If you look at the hundreds of card in the vicinity they all appear to have exploded from within by some forces of pressure - maybe the same forces from the beam weapon caused the squibs - check it out.
Given the amount of people in the area, many experienced journalists and rescue service professionals - can you cite one witness who saw people spontaneously 'fry' or cars explode as the weapon hit its target and spilled into the car parks?
I guess they were all too busy running?? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Assuming they are not stupid then they knew the Official Conspiracy Theory would soon be discredited.
They want you to believe that it's controlled demolition - Why do you think even George Bush has mentioned it.
Step forward Willie Rodriquez - he heard bombs going off in the basement.
Don't you find this strange? - these were not the bombs that brought the building down because WTC came down later.
So what was the purpose of them?. Answer to make everybody believe that bombs brought the building down.
Step forward Steve Jones to add further credibility to controlled demolition.
What do you have? Virtually the entire truth movement being in agreement on this one thing.
This has now been discredited by Judy Wood and lots of you will have difficulty taking this in - YOU ARE IN DENIAL
This is exactly what the perps want - planes v no planes and controlled demolition v a beam weapon - the movement is split - that's how they work - divide and rule - TWIG IT?
Maybe before insulting everyone you could watch 911mysteries and place all that evidence into your conspiracy theory then come back and tell us all about it.
They want you to believe that it's controlled demolition - Why do you think even George Bush has mentioned it.
TWIG IT?
I have to say, no, I do not.
If the government actively purports a controlled demolition - then how would they explain the setting of the charges, done only during the security drills in the weeks prior to 9/11?
It makes no sense for the government to push this as it implicates them. CT using explosives would take a great deal of planning and setting of charges - how could this be achieved by terrorists? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Hmm this is getting silly, time to start banning some of the shills and trolls me thinks! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Hmm quite a bit of ridicule and hyperbole. A sure sign that "something's up".
A quick re-cap:
1) WTC constructed within Bathtub a relatively (compared to the conflagration) fragile structure. Even though the debris came down quickly, the subway car shows little damage and the bathtub is intact.
2) Circular hole in WTC 6 (I think it was this one) - caused by what exactly?
3) Paint burned off cars, but only in selected areas - kind of like "really bad sunburn"
4) Evidence of beam weapons in Iraq (see video linked at end of Judy's article also here:
Of course when they said "um - yeah, they kind of worked, but were a bit rubbish really" they were telling the truth, right? Just like the told us the truth about the 19 Arabs (etc).
In the destruction of the WTC, anyone notice "the Spire"? 3 mins 29 into this video:
What is that spire made of? A column of self-standing dust? In the midst of the collapse? Or can we actually see the steel being "dustified" before our every eys
Perhaps people would have felt more comfortable if Judy had called the article "Road Runner in the WTC Mall"? (What the heck does the title matter? Look at the evidence and make up your own title - then suggest it to Morgan and Judy as a new title - if you're polite, they might take you seriously)
Why is that people say "we need evidence" and Judy presents pages and pages of evidence, calculations etc yet people react as if she has just said, in an off the cuff remark "Beam Weapon".
I did like the Mr Grimsdale skit though!
Going OT slightly, anyone ever heard of Project Orion? This involved Physicist Freeman Dyson. Amazing what they've kept secret.
But think - it was easy for them to keep the CD of WTC secret from most people for several years - and that happened in the middle of a big city in broad daylight. Just imagine the secrets they can keep in remote, desert and mountainous areas - it just needs various distractions and maybe the odd Psy-Op to throw people off the scent...
Well folks, if you think this whole thing is ridiculous, you're gonna have a hard time swallowing what could be coming over the next few years...
I better not talk about such things though, had I? I might "damage the 9/11 Truth Movement"! (I've even been "told off" for by one prominent 9/11 Truth person for having non 9/11 topics on my website! I'd better watch it hadn't I?) _________________ Andrew
Sorry Andrew but the beam weapon is balls. It's been created to undermine the thermite theory which is gathering pace. A new investagation may well happen but if thermite isn't considered above a "Beam Weapon" then it will be another farce. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Do you believe that a normal controlled demolition would have broken the bathtup and flooded Manhattan?
I am unable to answer that as I am not qualified in that area. I cannot even give an opinion as all I have to base a view on is what 'experts' tell on the internet.
However, you have avoided all my questions thus far.
Be advised though that I do not actually profess to know what made the WTC collapse. I do not support CT above any other possible method. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Do you believe that a normal controlled demolition would have broken the bathtup and flooded Manhattan?
I am unable to answer that as I am not qualified in that area. I cannot even give an opinion as all I have to base a view on is what 'experts' tell on the internet.
However, you have avoided all my questions thus far.
Be advised though that I do not actually profess to know what made the WTC collapse. I do not support CT above any other possible method.
Telly - I'm an observer just like you - what do you think the purpose was of the bombs that went off prior to the collapse?
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject:
Its not denial to require there to be a reasonable proof that unknown technology has been used before jumping up and down proclaiming beam weapons to be the truth
This "bathtub" angle requires a lot more work, the area involved was huge, and the reason for its construction was to keep ground water out of the foundations of the WTC complex. But its very depth (@six stories) means the volume of the filling soil would be a powerful cushion from material impacting on the surface. More work needs to be done to show that events were played out purposfully to protect the bathtab from the shock of the weight of the WTC dropping down, and that this conclusion is sound. Without "protecting the bathtub", the need for use of "weapon X" becomes less clear. Even if or "Just becuase" its in the arsenal, doesnt mean it gets used
There are other problems both with the beam weapon and mini nuke hypothesis, which is time. With weapons technologuies we know nothing about, we cannnot just assume that use of such weapons would fit with what effects were observed that day. We have no data to show how quickly a mini nuke or beam weapon might destroy the towers: and the very concept of either summons the image of a far faster process of destruction.
IMHO its not discussion of the ideas which is a problem for the movement: but people having "Conversions on the road to Damascus" and mouthing off about ideas simply becuase its gives the imagination and ego a buzz, that definately IS damaging _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Why is that people say "we need evidence" and Judy presents pages and pages of evidence, calculations etc yet people react as if she has just said, in an off the cuff remark "Beam Weapon".
This for me sums it up wonderfully - pages and pages of evidence supplied by an expert.
Whilst I in no way challenge Judy's credentials (seen enough dodgy documents of so-called experts thus far), what you cite is not 'enough' to satisfy the average man in the street.
I have to ask - does this REALLY aid us and move The Movement any closer to;
1) Gaining more members/believers.
2) Revealing the truth and/or organising a new investigation.
or;
Does it simply rubber-stamp us as being simply a bunch of nutcases??
It doesn't matter if the whole beam-thing is true or not - I personally think that going public with such concepts bends us over the table and treats us all to a good fifteen minutes with a greasy cucumber. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Why is that people say "we need evidence" and Judy presents pages and pages of evidence, calculations etc yet people react as if she has just said, in an off the cuff remark "Beam Weapon".
This for me sums it up wonderfully - pages and pages of evidence supplied by an expert.
Whilst I in no way challenge Judy's credentials (seen enough dodgy documents of so-called experts thus far), what you cite is not 'enough' to satisfy the average man in the street.
I have to ask - does this REALLY aid us and move The Movement any closer to;
1) Gaining more members/believers.
2) Revealing the truth and/or organising a new investigation.
or;
Does it simply rubber-stamp us as being simply a bunch of nutcases??
It doesn't matter if the whole beam-thing is true or not - I personally think that going public with such concepts bends us over the table and treats us all to a good fifteen minutes with a greasy cucumber.
So even if you were 100% convinced that a beam weapon was used - you would tell Joe Public it was explosives because you fear the cucumber
Ah, great. Another theory to tell Joe Public we've cracked it - we've found the most smokingest gun yet! 9/11 = Beam weapons from outer space using holograms as planes. Give me a break.
Yet another theory that has the movement going round in circles anyone seeing a pattern?
Sorry, but this kind of keech is not helping us in reaching critical mass. _________________ 'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
www.glasgow911truth.net www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject:
[quote="THETRUTHWILLSETU3"]
telecasterisation wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Quote:
Why is that people say "we need evidence" and Judy presents pages and pages of evidence, calculations etc yet people react as if she has just said, in an off the cuff remark "Beam Weapon".
This for me sums it up wonderfully - pages and pages of evidence supplied by an expert.
Whilst I in no way challenge Judy's credentials (seen enough dodgy documents of so-called experts thus far), what you cite is not 'enough' to satisfy the average man in the street.
I have to ask - does this REALLY aid us and move The Movement any closer to;
1) Gaining more members/believers.
2) Revealing the truth and/or organising a new investigation.
or;
Does it simply rubber-stamp us as being simply a bunch of nutcases??
It doesn't matter if the whole beam-thing is true or not - I personally think that going public with such concepts bends us over the table and treats us all to a good fifteen minutes with a greasy cucumber.
So even if you were 100% convinced that a beam weapon was used - you would tell Joe Public it was explosives because you fear the cucumber
The thing is it only seems that you and a few others are convinced. As John White said this is related to ego and not thinking about the campaign as a whole. I seem to recall you saying it was holograms hitting the building and then changed your mind to fakery. You seemed convinced ti was holograms for a while so you'll have to excuse me if I don't trust your endorsement. Like I've said numerous times too I don't argue CD generally as there is not enough scientific support for this yet. Those who can explain it should be lobbying architects and physicists to get more on board so that other campaigners can refer to more experts.
Andrew,
You saw how they brought up the moonlanding stuff from your website in the Teelegraph article. This sort of stuff will be used against the movement. Look at Dave S and the holograms in the New Statesmen. Everyone should be focusing on cracking 9/11 not pushing pet theories and bringing in other areas like aliens, JFK, etc, irrespective of your thoughts on these. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
So even if you were 100% convinced that a beam weapon was used - you would tell Joe Public it was explosives because you fear the cucumber
Currently we are all being swirled away in a maelstrom of theories and ideas and I genuinely and only recently have a major problem with regard to pushing the 9/11 hoax thing to fresh ears. It has become too complicated for the average person to deal with and the longer it goes on and the more we conjure stuff from the ether (now bathtubs and beam weapons) it becomes entirely self-destructive.
It isn't me you have to convince - it is the checkout girl in Tesco's, the serving police officer and Miss Collins (my youngest daughter's teacher).
If I was convinced 100% of anything, I would have had proof - so if I was 100% sure of a beam weapon, then I would have it and if that was the case, I would have no qualms about presenting it to anyone.
You are telling me to look at car parks - peel the cucumber first please. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
I don't argue CD generally as there is not enough scientific support for this yet.
Andrew,
You saw how they brought up the moonlanding stuff from your website in the Teelegraph article. This sort of stuff will be used against the movement. Look at Dave S and the holograms in the New Statesmen. Everyone should be focusing on cracking 9/11 not pushing pet theories and bringing in other areas like aliens, JFK, etc, irrespective of your thoughts on these.
And this guy was appointed vice president of the campaign!
Who cares about impressing the Telegraph, they have lied to us since day one and are just tomorrow's hamster cage lining. The media have had five years to tell the truth and they're not just gonna suddenly change because you want us to adopt a 911 lite approach. As telecastrion says our job is to convince the man in the street.
Don't know why you're so obsessed with the media class, are you hoping to gain some kind of fame out of your position? _________________
Last edited by Ally on Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
As things were getting a trifle heated, here’s the genuine packaging for Ainsley’s sausage range as marketed in Ireland.
fork1.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
37.34 KB
Viewed:
151 Time(s)
_________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
After their deceitful attack on Jones, which could only be interpreted as an attack on the truth movement in general, I would not give Woods or Reynolds any credibility whatsoever.
Unless science says there is no other explanation regards anything these two put forward I for one will take it with a large pinch of salt.
Has either apologised for the mistakes (blatant lies) told in the first paper attacking Jones? The fact that these mistakes (lies) were so blatant and no apology from them says to me their intentions were not honourable.
Andrew,
You saw how they brought up the moonlanding stuff from your website in the Teelegraph article. This sort of stuff will be used against the movement. Look at Dave S and the holograms in the New Statesmen. Everyone should be focusing on cracking 9/11 not pushing pet theories and bringing in other areas like aliens, JFK, etc, irrespective of your thoughts on these.
Andy,
As we know, the media print what they like. Duncan Gardham rang me up and asked me why I thought the latest terror plot was a fake. I explained my reasoning and discussed WTC 7 with him. He already knew my wife's profession, so had done some research on me. He never mentioned my website or that he had looked at it and that he was going to refer to it in his article. As I have said, I stand by everything that I have written that is on there (and there isn't actually a great deal that is my own writing).
So this is an example of their tactics. I stay focused on evidence. I certainly can't see many replies to specific points of evidence that I re-capped on earlier - from you or anyone.
I am "my own man" - just as David Shayler is. We don't expect people on a message board to dictate what we think or research.
For the record, I didn't originally post any links to Judy's article on this board, for precisely the reasons people seem to be "panicking" about on this and other related threads.
People say it's a "nutty theory". People "outside" the movement also say CD of the WTC is a "nutty theory". Both these "nutty theories" are based on a set of scientific and video evidence - much of the other evidence is kept secret.
I can see TC is on Top Form today and I have particularly enjoyed his choice of pictures - especially as they have been totally unrelated to any serious discussion of the development of Beam Weapons during the Regan Presidential era, for example
People can do and think what they want - but if we were to try and dictate what other people should think, research or state in public, then we haven't really moved on very much from what the PTB want to do.
The UK campaign "mission statement" clearly states it does not endorse one position or another, which gives the required framework for articles like this to be posted and discussed.
It is the quality of discussion which is most likely to affect people's reaction to the site more than anything else. Endless "fruitlooping" won't really help anyone. Presentation and rebuttal of specific points of evidence would be better.
I am surprised that so many people who risk ridiciule by associating themselves with "nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories" seem to worry about ridicule over a topic like this (but yes, I still don't discuss this type of thing with "jo public" unless specifically asked)
The questions Judy Wood and others have raised need to be answered - or at least, Judy and me share a desire for them to be answered - because we strongly feel they are near the core of what happened on 9/11.
Others can "hang back" a little and stick with the "Inside Job" - which we all agree on. So, we each have a choice and unlike some, I can understand peoples reasons for the "hanging back" or "diving through" action. _________________ Andrew
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject:
Ally wrote:
andyb wrote:
I don't argue CD generally as there is not enough scientific support for this yet.
Andrew,
You saw how they brought up the moonlanding stuff from your website in the Teelegraph article. This sort of stuff will be used against the movement. Look at Dave S and the holograms in the New Statesmen. Everyone should be focusing on cracking 9/11 not pushing pet theories and bringing in other areas like aliens, JFK, etc, irrespective of your thoughts on these.
And this guy was appointed vice president of the campaign!
Who cares about impressing the Telegraph, they have lied to us since day one and are just tomorrow's hamster cage lining. The media have had five years to tell the truth and they're not just gonna suddenly change because you want us to adopt a 911 lite approach. As telecastrion says our job is to convince the man in the street.
Don't why you're so obsessed with the media class, are you hoping to gain some kind of fame out of your position?
Ally,
you just don't get it do you. I seriously don't think you could have convinced many people with your agressiveness. The average man on the street will read the Metro/Sun, etc and we need to turn these guys round and the man on the street will follow. The press is run by the advertisiers so we do need to get enough grass roots support for them to take us seriously but the merest mention of star beams and no planes puts us back.
How do you expect me to go and push CD when I am not a physicist or an engineer? You may try to but this is where you fall down. I'll stick to the facts I can talk about and have done enough research to be sure of what I say. If I banged on about CD to someone better qualified than me then I would expect they would ask questions I couldn't answer. This is why people like Andrew J and Snowy, who do know what they are talking about, should be raising it amongst engineers and physicists. At the moment we can only really point to Stephen Jones and even he's now taking a battering from Judy Wood's and her merry men. People who aren't in those fields will naturally back the majority, hence the need to get more on board.
This isn't Lite Truth, just how we are going to win this battle. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
I would just like to let people know that after reading the “Beam Weapon” nonsense and realising they had attacked Steven Jones work I have dismissed these characters as shills. My retraction here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35626#35626
And don't forget that Wood's and Reynolds are also pushing the “No Planes” sh*t. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject:
We continue to get tied in knots because it is not clear what the purpose of this discussion board is. Researchers want to use it to discuss the finer points of 9/11 research on what must have happened, while campaigners want to use it to present a credible picture of the campaign to the public. These are mutually incompatible objectives. This website needs to be divorced from the campaign so that on it people can discuss what ever they like without their opinions being taken as those of the campaign.
Personally I am far more interested in presenting a credible campaign than in discovering details about how the 9/11 attacks were carried out. If I discovered incontovertible evidence that the attacks were organised by little blue creatures from Mars, but the proof of that could only be understood by someone with a PhD in genetics, I would not consider that proof a useful campaigning tool.
The campaigning technique I would employ is one where we show the evidence and pose the tough questions, but do not attempt to describe what we think really happened in any detail. To claim we know what happened only serves to divide us because we all have different ideas about it.
People who want to discuss what they think really happened should be able to do so in a place where their opinions are not taken as representative of the campaign.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject:
xmasdale wrote:
We continue to get tied in knots because it is not clear what the purpose of this discussion board is. Researchers want to use it to discuss the finer points of 9/11 research on what must have happened, while campaigners want to use it to present a credible picture of the campaign to the public. These are mutually incompatible objectives. This website needs to be divorced from the campaign so that on it people can discuss what ever they like without their opinions being taken as those of the campaign.
Personally I am far more interested in presenting a credible campaign than in discovering details about how the 9/11 attacks were carried out. If I discovered incontovertible evidence that the attacks were organised by little blue creatures from Mars, but the proof of that could only be understood by someone with a PhD in genetics, I would not consider that proof a useful campaigning tool.
The campaigning technique I would employ is one where we show the evidence and pose the tough questions, but do not attempt to describe what we think really happened in any detail. To claim we know what happened only serves to divide us because we all have different ideas about it.
People who want to discuss what they think really happened should be able to do so in a place where their opinions are not taken as representative of the campaign.
Noel
I agree, our focus should be on showing that the official explanations, whether for the demolition of all three towers or the Pentagon FDR or the Shanksville case are hogwash.
The 'how' can be discussed and evaluated as they are being, but the shortcomings of the FEMA/NIST Reports and the 911 Commission would need to be the main thrust of the campaign.
If I discovered incontovertible evidence that the attacks were organised by little blue creatures from Mars, but the proof of that could only be understood by someone with a PhD in genetics, I would not consider that proof a useful campaigning tool.
Do you realize the implications of what you just said there? This is the most shocking statement I've ever seen from a person involved in 9-11 movement. You are saying you'd prefer to keep people in the dark, and rather lie or hide the truth behind a more palatable explanation? Isn't this exactly what the governments are already doing?
And if you discovered proof that OCT is more-or-less what happened? Would you also not consider it a useful campaigning tool? (No, I don't believe that; nor am I buying the star-wars beam, by the way.)
xmasdale wrote:
The campaigning technique I would employ is one where we show the evidence and pose the tough questions, but do not attempt to describe what we think really happened in any detail. To claim we know what happened only serves to divide us because we all have different ideas about it.
In the end everybody is going to ask what you think really happened. And if you evade the question, they fall back onto the OCT as soon as they're out of sight. Because OCT has the (illusory but persistent) advantage of being complete.
9-11 pulled the rug from under people's feet. The OCT more or less restores them to a firm footing, by explaining what happened in a way people understand. It restores order, psychologically. When you debunk the OCT, you're tugging at that he rug again, and people resist. That's why you have to give people at least a hypothesis of what happened, otherwise you're going to lose them.
We don't know whatc really happened. But we should be able to at least propose a credible story. If the police say a guy shot himself in the head, and you think they're covering up, you don't just say, "oh I don't know WHAT happened, but I know it wasn't suicide". This is not credible. You have to say at least who you think may have had motive, means and opportunity. It will be a hypothesis, but you have to have something to run with and check against the facts as you discover them.
I am not proposing we all agree on a single story, nor am I advocating for any particular narrative. All I am saying is that we are fooling ourselves if we think it's enough to go around poking holes in OCT and that will bring everyone into the fold. Most people will ask what we think did happen, and we better have a viable hypothesis at least.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject:
EDIT: double post _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Last edited by andyb on Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
andyb wrote:
Andrew,
You saw how they brought up the moonlanding stuff from your website in the Teelegraph article. This sort of stuff will be used against the movement. Look at Dave S and the holograms in the New Statesmen. Everyone should be focusing on cracking 9/11 not pushing pet theories and bringing in other areas like aliens, JFK, etc, irrespective of your thoughts on these.
Andy,
As we know, the media print what they like. Duncan Gardham rang me up and asked me why I thought the latest terror plot was a fake. I explained my reasoning and discussed WTC 7 with him. He already knew my wife's profession, so had done some research on me. He never mentioned my website or that he had looked at it and that he was going to refer to it in his article. As I have said, I stand by everything that I have written that is on there (and there isn't actually a great deal that is my own writing).
So this is an example of their tactics. I stay focused on evidence. I certainly can't see many replies to specific points of evidence that I re-capped on earlier - from you or anyone.
I am "my own man" - just as David Shayler is. We don't expect people on a message board to dictate what we think or research.
For the record, I didn't originally post any links to Judy's article on this board, for precisely the reasons people seem to be "panicking" about on this and other related threads.
People say it's a "nutty theory". People "outside" the movement also say CD of the WTC is a "nutty theory". Both these "nutty theories" are based on a set of scientific and video evidence - much of the other evidence is kept secret.
I can see TC is on Top Form today and I have particularly enjoyed his choice of pictures - especially as they have been totally unrelated to any serious discussion of the development of Beam Weapons during the Regan Presidential era, for example
People can do and think what they want - but if we were to try and dictate what other people should think, research or state in public, then we haven't really moved on very much from what the PTB want to do.
The UK campaign "mission statement" clearly states it does not endorse one position or another, which gives the required framework for articles like this to be posted and discussed.
It is the quality of discussion which is most likely to affect people's reaction to the site more than anything else. Endless "fruitlooping" won't really help anyone. Presentation and rebuttal of specific points of evidence would be better.
I am surprised that so many people who risk ridiciule by associating themselves with "nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories" seem to worry about ridicule over a topic like this (but yes, I still don't discuss this type of thing with "jo public" unless specifically asked)
The questions Judy Wood and others have raised need to be answered - or at least, Judy and me share a desire for them to be answered - because we strongly feel they are near the core of what happened on 9/11.
Others can "hang back" a little and stick with the "Inside Job" - which we all agree on. So, we each have a choice and unlike some, I can understand peoples reasons for the "hanging back" or "diving through" action.
Andrew,
I realise you are your own man, you are also a moderator on this forum that hopefully will be attracting new people regularly. This theory still needs work as it sounds too far fetched for a lot on here, let alone the man on the street or any new members. I started looking into 9/11 after the Meacher article, then went on the internet and saw all the pod stuff and discounted it all for about 18 months, I just don't want this doing the same to others. You at least post the no 7x7 and this theory quite lucidly and answer questions politely, unlike certain others who are less qualified than yourself. Like I said before would it not be more productive for you to lobby engineers etc to get them on board for CD, which you admit is still a contreversial theory. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
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
we've cracked it - we've found the most smokingest gun yet! 9/11 = Beam weapons from outer space using holograms as planes. Give me a break.
