View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
James C Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
skadseye wrote: | There is a video on 911myths which shows the wtc7 burning like hell, yet the mantra is that the fires were insignificant. |
I see no flames in that video therefore the building appears not to be burning like hell. The appearence of smoke, like any smoke can be very deceptive. True there is no smoke without fire but a smouldering, low heat fire will produce more smoke than a fierce, high temperature fire. It only takes a small smouldering, low temperature fire producing bags of smoke to look alarming and that is what is seen here. Ever lit a fire in the garden? The smoke is excessive at first, bellowing thick sooty smoke over the neighbours washing but then disappears as the fire heats up.
The fires in WTC7 are therefore low temperature fires, not yet having reached a decent temperature for the smoke to stop and certainly not to the temperature required to cause major structural weakness throughout the entire floorplan. The fire is therefore insignificant, just as the mantra says, which can be appreciated once one understands how fires work. Since 911myths presents no anaylsis of how fires and smoke behave when buildings burn its argument is weak.
Burning buildings do not naturally fall straight down into their own footprint at high speed - period. If they did, then demolition experts would be redundant. The whole idea of demolition is to bring down a building in one complete action and into its own footprint so as not to destroy surrounding buildings or cause injury. 911myths would have people believe that the way to bring any building down is to set fire to it and wait. They'd of course be waiting a long time just as the Windsor Tower fire showed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pikey Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another enlightening and positive contribution from A Sharp Major:-
Quote: | I admit that the lack of wreckage in front of the Pentagon looks spooky but I’ll it is not sinister. It is easily explained and has been. It’s fairly elementary.
There is nothing sinister about local CCTV footage being seized by the FBI. It’s what they do. Collect evidence. Why should the tapes/disks be released? Who wants to see people being murdered?
Your other points have already been addressed. I hate repeating myself |
I have not come across that explanation of a lack of wreckage, so tell me please SM! Also I always believed that the purpose of collecting evidence was for substantiating the case.
Quote: | One moment mature debate is being welcomed (thank you Justin-nice name- my boyfriend's name) next it's for acolytes only. |
Very mature comments SM! Its just the same boring establishment culture of playing the man and complete arrogance!
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win" Mahatma Gandhi _________________ Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | How do you feel about our call for a new independent enquiry into 9/11 or are you satisfied with the Kean Commission and its findings? Is there anything in the official story that you are suspicious of or are you completely happy with the official US Government line on 9/11? I really would appreciate a proper answer to these questions. Thanks |
I feel you are wasting your time.
I haven't read it because I'm not looking for fault in it.
There is nothing in the official story that arouses my suspicions.
_____
From Andrew Johnson
Quote: | "A Sharp Major" e-mailed me off list with a list of questions re WTC etc. |
A Sharp Major has done no such thing. I have had one PM from an as yet unknown poster, yet to be read and yet to be replied to. I have not e mailed or sent a pm to anyone on this site, yet. Over to you truth seeker.
My gravity jibe. Speed of Gravity? Should be self evident to those posters with the knowledge and experience to tell engineers that they are wrong.
The FBI didn't release the WTC films. They never had them in the first place. A bogus comparison. They were in the public domain from the beginning. The DoD (not Justice) released a low quality inconclusive series of snaps of the Pentagon attack.
As for the other tapes 'confiscated' around the Pentagon. Maybe the cameras were off, maybe they'd run out of tape or memory, maybe they were pointing the wrong way, maybe they were pointing the right way but their frame rate meant that the 'action' was missed. Maybe the FBI didn't confiscate any tapes. Just because somebody says so, doesn't make it so. That's why this site exists.
And maybe the FBI would like to keep you working yourselves into a lather while governments do the real dirty on citizens. The low key but real stuff. Not facilitating or causing the destruction of thousands of lives and a few landmark buildings. Imagine, you guys as unwitting , what is it you call them, 'shills?'
Don't confuse my lack of response to any particular question or point with
your being right, morally or technically. I'm not visiting that often and some statements don't deserve a response. _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Justin 9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 500 Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To A Sharp Major
I suggest you take your energies elsewhere - your somewhat childish ramblings and one liners do you no credit at all. I, for one, will not be replying to any more of your postings.
Justin Walker _________________ Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1919 Location: Derbyshire
|
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK - so A Sharp Major didn't DIRECTLY e-mail me off list. Justin forwarded an e-mail from him to ask me to help answer some questions.
I replied, referring him to the Physics thread, which contain many of the arguments he appeared to be making. Nuff said. _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | OK - so A Sharp Major didn't DIRECTLY e-mail me off list. Justin forwarded an e-mail from him to ask me to help answer some questions |
I have have sent no e mails to any user on nineeleven.co.uk
I have received one PM from 'inside job' and have not sent any PMs.
However I'm not surprised that there is trouble with the truth here.
Quote: | your somewhat childish ramblings |
I should fit in well then!
Nothing to add or expand. 1+0 is 1, 1x0 is 0. One liners will suffice. I'll leave padding to you guys. _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
ban this fool |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1919 Location: Derbyshire
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
ASM,
Your posting must have been coincident with another e-mail that Justin received.
We hope that people will come on here and make some kind of positive contribution.
It has already been made abundantly clear to you that we DO NOT BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY. Elements of it can be proven SCIENTIFICALLY to be lies. A lot of people seem to be afraid of saying that. I am not.
Now, crossed/mistaken e-mails identities accepted, do you have some kind of positive contribution to make to our discussion - please? _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Garrett Cooke Minor Poster
Joined: 07 Aug 2005 Posts: 85
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ASM wrote: Quote: | There is nothing in the official story that arouses my suspicions.
|
Just in case you missed the (most) important points:
1. For the first time in history, and so far not repeated, three steel framed buildings collapsed, supposedly due to fire, into their own footprints in a time consistent with freefall under gravity. One of these buildings was not hit by any aeroplane.
2. The was no significant aircraft wreckage seen at the Pentagon in photographs taken immediately after the supposed impact of Flight 77. The hole in the facade was not large enough to account for such an aeroplane having pentrated sufficiently into the building to 'hide' from the cameras.
3. For over one hour after Flight 11 was (supposedly) hijacked no fighter jets intercepted any errant aircraft. The intercept of aircraft by fighter jets was not an uncommon event in US airspace with 67 such intercepts reported in the period from October 2000 to July 2001. The expectation time for such intercepts being about 10 minutes from the FAA reporting a aircraft as having deviated from its flight path to interceptor jets reaching it.
Strikes me it takes an extremely blinkered view not to find any of the above three points highly suspicious if not damning evidence.
What was that about human stupidity?
Garrett
Last edited by Garrett Cooke on Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ian neal Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 3140 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ally wrote: | ban this fool |
Hi Ally
I have a certain sympathy with this, since my take is that these boards should be for those who recognise the need and support the call for a further independent inquiry which clearly ASM doesn't.
However I also recognise that we need to be open to engagement with our critics and to have the evidence scrutinsed
So I propose (and believe this was supported by those attending the Blackpool meeting, (can anyone who attended confirm this?)) that this forum should be open exclusively to those supporting a further inquiry, but that we establish a separate forum (that is clearly link from this forum) where those that wish to do so can enage in polite debate with ASM and others who either support the official report or who do support reopening the investigation.
Before we go down this route, (ban ASM from this forum and establish a separate forum to engage ASM and other critics) can I check if anyone objects to this proposal? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A ban is severe, I just wanted to send the turd a message really. The trolls can be good for people to sharpen their debating skills with. I've been dealing with these sorts for years and tend not to waste energy on them but others may want to have fun.
What do others think? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Quote: | ASM,
Your posting must have been coincident with another e-mail that Justin received............................
Now, crossed/mistaken e-mails identities accepted, do you have some kind of positive contribution to make to our discussion - please?
|
I suppose I should say thank you. Thank you.
Interesting that there is a move towards censorship here. Consiracy theorists are not beyond showing up on debunking sites and plugging your theories there. Some posters from here I'd wager. Censorship? That's what 'the man' does isn't it?
I'm not here to spy on you or disrupt you. Pointing out how quickly you jump to conclusions and how some posters process available evidence ( Pikey has demonstrated jumping to conclusions (ditto AJ) and latching on to the insignificant part of detail should make you question how you have processed 'scientific' and hearsay , anecdotal evidence about 9/11 and now, 7/7. A naive hope.
Repeating your same claims, observations, evidence, ad nauseum to professional engineers will not strengthen your case or increase your credibility. I prefer to resist repeating myself like the majority of my profession and associated disciplines who pour scorn on your and Professor Jones theories. What you need to prove your theories is not engineering science but people who will swear on oath that they know who planted explosives, controlled the radio controlled aircraft, killed and buried the would be passengers from the plane that 'didn't hit the Pentagon', generated the holograms, briefed and paid off the members of the public who plug 'the man's' version.
They should be easy to find, there must be thousands involved. Nobody feeling guilty? Nobody fancy making a lot of money? Why would anyone be afraid to speak out? The press in the UK aren't afraid to stick it to the Government so any American with something to say but afraid of his own Government should claim asylum in the UK and go public. There you are, a positive contribution.
Why deliberately destroy WTC 7? That's analogous to a thief robbing the crown jewels and while making his escape, dips the pocket of a Yeoman Warder. Not much point.
I'm a member of the public. No agenda to make you 'go away' and not on any agency's payroll. I believe Governments (especially the current UK government )lie and scheme but I don't believe the US Government (or any military/industrial cartel) is physically or more importantly morally capable of doing what you suggest. _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
banthetroll |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skadseye Minor Poster
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
banning is insane |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Corn4Texture New Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 5 Location: The Not So Intellectually Deep South
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For what my HO is worth here, as a newcomer Yank who lived roughly 3 hours from NYC on Sept. 11th...
I usually enjoy a good debate, particularly when it comes from an open-minded source - such as someone who's not buying what I'm saying, and has good reason to question it. I've had such debates, and it has lead me to realise I had assumed a few things I perhaps shouldn't have.
However, I've been on about 9/11 for the past year and a half, when I read David Ray Griffin's book about the 9/11 Commission Report. The light bulb went on and stayed on.
Over that period of time I have been supremely annoyed by the MSM's obvious attempt to adhere to the government's unofficial ban on anything that questions their official version of events, despite what I saw as glaring errors, critical omissions and outright distortions and lies. And I have been pummeled by what I have perceived to be agents of the guilty parties - shills for the government, defense industry and "managment perception" agencies such as The Rendon Group. I denote these shills by their attitude as well as behavior. I'm a liberal Democrat at heart, and I frequent the liberal message boards. These shills most often come in as the most rabid anti-Bush people you'd ever met - suggesting impeachment if not the actual disembowlment of Dubya. Then they streak over to the 9/11 forums, and are the most obstinate, non-negotiable debaters who end almost every thread with "You people are all a bunch of paranoid lunatics! Go Cheney yourselves!" They also use particular common phrases in their put-downs, as well as other similarities I've noticed.
So, the result is that - to the weak-minded - you begin to think "maybe I am just paranoid", since belief in these people as an organized entity would be one more layer of paranoia, if not mild schizophrenia. The job they do is failry effective at times.
Then I began researching entities such as The Rendon Group. These guys normally deal in media manipulation - such as the manufactured stories planted in Baghdad papers recently - but John Rendon quite proudly claims that he has "people working the internet" as well. That fit my description too well, and some of my feelings were confirmed. Why wouldn't the government and defense contractors and who knows whom else put an effort into steering message boards in the right direction, inorder to quell this groundswell? They most certainly would. (Along with that, we had the infamous "self-outing" of an NIST shill a while back.)
I'm on the Air America boards a lot, and 2 of the hosts - Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, have recently begun to "come out" on 9/11, particularly Malloy. In the past week since Malloy's big unveiling, I have seen a plethora of new members, with ridiculously obivous, unimaginitive liberal-sounding names who sometimews don't even bother to make a political post. They streak over to the 9/11 forum and disagree with everything anyone says that's anti-government. They also direct attention to the new darling of government disinfo sites, 911myths.com. Or, 911miss.com, as we call it.
So, as I encounter what I see as somewhat unreasonable friction in these discussion groups, I have to draw some kind of line, between real, useful debate that is the true sharing of data amongst people who see a problem, and deliberate distraction from the issue for sinister purposes. Obviously that's what you here are trying to decide as well.
The bottom line is - yes, censorship of any kind is the first cousin of the gagging device that lead us into this mess in the first place, as Bush administration pressure kept a complicit media from the slightest mention of anything falsely painted as "anti-American". So, disallowing alternate veiwpoints is truly wrong. But, on the other hand, "The Perpetraiters" (as I call them), have all the help they need in the media. They don't need any push in these forums, particularly from those who's only argument is "this could never happen, you're all insane." I make that distinction on my own system, and that's how I must do it. But I will not simply leave a discussion board when I determine someone is a shill, since that is one of their definitions of a victory. To drive the truly committed away in disgust or frustration.
Just my 2 cents. _________________ The official government version of 9/11 is perfect...... FOR ME TO POOP ON! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: a separate forum? |
|
|
ian neal wrote: |
So I propose (and believe this was supported by those attending the Blackpool meeting, (can anyone who attended confirm this?)) that this forum should be open exclusively to those supporting a further inquiry, but that we establish a separate forum (that is clearly link from this forum) where those that wish to do so can enage in polite debate with ASM and others who either support the official report or who do support reopening the investigation.
Before we go down this route, (ban ASM from this forum and establish a separate forum to engage ASM and other critics) can I check if anyone objects to this proposal? |
I think there needs to be a place where people who doubt the official US government theory (that the undoubted conspiracy which engineered the 911 attacks was initiated by Al Qaeda alone) can debate with each other about it. I see no reason why this website should not provide a separate area for debate with those who want to support the US government's theory. I think this needs to be managed carefully or we shall earn a reputation for censorship, which those who support Bush and co will undoubtedly exploit. That will require someone constantly monitoring the site to ensure that posts appear in the correct section. Do we have anyone who is prepared to do that?
I don't remember if this was discussed at Blackpool, but I do remember that support for an independent inquiry was not unanimous there. At least one person argued that we are the independent inquiry and I expect that others take the view that a demand for such an inquiry is likely to result in the same old whitewash as the Kean Zelikow Commission.
Personally I think the kind of inquiry most likely to be useful is an international nongovernmental one, though that would not be the end of the story. Therefore I propose linking up with Webster Tarpley who is advocating this approach.
Debate with supporters of the official line is useful, but so is debate exclusively among those who don't support it.
I also think that personal insults should be avoided at all costs. The temptation to insult may be overwhelming when someone has insulted you, but to insult those you're debating with only reflects worse on the insulter than on the insulted.
Amidst all the debate, those of us who disbelieve the US government line should remember that the most useful thing we can do is to campaign: in the streets, at meetings, in the press, by letter etc.
Noel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ian neal Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 3140 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to clarify
I'm not suggesting censorship or banning ASM for being critical of us.
I am only suggesting a separation
One forum which is an on-line community for supporters and another which would be for supporters and our critics to engage in debate. So no censorship just a separation
The options range from 1) keeping things as they are, 2) a separate section called critics corner (or similar) on this forum or 3) a separate forum with a separation in memberlists but a clear link posted between the sites.
I hope this clarifies what I'm proposing |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ally says
Later Ally says
Quote: | A ban is severe, I just wanted to send the turd a message really. The trolls can be good for people to sharpen their debating skills with |
Then Ally says
Is that evidence of mood swings Ally, or just trouble coming to a decision?
'Turd, fool?' Have I been been quite so insulting? Dismissive and critical yes but I've not stooped so low. Even Paxman doesn't go there!
A critics corner as proposed by 'ian neal' may be what you need so that members of the public at odds with you consiracy theorists, who cannot ignore what they regard as for example; naive, foolish, misguided may let off steam or sharpen their debating skills (good point Ally-works both ways). Critical posts could be moved (with a link left behind) into the dedicated thread. But it's your trainset and I'm not here to break it _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Corn4Texture New Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 5 Location: The Not So Intellectually Deep South
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I visit a lot of 9/11 message boards. And I can't help but notice one additional anomaly surrounding these debates.
The most vehement deniers of conspiracy are almost always relatively newbie members. I'd say 90% of the time. And what I'd say are the 'cream of the crop' of absolute, unquestioning government story supporters - across the board from JFK through MLK to OKC and 9/11 - it's closer to 100%.
Does that raise anyone else's eyebrows?
"Hey kids, were you bullied in school because you were the dummy? Do you long for a day when you can tll lots of intelligent people that they're full of *? Try an exciting new career in the government's new Media Perception Management Team, we're hiring like crazy right now..."
Just a thought. _________________ The official government version of 9/11 is perfect...... FOR ME TO POOP ON! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pikey Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I have said in previous messages IMO this website forum is a learning resource centre to seek the truth of the events of 911 and as a networking tool to share the latest news. To date it has worked marvellously and IMO is a key asset, second only to the dedicated 911 Truth campaigners who regularly visit this website and 911 truth campaign in their local area.
We all know the official version of 911. I have no problem with those who support the official version (after all I supported the official version until I read David Ray Griffins outstanding book "The New Pearl Harbour) coming on this forum and trying to convince those who believe the official version is cpver up/lie that they are wrong.
Sadly there is not one post from ASM to date that enters into a reasoned debate or offers any new 911 information for us to consider . All that ASM does is get personal and insult.
I do not believe we should facilitate the forum for people like ASM who are clearly intent on playing the man and not the ball. Yep in my opinion he/she deserves the red card if we value this website forum as a 911 truth seeking, learning resource centre.
ASM appears to possess the qualities of an attention seeking school bully,
so lets just ignore him and not waste our limited energy.
Peace & truth _________________ Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ian neal Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 3140 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ban/Red Card? No I don't think so. ASM is more polite and reasoned than some I've met on the internet discussing 9/11. Besides this thread is not so much about ASM (although it helps that s/he is here because it illustrates the point) but about how we (both this forum and the 9/11 truth movement in general) engage with our critics on the internet and how critical voices can change the nature of a thread.
I would stick with the 3 suggestions I made earlier
Either we keep it as is: namely critics and supporters on the same forum
Or separation into 2 forums or 2 sections of the same forum.
In the meantime perhaps we can experiment with a specific thread to explore 9/11 myths and invite a sharp major to post there
http://nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=3430#3430 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1919 Location: Derbyshire
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think there can be any compromises on "freedom of speech", unless there are libellous or legal implications which would cause a lot of trouble for people (here or there!)
All of us can ignore any post we choose.
If we get Spam posting about Porno sites or stuff like that, that can be deleted (and already has). But we stand for truth and freedom, so we have to stand by that idea - even when it means we could make mistakes (i.e. I probably made a mistake about that e-mail mentioned above - I think I assumed it was from ASM and it was probably from someone else. This is a problem for me when processing 100's of megabytes of information in a day!)
I don't like abusive language, but aren't most of used to having baseless accusations made against us at one level or another? I certainly am (and I mean in situations far outside this board too). _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skadseye Minor Poster
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
keep things as they are.. everyone stay polite and respect the fact that nobody truly knows for sure what happened.
keep in mind that everybody here is interested in truth, and work together. don't assume we know everything yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey, you are being disingenuous. Whatever the insult/bully threshhold is, I'm on the polite/benign side of the line compared with Ally or now, Corn4Texture. Also, you haven't responded to my critique of the way you jump to conclusions and process available information. Perhaps you feel you don't need to but you did walk into a couple of traps. Perhaps acolytes don't care but guests on the site may notice and draw their own conclusions about the intellectual base here.
Corn4Texture, your observation about the majority of posters opposed the site orthodoxy being newbies isn't a great discovery. Most people enter conspiracy sites with their minds made up one way or another. It's already been pointed out since I made my unwelcome appearance that this site is for those who are "on message" and prepared to spread the message (and tell each other how clever they are).
Quote: | For what my HO is worth here, as a newcomer Yank who lived roughly 3 hours from NYC on Sept. 11th... |
Roughly three hours on foot (12 miles) or roughly three hours by Concorde (flying at the time) which would put you in London? Or roughly three hours by bicycle, car or subsonic aircraft which puts you anywhere in a 1500 mile radius from NYC? You didn't say. Don't be so quick to align yourself with intelligent people Corn4Texture. Whatever method of transport you chose, you were roughly three hours farther away than I was. I didn't have to get my NYC observations from television and websites.
For what it's worth I'm not responsible for any spam or other e mails received by posters here or any technical disruption to the site. _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Graham Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 350 Location: bucks
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
ASM, so you haven't read the Comission Report. How can you "defend" it?
If your such ASM, could you explain to us lesser mortals how WTC7 collapsed? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: everyone interested in truth? |
|
|
skadseye wrote: | keep in mind that everybody here is interested in truth, and work together. don't assume we know everything yet. |
I don't think we should assume everyone here is interested in truth. I would be surprised if some people posting here were not working for intelligence services and their role would be to suppress the truth, to argue that an independent inquiry should not be undertaken and that the word of Bush, Blair etc that we are all in danger of imminent attack from wild fanatical Muslims, who hate freedom, should be taken as gospel and that we had better accept curtailment of our civil rights by draconian means in order to protect our democratic freedoms.
If intelligence services are not posting on this forum, they're slipping. Come on CIA, MI5, MI6, Mossad, ISI etc where are you? Get your act together.
Noel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
James C Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I don't have any problem with criticism but I think ASM's method of attack should be ignored.
ASM is only interested in trying to divert our attention and offers no conclusive proof of the counter arguments. ASM prefers to pick on our use of language, intellectual capacity and persona as a way to criticise the group as a whole. It would be better if we didn't rise to this.
If we are to engage with ASM then it would be better to stick to the facts and leave all aggravating language out. ASM will then have to follow suit or be ignored.
Just my thought anyway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | ASM, so you haven't read the Comission Report. How can you "defend" it? |
In the same way that one conspiracy theorist can defend another conspiracy theorist’s conclusions without actually comparing notes. If the conclusions are the same 'defence' is unavoidable and not indicative of any intellectual shortcoming. If my conclusions are the same as the report you refer to I am able to 'defend' it without reading it. I could therefore 'defend' it without even knowing it existed.
Thank you 'ian neal' for your ‘defence’ of my reason and manners. I'm also more polite than some ‘on message’ posters, isn’t that so Ally?
I’ll not explain WTC7 or debate anything else as most minds are closed here. Read my previous posts. As an engineer and a lot closer to NY events of the day than many if not all posters here I’m at a disadvantage on this site. If, with those credentials I shared your conclusions and suspicions I would be pushed to the front as your site darling.
You are as welcome to your views as I am to mine. I wouldn’t dream of censorship and I'm surprised that truthseekers would propose such a thing. Nine Eleven uberweenie Eric Hufschmid can even deny the holocaust to whatever extent he likes even if it is distasteful to do so. Those of you who think that the security services of any nation are monitoring your movement, this site and your minority of fellows across the net are probably mistaken.
Happily for you and for me, my short association with this forum and conspiracy are coming to an end. My lazy period is at an end and I’m off New York to do some work that will take priority over internet chat. I fully expect some of you to crow that this is some sort of victory over a fool, spook, shill, poodle etc so I'll repeat myself (which I hate).
My lazy period is at an end and I’m off New York to do some work that will take priority over internet chat.
Regards
A#Maj _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ianrcrane Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 352 Location: Devon
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: Disciples of Orthodoxy |
|
|
Xmasdale wrote:
Quote: | I would be surprised if some people posting here were not working for intelligence services and their role would be to suppress the truth |
Xmasdale makes an astute observation. There are a few recent arrivals to this forum that have demonstrated their determination to undermine rational discussion, debate and exchange of information, by resorting to rant and ridicule. Engagement (if it can really be called that!) with such individuals may be frustrating but it does play a very important part in the Truth process.
The raison d'etre of the disciples of orthodoxy could fall into any of the examples identified below:
1). They genuinely believe that the official version of 9/11 (and/or 7/7) is correct and they are on an evangelical mission to save us from our delusions.
2). They believe in the official version but are interested in trying to understand the increasingl popularity of the view that there are some aspects of the official version that do not stand up to scrutiny.
3). They have a desire to undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement.
4). They wish to find out what we know so that they can amend the official version to take account of the more blatant anomolies.
5). They wish to keep us bogged down in pointless debate to distract from the genuine research.
I have been following some of these debates on selected forums and I would like to acknowledge that I have found them to be most informative. Indeed, some of the points raised by the Disciples of Orthodoxy have led me to avenues of investigation that I had not previously pursued. The subsequent research adding further weight to my conviction that the International 9/11 Truth Movement has a major role in awakening those who still live the in the illusion of Freedom & Democracy.
Do not be disheartened or threatened by such debate. It is important to remain emotionally detatched and keep to the questions and anomolies arising from the 'official' version of events. Everybody has a choice as to whether or not they participate in 'exchanges' on this, or any other forum.
Let's also acknowledge that the 'traffic' increases dramatically when any Disciples of Orthodoxy present themselves!
Although I Originally posted the following in response to ASM under thread titled 'View of a Military Expert .......' (See Articles), I think that it is also relevent to this tread.
A Sharp Major wrote:
Quote: | You will go to your graves with your theories unproven, a marginalised and maligned group who should take stock of where they really are in the intellectual food chain. |
It is very interesting to note that disciples of 9/11 & 7/7 orthodoxy routinely adopt an aggressive and confrontational style in their postings; rational debate being substituted for rant and vitriolic attack.
However, we should not be discouraged or even concerned by these increasingly aggressive and dismissive postings, as it does not take too long for the discerning reader to identify the genuine truth seeker. The more these people continue to post rant and vitriol, the more evident it becomes that they appear to have some unstated desire to prevent full independent inquiries.
The 'Major' observes that there are only 275 (now 281) registered users but this site is viewed by many people who are not registered and I know for a fact that some visitors have been introduced to the magnitude of 9/11 anomalies by following threads on this forum.
I and many others in the global 9/11 Truth Movement may indeed go to our graves with our theories unproven but it will be with the knowledge that we did not prostitute our souls, in return for maintaining the illusion of short-term self-gratification or supporting a pathocracy openly committed to global hegemony.
The number who see through the illusion increases on a daily basis and it is most refreshing and highly encouraging to witness the tactics being adopted by those who wish to resist the Quest for Truth.
Ian R. Crane |
|
Back to top |
|
|
brian Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Posts: 611 Location: Scotland
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Talking of tactics -
Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet
--Rumsfeld’s comments are intended to awaken his constituents to the massive information war that is being waged to transform the Internet into the progeny of the MSM; a reliable partner for the dissemination of establishment-friendly news. --
--The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline. --
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm
The "enemy" Rumsfeld refers to is truth itself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|