Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - gelignite

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 75
Hello, all. As some may have noticed, there has now been placed the word "shill" above my forum rank, as well as a Star of David in my Profile. This has been done by forum admin, apparently intended (or so I am told via private message) as a "warning label" to forum members and guests. Lonewolf, in his infinite wisdom, has apparently decided that you all (and I mean this entire forum as well as any others out there whose membership he might wish to court) are too lazy and/or stupid to figure out who I am and what I'm about unless he puts a little sticky note below my name so you won't ever forget. Like you're all six years old or something. I've requested (via private message) that these items be removed… and have been refused.

For me, this is the last straw. I've endured enough insults and disrespect in my time here to put up with this sort of *bitch* move, and I'm writing this in full anticipation that Lonewolf will instill the permanent ban, once and for all. Or, at least, if he maintains the courage of his convictions - if he has any balls at all - he will do it. I have been given "final warning", after all. Then again, the way Lonewolf has been running this forum the last several years, we'll see.

Simply put (and quite unlike his predecessor), Lonewolf seems to run this forum by popular opinion. I think that he'd would have liked to ban me a long time ago, but he seems so afraid there are too many here who would protest (which may or may not be true at all), that he has been reticent to make such a command decision. So instead, he's decided to make the situation untenable for me to remain with this whole "warning label" business. That way, he can say to all the would-be protesters (once again, not that there are any), "See? I didn't actually ban gelignite… he left on his own accord".

It's just a theory, of course. But then, Lonewolf has reportedly made other decisions based upon such criteria. He has, by his own admission, kept on other forum members whose actions are far more detrimental to the cause he's promoting than mine ever have been or ever could be. For no other reason that they are liked by too many people, and he doesn't want to piss anyone off (dominique touched on this back in the last thread in which I posted).

That's your forum leadership at work, folks. It's also, I think, why this place has been abandoned by so many good posters who once frequented here. The current Admin has been far too concerned about maintaining popularity with the Foremast Jacks, and the forum has been overrun by the most disruptive among their lot as a result. The last quality posters who once held my interest here (e.g., WRS, clayman, and a few others) stopped being active years ago, and for a long time I've been wondering why I continue to participate myself. And today I can no longer think of a single reason.

So I guess that's it for me. I'm once and for all turning in my hall pass, or whatever. Some may now declare victory, at long last.

My parting words - and I'm saying this directly to YOU, Lonewolf: If you really think that making me wear a sign around my neck (in addition of the unfair and unbalanced treatment I've had to endure as a condition of my continued membership here) is your idea of hospitality, then you may take your "Freedom Portal" and shove it straight up your ass.

There. I've insulted you. Now you have to ban me, once and for all.

Best to all.


Whoa, said I, right then on 911, how do they know the Arabs did it? Those poor schmucks in their fifty years of fighting against the AshkeNazi invaders have never been able to devise anything more advanced than strapping a bomb around their waist and climbing on a bus...

Werewolf has apparently never heard of bin Laden's 1998 fatwah against the USA.

Or the US Embassy bombings.

Or The USS Cole.

Or the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

gelignite sure has a lot to say, considering how long ago he has made up his mind on this subject.

Some people have, by their own admission, made up their minds as to who perpetrated these crimes (i.e., the Jews) the instant the first plane struck the Towers.

And every day thereafter has been but an exercise in fulfillment of that conclusion.

In spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

4000 Israelis did not show up for work.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support this notion. All the JP article states is that they were "believed" to have been in the "areas" of the WTC and the Pentagon, and that, as of the writing of the article, they had not yet made contact with friends and relatives. Such was the only basis by which any were considered "missing".

The article then goes on to mention the communication problems in those "areas" following the attacks, which would explain the lack of contact.

Nothing at all about where they were employed or if they showed up for work that day.

Do you have any idea how many tens of thousands of Israelis are in those "areas" at any given time? How many of them are going to school? Or visiting relatives? Or just there on vacation (i.e., as a tourist)? Given the communication problems to which the JP article (from which you and others have been liberally quoting) alludes, it's no surprise that a percentage of them would have lost contact with concerned friends and relatives back home, and that those concerned friends and relatives would have made a bit of noise, given the great loss of life at the hands of Islamic extremists.

I think these are some of the areas one should explore before concluding that any Israelis were mysteriously absent from work.

9/12/2001 edition of the Jerusalem Post, headline story:

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

Why have the Israelis and the Americans scoured this 9/12/2001 edition of the JP from their archives and from the internet, Mr Gelignite?

Have they? Seems to me that the Internet is rife with excerpts from that particular edition of the JP.

Are you a JP subscriber? Have you attempted to pull up that edition from the archives? Until you have, then I fail to see the basis by which you're suggesting there has been a concerted effort to remove any and all traces of it from the Web.

...instead of investigating it and its implications?

What implications? As far as I can see (from the excerpts that have been posted), the only conclusion one can draw is that communications in and around the "areas" of the WTC and the Pentagon were spotty in the hours following the attack by Muslim terrorists. Such is the only basis by which any of these Israelis were considered "missing" for a time. The very JP article you've been citing underscores this notion that was also widely reported by other outlets in the MSM.

Precisely what else are you accusing me of "making up as I go along", Mr Gelignite?

Purportions to the effect that any of these 4000 actually actually worked in the WTC. Suggestions that they were all mysteriously absent from work that day.

There isn't a shred of evidence to this effect. And nothing in the JP article remotely suggests this. For that matter, it is entirely possible that every single one of these 4000 (who were supposed to be at work that day) were sitting at their desks when the attacks occurred. This notion wouldn't be at all inconsistent with that which has been reported in the JP article you've been quoting from.

As far as I know people who go there around 9:00 am work there, although, as I recall, Israeli art students did live there for for awhile.

The JP article said nothing about what precise time they arrived. It simply said that they were "believed" to have been in those "areas", and that, as of that writing, they had not yet made contact with friends and relatives.

Once again, the JP article said NOTHING about where they worked. People are simply drawing erroneous inferences to this effect.

Others are simply making things up out of thin air.

The Israeli embassy in NY's version differed slightly saying 4,000 Israelis were working in or near the WTC.

The 4,000 Israelis working in or near the WTC was the headline in the 9/12/01 edition of the Jerusalem Post...

Complete and total falsehood. You're simply making things up as you go along.

And you are trolling the thread with this nonsense.

The JP article tells us 4000 Israelis worked in the impact zone.

No, it does NOT say that. You are somehow inferring that from the article.

You are digressing into yet another obscure corner.

As I said earlier, I'm not the one who is repeating these false claims.

I am simply responding to them.

Perhaps you can explain why these Israelis did not show up for work once Israel figured out they weren't missing at all?

Whoever said they didn't show up for work?

For that matter, whoever said where any of these 4000 Israelis worked? The JP article only say where they were "believed" to have been. The idea that they worked in or near the WTC is purely an invention of the people from whom you copied the article (i.e., Ed Toner and the like).


    The Jerusalem Post (08:15 - Wed) Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon Wednesday September 12, 2001 The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

    The list is made up of people who have not yet made contact with friends or family, Army Radio reported.

    Telephone connections between Israel and the New York City and Washington, D.C. areas has been sporadic and unreliable since the multiple attacks yesterday.

    Ten thousand people are estimated to have been killed in the New York attacks and another 800 in Washington.

    Several hundred also went down with the hijacked planes.

LW - The JP implied that the missing were dead with what they say in their second to last line.

What they say in that second to last line is but a repetition of what had been widely reported at the time.

What they say in the third to last line (now bolded) is a much stronger implication as to why these 4000 had not yet made contact with family and friends, and it does, in fact, suggest the possibility that they may all still be alive (however incommunicado). This is, I think, where the false claim (that these 4000 Israelis were all absent from work at the WTC) originated... the notion that they had somehow miraculously survived the attack.

In any event, it's still a far cry from your earlier assertion as to what it is that "Israeli leadership" supposedly claimed. As far as I can see, nobody anywhere ever "claimed" that these 4000 Israelis had actually died. At best, one can only draw erroneous inferences from reports in the media.

Anyway, thanks for posting the JP story. It did add some much-needed clarification on the matter.

Israeli leadership claimed 4000 Israelis had died.

When did anyone claim that 4000 Israelis died? Got a cite for this?

A story was reported that there were about 4000 Israelis who were "believed" to have been in the "area" of the WTC and the Pentagon who, as of the day after the attack, were still out of contact with friends and family (i.e., were declared "missing").

That story got transmogrified into the oft-repeated claim that "4000 Israelis" were mysteriously absent from work at the WTC on the day of the attack, which is, of course, utter nonsense.

In any event, I don't recall ever seeing a claim (by anyone) that 4000 Israelis had died. According to what's been reported, there were five Israeli nationals who lost their lives in the attack.

I also said somewhere on this thread that you would EXPECT jews to sacrifice some of their own, NOT spare them all. Too obvious, too difficult. Some are going to have to "take one for the team" in a disaster of this order of magnitude.

This is just like a comedy sketch…

The argument up to this point (essentially): "Jews were forewarned about the 9/11 attacks. Only one Jew died that day, after all. The rest got out of harm's way ahead of time. Because, you know… they were all forewarned."

Rebuttal: "But that's not true. In fact, scores (if not hundreds) of Jews were killed in the 9/11 attacks. We know this because (among other things) of all the Jewish funeral services that took place. It's all a matter of public record."

Argument: "Lies, all lies! Everyone knows that you can't trust the 'public record', or anything else in the 'jew-run' media."

Rebuttal: "The 'jew-run' media… Say, isn't that the same source you cited for your other claim about the 4000 Israelis who supposedly missed work at the WTC on 9/11, and that whole other thing about the 'dancing Israelis'?"

Argument: "Yeah. So what's your point?"

Rebuttal: "Uhm, you just said..."

Argument 2 suddenly chimes in to the rescue (essentially): "Look, all this talk about 'how many Jews died' is just meaningless and diversionary hair-splitting. Don't get caught in Jelly's trap. Besides, you would expect Jews to sacrifice some of their own, and not spare them all… a disaster of this order of magnitude."

Rebuttal: "So you're saying the fact that *many* Jews died in the 9/11 attacks… is also evidence that they were forewarned?"

Argument 2: "Well, it certainly doesn't prove that they weren't forewarned."

And 'round and 'round we go.


Yes dom, euphemism. As in, the substitution of a neutral, inoffensive expression in place of one against which someone (e.g., one of your fellow travelers) might take offense.

My position is and always has been that the claim that "only one Jew died" is an out-and-out LIE. It has nothing whatever to do with statistical probabilities or wild, unsupported speculation as to what it is that "the tribe" might or might not be capable of. I have steadfastly maintained that the notion is, in and of itself, demonstrably false.

Earlier, you said, "I gotta agree with [gelignite] on this one…"

Well, you can't have it both ways, dom. You either agree with me that the notion is false (i.e., a lie), or you do not.

I am aware that you had your own "reason" for the position you took. It is, however, immaterial to the question I'm asking you now.

And, for that matter, let's take a look what else you said earlier in this thread:

You (earlier): "It's simply a statistical impossibility…"

If OT's earlier statement is not possible (for whatever "reason" you care to cite), then it follows that the claim is false. As in, not true, a lie, etc. No two ways about it. Such is the position you effectively took earlier when you said that you agreed with me.

I followed your above quote with "I have yet to see OT or anyone else ever post backup for this assertion. All I said is that I find it statistically improbable."

Now, it seems, you're allowing for the possibility (however slight) that OT's claim is true.

This is what's known as a "backpedal".

To the mods: I submit that Jelly's OBVIOUSLY DELIBERATE obtuseness is somewhere in the neighborhood of trolling. Again.

You're the one who is now bending yourself into pretzel-like contortions in an attempt to maintain appearances. You won't admit that OT's claim was a lie (your programming apparently won't allow it), so you resort to carefully crafted euphemisms such as "parroting of misinformation" to describe what it is that OT is doing. And then you won't commit to knowing whether he's doing even that.

You're all over the place, dom.

First you say that you agree with me. Then you say that you "don't know".

You state that OT's claim is a statistical "impossibility". Then you subsequently allow that it might actually be the truth.

Right foot blue, left hand red. Spin the dial.

And yet you say *I'm* the one who's trolling?

Hoo, that's rich.

Once again, I win the "debate"...

I hardly see how this amounts to any sort of victory on your part. Once again, you've demonstrated the lengths you will dance around an issue to avoid making a concession of any sort, lest you give the appearance of siding with "Jelly" on any point whatsoever.

I'm not the one who's causing this to happen. The music is all in your head.

NOW, you can stop being condescending. I don't know if OT's claim that "only one jew died on 9/11" is a lie, a parroting of misinformation, or by some VERY minute chance, the truth.

Heh... Well, you be sure and let me know when you decide upon which euphemism you're gonna go with, k dom?

Have a nice day.

Is that why I saw you looking at my profile several times, when browsing the "who is online" page?

Yours, as well as that of WRS, clayman, Effendi, E.T., New Math... many others from back in the day.

Yippee. I have a stalker. ::)

Not really.

Stop selectively quoting me. I said that I "agreed" with you, but FOR A DIFFERENT REASON.


Is the notion that "only one Jew died" a LIE or is it not?

This isn't that complicated, dom.

"Morally sickening"?? Why?

Because there are hundreds of families out there who are mourning the loss of a loved one. According to OT (and others), they are either faking it or they are being duped, and there are people presumed dead who are sitting on a beach earning 20 percent.

[...wild, unsupported speculation snipped...]


The truth is, I don't know for sure if it's zero or one jew that died in 9/11.  Or even two or three jews.

Or even a dozen.

Or fifty or sixty.

Or several hundred.

My overall point isn't in dispute.

I would beg to differ.

In gelignite's case he continually attempts to turn back the clock on all the issues by denying even the least disputable details, which just throws us back a decade.

The notion that only one Jew died in the 9/11 attacks is a very highly-disputable "detail".

As is the notion that 4000 Israelis were absent from work at the WTC on the day of the attacks.

Or the claim that the "dancing Israelis" had their cameras trained on the Twin Towers before the the first plane impacted.

Or the suggestion that, in fact, no planes ever hit the buildings at all.

So if anyone is throwing you "back a decade", I would submit it's the people who continually post this long-debunked and easily-refutable nonsense.

Not me.

Moreover he habitually focuses on the most minor of details…

I only focus on the "details" that other people on this forum are posting, LW. I'm not setting any traps, nor am I engaging in any tricks in order to get others to make such ridiculous claims (as above).

They post these "details" freely and of their own accord. I respond to them. That is all.

…or reiterating the official story as if it were gospel, sidetracking the main theme time and time again.

I don't think that one can tackle the "main theme" to which you refer without first inspecting the underpinnings being used to support it. And that's all I'm doing here - examining the evidence being put forth by various members of this forum to support the notion that Israel (or agents thereof) perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

If this is something that you don't want happening on your forum (i.e., if you think that this constitutes trolling, or distraction, or whathaveyou), then I would suggest that you take decisive action. There's no need for you to conduct a "poll". It's your forum. Simply make a command decision, and then act upon it.

Do what you will. I only ask that you allow me to continue to access the search functions (much as these last couple of weeks). There are some interesting exchanges with past members I would like to re-visit from time to time.

It would be much appreciated.

That's exactly what he did when he zeroed in on OldTimes' "only one jew died at the WTC on 9/11" comment. Wasted three pages debating OT and WW about how many jews died at the WTC…

I see it quite differently. To me, it was *OT* who wasted the three pages clinging to his "only-1-jew-died-in-9/11" claim like a dog with a bone. It's a claim that is not only morally sickening (imo, which is one of the reasons I went at him so hard), but it is, in fact, demonstrably false, as you yourself seemed to agree. Remember that when I said that "scores (possibly hundreds) of Jews were killed on 9/11", you said, "I gotta agree with [gelignite] on this one".

Well, OT and I cannot both be correct on this one, dom. One of us or the other is repeating a lie.

And what's truly astonishing to me is how neither you nor anyone else is blaming OT in the slightest for wasting three whole pages clinging to what you (and others) *know* to be a lie, but, rather, it is I who is being castigated because I took up so much bandwidth attempting to refute OT's demonstrably false assertion. Instead of beating OT over the head for steadfastly refusing to let go of such a ridiculous and easily-refutable claim, you and the rest are instead labeling me as a disruptor who is trolling the forum to its possible detriment.

How does that work, exactly?

Whether there were actually hundreds of jews that worked there and actually had the foreknowledge to call off work that day - which just sounds a bit unbelieveable anyway… whatever the case may be…

I don't agree with the oft-repeated philosophy which dictates that if only *half* of everything being asserted is the truth, then such is more than enough to warrant a re-examination of the events (and thus the "larger picture", etc., etc.).

If only half of what is being asserted is the truth, then it follows that the other half is a lie. And so *all* of it, as well as those who are presenting it, becomes thusly suspect.

I'm sure Skunk would win a poll like this by a landslide, but I clearly remember you stating that you would have gotten rid of him long ago if he weren't so popular. (Personally, I think in many ways he's a far more damaging troll to this forum than Jelly. When it comes to distraction, undermining a mostly-credible story with some ridiculous shtick, etc, Skunk certainly does much more to create an unserious, over-the-top jew-bashing atmosphere here.

Sure he does. And yet, it appears that Skunk is among the most-valued and popular members of this forum.

What does this tell you?

Although I too respect LW's decision - it's his forum, and he makes the rules. Hell, I was banned for less than that - don't believe I ever called anyone here a "worthless piece of shit" - but I didn't have a problem with it. No hard feelings.

I prolly shouldn't have said what I said... bad form, and all.

But, then again, I've been called as much (if not worse) by other members of this forum. People have even called for my death (i.e., the termination of my life functions) - with never a *single* word of admonishment by forum admin to the offending parties, as far as I can see. Ever.

And yet, for me, it's an *instant* two weeks in the hole.

Obviously, there are different standards at work for different people. Which is fine. As you say, it's LW's forum, and he can run it however he sees fit. No one has to participate here, after all.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 75