, 2010)

I'd like to know what CM says in private too, and would be happy for Jazzz to divulge, but he is far from the only one to avoid answering questiojns is he Butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I'd like to know what CM says in private too, and would be happy for Jazzz to divulge, but he is far from the only one to avoid answering questiojns is he Butchers?



Ask Away weirdo


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Does anyone other than the secretive Jazzz know what CM really thinks?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Does anyone other than the secretive Jazzz know what CM really thinks?



Look, it's really not difficult. Seeing as you are STILL having trouble, perhaps her T-Shirt here will give some clue?

taken from youtube video


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2010)

You still haven't answered the questions.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You still haven't answered the questions.


I think I have made everything very clear. What exactly are you still having trouble grasping?


----------



## 8den (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Look, it's really not difficult. Seeing as you are STILL having trouble, perhaps her T-Shirt here will give some clue?
> 
> taken from youtube video



Those t-shirts are such a handy way of spotting morons.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Look, it's really not difficult. Seeing as you are STILL having trouble, perhaps her T-Shirt here will give some clue?
> 
> taken from youtube video



Investigate 911 is not the same as saying that 911 was a false flag job. Pony up. 

You're made trouble for yourself with your mouth here jazz.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I think I have made everything very clear. What exactly are you still having trouble grasping?



The answer to my questions.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Look, it's really not difficult. Seeing as you are STILL having trouble, perhaps her T-Shirt here will give some clue?
> taken from youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWAGMczZEEU




Does she in this video claim that 911 was a false flag operation?


----------



## 8den (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Does she in this video claim that 911 was a false flag operation?



I wouldn't rate her. She's the left wing Ron Paul.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

I know all about her, hence my above posts. Can't a man do a job of work here without being bothered? Just sit back for a bit.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I think I have made everything very clear. What exactly are you still having trouble grasping?



You've been asked a couple of perfectly reasonable questions, relating to things you have posted and you haven't answered them.

Why?


----------



## 8den (Mar 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You've been asked a couple of perfectly reasonable questions, relating to things you have posted and you haven't answered them.
> 
> Why?



You've met Jazzz haven't you?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You've been asked a couple of perfectly reasonable questions, relating to things you have posted and you haven't answered them.
> 
> Why?



What question have I not answered?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> What question have I not answered?



Post 28


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

These ones, you responded last time with shouting that you have met (did you actually meet CM? i'm not sure that you did)



> Have you any supporting evidence for this definitive claim? Anything at all?
> 
> In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Did you meet CM in Paris  Jazzz?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?



She is a politician, ex-congresswoman and currently standing for the Green Party

She is part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, campaigning at events like this one

This question is much like asking, can you prove a elephant is an elephant? It just IS.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

> Look, were you at the meeting?


 No - Were you



> Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)?


 No -were you?



> Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?



Leave this appeal to authority to one side for now, at least until the above is clarified. This Paris meeting is prime for unpicking - were you there jazzz - in Paris?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> She is a politician, ex-congresswoman and currently standing for the Green Party
> 
> She is part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, campaigning at events like this one
> 
> This question is much like asking, can you prove a elephant is an elephant? It just IS.



Thank you for answering the convenient party of my question. Here it is again in full:



> Have you any supporting evidence for this definitive claim? Anything at all?
> 
> In what way is she the political face of the truth movement?



The important part was the first part. Please answer it.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did you meet CM in Paris  Jazzz?


No. I missed the dinner with her on the Friday night, she wasn't at the strategy meeting on the Saturday, I heard her speak on the Saturday night of course, then I skipped the march into Paris on the Sunday.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> She is a politician, ex-congresswoman and currently standing for the Green Party
> 
> She is part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, campaigning at events like this one
> 
> This question is much like asking, can you prove a elephant is an elephant? It just IS.



BTW, that's a snakes get out, just ignoring the real question. Shame on you.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No - Were you
> 
> No -were you?
> 
> ...



Yes, yes, yes. You really are a little slow ain'tya.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The important part was the first part. Please answer it.


Did you not see her t-shirt?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No. I missed the dinner with her on the Friday night, she wasn't at the strategy meeting on the Saturday, I heard her speak on the Saturday night of course, then I skipped the march into Paris on the Sunday.



So, your personal communication that she believed 911 was a false flag operation took place when? Did it take place? Have you


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Yes, yes, yes. You really are a little slow ain'tya.



I'd say he's being patient.

Whereas you're being slippier than a greased up eel.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Did you not see her t-shirt?



I diid and pointed out the problems you've got with using it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Did you not see her t-shirt?



So: 

investigate 9/11 = 9/11 was a false flag operation



Yes/No


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Yes, yes, yes. You really are a little slow ain'tya.



Catchee monkee - and you're all but in the net genius.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

> Look, were you at the meeting? Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)? Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So:
> 
> investigate 9/11 = 9/11 was a false flag operation
> 
> ...



No. But you can bet your boots that someone that wears one believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and I can assure you that this is the case with Cynthia McKinney, or indeed anyone closely associated with www.reinvestigate911.org

It's really not very complicated.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No. But you can bet your boots that someone that wears one believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and I can assure you that this is the case with Cynthia McKinney, or indeed anyone closely associated with www.reinvestigate911.org
> 
> It's really not very complicated.



No you can't. As you've just failed to show.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No. But you can bet your boots that someone that wears one believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and I can assure you that this is the case with Cynthia McKinney, or indeed anyone closely associated with www.reinvestigate911.org
> 
> It's really not very complicated.



You cannot assure anyone of this at all.  

Answer my questions.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

This is amazing, you're just going to ignore me! You really are


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No you can't. As you've just failed to show.


okay, you aren't going to get it. I have explained everything to you fully. Clearly, you aren't actually interested in what McKinney believes - it's not as if you have heard her speak ever, or even looked up such a speech on youtube.

I have wasted quite enough time on this silly game


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Hang your defeated head in shame. You made an arse out of yourself by claiming to have contacts that you did not and made claims for others that you could not back up - then you tried to get out of it by silly embarrassing games. Grow up.  If even thick fucks like me can catch you...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

In the fucking net boy.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hang your defeated head in shame. You made an arse out of yourself by claiming to have contacts that you did not and made claims for others that you could not back up


What a load of crap! Please stop lying. I have been entirely honest about my contacts, I am on very good personal terms with Annie (who organised Vers la Verite in Paris) and Ian (who runs reinvestigate911.org and Monday night).

As for what Cynthia believes about 9/11, I have given you the truth, if you want to stick to the absolute letter of her public pronouncements, that's your business. But she is NEVER going to say she accepts the official story - she knows it is a load of nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> What a load of crap! Please stop lying. I have been entirely honest about my contacts, I am on very good personal terms with Annie (who organised Vers la Verite in Paris) and Ian (who runs reinvestigate911.org and Monday night).
> 
> As for what Cynthia believes about 9/11, I have given you the truth, if you want to stick to the absolute letter of her public pronouncements, that's your business. But she is NEVER going to say she accepts the official story - she knows it is a load of nonsense.



There's a large gap between her saying that she doesn't believes the official story and you saying for her that she thinks it's a false flag operation. It's a gap that you're filling with lies that you can't support - you've already fucked this up once, you want to do it again. OK.

Why is she covering it up jazz? What's wrong with her?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> What a load of crap! Please stop lying. I have been entirely honest about my contacts, I am on very good personal terms with Annie (who organised Vers la Verite in Paris) and Ian (who runs reinvestigate911.org and Monday night).
> 
> As for what Cynthia believes about 9/11, I have given you the truth, if you want to stick to the absolute letter of her public pronouncements, that's your business. But she is NEVER going to say she accepts the official story - she knows it is a load of nonsense.



Oh yeah, aside form winding you up, you're a disgusting model of dishonesty, lies, and filth. You're rotting.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

*Cynthia McKinney, - why is she covering up what really happened?*


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 10, 2010)

Now would be a good time to re-investigate the official Jazzz story about Cynthia McKinnon.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Now would be a good time to re-investigate the official Jazzz story about Cynthia McKinnon.


Brilliant, a new entrant to this who can't even read her name properly.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *Cynthia McKinney, - why is she covering up what really happened?*



You are quite insane. There is really no point in furthering this. I shall leave you to bleat on about nets, or lies, or whatever distasteful rubbish you wish.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Brilliant, a new entrant to this who can't even read her name properly.



I've been a devious cunt in my time, but the lack of honour from jazz tonight - it's shocking. Have you really no shame?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You are quite insane. There is really no point in furthering this. I shall leave you to bleat on about nets, or lies, or whatever distasteful rubbish you wish.



Did what you wanted to once you realised the trap you' landed yourself in. Didn't want to fight your way out, just shut your eyes pretended it didn't happen.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You are quite insane. There is really no point in furthering this. I shall leave you to bleat on about nets, or lies, or whatever distasteful rubbish you wish.



The conclusion I am taking away from this thread so far is that Cynthia McKinney feels that there are some elements of the "official" 9/11 story that need re-investigation, but she doesn't share all of your beliefs, for example that the fall of the World Trade Center towers was the result of a controlled demolition.

Have I got that right?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Ask Away weirdo



Leaving aside the petty insult: On a few occasions I've asked you to state your political alligiences, not to catch you out or smear them every time I disagree with you, but out of genuine curiousity.

So, if you could briefly and fairly clearly outline what they are I'd be much obliged.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

I'm in the IWCA. I support their white power agenda. OK?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The conclusion I am taking away from this thread so far is that Cynthia McKinney feels that there are some elements of the "official" 9/11 story that need re-investigation, but she doesn't share all of your beliefs, for example that the fall of the World Trade Center towers was the result of a controlled demolition.
> 
> Have I got that right?




I see her as more toward the Jersey Girls School than the Alex Jones / Webster Tarpley School (although even Jones can be suprisingly opaque on detail behind the bluster). The Official School prefer to paint all the former as latter for reasons of simplistic stereotyping.

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs between "everything the official story says is unquestionably and completely true" and "it was Cheney et al working on behalf of the lizards". That obvious truth doesnt suit a lot of this planets more clunky and hotheaded thinkers.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm in the IWCA. I support their white power agenda. OK?



Are you in the IWCA?

Why do you constantly need to be a sarky pants?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Yes i am.

Sarky pants? You make me retch.

Honest question, why do you think i give you a hard time?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

The lies of jazzz you don't pick up on....


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 11, 2010)

Honest answers: You think I'm a bit of a nob. You give lots of people a hard time. You appear to be every bit as arrogant as you appear to suppose me to be. But this is the internet and appearances can be deceptive.

Are you following / do you have an opinion on the Peoples Alliance that grew out of the Wigan Community Action Party?


----------



## Pie 1 (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You are quite insane. There is really no point in furthering this. I shall leave you to bleat on about nets, or lies, or whatever distasteful rubbish you wish.




You actually typed this without a hint of irony, didn't you?

Do you really not get this Jazzz? Are you really that far gone 

I'm no fan of Butchers, but he's right. You should be hanging your head in shame.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> There is really no point in furthering this. I shall leave you to bleat on about nets, or lies, or whatever distasteful rubbish you wish.



"I've been caught being dishonest, again, so I'm going to run away"


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 11, 2010)

BA - 10: Jazzz - -10000

Perhaps he needed it simplifying to 'Have you heard CM say that 9/11 was a false flag operation, or is she on the record as having said this?'

Are you still there Jazz? Can you answer this question directly?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Honest answers: You think I'm a bit of a nob. You give lots of people a hard time. You appear to be every bit as arrogant as you appear to suppose me to be. But this is the internet and appearances can be deceptive.
> 
> Are you following / do you have an opinion on the Peoples Alliance that grew out of the Wigan Community Action Party?



Not really tbh The CAP showed you could leave labour and still be a cohesive group without linking up with the sects at at least - how much that cohesiveness was due to being councillors and wishing to maintain local personal influence i don't know. Some of their people seemed very high-handed and arrogant around the time of the Tony Ward getting hammered. 

I think their agenda was local elections are the end point of their activity rather than elections being a minor tool used to increase community confidence for other wider goals. Happy to hear any other info though.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 11, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A) Are you [butchersapron]  in the* IWCA*?
> 
> B) Why do you constantly need to be a sarky pants?



A) Is just a cover for doing nothing.

B) You've got to be a pure council communist you know. Class struggle? Pah, no way!

BTW Butch - you're name on U75 does not sit well with the IWCA, it is a huge contradiction. Your name should be 'a handful of local areas IWCA'


----------



## Paul Marsh (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Were you in Paris last year when leading activists of the 9/11 truth movement met up over a weekend (including Cynthia McKinney)? Are you friends with Annie Machon and Ian Henshall? Why the HELL do you think you better appreciate all this than I do?



Given the shit Annie Machon pushed in the Mail about Tony Benn, Jack Jones and the KGB, real red-baiting scummy Daily Mail bollocks, I would hope no progressive person is friends with Annie Machon.

Still, at least Ian Henshall makes a good copy of coffee. Providing he is in a sort of Gareth Hunt role, he is relatively harmless.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazz isn't a progressive person. He's a 'truth seeker' and has provided website links to a variety of dodgy characters including neo-nazis, holocaust deniers when offering 'evidence' in a variety of arguments as wide ranging as 9/11, vaccines being a fraud and more dangerous than the illness and the conspiracy to keep the benefits of colloidal silver secret. Oh, and mercury in fillings causing ME.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Brilliant, a new entrant to this who can't even read her name properly.



I apologise for getting her name wrong. You going to apologise for lying about her position?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The conclusion I am taking away from this thread so far is that Cynthia McKinney feels that there are some elements of the "official" 9/11 story that need re-investigation, but she doesn't share all of your beliefs, for example that the fall of the World Trade Center towers was the result of a controlled demolition.
> 
> Have I got that right?



No.

The last presentation by reinvestigate911.org to the House of Commons centred on the proof of explosive demolition, and Neils Harrit spoke. It is no longer a source of contention within the 9/11 Truth Movement. We all know they blew it up.

There is no question over whether Cynthia McKinney accords with the rest of us here.

Of course, her line is to ask questions to uncover the truth.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2010)

I've always thought there's something very strange about 9/11, but what you and the other conspiracy theorists ask us to believe would require an even bigger suspension of logic ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Yes there is jazzz - there is a huge question over just that, and it's one that you cannot answer - as established last night. At least not without inventing stuff and falling back on _i know people_ and have talked to them (which on further investigation, you don't/didn't). For shame. Is thisreally the standard of critical investigation we deserve? _Shut up and believe me._


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Perhaps he needed it simplifying to 'Have you heard CM say that 9/11 was a false flag operation, or is she on the record as having said this?'
> 
> Are you still there Jazz? Can you answer this question directly?


That's a different question, which I have already answered. As the political face of the 9/11 Truth Movement it is not for her to commit to any theory of what happened but to seek to uncover the truth.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Of course, her line is to ask questions to uncover the truth.



You mean she secretly knows but is covering it up? 

Why not shout tis earth shattering truth from the roof-tops?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> That's a different question, which I have already answered. As the political face of the 9/11 Truth Movement it is not for her to commit to any theory of what happened but to seek to uncover the truth.



No you didn't. What you mean is that you have zero evidence that she believes this but you're going to force it down her throat and pretend that she believes it - on the basis of you going to paris and  not meeting her.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> There is no question over whether Cynthia McKinney accords with the rest of us here.
> 
> Of course, her line is to ask questions to uncover the truth.



So she's never said she thought 9/11 was an inside job, but she's the political face of a movement that believes 9/11 was an inside job, and you know she agrees with you deep down, because she's telling you what she *really* thinks via T-shirt...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Shut up yoss, there's no question over this. Didn't you read what the man said?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You mean she secretly knows but is covering it up?


'Covering it up' refers to factual information, not opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

OK, she secretly _knows_, but won't say - is this whats _going down_?


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

Did she even talk about 9/11 at this meeting?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No you didn't. What you mean is that you have zero evidence that she believes this but you're going to force it down her throat and pretend that she believes it - on the basis of you going to paris and  not meeting her.


Have you actually watched a single one of her speeches yet?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> Did she even talk about 9/11 at this meeting?



The whole meeting was about 9/11!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Have you actually watched a single one of her speeches yet?



The ones in which you, with your vast experience of them, cannot find her _even once_ saying that 911 was a false flag operation?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 11, 2010)

> The last presentation by reinvestigate911.org to the House of Commons centred on the proof of explosive demolition, and Neils Harrit spoke. It is no longer a source of contention within the 9/11 Truth Movement. We all know they blew it up.



So how did the CIA or whomever sucessfully wire at least 2 fully occupied office buildings? When did they start this process?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> So how did the CIA or whomever sucessfully wire at least 2 fully occupied office buildings? When did they start this process?



Oh don't KS, let's leave it at CM and what she believes for now


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The ones in which you, with your vast experience of them, cannot find her _even once_ saying that 911 was a false flag operation?



So you haven't watched a single speech of hers, and yet you continue to assert that you might better know than me what her (barely disguised) private thoughts on the matter are. Pathetic!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So you haven't watched a single speech of hers, and yet you continue to assert that you might better know than me what her (barely disguised) private thoughts on the matter are. Pathetic!



I note the 'might' - you have nothing. If you did have, you'd have used it. I'm on very safe ground here

_The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy._


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So you haven't watched a single speech of hers, and yet you continue to assert that you might better know than me what her (barely disguised) private thoughts on the matter are. Pathetic!



Can you read anybody else's thoughts or just hers?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 11, 2010)

But Jazz, you clearly stated earlier in the thread that she has said that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Many people have asked you to provide proof of this, and you've failed to do so, and have just done your usual thing of dodging the question. Saying 'She doesn't believe the 9/11 commission' and 'She thinks that 9/11 was a plot by the USG' are two very, very different things.

I mean if she's never said it, why not just say 'Yeah, I was wrong' instead of this wibbling bollocks about 'Well she supports reinvestigating 9/11' - I support reinvestigating 9/11, but that doesn't mean I think it wuz the CIA wot dun it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Have you gone again jaazzzbo?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz, please can you point me to a link where I can watch one of these speeches you mention where she talks about 9/11 being a false flag operation, and/or the controlled destruction of the towers?

As you are heavily involved in and familiar with this stuff I'm sure you can appreciate that it will take you a fraction of the time to find them than it would take me.


----------



## 8den (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No.
> 
> The last presentation by reinvestigate911.org to the House of Commons centred on the proof of explosive demolition, and Neils Harrit spoke. It is no longer a source of contention within the 9/11 Truth Movement. We all know they blew it up.



Just like you guys were convinced the pentagon was hit by a missile. 

Hypothetically what kind of explosives. Are you guys still call thermite an explosive? Or was it super nano thermite?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

No, do me a favour, don't go down that route. We have him pinned to the ground on one specific issue. Let's stick to that.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz, I just listened to that short speech you linked to earlier and I didn't once hear her say "9/11 was an inside job" or "9/11 was a false flag terror operation by the C.I.A."  Perhaps you could link to a speech where she says this? Or a passage of text written by her where she makes one or both of these statements?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Jazzz, please can you point me to a link where I can watch one of these speeches you mention where she talks about 9/11 being a false flag operation, and/or the controlled destruction of the towers?


Why are you still confused? I have not said that she specifically and unambiguously mentions that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Indeed, *I have been very careful to point out that as the political face of the movement, this is not for her to say*. It is for her to call for a proper investigation. Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that she believes it. I have no doubt about this whatsoever.

Let's give you some quotes though, seeing as posters seem to be too lazy to check her out.  (3:50 +)



> How can we sustain the injuries about what happened on September 11 and not ask any questions about what happened on that day? How can we invest as a country trillions of dollars in a military and defence infrastructure, and it failed four times on one day? And then the explanation that they give us is that 'they hate us because we are free'?
> ...
> 
> I thought that the failure of the Bush administration to protect the American People on September 11th _in of itself_ constituted high crimes and misdemeanours.



Note how the 'in of itself' suggests possibilities of scenarios far worse than the most gross criminal negligence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

possibilities...oh dear


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

So from the endless hours of McKinney speeches you must have seen, out of those hundreds of thousands of words you've heard say, the only ones that indicate she actually agrees with you are "in of itself"?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> So from the endless hours of McKinney speeches you must have seen, out of those hundreds of thousands of words you've heard say, the only ones that indicate she actually agrees with you are "in of itself"?


No, they are all in perfect accordance.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No.
> 
> The last presentation by reinvestigate911.org to the House of Commons centred on the proof of explosive demolition, and Neils Harrit spoke. It is no longer a source of contention within the 9/11 Truth Movement. We all know they blew it up.
> 
> ...





Jazzz said:


> Why are you still confused? I have not said that she specifically and unambiguously mentions that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Indeed, *I have been very careful to point out that as the political face of the movement, this is not for her to say*. It is for her to call for a proper investigation. Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that she believes it. I have no doubt about this whatsoever.
> 
> Let's give you some quotes though, seeing as posters seem to be too lazy to check her out.  (3:50 +)
> 
> ...



So,

- She believes it was a false flag operation

- But does not say this in public.

Have I got it right now?


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that she believes it. I have no doubt about this whatsoever.



McKinney's not been shy about suggesting that Bush ignored warnings of the attacks so he could make some money so it's not like she's following some truth-seeking code of neutrality.

It seems like the conspirazoids are so happy to have her around that they'll ignore the fact that she doesn't actually believe "9/11 was an inside job." The faction who believe the Twin Towers were destroyed by weapons from space probably listen to her talk and think "yep, Cynthia's definitely with us, she just can't say it out loud..."


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So,
> 
> - She believes it was a false flag operation
> 
> ...



Hallelujah! We got there.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Hallelujah! We got there.



So if she doesn't say it in public why are you berating people for not going and listening to her speeches? They would be wasting their time.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> It seems like the conspirazoids are so happy to have her around that they'll ignore the fact that she doesn't actually believe "9/11 was an inside job."



You will find absolutely no quote of hers that in any way accepts the official story, to any degree.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Now, prove point#1  and then the conclusion. Make a case for it. You've failed to thus far.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So,
> 
> - She believes it was a false flag operation
> 
> ...



And Jazzz believes this because

- he believes it

- watching her speeches, he's seen signs that she believes it too, including the telling use of "in of itself"

- Cynthia would never betray him


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You will find absolutely no quote of hers that in any way accepts the official story, to any degree.



Don't start this devious dishonest crap again - not accepting the official story is not the same a saying that 911 was  a false flag operation. Have some decency.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> And Jazzz believes this because
> 
> - he believes it
> 
> ...



...and the t-shirt. Don't forget that.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

The thing is, that for reasons I can't say in public, Jazzz actually doesn't believe in all this conspiracy stuff at all. He can't say this in public either, but I do know some people, who went to the same meeting as him (although I can't say any more about that in public), and other stuff, and for these reasons I am totally sure that's what he really believes, even though he will obviously not say this himself, but you just have to trust me on this.


----------



## 8den (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> I have been very careful to point out that as the political face of the movement, this is not for her to say.



So the political face of your movement cannot publicly state what the movement truly believes. 

Wow, just wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Was there a meeting at which it was agreed that CM would front this operation Jazzz ? Were you there?


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The thing is, that for reasons I can't say in public, Jazzz actually doesn't believe in all this conspiracy stuff at all. He can't say this in public either, but I do know some people, who went to the same meeting as him (although I can't say any more about that in public), and other stuff, and for these reasons I am totally sure that's what he really believes, even though he will obviously not say this himself, but you just have to trust me on this.



As the Urban face of the movement, it's not for him to say what he actually believes - although he made it plain what his beliefs are by his use of "and so forth" in that thread he got shamed on in Tucson.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

...and the t-shirt. Don't forget that.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

This is all so simple. You won't find William Rodriguez, another leading campaigner, specifically stating that 9/11 was an inside job either! Although he not only has the t-shirt, he has one of my t-shirts! And you can expect Cynthia to have one of mine too after the next print run.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> This is all so simple. You won't find William Rodriguez, another leading campaigner, specifically stating that 9/11 was an inside job either! Although he not only has the t-shirt, he has one of my t-shirts! And you can expect Cynthia to have one of mine too after the next print run.



Conclusive proof.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So if she doesn't say it in public why are you berating people for not going and listening to her speeches? They would be wasting their time.


It is for a full, independent investigation with access to all the records and witnesses to establish what happened on September 11th. This is the political campaign.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Conclusive proof.


So, I should only say anything that I have 'conclusive proof' of?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So, I should only say anything that I have 'conclusive proof' of?



You most certainly should keep your mouth shut when making claims that other people:

"thinks 911 was a false flag operation?"

And a as a general rule, yes, you should. You really really should.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> This is all so simple. You won't find William Rodriguez, another leading campaigner, specifically stating that 9/11 was an inside job either! Although he not only has the t-shirt, he has one of my t-shirts! And you can expect Cynthia to have one of mine too after the next print run.




_In his lawsuit, Rodriquez made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIAe, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from “pods” affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create “American Gulag” concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government’s plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. In his Complaint, Rodriquez also alleged that he "single-handedly rescued fifteen persons from the WTC"._


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

ah okay, my bad, that was careless of me.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You most certainly should keep your mouth shut when making claims that other people:
> 
> "thinks 911 was a false flag operation?"
> 
> And a as a general rule, yes, you should. You really really should.



So you give me this lecture, and you wonder why Cynthia McKinney might believe that Bush & Co committed the crime of 9/11, and yet fail to say so. Brilliant!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So you give me this lecture, and you wonder why Cynthia McKinney might believe that Bush & Co were committed the crime of 9/11, and yet fail to say so. Brilliant!



Make your mind up jazzz. You're tearing holes in your own argument here.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 11, 2010)

The first rule of truth-seeking club is, you do not tell the truth about what you actually believe...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

What are you hiding jazzz  - whats your true beliefs?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> As the Urban face of the movement, it's not for him to say what he actually believes - although he made it plain what his beliefs are by his use of "and so forth" in that thread he got shamed on in Tucson.



Also when he used the word "notwithstanding" in an interview back in 2008.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz can I have one of your T-shirts too?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> It is for a full, independent investigation with access to all the records and witnesses to establish what happened on September 11th. This is the political campaign.



But that isn't what you want, is it?

Let's suppose such an investigation came back with the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were instigated by islamic terrorists, and that the towers fell due to being hit by two large aircraft almost fully loaded with fuel.

What would you, and your merry band of truth seekers, say then?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> But that isn't what you want, is it?
> 
> Let's suppose such an investigation came back with the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were instigated by islamic terrorists, and that the towers fell due to being hit by two large aircraft almost fully loaded with fuel.
> 
> What would you, and your merry band of truth seekers, say then?


Pigs fly. You present an impossible scenario.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Jazzz can I have one of your T-shirts too?


sure! They are going to be pretty stylish.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Pigs fly. You present an impossible scenario.



So you and your twoof seeking pals will only be satisfied if a full independent investigation confirms that 9/11 was a false flag operation?  If that's the case why bother campaigning for an investigation? What if the investigation came back saying it was Islamic terrorists, presumably you'd cry yet another conspiracy and accuse it of whitewashing? Even though it's independent, correct?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> sure! They are going to be pretty stylish.


Also I might be able to sell it at massive profit once your theories are proven correct. Can I have a signed one?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So you and your twoof seeking pals will only be satisfied if a full independent investigation confirms that 9/11 was a false flag operation?  If that's the case why bother campaigning for an investigation? What if the investigation came back saying it was Islamic terrorists, presumably you'd cry yet another conspiracy and accuse it of whitewashing? Even though it's independent, correct?



No, you do not understand the point. Suppose I tell you that pigs fly. "nonsense" you say. But then I go, "aha! What if you were to see a flying pig tomorrow, what would you say then?"

My position is that 9/11 was an inside job and any proper investigation will reach the same conclusion. So you can't ask me to consider a hypothetical position that I am saying is impossible.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Also I might be able to sell it at massive profit once your theories are proven correct. Can I have a signed one?


Sure! I must say, you are the first to request my signature for a 9/11 piece


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, you do not understand the point. Suppose I tell you that pigs fly. "nonsense" you say. But then I go, "aha! What if you were to see a flying pig tomorrow, what would you say then?"
> 
> My position is that 9/11 was an inside job and any proper investigation will reach the same conclusion. So you can't ask me to consider a hypothetical position that I am saying is impossible.



What's Cynthia McKinney's?


----------



## 8den (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, you do not understand the point. Suppose I tell you that pigs fly. "nonsense" you say. But then I go, "aha! What if you were to see a flying pig tomorrow, what would you say then?"
> 
> My position is that 9/11 was an inside job and any proper investigation will reach the same conclusion. So you can't ask me to consider a hypothetical position that I am saying is impossible.



So basically saying no evidence can be presented to dissuade you of your opinion.

Wow see Jazzz see that is dogma, thats not someone who's a free thinker, and a skeptic. 

Pathetic.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, you do not understand the point. Suppose I tell you that pigs fly. "nonsense" you say. *But then I go*, "aha! What if you were to see a flying pig tomorrow, what would you say then?"
> 
> My position is that 9/11 was an inside job and any proper investigation will reach the same conclusion. So you can't ask me to consider a hypothetical position that I am saying is impossible.




'but then i go' - that's your case in full. Bizarre and so un-rigorous that it shames us both to call it a 'position.'


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 11, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> My position is that 9/11 was an inside job and any proper investigation will reach the same conclusion. So you can't ask me to consider a hypothetical position that I am saying is impossible.



What!? 

You sound as dogmatic as a creationist.  Can you really not see how ridiculous your statement is?  It literally translates thus:

"_I believe it so it must be true, if any investigation doesn't reach the same conclusion as my belief, despite the evidence, it's not true because it doesn't correspond with my position_."


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 11, 2010)

You have clearly demonstrated the mindset of someone simply not worth engaging with.  Reading that statement you made should make anyone think twice about engaging with you ever again, on anything relating to this subject, except with a few


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What!?
> 
> You sound as dogmatic as a creationist.  Can you really not see how ridiculous your statement is?  It literally translates thus:
> 
> "_I believe it so it must be true, if any investigation doesn't reach the same conclusion as my belief, despite the evidence, it's not true because it doesn't correspond with my position_."



Is this the first time you have met Jazzz?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 11, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Is this the first time you have met Jazzz?



Quite, I didn't realise the extent of his dogma though.  I mean that statement is one of the most dogmatic and ridiculous i've ever heard on urban75.


----------



## 8den (Mar 11, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Quite, I didn't realise the extent of his dogma though.  I mean that statement is one of the most dogmatic and ridiculous i've ever heard on urban75.



There's an epic thread where a genuine architect with a specialisation in high rise building construction, came on here, and quietly and calmly tore Jazzz to shreds, in the most comprehensive pwnage in the history of Urban. If you ask Jazzz however he claims he won the debate.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Quite, I didn't realise the extent of his dogma though.  I mean that statement is one of the most dogmatic and ridiculous i've ever heard on urban75.



He's made much the same statement about all sorts of other things ... colloidal silver, vaccines, MS self-diagnosis, the list goes on.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 11, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Hold tight mate, i think/hope Cynthia`s speech from Monday night will be on the internet soon, so you can learn for yourself what her views are.


 Straight out of the conspiraloon playbook.

Earth to Mike Desantos: I think I can safely speak for most of the sane universe when I say that "we" don't want to waste minutes of our lives wading through yet another conspiraloon puff piece on YouTube. If you want us to be interested in what went on, tell us, fuck all this "see for yourself" bollocks, because you know we're not going to fall for that.

Or be happy to be ignored, marginalised and/or laughed at every time you try to advance another silly theory backed up by a bunch of fruitloops mouthing it off on YouTube.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 12, 2010)

8den said:


> There's an epic thread where a genuine architect with a specialisation in high rise building construction, came on here, and quietly and calmly tore Jazzz to shreds, in the most comprehensive pwnage in the history of Urban. If you ask Jazzz however he claims he won the debate.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

8den said:


> There's an epic thread where a genuine architect with a specialisation in high rise building construction, came on here, and quietly and calmly tore Jazzz to shreds, in the most comprehensive pwnage in the history of Urban. If you ask Jazzz however he claims he won the debate.


It's funny how 8den keeps clinging on to this, mentioning it at every opportunity.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What!?
> 
> You sound as dogmatic as a creationist.  Can you really not see how ridiculous your statement is?  It literally translates thus:
> 
> "_I believe it so it must be true, if any investigation doesn't reach the same conclusion as my belief, despite the evidence, it's not true because it doesn't correspond with my position_."



No, you don't understand logic.

My position is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I am quite certain of that. The investigation will simply be the due process of nailing the culprit.

You are quite free to disagree with my position - that's fine. It's your business. But given that you know my position, it makes no sense to quiz me about an outcome I am claiming is impossible. Now is that quite clear enough for your tiny mind?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2010)

It's not the position of CM though. Or is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2010)

Also look up what 'due process' actually means.


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, you don't understand logic.
> 
> My position is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I am quite certain of that. The investigation will simply be the due process of nailing the culprit.



Brilliant. So it's a witchhunt then. There are 150 communists in the state department, now lets go and get them. 




> You are quite free to disagree with my position - that's fine. It's your business. But given that you know my position, it makes no sense to quiz me about an outcome I am claiming is impossible. Now is that quite clear enough for your tiny mind?



If the evidence is so irrefutable, why bother with the investigation, why does Mc Kinney hide her support for the inside job part? And what exact evidence do you have?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's Cynthia McKinney's?


She's a politician. You might not get a straight answer. But I guess she might say something like:

"If it turns out that no-one had anything to hide, then I will eat my hat! We already know that there was the most catastrophic failure of our trillion-dollar defense system, and yet people were only promoted! The evidence already documented proves that criminal orders were given to deny us our defences. The evidence for the impeachment of Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, is already there! So, who was to blame, and what happened?"


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Also look up what 'due process' actually means.



I've often thought it'd be fun for Jazzz and his ilk to be accused of a crime and tried in a court of law, that followed their own standards of evidence, burden of proof and due process.


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> She's a politician. You might not get a straight answer. But I guess she might say something like:
> 
> "If it turns out that no-one had anything to hide, then I will eat my hat! We already know that there was the most catastrophic failure of our trillion-dollar defense system, and yet people were only promoted! The evidence already documented proves that criminal orders were given to deny us our defences. The evidence for the impeachment of Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, is already there! So, who was to blame, and what happened?"



Ah so thats a good reason to set up an investigate, she wants one and she'll admit she was wrong if the thousands of man hours and millions of dollars spent in the investigation we'll be left with the satisfaction that an obscure US politician goes "ooopphs I was wrong". 

Incidentally why exactly does an insignificant little speck like you Jazzz have evidence that makes you so self assured that it was an inside job, but the political figurehead of your movement can't even admit that this something she even considers?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

8den said:


> Ah so thats a good reason to set up an investigate, she wants one and she'll admit she was wrong if the thousands of man hours and millions of dollars spent in the investigation we'll be left with the satisfaction that an obscure US politician goes "ooopphs I was wrong".
> 
> Incidentally why exactly does an insignificant little speck like you Jazzz have evidence that makes you so self assured that it was an inside job, but the political figurehead of your movement can't even admit that this something she even considers?


There's no question of it being like that. Should you ask Cynthia McKinney if she thinks an inside job was possible, there is no way she would deny it.

However, look how you refute your own point! You find Cynthia McKinney's position (as I suggest it) so much more reasonable, and then you wonder why, as a politician, she takes it!


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> There's no question of it being like that. Should you ask Cynthia McKinney if she thinks an inside job was possible, there is no way she would deny it.



Unless it was publicly with a recording device.  



> However, look how you refute your own point! You find Cynthia McKinney's position (as I suggest it) so much more reasonable, and then you wonder why, as a politician, she takes it!



Jesus you demented fuckwit. If both yourself and Cynthia are part of a movement that has irrefutable proof of an inside job, why would she not make it part of her campaign. She's at the lunatic fringe of politics, if this evidence existed it would make people flock to her campaign. 

Incidentally why haven't you revealed this evidence anywhere, yourself?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, you don't understand logic.
> 
> My position is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I am quite certain of that. The investigation will simply be the due process of nailing the culprit.
> 
> You are quite free to disagree with my position - that's fine. It's your business. But given that you know my position, it makes no sense to quiz me about an outcome I am claiming is impossible. Now is that quite clear enough for your tiny mind?



Cptin Fceplm strikes again.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

8den said:


> Unless it was publicly with a recording device.  ?


No, incorrect.



> Jesus you demented fuckwit. If both yourself and Cynthia are part of a movement that has irrefutable proof of an inside job, why would she not make it part of her campaign. She's at the lunatic fringe of politics, if this evidence existed it would make people flock to her campaign.
> 
> Incidentally why haven't you revealed this evidence anywhere, yourself?


I have. I've spent hours doing it. But nevertheless it is debatable, and it is wise for politicians to stick to facts that are unquestionable, when they are likely to come under tremendous pressure.

McKinney is not at any extreme 'fringe'. That, dear 8den, is why you are all falling over yourselves to distance her from the rest of the 9/11 truth movement. It bothers you all immensely. This is obvious.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, incorrect.
> 
> I have. I've spent hours doing it. But nevertheless it is debatable, and it is wise for politicians to stick to facts that are unquestionable, when they are likely to come under tremendous pressure.



But you're saying that 9/11 was an inside job is an unquestionable fact, you claim this politician thinks that fact is unquestionable, so why can't you provide a single link where she says this in public?


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Straight out of the conspiraloon playbook.
> 
> Earth to Mike Desantos: I think I can safely speak for most of the sane universe when I say that "we" don't want to waste minutes of our lives wading through yet another conspiraloon puff piece on YouTube. If you want us to be interested in what went on, tell us, fuck all this "see for yourself" bollocks, because you know we're not going to fall for that.
> 
> Or be happy to be ignored, marginalised and/or laughed at every time you try to advance another silly theory backed up by a bunch of fruitloops mouthing it off on YouTube.



You telling me you wouldn`t watch perhaps the most powerful and important political speech of the year  – you`ve better things to do with your life.  This woman of courage and integrity – who has put her neck on the line fighting against oppression and war –  is dismissed and insulted  as a fruitloop and conspiraloon.  Shame on you.  I would like to compare your record fighting injustice with hers.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

8den said:


> There's an epic thread where a genuine architect with a specialisation in high rise building construction, came on here, and quietly and calmly tore Jazzz to shreds, in the most comprehensive pwnage in the history of Urban. If you ask Jazzz however he claims he won the debate.



I don't think I've read that thread. Any chance of a link, for me and others who might have been ignorant of Jazzz's capacity for revisionism?

I don't care much for butchers' style of operating on here, but the careful deconstruction he's done of the way Jazzz so often lies has been textbook, and very illuminating. That's probably been helped by the way in which Jazzz has so obligingly though unwittingly assisted in the process.

I'll be interested to see how the architect thread compares...

Not that it'll do any good - as you say, Jazzz will simply claim to have won the debate here, too.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> It's funny how 8den keeps clinging on to this, mentioning it at every opportunity.



You've disgraced yourself on this thread, Jazzz.

I know how slippery and evasive you can be, but I couldn't see that much in the OP to be evasive about. Butchersapron clearly did, and pursued a particular line of enquiry. I still have no idea what the significance of that line of enquiry was, but it was clearly very relevant and pretty significant, judging by all the twisting and turning you have done, and the strenuous efforts you have made to avoid giving straight answers to his questions.

I don't know what the facts of this whole business (no, *don't* send me off on some fucking prisonplanet link to "find out for myself"), but I do know that you have come across as someone being deeply evasive, and with plenty to hide, here.

A few nasty jibes at anyone who attempts to point out other examples, as you have done here, isn't going to go ANYWHERE in undoing the damage that you've done to yourself by this demonstration of your disdain for truth. Call yourself a "truther"? Har.


----------



## purplex (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazz you crack I up.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Pigs fly. You present an impossible scenario.



So, there we have it. You will not be satisfied with _any_ investigation, no matter how impartial and rigorous it may be, unless it agrees with your predetermined beliefs.

You don't care for evidence or debate, you have nothing more than a position of blind faith.

Utterly pathetic.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 12, 2010)

Tied in more knots than a bondage boyscout


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2010)

I might have to check that architect thread out now - never read it before.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I might have to check that architect thread out now - never read it before.



It'll take you a while, but it's comedy gold


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

Was his username The Architect? I remember the thread, but not it's title or his uname and can't find it *sob*


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2010)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=187912


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2010)

Ta. Anyone remember if it was Tony Gosling* interviewing WR  in the first post? 



_*Peddler of the protocols of the elders of zion and who has, incredibly, been commissioned to write the NUJs handbook on dealing with terrorism._


edit: no it wasn't.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

I started at the back and found this about 80 posts in, buried under an avalanche of fela's mirrors:




			
				TheArchitect said:
			
		

> Just to add to that recap, waaay back in the distant throes of this thread old Jazzzz was asked to sustantiate and support his case that there was incontrovertable proof that the US Government organised the death of 3,000 of its own men, women, and children in the WTC/Pentagon Attack.
> 
> Now you might foolishly assume that anyone accusing others of such a heinous crime might have looked into it before arriving at a conclusion. You'd be wrong.
> 
> ...



Tee hee hee


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

CNN report (2 minutes 11 seconds) :

Cynthia McKinney`s boat, delivering medical supplies to the people of Gaza, is attacked by the Israelis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=_n4OhUpc20Q


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

Yes, thanks, we'd established she's a _good person_ (altho she's cosied up to the liberal regime in Saudi a couple of times, as the lesser of two evils I assume). Quite what relevance this has to 9/11 is beyond me tho. No one here is saying she's a bad person.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazz is - she's saying she's covering up the truth about 911. A nice person wouldn't do that.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

Yeah, she's covering up the cover-up.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

This thread is about the Cynthia McKinney meeting the other night.  
Her integrity is being attacked here, purely because she has the temerity
to ask the tough questions that need asking.  

Cynthia McKinney takes on war criminal Donald Rumsfeld
(8 minutes 57 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=eootfzAhAoU


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Her integrity is being attacked here



No, it's not.

There is one person whose integrity is somewhat lacking though.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

No-one is attacking her integrity, apart from Jazz, who said, originally, that she said 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation, but is now only saying that he _thinks_ she thinks that it was a false flag, but she won't say so out loud. That she's covering up the cover up, so to speak.

So you wind your neck in.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> This thread is about the Cynthia McKinney meeting the other night.
> Her integrity is being attacked here, purely because she has the temerity
> to ask the tough questions that need asking.
> 
> ...



Integrity certainly is under attack, yes. But it's the (putative) integrity of Jazzz, someone who's been caught, not for the first time, pulling stories out of his arse. It may be that, aside from the main thrust of butchersapron's questioning, a few people have made disparaging comments about the whole "troofer" thing, but I think your attempt to paint a little brawling in the stands as somehow undermining of the point that Jazzz cannot give straight answers to even simple yes/no questions is disingenuous, to put it charitably.

Whatever good works this woman does, it's doesn't make her other views any more credible. What also goes a long way to making the views of someone most of us will never have heard of LESS credible is the kind of ducking and diving, evasion, and debating gamesmanship being indulged in by her supporters here.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

existentialist called her a fruitloop and conspiraloon, when i suggested he/she watch the video of Cythia`s speech himself/herself, rather than
get third party reports.   What Cynthia said was important for people to hear for themselves, rather that isolated sentences being quoted here, which 
can be taken out of context.  Unfortunately i didn`t make a transcription of her speech myself, so if people are interested, they should wait to hear/watch/read 
it for themselves.  That is unless they feel too uncomfortable that a prominent figure on the USA Left/Green wing, is asking questions that they are too scared
to think about themselves - worried that it might shatter their belief systems.
As i stated before, one point she made was that as a black person she knows when she is being lied to by the government, and she knows that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is lie upon lie upon lie.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> existentialist called her a fruitloop and conspiraloon, when i suggested he/she watch the video of Cythia`s speech himself/herself, rather than
> get third party reports.   What Cynthia said was important for people to hear for themselves, rather that isolated sentences being quoted here, which
> can be taken out of context.


It always is. It's always the same - "you have to listen to the whole message to be able to truly understand it".

I've done it. It was a futile, pointless, frustrating, but sometimes unintentionally humorous waste of about an hour of my life. It was a man, rambling on and repeating himself endlessly, without ever once being able to cite positive, hard facts - indeed, anything other than conjecture from a few appeals-to-authority PhDs and so on.

I've taken a peek at a few others, since, and seen nothing to convince me that they've got any better. And, if Einstein was able to convey the meaning of his special theory of relativity without recourse to YouTube, I can't see why the 9/11 mob find it so difficult to convey theirs, given that it should - if you believe the frothings of Jazzz et al - be very straightforward to do so.

And if I impugn the credibility of McKinney by suggesting that she supports a cause which appears incapable of explaining itself, and just disappears up its own backside in a frenzy of circular argument and invective against its critics, then that doesn't necessarily I mean that she doesn't help old ladies across the road and put little bows on the heads of kittens.



mike desantos said:


> Unfortunately i didn`t make a transcription of her speech myself, so if people are interested, they should wait to hear/watch/read
> it for themselves.


If she's any good as a speechmaker, someone should have been able to summarise it into a few themed headings. If that isn't possible, it was probably a rambling, incoherent effort.



mike desantos said:


> That is unless they feel too uncomfortable that a prominent figure on the USA Left/Green wing, is asking questions that they are too scared
> to think about themselves - worried that it might shatter their belief systems.


Nice false dichotomy: "The only reason anyone would not watch this video is if they felt, er, 'too uncomfortable that a prominent figure on the USA Left/Green wing, is asking questions', and not just any questions but questions 'that they are too scared to think about themselves'"

Not just any false dichotomy, but a DOUBLE FALSE DICHOTOMY.

There should be some kind of applause emoticon.



mike desantos said:


> As i stated before, one point she made was that as a black person she knows when she is being lied to by the government, and she knows that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is lie upon lie upon lie.



"Oooh, and let's play a quick race card, just to really nail those non-believers and their crazy ideas".


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

No, he said that the video was a 'conspiraloon puff piece', and was actually commenting on the norm of people such as yourself saying 'Watch this person saying something', as opposed to proving any actual evidence of what may or may not have happened.

But then you seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties, or are simply choosing to ignore what people are saying, and are incapable of seeing that between swallowing the 9/11 Commission completely and saying 'It was a false flag op' there is, in fact, a huge amount of space to say 'Yes it should be reinvestigated.' 

The only problem with reinvestigating it, is that people like jazz and presumably yourself (I won't speak for CM, unlike Jazz) already have a fixed idea of what the outcome should be, as opposed to being prepared to accept that it wasn't a false flag op, so the question then becomes 'If you already know what the result will be, what's the point in calling for an investigation you'll disagree with if it's findings don't match your prejudice?'


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

Cynthia said that people should research Operation Northwoods.
If any of you guys haven`t look into it, i recommend you do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It indicates the mindset of the military-industrial complex.   I know some of you refuse to accept that anyone in the US power structure would hurt their own people, but unfortunately they do bad, evil things.  Ask people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Laos .... all over the world in fact.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Cynthia said that people should research Operation Northwoods.
> If any of you guys haven`t look into it, i recommend you do so.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
> ...


What's any of this got to do with Jazzz being well and truly caught out in misrepresenting his and Cynthia McKinney's views? Shouldn't you be hectoring HIM?

ETA: and why on earth should the fact that the CIA carried out a "false flag" operation in 1962 (FORTY YEARS before 9/11) have any bearing on whether or not 9/11 was a "false flag" operation?

Are you really so foolish as to think that anyone is going to go "Ah yes, of COURSE. They did one in '62, so it was inevitable that they'd have to do another one, if only to have some shore stories to tell at the 40th Reunion Dinner of the CIA False Flag Operations In 1962 Working Group. Yeah, that'd be kewl!"?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Cynthia said that people should research Operation Northwoods.
> If any of you guys haven`t look into it, i recommend you do so.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



"Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed"


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> The only problem with reinvestigating it, is that people like jazz and presumably yourself (I won't speak for CM, unlike Jazz) already have a fixed idea of what the outcome should be, as opposed to being prepared to accept that it wasn't a false flag op, so the question then becomes 'If you already know what the result will be, what's the point in calling for an investigation you'll disagree with if it's findings don't match your prejudice?'




I don`t know  exactly what happened on 911, what i do know is that the official Conspiracy Theory is bullshit.  
We mustn`t believe what the mainstream media / governenment tells us to think.  Whether it`s about WMDs or that 19 Arabs executed 911.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> "Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed"



As i said, it shows the mindset of the military-industrial complex for those of you who refuse to believe the US does bad things to and manipulates its people.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

existentialist said:


> You've disgraced yourself on this thread, Jazzz.
> 
> I know how slippery and evasive you can be, but I couldn't see that much in the OP to be evasive about. Butchersapron clearly did, and pursued a particular line of enquiry. *I still have no idea what the significance of that line of enquiry was*, but it was clearly very relevant and pretty significant, judging by all the twisting and turning you have done, and the strenuous efforts you have made to avoid giving straight answers to his questions.



Brilliant!

_"I don't really understand the problem at all, but judging by all the whooping and hollering, I'm going to join in"_

Have you any idea how absurd your post is? It is one of the most I have ever seen.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

Cynthia called Barack Obama a war criminal.

Some of you who fell under the spell of this phoney ,  should read this article which has just come out written by a former Obama supporter.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ralph_nader_was_right_about_barack_obama_20100301/


----------



## co-op (Mar 12, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> "Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed"



No, and of course it is the job of the military to have some sort of a plan in place for all sorts of unlikely - or horrible - scenarios that might occur, so the existence of plans in themselves doesn't mean much. If you didn't think that plans like these existed you'd be guilty of naivety.

But it is interesting the extent to which the production of a casus belli dominates the Operation Northwoods stuff (in the context of the 9/11 debate). In a sense, if the US military _hadn't_ got a 9/11 ready to roll, they wouldn't have been doing their job.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Cynthia called Barack Obama a war criminal.
> 
> Some of you who fell under the spell of this phoney ,  should read this article which has just come out written by a former Obama supporter.
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ralph_nader_was_right_about_barack_obama_20100301/



Right so we are to listen to someone's personal viewpoint on a loon site called "Truth Dig" and take it as absolute fact?

Why is it all conspiranoids say things like "You should listen to this" and then link to some unsubstantiated bullshit that could've been written by anyone.  Also, why the tagling "Independent thinking" when you exhibit absolutely nothing of the sort?

Edit: In fact, skim reading that reveals absolutely nothing at all.  It says literally three things:

1. Obama is a supporter of big business
2. Voting achieves nothing
3. We must build a socialist movement

You seem astounded enough by these revelations to post them on a message board, as if no one anywhere else has thought of these things.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I still have no idea what the significance of that line of enquiry was



Guess what - I don't either.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Cynthia called Barack Obama a war criminal.
> 
> Some of you who fell under the spell of this phoney ,  should read this article which has just come out written by a former Obama supporter.
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ralph_nader_was_right_about_barack_obama_20100301/



But Obama is black, so he too must know of the conspiracies and lies, just the same as Cynthia. So does that mean she's a liar and phoney too?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2010)

I'm a lap-dog of Lord Obama and the US state


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Guess what - I don't either.



Why were you so evasive about such a simple question?

You were asked in post 14 (and several times after that) whether CM shared your belief about whether there was a false flag/controlled demolition operation. But it took until post 142 for you to actually state clearly what your answer to this was.

And it's not as if your answer was a complex one, or one that is difficult to explain.

You could have just said in post 15:

"Cynthia McKinney has not explicitly stated in public that it was a false flag operation, but my understanding is that in private, her belief is that it was."

Why didn't you do that?

The reason that line of enquiry was pursued was mainly that you were being so evasive about it, and the natural response, when someone is being evasive about something, is to try and find out why.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> No-one is attacking her integrity, apart from Jazz, who said, originally, that she said 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation, but is now only saying that he _thinks_ she thinks that it was a false flag, but she won't say so out loud. That she's covering up the cover up, so to speak.
> 
> So you wind your neck in.



I'm sorry but my line has been entirely consistent. Your statement is 100% false. You are making it up as you go along.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2010)

Consistently evasive and obfuscative.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Guess what - I don't either.



Like hell you don't, you fucking liar.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz you do cynthia mckinney a serious disservice by associating her with these opinions.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Guess what - I don't either.


Well, for someone who had no idea what it was about, there was an awful lot of     coming from you about it, not to mention a great deal of wriggling, twisting and turning that you'd need a 4-dimensional emoticon to do any justice to.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I'm sorry but my line has been entirely consistent. Your statement is 100% false. You are making it up as you go along.



You stated earlier that CM had said that 9/11 was a false flag operation. 

You were then asked to provide proof of this, and responded by saying that 'I _know_ she thinks this, because she wears a t-shirt, and she's committed to having 9/11 reinvestigated, and that everyone who wants this to happen _knows_ that it was CD and a false flag.'

So what you're saying she's doing by not commenting publicly or off the records that 9/11 was a false flag, CD etc operation, but that you know this is what she thinks, she's essentially covering-up the cover up. So you are in fact impuning her integrity by saying that she's not prepared to say what she believes. Or what you believe she believes, but you don't really actually know, because she's never said it.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Why were you so evasive about such a simple question?
> 
> You were asked in post 14 (and several times after that) whether CM shared your belief about whether there was a false flag/controlled demolition operation. But it took until post 142 for you to actually state clearly what your answer to this was.
> 
> ...


What is this utter rubbish? My reply to this question came in post 24 because dear Teuchter, I am not the only person on the thread. It was




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> Of course she does, I can tell you that with certainty. However, as she is the political face of the truth movement she may have to limit her pronouncements to what is proved and questions.



_which is exactly the reply you suggest_. This is Kafkaesque.



frogwoman said:


> Jazzz you do cynthia mckinney a serious disservice by associating her with these opinions.


Like by promoting the event? Bullcrap, I am fighting our corner.



existentialist said:


> Well, for someone who had no idea what it was about, there was an awful lot of     coming from you about it, not to mention a great deal of wriggling, twisting and turning that you'd need a 4-dimensional emoticon to do any justice to.


I simply answer the questions put to me, and show my opinion of nonsense put my way. As I do now. 



kyser_soze said:


> You stated earlier that CM had said that 9/11 was a false flag operation.


This is now getting into lie territory. I was giving you the benefit of the honest mistake before. You are lying. Shut the fuck up, liar.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I simply answer the questions put to me, and show my opinion of nonsense put my way. As I do now.


Har. The first statement in there is patently false, so that's not too much incentive to take any of the rest of it all that seriously...



Jazzz said:


> This is now getting into lie territory. I was giving you the benefit of the honest mistake before. You are lying. Shut the fuck up, liar.


You're very touchy about lying, aren't you, Jazzz? I suppose you'd have to be, what with you being a crusader for the truth, and all...


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

No, you said she'd said it, then when you were challenged on it you backtracked into your fantasy world where you can read the minds of others and know what they're thinking.

You've been exposed as a serial liar on these threads before Jazz, and this one is no different. You failed to give a direct answer to a simple question, and instead created a whole fantasy world where you believe you know what someone else is thinking, depsite them having never told you.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> No, you said she'd said it, then when you were challenged on it you backtracked into your fantasy world where you can read the minds of others and know what they're thinking.


Where did I say such a thing? quote please.

Perhaps you are just deeply confused.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> What is this utter rubbish? My reply to this question came in post 24 because dear Teuchter, I am not the only person on the thread. It was
> 
> 
> 
> _which is exactly the reply you suggest_. This is Kafkaesque.



Fair enough, that is true. You answered BA's question, which wasn't quoted in your response, which is probably why I missed it. I guess I was concentrating on your obfuscative reply to me in post 22, at the time.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You were there though - *can't you just say yes she believes it was a false flag operation, or no she doesn't?*





Jazzz said:


> *Of course she does, I can tell you that with certainty*. However, as she is the political face of the truth movement she may have to limit her pronouncements to what is proved and questions.



Ah no, apparently you didn't. For which I apologise accusing you of. You've just spent the whole thread claiming that you know she believes it, even tho she hasn't said so.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> But Obama is black, so he too must know of the conspiracies and lies, just the same as Cynthia. So does that mean she's a liar and phoney too?



Weird comment kyser.

Obama is a puppet of the Establishment, Cynthia isn`t.
That`s the fundamental difference here.  It`s pretty straightforward.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> Weird comment kyser.
> 
> Obama is a puppet of the Establishment, Cynthia isn`t.
> That`s the fundamental difference here.  It`s pretty straightforward.



How do you know CM isn't an establishment puppet? How do you know that, by perpatuating bullshit conspiracy theories she's actually ensuring that the real truth is never revealed by endlessly sidetracking any chance of a real investigation of it, because she hangs out with people like jazz?

You don't. You only have her public image to go by. Perhaps she's one of those people described by the Soviets as 'usful idiots'.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 12, 2010)

For people who make such a huge deal out of someone supposedly quoting someone as saying something they hadn't actually said - you guys might want to take greater care over that yourselves.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 12, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Right so we are to listen to someone's personal viewpoint on a loon site called "Truth Dig" and take it as absolute fact?
> 
> Why is it all conspiranoids say things like "You should listen to this" and then link to some unsubstantiated bullshit that could've been written by anyone.  Also, why the tagling "Independent thinking" when you exhibit absolutely nothing of the sort?
> 
> ...




This thread is about the Cynthia McKinney meeting.  I reported one aspect of her speech.  
It`s particularly important for black people to speak against Obama, because as Cynthia said, it can be difficult for whites to criticise him because they get accused of being racist.

I`m not astounded by anything, i just seem to recall that there were/are quite alot of Obama supporters on this forum, so just trying to point people to an interesting article by a former Obama supporter.  As far as i`m aware the author of this piece isn`t what you would term a `conspiranoid` , but just a nice liberal.  I think you`re the one being paranoid here


----------



## existentialist (Mar 12, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> For people who make such a huge deal out of someone supposedly quoting someone as saying something they hadn't actually said - you guys might want to take greater care over that yourselves.


Jazzz to engine room: "OK, I want ten litres a minute of outraged indignation. And I want it FROTHY!! Make it happen!"


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2010)

> i just seem to recall that there were/are quite alot of Obama supporters on this forum



Yeah, a great many of them black, and some of whom made fairly oblique references to racism when Butchers (among others) expressed scepticism about the credibility of 'change is coming, change that comes in the night, change you can't see' rhetoric. For some, his colour was never an issue - he was always going to be a party creature, it's how he got to the point of nominaiton and election as POTUS.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 12, 2010)

Obama has been slightly less of a let down than I thought, but he is still a banker puppet. Race has nothing to do with it other than being an empty distraction for his cheerleaders and more loony opponents. The only option for leftists is to attack him from the left rather than get dragged down with him or let the right pull the narrative even further away.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> I`m not astounded by anything, i just seem to recall that there were/are quite alot of Obama supporters on this forum, so just trying to point people to an interesting article by a former Obama supporter.  As far as i`m aware the author of this piece isn`t what you would term a `conspiranoid` , but just a nice liberal.  I think you`re the one being paranoid here



How have you decided there's lots of Obama supporters on here? You've been here five minutes.  I'd say there's a lot of people who see him as the lesser of two evils, me included, I certainly don't support him or see him as being even remotely radically different from any previous president, I suspect that's the view point of most people on here.

I didn't say the author was a conspiranoid, I said you are.  As I pointed out, the article was far from interesting or revealing.  The stuff written in that article has been largely discussed here if you bothered to look.  One person changed their mind about Obama and wrote about it on a meaningless website, and?


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 13, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I certainly don't support him or see him as being even remotely radically different from any previous president, I suspect that's the view point of most people on here.



That`s good to hear


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 15, 2010)

New video from last week:

Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary's Peace Consortium

John "Splitting the Sky" (Dacajaweiah) Boncore is the man who was arrested  for trying to arrest George W. Bush last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=qzDuXTFOR8g


----------



## 8den (Mar 15, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> New video from last week:
> 
> Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary's Peace Consortium
> 
> ...



John's own website describes him as "the man, the legend, the truth". 

So not a rampant egotist using this as a platform for self publicity then.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2010)

Actually some black people, notably the Black Agenda Report and others, expressed a lot of scepticism about Obama ...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> New video from last week:
> 
> Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary's Peace Consortium
> 
> ...


More fucking videos 

So why's he called "Splitting the Sky", then? (and no, don't send me another fucking YouTube link). Is it because he does really, really noisy farts, or something?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 15, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Is it because he does really, really noisy farts, or something?



One can I only hope 

I for one would pay to see someone split the sky with a noisy fart.


----------



## mike desantos (Mar 16, 2010)

All some posters here can do is make derogatory comments about a Native American who has spent his life fighting against tyranny and racism.

John Boncore was born in Buffalo, New York on January 7, 1952. His Mohawk name, Dacajeweiah, translated into English means "Splitting the Sky".
He was the only man convicted as a ringleader of the infamous 1971 Attica State Prison rebellion in upstate New York, in the course of which 43 inmates were killed.  He was listed by former UN Ambassador Andrew Young of the Carter administration as the number one political prisoner in the USA in 1975.

Splitting the Sky founded an organization to unite all Indigenous Peoples into a great confederation called the League of Indigenous Sovereign Nations of the Western Hemisphere (LISN). In 1995 he was the Sun Dance Chief at Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia, during the Gustafsen Lake Standoff, which was precipitated by a rancher who attempted to evict the Sun Dancers from what he claimed was his property. The incident turned into a major protest against the occupation of unceded native land. Splitting the Sky was an outspoken critic of the government's handling of the incident and was among those who raised the question of so-called "Aboriginal Title" under international law. Specifically, aboriginal title is enshrined under the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is validated as an aboriginal right in section (35) of the Canadian Constitution. 

In his autobiography, Splitting the Sky exposes the racist and imperialist agenda of settler governments in Turtle Island (North America).








If you don`t have the courage to listen to the important message of Splitting the Sky and Cynthia McKinney -and have no constructive comments to make - then this thread is obviously isn`t for you.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 16, 2010)

Why is his race relevant, re: derogatory comments?


----------



## 8den (Mar 16, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> In his autobiography, Splitting the Sky exposes the racist and imperialist agenda of settler governments in Turtle Island (North America).



Self Published autobiography. Thats the important part, the mark of a rampant egotist.  



> If you don`t have the courage to listen to the important message of Splitting the Sky and Cynthia McKinney -and have no constructive comments to make - then this thread is obviously isn`t for you.



So Cynthia Kinney the self styled spokesperson for 9/11 who won't come out and publically admit she  thinks 9/11 is an inside job, meets a man who tries to arrest George W Bush in Canada, ignoring the fact that there's no Canadian  Warrant for Bush, so there's nothing to arrest him for. 


He's now being charged an this is hilariously Splitting the Sky talking about his own testimony at his ow trial



> Certainly the turning point of the day came when STS took the stand to testify in his usual flamboyant, surprising and erudite manner.



Self important delusional wanker.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

mike desantos said:


> If you don`t have the courage to listen to the important message of Splitting the Sky and Cynthia McKinney -and have no constructive comments to make - then this thread is obviously isn`t for you.


Thanks for the biog. That's much more like it, and far more useful (and interesting) to me than endless links to videos.

But I must - again - challenge your assumption that my unwillingness to follow your links is indicative of a lack of courage. As I have explained, I have rarely found watching these videos to be worth the time spent doing so. I've also pointed out before where you make these enormous assumptions about people's motives - a post which you evidently saw fit not to respond to, even though you're repeating the same mistakes here.

Furthermore, yesterday, I was posting during a break at work, and YouTube and the other streaming video sites are blocked from there, as they are for quite a few people on Urban. So by insisting that watching video is the only way to get the information, you're effectively making your case unavailable to anyone in the same position.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> As I have explained, I have rarely found watching these videos to be worth the time spent doing so.


So, why are you here? Please don't bother. I have no hope that you are going to make useful contributions. The ones you have made so far have been truly abysmal. So let's stop wasting each other's time.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

*Independent, Monday 15th March*

*Cynthia McKinney: Leaders' lack of respect for rule of law makes us all victims of 9/11*

The war on terror did not go away with George Bush. When President Barack Obama came to power there was so much hope, but as the US Green Party presidential candidate I did not share it.

I heard candidate Obama's speeches and knew that he would be a War President. What I did not realise was the extent to which the policies of President Obama would mirror those of his predecessor, including the renewal of the Patriot Act and commission of war crimes. Sadly, President Obama's Justice Department is now in US courts defending the criminal acts of the Bush administration.

In his State of the Union address to the nation, President Obama defended war, erosion of civil and human rights, creation of the police state, ignoring the US Constitution and the norms of international law, by invoking the tragedy of 11 September, 2001. Tony Blair also leaps to his own criminal defence by invoking 9/11.

All of us in the peace community, who stand for justice and human dignity, have become victims of 9/11. Those of us who expect our national leaders to promote respect for the environment are now victims of 9/11. Survivors of those who are now dead from the prosecution of these wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere around the world are now victims of 9/11. And the mothers and fathers, siblings and family of the too many dead soldiers are now counted among the victims of 9/11. And sadly, the entire global community that expects national leaders to respect the rule of law and tell them the truth are now victims of 9/11.

Everyone now knows that the Bush administration did not tell the truth about many things, including the Iraq war and 9/11. The leaders of the 9/11 Commission told us that. Why must the world continue to live inside a lie? I remain hopeful that we will learn the truth because more and more people around the world are demanding it.

_Cynthia McKinney served in the US Congress for 12 years and was the 2008 Green Party nominee for President of the United States. She now serves as a juror on the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation's Russell Tribunal on Palestine_

www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com; more information on 9/11 at www.reinvestigate911.org

source


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

She's still covering up the 911 false flag operation i see.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2010)

We're all victims tho, so we can all take heart from that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 16, 2010)

Well, that certainly proves she thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation, well done Jazzz


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> She's still covering up the 911 false flag operation i see.



No, she isn't.

YOU ARE. (unwittingly)


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2010)

No, _you_ are by persisting in your moronic pursuit of CD and similar bollocks. 

You have no actual proof of anything, beyond links to YouTube videos saying the same thing, and examining each other's evidence. And a spokesperson who either won't say what she really believes (which puts her in the realm of ordinary politician), or _doesn't believ it_

Just out of interest, where can I find out how your marry band of idiots think the WTC were wired with explosives without anyone noticing, and over what time frame did it happen?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, that certainly proves she thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation, well done Jazzz



She has described the official version of events as 'a lie'.

What part of 'lie' are you having trouble understanding? The 'L'? The 'I'? The 'E'?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2010)

Saying the official version of events is a lie, and saying that it was a false flag operation are two very, very different things you idiot.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 16, 2010)

Do you seriously not see your massive logic leap?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

If you guys are still having trouble determining the depth of McKinney's doubt over the official version of events, then watch her meeting with 'Splitting the Sky' as Mike Desantos kindly linked - go to where Splitting the Sky is unequivocal in describing 9/11 as an inside job - and look at her body language as she sits behind in his support


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

It gets better! Sitting behind someone in support! 

Presumably if she'd disagreed she'd move in front of him? Desperate.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2010)

At what point in his rant does she appear as more than a head? Aside from her doing a pretty bog standard nodding dog thing in the style of a party political conference.

At no point does anyone discuss anything like evidence tho - it's a polemical rant that's pretty much ahistorical 'Things are bad, corporations are bad, the governments bad', aside from his personal anecdote.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

More to the point - she's not even in the bloody shot when he calls 911 an 'inside job' - 4:30 onwards. She appears  later nodding to an entirely different claim - that the US executive of the bush regime took power from congress. You fool. One short post and you fucked up two points


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It gets better! Sitting behind someone in support!
> 
> Presumably if she'd disagreed she'd move in front of him? Desperate.


You're the joke. If she disagreed with Splitting the Sky there is no way she would sit behind him nodding away supporting him to the hilt. Of course, you didn't even watch the clip.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

And a 3rd one! The hat-trick!


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2010)

So Jazz, presumably you've never sat and watched PMQs, or one of the party conferences, where X spod is standing at the podium and the delegates/MPs behind him are all in nodding dog mode, sagely agreeing with whatever the speaker is saying while not really listening to it? I mean the latter part would be hard with this guy since he seems to be addressing a crowd of 000s from the inside of a classroom...

And BA clearly watched the same thing I did, because she does indeed spend the majority of the clip out of shot.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Also, she's sitting to his right - not behind him. What's she covering up by sitting specifically _there_?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> She has described the official version of events as 'a lie'.
> 
> What part of 'lie' are you having trouble understanding? The 'L'? The 'I'? The 'E'?



Christ almighty 

I used to think you did this stuff as a slippery debating tactic, I'm beginning to come round to the idea that you're just monumentally stupid.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> So Jazz, presumably you've never sat and watched PMQs, or one of the party conferences, where X spod is standing at the podium and the delegates/MPs behind him are all in nodding dog mode, sagely agreeing with whatever the speaker is saying while not really listening to it? I mean the latter part would be hard with this guy since he seems to be addressing a crowd of 000s from the inside of a classroom...
> 
> And BA clearly watched the same thing I did, because she does indeed spend the majority of the clip out of shot.



This isn't PMQs or a party conference, where people do not choose who is speaking.

Splitting the Sky was being totally unsupported by the rest of the peace movement. They didn't want to know about him, because he was vocally insisting that 9/11 was an inside job.

However Cynthia McKinney has made a massive point of supporting him. It is completely her choice to do so.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'm beginning to come round to the idea that you're just monumentally stupid.



the feeling is mutual


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz you claimed that this clip showed CM supporting the late great sky saxon's claim that 911 was an 'inside job' with her body language when he made that claim.

1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.

I point this out and you, instead of saying oh yes, i was wrong, apols, you choose to simply ignore me. You're wandering into the territory of outright lying here. That's what continued defence of this body language claim amounts to now.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> the feeling is mutual



It's not me making leaps of logic that could cross the Grand Canyon


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Jazzz you claimed that this clip showed CM supporting the late great sky saxon's claim that 911 was an 'inside job' with her body language when he made that claim.
> 
> 1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
> 2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.
> ...


I suggest you see the wood and not endlessly fart about with the trees. 

McKinney has gone to great lengths to associate with those proclaiming that 9/11 was an inside job. Indeed, as you can see with Splitting the Sky, rather than distancing herself from them, she quite literally embraces them. Now, you are asking the forum to believe that her views on 9/11 are rather like Badger Kitten and 7/7!

I have carefully pointed out to you that as the political face of the movement, it is not for her to say what happened on 9/11. However, everyone should now be able to see that when she denounces the official version of events as 'a lie', that includes its most fundamental aspects.

I am quietly amused at how, when it suits, you fools will happily use the most tenuous 'guilt by association' attacks (e.g. Icke and anti-semitism), reading in all kinds of stuff that is never there. But with Cynthia McKinney, you are contorting yourself into NOT reading anything which is not stated in the most explicit terms. Amazing!


----------



## fogbat (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I suggest you see the wood and not endlessly fart about with the trees.
> 
> McKinney has gone to great lengths to associate with those proclaiming that 9/11 was an inside job. Indeed, as you can see with Splitting the Sky, rather than distancing herself from them, she quite literally embraces them. *Now, you are asking the forum to believe that her views on 9/11 are rather like Badger Kitten and 7/7!*
> 
> ...



No, he isn't.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2010)

> I am quietly amused at how, when it suits, you fools will happily use the most tenuous 'guilt by association' attacks (e.g. Icke and anti-semitism), reading in all kinds of stuff that is never there. But with Cynthia McKinney, you are contorting yourself into NOT reading anything which is not stated in the most explicit terms. Amazing!



The lizards/jews thing isn't 'tenuous' it's pernicious, and old hat. Besides, Icke (and indeed yourself) have associated your names with a number of less that savoury characters, so it's hardly 'not there'.

However, since she hasn't actually come out and said directly that it was an inside job, one has to ask the question 'Why?' Since her primary audience is one of true believers anyway (and lets face it, the lines are pretty much drawn on this one in terms of conversion potential), where would be the harm in her actually saying it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

You are going to do it aren't you jazz!  You really are! You're just going to pretend that what happened earlier today didn't take place? That your latest bizarre attempt to support your mind-reading was based on a claim that has been shown to be totally wrong, no not so much wrong asinvented. You won't even acknowledge that this happened. Where you think this utter dishonesty over such a small thing this leaves your relentless quest for the wider truth i don't know. The above is mere dissembling and sand-in-the-eyes waffling and issue avoidance. 

_Seek truth jazzz - even in China._


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz

Do you have a quote, youtube clip or similar where CM specifically states she suspects some degree of "inside job". I would be very interested to see it and am not trying to catch you out. I accept she may be over cautious in public statements, but nonetheless...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So, why are you here? Please don't bother. I have no hope that you are going to make useful contributions. The ones you have made so far have been truly abysmal. So let's stop wasting each other's time.


I'm not wasting my time. Not all the time I'm not watching bloody conspiranoid videos on prisonplanet because I've been told to.

If you feel you're wasting your time, well that's entirely up to you. And, as far as I know, my user account here isn't immune to the "ignore user" function, if my presence is troubling you that badly


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> If you guys are still having trouble determining the depth of McKinney's doubt over the official version of events, then watch her meeting with 'Splitting the Sky' as Mike Desantos kindly linked - go to where Splitting the Sky is unequivocal in describing 9/11 as an inside job - and look at her body language as she sits behind in his support



Oh, yay. ANOTHER fucking video link 

And you're moaning about wasting your time here...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Splitting the Sky was being totally unsupported by the rest of the peace movement. They didn't want to know about him, because he was vocally insisting that 9/11 was an inside job.


Actually, applying Occam's Razor here, I think it's far more likely that they didn't want to know about him because he's a liability, a grandiose self-publicist and liar, and associating with him, much like climbing out of the back of a sheep, is not the kind of thing you particularly want to be seen doing in public, for the embarrassment factor alone.

You seem to have been going to the same mind-reading classes as our friend Mike Desantos. I think you should both consider applying for a refund of the fees.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Actually, applying Occam's Razor here, I think it's far more likely that they didn't want to know about him because he's a liability, a grandiose self-publicist and liar, and associating with him, much like climbing out of the back of a sheep, is not the kind of thing you particularly want to be seen doing in public, for the embarrassment factor alone.
> 
> You seem to have been going to the same mind-reading classes as our friend Mike Desantos. I think you should both consider applying for a refund of the fees.



So, you don't think anyone should be distanced from on the basis that they declare 9/11 to be an inside job.

Interesting.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

I do like it when my opponents see sense all by themselves!


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So, you don't think anyone should be distanced from on the basis that they declare 9/11 to be an inside job.
> 
> Interesting.


You're doing that mind-reading thing again.

Wrongly. Show me where I said that people wouldn't want to be associated with this "skysplitter" idiot "on the basis that they declare 9/11 to be an inside job".

You can't. Because you made that bit up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

That would be twice this afternoon then - he's pretending that the other one didn't happen now by ignoring me.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> You're doing that mind-reading thing again.
> 
> Wrongly. Show me where I said that people wouldn't want to be associated with this "skysplitter" idiot "on the basis that they declare 9/11 to be an inside job".
> 
> You can't. Because you made that bit up.



post 294.

although you have your negatives muddled up. you mean 'wouldn't want to _not_ be associated with...'


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> post 294.
> 
> although you have your negatives muddled up. you mean 'wouldn't want to _not_ be associated with...'


There's no depth too low to stoop to for you in making yourself right, is there?

Admittedly, needs must, in your case, but even so...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That would be twice this afternoon then - he's pretending that the other one didn't happen now by ignoring me.


That's SOP. I think he does that even when he DOES have a response to the question, just to keep his hand in


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> There's no depth too low to stoop to for you in making yourself right, is there?
> 
> Admittedly, needs must, in your case, but even so...



Since when is correcting a statement that is the inverse of what it should be a 'depth'?

I correct you because someone might take the wrong end of it and I'd be here for the next ten pages of thread sorting it out.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Since when is correcting a statement that is the inverse of what it should be a 'depth'?
> 
> I correct you because someone might take the wrong end of it and I'd be here for the next ten pages of thread sorting it out.


That problem being so much greater for you because of your long and dishonourable history of wriggling, hair-splitting and prevaricating at every opportunity you get.

It's no wonder you feel you have to be quite so careful. I, on the other hand, flatter myself that, if nothing else, my postings are genuine and honest enough that a double negative that creeps through is very unlikely to be taken by anyone as anything other than a genuine mistake. Anyone, that is, who is reading and posting in good faith...


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

If you had a semblence of decency about you existentialist you'd have had the grace to apologise for some of your rubbish, like teuchter and kyser soze did. But no, you accused me of 'disgracing myself' because I had actually bothered to give full and frank answers to questions, then when people realised that and I made a small point about it, you accused me of 'righteous indignation' - completely forgetting that you had made the most judgmental post yourself even when you admitted you couldn't actually see what the problem was!

I suggest that you cease to act like butchersaprons gimp, this will get you nowhere.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I suggest that you cease to act like butchersaprons gimp, this will get you nowhere.


Ok, NOW I'm convinced you're inhabiting an alternate reality


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

*Video of Parliamentary meeting featuring Cynthia McKinney and Dr Nafeez Ahmed 8/3*

Video of Parliamentary meeting featuring Cynthia McKinney and Dr Nafeez Ahmed Monday 8th March


thanks to DEAD DEAN films


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Come on jazzz, we all know that you've been caught out time after time in this thread - even today you simply invented something in the hope that no one would check up on your claim, too bad that they did, and you got caught with your pants down as a result. That's an unfortunate result of your history of weaseling, dissembling and lack of independent though - unfortunate for you that is, as people are now aware they can catch you out simply by following the links you give and exposing the gap between what they say and what you claim that they say.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Come on jazzz, we all know that you've been caught out time after time in this thread - even today you simply invented something in the hope that no one would check up on your claim, too bad that they did, and you got caught with your pants down as a result. That's an unfortunate result of your history of weaseling, dissembling and lack of independent though - unfortunate for you that is, as people are now aware they can catch you out simply by following the links you give and exposing the gap between what they say and what you claim that they say.


*dons gimp suit and hops along behind butchersapron, hoovering up any scraps that drop off...*


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Come on jazzz, we all know that you've been caught out time after time in this thread - even today you simply invented something in the hope that no one would check up on your claim, too bad that they did, and you got caught with your pants down as a result. That's an unfortunate result of your history of weaseling, dissembling and lack of independent though - unfortunate for you that is, as people are now aware they can catch you out simply by following the links you give and exposing the gap between what they say and what you claim that they say.



yawn. I'm really not bothered by this utter rubbish

I have no doubt that your supply of it is infinite!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

See  

Jazzz you claimed that this clip showed CM supporting the late great sky saxon's claim that 911 was an 'inside job' with her body language when he made that claim.

1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.

I point this out and you, instead of saying oh yes, i was wrong, apols, you choose to simply ignore me. You're wandering into the territory of outright lying here. That's what continued defence of this body language claim amounts to now.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Video of Parliamentary meeting featuring Cynthia McKinney and Dr Nafeez Ahmed Monday 8th March
> 
> 
> thanks to DEAD DEAN films



Who were they talking to? Do you know? Did Reinvestigate 911 hire a room in Parliament and gave a talk - is that it? That's not a 'Parliamentary meeting'. What light can you shed on how this was organised and who attended?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who were they talking to? Do you know? This looks to me like Reinvestigate 911 hired a room in Parliament and gave a talk - that's it That's not a 'Parliamentary meeting'. What light can you shed on how this was organised and who attended?



MPs, aides and researchers. I understand the last one had 50 or so total including aides for Liberal Democrats at shadow cabinet level (Ian Henshall revealed that on the public meeting, so I guess I can relay it).

These meetings are being held under the Chatham House Rule, which protects the anonymity of those attending.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Rather handy eh?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz;1043573250 or so total including aides for Liberal Democrats at shadow cabinet level [/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Quite possibly a couple of Lib Dem aides, 48 other undefined persons, and no actual MPs or anything like that then.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Rather handy eh?



Well, it's handy because it allows issues to be freely discussed amongst MPs and aides without fear that there will be problems due to association with the event. So this allows the meetings to take place and be worthwhile until a 'tipping point' is reached when that will no longer be such an issue.

Of course, when it comes to convincing twats on urban75 of the merits of the 9/11 Truth Campaign, then it's no use at all.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Quite possibly a couple of Lib Dem aides, 48 other undefined persons, and no actual MPs or anything like that then.


No


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No



It's not possible?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Of course, when it comes to convincing twats on urban75 of the merits of the 9/11 Truth Campaign, then it's no use at all.



Correct!


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Of course, when it comes to convincing twats on urban75 of the merits of the 9/11 Truth Campaign, then it's no use at all.


Indeed. So perhaps unwise to cite it as your evidence that the campaign was being taken seriously here...?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It's not possible?


Only a handful of people who are not MPs or their aides are there and they are involved in putting on the show/security to keep press out.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Were you there jazzz?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Indeed. So perhaps unwise to cite it as your evidence that the campaign was being taken seriously here...?


I thought I was explaining to butchersapron why there were no audience shots.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Were you there jazzz?


No, I wasn't needed.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Only a handful of people who are not MPs or their aides are there and they are involved in putting on the show/security to keep press out.



Well, if you say so, it must be true.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, I wasn't needed.



Have you been at other "parliamentary meetings"?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, I wasn't needed.



On what then, is this carefully worded claim based?



> Only a handful of people who are not MPs or their aides are there and they are involved in putting on the show/security to keep press out.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Have you been at other "parliamentary meetings"?


I'm really getting bored of this. If you will excuse me, I have work to do for the campaign and answering your endless questions really doesn't feature as a priority.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

I sense we were getting too close to the truth - again.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I'm really getting bored of this. If you will excuse me, I have work to do for the campaign and answering your endless questions really doesn't feature as a priority.


I'd get on with that. I think the campaign needs a lot of work, judging by its effectiveness here .


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> On what then, is this carefully worded claim based?



The meeting is just for MPs and their aides. That's precisely why I wasn't there. I am in close contact with this campaign, so you might want to take my word for it, alternatively you may contact the campaign on crisisnewsletter@pro-net.co.uk to clarify


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

What was Ian Henshall doing there then? I would take the word of neither him nor you. You've just made nearly 80 posts on this thread clearly demonstrating your own personal dishonesty - even today you've been caught out inventing stuff about just this issue.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was Ian Henshall doing there then? I would take the word of neither him nor you.


It's his campaign.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 16, 2010)

Do you have any evidence that it was MPs and their aides?

Or do you _just know_, and no amount of evidence otherwise will convince you?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Do you have any evidence that it was MPs and their aides?
> 
> Or do you _just know_, and no amount of evidence otherwise will convince you?


What 'evidence otherwise'?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> What 'evidence otherwise'?



I think that's your answer, fogbat.

*awaits outburst of truculent flouncery amid bleatings of "ganging up"*


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I think that's your answer, fogbat.
> 
> *awaits outburst of truculent flouncery amid bleatings of "ganging up"*


I am pointing out the utter ridiculousness of discussing 'evidence otherwise' where none exists. As for the parliamentary meetings, I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself. As for the 48 or so other chaps, why should we not take Ian Henshall's word for it?

tell me, what did you have for breakfast? doubtless you will easily answer one very simple question, as you chide me for 'evasiveness'.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

How do you know who these aides were? Did Henshall break Chatam House rules?



> Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?
> A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I am pointing out the utter ridiculousness of discussing 'evidence otherwise' where none exists. As for the parliamentary meetings, I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself. As for the 48 or so other chaps, why should we not take Ian Henshall's word for it?
> 
> tell me, what did you have for breakfast? doubtless you will easily answer one very simple question, as you chide me for 'evasiveness'.



*isn't disappointed*


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> *isn't disappointed*


So you chide me for evasiveness, and yet you are unable to reveal what you had for breakfast!


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How do you know who these aides were? Did Henshall break Chatam House rules?


Where did I say I knew who they all were?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> So you chide me for evasiveness, and yet you are unable to reveal what you had for breakfast!


*smirks happily*


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Where did I say I knew who they all were?



No one said that you knew who they _all_ were - you said that you knew who two of them were. I asked you how you knew this as you had helpfully pointed out that Chatam houses rules prevent participants being identified. How do you know two of them? Did Ian Henshall break the rules?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No one said that you knew who they _all_ were - you said that you knew who two of them were. I asked you how you knew this as you had helpfully pointed out that Chatam houses rules prevent participants being identified. How do you know two of them? Did Ian Henshall break the rules?


I already told you.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Did, you then i must have missed it, i do apologise - can you point out to me where or tell me once again?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did, you then i must have missed it, i do apologise - can you point out to me where or tell me once again?



"I know at least two aides went along *because I phoned them up myself*"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

How did you know who to phone up? Or did you just randomly ring numbers? Who told you who to ring? That's what i'm asking you. It's not especially complicated. Not enough that i need to walk you through it in this manner anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

But answer came there none 

Ok let's see where we've got to. Jazzz  posts up a link to a meeting somewhere in parliament in which CM gave a brief talk. When questioned as to who attended he claims he's unable to tell us due to Chatam House Rules which protect participants anonymity, and asks us to take his word and the word of IH as to who attended - and that he personally knows the names of at least two participants despite not attending the meeting. Then, when further questioned as to _how_ he knows _who_ these people are it appears that he has colluded with IH to break these same Chatam House rules on participant anonymity. Congrats jazz, not only have you managed to dig a hole for yourself through your need to appear as ITK and at the centre of these things (for the second time on the thread, see the earlier refs to the Paris meeting etc) but this time you've also managed to dig a hole for IH as well!


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How did you know who to phone up? Or did you just randomly ring numbers? Who told you who to ring? That's what i'm asking you. It's not especially complicated. Not enough that i need to walk you through it in this manner anyway.



_You_ are walking _me_ through this?  

okay, imagine you are running a political campaign, and you want MPs and their aides to come along to your gig. What steps might you take to achieve this, and can you do it all yourself?

I trust that provides enough hints for you to solve _'Jazzz and the mystery of the telephone calls'_


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

I've had to walk you through my question yes. 

Right, so you don't _know_ that they attended then? Because that would involved IH breaking the CH rules and telling you they attended wouldn't it?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But answer came there none !



Here's a tip - wait for the next post, lest you make a fool of yourself. 

Obviously in your case, that is hard


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

And your claim btw is most emphatic that you knew they had attended - not that they were just invited along.

"I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself"


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've had to walk you through my question yes.
> 
> Right, so you don't _know_ that they attended then? Because that would involved IH breaking the CH rules and telling you they attended wouldn't it?



No. Try again, and see if you can solve the mystery by yourself with the copious clues on offer.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Here's a tip - wait for the next post, lest you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Obviously in your case, that is hard



No need, the case has not altered - take your own tip.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No. Try again, and see if you can solve the mystery by yourself with the copious clues on offer.



No, you ringing them up before the meeting inviting them along does not square with your claim that you knew they _had_ attended. You stretched too far on too small a footing once more.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No need, the case has not altered - take your own tip.


I'm sorry but you are the only one who has made any point of a brief posting silence. 0/10


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, you ringing them up before the meeting inviting them along does not square with your claim that you knew they _had_ attended. You stretched too far on too small a footing once more.



oh you got there! hurrah!!!! clap clap clap. 

So, you change tack of course, rather pathetically too!

I knew they went along because Ian Henshall confirmed it. As I was the one that booked them anyway as part of the campaign, this is hardly any confidentiality breach. Them telling me they were going, together with confirmation that they went from someone present, is enough for me to conclude that they did actually go. But you are right, I do not actually have hard evidence of this.

Are we done with this conundrum?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

So exactly as i said in post #347 then - thanks for the confirmation. I suppose it's entirely fitting that this meeting under these rules which are thrown in our face by jazz but disregarded so easily by when he feels like breaking rules was held in parliament.

Jazzz, you've missed the whole point of this - i wasn't disputing whether they had actually attended the meeting or not. I was highlighting you hiding behind CH rules when questioned on here but happily breaking them when it personally suited you to do so. Catch up.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So exactly as i said in post #347 then - thanks for the confirmation. I suppose it's entirely fitting that this meeting under these rules which are thrown in our face by jazz but disregarded so easily by when he feels like breaking rules was held in parliament.
> 
> Jazzz, you've missed the whole point of this - i wasn't disputing whether they had actually attended the meeting or not. I was highlighting you hiding behind CH rules when questioned on here but happily breaking them when it personally suited you to do so. Catch up.


The point seems to be you looking like a fool as you try more and more desperately to claim some inconsistency in my approach.

Nowhere have I broken any rule. Did I reveal who the aides I helped get down were?

your post 347 remains a load of garbage.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Oh my god you still don't get it do you?  IH revealed who a number of the participants were to you - expressly against the CH rules. The same rules you were hiding behind in your oh so principled refusal to say who had attended earlier on this very thread!


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh my god you still don't get it do you?  IH revealed who a number of the participants were to you - expressly against the CH rules. The same rules you were hiding behind in your oh so principled refusal to say who had attended earlier on this very thread!



You claim it is a breach of confidentiality to know they attended even when _they told me they were booked to attend themselves_?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

Irrelevant. Your saying that IH told you after the event that they'd attended - expressly against CH rules. It's utterly besides the point whether they'd told you beforehand they intended to attend or not.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant. Your saying that IH told you after the event that they'd attended - expressly against CH rules. It's utterly besides the point whether they'd told you beforehand they intended to attend or not.


  

oh dear, I think you are just getting more and more ridiculous

As part of the campaign it is my business to know this information.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2010)

It's the same point i've made from the start of this exchange. You hid behind ch rules wheh challenged on here and broke them when it suited. Gross, politician style hypocrisy. Not a massive shock to learn it's how you carry on in your truth-quest to be honest. I do though, appreciate your open public declaration that the breaking of these rules is totally acceptable for those involved in your campaign.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's the same point i've made from the start of this exchange. You hid behind ch rules wheh challenged on here and broke them when it suited. Gross, politician style hypocrisy. Not a massive shock to learn it's how you carry on in your truth-quest to be honest. I do though, appreciate your open public declaration that the breaking of these rules is totally acceptable for those involved in your campaign.


Desperate, utterly desperate. When you are completely defeated, just shout nonsense all over again. 

That, I truly cannot stop you doing!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz, do you know for sure that these two Lib Dem aides that this IH guy told you attended are the same ones that you phoned up? Because if so, IH obviously told you the names of at least two people who attended in which case BA is correct and it would seem that these confidentiality rules have been broken. To whom does one report the breaking of these rules?

The thing is that you didn't need to reveal this rule-breaking in order to demonstrate that there were aides/MPs in there because you said yourself that the meetings are only open to aides/MPs except for a "handful" of others there to oversee security.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Jazzz, do you know for sure that these two Lib Dem aides that this IH guy told you attended are the same ones that you phoned up? Because if so, IH obviously told you the names of at least two people who attended in which case BA is correct and it would seem that these confidentiality rules have been broken. To whom does one report the breaking of these rules?


Bullcrap! I'm part of the campaign. I could have easily been there on the door checking the names off. These were my contacts and it was my business to know whether they actually came.

There is no public revelation of anyone's name.

Let's note that you assume they were both Lib Dem. I said no such thing.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

"Dear Chatham House, the identity of someone that attended a meeting under the Chatham House Rule was publicly revealed... I can't say who"


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2010)

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/



> Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?
> A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.



It does seem that unless you participated in the meeting, which you said you didn't, this rule has been broken.

Also I think you need to take note of this:



> Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed?
> A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event - nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what.



You need to get in touch with whoever posted that youtube clip, as a matter of urgency, to see that it is taken down.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

teuchter said:


> http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/
> 
> It does seem that unless you participated in the meeting, which you said you didn't, this rule has been broken.
> 
> ...



Look Teuchter

Why don't you leave the worrying over the rule and this meeting to those involved in it? I have no such list of attendees, and both Cynthia McKinney and Dr Nafeez Ahmed are happy to be identified.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2010)

I was just worried that the rules might have been inadvertantly broken.

By the way are you a believer in the stuff about December 21 2012 and how it will mark a new era for humanity and all that?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I was just worried that the rules might have been inadvertantly broken.
> 
> By the way are you a believer in the stuff about December 21 2012 and how it will mark a new era for humanity and all that?



I don't know. My crystal ball is a little cloudy


----------



## 8den (Mar 17, 2010)

I'd jump in here, but jesus Jazzz your argument that Mc Kinney believes its an inside job is based on her body language? For Fucks sake!


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

8den said:


> I'd jump in here, but jesus Jazzz your argument that Mc Kinney believes its an inside job is based on her body language? For Fucks sake!


And despite the fact that she wasn't actually visible in shot when Enormous Farts was saying the crucial words, either. There isn't a metaphor that goes far enough beyond "grasping at straws" to describe his desperate attempt to extricate himself.

Kudos to butchersapron - a poster whom I don't usually like very much - for having the patience and tenacity to hand Jazzz just as much rope as he needs to hang himself. Repeatedly.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm a lap-dog of Lord Obama and the US state



Well the evidence is clear from this thread that you are certainly more than just a butcher, clearly you're a gourmet chef too - as not only have you have skinned and boned Jazzz, but stuffed him, roasted him and served him up on a silver plate with a sprig of parsley on the side.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 17, 2010)

I have to say I'm pretty appalled by Jazz and his associates use of a convention like the CH rules, which let's face it guarantees the anonymity of the rich and powerful from scrutiny. 

What have you and your merry band got to hide, Jazz? For people campaigning for truth and transparency, hiding behind CHR seems...well, I don't _need_ to spell it out, do I?


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

butchersapron @ 14.15 said:


> More to the point - she's not even in the bloody shot when he calls 911 an 'inside job' - 4:30 onwards. She appears  later nodding to an entirely different claim - that the US executive of the bush regime took power from congress. You fool. One short post and you fucked up two points





Jazzz @ 14.16 said:


> You're the joke. If she disagreed with Splitting the Sky there is no way she would sit behind him nodding away supporting him to the hilt. Of course, you didn't even watch the clip.



The times of those two posts - classic.  

Seek medical help Jazzz, before they come looking for you.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> The last presentation by reinvestigate911.org to the House of Commons



At no point have these people given a presentation to the House of Commons, what's with this bullshit?


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> Did she even talk about 9/11 at this meeting?



Only in the sense of 'look at the time, it's 9.11 already'.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 17, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> At no point have these people given a presentation to the House of Commons, what's with this bullshit?



Innit? In an office, in the HoC building. 

But this is similar to the theme of 

Not believing the 9/11 Commission = Believing that it was a FF op by the CIA

I have seen her body language, and it says she believes something she's never said.

that's been running through the thread.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> If you had a semblence of decency about you existentialist you'd have had the grace to apologise for some of your rubbish



Pot, kettle, etc. 



Jazzz said:


> So, why are you here? Please don't bother. I have no hope that you are going to make useful contributions. The ones you have made so far have been truly abysmal. So let's stop wasting each other's time.



Pot, kettle, etc. 



Jazzz said:


> I'm sorry but my line has been entirely consistent. Your statement is 100% false. You are making it up as you go along.



Pot, kettle, etc. 



Jazzz said:


> This is all so simple. You won't find William Rodriguez, another leading campaigner, specifically stating that 9/11 was an inside job either! Although he not only has the t-shirt, he has one of my t-shirts! And you can expect Cynthia to have one of mine too after the next print run.



He's not only been there, done that, but he has the T-shirt too. 

FFS, Jazzz, give up the day job - you're a comedic genius. 



Jazzz said:


> Why are you still confused? I have not said that she specifically and unambiguously mentions that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Indeed, I have been very careful to point out that as the political face of the movement, this is not for her to say. It is for her to call for a proper investigation. *Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that she believes it. I have no doubt about this whatsoever.*



And this is what it all boils down to yet again, Jazzz believes therefore he is right and everyone else is wrong, and why the fuck can't everyone just accept that? 



Yossarian said:


> The first rule of truth-seeking club is, you do not tell the truth about what you actually believe...


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Well the evidence is clear from this thread that you are certainly more than just a butcher, clearly you're a gourmet chef too - as not only have you have skinned and boned Jazzz, but stuffed him, roasted him and served him up on a silver plate with a sprig of parsley on the side.



Except that isn't true, is it. 

Even if you are as thick as two planks, you can know that because he stopped his 'back of the net' self-applauding and instead just resorted to angrily repeating himself over and over again. (Of course, now I've pointed out his oversight, don't be surprised if he remembers it)

sorry claphamboy! maybe next thread.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I am in close contact with this campaign...



You're on their e-mailing list?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2010)

You genuinely don't understand how foolish you've been made to look, how devious, how dishonest, how loopy do you jazzz?


----------



## 8den (Mar 17, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Kudos to butchersapron - a poster whom I don't usually like very much - for having the patience and tenacity to hand Jazzz just as much rope as he needs to hang himself. Repeatedly.



Ditto. And that's as close to a compliment I'll give the man.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No, I wasn't needed.



Translation - would you invite a total nutter?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

8den said:


> I'd jump in here, but jesus Jazzz your argument that Mc Kinney believes its an inside job is based on her body language? For Fucks sake!


All leading politicians know how important body language is. Or indeed, what it means to wear a t-shirt associated with a cause. Or even just to hang out with someone publicly. When you see Cynthia McKinney travelling vast distances so she can hang out with a man that the rest of the peace movement didn't want to know about - what does that tell you? What is it about Splitting the Sky that made her travel to Canada? It's really not very difficult.

Anyone who thinks Cynthia McKinney accepts a word of the official story is basking in delusion.


----------



## 8den (Mar 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You genuinely don't understand how foolish you've been made to look, how devious, how dishonest, how loopy do you jazzz?



No he doesn't, and in a few months time, he'll be back making the same debunked points. Arguing with Jazzz is like hitting your head against a brick wall, you do it because it feels so good to stop.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You genuinely don't understand how foolish you've been made to look, how devious, how dishonest, how loopy do you jazzz?



nice try, but somewhat desperate. Give it up ba.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> nice try, but somewhat desperate. Give it up ba.



desperate


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Except that isn't true, is it.
> 
> Even if you are as thick as two planks, you can know that because he stopped his 'back of the net' self-applauding and instead just resorted to angrily repeating himself over and over again. (Of course, now I've pointed out his oversight, don't be surprised if he remembers it)
> 
> sorry claphamboy! maybe next thread.


No, I think claphamboy's right on the money here. What's more, BA - who, I will probably never tire of saying, is not someone whose views I usually support - didn't just truss him up (in his own falsehoods) like a chicken once, he did it TWICE. And the only reason he had the opportunity to do that was because Jazzz, in some kind of "everybody's out of step except ME!!!1!" fugue, continued to insist that black was white after the first one, maintaining that, on some kind of Mandelbrot technicality, buried 16 layers deep, he had actually been telling the truth from the very beginning, and it was reality at fault, not his narrative.

I suspect this post is going to cost me a fortune in gimp suits


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Except that isn't true, is it.
> 
> Even if you are as thick as two planks, you can know that because he stopped his 'back of the net' self-applauding and instead just resorted to angrily repeating himself over and over again. (Of course, now I've pointed out his oversight, don't be surprised if he remembers it)
> 
> sorry claphamboy! maybe next thread.



If it weren’t for the rule about call-out threads I would post a poll to see what everyone thinks, I think I can predict the result, but it would be pointless, as you would never accept the result, because only you know the truth.  

BTW is your real name Rodney?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I suspect this post is going to cost me a fortune in gimp suits



Oh, here's the guy that goes on about how evasive I am, but is strangely unable to reveal what he ate for breakfast!

I really couldn't make this all up


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Anyone who thinks Cynthia McKinney accepts a word of the official story is basking in delusion.



Still you persist with the idea that not accepting the official story is the same as believing all your paranoid fruitloop bullshit.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Oh, here's the guy that goes on about how evasive I am, but is strangely unable to reveal what he ate for breakfast!



What the fuck? Are you really this desperate?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Oh, here's the guy that goes on about how evasive I am, but is strangely unable to reveal what he ate for breakfast!


I'm still not telling you.


Jazzz said:


> I really couldn't make this all up


So, why do you?


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Oh, here's the guy that goes on about how evasive I am, but is strangely unable to reveal what he ate for breakfast!
> 
> I really couldn't make this all up



Nurse, it's time for more medication over here.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> All leading politicians know how important body language is. Or indeed, what it means to wear a t-shirt associated with a cause. Or even just to hang out with someone publicly.



Can anyone decode Mr Skysplitter's body language-T-shirt-hanging-out-with message in this photograph? The slogan on the white hoodie appears to be very important.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Jazzz
> 
> Do you have a quote, youtube clip or similar where CM specifically states she suspects some degree of "inside job". I would be very interested to see it and am not trying to catch you out. I accept she may be over cautious in public statements, but nonetheless...



I think that you can now safely take his ignoring your question as a firm no taffboy...


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

I've just been skim-reading the thread where Jazzz got his arse kicked into outer orbit by the architect; the experience was made all the more amusing with the knowledge that Jazzz actually believes he won that argument.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm impressed to see Jazz getting in on the conspiracy merchandising thing tho.

I reckon DVD/Book next.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I've just been skim-reading the thread where Jazzz got his arse kicked into outer orbit by the architect; the experience was made all the more amusing with the knowledge that Jazzz actually believes he won that argument.


Well, you can add another Thread of Win to that one.

I'm beginning to think that a special exception to the callout rule should be made to enable a "Jazzz gets pwned again" sticky to be created. I think we're going to need it.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 17, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I've just been skim-reading the thread where Jazzz got his arse kicked into outer orbit by the architect; the experience was made all the more amusing with the knowledge that Jazzz actually believes he won that argument.


As if that thread can be 'skim-read'! hahaha.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> As if that thread can be 'skim-read'! hahaha.



It can be skim-read enough to see the outcome, if you start a few pages from the end, loving the way you slopped-off in a self-delusional puff of smoke BTW.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm reading it now, just got up to rory's fantastic post #685 and am going to have to leave it there for today. Suffice to say i've rarely seen such a walloping, and apparently i've not even got to the really good stuff yet...


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm reading it now, just got up to rory's fantastic post



 - and this image:


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm reading it now, just got up to rory's fantastic post #685 and am going to have to leave it there for today. Suffice to say i've rarely seen such a walloping, and apparently i've not even got to the really good stuff yet...



Keep going and you'll see clear evidence of a controlled demolition.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 17, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> Keep going and you'll see clear evidence of a controlled demolition.



Yeah, of Jazzz's arguments


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 17, 2010)

@ this thread 

Monumental pwnage


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

I expect Jazzz has retreated into his customary victimhood - the place where he "gets attacked for being right". And he will probably tremblingly point at the somewhat victorious tone being taken here.

If he does that, he needs to remember that he has - quite rudely and patronisingly - demonstrated how far he's prepared to compromise his own integrity in order to "prove" a usually tangential and near-irrelevant point because he's been caught out lying. Nor is it the first time. And, no doubt, he'll come back in time and present his usual revisionist spin on it, claiming to have won, and continuing to insult those with whom he debated by slanting and deliberately misrepresenting them and their words. 

When that happens, he will no doubt *again* be outraged that nobody is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt or take his words as anything other than possibly yet another way of weaselling out of telling the truth.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2010)

Oh man, i know i shouldn't post this but i've just got to jazzz's giant cranes constructed the WTC claim


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 18, 2010)

What post # is it? I can't remember that one...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2010)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5528761&postcount=699


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 18, 2010)

*snorts coffee over keyboard*

I've now added that thread to my favourites list.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh man, i know i shouldn't post this but i've just got to jazzz's giant cranes constructed the WTC claim



Oh there's _plenty_ more for you yet


----------



## existentialist (Mar 18, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh there's _plenty_ more for you yet


I'm working my way steadily through that thread, and it's comedy gold. Reading the twisting and turning that's going on there, in the light of the recent goings-on on this thread, it's clear that Jazzz hasn't learned anything from that, or any other interaction on Urban.

And it is his outraged splutterings at how people so foolishly fail to take his words on trust that are (inadvertently) the most amusing. It is as if he drove into Urban in a small yellow car, in fits and starts, with little explosions and puffs of smoke, where it stops, all the doors fall off, and the horn emits a plaintive comedy parp as the car expires. Jazzz steps out, puts his foot in a bucket of whitewash, and staggers around amusingly, splattering himself with whitewash, before treading on a rake with his other foot, causing it to swing up and hit his shiny red clown nose, which makes a honking noise before exploding. Reaching for a handkerchief to wipe off the soot, Jazzz is dismayed as what emerges from his pocket is a string of brightly-coloured handkerchiefs, which seem to go on for ever. Eventually he gives up, and wipes his nose on a yellow one, from which a chicken escapes, sits on his head and lays an egg.

At which point, he looks around at his audience, frowns, pulls himself up to his full height and demands: "And what are you bastards laughing at? Take me seriously, dammit!"  before pouring custard down his own trousers.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> All leading politicians know how important body language is. Or indeed, what it means to wear a t-shirt associated with a cause. *Or even just to hang out with someone publicly*. When you see Cynthia McKinney travelling vast distances so she can hang out with a man that the rest of the peace movement didn't want to know about - what does that tell you? What is it about Splitting the Sky that made her travel to Canada? It's really not very difficult.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Cynthia McKinney accepts a word of the official story is basking in delusion.


Interesting comment jazzz, the bit i bolded. What does it mean to publically hang out with holocaust deniers and neo Nazis?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 19, 2013)

Oy vey.


----------

