• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My First Ever Banning

CurtC said:
What I'd like to know is, why do you think there are other Pentagon videos?
Click to expand...

There is at least the traffic camera which was viewing that side of the pentagon, although there are rumours that it was actually impacted by the edge of the starboard wing. This may have destroyed it and caused it to capture pretty much nothing.

It's hard to say, but I'm sure whatever happens someone in the truth community won't believe it.
 
ref said:
I got banned there too today, that was my second time. We were on some same threads. I was Ding. I think I got banned because of the responses I wrote on the "questions to debunkers" thread. I also commented on that MSNBC ban thread, they were so sure they were telling the truth because they were banned :cool:
Click to expand...

Me too. I was langoose. I lasted longer this time than other times. Architect was calm, reasonable, rational, and honestly addressed their questions and assertions - despite the invective he took. So is e^n. There was absolutely no objective reason for Architect to be banned. But then objectivity is a dirty word over there.

In the end, blanket banning of non-truthers is the only way admin there has to protect their members from the real world.
 
Ahh, e^n, I had the impression you were referring to cameras actually at the Pentagon, in addition to the two parking lot security videos that we have. Didn't know you were talking about other cameras in the vicinity, at other buildings etc.

The VDOT camera - is there a reason to think that its video was being taped? I really don't know, but it seems like a camera like that is used as a real-time indicator of traffic conditions, so the owners probably wouldn't bother taping the video coming off it.

There were other videos confiscated by investigators, but the FOIA request was specifically to have videos released that showed the plane or the impact, and they released the two additional ones from the Citgo and from the hotel across the freeway. Are there any others that you suspect the government is withholding?
 
Hans said:
Man what is on that site? The national proxy (of the UAE) shut down that site with a stern warning that it has un-Islamic content.
Click to expand...

I have no idea :D I tried to link to the msnbc link on the LCF Forum, but the proxy gave this address.
 
e^n said:
The reason you can't browse is you still have the cookie from their site in your browser, clear any cookies and you should be able to browse as a guest.
Click to expand...

Worked for me.
 
Gratz on your banning Architect. I'm on my 30th (just received one yesterday). And then in the very thread that caused my banning, I read this gem:

by look-up
I would have been embarrassed to watch The View before Rosies started speaking the truth on the show...

It's a shame that censorship has reached these levels...
Click to expand...


Do they not see their own blatant hypocracy?


*emphasis added
 
Add me to the list. I won't say who I was but I had been posting for well over a month and was always respectful. I just disagreed.

Que sera sera. Thier ship is sinking and all they can do is this.

23.SeeHearSpeakNoEvil.png
 
Don't we get some award for getting banned at LCF?
 
I got banned about 3 weeks ago. I even sent Dylan a note asking him why I was banned since I mostly posted in the skeptics forum. Of course, I got no response.
 
I see that the fellows are posting to me even after my banning, which does make me wonder....

Seeker135 said:
The mass of the upper floors was considerable; if one assumes a nominal total weight of ten fluffernutters per square metre, one could assume a donkey might eat them, especially if he were hungry. As observable critcal data, the donkeys *ss being on fire is not relevant to the weight of the half eaten fluffernutters......... I'm with mirage memories. Go seek more approval at Jref. Stop your obstructionist behavior here, e^n. Don't go away angry, just go away. :lol:
Click to expand...
 
Architect said:
I see that the fellows are posting to me even after my banning, which does make me wonder....
Click to expand...


Heh. I especially love when a moderator (IVXX especially) gives his opinion on the subject matter (the final word) and then, in the very same post, closes the thread because it is irrelevant.
 
That seemed to be a strategy close to his heart today, telling us he was closing the threads because the <expletive of choice> didn't deserve the attention. Which was strange, because their members were giving it plenty of attention!
 
just go away
Click to expand...

Seems to be a common phrase, or one similar to it that rule 8 does not allow posting here, to be used just as one is banned.

IVXX (or four-twenty) is as much a ban Nazi as any other conspira-loon.

One would think that in the final post in which the admin states a personal opinion on the topic and then bans a poster , that he would have the common decency to give his reason for banning that poster. But that would require actually thinking of a reason that would not reveal the pure hypocrisy of these sites.


paraphrasing a well know "Seinfeld" episode
"No posts for you"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom