Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:57 pm  

I've long since given up wondering why people do some of the things they do. Suffice to say we live in a weird, weird world.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:34 pm  

That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs. With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with COGNITIVE DISSONANCE TUT TUT TUT. EDITED: You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission. WANDERER

That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs. With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with COGNITIVE DISSONANCE TUT TUT TUT. EDITED: You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission. WANDERER

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:38 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Ha ha ha you're not capable of a decent debate on this topic, you've not once in this thread added or supplied any significant piece of evidence to support your views, all you do is repeat and splutter the same toxic sentences trying to derail and ridicule the alternative viewpoint without any substance. Just to prove a point i'll give you what you want, my undivided attention. So come on lets debate ?. I'm saying St Bernardino was a fully blown hoax. Paris was a false flag with a semi hoax. Go for it you've won my undivided attention.

Only you see I have raised plenty of debate, however, you run away from anything that conflicts your views and then resort to silly insults and emoticons (Now who does that sound like!) So I have your undivided attention? Lets see if your a man of your word?

1.) How can anyone take anything you say seriously, when you present a quote as undisputable fact of there being an NWO, and then it takes me about 30 Minutes to discredit this, and provide the real quote?

2.) You use the fact that, there was a session ran to help children in disaster in the same day as Sandy hook happened, to prove that this was a hoax. You say that this cant have been coincidence. Yet there were at least six events in the same state, over the month before, and month of the event. Hardly significant proof is it?

So there you go, off the top of my head your starter for 10. Lets see if you can answer for a change.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:11 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs. With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with COGNITIVE DISSONANCE TUT TUT TUT. The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason. No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high. I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence. You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct. I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy.

FLAT STANLEY wrote: That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs. With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with COGNITIVE DISSONANCE TUT TUT TUT. The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason. No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high. I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence. You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct. I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:46 pm  

He's even formed a conspiracy that seems to involve me. Which is a bit weird. I wouldn't get into a serious debate about the validity of unicorns or why Harry Potter is actually real with someone, so I'm certainly not wasting time with people who think the earth is flat, that everything we see is all made up by secret societies, and that scientists are all hiding truth from all of us. These people are the same as those that would argue for unicorns and Harry Potter. It's not running away from debate, it's that their arguments are so ridiculous that debating them lends them some kind of equal validity with reality. Which they are very far from.

I don't need to create alter-egos to stalk you and discredit you, Stanley. You do a much better job of that without my help.

Besides, I'm not the one on here who's bothered to find out my actual name and post here. Kind of a bit like stalking eh?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:58 pm  

JLM32 wrote: 2.) You use the fact that, there was a session ran to help children in disaster in the same day as Sandy hook happened, to prove that this was a hoax. You say that this cant have been coincidence. Yet there were at least six events in the same state, over the month before, and month of the event. Hardly significant proof is it? You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute. Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion 1.SANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE SANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE 2. ST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME 3.PARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT Mugwump wrote: The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason. No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high. I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence. You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct. I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy. You're right, i've provided the ijit with the evidence i'll probably end up using the FOE button to escape the weirdo's interaction from now on. Like i said before he's got one big problem not me

JLM32 wrote: 2.) You use the fact that, there was a session ran to help children in disaster in the same day as Sandy hook happened, to prove that this was a hoax. You say that this cant have been coincidence. Yet there were at least six events in the same state, over the month before, and month of the event. Hardly significant proof is it? You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute. Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion 1.SANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE SANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE 2. ST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME 3.PARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT Mugwump wrote: The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason. No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high. I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence. You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct. I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy. You're right, i've provided the ijit with the evidence i'll probably end up using the FOE button to escape the weirdo's interaction from now on. Like i said before he's got one big problem not me

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:08 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

He's even formed a conspiracy that seems to involve me. Which is a bit weird. I wouldn't get into a serious debate about the validity of unicorns or why Harry Potter is actually real with someone, so I'm certainly not wasting time with people who think the earth is flat, that everything we see is all made up by secret societies, and that scientists are all hiding truth from all of us. These people are the same as those that would argue for unicorns and Harry Potter. It's not running away from debate, it's that their arguments are so ridiculous that debating them lends them some kind of equal validity with reality. Which they are very far from.

I don't need to create alter-egos to stalk you and discredit you, Stanley. You do a much better job of that without my help.

Besides, I'm not the one on here who's bothered to find out my actual name and post here. Kind of a bit like stalking eh?

Stalker again offering no debate. Bringing up the earth's shape has nothing to do with this thread. Go on do one and go and pick of another username and play schitziod games with yourself.

EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:28 pm  

I can see that I have tapped into a rich seam here.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:41 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute. Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion 1.SANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE SANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE 2. ST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME 3.PARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT You're right, i've provided the ijit with the evidence i'll probably end up using the FOE button to escape the weirdo's interaction from now on. Like i said before he's got one big problem not me Yes I've asked before and you still have no answer to either. There were six drills over two months. They happen all the time, there were at least 6 in the same state as Sandy Hook in the 60 days both before and after the attack. Hardly coincidence, infact a 1 in 10 chance. I see you still try to avoid my first point. You see again, someone shows you were wrong and you avoid it. There's only one weirdo here and that's you. I suggest you stop watching crackpots on Youtube, and reading the Daily odd ball, otherwise it wont be long before your in a mental institute.

FLAT STANLEY wrote: You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute. Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion 1.SANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE SANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE 2. ST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME 3.PARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT You're right, i've provided the ijit with the evidence i'll probably end up using the FOE button to escape the weirdo's interaction from now on. Like i said before he's got one big problem not me Yes I've asked before and you still have no answer to either. There were six drills over two months. They happen all the time, there were at least 6 in the same state as Sandy Hook in the 60 days both before and after the attack. Hardly coincidence, infact a 1 in 10 chance. I see you still try to avoid my first point. You see again, someone shows you were wrong and you avoid it. There's only one weirdo here and that's you. I suggest you stop watching crackpots on Youtube, and reading the Daily odd ball, otherwise it wont be long before your in a mental institute.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:10 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute. Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion 1.SANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE SANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE 2. ST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME 3.PARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT I can't comment on 2 & 3 but there are much better sources than those you've quoted on the issue of Sandy Hook. I don't regard Jim Fetzer as a particularly reliable researcher. He did some good work years ago on the Kennedy case but ever since he became tied up with Veterans Today he's become pretty flaky. Bear in mind that the editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has openly admitted that the publication is "95% disinformation".

FLAT STANLEY wrote: You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute. Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion 1.SANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE SANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE 2. ST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME 3.PARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT I can't comment on 2 & 3 but there are much better sources than those you've quoted on the issue of Sandy Hook. I don't regard Jim Fetzer as a particularly reliable researcher. He did some good work years ago on the Kennedy case but ever since he became tied up with Veterans Today he's become pretty flaky. Bear in mind that the editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has openly admitted that the publication is "95% disinformation".