| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: |
You call that a review? They don't even have the color of the shirt I am wearing right. |
The colour of your shirt could easily be seen as brown. This is an irrelevant issue, however.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | A string of ad homonym attacks and statements is neither a review nor a “debunk” of the seven laws of science presented. NO ONE has debunked the seven laws yet. |
I have thoroughly read the review and have yet to find a single ad hominem attack on you.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The "reviewer" of the bogus review is Hoffman and DBS who are behind Jayhan and the pod. |
a) Do you have any proof that Jim Hoffman and Daryl Bradford Smith are affiliated with one another? Hoffman is known for his rejection of anti-semitism, which would logically exclude him from a working relationship with DBS.
b) Do you have any proof that Hoffman is "behind" Jayhan and the pod?
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | This site is Hoffman and is a Jew Baiting site filled with garbage. As a nephew to one of the Moon hoax astronauts with close ties to NASA he is not to be trusted. |
Yes, everyone knows WTC7.net and 911Review.com are mostly edited by Jim Hoffman. It's no big secret.
What do you mean by "Jew Baiting"?
I have only come across one or two minor things on Hoffman's websites that I have been able to discern as being errors or senseless.
You accused Hoffman just there of committing a logical fallacy (ad hominem) where it is you who has just committed one (attacking the messenger, not the message). You haven't actually addressed any of his review apart from the colour of your shirt.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | 911 Eyewitness comes close to staying within reality. Dave, the producer, strays because of the pressures of 911truth and idiots who want everything covered. |
Uh.... huh....
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The new 911eyewitness, the Festival Cut, has already won the LA Film Festival as the best Historical Documentary. Unlike 911 mysteries whose producer now claims it was always a fictional artistic interpretation. (Hope you enjoyed telling people it is the truth cause you now told a lie). It will be in the New York Film Festival in the next couple weeks and we hope it gets another award. |
Well good for you, but if you're going to wave your shiny awards in our faces in an attempt to convince us that you're right, good luck.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Of course, such mainstream acknowledgments of the film go unannounced and uncared for by 911truths, see if you can find that info anywhere other than 911eyewitness.com or my sites. |
What info? Your video has nothing that isn't covered by somewhere else. There are websites with much more damning evidence that the Twin Towers were demolished.
I don't care much for what film wins awards. Should we all praise Oscar winners?
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | 911 Eyewitness is the one video NO ONE wants you to watch. Not on one single 911truth site, not one link, nary a mention other than the occasional forum like this one popped up. There is a reason. I do not even think we have found the real evidence in it. But I think I might have recently. Even Dave will not make the video of what I found. |
What did you find then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | You call that a review? They don't even have the color of the shirt I am wearing right. A string of ad homonym attacks and statements is neither a review nor a “debunk” of the seven laws of science presented. NO ONE has debunked the seven laws yet. |
^^^what coconut said....
The author of the review doesn't make any ad hominem attacks on you, but does make some valid criticisms of your film.
so it's a shame that your response consists of the bogus claim that "it's not really a review", an attempt to falsely associate the reviewer with the pod theory, and several slanderous accusations about him and his website (some of which could easily be described as ad hominem attacks) - but no response to those valid criticisms.
how about actually going through the review point by point and rebutting what he says about the content of your film?
btw - I'm speaking as somebody who actually bought one of your original 9/11 eyewitness dvds. I think the film contains some amazing footage, but I'm also not convinced by some of the claims it makes....
for example, what exactly do you mean by "Chopper 4 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED @9:59 am"?
in the film you claim that this helicopter was dropping a line and imply that it was directly involved in causing the collapse/demolition of the tower. so which "mission" was "accomplished" and how is your claim backed up by the footage you show? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| budesonide wrote: | No offense but it's like talking to a brick wall, I'm sure in person you're much more reasonable.
| catfish wrote: | | If we are about truth we should expect disinfo. |
Does this mean we should have to tolerate it? I don't think so. |
I think you have to.
| budesonide wrote: | | catfish wrote: |
"The media are monitoring and taking notes and waiting to discredit us" 
Stop being so scared, scaredy cat.
|
Just where have you been? Haven't you seen the damage that can be caused by these slip ups? Why do you think that this is OK? Do you actually want 911 truth to reach the masses? |
1)Nowhere
2)No, I just keep meeting more and more people who already know whereas before I used to get booed out of pubs
3)See previous answer
4)It is doing that whether you like it or not. Like I said stop being scared.
| budesonide wrote: | | catfish wrote: |
You said it yourself, we're not sheep.... that means we are free thinking individuals right?
That means we can make up our own minds without needing to be herded by a "truth movement" right?
|
I'm fully aware that your opinion is just as valuable as mine even if I don't agree with it, and whatever methods work for you, work, nobody has, or is trying to, tell you how to campaign, what to think or what to say. |
So your answer is yes to my questions?
| budesonide wrote: | | However when we are dealing with the likes of $iegel, who is trying to make as much money and create as much trouble as possible within the movement, that directly damages us, things need to move to a different level as he is not only taking away possible funding but is also projecting a negative image of the movement for all to see. |
See what I said above.
| budesonide wrote: | | So let me ask you. What in your opinion are the objectives of the 911 truth movement? |
1)The truth movement is made up of thousands of individuals each with their own objectives. 9/11 is bad news that gives you a shock, it begins and ends there. What people do after that seems to vary.
| budesonide wrote: | | ]All it takes is a little common sense to realise the need to present a unified movement that focuses only on the hard facts that will strengthen our case. |
No it doesn't, 9/11 is just a means to an end, wake up from your slumber sheeple. You really going to take this case to court?
| budesonide wrote: | It's completely selfish for you to expect us to risk damaging our hard work and our credibility.
| catfish wrote: | Ahhh you poor terrified soul, imagine you being made a laughing stock (excuse the sarcasm but you did it first).
|
| budesonide wrote: | | Incase you've been living under a rock or sleeping in your car for the last few years, you would have noticed that this has already happened to the movement. You cannot seriously think this is a good thing, can you? |
|
No I don't agree, I think 9/11 truth is spreading like a rash, it's like the hundred monkeys.
| budesonide wrote: | | catfish wrote: |
Sure investigate further (better research may be done into water as fuel in my humble and honest opinion) but spitting out "he's disinfo", "no he's disinfo", just wastes everyones time (including mine now it seems, but I just got to make this point). |
Yes I agree and I have not once called anyone a disinfo agent, despite the small amounts of data suggesting it. I simply do not have enough evidence to reach a conclusion about the "$iegel disinfo debate", although he has shown without-a-doubt that he is profiteering from the dead and has absolutely no regard for the feelings of the people he offends.
This offends me greatly.
But hey, business is business, right? |
This is the same offended tone that was levelled at all 9/11 videos.
| budesonide wrote: | | catfish wrote: |
Is there anywhere I can see your hard work and credibility or will I just have to go off these few posts?
|
That has no relevance to this thread. |
Of course it's relevant Mr. Anonymous. You could be absolutely anyone swinging your handbag around. Who are you to be so inflamed when you won't say who you are? You are obviously a very important figure in the stalwart first few truthers whose reputation is so important to protect, so why not say who you are?
Anyways that's enough,
Love From
David
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | 911Eyewitness wrote: | | You call that a review? They don't even have the color of the shirt I am wearing right. A string of ad homonym attacks and statements is neither a review nor a “debunk” of the seven laws of science presented. NO ONE has debunked the seven laws yet. |
^^^what coconut said....
The author of the review doesn't make any ad hominem attacks on you, but does make some valid criticisms of your film.
so it's a shame that ? |
You can't produce one "valid Critisim?" yes, that is a shame.
Please produce them and let us proceed with the shills that never watched the video to see just what color shirt one was wearing. Yes, black is brown as truth are lies and work makes you free. You guys are not worth very much effort, but if I find it of value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | You can't produce one "valid Critisim?" yes, that is a shame. |
the article by Jim Hoffman is full of valid criticisms of your film.
http://911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html
pretending that these valid criticisms don't exist is not a rebuttal.
I asked you specifically to address this issue....
| Quote: | what exactly do you mean by "Chopper 4 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED @9:59 am"?
in the film you claim that this helicopter was dropping a line and imply that it was directly involved in causing the collapse/demolition of the tower. so which "mission" was "accomplished" and how is your claim backed up by the footage you show? |
you failed to do so.
it looks like the ball's still in your court.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | You can't produce one "valid Critisim?" yes, that is a shame.
Please produce them and let us proceed with the shills that never watched the video to see just what color shirt one was wearing. Yes, black is brown as truth are lies and work makes you free. You guys are not worth very much effort, but if I find it of value. |
If your film is the Holy Grail of 9/11 Truth, as you imply, you will have no problem rebutting his critique point by point with unprecendented efficiency and clarity.
What's amusing is that you're still continuing your hypocritical barrage of logical fallacies, nearly immediately after (erroneously) accusing Jim Hoffman of relying on the same dubious tactic.
Get back to us when you have something substantial to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: Hoffman the shill |
|
|
When you have to start making excuses from the first sentence you are in trouble friends. His color blindness is only one sad fact of this anti-Semite hanger.
I tried to go through that tripe he wrote but when I broke up the first page it was too stupid to continue. Out of the first page I came up with few sentences with anything of value and most are ad homonym attacks, baseless assertions, contradictions without any facts, wild assumptions applied to make points and outright lies and fabrications to taint whatever it describes. Hoffman is repugnant to humanity. I am sure he will garner his just desert when the times come to him.
Since this idiot never had an original his claims are ridiculous. As the 2 years since release have provided ample evidence that most claims on sound etc were real and that he never once cared to test, just STATE fact that appears from his rather empty mind.
Here I broke down some of the first page and it is just too stupid to continue. If you actually read his stuff and believe it you are quite a waste of time for me.
Critique of Fake Reviews by Hoffman, Jew Baiting anti Semite
The very title an ad homonym attack “Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science” which is actually what the article is. Pseudo facts and factless.
The only truth:
The interview segments contain the few valid arguments for demolition, although they are not articulated clearly - these happen to be the only parts I (Siegel) have to do with this production other than original material.
Ad homonyms:
Instead of elucidating the truth, however, the piece seems designed to hide the reality of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers by surrounding footage of the demolitions with a vermeer of vapid claims and pseudo-scientific analysis.
People have described the film as tedious and annoying.
Perhaps it's the film's intrusive commentary on incidental events
Perhaps it's the talking-down style of the narrator.
In any case, the DVD provides a great example of how to deter critical thinkers from looking at the evidence that the Towers were demolished.
Interview: Siegel in a brown shirt and sunglasses talking to the camera while standing on the pier from which he filmed the attack
Unfortunately, Siegel negates its value as evidence by superimposing an overlay of distracting and nonsensical interpretations and claims.
The viewer will not have to wait long to get a sense of Siegel's sensationalistic style of highlighting and attributing great significance to details without any rational basis.
Mission indeed accomplished, if the mission is to convince the viewer that this film, and perhaps all talk of demolition of the Towers, is a load of nonsense.
It gets worse.
The sensationalist claims
The claims about the helicopters give way to a long and tedious series of claims about explosions
BLACK SHIRT - this guy did not watch the video.
Un supported statements based on nothing with 0 supporting evidence other than statements:
The live video segments are peppered with overlays highlighting and jumping to conclusions about alleged events that are not or are just barely perceptible.
The lesson narration segments showcase gaping errors in interpreting data from the video.
Unfortunately, Siegel negates its value as evidence by superimposing an overlay of distracting and nonsensical interpretations and claims.
He uses it as a backdrop for claims, many packaged as questions, about real and imagined events such as smoke rising from their base, and explosions long before their falls.
In all likelihood, the flash is simply sunlight reflecting off the helicopter, it being only slightly brighter than portions of the smoke illuminated by sunlight.
This is just one of a numerous examples of dissonance in the film: claims that are belied by what the film actually shows.
Even if one assumes that the soundtrack is real, there is no basis for assuming that spikes of pink noise are explosions from the World Trade Center 1.8 miles away.
For all we know, the sounds could be nothing more than the sound of wind rushing past the microphone
An obvious rational explanation for the faint light-colored patches that Siegel calls "dust clouds" is that smoke is rising from the tons of burning materials that spilled from the Towers following the crashes
Outright lies without any backup:
Does not use his footage to illustrate verifiable features of demolition, such as their rapidity, explosiveness, pulverization and symmetry. Some of these alleged events are contradicted by evidence, and others have plausible explanations apart from demolition.
Total lies, unsubstantiated claims, and distortions / with corrections
Siegel's claim suggests that his DVD contains the only footage capturing the explosive destruction of the Towers
The claim was the actual "explosions".
It needn't be a coincidence that the helicopter catches the sun just before the South Tower starts to fall -- the film could have been edited.
There's more than a flash, according to Siegel, who claims he saw the helicopter drop a line around the time of the flash -- something that close examination of Siegel's own footage doesn't support.
The claim was it looked as if they were about to lower a line, and not only is that verified I now have the video from INSIDE that helicopter to prove it. Hoffbiter also makes that claim without ever talking to me, the producer, seeing originals or doing any research on the subject. What a dick.
. Other witnesses in the vicinity of the Towers also did not hear the alleged explosions long before the collapses.
For example, the vast body of oral histories by emergency responders released in mid-2005 contains numerous accounts of explosion sounds at the onset of the explosion of each Tower, but apparently does not contain accounts of such sounds occurring before the explosions
As we all have seen TONS of videos with the explosions now most of his stuff is trashed as he is trash. Frankly the next pages are just more of the same. This is 90 percent of the words in the first 3/4 page. So, you can have this idiot if you want him, cause I like the light it shines on those who eat from his and DBS sooee.
Enjoy boys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Hoffman the shill |
|
|
Oh goodie. I was wondering when you were going to get back to us. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | When you have to start making excuses from the first sentence you are in trouble friends. His color blindness is only one sad fact of this anti-Semite hanger. |
I'm afraid I was not making any kind of excuse for him. Personally I think your shirt looks more grey than black. If you're going to make a big issue of the colour of your shirt, it only proves how petty you are.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | I tried to go through that tripe he wrote but when I broke up the first page it was too stupid to continue. Out of the first page I came up with few sentences with anything of value and most are ad homonym attacks, baseless assertions, contradictions without any facts, wild assumptions applied to make points and outright lies and fabrications to taint whatever it describes. Hoffman is repugnant to humanity. I am sure he will garner his just desert when the times come to him. |
The irony will never end, will it? Yet again, you use an ad hominem (yes, that is how you spell it) attack on Hoffman by calling him "repugnant to humanity" straight after accusing him of committing the same logical fallacy. This paragraph of your post is rhetorical hand-waving in its purest form; the same tactic that people use when they want to make up a good excuse not to look at the evidence for US government complicity in 9/11. "Oh, that's a crazy theory so I won't entertain it." "Oh, Hoffman uses baseless assertions so I won't debunk it."
You couldn't make this up.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Since this idiot never had an original his claims are ridiculous. As the 2 years since release have provided ample evidence that most claims on sound etc were real and that he never once cared to test, just STATE fact that appears from his rather empty mind. |
You're not doing yourself any favours by exposing yourself to the world as a hypocrite. Your calling Hoffman an "idiot" is the clearest example of an ad hominem attack I've seen all day.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Here I broke down some of the first page and it is just too stupid to continue. If you actually read his stuff and believe it you are quite a waste of time for me. |
If we/I are such a waste of time for you, why do you continue?
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Critique of Fake Reviews by Hoffman, Jew Baiting anti Semite |
Seriously, if you were a professional wrestler suffering from roid rage I would understand your ridiculous comments, but this is beyond a joke. Do you have proof that Jim Hoffman is an anti-Semite or "baits Jews"? All the evidence on his websites shows that he considers anti-Semitism to be rather unsavoury.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The very title an ad homonym attack “Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science” which is actually what the article is. Pseudo facts and factless. |
Actually, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the person (such as calling you a dick-head), not the argument. Criticising the content of the film, or saying that you, as the main person behind the film, are relying on baseless or pseudo-scientific claims, is not ad hominem. Since "Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science" is clearly an attempt to describe the content of your video, it is not ad hominem.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | The only truth:
The interview segments contain the few valid arguments for demolition, although they are not articulated clearly - these happen to be the only parts I (Siegel) have to do with this production other than original material. |
Your remark would be relevant if the article was about you. However, the article is addressing your video, 9/11 Eyewitness.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Ad homonyms: |
Rick, do you ever listen to yourself? I'm being serious. I've said it before and I'll say it again: you are a hypocrite.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Instead of elucidating the truth, however, the piece seems designed to hide the reality of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers by surrounding footage of the demolitions with a vermeer of vapid claims and pseudo-scientific analysis. |
Not ad hominem. Addressing the content of the video.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | People have described the film as tedious and annoying. |
This is a statement which is merely relaying the beliefs of others. I believe it to be factual - I myself find your film tedious.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Perhaps it's the film's intrusive commentary on incidental events |
Again, no personal attacks. The commentary is intrusive.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Perhaps it's the talking-down style of the narrator. |
This is a grey area. You could twist this into saying it's an ad hominem attack.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | In any case, the DVD provides a great example of how to deter critical thinkers from looking at the evidence that the Towers were demolished. |
Yet again, not ad hominem. It's a criticism of your film.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Interview: Siegel in a brown shirt and sunglasses talking to the camera while standing on the pier from which he filmed the attack |
This is ludicrous. Again, you're inflating the issue of the colour of your shirt. In any case, this is nowhere near an ad hominem attack and you should be ashamed for saying it is.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Unfortunately, Siegel negates its value as evidence by superimposing an overlay of distracting and nonsensical interpretations and claims. |
This is mostly opinion, but not ad hominem. He believes the claims are distracting and nonsensical, so to him they would negate your footage's value as evidence. However, putting any superimpositions onto film negates its value as evidence.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The viewer will not have to wait long to get a sense of Siegel's sensationalistic style of highlighting and attributing great significance to details without any rational basis. |
I contend that your film is indeed sensationalistic. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and pointing out smoke rising from the bases of the towers is sensationalism, especially since the latter can be explained by the burning material which fell from the towers.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Mission indeed accomplished, if the mission is to convince the viewer that this film, and perhaps all talk of demolition of the Towers, is a load of nonsense. |
Yawn. Not ad hominem.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: |
It gets worse. |
And again.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The sensationalist claims |
And again.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The claims about the helicopters give way to a long and tedious series of claims about explosions |
Yet again.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | BLACK SHIRT - this guy did not watch the video. |
NO, IT'S GREY! LOL!!
Nobody cares.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The live video segments are peppered with overlays highlighting and jumping to conclusions about alleged events that are not or are just barely perceptible. |
This is true.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The lesson narration segments showcase gaping errors in interpreting data from the video. |
Also, in my opinion, true.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Unfortunately, Siegel negates its value as evidence by superimposing an overlay of distracting and nonsensical interpretations and claims. |
Addressed above.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | He uses it as a backdrop for claims, many packaged as questions, about real and imagined events such as smoke rising from their base, and explosions long before their falls. |
I believe this is also true. For example, when you see "DID YOU HEAR THAT? MORE EXPLOSIONS?" on screen, people are going to automatically think "hey, he's right, they were explosions!"
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | In all likelihood, the flash is simply sunlight reflecting off the helicopter, it being only slightly brighter than portions of the smoke illuminated by sunlight. |
You haven't explained why this claim is baseless. It makes sense and is a rational explanation.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | This is just one of a numerous examples of dissonance in the film: claims that are belied by what the film actually shows. |
Again, true.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | Even if one assumes that the soundtrack is real, there is no basis for assuming that spikes of pink noise are explosions from the World Trade Center 1.8 miles away.
For all we know, the sounds could be nothing more than the sound of wind rushing past the microphone |
This is something I completely agree with. In fact, I can create fake explosions which sound very similar to those in your film by manipulating digitally created pink and brown noise in Audacity. That is not to say that some of the sounds are not actual explosions.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | An obvious rational explanation for the faint light-colored patches that Siegel calls "dust clouds" is that smoke is rising from the tons of burning materials that spilled from the Towers following the crashes |
Again, this is common sense.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Does not use his footage to illustrate verifiable features of demolition, such as their rapidity, explosiveness, pulverization and symmetry. Some of these alleged events are contradicted by evidence, and others have plausible explanations apart from demolition. |
Other films, and Jim Hoffman's website, provide a much more damning case for controlled demolition than your film.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The claim was it looked as if they were about to lower a line, and not only is that verified I now have the video from INSIDE that helicopter to prove it. Hoffbiter also makes that claim without ever talking to me, the producer, seeing originals or doing any research on the subject. What a dick. |
Yes, he is a dick (ad hominem) for analysing your film the way anyone from the public can. If you have this footage, show it. If you have the originals, show them. If you do not, then you have no right to viciously attack Hoffman like this.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | . Other witnesses in the vicinity of the Towers also did not hear the alleged explosions long before the collapses. |
I haven't come across any eyewitness accounts which describe the series of explosions which your camera apparently picked up. No doubt there were explosions prior to collapse, and during collapse, but I think Hoffman is referring to the earlier ones.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | As we all have seen TONS of videos with the explosions now most of his stuff is trashed as he is trash. Frankly the next pages are just more of the same. This is 90 percent of the words in the first 3/4 page. So, you can have this idiot if you want him, cause I like the light it shines on those who eat from his and DBS sooee. |
You have yet to provide any evidence for a link between Jim Hoffman and Daryl Bradford Smith.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Enjoy boys. |
Indeed, I did enjoy replying to your post, which has helped to expose your true nature to the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey public,
Get Rick's film and make up your own minds
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey catfish,
How dare you say that? Budesonide and coconut have always formed my opinions for me.
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. You will do as I say. You are getting sleepy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well catfish,
I suggest you ignore the sock puppet show and....
oh brother.
peace and goodwill to all men
catfish out
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Each time I see this type of stuff going on it reminds me why there are far better things to do than get deeply intertwined in 9/11 "community" politics.
People attack Rick's film as if it claimed it solved the whole shebang - when nothing of the sort was claimed. All these videos and bits of evidence should be seen as cumulative additions to mapping what went on. 911 Eyewitness is still one of the best for adding new possibilities to the wider sequence of events.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: You got some nuts here |
|
|
Well, you can take it or leave it cause it aint no skin off my back. You are just ignorant slaves anyway sitting under the guns. I have a much nicer life.
In the meantime I spend several hours a day on freedom and liberty and pass what first hand experiences I have. Defending any of your so-called leaders is a dead end and your coconuts will screw your brains around in the end.
The worthless meat they garner has no meaning or value for me. If you cannot stand and cannot think you are just another seat to fill for the next conference of gumba sales.
My whole speech last year in LA, one of the reasons they never show it or released it of all the speakers, was about freedom, liberty and how to get it back. It was about what bs it was to meet the other "organizers" with their future conferences. I told them there and here again, I am an artist and I don’t want to make stupid documentaries. I have not made another one. People use my name, they steel the footage and alter it into lies and frauds, and I am being used. The only video I put out is 911 Raw at http://www.911raw.com and it is the only real deal. It is only real evidence, it has not plot. You make that up or let coconut do it for you. 911 Eyewitness had no real plot, but it went beyond the evidence because it wanted to "appeal" to you jerks. 9/11 Mysteries took it to the extreme by just fabricating the whole video to make a Hollywood epic. Showing Arnold Schwarzenegger sci-fi movies will not win converts to truth.
With all your nonsense head shills like coconut you should either clean house or head over to 911researchers to learn things.
I may pop in once in a while to set things right, but if you listen to these shills you will think like them too. You will think you should think one way for the better of the "group". That is called groupthink. It is bad. It is not free it is fascist.
Anyway, nice chatting. Just left some hard proof of Albanesers lies and frauds. Enjoy folks. I never wanted to be a muckraker, but they invited me in.
Lets bring Hoffman and me to the UK Truth and Lies conference! Let's see where truth is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: You got some nuts here |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Well, you can take it or leave it cause it aint no skin off my back. You are just ignorant slaves anyway sitting under the guns. I have a much nicer life. |
Interesting. You're attempting to shrug everything off as if it doesn't mean anything to you, when your previous posts would imply that the opposite is true.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | In the meantime I spend several hours a day on freedom and liberty and pass what first hand experiences I have. |
Good.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Defending any of your so-called leaders is a dead end and your coconuts will screw your brains around in the end. |
Hm, I'm curious as to how I, or anyone like me, will screw anyone's brain around. All I've done is argue for what I believe in, and I think it can be said that you're doing the same. I am not defending any "leader"; I have criticised content on Jim Hoffman's websites a number of times when I have thought them to be erroneous or misleading. What I am doing is taking aim at your peculiar behaviour and comments, as you will clearly see if you backtrack through the thread.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | People use my name, they steel the footage and alter it into lies and frauds, and I am being used. |
While I disagree with anyone altering the footage, philosophically there are those who would justify re-using your footage, in unaltered form, due to it being important evidence of one of the worst crimes committed in recent history.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | The only video I put out is 911 Raw at http://www.911raw.com and it is the only real deal. It is only real evidence, it has not plot. |
I agree, this has much more value as evidence than 9/11 Eyewitness or any other altered film from that day.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | You make that up or let coconut do it for you. |
Again, I'm rather lost as to what you're implying here. Do you believe that I am intentionally misleading people? You can believe that if you want, but you're wrong.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | 911 Eyewitness had no real plot, but it went beyond the evidence because it wanted to "appeal" to you jerks.9/11 Mysteries took it to the extreme by just fabricating the whole video to make a Hollywood epic. Showing Arnold Schwarzenegger sci-fi movies will not win converts to truth. |
Neither will mass insults ("jerks") and neither will putting silly suggestions into documentaries, which will only serve to alienate the public.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | With all your nonsense head shills like coconut you should either clean house or head over to 911researchers to learn things. |
Nice. Killed two birds with one stone: assassinate thy enemy's character, plug thy own website (which, by the way, is down). It's interesting that you're playing the accusation game. I'm a shill, am I? If you think you can prove this, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, I'm not a shill.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | I may pop in once in a while to set things right, but if you listen to these shills you will think like them too. You will think you should think one way for the better of the "group". That is called groupthink. It is bad. It is not free it is fascist. |
Groupthink is bad. I agree. But how is anyone here engaging in groupthink? If you're insinuating that me arguing against you is groupthink, well, perhaps your use of the word is about as well-advised as your use of "ad hominem" accusations.
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Lets bring Hoffman and me to the UK Truth and Lies conference! Let's see where truth is? |
That'd actually be interesting, although Hoffman's public speaking skills aren't exactly top-notch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rik, I'm curious, what year did 911eyewitness win the best Historical Documentary? I've gone back to 2004 on the LA Festival site and cant see it mentioned. Also, I can't find a historical documentary category.
I'm assuming by LA Film festival you mean the Los Angeles Film festival? http://www.lafilmfest.com ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival Los Angeles March 2007 Award
nyfilm.com
Start the peace,
catfish
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
