| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Banish
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As far as I'm concerned the only real truthers are the NPT and TVF crew.
DU tipped Missiles(Bunker Busters) are used to penetrate a few meters into bomb proof shelters made from steel and reinforced concrete. "Hey, *, we didnt have to spend billions developing these missiles, just fly an old plane with a full tank into the target. Proper job!".
And there goes the Demolition Industry in one fell swoop - just spill a few thousand liters of JP2 on the upper floors of a skyscraper in future, in one hour the building will turn to dust and gently waft away on the morning breeze, as will all the surrounding buildings with the same address prefix!
As is correctly pointed out by Wood and Morgan is that neither object knows which is in motion. See Newton! Plane V Building == Building V Plane.
In his attempt to debunk the no plane at the Pentagon, Naval Intelligence Officer Jim Hoffman shoots himself in the foot by using an aircrash in Tehran to point out that there is little or no airplane debris at the site. (But there is if you care to look!)
What he overlooks, is the fact that the comparitivley minute building is still standing. It does not have a ridiculous "roadrunner" plane gash carved in it's side, it is not a raging inferno. It does not turn to dust in mid air, nor collapse in its own footprint after one hour. The aircraft specs are also similar to a Boeing 757.
building 1 plane 0
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/c130crash.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Carlos
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 62
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
my oppinion is that as this was posted by a mod, and as a mod you have the ablilty to lock it, AJ you should have done that.
This is essentially 911 news, and pretty big news at that (even if the content is somewhat controversial) and so is justified in being in this section, but the discussion of beam weapons should be in the controversial area.
I have not done any research into such weaponry, and as such have not made up my mind either way (as surely that is the only objective thing to do) - but I am in no doubt that the powers that be do possess things we are barely aware of. This in no way means that what judy wood is talking about has any validity.. and as such any discussion needs to go into the controversial area..
So AJ I think maybe you should move this thread to that area, but repost your orrig post again here, with a link to this thread in the contr. section. THEN LOCK IT  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fuk you dis-info agents... you think you can defeat the truth by your lies and by the games you play?
NO!
Sorry fools... THE TRUTH IS ALIVE AND GROWING!
Listen to Alex Jones, he speaks the truth and is exposing your sick lies... "We Know that you are liars and wasters!"
We know 9/11 was an inside Job and we cannot be fooled by your Beam weapon... UFO... alien *... In fact anything you try is failing! FACT!!!!
Go on Ban me from this site and prove that you work for the evil in this world... I Fukin dare you!!!
By doing that it just exposes your lies even more... and you god dam know it!!!
Screw all you lizard scum!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
You been on the Buckfast, Bongo?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | Fuk you dis-info agents... you think you can defeat the truth by your lies and by the games you play?
NO!
Sorry fools... THE TRUTH IS ALIVE AND GROWING!
Listen to Alex Jones, he speaks the truth and is exposing your sick lies... "We Know that you are liars and wasters!"
We know 9/11 was an inside Job and we cannot be fooled by your Beam weapon... UFO... alien *... In fact anything you try is failing! FACT!!!!
Go on Ban me from this site and prove that you work for the evil in this world... I Fukin dare you!!!
By doing that it just exposes your lies even more... and you god dam know it!!!
Screw all you lizard scum!!! |
I'm not buying it either: its a cheap publicity shot that will lead to more ridicule drawn onto 9/11 truth should the incoherant and nonesensical Wood actually recieve any public exposure
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carlos wrote: | This is essentially 911 news, and pretty big news at that (even if the content is somewhat controversial) and so is justified in being in this section, but the discussion of beam weapons should be in the controversial area.
|
So, you think it's OK to post the news article, but you want to "hide" discussion of it? Not sure that would be good moderation.
| Quote: |
I have not done any research into such weaponry, and as such have not made up my mind either way (as surely that is the only objective thing to do)
|
At least you're honest... Right - now, I'm pretty sure that Judy Wood has done the research (and I have done a little bit too)
| Quote: |
So AJ I think maybe you should move this thread to that area, but repost your orrig post again here, with a link to this thread in the contr. section. THEN LOCK IT |
I don't really see as this makes a lot of difference. When I checked just now, this thread had had 325 views - I think if you do the maths, this means that it's only had a few more views than people who have posted.
This again, based on evidence, tends to make the "damaging the campaign" argument (whatever it truly means) rather weak. Only 2 or 3 posters use a handle which makes their identity more obvious and another (andyb) takes away some of the guesswork. So again, posters' anonymity, in my view, is an issue.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:40 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
I'm not buying it either: its a cheap publicity shot that will lead to more ridicule drawn onto 9/11 truth should the incoherant and nonesensical Wood actually recieve any public exposure |
Well John, you don't need to buy it - it's FREE! I think you make a rash statement in that it's a "publicity stunt"
1) You overlook the evidence on which it is based.
2) Have you seen any publicity for it yet? (If you do, I'd be glad to hear about it. )
I say again, we have 2 of the most highly qualified 9-11 figures/researchers involved, but you just "don't like what they are saying". Now, if they are going through this process, don't you think they are likely to be fairly confident in what they are saying?
Have you spoken or corresponded with any of them? So what evidence are you basing your opinion of their motives and rationale on?
It's funny, people are saying it's "disinfo" etc, but they are unable to say why or how specifically. That's the thing which I think stands out on this thread. People want to suppress the information, but mainly because "they don't like the sound of it". Now call me controversial, but I regard that as "damaging to the movement".
If Bongo and andyb were moderating, we'd have the censorship of the conclusions and evidence presented by 2 highly qualified people - and a couple of other posters here would probably support this type of censorship.
Oh and by the way, I have sent out about another 10 disks and booklets in the last few days - which have been ordered through my page. Do you think I am "damaging the campaign" by doing this?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is exciting news - thanks to Judy Wood and thanks to Andrew J - I admire your patience in dealing with some of the near-hysterical responses in this thread. As someone said, Steven Jones could have done a similar thing anytime he wanted. Look forward to seeing the official response to JW's challenge! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadgeB wrote: | | As someone said, Steven Jones could have done a similar thing anytime he wanted. Look forward to seeing the official response to JW's challenge! |
Thanks MadgeB.
As a suggestion to Bongo, he seems to feel that Wood/Reynolds are "damaging the movement" with their "outlandish nonsense". Might I suggest therefore, that he, and those who agree with him, write to Steve Jones (hardevidence@gmail.com) pointing out this trouble and urging him to submit his own "RFC challenge" to NIST. (Perhaps he can thank Jerry Leaphart for looking in the statute books to find the appropriate avenue for a legal challenge). Indeed, by Bongo's logic, might I be so bold as to suggest Jones has a duty to do this to protect the movement?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | Listen to Alex Jones, he speaks the truth and is exposing your sick lies... "We Know that you are liars and wasters!"
We know 9/11 was an inside Job and we cannot be fooled by your Beam weapon... UFO... alien *... In fact anything you try is failing! FACT!!!!
Go on Ban me from this site and prove that you work for the evil in this world... I Fukin dare you!!!
By doing that it just exposes your lies even more... and you god dam know it!!!
Screw all you lizard scum!!! |
Bongo, can you point out the reference to UFO's and aliens in the RFC mentioned in the press release, or in the substance of the paper? I think the language you have used in this post is entirely inappropriate (and I missed this on the 1st scan through the thread - perhaps because I have "CAPS blindness" - i.e. when I see Caps and bold, it normally means people are shouting, so I skip some of it)
If you get banned from the site, it wouldn't be for your views on the DEW issue, it will be for the use of foul language. I don't generally agree to a ban on language alone, unless it is repeated and persistent, but I know other moderators differ on this issue.
As you can see, John White is a moderator and I think he agrees with your view - so if you did get banned, what would it prove as regards what you suggested?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| brian wrote: |
What a ridiculous statement - what beliefs are we supposed to believe are are cherished? That their Govt would only blow the towers up but never use space beams?
|
It's that kind of thing - yes - and the fact that very advanced technology exists and has been kept secret. These statements are based on evidence, if you want to check it out.
| Quote: |
WE KNOW AND CAN PROVE USING THE WORK OF JONES ET AL THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION IS A LIE -
|
This statement isn't in the press release, so why have you included it here? What is the source?
| Quote: |
For those that still believe otherwise that proof alone should shatter any cherished in that respect. No need to also stretch their credulity to breaking point at the same time.
This is a joke and if Judy Woods did not appear to an out and out headbanger I would have no doubt this was deliberately destructive.
Whatever destructive is what it is. Read the rest of it -
".. a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects.."
|
So what are you criticising in the above? Why is the evidence NOT visual or NOT stunning?
| Quote: |
Yes, and we have a hundred plus witnesses telling us of explosions.
|
You think Judy Wood is denying that? I don't think you've read the paper. Judy Wood suggests that explosives were used too - she thinks that the DEW was probably used for approx the top 90 stories then explosives were used. There may have been additional explosives to create the squib effects too. You should check the paper before making slanted statements.
| Quote: |
"..incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes ."
Out on a limb.
|
Really? You need to see the video, linked in the paper of a grid of steel disappearing in about 6 seconds (called "the spire")
| Quote: |
"...Added to all of that is the fact that whatever the energy and heat source was, it had no effect upon paper that was seen floating everywhere and not burning very much, if at all."
"..whatever the energy and heat source was.."
Now its whatever.
|
So, you expect ALL the answers to be provided? You need ALL the answers to say 9/11 was an inside job? Judy has suggested some answers - but it's black technology we're talking about here. Why do you think there is such a concerted effort to cover it up?
| Quote: |
Is there not a bin - let alone contraversies section? |
I am glad to know you are so supportive of an evidence-based search for the truth[/quote]
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Skeptic wrote: | I'm simply trying to make the point that it might be possible to take the same course of legal action simply by showing the NIST report to be flawed.
Peace |
Fine - thanks for the clarification. However, how well do you think they would do if they just said to NIST "Well, you're wrong". Don't you think NIST would rightly ask "Why are we wrong?".
You have to present an alternative scientifically based conclusion. At the moment, we only have 2 on the table: Wood and Jones, so one of those has to be chosen.
Peace to you also....
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shillingham of Shilling Road, Shillington. Ban me I dont give a toss, this site is more corrupt than the Bush Administration.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You been on the Buckfast, Bongo? |
Not Buckfast, but I did have a few jars last night. However in any event I do not appologise for the anger that comes over me with this constant rubbish that is formulated to distract from the truth.
AJ wrote: | Quote: | | As you can see, John White is a moderator and I think he agrees with your view - so if you did get banned, what would it prove as regards what you suggested? |
It would prove that John White is on the side of the truth and well done to him... But, It also proves that the majority of the moderators on this site have lamely been duped by dis-info tactics!
In any event, the ammount of messing around with these boards by the moderators has resulted in members disappearing like snow off a dyke!
A ban?... as a famous female comedian says "Am I Bovvered?"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: |
It would prove that John White is on the side of the truth and well done to him... But, It also proves that the majority of the moderators on this site have lamely been duped by dis-info tactics!
|
Right, right. So if it's all disinfo, something must be false - what and how is it false - again, can you be specific, so that I can re-examine carefully what has been "put on the table" in case I have missed something. Please don't shout or use bad language, I tend to skip over that and therefore might miss something important, if what you are saying is valid and evidence-based.
Also, do I take it by inference, that you are convinced I am not on the side of the truth? Again, can you please be as specific as possible as to why you think this? (I don't think a statement of "because you post stuff about Judy Wood" will really add anything, as that type of statement has already been repeated several times on this thread and is not supported by specific evidence, it would appear)
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | Shillingham of Shilling Road, Shillington. Ban me I dont give a toss, this site is more corrupt than the Bush Administration. |
It's good to see how this thread has brought out the best in people. In case you hadn't noticed, Thermate, people have posted on this thread who agree with you (they haven't really posted any substantial points of evidence - brian had a go, but it was not especially comprehensive).
So again, you are just adopting "debunking" tactics. Who is a shill, by the way? Me? Why is the site corrupt? Can you give me more on this?
Who wants to ban you and why are you even posting anything on this thread if you want to be banned? Indeed, you can "simulate your own ban" by just not posting anything here - easy enough. Saves mods the trouble of putting you on the ban list and it gives you the option to change your mind any time you like and you don't have to request permission to start posting again!!
I know, I know - this is pretty controversial thinking, isn't it. Probably disinfo.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | John White wrote: |
I'm not buying it either: its a cheap publicity shot that will lead to more ridicule drawn onto 9/11 truth should the incoherant and nonesensical Wood actually recieve any public exposure |
Well John, you don't need to buy it - it's FREE! I think you make a rash statement in that it's a "publicity stunt"
1) You overlook the evidence on which it is based. |
Still waiting for there to be some. Where were Woods calculations again? Still working on them? Utter foolery
| Quote: | | 2) Have you seen any publicity for it yet? (If you do, I'd be glad to hear about it. ) |
Yes andrew: from you obviously
In addition, the phrase "not buying it" is very well understood to not be entirely related to fiscal outlay, but to have a wider context of considering something to be utter b*ullshit: apart from in the world of disembelers and agenda pushers
| Quote: | | I say again, we have 2 of the most highly qualified 9-11 figures/researchers involved, but you just "don't like what they are saying". Now, if they are going through this process, don't you think they are likely to be fairly confident in what they are saying? |
Not at all. Are you so niave?
| Quote: | | Have you spoken or corresponded with any of them? So what evidence are you basing your opinion of their motives and rationale on? |
Wernt you going to be providing insight into your e-mail relationship? You must of forgot huh?
| Quote: | | It's funny, people are saying it's "disinfo" etc, but they are unable to say why or how specifically. That's the thing which I think stands out on this thread. People want to suppress the information, but mainly because "they don't like the sound of it". Now call me controversial, but I regard that as "damaging to the movement". |
Its funny how you dont appear able to listen. Lets try "beam weapon theory is a load of rubbish with no sensible evidence whatsoever", and you can counter by outlining the three best bits of evidence supporting it: then they can be debunked, as they have so many times before
| Quote: | | If Bongo and andyb were moderating, we'd have the censorship of the conclusions and evidence presented by 2 highly qualified people - and a couple of other posters here would probably support this type of censorship. |
Well Andrew we already have a system in place for these kinds of theories: why arent you using it? You want a little confrontation perhaps?
| Quote: | | Oh and by the way, I have sent out about another 10 disks and booklets in the last few days - which have been ordered through my page. Do you think I am "damaging the campaign" by doing this? |
Clearly your not damaging your sense of ego
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a couple of points in response.
| John White wrote: |
Still waiting for there to be some. Where were Woods calculations again? Still working on them? Utter foolery
|
That's a pretty strong statement. There are calculations in the paper. Can you advise us of qualifications you may have to allow you to judge their validity?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 2) Have you seen any publicity for it yet? (If you do, I'd be glad to hear about it. ) |
Yes andrew: from you obviously
|
Hmmm - well, I hardly think 300 odd views - most shared between about 10 posters counts as publicity, though I am working on getting the press release on PRWeb, I have to confess. (Same as I did for David Ray Griffin last year).
| Quote: |
In addition, the phrase "not buying it" is very well understood to not be entirely related to fiscal outlay, but to have a wider context of considering something to be utter b*ullshit: apart from in the world of disembelers and agenda pushers
|
OK - John, that was just a little joke on my part - I knew what you meant really. Oops looks like your creeping into the bad language debunking territory here... I don't know what "disemblers" are and, if I am pushing an agenda, what do I have to gain? Have I gained anything from this thread, do you think? Please offer some thoughts or evidence about this. So far, this has just caused me quite a bit of grief and many hours of study.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I say again, we have 2 of the most highly qualified 9-11 figures/researchers involved, but you just "don't like what they are saying". Now, if they are going through this process, don't you think they are likely to be fairly confident in what they are saying? |
Not at all. Are you so niave?
|
So let's get this straight - my naivity affects the evidence presented by Wood and Reynolds? I'd like people to talk about evidence myself, not my naivity or lack thereof. So far, you've not mentioned any specific points of evidence, just that "you don't like the BW idea" and "you don't really like my support of it"?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Have you spoken or corresponded with any of them? So what evidence are you basing your opinion of their motives and rationale on? |
Wernt you going to be providing insight into your e-mail relationship? You must of forgot huh?
|
Well, sorry but I count this as misrepresentative statement. I wrote about this extensively in the "Hijackers" article. Here's the link for you, in case you missed it:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TheNew9-11Hijackers.htm
A bit more here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/dr_greg_jenkins.htm
I got the permission of the 3 professors to publish the former before doing so and the latter was published with Judy's permission. So, I have really tried quite hard to provide evidence to back up my statements.
| Quote: |
Its funny how you dont appear able to listen. Lets try "beam weapon theory is a load of rubbish with no sensible evidence whatsoever", and you can counter by outlining the three best bits of evidence supporting it: then they can be debunked, as they have so many times before
|
I have been listening - I have replied to as many of the points as I have had time to. So where has the DEW idea been "debunked many times"? Can you supply the links (note: see my thoughts and evidence about Greg Jenkins above.)
| Quote: |
Well Andrew we already have a system in place for these kinds of theories: why arent you using it? You want a little confrontation perhaps?
|
All I am doing is asking people to provide evidence to back up statements. I am asking questions. I haven't been rude or insulting to anyone on this thread, maybe a little "taunting" in certain ways. Other posters seem to have adopted more confrontational language.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Oh and by the way, I have sent out about another 10 disks and booklets in the last few days - which have been ordered through my page. Do you think I am "damaging the campaign" by doing this? |
Clearly your not damaging your sense of ego |
OK, OK - you've got me here - my ickle ego crept in on this one. Sorry everyone - I'll put it back in the box....
And, of course my ego is of huge significance when considering the DEW issue as whole and the utter destruction and devestation of the WTC that no one apart from Judy Wood has attempted to fully explain.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Banish
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holgrams, Beam Weapons etc.. are conjecture and exercises in logical thinking. How all knowledge is aquired, and the basis of many an experiment.
Do you know of any explosive that will turn 1,000,000 tons of steel and reinforced concrete to dust? It takes 10^6 psi to blow an armoured tank such as a "Bradley" from the inside. Anyone care to do the math for the towers.
I still haven't heard from one of you how a hollow aluminium airplane penetrated a steel building, designed to take multiple strikes without decelerating a fraction. Where was the collision? Where was the crash? The fake plane flew THROUGH the building un-hindered. I see the idiots here were brought up on a healthy diet of Scooby-Doo and the Roadrunner. This is not Physics this is cartoon land stupidity.
The WTC wasnt any old building you know, it was an engineering masterwerk.
It is obvious that there are dis-info agents at work here, probably BBC cretins and the like who know their arses are on the line, when they are discovered.
There is not one of you here who spotted the fraud as it was happening.
You were overwhelmed by the emotional * being fed to you by the DISINFORMATIONIST BBC. I did. The fake plane made me jump up and down screaming that was not an airplane- no way.
Heres your fcuking airplane, with which you beat no-planers up with continually. Proves who are the fools and agents, if you ask me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5W3qaWU0dY
Last edited by Banish on Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That's a pretty strong statement. There are calculations in the paper. Can you advise us of qualifications you may have to allow you to judge their validity? |
Oh right:so if I have an academic qualification I can say whatever I like and no-one without a peice of paper from the system can possibly have a valid comment about it. Spoken like a JREFer
| Quote: | So let's get this straight - my naivity affects the evidence presented by Wood and Reynolds? I'd like people to talk about evidence myself, not my naivity or lack thereof. So far, you've not mentioned any specific points of evidence, just that "you don't the BW idea" and "you don't really like my support of it"?
|
If your not able to use your truthseeking experiance to even consider the possibility that there are advatages to claiming something without proving it, I'd call that niave, certainly. Woods and Reynold have a great trackrecord of gaining capital from unsubstantiated rumour and misrepresentation after all (ask Steve Jones). Its not a question of whether NIST produced a non-scientific whitewash: everyone in 9/11 Truth is going to asgree with that. But trusting these dodgy characters is another question
| Quote: | I have been listening - I have replied to as many of the points as I have had time to. So where has the idea been "debunked many times"? Can you supply the links (note: see my thoughts and evidence about Greg Jenkins above.
|
I dont consider myself to have psychic powers that can track down posts on another forum:but theres been plenty of sensible criticism of Woods theories (from pwning the whole bathtub argument as meaningless, to asking "where is there any evidence to support directed energy weapons that can destroy massive buildings? Answer: none of course, to simply laughing hard and long about Judy Wood considering a picture showing a plume of smoke from WTC1 to be WTC2 being "evaporated upwards").
Im sure you can travel down to "Truth Controversies" and find much material there yourself without my running around looking for links for you
| Quote: | | All I am doing is asking people to provide evidence to back up statements |
LOL! Irony or what?
| Quote: | | And, of course my ego is of huge significance when considering the DEW issue as whole and the utter destruction and devestation of the WTC that no one apart from Judy Wood has attempted to fully explain. |
"making stuff up" to fill the gaps is not much of a definition of "explanation": and of course, Jones's theory does just that without the make-stuff-up part, so hard and fast with the interpretation from yourself their Andrew. You "believe" in Beam Weapon theory obviously Andrew, as you do with "no Planes". The blind faith is obviously touching
| Quote: | | And, of course my ego is of huge significance when considering the DEW issue as whole and the utter destruction and devestation of the WTC that no one apart from Judy Wood has attempted to fully explain. |
Beyond the sarcasm, it may well be
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WhoKilledBambi?
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | Fuk you dis-info agents... you think you can defeat the truth by your lies and by the games you play?
NO!
Sorry fools... THE TRUTH IS ALIVE AND GROWING!
Listen to Alex Jones, he speaks the truth and is exposing your sick lies... "We Know that you are liars and wasters!"
We know 9/11 was an inside Job and we cannot be fooled by your Beam weapon... UFO... alien *... In fact anything you try is failing! FACT!!!!
Go on Ban me from this site and prove that you work for the evil in this world... I Fukin dare you!!!
By doing that it just exposes your lies even more... and you god dam know it!!!
Screw all you lizard scum!!! |
Your darling leader Alex Jones isn't afraid to question whether non conventional weapons destroyed the wtc complex on his site today.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
5th article down on the right, shame he has to link to rense instead of using both his testicles and archiving it himself. At least it's a start from burgerking jones.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
| Quote: | | All I am doing is asking people to provide evidence to back up statements |
LOL! Irony or what?
|
Sorry John, we're not playing the same game here. You say you can't be bothered to go through other forums to find links to evidence (or words to that effect), whereas I posted links to 2 original articles that I had written which each contain their own links.
These articles review correspondence I had had with Profs Wood, Reynolds, Fetzer and Jones as well as brief correpsondence with attorney Alex Floum.
But in your take on this, none of this counts as evidence. You also compare me to a JREFer in some way - I have been perfectly open and honest about all my credentials and all you do is say "LOL". You then generally personalise the issue - as if it's all to do with me and my attitude rather than an objective study of evidence.
Sorry, this won't wash with me - when you say I haven't provided any evidence, it's a false statement - what you really mean, I think is "I don't LIKE what you have provided". You don't really say WHY you don't like it and you don't reveal what qualifies you to have a more informed opinion about evidence presented than Prof Wood.
So, again, I can't really offer any more useful observations or commentary to your other points.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Sorry John, we're not playing the same game here. You say you can't be bothered to go through other forums to find links to evidence (or words to that effect), whereas I posted links to 2 original articles that I had written which each contain their own links.
|
Did i say I cant be bothered? No, I said i cant know where else on the internet you make posts, and telling me you have done as if I should already know is disembling at best. And you didnt posts them here why?
You may be playing games Andrew: I'm not
| Quote: | | Sorry, this won't wash with me - when you say I haven't provided any evidence, it's a false statement - |
Again, you certainly havn't posted them here before. You attitude to criticism of Woods has consistantly been "theres stuff you dont know, so dont question me over my support for wood's theories": at least as far as this forum is concerned: topped with a total failure to show any evidence that beam weapons from space capable of evaporating buildings are even remotely credible, let alone the utterly discredited "bathrub" argument or wood's pronouncment that a grand piano take three times free fall speed to drop the height of the towers
Frankly, my opinion to date is that you are being played: the alternative is that you do perhaps consider yourself a "player". Either way, my respect is decidely limited
I will look at your articles that you pull from your hat as if they some kind of top trump:as for a response to them, I will make one when ready: unlike your own failure to date to answer criticisms of "beam weapon" theory here, or your fence sitting over "hologram planes"
| Quote: | | So, again, I can't really offer any more useful observations or commentary to your other points. |
You mean you choose not to: you certainly could. But perhaps actual debate is not what you consider a forum to be for
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Again, you certainly havn't posted them here before.
|
Not correct. I posted aa link it earlier in this thread:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=62385#62385
This link in that post points to another post on this forum - so that's essentially twice I have posted the information. I also re-posted the link to copy on my own website for your own reference in the post where I replied to you. So, I did make an effort to present the information to people.
| Quote: |
You attitude to criticism of Woods has consistantly been "theres stuff you dont know, so dont question me over my support for wood's theories": at least as far as this forum is concerned: topped with a total failure to show any evidence that beam weapons from space capable of evaporating buildings are even remotely credible, let alone the utterly discredited "bathrub" argument or wood's pronouncment that a grand piano take three times free fall speed to drop the height of the towers
|
Also essentially false statements. I have not said to anyone "don't question me" - where did I say that? You say there is no evidence of space-based beam weapons. if it's black technology, do you expect evidence to be readily available. Do I have to re-iterate again about Douglas Beason's talk? Do we have orbiting satellites?
The argument you are making is essentially of the same type as "we can see the evidence for controlled demolition, but seeing as we don't know who planted the explosives, or what they were, or how it was done, it can't have been that method."
You bring in the grand piano argument - nothing to do with this thread and a commonly mis-quoted idea. The idea was actually if the lid was open and the piano was falling such a way that it was acting sort of like a "partial parachute" - that would give the longest theoretical freefall time. What has this got to do with anything?
| Quote: |
Frankly, my opinion to date is that you are being played: the alternative is that you do perhaps consider yourself a "player". Either way, my respect is decidely limited
|
You are entitled to your opinion. I may be being "played", but I am going on a review of the evidence and looking at other issues pertaining to it (such as information about possible other black technology).
| Quote: |
I will look at your articles that you pull from your hat as if they some kind of top trump:as for a response to them, I will make one when ready: unlike your own failure to date to answer criticisms of "beam weapon" theory here, or your fence sitting over "hologram planes"
|
OK - so spending time corresponding, writing articles and asking the main people concerned to review them is "pulling them from a hat" is it? Fine. How would you like me to present them? Any suggestions?
Also, some more false statements here - I regard the hologram idea as unlikely and think the TV fakery is strongest and I have said this on this board. You call me a "fence sitter". OK
| Quote: | | Quote: | | So, again, I can't really offer any more useful observations or commentary to your other points. |
You mean you choose not to: you certainly could. But perhaps actual debate is not what you consider a forum to be for |
"I can't","I choose not" - same difference really! Is this important? In a similar vein, I asked you to offer or present some evidence to back up what you were saying about the DEW ideas being "nonsense" and then to back up what you were saying about me. All I have really seen in response is that you have an opinion and you think I have "pulled articles from a hat".
So, you have criticised most of what I have written without actually reading the evidence I presented in the articles. You said earlier I "forgot" to provide information about the correspondence I had had, and then, when I post a link to it, you essentially state you haven't read it! So what chance does that give me?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Not correct. I posted aa link it earlier in this thread:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=62385#62385
This link in that post points to another post on this forum - so that's essentially twice I have posted the information. I also re-posted the link to copy on my own website for your own reference in the post where I replied to you. So, I did make an effort to present the information to people.
|
Good god man even you cant be thick skinned enougth to believe yourself when you wrote that.
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | Fuk you dis-info agents... you think you can defeat the truth by your lies and by the games you play?
NO!
Sorry fools... THE TRUTH IS ALIVE AND GROWING!
Listen to Alex Jones, he speaks the truth and is exposing your sick lies... "We Know that you are liars and wasters!"
We know 9/11 was an inside Job and we cannot be fooled by your Beam weapon... UFO... alien *... In fact anything you try is failing! FACT!!!!
Go on Ban me from this site and prove that you work for the evil in this world... I Fukin dare you!!!
By doing that it just exposes your lies even more... and you god dam know it!!!
Screw all you lizard scum!!! |
Bongo you won't get banned for your beliefs but you will get banned for swearing and abuse. Last warning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | Shillingham of Shilling Road, Shillington. Ban me I dont give a toss, this site is more corrupt than the Bush Administration. |
Don't make evidence free accusations of shilling otherwise you will be banned. Last warning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | | Irrespective, this should be in the 9/11 controversies section. |
Given the nature of discussions so far and the controversy that surrounds Judy Woods I agree and so this thread will be moved there
I've said what I have to say on the controversial theories.
Our focus should be on building unity and a professional campaign (via the private forum for known named campaigners?) and not spending our time 'debating' controversial hypotheses in my opinion or falling out with each other publicly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&q=judy+w ood
I suggest people watch the Judy Wood Interview and make up their own minds on these theories!
Ps. All the other things that have been said regarding myself on this thread (Particularly from Andrew Johnson)... I am just not going to raise to the bait... basically coz im over it. I guess you can only tell people the truth and then it's up to them to empower themselves!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WhoKilledBambi?
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | Irrespective, this should be in the 9/11 controversies section. |
Given the nature of discussions so far and the controversy that surrounds Judy Woods I agree and so this thread will be moved there
I've said what I have to say on the controversial theories.
Our focus should be on building unity and a professional campaign (via the private forum for known named campaigners?) and not spending our time 'debating' controversial hypotheses in my opinion or falling out with each other publicly |
SHAME ON YOU FOR BURYING THIS - two words - Michael Zebuhr
When are you going to put your cards on the table Ian or at least contribute something new and thought provoking instead of playing the toytown tinpot censor?
Worried incase your handler Alex Floum may instigate a lawsuit? LOL
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
