charsui

What reasons?

You ask for evidence when you have just closed the building 7 thread rather than provide any? :lol: I understand the fear, though.

Any posts now that do not address the OP will be ignored. If noone addresses it then clearly you lot agree.

What in that post was agressive? I have behaved impeccably here and never abused anyone. On the other hand, I have been relentlessly abused by the members, including moderators here. I will not change my behaviour. I will continue to be courteous and polite. You can't make me do anything else and I imagine that is quite frustrating. I am asking what conspiracy theory I have suggested before this thread, given that charlie says he expected the thread.

I didn't realise truth was a democracy. You didn't answer my question. What conspiracy theory, before this thread, have I suggested? The only one believing in a conspiracy is you.

Aren't multiple corroborating witnesses evidence?

Do I? It was your lot suggesting that there was a huge conspiracy by the police, ambulance service, media and government to cover up hillsborough. That is one hell of a kooky conspiracy theory you believe in there. What conspiracy theory have I suggested? Hmm?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But that link says So there were sightings before the admitted hoax.

Where did I claim to be in charge? I think the least a member here should expect is to have their threads go unmolested by moderators. If noone addresses my OP then I will simply have to assume that everyone agrees with the arguments contained therein.

I love the idea of living in a caravan by the loch, just looking for the monster. Sounds really cosy. You should do it. There is obviously something untoward in that loch.

Please stick to the topic of the thread. If you want a moon landing thread then start your own,

This building was not hit by a plane, nor did any damage to it have any significant influence on it's collapse, according to the official NIST report into the collapse. It collapsed completely, symmetrically and as close to in it's own footprint as you will get with a building that size. And 2.5 seconds of the collapse were in complete freefall. This had to be pointed out to NIST by a high school physics teacher called David Chandler, and as a result of his intervention they amended the report. By far the most suspicious thing is the foreknowledge, Everyone apparently knew it would collapse. And there lies the problem...how do you know something will collapse when the official report takes 7 years to find the cause, and finds the cause to be an unprecedented total collapse due to office fiires. I have my own theory. I think WTC7 was demolished because to the south of it was the pile that they could not work on while 7 stood. It had to go.

Your belief doesn't mean tuppence without some evidence. Got any? You have got the right to question my opinions. But you didn't do that. You said I need to learn to keep quiet. Why should I not give my opinion?

He only bled internally because he had cirrhosis of the liver. As I said, a drunk. The force was reasonable so the fact that his liver was knackered from alcoholism and bled is not the fault of PC Harwood.

But even if that was a lie and even if the entire Met conspired to lie to the public about certain facts, it still doesn't change the decision regarding the actual shove. If it is felt that certain policemen misled the public about bottles being thrown etc then by all means discipline/prosecute the officers that lied. But none of that changes this verdict. He did die of a heart attack. And PC Harwood wasn't responsible for it.

I said it was reasonable force in my very first post. He was a drunk. He had been drinking most of that day. He was in the policeman's way during a riot and refused to move when asked. The force was reasonable. The fact he died later cannot even be conclusively linked to the shove. A jury agreed with me so to call my view inane makes no sense whatsoever. If I had turned up in this thread claiming that Tomlinson attacked the officer then you might have a point, but I didn't. My view is reasonable and shared by a jury. it is certainly no less deserving to be posted on this forum than your view.

You accuse me of being a previously banned user and urge people to put me on ignore because I agree with a jury's verdict?

I am not claiming he wasn't shoved. How many people do you think are shoved during riots? That isn't my point. The jury declared the officer NOT GUILTY and I agree with them. I can't think of a less controversial opening gambit in a thread, and yet I am told I must learn to be quiet. Do you agree that I should just shut up and that on a discussion forum my view, which concurred with the legal process, shouldn't be heard? Is this a forum or a party conference?

The jury agreed with me so it is clear which of us is right. What kind of forum is this where someone stating an opinion, which agrees with a jury in a recent trial, is told " you need to learn to keep quiet"? Is this a discussion forum or not?

He was well known as an alky and he was staggering down the street, ignoring the requests to move from the brave riot offcers.

That drunk Tomlinson shouldn't have been loitering and goading the police into moving him. It was reasonable force IMO.