BBC2 Sunday 9.00 pm. The Conspiracy Files - 9/11

#3
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
 
#7
Hi Bugsy. Been loitering on another site but had a spare five minutes or so.

Nice to see some of the 'old' faces are still on here.

Though if they hadn't of been, I might of thought it a conspiracy.
 
#8
Bugsy said:
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
Point taken Bugsy. But it wasn't my hope or intention to start off another interminable thread or antagonise anybody. The thread that's running at the moment is going nowhere and I dipped out of that a while back. I wasn't really bothered whether anyone responded to this topic, but thought the programme needed mentioning.

I'm hoping it may come up with some more information. But, being a cynical sort, I'm half expecting the subject not to get the FULL treatment it deserves.

Here's hoping.
 
#9
frenchperson said:
Bugsy said:
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
Point taken Bugsy. But it wasn't my hope or intention to start off another interminable thread or antagonise anybody. The thread that's running at the moment is going nowhere and I dipped out of that a while back. I wasn't really bothered whether anyone responded to this topic, but thought the programme needed mentioning.

I'm hoping it may come up with some more information. But, being a cynical sort, I'm half expecting the subject not to get the FULL treatment it deserves.

Here's hoping.
I take it you mean the treatment you want, the one that says it was all a sinister plot by USG.
 
#10
Mods....I know that Arrse has the words rumour in its title, but can we have a look at these mongs continuing to post about 9/11 'rumours'. We've already been 'invaded' by 9/11 conspiraloons sites previously.

If we really wanted to discover all about 9/11 and the endless reasons why 2 planes + 2 towers really adds up to near free fall times we would be on a 9/11 forum, on a 9/11 site, not an unofficial Brtish Army site...

I'm not religious and I do not expect my peace and internet timeto be interrupted by some Christian or Muslim forcing their beliefs down my neck. If I want to convert...I'll find you...

This and you persistant posters are really becoming tiresome...
 
#12
frenchperson said:
Bugsy said:
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
Point taken Bugsy. But it wasn't my hope or intention to start off another interminable thread or antagonise anybody. The thread that's running at the moment is going nowhere and I dipped out of that a while back. I wasn't really bothered whether anyone responded to this topic, but thought the programme needed mentioning.

I'm hoping it may come up with some more information. But, being a cynical sort, I'm half expecting the subject not to get the FULL treatment it deserves.

Here's hoping.
Fecking well was you lying ballbag, otherwise why post it on a new thread rather than the one currently running.
 
#13
daz said:
frenchperson said:
Bugsy said:
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
Point taken Bugsy. But it wasn't my hope or intention to start off another interminable thread or antagonise anybody. The thread that's running at the moment is going nowhere and I dipped out of that a while back. I wasn't really bothered whether anyone responded to this topic, but thought the programme needed mentioning.

I'm hoping it may come up with some more information. But, being a cynical sort, I'm half expecting the subject not to get the FULL treatment it deserves.

Here's hoping.
Fecking well was you lying ballbag, otherwise why post it on a new thread rather than the one currently running.
Because 'it' is a documentary on one of the major TV channels that's taken nigh on SIX years to appear, such is the climate of fear and uncertainty in the media.

Anyway, I may be posting the threads, but who's making them interminable? It certainly ain't me. Count your own posts to the other one - then compare the number I've put up.

You're under no obligation to react. In fact, I always admire those people who post sparingly, yet write well and offer up important, well-argued points - the Gallowglasses and Seadogs of this world. You're an intellectual pygmy by comparison.

Anyway, don't forget - Sunday, 9.00pm BBC2. I think subtitles are an option if it gets too difficult to absorb. Cheers.
 
#14
frenchperson said:
daz said:
frenchperson said:
Bugsy said:
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
Point taken Bugsy. But it wasn't my hope or intention to start off another interminable thread or antagonise anybody. The thread that's running at the moment is going nowhere and I dipped out of that a while back. I wasn't really bothered whether anyone responded to this topic, but thought the programme needed mentioning.

I'm hoping it may come up with some more information. But, being a cynical sort, I'm half expecting the subject not to get the FULL treatment it deserves.

Here's hoping.
Fecking well was you lying ballbag, otherwise why post it on a new thread rather than the one currently running.
Because 'it' is a documentary on one of the major TV channels that's taken nigh on SIX years to appear, such is the climate of fear and uncertainty in the media.

Anyway, I may be posting the threads, but who's making them interminable? It certainly ain't me. Count your own posts to the other one - then compare the number I've put up.

You're under no obligation to react. In fact, I always admire those people who post sparingly, yet write well and offer up important, well-argued points - the Gallowglasses and Seadogs of this world. You're an intellectual pygmy by comparison.

Anyway, don't forget - Sunday, 9.00pm BBC2. I think subtitles are an option if it gets too difficult to absorb. Cheers.
Typical conspiraloon, insulting tio the last posts up your pet idea and run away rather than argue the point. As for evidence and detailed supporting calculations, forget that. If an arguement doesn't go your way change the subject. Demand detailed answers, but never give one yourself.

At least SLRBoy stayed to argue, even if he made himself look a complete tit.
 
#15
MikeMcc,
I'll tell you another time when the ONLY force acting on the round was gravity.
When it was lying on the counter in the f'ucking armoury.
 
#17
MikeMcc said:
SLRboy said:
MikeMcc,
I'll tell you another time when the ONLY force acting on the round was gravity.
When it was lying on the counter in the f'ucking armoury.
Yep, true, and it is countered by the reaction force from the counter (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion)

You still haven't answered the questions that I asked.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=58090/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=585.html
MikeMisquote,
Thought for the evening: Name one time in the short and brutal life of a round when it is NOT subject to gravity.
No fancy figures - plain English will do.
 
#18
SLRboy said:
MikeMcc said:
SLRboy said:
MikeMcc,
I'll tell you another time when the ONLY force acting on the round was gravity.
When it was lying on the counter in the f'ucking armoury.
Yep, true, and it is countered by the reaction force from the counter (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion)

You still haven't answered the questions that I asked.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=58090/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=585.html
MikeMisquote,
Thought for the evening: Name one time in the short and brutal life of a round when it is NOT subject to gravity.
No fancy figures - plain English will do.
Live rounds, empty casings, you, me, old uncle tom cobbleigh and all are ALL subject to gravity ALL the time.
 
#19
frenchperson said:
Bugsy said:
Dear Frenchie,

As much as I agree with your basic contention that some of the more puzzling issues of 9/11 need to be logically explained in much more detail, if only to rob them of their rather sinister aspects, I don't believe that starting a new thread and antagonising the "usual suspects" is very productive.

Maybe we should just wait until further helpful facts emerge, before wasting bandwidth regurgitating the same old points.

Just my opinion.

MsG
Point taken Bugsy. But it wasn't my hope or intention to start off another interminable thread or antagonise anybody. The thread that's running at the moment is going nowhere and I dipped out of that a while back. I wasn't really bothered whether anyone responded to this topic, but thought the programme needed mentioning.

I'm hoping it may come up with some more information. But, being a cynical sort, I'm half expecting the subject not to get the FULL treatment it deserves.

Here's hoping.
Like a full exposition on asbestos and its signifigance (sing along you should all know the tune by now).
 
#20
SLRboy said:
MikeMcc said:
SLRboy said:
MikeMcc,
I'll tell you another time when the ONLY force acting on the round was gravity.
When it was lying on the counter in the f'ucking armoury.
Yep, true, and it is countered by the reaction force from the counter (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion)

You still haven't answered the questions that I asked.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=58090/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=585.html
MikeMisquote,
Thought for the evening: Name one time in the short and brutal life of a round when it is NOT subject to gravity.
No fancy figures - plain English will do.
As CutLunchCommando says, all of the time. I see you still haven't answered my question, even though i have answered yours (again). You will also note that I don't change your user name. Nor have I misquoted you, you mange to foul up your own posts without my help.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts