Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Figleaf

  1. I won't miss the shear determined arseholery that certain obmoxious people want to put on display hereabouts. Or the 'jerkhoodness', for that matter.
  2. I find it amusing that Fibleaf claims to know what warnings someone might privately get. More accurately though, she found it ironic that after playing high school monitor and reporting Scott and Shark numerous times she made herself a pain in the ass to the moderator and was given a taste of her own medicine. Good riddance to a useless pillock..... Typical. You just can't help but resort to insults. But that's great since you're just the sort of poster Greg seems to want to keep around here. Anyway, for your information, since your reading skills are clearly inadequate, both Scott and Sharkman themselves stated above that they had received warnings, hence how I know. As for your 'Fibleaf' line, it's even more ironic, since you're a demonstrated liar, while I was always scrupulously honest in my posts. Bye, Dancer, I won't miss you.
  3. 1. Geoffrey, how was I supposed to know that linking to a video would get me banned? 2. I find it ironic that Scottsa and Sharkman get seemingly NUMEROUS warnings for willfully egregious behaviour whilst I get NO warning for a quite innocent misjudgement. (Indeed, the admin went out of his way to put my post back up just so he could ban me.) Bye....
  4. What a joke. Here's what happened to me... After many weeks of Greg ignoring email and permitting vicious insults to be exchanged dailly on the forum... One day I posted a link to a video of a woman doing a risque (but not nude) dancing and waving a maple leaf. I thought it was an innocent little joke that was kind of connected because this is "Maple Leaf web". Sure it wasn't about politics, but it was harmless and did not directly violate any rule or insult anyone. Other posters got the joke and there was some fun reparte. Then soon that thread was removed. Okay, I figured, it wasn't on topic, but no harm done. Then, a couple of days later, Greg put the thread back up and banned me without any warning. He totally ignored my subsequent attempt to discuss the matter. This post will probably be removed and I could well be banned forever, but the point is that Greg's pose of reasonability is quite a stretch. (He does NOT always warn before banning, if he didn't want to ban people, he could have just taken the thread down or disabled the link, and warned me. Clearly, he was very keen to ban me.)
  5. Sheer bullshit. As been mentioned numerous times in this thread, large demolition projects (though much smaller than the Twin Towers would have been) require a lot of preparation and tons of material. It's a time-consuming task even with full and unimpeded access to an empty building. Utter crapola. Sure it takes time. So what? The question we are addressing at this point is HOW MANY would it take. Answer, a handful, maybe only a couple. Not much. Send them in dressed as cleaners late at night ... no problem over a few weeks. Who ever said it was laid to rest?
  6. Which means you would need hundreds of people ready to move in immediately after the event to plant evidence of a plane crash. Nonsense. You need a handful of after-the-fact investigators to 'find' what they are told. I thought you needed four hijackers with box cutters. You are assuming that you actually have the facts right. Even major media outlets make mistakes or misrepresent sources. For example, you have no idea where the passport was found or how much other debris ecaped incineration. You need to carry passports to board flights. If it wasn't found at the site, then why is that claim unchallenged. If it wasn't found at the site, then how is it connected to the alleged hijackings? You're grasping at straws. (And the question is why? What is you interest in thwarting truth about 9/11?)
  7. You're right, it does depend on what plot you postulate. IMV, of course real civilian aircraft were used on the WTC. The shattered relatives of the dead are not a large gang of actors hired to henceforth live their whole lives in-character. (As an aside, Flight 93 was intended to strike WTC7.) The Pentagon, however, was NOT struck by a commercial jetliner. Footage shows a missile or fighter craft, and the damage just isn't right. On whether WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by the planes or by secret ancillary explosives, I make no final determination. But either way, it only takes a few guys to wire a building to explode. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ But whatever else, I'll tell you this ... passports do not survive experiences that destroy aircraft blackboxes.
  8. ScottSA, FYI: You seem to have a lot of difficulty adhering to the forum rules. Hopefully that means you won't be around for much longer.
  9. That's pathetic. Are you purporting there to quote that Article? Because it looks like you are simply refering to it and providing your own lameass interpretation of what it means. If it supports your view, why not quote it? If it doesn't support your view, what dishonest intent impells you to tender it in this manner? Quote the actual Article, then get back to me.
  10. Perhaps you should take a visit to the creation museum in Kentucky. You will no doubt find a lot of like minded people who believe the most incredible things even though the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests they are completely wrong... Blah blah blah. What possible "evidence" do you imagine exists to establish the number of people required to pull of 9/11?
  11. God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing. Did God create people or not? Does God make things happen the way he wants, or is he subject to mistakes?
  12. "Nothing better to do with their time than to create ... the human race [and] the entire universe" You make it sound as if creating the human race and entire universe is an insignificant waste of time. What do you think would be more worthwhile to do with one's time? Well, God is supposed to be Omnipotent, so theoretically, he could create something better to do with his time, like a really cool videogame, or masturbation. Also, theoretically, He could have created something better than humankind -- duplicated Himself, for example.
  13. Contrary to popular belief, Israel wasn't "established" by either Britain or the "world community". There was a UN partition plan, to split the area between a Jewish and an Arab state. Though the Jews were less than completely happy with the plan, they accepted it, but the Arabs rejected the plan, and invaded Israel. You are overlooking important details, and using terminology inexactly. The Jewish settlers in the region assigned to them under the partition plan unilaterally declared the existence of Israel at the time the British Mandate expired. This unilateral declaration was recognized in the United Nations. Both the surrounding Arab states as well as the Arab people living in the affected region (the 'Palestinians') rejected both the partition plan as well as the authority of the UN or western powers to create the plan. Various Arab states went to war to resist that plan in 1948. Actually, yes, they are. No, they are not. It may be that inhabitants of those regions joined the fighting, but that doesn't change the fact I noted earlier. The actions of Arab states are not attachable to the Palestinian people. All of which changes nothing about what I have said.
  14. Just to clarify one point ... while I don't know what the formulation that a state has a 'right' to 'exist' is supposed to mean, I do believe (and have said before) that in the present state of affairs, the people of Israel have the right to self-determination and that any conceivable way of depriving them of that, or of moving them out of the territory of Israel, would amount to crimes against humanity or human rights. The "formulation" that a state has a right to exist is at the very core of international law as it is understood today. Perhaps as it is understood by you. I am unaware of anything that says states have free-standing 'existence' rights. Really? I understood sovereignty to mean a state's assertion of supreme authority within a given territory. I've understood that between states (at least at peace), sovereignty is to be respected. However, to construe that as a 'right' to 'exist' seems like a substantial mutation of the concept. You never tire of that same threadbare whinge, do you? (No matter how absurd or misplaced.)
  15. What a bizarre fantasy life some people lead!
  16. Are you unfamiliar with it and need to be convince it exists, or are you aware of it and just making work for me? I've read about it in authoritative sources. Not at my fingertips.
  17. Not disputing anything, I'm asking you to present the passage of international law that you are claiming that Israel is violating. Yes, but are you asking me to do this for any particular reason?
  18. Just to clarify one point ... while I don't know what the formulation that a state has a 'right' to 'exist' is supposed to mean, I do believe (and have said before) that in the present state of affairs, the people of Israel have the right to self-determination and that any conceivable way of depriving them of that, or of moving them out of the territory of Israel, would amount to crimes against humanity or human rights.
  19. Yes. But as I pointed out, that cannot apply if the false premise/action outcome is built into the harms of the catastrophic case. With global warming, it is built in -- economic collapse and hardship will occur if catastophic global warming occurs.
  20. Which states? All states in community, dissenters notwithstanding. Are you disputing it in fact, or only in principle?
  • Create New...