what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in
good to see we agree that the height is a match.
no we don't agree - you just edited what I wrote to make it appear that way.
the point is that the shape (and height) of what emerges from the other side of the south tower is constantly changing.
the fact that it's the same height for a fraction of a second is of no significance - especially after we've already established that it's not the nosecone.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: Not interested
Not Interested
jfk wrote:
Quote:
what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in
good to see we agree that the height is a match.
Quote:
Why would you want to know who flew a graphic plane?
i don't.
i want you to put forward a hypothesis that supports your view that 175 and 77 hit the towers, instead of just trying to debunk other people's work.
Here's a hypothesis: The first impact was captured on videotape and seen by a few eyewitnesses; the second impact was captured on many videotape and stills cameras and seen by many eyewitnesses. No proof has been put forward that all of the eyewinesses were lying, or that the majority of the videos and stills photographs are anything but genuine. The planes may not have been those designated as Flights 175 and 77.
Other than that, I am not interested in any further communications with someone who has a problem following the simplest logic, but who shows that he, or she, probably has the intelligence to do so. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
wow! so maybe you agree there was something to hide on tv?.
You really have to come to the realisation that the event did not only happen on TV. Once you can allow yourself to fully grasp that, then the rest should follow.
jfk wrote:
also, there are many witness' that stated they DID NOT see a plane.
...and invariably those oh-so carefully chosen cherry-picked 'witnesses' turn out to be either in the wrong location or didn't look quickly enough to see a fast event . _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:13 am Post subject:
Against my better judgement - and my New Year resolution - yes, I did.
And for the last time I might add, without some synopsis and point(s) of interest specified in advance by the poster.
Anyway, after doing so I can safely say that's Simon 'social service' Shack's reputation as a conman and all-round disinfo fraudster is safe and sound.
As will become readily apparent to anybody who cares to examine some secondary sources. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Plugging one's music compositions, on the back of the pain and tragedy that was 9/11, puts Shack beyond redemption.
He cannot even avoid lying when he puts up his CV, stating his age as 100. But these are the quotes I like best:
Shack, in a mild moment to his adoring and gullible public:
Quote:
"I will gracefully listen to anyone's objections and suggestions..."
Gracefully! This is Simon Shack writing to me, personally:
Quote:
Anthony Lawson? Is that your real name?
Let me tell you how grateful I am for the chokers I had tonight reading your 'debunking' of September Clues.
Thank you, man - thank you.
I do not have much time for you, but just to give you an idea of the belly laughs I've had tonight, here's the winner :
(Page 22 of your sad piece of horseshit) :
"The “ball out” is a piece of debris falling from one of the Towers. "
More likely, your eyeballs are falling out of the debris of your head and brain.
Just WHO are you dude? Am I supposed to think I'm writing to my own killer ? Are you CIA ? I don't give a damn, kid, just come and get me - I've lived enough, had a good life and am so eager to leave this rotten planet in resplendent martyrdom.
You know where I am, don't you? Come and get me, you cretin.
Warped regards
social (October 13th, 2007)
Actually, he was wrong about who had written the debunking, it was not me but a friend of mine, Nick Irving, and that was made absolutely clear on the website where the work was published, but Shack has never been one for details. Here is another one of his "graceful" responses.
Quote:
Whoever you are, Mr Lawson, one thing is clear: you have failed to deliver to the people who financed you to denigrate September Clues. Your utter arrogance oozes and stinks of falsity. You are a jerk, all in all, evidently at the mercy of your own insignificance as a human being.
SIMON SHACK — 26 November, 2007
Anyone who admits to trusting Shack and his totally transparent video manipulations, over reasoned argument and what can be seen with one's own eyes, is either a fool or a member of a paid or volunteer disinformation group.
Which are you, jfk? _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject:
Music Videos
jfk wrote:
music video?
there is approx 50 secs of music on 7 min video!
not exactly mtv.
have you even watched it?
i think you should if you are going to issue judgement
A comment on the most insignificant point of my post. Look at the rest of his video list: Shack makes music videos. Don't bother to answer this, I'll not be responding. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Plugging one's music compositions, on the back of the pain and tragedy that was 9/11, puts Shack beyond redemption.
He cannot even avoid lying when he puts up his CV, stating his age as 100. But these are the quotes I like best:
Shack, in a mild moment to his adoring and gullible public:
Quote:
"I will gracefully listen to anyone's objections and suggestions..."
Gracefully! This is Simon Shack writing to me, personally:
Quote:
Anthony Lawson? Is that your real name?
Let me tell you how grateful I am for the chokers I had tonight reading your 'debunking' of September Clues.
Thank you, man - thank you.
I do not have much time for you, but just to give you an idea of the belly laughs I've had tonight, here's the winner :
(Page 22 of your sad piece of horseshit) :
"The “ball out” is a piece of debris falling from one of the Towers. "
More likely, your eyeballs are falling out of the debris of your head and brain.
Just WHO are you dude? Am I supposed to think I'm writing to my own killer ? Are you CIA ? I don't give a damn, kid, just come and get me - I've lived enough, had a good life and am so eager to leave this rotten planet in resplendent martyrdom.
You know where I am, don't you? Come and get me, you cretin.
Warped regards
social (October 13th, 2007)
Actually, he was wrong about who had written the debunking, it was not me but a friend of mine, Nick Irving, and that was made absolutely clear on the website where the work was published, but Shack has never been one for details. Here is another one of his "graceful" responses.
Quote:
Whoever you are, Mr Lawson, one thing is clear: you have failed to deliver to the people who financed you to denigrate September Clues. Your utter arrogance oozes and stinks of falsity. You are a jerk, all in all, evidently at the mercy of your own insignificance as a human being.
SIMON SHACK — 26 November, 2007
Anyone who admits to trusting Shack and his totally transparent video manipulations, over reasoned argument and what can be seen with one's own eyes, is either a fool or a member of a paid or volunteer disinformation group.
Which are you, jfk?
Is that all you have got? The video was pretty much silent Anthony. Don't be embarrassing. Can you at least offer some intelligent opinion to 911 amateur part 2 ? _________________ 'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:14 am Post subject:
"Intelligent Opinion"
[quote="sidlittle]Is that all you have got? The video was pretty much silent Anthony. Don't be embarrassing. Can you at least offer some intelligent opinion to 911 amateur part 2 ?[/quote]
Yes, it is garbage. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
A.Lawson wrote (re.911 amateur pt 2)
Quote:
Yes, it is garbage.
and
Quote:
"Loose Change". Frankly, I'm not a fan of those videos,
i wonder if A.L supports anything but the official story
Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that! _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:18 am Post subject:
chek wrote:
Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:08 am Post subject:
Anthony Lawson wrote:
chek wrote:
Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
Thats not going to happen Anthony, if we were prepared to act like that we would just close controversies: theres nothing to fear in their opinions, and the community as a whole has made its opinion of these theories very clear _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:23 am Post subject:
What a pity
John White wrote:
Anthony Lawson wrote:
chek wrote:
Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
Thats not going to happen Anthony, if we were prepared to act like that we would just close controversies: theres nothing to fear in their opinions, and the community as a whole has made its opinion of these theories very clear
That is a pity, because this forum is losing a lot of strength by being over tolerent with timewasters. Sometimes it is necessary to draw a line, and allow serious contributors to converse without the constant interruptions of those who have, quite obviously, nothing to contribute themselves. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
I see what you're saying anthony, but I don't agree. although the npt repeaters can be very tiresome, banning them would be out of order.
being a useful idiot isn't a crime.
it's a shame that simon shack is too scared to debate his work on this forum or anywhere else where he wouldn't be protected by his adoring sheep-like minions. talking to the organ grinder would be so much better than responding to the mindless knee jerks of his motley collection of monkeys, but there you go....
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:54 am Post subject:
Anthony Lawson wrote:
What a pity
John White wrote:
Anthony Lawson wrote:
chek wrote:
Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
Thats not going to happen Anthony, if we were prepared to act like that we would just close controversies: theres nothing to fear in their opinions, and the community as a whole has made its opinion of these theories very clear
That is a pity, because this forum is losing a lot of strength by being over tolerent with timewasters. Sometimes it is necessary to draw a line, and allow serious contributors to converse without the constant interruptions of those who have, quite obviously, nothing to contribute themselves.
But then we would become what the irrational accuse us of rather than the fair minded site we actually are
The trade off is not worth it, it is after all a choice to enter any particular section of the site, truth controversies included _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
a slightly authoratarian tone there mr lawson
Anthony Lawson wrote:
I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
please forgive me!
i realise now that i should not have my own views!
god forbid any polite debate on the subject
*I HAVE EDITED THIS POST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS ANTHONY LAWSONS EXPRESSED OPINION BEING QUOTED, AND NOT CHEKS JW*
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: What view
What views?
jfk wrote:
please forgive me!
i realise now that i should not have my own views!
god forbid any polite debate on the subject
Supporting blatant and proven lies can hardly be described as having your own views, and continually quoting the words and phrases of others, out of context, is far from being polite. But I bow to those who know best: let them continue with their disruptive prattle, which diverts attention away from what really matters.
When I was at school, not a particularly good one, I have to say, at least the decent teachers had the good sense to discourage the troublemakers, so that those who wanted to learn could get on with it. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
But the same old, same old tired video clip that's been in circulation since 2001.
And the same old clique still fooled by it.
Hey, Chek: You forgot stretched. The aspect ratio is now 2:1 instead of 4:3 which helps the nose-cone look, no end. And what about his new buzz phrase: "Pixel Blast" what the hell is that?
Get jfk to ask his hero why he hasn't analysed the videos shot from the other side of the South Tower. There are no fades to black on those, and you can see what has been identified as an engine fly out of the building.
Some graphic, that, with smoke trail and all! And it wasn't even a Fox video. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: What about the other side?
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Hey, Chek: You forgot stretched. The aspect ratio is now 2:1 instead of 4:3 which helps the nose-cone look, no end.
Well spotted Anthony, that one had escaped me. I guess that makes Shack a pernicious and manipulative liar.
Anthony Lawson wrote:
And what about his new buzz phrase: "Pixel Blast" what the hell is that?
The sort of techno-sounding babble a pernicious and manipulative liar would use perhaps?
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Get jfk to ask his hero why he hasn't analysed the videos shot from the other side of the South Tower. There are no fades to black on those, and you can see what has been identified as an engine fly out of the building.
Some graphic, that, with smoke trail and all! And it wasn't even a Fox video.
Somehow I don't think 'jfk' has what it takes to question orders from HQ. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
