Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

[Arouet]

FWIW I never asked that he be banned. He was mildly entertaining. And perhaps he could have gotten a good discussion going. Maybe you can give him another chance Ninja?

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

Oh no doubt he went over the line. I'm just saying that it's pretty slow around here and he livened things up for a bit.

[NinjaPuppy]

Arouet & ProfWag - I hate to burst both of your bubbles but it wasn't about you.

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]

[Suncross74]

I'd say he was banned for being a source of annoyance and chaos and I think it was the right thing to do. I certainly understand others' viewpoints, however. I support his banning but honestly I don't think it's worth worrying about too much. He was a fool; let's just move on.

-Suncross74

[NinjaPuppy]

I agree with Suncross74. Let's move on and keep on topic.

[cecil1]

Moving onward...

I have no direct PROOF 9/11 was an inside job however considering big brothers horribad reputation with following good moral ethics... downright immoral...

let's see canada became a legal slave nation in 1985 and the LAWS of canada displayed for public viewing on the department of justice website CONFIRM THIS 100% PROOF. (I have multiple acts printed in hard copies) , USofA is a corporation and uscode reflects this in american LAW. (what is the name of americas ownership act does anyone know? I've spent years looking for it, american law is far harder to learn than canadian law.)

For the greater goods sake Wisegeeks.com cannot even grasp the proper definition of "beneficial owner" yet they can distinctly define "perfected security"? GIVE ME A BREAK! (Trust law anyone???)

Randi forum shills on the fmotl thread vs rob menard can't even enter a debate with direct lawful or legal evidence proving freeman society is wrong or pure disinfo regarding common law vs statutory law (even though it's there, in the acts) proving to me no pseudoskeptic will allow official policy(no acts or statutes, only court desicions which do not explain the policy the desicion was based on HOW CONVENIENT! No better way to hide policy in debate than to use the court desicions policies are based off of then pointing to the desicion and crying SEE TEH JUDGE SEZ UR WRONGZ!) information to rebut freeman disinfo.

So to break it down I would say that there is indeed a monolithic establishment fully provable within the LAWS of our nations and that there are many people who benefit, beneficially from this plot 9/11, as owners, you know the SHAREHOLDERS, the international bankers who own our corporate/countries,( The ones that operate according to the sovereign immunities act and within the state immunity act which basically says in laymans terms, screw the law im untouchable combined with the ownership control act.) not you or I as we are not shareholders, in canada of our persons (both of them) and in america of your country.

See in canada I can prove legal slavery, in america i cannot find the ownership act so im reduced to proving only that america is a corporation and that there are defintions within their laws that allow for jurisdictional immunity defined by words not territory and those are dramatically aligned with canadas version of said laws, seeing as USofA is nearly identical to canada regarding ownership laws, I see the missing piece of the puzzle, but do not know how to locate it... yet.

Is it really so unfathomable to imagine the serial murder raping a victim?

IS IT REALLY?

[Arouet]

Wow, you threw a lot of different topics into one post. I'm Canadian and I didn't realise I was a legal slave. Can you elaborate?

[cecil1]

[cecil1]

So... What's so unfathomable that a serial murderer rapes a victim?

Not an extreme leap of logic is it?

Not too hard to imagine is it?

[Arouet]

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to spell out for me what you think the problem is with that act. I'm not even sure what act you are quoting from.

[Arouet]