September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

As just posted, this thread is a correspondence between Mr Lawson and myself. Still waiting for Mr Lawson to stop proving himself to be a charlatan.

[gruts]

somebody who posts under different identities could also be justifiably referred to as a charlatan. so here's the same question yet again mr roadrunner....

[Roadrunner]

Gruts,

As just posted, this thread is a correspondence between Mr Lawson and myself. Still waiting for Mr Lawson to stop proving himself to be a charlatan.

So, as just said, place your question on another thread. We here are waiting for Mr Lawson to reply to what I've posted. It seems he prefers not to. He has quit the scene. Sounds to me like he can't handle the fact that in scientific terms he was and remains a charlatan.

[gruts]

no - this thread is called "September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo" and is all about exposing simon shack as a liar and a fraud (or charlatan if you prefer) - something which has been conclusively proved.

if you want to start a private correspondence with mr lawson, be my guest. just place your question on another thread.

meanwhile we here are waiting for you to reply to what i've posted and once you have done that - maybe you could address some of the other issues pertaining to the credibility of simon shack's work that are still pending. It seems you prefer not to. Sounds to me like you can't handle the fact that in scientific terms you were and remain a charlatan.

[Roadrunner]

Gruts,

If you post here again I will answer your question but you will be agreeing by posting that Mr Lawson refuses to address himself to the facts that show him to be a charlatan, posturing as using the scientific method.

Feel free. Post again and be my first supporter here.

[gruts]

roadrunner - I am asking you a direct question, which you are repeatedly ducking.

why can't you just answer it?

your squabbles with mr lawson are nothing to do with my question or this thread - but if you want to delude yourself into believing otherwise that's up to you.

I'm not surprised that you're so upset by his video, which gives us further proof that "september clues" is disinfo to fool the gullible - but again, if you want to delude yourself into believing otherwise I can't stop you.

but why not start a new thread instead of trying to derail this one?

and what's it to be mr roadrunner.

are you a charlatan who's pretending to be somebody else - or not?

[Stefan]

Road runner,
If you blink in the next ten minutes you are agreeing to send me a $500 cheque.

Should you scatch your head between now and next March you are agreeing to become my personal shoe shine boy.

Should you admit that the condition you gave gruts above is meanignless as you have no power to put words in his mouth or control how he posts, I will release you from the above "agreements".

[gruts]

[ian neal]

One thread per topic please road runner/Antony

There is already a thread to discuss your disagreement with Antony Lawson. Please keep discussions focussed in one place. thanks

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=95688#95688

[Roadrunner]

It's just that you have the manners of ignorant men. I have asked repeatedly that you post your question on another thread. That's a matter of record.

At the time of your posts we were waiting to see if Lawson could reply to my detailed proof of him acting as a charlatan in matters of science.

Lawson has chosen not to reply. As we all see.

If you wish me to answer your question please pose it on another thread. There ! You really must stop being fools, charlatans and downright rude people. Or we will all start to realise your're nothing but a bunch of hoodlums and rascals.

[gruts]

[Roadrunner]

It's what you can call me losing patience with ignorant, willingly ignorant, unmannered, uncouth, spoilers. Lawson, busted.

As for other matters, blame yourselves.

[gruts]

at this point I think I'll leave you to your delusions mr banned liar. I hope the weather's nice on planet numpty today....

[Roadrunner]

You lack integrity, character, manners, fairness, honesty, respect and any virtue. That's the price of being a liar.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Mr Lawson cannot even stay to see why he is a charlatan. But this is so typical that nothing more needs to be said. The case speaks for itself.

[chek]

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

The scientific method is once again disregarded by supporters of planes at the WTC. I have emphasised this in my response to Lawson. He chooses to ignore this. He wants his career as a charlatan to continue. He wants you also to ignore the fact that belief in planes is NOT based on a body of verified evidence but is, in fact, from sources that are (and have always been) UNACCOUNTABLE.

Now, if you want to posture as a truth movement by wholesale ignorance of the scientific method, that is your choice. Lawson is a charlatan and now you can see WHY. But of these facts Lawson himself has nothing to say.

You are a bunch of dummies, of ignorant and abused minds who cannot even understand the basis of scientific enquiry.

Pointless to say more. And so your campaign is, once again, exposed to be nothing more than misinformation and fraud.

Nothing more to say except that Lawson, by choice, remains a charlatan in matters of science.

[John White]

Indub, give over: now either adress the topic of this thread: hint: look at page 1! or go "pursue" Mr Lawson elsewhere, your in the wrong place

[Anthony Lawson]

Absurd

In the hope of keeping Roadrunner quiet, here is your answer:

I am not a charlatan, and I did not call you one. My question, something like: "But what would a charlatan know of such things?" was referring to myself. It's called irony.

You called me a charlatan, remember, then you want definitive answers from me.

By definition, charlatans are not renowned for telling the truth, so you wouldn't believe me, whatever I told you. Joseph Heller summed it up, nicely. Do you know what I am talking about?

Now please answer my question, above, or leave me alone.

(Really, folks, the best way to deal with this person is to ignore him.)

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

Mr Lawson has finally decided to respond to the serious charge of being a charlatan in matters of science. He writes -

'I am not a charlatan, and I did not call you one. My question, something like: "But what would a charlatan know of such things?" was referring to myself. It's called irony'.

Ah, yes ! Irony. So you were (ironically) refering to yourself as a charlatan ? The fact that you did so without writing, 'charlatan', and wrote - charlatan - is not missed by your readers. It tends to support my original description, does it not ? So much for your silky skills in English, yes ?

Can you now say Mr Lawson if you've yet read my letter of yesterday, which lays out in some detail proofs that you, in matters of science, are a charlatan ? Or are you determined to avoid its contents altogether ?

For you to avoid the substance of my argument would be, in itself, proof (if any were still needed) of you being a charlatan, would it not ? And so you see, your letter today is further confirmation that in matters of science you really have no reply. It further suggests none is ever to be expected of you. Right ?

[gruts]

[Roadrunner]

Gruts,

I owe you an apology. Please accept my apology for calling in to question your intellect or your ability to understand simple things in several posts of yesterday. I made a mistake to do so and am genuinely sorry for doing so.

Yours sincerely

[Roadrunner]

No response from Mr Lawson ? Sort of, well, predictable, yes ?

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

The 9/11 'truth' movement is nothing but a bag of fools who don't even know what the scientific method IS. Building their castles on sand they present evidence which has NOT survived criticism and construct on it propaganda. Unaccountability is their hallmark. Evidence that has never, at any time, survived the necessary tests of science.

Back to the drawing board. Either you use the scientific method or you are exposed as being frauds and are willingly ignorant men.

Such is the case with Lawson. As we now clearly see. It's for kids. Nobody with the slightest regard for science and the scientific method believes such poor quality rubbish.

[chek]