Jon Ronson on CNN.

[John White]

Ive just seen Jon Ronson wait for the "weakest"point in the quality of the responses to him and then spark off

How stupid are we supposed to be?

Regardless of wether or not this poster is Jon Ronson, he will have to realise that this is a forum of experianced and net-wise posters and I for one do not allow my energy to be subverted with false antagonism

If the quality of what we can put across here is too spicy for him, the responsibility for that lies with "Jon Ronson" alone:

Only place posts here if you can "handle it"

[ian neal]

Whilst understand and support your words of caution, DH, there is a basic message for Jon to understand. There is a whole range of opinions expressed here and long may that continue. This site does not endorse any of them. We stand by the statement on the front page.

"There are hundreds of pieces of compelling and verifiable evidence and testimony (9/11 Smoking Guns) that directly challenge the 9/11 Commission’s report. This evidence is either omitted from or contradicted by the report. Awkward questions presented to the commission by the Family Steering Committee remain unanswered. One of the most respected presentations of the case against the Commission is by David Ray Griffin: ‘9/11 Commission Report: distortions and omissions’ (2).

The campaign recognizes that there is a diverse range of opinion amongst 9/11 truth campaigners. The campaign does not endorse any one position. What we do say is when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11."

If Jon cares to search through all the posts here he will find occasional examples of posts that can be interpretted as 'anti-semitic'. They are a small minority and are challenged politely when they are posted.

This site tolerates a wide range of views but has clear guidance on what the moderators will tolerate and what will not. So whilst you may find occasional posters who in your opinion 'cross the line' there is no way you can dismiss the 9/11 truth movement as just a bunch of anti-semitic nut jobs

Now as you presumably are aware there is a whole range of evidence, very compelling evidence to challenge the official truth. You have so far choosen to ask about the fate of the passengers if 9/11 were an inside job. Hardly the biggest challenge to face the conspirators if it were an inside job and one that I believe has been addressed.

I notice you have left us. Hopefully only temporarily, since I wanted ask whether you would be willing to participate in a public debate to explore some of the 9/11 truth movement's evidence based claims.

Best wishes

Ian Neal

[DeFecToR]

Ha ha....

Good job i only just noticed this thread. Might have said some words i'd regret.

The point Mr Maybe Jon was making about our media giving Israel a hard time, thereby somehow showing that the media is not controlled by zionists, is a point hardly worth responding to. I could waste lots of time spelling out for Jon how zionists have festered an anti-Israel sentiment in certain sections of the worldwide media in order to solidify pro-Israel sentiment (amoungst other things) but i severely doubt Mr Jon would even have a chance of grasping it. (No offence)

I remember seeing him mention on some or other interview that the Bohemian Grove club was nothing more than a place for the elite to go and party. "Totally harmless" Dont make me laugh!! Tell that to John DeCamp.

So, in response to the first post; Is Jon Ronson a shill?
No, he just is living with the blinders on and his filters set to 'super-sieve'.
Good entertainer, but i'll leave my history/politics lessons to those who know whats happening.

[DeFecToR]

Where exactly do you stand on 911 issue?

I believe 9/11 was an inside job and the 9/11 commission was a pathetic sham.

[paul wright]

Well, good riddance I say Ian
If it was him, and I like him like most others here, but I suspect him
He was only here for nefarious purposes without a doubt
In his piece on Icke did you hear his remark about the crew mentioning the jews
I love his staring at goats piece, but here his like is very dangerous
He is a complete clever know-it-all slimy goatf**ker
There's a good self-deprecating quote for him to use at some point
If we've scared him off all to the good
Hey Ronson, we dont take kindly to your type around hyur - South Park
Good night and god Bless

[DeFecToR]

[ian neal]

Oh b*

I must have pushed edit instead of quote button defector. Sorry

I was trying to reply to your question about where I stood on 9/11 and I have accidently deleted most of your post. And you were saying nice things about my last post as I remember. Doh!

Humble apologies. It's been a long day

Best wishes

ian

[DeFecToR]

Ha ha, no prob.

Though the question was aimed at Ronson, if he's still reading. My guess is that, as John White noted, he may well have already made up his mind on 911 and simply looks for the weakest elements of the arguement to pick holes in.

Shill...shill...say it with me....la la, twat.

[DeFecToR]

Holy pants Ian Neal. You're from Richmond!! Cool S**t! I was born and raised there (Ham to be specific), am living in Newry in Northern Ireland now.

Me and a mate are actually coming over for whatever 911 event is happening on the anniversary in London. First time i'll be back in England since '97.

Dont suppose you know anyone who went to Grey Court School?

[ian neal]

Slight diversion, but yes I live within yards of Grey Court and my eldest 2 attend Grey Court. Small world. Hopefully our paths will cross in Sept. Plans are afoot for the weekend before

[Ally]

Jon Ronson attacking 911skeptics as religious fundamentalists/anti sems in comments section -

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jon_ronson/2006/07/could_the_who_w ants_to_be_a_mi.html


bwaaa

[Ally]

JON RONSON

[alkmyst]

Mr. Ronson wrote:

[andyb]

His next post on the Guardian forum did admit that Building 7 IS odd. So he isn't all against us. Perhaps we should just focus on this rather than turning people like him away so quickly, whatever our beliefs are. People such as him, like it or not, are more likely than us to get this into the mainstream if we can engage them in a pleasant manner and focus on the more convincing arguments. A lot of the time they don't want to engage so throw in a comment to get a few insults abck and then they can walk away and say we are all anti-semetic or tinfoilers. In the words of Martin Luther King. "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend"

[Andrew Johnson]

I agree with AndyB.

[kbo234]

Yes I don't see Jon as a 'shill'. He knows what he wants to believe (about 9/11 and 'people like us') and who can blame him. He seems to be only seeing the part of the conversations that confirm his natural prejudices.

The truth is pretty indigestible. It hurts. It is probably even more outrageous and threatening if you are Jewish because of the Zionist dimension.

Give people time. the evidence is there. It is real. People who recognise the importance of the truth regarding these matters will go there and decide for themselves. Jon is no fool. I can't believe he would be comfortable with fooling himself.

[Martin Conner]

[kbo234]

[quote="Martin Conner"]

[jonronson]

Okay. I appreciate the previous posts. Let me say one more thing about the Zionism/anti-Semitism question, and move on. When somebody says, "We all know the Zionists control the money" which is something I believe has been written further up this thread, you really need to qualify it with certain facts, such as...
1. Which Zionists?
2. What money?
Otherwise, it sounds suspiciously like hundreds of years of anti-Semitism.

There are - of course - mysteries and inconsistencies in the oficial account of 9/11. But... (And these are a few things I wrote about this yesterday on jonronson.com)

Where are the people who were on the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon? Forget about that Loose Change allegation that people may or may not have seen people get off a plane in Cleveland. Where the hell are the scores of people who were on that plane? Are their families in on it too? All that crying in public, all that mourning their dead loved ones - is that all faked for the cameras?

I can't answer some of the other questions - the ones that bolster your case - but that is the one I get stuck on. I have no idea if 9/11 was an inside job. There are perplexing inconsistencies - juast like there were at Waco and Oklahoma City - but there are also extremely difficult questions for the 9/11 Truth Campaign to answer, like the one I just posed. Unlike Waco and OKC, where the conspiracy theory seems more plausible.


I honestly don't know why you're trying to judge me on the basis of how I answer your questions. The tactic reminds me of the old Socialist Workers Students Society people who used to hang around the Polytechnic of Central London. They would yell questions at you, and their aim was to judge people on the basis of their answers. They always reminded me of the House of Unamerican Activity people in the 1950s.

I came away from my investigations into Waco and Ruby Ridge convinced that there was some truth in the conspiracy theories. How much truth I felt there was differed from event to event. You can read about that in Them.

In The Men Who Stare At Goats, I prove a conspiracy-of-sorts.

I am less inclined to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't discount it, but I am less inclined to believe it. Ruby Ridge and Waco would have been very easy conspiracies to pull off, with just a few people involved.

The conspiracy at Ruby Ridge was to convince the outside world that the Weavers had it coming. The conspiracy at Waco was to set the fire and cover their tracks.

These are small, human conspiracies, and frankly they are pretty undisputed now, because it is hard to keep such things secret for long. 9/11 would have been an unbelievably, incredibly complicated conspiracy to pull off.

If that many people were in on the plot, there are that many people out there who have the answers. And - contrary to human nature - none of them are spilling the beans. They are all keeping the secret.

And I just don't believe the world works that way.

[andyb]

Fair comments Jon. I was wondering whether you had read 'A New Pearl Harbour' by David Ray Griffin. I have read 'In The Men Who Stare At Goats' last year on holiday and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I understand that there would have to have been quite a few involved but I personally don't think there would be a need for much more than 100 people to pull it off, this changes though if you believe that flights were changed etc which does open one up to being found out. The areas where I and many others have concern are the fall of WT7 and the standown of NORAD, due to war games. These both point to government complicity of some form and have yet to addressed in any way. The reason many people turn off from the arguments is due to some of the wilder theories out there which people use to discredit the entire movement.

All we are calling for is an independent and impartial ivestigation into the events of 9/11 as the official story has too many inconsistencies. As in most crimes, the people who have benefitted most will, rightly or wrongly, be accused of taking part in the crime. This could all have been avoided if this had occured in the first place but the placing of Zelikov as the head of the commission seriously impeded its impartiality and fuels the conspiracy fire.

[xmasdale]

Yeah!

Well said, Andy,

Noel

[Martin Conner]

[ianrcrane]

Jon Ronson wrote:

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

[DeFecToR]

[Andrew Johnson]

Jon,

As several people have mentioned, just because we can't answer what happened to passengers on planes does not mean 9/11 wasn't an inside job. (May I also state that why should WE answer this question? We are not an official body who have any special investigative powers - so how can we be expected to answer such questions ourselves anyway - they should be addressed to those in authority). 9/11 was an inside job - how can WTC 7 have collapsed to the ground in 6.6 seconds without explosives being planted? It can't - that's plain and simple. I call people who can't see this "gravity deniers".

How about a Professor of Physics’ take on things?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7662934057256174552

It's all there for you... including his paper which goes through the evidence for Controlled Demolition.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Many people say "Jones is not a structural engineer" (even Milan Rai reportedly said this last week!) and they blithely ignore that it is the science of physics which underpins structural engineering - not the other way around.

If it is easy to show why WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall rate when no plane hit it, why are US citizens still after almost 5 years, waiting for the official NIST report? Perhaps this is part of the answer:

http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/LandmarkDemolition.htm

L Silverstein said "oh yeah - pull the building" as if such a complex operation can be set up, with fires burning in the building, in about 9 hours. (Some people who are aware of WTC 7's existence and collapse are actually happy with this as a valid explanation!)

You can focus on conspiracy theories or science. I choose to focus on the science initially. In doing so, one can prove that a different crime was committed on Sept 11th than the one we were told was committed. A different set of people are guilty. A new trial must begin. All laws which have been based on the idea that Al Qaida committed the atrocities on 9/11 must be revisited and reconsidered – repealed even. All countries invaded on the basis of 9/11 events must be withdrawn from and reparations made as quickly as possible. Of course, this is the most huge political, legal, economic and logistical problem. Perhaps this is reason why most people reject basic science, which they would accept without question under different circumstances.

All the other stuff discussed here is the furnishing on that truth and, in my view, the international investigation has already been undertaken by dedicated researchers. All we/they need is authority to subpoena witnesses and have a formally recognised forum for bringing a trial.

This is not likely to happen within the bounds of the current system we live in, due to the vested interests being intimately interwoven with those that orchestrated 9/11. For a review of current legal cases, have a look at this article by fellow ST911 member Alex Floum (Alexander Floum is an attorney and former adjunct law school professor):

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_83.shtml

A small aspect of all this which shows this viewpoint is basically correct is the denial of all mainstream media to cover in depth and without "spin" the formation of either this forum or the formation of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. It is non-coverage or inaccurate or "spun" coverage of these things which then causes others to talk about controlled media. This viewpoint is also valid. I have been advising the BBC for almost 2 years about the basic problems with the official story of 9/11 and they refuse to address the issue. Evidence of this has been posted on this forum already. All that is required is for some journalist (you?) to write up this issue with no spin, no clever emotive language, no spin, no waxing lyrical about how silly or unbelievable it all is. No ego necessary. Just a coverage of the basic science will do.

Here's something I put together a while ago:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf

And yes, it really is this simple! (Oh, but no it can't be! How can all those hyper-intelligent brains in academia have missed this? You want my answer? A combination of coginitive dissonance, denial and being taken in by media spin.)

I have even offered to write an article for the Guardian myself - for free, but no one has yet taken me up on the offer. I don't claim to be a journalist (I am tutor and software developer), but I feel I have sufficient command of verbiage to fill a few column inches to a sufficient standard. But no, the world just doesn't work like that, does it?

And so, the real perpetrators of 9/11 are free to plan the next major heist and act above and beyond the law, shooting innocent people in London subways without fear of prosecution. The blame the crime on somebody else – and they get away with it.

Dare you delve into the evidence? Dare you find out what drives us to do what we do?

In some ways, it doesn't matter whether you do or don't - because there is a growing body of grass roots campaigners who are making their own films, writing their own "newspaper columns" and giving information directly to the public either free or at cost price (I have hand-copied, printed and shipped about 800 DVDs in the last year). I don't have a salary for this, no publisher, no retainer - nothing. I do it with my own funds because it is the most important issue in the world.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911dvdreq.html

Just over a week ago, I personally presented Lord Carlile with a petition of over 11,000 signatures asking for the release of 9/11 Evidence. Where is the media coverage of this?

And as I see it, 1 of 2 things will happen. Either this issue will be covered properly by the mainstream media and people will become aware, or I will continue doing this until I am dead.

Forgive me if I seem to have “indulged myself” in this post. Further information available on request, should you wish to pursue any of points I raised above.

Regards

[kbo234]

Excellent post Andrew.

[Justin]

Well done Andrew, good work. If Jon is still with us, could I suggest to him a quiet meeting if he is willing, 'beneath the radar' if preferred, so we can at least build up some mutual confidence and explore common ground.

Justin

[Andrew Johnson]

Good idea Justin. Quite a few people have linked their e-mail address to the profiles here and I think PM works by default, so it couldn't really be much easier to contact people on here could it?