Man in court for not paying TV Licence

Status
Not open for further replies.
RDM said:
So rather than the "BBC in the dock for manipulating evidence of 9/11" the thread title should actually be "Man in court for not paying TV Licence"? Any mod fancy changing the title? :D
Click to expand...

:) :)

Let me have my fun with a sensationalist headline ;) - My thread title is taken from the webpage directly, so is not 'untrue'

GDI!, you guys are party poopers, there's a news story here somewhere!! (hence why its in ere and not SD :D )

EDIT: 2 late! - modded :(
 
RDM said:
So rather than the "BBC in the dock for manipulating evidence of 9/11" the thread title should actually be "Man in court for not paying TV Licence"? Any mod fancy changing the title? :D
Click to expand...

This clearly. Its a report about misleading media, and yet its very headline is misleading. Face palm anyone lol

This is usally about the level of the conspiracy theorist. Funny that.
 
zoomee said:
:) :)

Let me have my fun with a sensationalist headline ;) - My thread title is taken from the webpage directly, so is not 'untrue'

GDI!, you guys are party poopers, there's a news story here somewhere!! (hence why its in ere and not SD :D )

EDIT: 2 late! - modded :(
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
piggeh said:
I hope he succeeds, then I can stop paying my TV licence.
Click to expand...
I dont pay one and keep getting stupid letters.
They have no idea who lives here and they cant get to my place unless someone buzzs them in the door :P

I only get broadband+phone and dont own a TV.

Whilst I do not watch live streams on the internet I am not prepared to let some random person inspect my computer and my browsing history I would consider that an invasion of my privacy the BBC have no right to know what websites I visit.

denying implied right of access to the bbc is considered "evasion" and they will try to get a warrant based on any evidence you provide them in writing

Did this actually happen?
Click to expand...
Theres a video from a live recording on one of the american news websites from a tv camera on a helicopter that zooms in on a block and a plane apears out of nowhere (you cant see the plane approaching when the camera is zoomed out), the "plane" goes through the building and its nose still intact comes out the other side of the tower even though the nose would have been crushed or ripped off.
Real explosion with a fake plane added to the video? the helicoper drifts to the side and the overlayed plane isn't alligned with the image like it should be?

on the repeated broadcasts they fade to black before the plane comes out the other side.
another network shows the same footage but with a huge logo at the bottom of the screen blocking the view of the plane actually going into and coming out of the building

Aren't planes noses fiberglass and hollow and would not pass through steel walls etc
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
It does always amuse me that posters vigorously back official versions of events stating that facts are 'obvious', when really they have no first hand information and are simply placing faith in what they consider to be the more reasonable source of information.
Click to expand...

My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
 
*Moangroan* said:
true
Click to expand...

People believe what they are told from some random bloke on You Tube.........they trust idiots on You Tube (lets not mention the obvious knowledge of pedos here....rofl) and they stare at You Tube night after night soaking the manure up like a sponge.

Thus it's easy to tell people what they need to be told. Like the planes were holograms etc

SEE WHAT I DID?
 
arknor said:
Aren't planes noses fiberglass and hollow and would not pass through steel walls etc
Click to expand...

I can't remember the exact reason, but IIRC, it was that the plane's nose shape would displace glass in a similar shape so the glass being pushed through, in the shape of a nose, is what you see coming out of the other end.
 
norm said:
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
norm said:
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
Click to expand...

Well said. I've stated as much in the other 9/11 thread. Whilst there is very very little in the other thread that I believe I don't feel the need to lambaste others for doing so.
There are a couple if not a few posters in particular that I won't mention that are nothing but trolls but since they are amongst the majority and popular camp, get away with doing nothing but berating and trying to humiliate others.
One in particular does literally nothing but flame and actually states that he is debunking everything with ease yet does precisely **** all at debunking anything.
No surprise that he is in this thread doing the same.....
 
norm said:
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).
Click to expand...

I said in the other 9/11 thread that I don't know how posters can get away with insulting CT'ers and I'd like to see it stopped.

norm said:
Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
Click to expand...

Well God can't be proved or disproved but science can disprove all of the 9/11 CT claims.
 
norm said:
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
Click to expand...

Arguing against a CT is probably the most difficult thing you can do. Well, perhaps not difficult, but totally pointless.

Taking groen as an example, no matter how much the stuff he comes out with is shown to be hilariously incorrect, he never changes his tune, and never will.

I have a huge amount of respect for the likes of Glaucus who is happy to continually shoot them all down over and over again. Maybe one day they'll see how silly they are. Doubt it though. :(
 
*Moangroan* said:
Maybe lets not mention the BBC mention of WTC7 collaspsing b4 it did....snigger ....snigger
Click to expand...

This yet another fairly amusing part of the entire conspiracy theory. What do you think that means?

Do you think that not content with rigging the entire thing themselves, the US government briefed the media on what they planned to do, and as a result of this the BBC accidently reported it early? I mean... what?
 
norm said:
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
Click to expand...


Hear Hear
 
Robbo said:
I have a huge amount of respect for the likes of Glaucus who is happy to continually shoot them all down over and over again. Maybe one day they'll see how silly they are. Doubt it though. :(
Click to expand...

I certainly changed.
Back around 72 to 76 I came out with a lot worse than groen but I suppose I started to use Occams Razor without even knowing about it.
I really really really want to believe CTs but there is nothing there that now convinces me, in fact I'll make a bold statement and say that I bet all the posters who make posts against CT's would love to come across evidence that makes them raise their eyebrows.
I watched Ancient Aliens 509 today (I've watched every one) and I just keep shouting 'No' at the TV and not at Giorgio either because he's the sane one out of the bunch however I'd love some of their theories to be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom