patrick.net

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

. He was ordered to pay £200 costs and given a CONDITIONAL discharge.

The picture led to the discharge moron. You can't change the picture. The BBC lied. It was scripted. The tower was still standing and all they had to do was look out the window, moron.

The picture led to the discharge? What is that even supposed to mean? It was a CONDITIONAL discharge for what is considered a very common and very minor crime - non-payment of his TV licence fee (he wasn't suing the BBC as you earlier claimed - they took him to court). And do you understand what CONDITIONAL discharge means? It doesn't bloody well mean he was found not guilty.

And the BBC made an ERROR in the news report. An error doesn't automatically translate into a deliberate lie as part of an enormous conspiracy, does it? If it does, then you must be extraordinarily busy wading through new conspiracies considering the number of inaccurate news reports all news agencies produce every day, even when they have the time to do the research in advance.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

It doesn't bloody mean he was found not guilty.

You don't think the high court would want to implicate the BBC do you? You are stupid.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the HIgh Court dealt with non-payment of TV licence fees. Silly me, there I was under the misapprehension the case was dealt with by Horsham Magistrates’ Court. Facts, so easily checked.

bgamall4 says

CDon says

Why isn't the NHK, Al Jazeera, Al Arabea, Pravda, R-T and everyone else in the non-neocon controlled media having a field day with this?

Why doesn't anyone in the US Congress care?

It doesn't matter.

OK so what about the rest of it:

Why aren't their massive street protests from 9/11 families and neocon war vets, demanding to hear more about the inside job that Kerry admitted to on youtube?

Why doesn't NATO demand Kerry come and explain why they were told to bomb various countries that (by the USA's now admission) had nothing to do with 9/11?

I mean seriously -- according to you we have every conspiracy theorist's gift most precious gift ever -- an admission -- from the US Government (per Kerry) -- YES ITS TRUE, WE DID IT, IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! And yet, the larger reaction of the world is... nothing?

Like I said -- I will happily stipulate to everything you said.

Yes, they could have seen every building down from that window. They could have seen
everything. To say a building was down 20 minutes before it was down was
scripted. There is no defense for this. It was not in the heat of reporting, but rather was an obvious lie.

But again, lets not forget the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I mean, the US GOVT has admitted their involvement and yet

Why aren't their massive street protests from 9/11 families and neocon war vets, demanding to hear more about the inside job that Kerry admitted to on youtube?

Why doesn't NATO demand Kerry come and explain why they were told to bomb various countries that (by the USA's now admission) had nothing to do with 9/11?

I mean seriously -- according to you we have every conspiracy theorist's gift most precious gift ever -- an admission -- from the US Government (per Kerry) -- YES ITS TRUE, WE DID IT, IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! And yet, the larger reaction of the world is... nothing?

bgamall4 says

If this is what you are basing your view on, it is ridiculous.

Actually, given the complete lack of response, I am assuming that most people are taking Kerry's comment about the demolition OF THAT WALL to mean -- the demolition of that wall.

Meaning, that the govt hasn't admitted to anything - that there still could be a conspiracy - etc.

Like I said, if you truly believe that Kerry was admitting to the controlled demolition, you are actually completely undermining your case since the larger reaction of the world is that they basically haven't given a shit.

Oh and as I did with the "pull it" video, I am simply giving you a hard time from a devils advocate point of view. I personally don't put much stock into 9/11 conspiracies, but obviously you do.

But again, as I noted before in the "pull it" video, if your objective is to convince others that there is something to the 9/11 conspiracy, you need to present a logically consistent case. No more no less.

And part of that logical consistency is to understand that the best way (paradoxically) to prove your conspiracy claim is to distance yourself from the view that Kerry admitted the conspiracy.

bgamall4 says

Let me remind you of the picture.

OK serious question here.

For the purposes of this I already stipulated to each and every thing you alleged in that picture. See post #170 above.

Yet despite that, you continue to sling that video in my direction - as if its is somehow a devastating attack of my critique of your argument.

Yet given that we are on the same page here, why do you continue to go back to this part of the argument, and deflect away from the part where you and I disagree?

Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that is fooling anyone?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Silly me, there I was under the misapprehension the case was dealt with by Horsham Magistrates’ Court. Facts, so easily checked.

Silly me, it wasn't appealed.

So you are saying that he appealed a Magistrate's ruling of a 6-month CONDITIONAL discharge over non-payment of a TV licence fee at the High Court? I thought you said he won the case. And please post up the details of that particular appeals case if you don't mind. I'll be waiting.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

. He was ordered to pay £200 costs and given a CONDITIONAL discharge.

The picture led to the discharge moron. You can't change the picture.

Complete and utter nonsense. Try and read the facts about the case rather than some conspiracy website bullshit.

This is at least the second time you have brought up this Rooke nonsense. It is incredibly easy to find out that what you are saying is simply wrong, and yet here you are claiming black is white. How do you think this simple and easily checked case (that you are lying about) reflects on all your other claims?

why was i deleted? you talked about false flags, and so did I!
WTF??

egads101 says

ok, what does 148,000 jobs = then?

That comes in the teeth of printing $574000 for each of these created jobs.

How long will this last?

I think it's quite comical that smgauld has to keep replying to his own thread to try to bump it. Perhaps that's a cue that he needs to find a day job?

egads101 is obviously a zionist spy sent by the mossad to misdirect and confuse the conspiracy geniuses.

Professor, please keep it clean!

Bgmall, why do you keep harping on the Yinon Plan? I had never heard of it...you know why? It is 30+ years old. It's obscure. I can assure you that if Israel wanted to take over huge swaths of the Mideast on behalf of Zionism, they would have attempted to do so over the past 30 years. They don't have the number of soldiers to occupy that much land, and neither does the US, as is evidenced by Iraq.

Israel's main goal and only goal is survival. Yes, Mossad is bad ass--so is every major intelligence agency in the developed world. Their reach and their capabilities are overhyped in the media.

And about the media...your assertion about the "Jewish-controlled media" is a canard that has been used before a number of times.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/10/do_jews_really_control_the_media.html

Along with the Jews controlling banking, etc. I'm sure every Jewish person knows that the big media-controlling meeting is on Tuesday night, banking is on Wed night, and culture controlling is on Thurs. What to do the rest of the other nights? Maybe read the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

If you are going to throw accusations around, at least update your anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Don't use stuff that is at least 30 years old, or hundreds of years for that matter.

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Tuesday, October 22, 2013 __ Level is 98.7

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

So you are saying that he appealed a Magistrate's ruling of a 6-month CONDITIONAL discharge over non-payment of a TV licence fee at the High Court? I thought you said he won the case. And please post up the details of that particular appeals case if you don't mind. I'll be waiting.

No, I am saying the BBC obviously didn't appeal the ruling. That is because they had no grounds. The judge was a coward but found a way out because the guy's evidence was truth.

Is that supposed to be a joke? Why would the BBC appeal the case? They won, Rooke lost. He got a 6-month CONDITIONAL discharge for non-payment of a TV licence fee. You still appear to not understand what a conditional discharge is. That is NOT a decision in favour of Rooke, it's a decision in favour of the BBC.

Now, would you like to tell me which parts of your claim that he sued the BBC and won the case in the HIGH COURT were correct? Shall I save you the bother?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Why would the BBC appeal the case? They won

They didn't get their money.

It was a 6-month conditional discharge. Do you understand what happens if he continues to go down his path of non-payment?

And I notice you didn't answer my question:

"would you like to tell me which parts of your claim that he sued the BBC and won the case in the HIGH COURT were correct?"

Please feel free to address any or all points in that question.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

It was a 6-month conditional discharge. Do you understand what happens if he continues to go down his path of non-payment?

He will demand the evidence of BBC lying be entered into evidence. The judge will refuse and he will get another 6 months and on and on.

Except he isn't appealing, is he? And you do not never endingly get handed the same sentence for a conditional discharge. The sentence will become more severe. And I see you singularly failed to answer my question.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Except he isn't appealing, is he?

Why should he if he doesn't have to pay?

Oh, I thought you said before that he won the case. Now, it seems that you are arguing he lost the case but (only in a blathering truther's mind) actually won it because there wasn't a substantial fine. Ha, ha, ha. And he does have to pay for his TV licence fee now though, doesn't he (along with the court costs of the case that he LOST)? If he doesn't, guess what happens.

And I notice you've still failed to answer my earlier question. I'll repeat it again seeing as you appear to have forgotten:

Would you like to tell me which parts of your claim that he sued the BBC and won the case in the HIGH COURT were correct?

bgamall4 says

Remember, if only one of these is irrefutable, 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Pull comment by owner of WTC7

Firefighters saw tower explosions on lower floor

Dan Rather said it was exploded

Prereporting WTC7 collapse

Squibs sighted

Rate of fall of WTC7 was unhindered. No pancake

Howard Dean Questioning W's involvement and W cries showing guilt

John Kerry said it was a controlled demolition.

So let me get this straight... if, for example, Dan Rather said that the towers were brought down by explosives, you consider that as irrefutable proof of a conspiracy.

Ha, ha, ha.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

So let me get this straight... if, for example, Dan Rather said that the towers were brought down by explosives, you consider that as irrefutable proof of a conspiracy.

He was an eyewitness and heard the explosions and detonations.

Lots of people said many different things on that particular day, much of it speculation and inaccurate speculation at that - as with his comments. I know because I, like very many others, saw it unfold live on TV and heard the varying reports. And Dan Rather was reporting live from a studio, wasn't he? If that counts as being an eye witness, then I too was an eye witness all the way over in England. What, by the way, has Dan Rather said since then? And more to the point, why do you think that off-the-cuff speculation by a journalist to fill air time is proof of anything?
You'd be better served questioning Rather's journalistic performance in his slavering support of Bush post 9/11 rather than raising up a bit of on screen prattling as some kind of proof of an extraordinary claim.

You still haven't answered my question about the Rooke case. Clearly you are incapable of admitting you are completely wrong even when the facts so clearly show you to be. But, hey, I'm sure you'll continue to try and bullshit your way out of the corner you've painted yourself into.

There were a lot of people dancing on 9/11/2001

http://www.youtube.com/embed/j7TfLPgZQGQ

http://www.youtube.com/embed/oMOZvbYJMvU

Pretty quick on the delete button there eh Bgamall? Before I will ask the same question of bigsby on a separate thread (where you don't have deletion powers) do you want to allow it here such that you at least have some control over the information?

Either way, let me know.

Here's the guys themselves speaking:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/EeD9XPn_lg4

bgamall4 says

Here is the woman who destroys your case, Bigsby:

Your humour knows no bounds.

You still haven't answered my question about the Rooke case. Care to retract your points or are you just going to wait a while and simply repost your completely inaccurate claims once again?

bgamall4 says

This will blow your mind Bigsby: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fematape.html

About the stupidity of the sites you read?

bgamall4 says

Personally, I don't know if the Dancing Israelis were part of the attacks or if they were going to blow up bridges if the attacks didn't go as planned. I don't know. I do know that they said they were there to cover the event. They had to know about the event and they had explosives. Why would you have explosives if you are just covering an event?

What do you find so problematic about this description of the 'dancing Israelis' apart from it, of course, not fitting your already preformed narrative?

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

Note the part about explosives at the end.

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Wednesday, October 23, 2013 __ Level is 98.3

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

And since you also deleted my Rooke post, I'll ask again. You are complaining about rewriting history and yet you claim Rooke sued the BBC and won the case in the High Court. Care to retract that entire statement considering it is completely wrong? And why do you find it impossible to admit you were wrong?

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Thursday, October 24, 2013 __ Level is 98.9

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Note the part about explosives at the end.

Rewriting history. That is no proof of anything. They originally reported there were explosives. You have to go with the first report.

Why do you "have to go with the first report"? Isnt it possible the first report was not-accurate? For example did Dewey really defeat Truman?

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

In any event, less than 8 Minutes after they reported people in custody with explosives, they retracted it and said no explosives were found. Isnt it possible that the simply made a mistake when they reported explosives and then corrected it 8 minutes later?

Opps....500,000 in 3 states lose coverage.

More Americans In 3 States Have Had Their Insurance Canceled Under ObamaCare Than Have Filed An Exchange Account In All 50

reality of the ObamaCare roll-out appeared in a set of news stories that serve as an ironic juxtaposition. Over 500,000 individuals have seen their insurance policies cancelled in just 3 states. In all 50 states, only 476,000 applications have been “filed” in an exchange. (Even though we are still learning the true definition of “filed.”)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/24/more-americans-have-had-their-insurance-canceled-under-obamacare-than-have-filed-an-exchange-account/

Call it Crazy says

So much for that promise

Ah what's one more broken promise.. ;)

What difference does it make as long as Homeboy is covered and receives hefty subsidy?

It'll only get worse. Funny thing is, those of us on the other side of the fence never had to lift a finger to sink this thing.

It certainly goes far enough to give the insurance companies extra money! The medical industrial complex can now become twice as bloated and provide half the service! Isn't socialism great?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Oh, and your evidence that it was a cover up is what exactly?

And your evidence that it wasn't a cover up is what exactly?

If a tie means you think you are winning you are a fool Bigs.

You are the one making the outlandish claim that runs contrary to the evidence about what happened. How would you expect me to go about disproving a claim by you that fairies live in the bottom of your garden? You've got the facts about what happened, as you now have about the Rooke case. You just choose to conjure up an entirely separate tale that doesn't take the real, fact-based evidence under consideration. That isn't a tie as you put it. That is you misrepresenting the known facts in an attempt to bolster your overall narrative.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

You are the one making the outlandish claim that runs contrary to the evidence about what happened.

The truth about 9/11 does not stand or fall with explosives in the vans of the Dancing Israelis. You are nuts.

Eh? Who said it did?