I like the way his current tease ends:Anyone know if other sources of the non-original content in any of the LC films have threatened suit over copyright infringement?
Even if Dylan removed all of it for version 3 or whatnot, there's still copies floating around of 1 and 2...
You forgot:
Punching Urchin Swift Attack
Biting Ugly Swan Hit
Grinding Leap Of Badger Acumen Leaving Instant Submissive Tiger
Suffer the little children.I just read that. Banned for suggesting astronauts may have been to the moon. Nice work!
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=180
Which is ironic, given the number of people over there who are promoting "V for vendetta" as some kind of prophetic documentary, instead of a work of fantasy and fiction, mind you, the same could be said about LC2E itself....This is what happens when you don't let kids have bonfires...
Am I the only one who is surprised that the LC makes no mention of Able Danger? I mean, they seem to be shying away from any "evidence" that has any basis in fact whatsoever. I'm starting to buy the idea that this is just performance art.
Note: I am not claiming that Able Danger is being supressed because it shows a larger conspiracy.
I've been so far accused of the following via email:
- Working for the CIA
- I'm a mossad agent
- I'm a freemason
- I'm Dylan's assassin
Continue.
This could come in useful as a rebuttal to the "descriptions of explosions" that Loosers keep mentioning. Not necessarily in a proper Gravyesque rebuttal, but it's one to keep in mind if you're in the pub and need to score an easy point off a CTer.I just watched Mark's Part 7, and I think the CT'ers missed what really brought the WTC down: at 8:34 the fireman from the Naudet Bros film (remember them? ) mentions "a huge cloud of ◊◊◊◊"
How did we not see this?
It was the huge cloud of s*it that did the damage.
I'm just getting back up to speed, and I like this:
This could come in useful as a rebuttal to the "descriptions of explosions" that Loosers keep mentioning. Not necessarily in a proper Gravyesque rebuttal, but it's one to keep in mind if you're in the pub and need to score an easy point off a CTer.
I'm just getting back up to speed, and I like this:
This could come in useful as a rebuttal to the "descriptions of explosions" that Loosers keep mentioning. Not necessarily in a proper Gravyesque rebuttal, but it's one to keep in mind if you're in the pub and need to score an easy point off a CTer.
I got told over on the Loose Change forums that a cloud of dust is a gas, and would require huge amounts of thermal energy for it to expand the way it did on 9/11. This is what happens when you don't let kids have bonfires...
Pyroclasticpen
where snoopy and Woodstock the chief hijackers?Somehow I knew Charles Schultz was involved from beyond the grave.