Bomb in Boston

[CB Fry]

Ah, ye olde "have no specific answer so launch an ad hominem attack".

 

Remind me. Is that #2 or #23 in the Junior Book of Internet Debating Tactics?

 

Is this about civil liberties too?

 

Look, you think the not-a-beheading in Woolwich might have been staged by the government.

 

No debating tactic needed. You are a moron.

[Cascadia Saint]

socal, you weighed into this thread by ribbing ottery's emoticon posting style. Your next contribution was this:-

 

 

 

Despite saying this, you then ask if I'm aware of any footage taken by adults, laying down a gauntlet for proof based on information that may or may not exist, even though you've correctly said I can't have all the facts

 

It's a ridiculous position in any event. A detective investigating a crime does not start out with all the facts. They're derived through a process of investigation and elimination in which most inconsistencies are resolved. Also, he or she is unlikely to be satisfied of an explanation of "maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****".

 

I was drawn in yesterday by the pretty emoticons, that much is true. But I've been reading this thread and its ridiculous contents for a while now.

 

I didn't lay down a gauntlet for proof or expect you to provide me with evidence. You don't have any and I don't expect you to have any. I attempted to point out to you that it was beyond unlikely in my opinion, that the sole public record of a 'set up' was one video featuring some kids saying something you found strange.

 

It's my opinion that your search for facts is leading you into the most tenuous and unlikely areas. My comment of "or maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****" was a quick counter response to your increasingly bizzare post suggesting far too many things I find ridiculous to answer any more fully.

 

I wasn't attempting to satisfy a detective...

[pap]

Is this about civil liberties too?

 

Look, you think the not-a-beheading in Woolwich might have been staged by the government.

 

More progress?

 

buctootim told me I wasn't winning any converts the other day, yet here you are finally acknowledging that there was no beheading. I'm proud of you, CB Fry. Proud.

 

No debating tactic needed. You are a moron.

 

Yeah, ok. Operation Gladio says hello.

[pap]

I was drawn in yesterday by the pretty emoticons, that much is true. But I've been reading this thread and its ridiculous contents for a while now.

 

I didn't lay down a gauntlet for proof or expect you to provide me with evidence. You don't have any and I don't expect you to have any. I attempted to point out to you that it was beyond unlikely in my opinion, that the sole public record of a 'set up' was one video featuring some kids saying something you found strange.

 

It's my opinion that your search for facts is leading you into the most tenuous and unlikely areas. My comment of "or maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****" was a quick counter response to your increasingly bizzare post suggesting far too many things I find ridiculous to answer any more fully.

 

I wasn't attempting to satisfy a detective...

 

Again, you're mis-representing my posts.

 

The video was one of fourteen concerns I enumerated. It doesn't stand in isolation. Your general tactic of debating is dishonest, and your conclusions are child-like.

[Cascadia Saint]

Again, you're mis-representing my posts.

 

The video was one of fourteen concerns I enumerated. It doesn't stand in isolation. Your general tactic of debating is dishonest, and your conclusions are child-like.

 

The other 13 are just as ridiculous in my opinion. You misrepresent everyone's posts and sidestep whichever questions you don't like, and delight in winning tiny battles on whatever technicalities of speech you decide work for you.

 

Anyone who believes sandy hook and the Boston bombing were faked, let alone this can't call anyone else's conclusions child-like. What a joke.

[CB Fry]

More progress?

 

buctootim told me I wasn't winning any converts the other day, yet here you are finally acknowledging that there was no beheading. I'm proud of you, CB Fry. Proud.

 

 

 

Yeah, ok. Operation Gladio says hello.

 

Okay.

 

I'm converted. It was all dun by the government. All of it. The Wikipedia page on operation Gladio proves it. You have comprehensively won the argument.

 

Funny no mention of civil liberties yet again. Just persistent, persistent, persistent banging on the "it was all a set up" drum.

 

Kinda like you don't care about civil liberties at all, aint it?

[pap]

Okay.

 

I'm converted. It was all dun by the government. All of it. The Wikipedia page on operation Gladio proves it. You have comprehensively won the argument.

 

Funny no mention of civil liberties yet again. Just persistent, persistent, persistent banging on the "it was all a set up" drum.

 

Kinda like you don't care about civil liberties at all, aint it?

 

Civil liberties remains my primary concern. The justification in almost all cases for their removal are "terrorist atrocities" such as this. The amount and character of the legislation introduced after 7/7 is truly horrifying. We have an enabling act ready to go.

 

Still, if you're only just learning that there was no beheading in Woolwich, it's entirely unlikely you'll have heard about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, 2006.

[CB Fry]

Civil liberties remains my primary concern. The justification in almost all cases for their removal are "terrorist atrocities" such as this. The amount and character of the legislation introduced after 7/7 is truly horrifying. We have an enabling act ready to go.

 

Still, if you're only just learning that there was no beheading in Woolwich, it's entirely unlikely you'll have heard about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, 2006.

 

Dear me.

 

I know you love trying to talk down to me, but lets have a wee bit of perspective.

 

I made a terrible error of using a short hand reference to Woolwich as a beheading. I am truly truly sorry.

 

You, on the other hand think it may have been staged by the government. And Boston staged by the government. And 9/11. Staged by the government. And 7/7 and Sandy Hook as well.

 

So yeah. Sorry about my error. I must look proper fick compared to you.

 

PS. There has been loads of dialogue about that bill across the mainstream media. You know, my mainstream media that has uncovered every single conspiracy in history, from Watergate to the Dodgy Dossier to Hillsborough and Jimmy Savile.

 

Anyway. Why not talk about that rather than picking apart your perceived falseness of the reaction of two children witnessing a cold blooded non-beheading-person skulking around a street in Woolwich?

[pap]

Dear me.

 

I know you love trying to talk down to me, but lets have a wee bit of perspective.

 

I made a terrible error of using a short hand reference to Woolwich as a beheading. I am truly truly sorry.

 

Good man. I accept your apology, but it doesn't really change the fact that you swallowed the b*llocks in the tabloids. It demonstrates that you're happy to accept whatever sh!t you're shovelled.

 

I don't accept your "short hand reference" explanation either. Let's call it what it was, a sneering attempt to shut down debate using the exceptional nature of the event and move on.

 

You, on the other hand think it may have been staged by the government. And Boston staged by the government. And 9/11. Staged by the government. And 7/7 and Sandy Hook as well.

 

For the sake of clarity, there is a massive difference between state-sponsored terror and what we collectively refer to as "the government". You are deliberately using that term because of its implicit connection to the useless, no-mark MPs that sit in Westminster. It's a good tactic, CB - I wouldn't consider them capable of much either.

 

So let's settle on "state-sponsored", rather than the huge colluding Parliamentary conspiracy you seem keen to concoct.

 

Oh, and for the record, while I consider the narratives of 9/11 and 7/7 to be highly suspect, I've never said anything about Sandy Hook.

 

Perhaps you are confusing me with another conspiracy theorist you're paid to argue with

 

So yeah. Sorry about my error. I must look proper fick compared to you.

 

PS. There has been loads of dialogue about that bill across the mainstream media. You know, my mainstream media that has uncovered every single conspiracy in history, from Watergate to the Dodgy Dossier to Hillsborough and Jimmy Savile.

 

One of the most outright stupid statements ever made. Most conspiracies happen without ever being reported. Seriously, think before you post. All you're doing here is adding to your reputation as a mindless automaton who has to be told what's true by a government or corporation.

 

Anyway. Why not talk about that rather than picking apart your perceived falseness of the reaction of two children witnessing a cold blooded non-beheading-person skulking around a street in Woolwich?

 

I've banged the civil liberties drum for years, CB Fry. This is not a new concern. If you're really interested in my views on civil liberties, use the search facility. It's all there.

[pap]

The other 13 are just as ridiculous in my opinion. You misrepresent everyone's posts and sidestep whichever questions you don't like, and delight in winning tiny battles on whatever technicalities of speech you decide work for you.

 

Anyone who believes sandy hook and the Boston bombing were faked, let alone this can't call anyone else's conclusions child-like. What a joke.

 

Where'd do get the idea that I think Sandy Hook was dodge?

 

CB Fry?

 

Another case of a lie travelling around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

 

You aren't arguing any case except "anyone who think x is y". Very poor standard.

[CB Fry]

Good man. I accept your apology, but it doesn't really change the fact that you swallowed the b*llocks in the tabloids. It demonstrates that you're happy to accept whatever sh!t you're shovelled.

 

I don't accept your "short hand reference" explanation either. Let's call it what it was, a sneering attempt to shut down debate using the exceptional nature of the event and move on.

 

 

 

For the sake of clarity, there is a massive difference between state-sponsored terror and what we collectively refer to as "the government". You are deliberately using that term because of its implicit connection to the useless, no-mark MPs that sit in Westminster. It's a good tactic, CB - I wouldn't consider them capable of much either.

 

So let's settle on "state-sponsored", rather than the huge colluding Parliamentary conspiracy you seem keen to concoct.

 

Oh, and for the record, while I consider the narratives of 9/11 and 7/7 to be highly suspect, I've never said anything about Sandy Hook.

 

Perhaps you are confusing me with another conspiracy theorist you're paid to argue with

 

 

 

One of the most outright stupid statements ever made. Most conspiracies happen without ever being reported. Seriously, think before you post. All you're doing here is adding to your reputation as a mindless automaton who has to be told what's true by a government or corporation.

 

 

 

I've banged the civil liberties drum for years, CB Fry. This is not a new concern. If you're really interested in my views on civil liberties, use the search facility. It's all there.

 

Fascinating insight into quite how paranoid and deranged you are.

 

Me saying beheading was not me trying to "shut down debate".

 

Your debate is founded on that "look at his hands video" and what some children said on a bus.

 

That is not a debate. Just the rantings of a moron. I don't need to even try to shut it down because there is nothing there.

 

You've been utterly brainwashed by too long on mentalist websites and you are left with absolutely no capacity for critical thought. Seriously, none.

 

Some children reacted in a way I have decided is "weird" = state sponsored terrorism.

 

So yeah. Definitely me that accepts shovelled sh!t. Definitely me what is, like, so gullible. Mindless even. Yeah, that's me that is.

 

Well done on Sandy Hook. Weird you accept the evil Corporation line on that but hey, little victories.

 

Please Pap. Get off those websites and breath some fresh air. You are a freaking nutcase.

[CB Saint]

Didn't someone once say

 

"The problem with arguing with an idiot is that they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"

[pap]

Fascinating insight into quite how paranoid and deranged you are.

Me saying beheading was not me trying to "shut down debate".

 

It certainly wasn't trying to stimulate it, and indicated how clued up you were to start with. Not very.

 

Your debate is founded on that "look at his hands video" and what some children said on a bus.

 

... and all the other points I listed, such as the perpetrators hanging around for 20 minutes before running toward the police to get shot.

 

You accuse me of cherry picking, but you continue to respond to a fraction of those posts and then pretend that my argument is based on one or two things.

 

That is not a debate. Just the rantings of a moron. I don't need to even try to shut it down because there is nothing there.

 

And that's true because you say it is, right? Like the beheading you said happened?

 

You've been utterly brainwashed by too long on mentalist websites and you are left with absolutely no capacity for critical thought. Seriously, none.

 

You've repeatedly admitted that you only believe that a conspiracy existed if you see it in mainstream media, yet I'm the one who is brainwashed and is lacking in critical thought.

 

Mate, you weren't even aware of the facts.

 

Some children reacted in a way I have decided is "weird" = state sponsored terrorism.

 

C'mon now. You're using the same trick twice in a single post. I've enumerated several reasons, yet you're homing in on just one

 

Well done on Sandy Hook. Weird you accept the evil Corporation line on that but hey, little victories.

 

I don't think you've quite got the style to damn with faint praise.

 

However, your claim is another example of you inventing arguments. Let's see it for what it is, shall we?

 

Please Pap. Get off those websites and breath some fresh air. You are a freaking nutcase.

 

The old "you're a loon" classic to finish us off, eh? Fk mate, you're not even original.

[pap]

Didn't someone once say

 

"The problem with arguing with an idiot is that they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"

 

Is that's what's happening?

 

I'm putting content forward and pulling people up on stuff they've said. The idiots I'm arguing with are inventing arguments, attempting character assassination by association, cherry pick as if they're making the most important Bakewell tart in the world, cast aspersions on both my intelligence and my sanity or simply say "No it isn't/wasn't"

 

Arguments!

[Special K]

Is that's what's happening?

 

I'm putting content forward and pulling people up on stuff they've said. The idiots I'm arguing with are inventing arguments, attempting character assassination by association, cherry pick as if they're making the most important Bakewell tart in the world, cast aspersions on both my intelligence and my sanity or simply say "No it isn't/wasn't"

 

Arguments!

 

There is much of the classic persecution complex of the conspiracy theorist evident in this. You are not providing much "content" in the case of Woolwich, merely listing things that "concern" you. Therefore, if they concern you so much, what have you done to probe these concerns, short of more slavish googling? Have you enquired about the operational commitments of the Met that day? Have you compared to the Met average response time for such incidents? Have you made enquiries as to why you think regular PC's in the area didn't respond quickly enough for your liking? These are things you could do. Maybe, how about appraising yourself of Police protocol and standard responses in such major incidents? This may shed some light on some of your "concerns". But you wont. Why? Because it's much easier to sit in papland with a laptop and a broadband account, pumping out bullsh!t and watch the world from a screen whilst feverishly "defending" yourself against the self imposed notion that everyone else is out to assassinate your character. Which people are not doing btw, just pointing out what is so bleeding obvious, that you are, simply, away with the fairies.

 

To base a non-opinion on a load of "concerns" that are themselves based upon nothing more than uneducated perceptions of, in this case, police protocol, military procedure, what you've seen on some slasher movie re: spurting blood, amateur mobile video, and, most laughable of all, "why didn't they kill more people, therefore it's a set up?" is truly staggering. But to continue with this in the absence of any credible evidence to answer your own questions is unbelievable.

 

Then to finally list "the fuss" as being an area of concern, shows a huge lack of respect for the victim. A serving soldier gets murdered on the streets of this country in the most heinous way and you wonder what all the "fuss" is about? You have been called a loon on this and other threads. I want to add callous to that moniker. Simply unbelievable.

[pap]

There is much of the classic persecution complex of the conspiracy theorist evident in this. You are not providing much "content" in the case of Woolwich, merely listing things that "concern" you. Therefore, if they concern you so much, what have you done to probe these concerns, short of more slavish googling? Have you enquired about the operational commitments of the Met that day? Have you compared to the Met average response time for such incidents? Have you made enquiries as to why you think regular PC's in the area didn't respond quickly enough for your liking? These are things you could do. Maybe, how about appraising yourself of Police protocol and standard responses in such major incidents? This may shed some light on some of your "concerns". But you wont. Why? Because it's much easier to sit in papland with a laptop and a broadband account, pumping out bullsh!t and watch the world from a screen whilst feverishly "defending" yourself against the self imposed notion that everyone else is out to assassinate your character. Which people are not doing btw, just pointing out what is so bleeding obvious, that you are, simply, away with the fairies.

 

I'm fairly sure that police standard operational procedure when detaining a suspect is better than this:-

 

 

Suspect isn't cuffed, has his hands free and a gun in reach.

 

Also, as I keep saying, there's no blood. Bit weird for someone with a load of rounds just put in him.

 

 

To base a non-opinion on a load of "concerns" that are themselves based upon nothing more than uneducated perceptions of, in this case, police protocol, military procedure, what you've seen on some slasher movie re: spurting blood, amateur mobile video, and, most laughable of all, "why didn't they kill more people, therefore it's a set up?" is truly staggering. But to continue with this in the absence of any credible evidence to answer your own questions is unbelievable.

 

We're not talking fibre-level forensics here. I'm asking basic questions, like why was the terrorists' plan so crap. Why did they hang around for the armed response unit then run into their bullets? If their intention was to film, why not bring a camera? All very basic stuff which has yet to be addressed ( in CB Fry land, I only made two points! )

 

Then to finally list "the fuss" as being an area of concern, shows a huge lack of respect for the victim. A serving soldier gets murdered on the streets of this country in the most heinous way and you wonder what all the "fuss" is about? You have been called a loon on this and other threads. I want to add callous to that moniker. Simply unbelievable.

 

You're free to call me callous, Special K. I prefer to think of it as having no sacred cows. You're playing the emotional angle to shut down the debate, labelling into the process. What's unbelievable is that you still think it'll work.

[aintforever]

Pap, instead of pointing out things you don't understand (and everyone else does) why don't you try and explain to us your theory.

 

If there was an unfeasibly small amount of blood, what does it mean? Is Rigby actually still alive? Are these two guys in jail really just playing along with the whole thing?

 

Give us a theory, go on...

[buctootim]

The focus on details in those with Asperger Syndrome can be unreal. They will pick up on the smallest possible details that others are overlooking. When people with Asperger Syndrome see those details it won’t help them understand the entire situation as a whole.

 

Central Coherence is the ability the brain needs in order to process information from the world around us. This information comes into the brain in small bits and pieces and those details have to be glued together in order to see the “big picture”. The Central Coherence Theory tries to explain the inability of people with Asperger to do so. People with Asperger Syndrome have a weak Central Coherence meaning their focus on details is so huge, it prevents them from integrating the small details or pieces into a whole picture. This makes their life very complicated since they only see small fragments of things and people around them. This is often referred to as “living in a fragmented world”. It’s hard to make sense of situations or interact socially accordingly when you are unable to see the “wood for the trees”.

 

Children with Asperger Syndrome will perform low on tasks that demand the processing of detailed information into a meaningful whole. However their performance on tasks that demand processing of details is outstanding. It can be extremely difficult for those with Asperger to make connections between several separate details in a picture. When asked what the picture shown they might give you all the details of the situation but fail to see the context it is in.

http://www.asperger-advice.com/asperger-syndrome-details.html

[pap]

Pap, instead of pointing out things you don't understand (and everyone else does) why don't you try and explain to us your theory.

 

If there was an unfeasibly small amount of blood, what does it mean? Is Rigby actually still alive? Are these two guys in jail really just playing along with the whole thing?

 

Give us a theory, go on...

 

Gave you one ages ago on my wider views, but hey, in for a penny.

 

Everybody else? Or just the few posters that are bothering to post, minus Ottery? Surely your points are strong enough to stand on their own.

 

One possibility is that Rigby was already dead and that someone else played the part of the victim.

 

Another, as you suggest, is that Lee Rigby played his own part, and is still alive. I think this less likely; his image is widely known and I doubt he'd be able to pass in public without being recognised.

 

I've often argued that not everyone in a conspiracy knows they're in a conspiracy. Not so in this case. I think it likely that both perpetrators were knowing participants, largely on account of their inexplicable behaviour (the waiting 20 mins & running into a hail of gunfire thing y'all keep ignoring).

 

Viewed from a false-flag perspective, Woolwich was almost the perfect op. it reminded us that Muslims were mental, had a tremendous psychological impact, and was wrapped up neatly by the security services. The plan of the terrorists actually makes sense. Wait around until the right coppers turn up and get shot by them.

 

As reported, none of it tracks.

[pap]

The focus on details in those with Asperger Syndrome can be unreal. They will pick up on the smallest possible details that others are overlooking. When people with Asperger Syndrome see those details it won’t help them understand the entire situation as a whole.

 

Central Coherence is the ability the brain needs in order to process information from the world around us. This information comes into the brain in small bits and pieces and those details have to be glued together in order to see the “big picture”. The Central Coherence Theory tries to explain the inability of people with Asperger to do so. People with Asperger Syndrome have a weak Central Coherence meaning their focus on details is so huge, it prevents them from integrating the small details or pieces into a whole picture. This makes their life very complicated since they only see small fragments of things and people around them. This is often referred to as “living in a fragmented world”. It’s hard to make sense of situations or interact socially accordingly when you are unable to see the “wood for the trees”.

 

Children with Asperger Syndrome will perform low on tasks that demand the processing of detailed information into a meaningful whole. However their performance on tasks that demand processing of details is outstanding. It can be extremely difficult for those with Asperger to make connections between several separate details in a picture. When asked what the picture shown they might give you all the details of the situation but fail to see the context it is in.

http://www.asperger-advice.com/asperger-syndrome-details.html

 

Great. Can I get Disability Living Allowance with that, Tim?

[buctootim]

Great. Can I get Disability Living Allowance with that, Tim?

 

Its not an insult Pap. I genuinely think you do have a difficulty processing information in the same way as most people. Aspergers is great if you want to find an error in 2,000 lines of binary code, not so good at seeing things in the round. I know you think its because you have extra insight, but it really isnt. A lot of people with Aspergers are high functioning - my exes brother ran his own shop for example. His views were strikingly similar to yours. Gary McKinnon is another example.

[pap]

Its not an insult Pap. I genuinely think you do have a difficulty processing information in the same way as most people. Aspergers is great if you want to find an error in 2,000 lines of binary code, not so good at seeing things in the round. I know you think its because you have extra insight, but it really isnt. A lot of people with Aspergers are high functioning - my exes brother ran his own shop for example. His views were strikingly similar to yours. Gary McKinnon is another example.

 

You're adding 2+2 to come up with 5 in an attempt to suggest I have a mental disorder, and that it's clouding my judgment.

 

Here's me again. You're addressing a real person.

 

https://twitter.com/papingu

 

I propose the following. Make a solid claim about the state of my health. I'll go and get a diagnosis based on your recommendation. If you're right, what have I lost? At least I'll be aware of it.

 

If not, I'll get a court order. Deal?

[buctootim]

You're adding 2+2 to come up with 5 in an attempt to suggest I have a mental disorder, and that it's clouding my judgment.

 

Here's me again. You're addressing a real person.

 

https://twitter.com/papingu

 

I propose the following. Make a solid claim about the state of my health. I'll go and get a diagnosis based on your recommendation. If you're right, what have I lost? At least I'll be aware of it.

 

If not, I'll get a court order. Deal?

 

 

Lolz. Crusading Pap with his trusty sword of truth threatening court orders against anyone who dare question him. Hypocrisy and delicious irony in one post. Pap in my opinion you have some kind of cognitive difficulty, possibly Aspergers. There you go, litigate away.

[pap]

Lolz. Crusading Pap with his trusty sword of truth threatening court orders against anyone who dare question him. Hypocrisy and delicious irony in one post. Pap in my opinion you have some kind of cognitive difficulty, possibly Aspergers. There you go, litigate away.

 

Diagnosis first, skip.

[Verbal]

The focus on details in those with Asperger Syndrome can be unreal. They will pick up on the smallest possible details that others are overlooking. When people with Asperger Syndrome see those details it won’t help them understand the entire situation as a whole.

 

Central Coherence is the ability the brain needs in order to process information from the world around us. This information comes into the brain in small bits and pieces and those details have to be glued together in order to see the “big picture”. The Central Coherence Theory tries to explain the inability of people with Asperger to do so. People with Asperger Syndrome have a weak Central Coherence meaning their focus on details is so huge, it prevents them from integrating the small details or pieces into a whole picture. This makes their life very complicated since they only see small fragments of things and people around them. This is often referred to as “living in a fragmented world”. It’s hard to make sense of situations or interact socially accordingly when you are unable to see the “wood for the trees”.

 

Children with Asperger Syndrome will perform low on tasks that demand the processing of detailed information into a meaningful whole. However their performance on tasks that demand processing of details is outstanding. It can be extremely difficult for those with Asperger to make connections between several separate details in a picture. When asked what the picture shown they might give you all the details of the situation but fail to see the context it is in.

http://www.asperger-advice.com/asperger-syndrome-details.html

 

I had thought that a possibility, Tim. Many of his posts are highly disordered when he tries to tie things together. Another possibility I'd wondered about was an excess of narcissism - he loves the attention, and lacks empathy, which enables him to brush aside how victims' families and others might feel about his labelling them evil collaborators with "the state". But I think it's best to proceed on the basis that he genuinely believes this stuff and shares his views (or rather simply echoes them) with others on the net - although if he posts the 'best' 10% of what he reads, god only knows what the other 90% is, and does to his mind.

 

There is certainly a very basic difficulty in processing information - for example, seeing things in photos that are not there or imagining that they are when they're not. The photo, above, for example, is supposed (according to pap) to show a gun. It doesn't. There appears to be a blood-stained knife in view, but that's all. Pap also claims triumphantly that the cops haven't cuffed him, not noticing the pixellation on Adebowale's raised right hand, which conceals the well-reported fact that he's had his thumb blown off when he'd earlier fired the gun, presumably because the pin backfired. We also don't know at what point that photo was taken - had the police, for example just momentarily arrived? All of the more plausible, but dull, explanations are brushed aside in favour of the baroque "false flag".

 

He's also creamed himself about the 'beheading' claim, which is an example of the same sort of thing. Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are liable to be found to be a little off when all the evidence, forensics and other witness accounts are collated. However, the original tweet was hardly far off. In the autopsy, Lee Rigby could only be identified by his dental records, suggesting that his face and neck had taken the brunt of the "deep incised wounds" reported by the coroner, to such an extent that they had obliterated his facial features. They were clearly hacking at his head and face, and, given the history of Muslim-fanatic murders (including Daniel Pearl and many in Iraq), beheading, or the attempt to do so, is a favoured choice. He may not have ultimately been beheaded (it's actually quite hard to do, as anyone who's had the misfortune to witness the Pearl killing can testify). But it would not be at all surprising to discover that they were going for that.

 

Of course, if Rigby had been murdered earlier - pap's absurd 'favoured' theory (!) - then the coroner is also in on the conspiracy. And the autopsy surgeons. Otherwise, they'd have reported either signs of decomposition or a failure to identify him at all. If he's still alive, then all the more so. But this is the pattern for conspiracy theorists. They deal with every problem they encounter by widening the conspiracy. The conspiracy has even widened to posters on this thread - because he can't compute dissension from his fantasies, and can only process by explaining that he's dealing with government-financed "shills" on Saintsweb (!!). It's why many 9/11 conspiracy theorists now accuse other 9/11 conspiracy theorists of being US government shills.

 

The fact that his only supporter is an anti-Semitic buffoon also doesn't give pause for thought. Because, in the end, there is no thought, only the spectacle of an obsessive (who's admitted as much) constitutionally unable to let go.

 

So ultimately, I don't know about pap's psychological state. But I've seen more than enough now that I'm bowing out - presumably with another round of his fatuous and paranoid 'shill' accusations!

[pap]

There is certainly a very basic difficulty in processing information - for example, seeing things in photos that are not there or imagining that they are when they're not. The photo, above, for example, is supposed (according to pap) to show a gun. It doesn't. There appears to be a blood-stained knife in view, but that's all. Pap also claims triumphantly that the cops haven't cuffed him, not noticing the pixellation on Adebowale's raised right hand, which conceals the well-reported fact that he's had his thumb blown off when he'd earlier fired the gun, presumably because the pin backfired. We also don't know at what point that photo was taken - had the police, for example just momentarily arrived? All of the more plausible, but dull, explanations are brushed aside in favour of the baroque "false flag".

 

 

Hmm. Inventing things that aren't there, eh?

[Verbal]

A respectful proposal to CB, buctootim, socal, aintforever and others who've tried to contribute some sense to this thread: shall we all agree to stop posting here? I'm not sure what spectacle I'm witnessing with pap, but it's starting to make me, at least, very uneasy.

[ottery st mary]

I had thought that a possibility, Tim. Many of his posts are highly disordered when he tries to tie things together. Another possibility I'd wondered about was an excess of narcissism - he loves the attention, and lacks empathy, which enables him to brush aside how victims' families and others might feel about his labelling them evil collaborators with "the state". But I think it's best to proceed on the basis that he genuinely believes this stuff and shares his views (or rather simply echoes them) with others on the net - although if he posts the 'best' 10% of what he reads, god only knows what the other 90% is, and does to his mind.

 

There is certainly a very basic difficulty in processing information - for example, seeing things in photos that are not there or imagining that they are when they're not. The photo, above, for example, is supposed (according to pap) to show a gun. It doesn't. There appears to be a blood-stained knife in view, but that's all. Pap also claims triumphantly that the cops haven't cuffed him, not noticing the pixellation on Adebowale's raised right hand, which conceals the well-reported fact that he's had his thumb blown off when he'd earlier fired the gun, presumably because the pin backfired. We also don't know at what point that photo was taken - had the police, for example just momentarily arrived? All of the more plausible, but dull, explanations are brushed aside in favour of the baroque "false flag".

 

He's also creamed himself about the 'beheading' claim, which is an example of the same sort of thing. Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are liable to be found to be a little off when all the evidence, forensics and other witness accounts are collated. However, the original tweet was hardly far off. In the autopsy, Lee Rigby could only be identified by his dental records, suggesting that his face and neck had taken the brunt of the "deep incised wounds" reported by the coroner, to such an extent that they had obliterated his facial features. They were clearly hacking at his head and face, and, given the history of Muslim-fanatic murders (including Daniel Pearl and many in Iraq), beheading, or the attempt to do so, is a favoured choice. He may not have ultimately been beheaded (it's actually quite hard to do, as anyone who's had the misfortune to witness the Pearl killing can testify). But it would not be at all surprising to discover that they were going for that.

 

Of course, if Rigby had been murdered earlier - pap's absurd 'favoured' theory (!) - then the coroner is also in on the conspiracy. And the autopsy surgeons. Otherwise, they'd have reported either signs of decomposition or a failure to identify him at all. If he's still alive, then all the more so. But this is the pattern for conspiracy theorists. They deal with every problem they encounter by widening the conspiracy. The conspiracy has even widened to posters on this thread - because he can't compute dissension from his fantasies, and can only process by explaining that he's dealing with government-financed "shills" on Saintsweb (!!). It's why many 9/11 conspiracy theorists now accuse other 9/11 conspiracy theorists of being US government shills.

 

The fact that his only supporter is an anti-Semitic buffoon also doesn't give pause for thought. Because, in the end, there is no thought, only the spectacle of an obsessive (who's admitted as much) constitutionally unable to let go.

 

So ultimately, I don't know about pap's psychological state. But I've seen more than enough now that I'm bowing out - presumably with another round of his fatuous and paranoid 'shill' accusations!

 

There you go again with your anti-semetic statement.....AS I ASKED OF YOU..........WHERE ARE MY ANTI-SEMETIC COMMENTS?

 

As for the BUFFOON COMMENT.....

 

Says more about you matey:mcinnes:

[ottery st mary]

A respectful proposal to CB, buctootim, socal, aintforever and others who've tried to contribute some sense to this thread: shall we all agree to stop posting here? I'm not sure what spectacle I'm witnessing with pap, but it's starting to make me, at least, very uneasy.

 

Surely....... Mr Verbal

 

As more info appears over the horizon...you would want to debate this with pap

 

OR are you at the stage where you have to close things up...

 

You are a strange boy:)

[buctootim]

A respectful proposal to CB, buctootim, socal, aintforever and others who've tried to contribute some sense to this thread: shall we all agree to stop posting here? I'm not sure what spectacle I'm witnessing with pap, but it's starting to make me, at least, very uneasy.

 

Agreed. Exposed to the same info as you I'd independently come to the same conclusion - which is what all this has been about ultimately.

Edited 9 August, 2013 by buctootim

[CB Fry]

A respectful proposal to CB, buctootim, socal, aintforever and others who've tried to contribute some sense to this thread: shall we all agree to stop posting here? I'm not sure what spectacle I'm witnessing with pap, but it's starting to make me, at least, very uneasy.

 

I'm done.

[ottery st mary]

Does this mean you big boyz are taking the ball and conkers away with you:rolleyes:

[pap]

Does this mean you big boyz are taking the ball and conkers away with you:rolleyes:

 

I think it means they're done. Make of that what you will.

 

Assessing their performance over the course of this, and other threads, the pattern is exactly the same. Ignore the inconvenient stuff, attack the poster, in some cases to actionable levels. Honestly not sure where I stand on defamation of character, but it'll be interesting to find out. One of the consequences of taking someone to court is getting to find out who they are. I wonder if buctootim would be as handy with his remote diagnoses ( this is the third time he's made the connection ) if he knew his comments could be attributed to him.

 

Cheers for the sterling support as always, osm. Don't worry about ol' Verbs calling you an anti-semite. He does that to everyone.

[ottery st mary]

I think it means they're done. Make of that what you will.

 

Assessing their performance over the course of this, and other threads, the pattern is exactly the same. Ignore the inconvenient stuff, attack the poster, in some cases to actionable levels. Honestly not sure where I stand on defamation of character, but it'll be interesting to find out. One of the consequences of taking someone to court is getting to find out who they are. I wonder if buctootim would be as handy with his remote diagnoses ( this is the third time he's made the connection ) if he knew his comments could be attributed to him.

 

Cheers for the sterling support as always, osm. Don't worry about ol' Verbs calling you an anti-semite. He does that to everyone.

 

 

Now if he/she had called me anti-Freemason...I would have had to agree with him/her....

 

His/her sole purpose was to close this down....

 

Some of the tripe thrown at you by the little glitz club was unacceptable..

 

But usual tactics coming through ..from the heavies..

 

[Cascadia Saint]

the pattern is exactly the same. Ignore the inconvenient stuff, attack the poster, in some cases to actionable levels.

 

Your lack of self awareness is stunning. Pot, kettle, black.

[saint si]

I would love to see this go to court... but your honour, we were arguing on the internet and he called me a bad name! Hilarious.

[pap]

Now if he/she had called me anti-Freemason...I would have had to agree with him/her....

 

His/her sole purpose was to close this down....

 

Some of the tripe thrown at you by the little glitz club was unacceptable..

 

But usual tactics coming through ..from the heavies..

 

 

No doubt, and it's the usual suspects on every thread when such subjects are discussed. This thread has generated a massive amount of interest and covered a lot of interesting material. I'm sure a few posters'll be floored by the polysyllabic prowess of our resident refusenik, but my hope is that a lot see straight through it.

 

I'm honestly not sure what Verbal is, whether he's a genuine poster or someone paid to promote ideas. I'm leaning toward the latter. Like you said, the sole purpose was to close the thread down. I wonder how many times his buzzwords would crop up if ran through some simple language analysis tools. Since his return, he's followed my input on threads obsessively and despite the lack of foul language, is one of the most consistently abusive and dishonest posters I've ever encountered.

 

Like yourself, I'm not fooled by the simplistic over-use of taboos and misdirection to close a discussion down. Others won't be, either.

[hypochondriac]

I think most people haven't bothered to reply on this thread for a while as it was obvious how it was going to end up. I think any sane person can read it and draw their own conclusions about who is the loony faction.

[hypochondriac]

It's also pretty much ottery and pap on one side and every other poster on the other which sort of tells you something.

[pap]

Your lack of self awareness is stunning. Pot, kettle, black.

 

Barring outright attacks, I've been pretty consistent in addressing the points raised to me, and kept a civil tongue in most of my exchanges.

 

CB Fry was accused of getting his news from the tabloids, as was aintforever. Verbal was called a shill. I felt justified in all cases. Apart from a brief interlude espousing the work of Ben Stiller and JJ Cale, Verbal has spent a significant fraction of his three a day addressing my posts and a significant portion of that associating me with neo-Nazis. I think the shill tag is justified, unless he's just an unpaid obsessive.

 

Ultimately though, it's difficult to get too concerned about the opinions of people you have no respect for.

 

Yes, yes, I know that works the other way too. Don't waste hours of your life formulating an appropriate one liner to point that out. It's all been in vain so far.

[pap]

I think most people haven't bothered to reply on this thread for a while as it was obvious how it was going to end up. I think any sane person can read it and draw their own conclusions about who is the loony faction.

 

Sane people who pretend to be their own girlfriends?

[ottery st mary]

It's also pretty much ottery and pap on one side and every other poster on the other which sort of tells you something.

 

Well there you go hypo........opinions matey..

 

I tell it as it is and stand by my views on these subjects ..

 

Right or wrong......still confident that I am not a loon.

[pap]

Well there you go hypo........opinions matey..

 

I tell it as it is and stand by my views on these subjects ..

 

Right or wrong......still confident that I am not a loon.

 

 

"To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise."

 

Voltaire.

[capitalsaint]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b4_1375922321

[aintforever]

Gave you one ages ago on my wider views, but hey, in for a penny.

 

Everybody else? Or just the few posters that are bothering to post, minus Ottery? Surely your points are strong enough to stand on their own.

 

One possibility is that Rigby was already dead and that someone else played the part of the victim.

 

Another, as you suggest, is that Lee Rigby played his own part, and is still alive. I think this less likely; his image is widely known and I doubt he'd be able to pass in public without being recognised.

 

I've often argued that not everyone in a conspiracy knows they're in a conspiracy. Not so in this case. I think it likely that both perpetrators were knowing participants, largely on account of their inexplicable behaviour (the waiting 20 mins & running into a hail of gunfire thing y'all keep ignoring).

 

Viewed from a false-flag perspective, Woolwich was almost the perfect op. it reminded us that Muslims were mental, had a tremendous psychological impact, and was wrapped up neatly by the security services. The plan of the terrorists actually makes sense. Wait around until the right coppers turn up and get shot by them.

 

As reported, none of it tracks.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. Do you know how completely barmy your idea is?

 

So your in your version of events Rigby was already dead and the person 'beheaded' was a corpse of someone else that was dragged out from somewhere to take part in a mock car crash. OK.

 

So if Rigby died some other way and it was all kept hush hush that means all his fellow soldiers at the barracks were in on the plot. The kebab shop worker who spoke to him the evening before is also in on it. CCTV footage of him from the shop would have had to been faked.

 

A corpse would have had to have been dragged through a London street in broad daylight, then two known extremists would have to play a key role in running him over and committing the pretend crime then allow themselves to be shot, then still comply later on whilst locked in jail, probably for the rest of their lives.

 

The ambulance workers who took the body away plus whoever confirmed the death and the coroner who dealt with the autopsy must also be in on it. Rigby's family member who ID'd the body must also be in on it, unless they managed to mutilate Rigby's body in a similar way and somehow swap them in between.

 

The Met Police obviously had to be in on it, as you say they were stood around doing nothing, plus there are the witnesses who saw it as it happened - maybe they are crisis actors?

 

All of this had to happen in a busy London street, in broad daylight. What exactly are the Met's or the Army's motivation? Why would two Muslim Extremists throw their lives away on some minor political cause?

 

There is no way in a million years the Met or the army would be complicit in a plot like this. there is no way the government would do anything like this just to aid a pretty insignificant piece of legislation. If they were to do something they would just plant some explosives in some asian bloke's car not hatch some elaborate plan involving corpses and fake murders on a London street.

 

You are completely nuts.

Edited 9 August, 2013 by aintforever

[ottery st mary]

"To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise."

 

Voltaire.

 

I will be up at St Marys tomorrow watching the mighty Saints with my daughter...

 

Leaving the troubles of the world behind..

 

Cheering on my beloved boyz...

 

No criticism...for the lads or the coaching staff or my God..good old Uncle Nic:D

 

 

COYS:)

 

pap

 

Don't let the buggggers grind you down..

 

The truth is on your side..

Edited 9 August, 2013 by ottery st mary

[Micky]

I think most people haven't bothered to reply on this thread for a while as it was obvious how it was going to end up. I think any sane person can read it and draw their own conclusions about who is the loony faction.

 

This, plus the fact that I find some people's view very highly offensive.

 

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2

[Special K]

I'm fairly sure that police standard operational procedure when detaining a suspect is better than this:-

 

 

Suspect isn't cuffed, has his hands free and a gun in reach.

 

Also, as I keep saying, there's no blood. Bit weird for someone with a load of rounds just put in him.

 

 

 

 

We're not talking fibre-level forensics here. I'm asking basic questions, like why was the terrorists' plan so crap. Why did they hang around for the armed response unit then run into their bullets? If their intention was to film, why not bring a camera? All very basic stuff which has yet to be addressed ( in CB Fry land, I only made two points! )

 

 

 

You're free to call me callous, Special K. I prefer to think of it as having no sacred cows. You're playing the emotional angle to shut down the debate, labelling into the process. What's unbelievable is that you still think it'll work.

 

As expected, inane drivel offered as answers. Firstly you are "fairly sure" you can judge police operational behaviour based upon a snapshot Sun photo? Really?!?! And from the same photo you think that, because you cannot see lots of blood gushing like a geyser, as you would do in say, Call of Duty or CSI Miami, for instance, that it is an obvious fake? And this is based upon a tabloid snapshot photo? Right ho. Oh, and there is a gun in easy reach too. I guess the perp should have watched all those Die Hard movies that you have eh? For Chrissssaaaakkkkeee why didn't he, like, yippeeekayahh muth****a, and nick the gun from the cops holster and fill the filth with bullets? Must be a set up?? If Bruce can do it, why can't this Perp? Can't be a true terrorist, must be an actor like in those movies? Oh he can't be or he'd know what to do?! Oh, hey!! Did you see what I did there!

 

Seriously though, you question the ability of the terrorists? To question whether the murderers followed the best course of action possible exhibits a state of mind that actually considers the relative value of their actions, which in itself is worrying to read. Unfortunately, I again agree with Verbal, that reading your posts make me slightly uneasy.

 

And the predictable response in the last paragraph, using the emotional argument (trying to shut down - really?!?!? I was asking you a question!) is quite the expected diversion. My point, was to ask you if you felt any sympathy at all for the deceased, anything at all. Worryingly, you obviously don't and Tim's suggestion on a previous post is not without foundation.

 

Tell you what, seeing as you don't want to answer you own questions, if I get time I will ask a good mate of mine who is a Superintendent in HM Constab. He has spent a good few years working with SOCA and on armed response cases, orchestrating response to at least 2 that I know of. He will know about Police procedure and I know that when I say to him "Hey fella, my mate pap thinks that the cops were arseing about at Woolwich based upon what he saw in a Sun photo, what he watched on CSI and from those shoot-em-up games, what do you think?" I pretty much know what the response will be. But i'll ask him anyway.

 

Actually, I can't be bothered. The previous suggestion of not responding and feeding this thread any further makes a lot of sense now. Let's hope the thread get's locked before the season starts as I've only got 21 posts until WBA.

[ottery st mary]

Special K

 

I thought your idea re the Police Supt. was a good idea..

 

He could give us all chapter and verse on the Police viewpoint and explain some of the perceived discrepancies..

 

Clarity as to Police response...Police non attendance regarding the public milling around and passing through the danger area etc.

 

Lots of other bits and pieces that I don't get.

 

There may be some very good reasoning that idiots like me have failed to understand....

 

Very good idea indeed..

 

Please try this approach as it may explain all.

 

Thank you in anticipation...

[ottery st mary]

Special K

 

It would also throw some light on the Boston Marathon and other events where I have my doubts..

 

You watch film..look at phots and read many articles and form opinions..

 

The Supt of Police might just have some of those inside tips that explains all..

 

Making a lot of things clearer and making idiots like me possibly see the light..

 

Although my opinion on these matters...always willing to be put right by someone with some knowledge of these type of incidents...

 

Please make the effort to glean some intelligent overview and put my mind at rest and allay my concerns...that not all is bad in the world.

 

Thank you Special K