| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Stephen
1. you insist on dragging people into paranoia and public bickering 'poisoning' threads like this
2. there is no 'cover up' - if the DEW stuff is proven then it won't be put into controversies
Why do you have to basket case out each time anything here goes against your view?
Argue your case in a mature adult way please rather than blabbing on about a non-existent conspiracy in the 9/11 truth movement to silence your views. Please put just a tiny bit of work into convincing people they are true instead.
| fish5133 wrote: | | Stephen wrote: | | Why has this thread been moved |
Possibly because of the comment about 9/11 truthers "covering up" or more accurately "criticising" DEW, no planes Judy Wood, dustification. |
|
| Quote: |
you insist on dragging people into paranoia and public bickering 'poisoning' threads like this |
No mate, Lee set him self up.
| Quote: |
there is no 'cover up' - if the DEW stuff is proven then it won't be put into controversies |
There is a cover up and its been going on for 3 years, stop insulting. You keep moving my event threads?
The Evidence is there for another destructive force destroying the WTC. Rather than just Bombs in the builing.
Is Thermite proven? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen wrote: | | The main reasons I pulled out because of the lack of communication. |
You've given several reasons for pulling out. Could that also be construed as suspicious?
You pulled out with almost 2 months to go before it had even really started.
| Stephen wrote: | | Lee this is getting boring. |
How very true.
| Stephen wrote: | | And we are/were intitiled to do so, otherwise its not a group. its a group of people with there own agendas. |
Beg to differ to be honest.
The group was set up to help promote the worldwide Truth Movement locally.
Since then the TM has been over run with people with their own agendas.
If we had have given the list to any one individual we would have had to give the list to everyone in the group.
That's not a group. That's a collection of people with their own copy of the email list plus their own agendas.
As I've said before, can you imagine the list receiving emails from someone saying...
ping "Nano-Thermite found in WTC dust sample..." whilst you pong with - "The thermite lot are covering up DEW truth!...
Both senders addresses would be consigned to junk pretty swiftly I imagine.
| Stephen wrote: | | You come on this thread all high and mighty like your the saintly one here to share your wisdom with your ping pong |
Just a bit of truth with a comedy undertone matey. It's true anyway. The TM is fractured not coherent anymore. It's a ping-pong ball game that doesn't pose a threat to anything but its own credibility.
| Stephen wrote: | | You forget some of your own comments like calling David shayler a turd in a punch bowl |
Although I dont remember making this comment, you probably took that comment more seriously than I did.
It was probably made in general reference to his downward or inward spiralling or whatever.
The reason I would have used the "punch bowl" phrase is because its an old favourite in the conspiracy-world.
Alex Jones once called David Icke the same thing in 2001 on Jon Ronson's "Secret Rulers of the World".
| Stephen wrote: | | You still havent answered the qeustions I asked you about poking fun and paying your part with covering up the alternative 9/11 research? |
I haven't poked fun at anyone.
You and your "alternative-thinkers" still haven't answered any of the questions in threads like this...
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
They're covering up themselves.
| Stephen wrote: | | So I can spead the info and tell people about up and coming events. Yea dope. |
What kind of info?
Let me guess...
Pong "Truth Alert!!! It was the lizards from the monolith on Mars that faked the holograms that brought down the towers along with the space-beams. The snow-ball of dustification proves beyond any doubt that the toasted-cars are a result of..."
Hmmm says email reader, where's my junk button.
Last edited by GodSaveTheTeam on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:23 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose any publicity is good publicity! This should be a great evening for us up north west here. Tin hat and camo jacket I think.
Some say scousers are unbalanced as they have a chip on their shoulder. As one born near London but having lived most of life near Liverpool i like to consider myself well balanced--having a chip on both shoulders. 
We may well need the Spaeker of the House in attendance "order order order"
Would the right honourable gentlemen from Wirral ( me included) and Liverpool just "calm down, calm down now"
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: | I suppose any publicity is good publicity! This should be a great evening for us up north west here. Tin hat and camo jacket I think.
Some say scousers are unbalanced as they have a chip on their shoulder. As one born near London but having lived most of life near Liverpool i like to consider myself well balanced--having a chip on both shoulders.
We may well need the Spaeker of the House in attendance "order order order"
Would the right honourable gentlemen from Wirral ( me included) and Liverpool just "calm down, calm down now" |
LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the night that BNP leader Nick Griffin was facing a hostile reception during Question Time and being grilled about his parties beliefs, Andrew Johnson received a more receptive response as he tried to explain the alternative view as to why the towers collapsed.
Speaking mainly to the converted this was not a night for the 911 truth unbelieiver. To try and convert the unbeliever by saying the towers turned to dust is IMO like trying to convert someone to Christianity by arguing that God created the universe.
However for those who accept the official story is bogus and that planes (real or imaginary) and fire (real or imaginary) could not have caused the level of destruction then this was an evening of interest and intrigue, conspiracies within conspiracies, accusations, cover ups and name calling.
To be fair to Andrew he did cite his reasons and gave his evidence for such accusations and suggestions of cover ups within the 9/11 truth movement and I could understand that given the harsh treatment he claims then a reaction is understandable. However from a neutral perspective (am I neutral ?) is it really a cover up not to think the NPT or
Judy Wood photographic evidence or the presence of Hurricane Erin off shore on 9/11 is convincing. I can see the reasons why some might want to cover up those things or consider them controversial because they are seen as an embarrassment in the truth movement.
PersonaHly i can buy the DEW or exotic weapon theory WITHOUT, no planes theory , tesla, Hutchinson, Wood's photographic evtdence, jellification, levitating cars, selective engine eating beams? hurricanes, disappearing firemen? Why? because of one statement that Andrew or someone else made in relation to the level of destruction and that was something to the effect of "before the atom bomb could we have believed the level of destruction such a technology could cause".
We have indeed moved on along way since then. The question is who might hold such weaponary, who knows how to deploy it.
I am taking myself off to a quiet place to watch and read Mr Johnsons material again but for the time being conventional controlled demolition still has more credence because we know and can see that buildings can be demolished like WTC 7.. WTC 7 is indeed a smoking gun but I wonder who for ?
Thanks Andrew for a well presented and fascinating if not at times frustrating seminar and thanks to BKS for putting it on, thanks to Stephen for relieving me of £3 on the door (money well spent) thanks to Rosie and Lee for some moral support in their questions and thanks to Hatsoff for filming.
P.S Andrew i didnt answer the question raised "Why wasnt Hurricane Erin mentioned on 9/11" Possibly because of 9/11.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: |
P.S Andrew i didnt answer the question raised "Why wasnt Hurricane Erin mentioned on 9/11" Possibly because of 9/11. |
Thanks for the report. I wasn't trying to convert anyone to any way of thinking. I was presenting evidence for people to "take or leave" as I said at least twice that evening.
To attempt to answer your question - which I don't recall you personally asking me on the evening - and I don't recall anyone else asking - then this is what I have said before.
I showed the path/track of Erin - and it headed in towards the continental USA after passing Bermuda and being reported by CNN. With other Hurricanes heading towards land, they are reported BEFORE they make landfall - perhaps 2 or 3 days.
There is also a risk of storm swells on the coast if a Hurricane is stationary for some time - particularlt for somewhere like NYC because Manhattan is basically at sea level, so storm swells could easily cause flooding.
So, the Hurricane was a known potential danger BEFORE 9/11.
Fortunately, people who wanted to explore those issues more bought 50p DVDs - which had Dr Wood's 1 hour "Erin" presentation on it - or they bought the Hutchison Effect DVD. Perhaps you were one of those people.
Thanks for coming and looking at the evidence - I am still waiting for the answers to the previous questions raised in relation to why thermite evidence was not put in Jones et al's RFC (which I also showed on the night).
I have attempted to answer your hurricane question, so perhaps you cna answer my question? Who knows...
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
AJ wrote.- | Quote: | | I am still waiting for the answers to the previous questions raised in relation to why thermite evidence was not put in Jones et al's RFC (which I also showed on the night). |
hi Andrew I did purchase a couple of DVDs and have watched the 9/11 Hutchinson/Erin one yesteday.
In response to your question above the simple and honest answer is I dont know as I am not Stephen Jones and any attempted answer would be speculation. Your own speculation as to the reason (i.e unreacted thermite doesnt exist in the dust samples) is borne from a closer relationship to Mr Jones than most 911 truthers will ever have. I also presume from your comments that you would believe the work of Prof Niels Harritt is also bogus and just an attempt to hide what you consider to be the true cause for the WTCs "collapse"
One thing i struggle with is if DEW or similar was used for the destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 i.e top down then why does WTC 7 appear to be bottom up and what about the Pentagon. All very confusing.
I look forward with interest in viewing the other dvd i purchased.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: |
In response to your question above the simple and honest answer is I dont know as I am not Stephen Jones and any attempted answer would be speculation. Your own speculation as to the reason (i.e unreacted thermite doesnt exist in the dust samples) is borne from a closer relationship to Mr Jones than most 911 truthers will ever have. I also presume from your comments that you would believe the work of Prof Niels Harritt is also bogus and just an attempt to hide what you consider to be the true cause for the WTCs "collapse"
|
The basic questions are in that list I already linked to. If the thermite research is valid and sound, why hasn't it been included in a legal submission?
Secondly, did the towers turn to dust or not? Does thermite melt metal or does it turn it to dust? These are the basic questions Jones, Harrit et al do not have an answer for - or if they do, they never state it. (Perhaps partly because no one has the gumption to publicly ask them such a question).
| Quote: |
One thing i struggle with is if DEW or similar was used for the destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 i.e top down then why does WTC 7 appear to be bottom up and what about the Pentagon. All very confusing.
|
There are some "toasted" cars at the pentagon, but 2 PhD's doing a serious, evidence based independent 911 inquiry (Wood and Reynolds) whilst being attacked and ridiculed from many directions can only achieve so much.
And of course it is confusing! Why has it taken 8 years to get to this point? I mentioned on the night that I hadn't included much about WTC 7, because it is harder to explain to people how a building appears to have been "dissolved" over a period of several hours. Dr Wood has posted another study all about this
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/WTC7a.html
but it's already very tough to cover all the other evidence as it is! I did mention in talk how NIST debunked their own explanation (the "silent collapse" issue).
In summary, the data suggest the same or very similar technology was used to destroy WTC 7, but it was clearly used in a different way. I do not know the reason for the difference either.
Re NIST and WTC 7, you might wish to compare, for example, Kevin Ryan's comments on the WTC 7 report to Dr Woods and see which is more scientific and evidence-based.
(Also look at what NIST did to Dr Wood's small, colour submission)
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/
i.e. Dr Judy Wood submitted about 10 megs of colour PDFs - these have been converted by NIST to 100+ MB black and white PDF file of poor quality (printed and re-scanned, I would assume).
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
