Is this a good move: WoTF!!

[Patrick Brown]

[IronSnot]

It's the deathknell for the forum basically. Not sure if that's good or bad.

Obviously this forum could have been good, but for whatever reasons it hasn't been.

When's this happenning? And where have the NPTrs gone?

[Patrick Brown]

[conspiracy analyst]

[Patrick Brown]

[Mark Gobell]

[Johnny Pixels]

So what happens to critics corner? Do I get to post everywhere on the WTF forum? I mean, there's no clear line like there is with 9/11 official story vs conspiracy theory, or is it anything offical = wrong?

[Patrick Brown]

[ian neal]

[Johnny Pixels]

[brian]

ian neal, do you consider Andrew Johnsons contribution to the 91 truth campaign website to be "representative of the British campaign"??

I regard it as most unhelpful, it being mostly innuendo and misinformation. Andrew has been told a good number of times about his misrepresentation of Jones but now it is enshrined on what I take it you and the others mentioned regard as the definitive campaign board.

Andrew may think or argue he is being objective but his bias is plain to see.

The extract -

11.1 Differences in Opinion in Scholars for 9/11 Truth
To understand why differences in opinion have developed in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, it is necessary to understand that the revelation of the truth is seemingly a layered process. There is a large volume of evidence to work through and for example, the evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC Buildings 1,2 and 7 is overwhelming (despite what all of the official reports say).

Even so, there seem to be some unusual aspects to be considered in the destruction of WTC 1 & 2. Whilst Prof Steve Jones paper explores the use of Thermite and Thermate as agents used for cutting of steel girders, his paper does not explore the incredible pulverisation of building and other materials which is extremely obvious in the physical evidence. To give one example: many of the images show much of the Aluminium cladding of the WTC towers and thousands of sheets of paper strewn around the debris site of the towers. However, the filing cabinets and draws which contained these papers are nowhere to be seen. Neither burning jet fuel nor thermite/thermate would leave such office papers intact & strewn throughout neighbouring blocks.

Several Scholars – including Prof Morgan Reynolds, Prof Judy Wood and Materials Science Graduate Rick Rajter have therefore noted that Steve Jones has ignored or overlooked this evidence. They have published their own articles highlighting the highly anomalous nature of certain items of physical evidence. (For example, see http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jo nes ) One example of possible significance is that Prof. Jones does not have a clear "chain of custody" for his test samples that tested positive for thermite-type substances. What this means is that the test samples may or may not have come from "ground zero."

Steve Jones has published some rebuttals to certain aspects of these criticisms, but in the opinion of a number of people (this author included) from a Scientific Standpoint, some of the rebuttals seem less than satisfactory.

There are now accusations of each being counter-intelligence operatives and the like. Several Scholars, the afore-mentioned 3 included, are also questioning other aspects of evidence - such as the true nature of what impacted WTC 1 & 2. Again, this has split the truth movement – with each side accusing the other of “bad science”.

This author’s view is that the methods used to attack the anomalous evidence, mentioned above, are little different to those used by people, not familiar with 9/11 Truth evidence, to attack the Truth movement as a whole. Encouraging such in-fighting would be a standard divide-and-conquer, psychological operations tactic of the 9/11 cover-up group.

http://www.911truthcampaign.net/articles/MeacherReport/9-11%20Truth%20 Campaign%20Report.doc

[IronSnot]

Andrew

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=checktheevidence

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[numeral]

[IronSnot]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[wepmob2000]

[IronSnot]

[IronSnot]

ROTFLMAO

Moving threads very early in the morning. Now that's good service.

[brian]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[brian]

TWSU3, struggling there eh.

Instead of making statements show us the evidence.

Does Jones disagree with the scientific dust analysis or Judy Woods characterisation of the smoke as dust that went into the atmosphere?

Show us where Jones "disagrees" and what with.

Or is another case of he "seems" to disagree?

[ian neal]

Stop derailing threads such as this by going off the original subject

This is classic example

It starts off on the perfectly reasonable question about the planned changes to this forum then drfits onto my opinions about Andrew Johnson (I have commented on how I see the endless sniping at Andrew more than enough: use the search function if you really care what I think) and then drifts into another tedious revisit of the controversial theories.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=55794&highlight=#557 94

Please keep on the original thread topic.

Failure to respect this will lead to off topic posts just being deleted and persistent offenders being banned

Thanks

[xmasdale]

Back to the original topic.

I vote the name of this forum be changed to War on Freedom. That will appeal to a wider audience than posts here at present.

I don't think War on Truth would have the same effect.

War on Terror would probably attract lots of supporters of the current war, sounding off about how wonderful Bush and Blair are and how darstardly Muslims and Arabs are.

Noel

[wepmob2000]

[Emmanuel]

The people running our media are doing a a fanatstic job so far of even getting a lot of people here into the Muslim = terrorist rhetoric.
Its a simple divide and rule device and if your stupid enough to fall for it and see through the lies we will be a lot stronger to survive these days and nights of deceit.
Just found this article , probably very old.
Muslims are this centurys new Jews, ask any non white uk citizen today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/artic le600860.ece