An Open Letter to Ian Neal

[Roadrunner]

To Ian Neal,

Ian, since you made the decision to restore John White as Moderator on this forum he has stated there was no media fakery on 9/11/2001. Once again calling in to question the entire purpose of this forum. I invite you personally to answer the following questions, so that members here can see your stand on this forum's own stated motto - a 'quest for truth' about 9/11/2001 -

1. Do you agree the BBC should be accountable for its news output ?

2. Do you agree that the public should be able to know from the BBC (a corporation instituted under Royal Charter and still today largely financed by the paying public) from which studio in New York Jane Standley made her infamous broadcast on 9/11/2001 in which she (purportedly) announced the premature collapse of WTC 7 ?

3. Do you yourself support attempts to have the BBC made accountable for the content of its own broadcasts related to the tragedy of 9/11/2001 ?

A simple yes or no will be enough. It will greatly help to settle doubts about this forum.

Posted 1855 hrs London local time. Clock ticking.

Thank You

[Dogsmilk]

[John White]

Not another open letter!

[Roadrunner]

John,

So you believe Ian Neal is unable to answer a letter for himself ? Please will you start acting sensibly as a Moderator and answer the same questions that I asked you yourself on a separate thread ?

Your failure to do so would surprise nobody. It will simply confirm the suspicions of almost every visitor here.

Meanwhile, let us see if Ian Neal will answer for himself. You owe him that much, right ?

[mr nice]

[John White]

I've already spent quite enough time on your questions today:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12125&start=30

[Roadrunner]

Mr Nice,

I (and no doubt other members of this forum) would appreciate knowing your own answer to these questions. Please feel free enough to attempt an answer, if you are able to express any opinion, that is.

So, yes, I would respect answers from you personally on this issue. And no, it will not suprise me if you find yourself unable to provide them. One lives and learns, yes ? My questions are reasonable enough, don't you agree ?

[Roadrunner]

John White,

Nobody can doubt you've spent quite a long time on my questions today. But nobody can doubt also that you've spent quite a long time avoiding any answer to them.

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

John White,

To be honest I doubt if you have the ability to be a Moderator here. You are again posting on a thread made specially for Ian Neal. This shows you really don't respect others, not even Ian Neal. Please don't do this. It shows you are lacking respect and have few social skills.

So, would you kindly answer the 3 questions that I asked specially of you in the thread addressed directly to you ?

You are 'lost for words'. Well, in that case, a simple YES or NO is quite enough.

I did answer the questions, sure. But I asked them of you because you are the Moderator of this forum, because this is a 'truth forum' and because you are moderating members who are on a quest for 9/11 truth. Now, without further delay, can you please say if you will answer these questions ? If not, fine. Let others judge.

But please (so that things are moderated well) answer on the thread specially made for you.

OK ?



_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

[ian neal]

I'm struggling to see the point of this thread but the answer to your questions is yes

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

John White has just written -

I am accountable to myself and leave the judgement of by peers TO my peers

So you leave the judgement of yourself to your peers ? Well, here is the soft end of that judgement - you're NOT accountable. You have no sense of accountability. You were appointed (against huge opposition) as Moderator of a UK 9/11 truth forum - an honour of a kind - and you're again proving you're nothing more than a fraud. You are daily bringing this forum in to disrepute. You are and the crooks who posture here as truth seekers. You know who you are. You're nothing more than scumbags and are a disgrace to humanity, to the UK, to the 9/11 truth movement, and to this forum. THAT's the judgement of your peers. On such a serious set of questions as the BBC and their coverage you simply refuse to answer. That's the truth. Why don't you have at least the dignity to resign and end your bogus career ?

At every stage John there will be men and women who will raise a higher standard than any you know. THAT is the judgment of your peers.

[John White]

Blah blah blah

"Talk to the hand" etc

[Roadrunner]

1. Do you agree the BBC should be accountable for its news output ?

2. Do you agree that the public should be able to know from the BBC (a corporation instituted under Royal Charter and still today largely financed by the paying public) from which studio in New York Jane Standley made her infamous broadcast on 9/11/2001 in which she (purportedly) announced the premature collapse of WTC 7 ?

3. Do you yourself support attempts to have the BBC made accountable for the content of its own broadcasts related to the tragedy of 9/11/2001 ?

[Roadrunner]

Dear Ian Neal,

In answer to the question of BBC accountability and its televised coverage of 9/11/2001 you write -

I'm struggling to see the point of this thread but the answer to your questions is yes

The 'struggle' seems to be that you do not see the relevance of such an important question as a test of this forum's real purpose. Your newly appointed Moderator neither sees the point of such questions nor is willing to answer them, despite being asked time and time again. Which calls in to question (once again) your appointment of John White as Moderator to a UK truth forum. I mean, how silly must it get here before you appreciate that this forum is populated by those who are exposed as frauds and who are little more than spoilers ?

It's up to you Ian, but the truth is this forum is time and time again failing if it is really interested in establishing 9/11 truth. I think you are nothing more than a bogus forum. And this merely confirms it.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Chek,

You've once again interfered in a message sent to Ian Neal. Please don't do that. It's just stupid.

The solution is in your hands. Just agree to answer the questions as a new Moderator of this forum. Or people will start to think you are nothing but an agent of misinformation on a misinformation forum.

I've tried to help you. I've posed specific questions on a special thread. I've four times agreed to answer any specific questions you may have of me.

But here we are, the next day. Many posts later. And you still haven't answered the questions about the BBC television coverage of 9/11/2001 and their public accountability. Seems to me that you and your forum are once again being exposed as fake. Right ? I mean, can you see it from that perspective, or not ?

[ian neal]

RR

I've answered your questions. If you want to continue this, you can PM me. Otherwise if you put stuff on a public forum expect it to be commented on by others. And may I remind you that John has requested that discussion of this forum's moderation is directed towards the moderators in private, so expect threads like this to end up in the bin. Not my call, but that's what I would do.

[ian neal]

[Roadrunner]

'Ian Neal',

The fact you have no concern about this site speaks volumes. You deserve John White, Chek, Gruts and the others. They're part of your 'success'. They prove beyond doubt this is nothing but a crooked and bogus 'truth' forum. As it was always meant to be. But now everybody knows it.

[chek]

[ian neal]

Your opinion is duly noted. However, unless you contact me in person, tell me who you are and explain how you know what you reckon you know, then your opinion will carry no weight with me. I have explained my reasons for my recent decisions and beyond that I have nothing to add. As I have already said, I'm taking a sabbatical from moderation and if you have issue with current moderation direct them towards Tony IN PRIVATE. If it were my call I would dump this thread in the bin and give you a last warning, but thankfully such decisions are not currently my headache. Bye

[Roadrunner]

Well 'Ian Neal',

Having read on the first page to this forum -

‘The forum administrators are committed to a non-violent transformation of the world based on truth, justice, peace and unity. The forum is independent and not affiliated to any individual organisation, philosophy or worldview. It finds common cause with the truth, social justice, green and peace movements‘.

Source - Website www.nineeleven.co.uk

These impressive sentiments are used to portray your forum as having been created by essentially nice people. They can even be compared to the motto one might read in stone above the entrance to a worthy school, or to a college. And they would not be out of place in any well intended place of education. I think anyone would agree. But you’ll forgive me, Ian, in saying that in my considered view the forum built on such noble stated aims is now only thinly disguised from its real purpose - from that which it now is - a place that does not help but, rather, hinders attempts to get to the truth of 9/11/2001.

I will of course happily withdraw this opinion of its current raison-d’etre if you can show it wrong. You see, I’ve arrived at my view after personal experience of its workings in practice and that of numerous recent users. The track record of the forum is today plain and it can and should be compared with its published ‘mission statement’.

Let me say this Ian, in all seriousness. If your website is in any way associated with the Jesuit Order I would defend your right to it being associated with them tooth and nail. But in such a case I would also expect you and others who own it to be honest to their members in having such affiliation. Especially since you say ‘the forum is independent and not affiliated to any individual organisation, philosophy or worldview’.

You may even agree, Ian, that the Jesuits have their place in the plan of God, just as do those of us who are, for many reasons, NOT Jesuit. But I make no secret of the fact that I have no great regard for the Jesuit Order. And my study of 9/11 has done nothing to change my view.

Looking more closely at these words -

1. The forum administrators are committed to a non-violent transformation of the world based on truth, justice, peace and unity. The forum is independent and not affiliated to any individual organisation, philosophy or worldview. It finds common cause with the truth, social justice, green and peace movements.

I’d like first to take issue with your reference to this laudable aim of a ‘non-violent transformation of the world’. I mean, Ian, please say how this is this to be achieved by you and your colleagues? And whether you are closer to this being realised since the inception of your UK 9/11 forum ?

‘Transform the world‘, indeed ! Well, in the preface to the Jesuit book ‘Testimony - The Word Made Fresh’ (available thru Orbis Books on eBay and other sources) ed. John Dear and featuring Dan Berrigan’s unpublished writings about the ‘Plowshares Movement’ (a movement against the proliferation of nuclear weapons) we read in its Preface -

‘We too will not only contribute to the disarmament of the world, but to God’s nonviolent transformation of the world.’

So, the question naturally arises whether God forms any real or stated part in your forum’s belief in this ongoing transformation of the world, or if He is, in your view, somehow still waiting in the wings to be introduced to members at some later date ? You see, the Jesuit aim to ‘non-violently transform the world’ can easily be demonstrated as a striking feature of their modern publications. I submit the above one example as being rather typical of modern Jesuit-speak. A sort of buzz word in modern Jesuit circles, isn’t it ? But if you know nothing of this please say and I will post numerous other examples to prove it more. And, as to whether the Jesuit Order have had a track record since the Council of Trent with ‘non-violently transforming the world’ (let alone themselves) I must of course leave you and readers of this post to honestly judge.

2. The forum administrators are committed to a non-violent transformation of the world based on truth, justice, peace and unity. The forum is independent and not affiliated to any individual organisation, philosophy or worldview. It finds common cause with the truth, social justice, green and peace movements.

Well, again, in the mission statement of the American organisation,‘Healing the Culture’ we find another typically Jesuit statement that is strikingly similar to your own. Here it is -

(Happiness Level 4 is giving our lives over to unconditional, infinite, perfect, and unrestricted Love, Truth, Justice, Peace, and Unity. For people who have faith, this might be translated as "surrender to the unconditional love of God." It is the happiness that comes from letting go and letting God direct our desires toward eternal happiness. It is higher than the other levels because it requires complete trust and self-surrender. It requires that we believe that God always wants what is best for us, and it is eternal in its ability to fulfill us. Our desire for Level 4 is sometimes seen as a proof for God's existence; that is: our desire for unrestricted Love, Truth, Justice, Peace, and Unity).

(Healing the Culture was founded in 2003 by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J.- Jesuit - (President of Gonzaga University) and Camille De Blasi Pauley. Our programs and resources are based on the Life Principles curriculum created by Rev. Spitzer).

But let me not bother you further with such things. I simply ask whether, in reply to this short note, you may care to comment on the workings of your forum and whether you feel I and others may have valid grounds for suspecting that your forum does indeed have an undeclared association with the Jesuit Order. In terms of its mission and its existence as a 9/11 forum.

Yours faithfully

[ian neal]

Bless

If you care to trawl through my posts on the subject of religion, you will find I have no time for organised religions: they just don't push my buttons as it were. G-d, yeah, Love, definately, organised religion with their quaint rituals and fear induced guilt trips: no thanks, but each to their own. So you may see similarities between the purpose of this site and the platitudes of Jesuits, but that is coincidence and a reflection that all major religions contain words of truth.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Well Ian, here is a rare exchange on 9/11 and the truth movement, for sure ! I can and will take your reply at face value and am in full agreement about the futility of organised religion. In this sense you deserve credit. But you may agree the rise of global secularism (whose most evil forms include such satanic movements as the Bavarian Illuminati, to name but one) are by nature hidden though they were of course founded by Jesuits and are, to this day, largely still organised by Jesuits. Again, such places as Bohemia Grove boast in being an association of paganism which nobody can possibly describe as 'organised religion'. Yet that place has today a 'patron saint' in its statue of St. John Nepomuk - a man whose repute was first made by the Jesuit historiographer Boleslaus Balbinus the "Bohemian Pliny," in his 'Vita beatae Joannis Nepomuceni martyris', first published in Prague in 1670.

Amongst the countless coincidences one comes across in studies of 9/11 (and this from virtually whatever angle one chooses to study it) those involving links with the Jesuit Order have been, in my view, perhaps the most numerous and the most obvious.

I raised the question because I was morally obliged to do so. And you, in the same way, answered me. I am glad you understood my question and that I understand your answer.

[Roadrunner]

Chek,

You are of course right there are those who speak much and say nothing. Unlike yourself, Ian Neal has gone out of his way to assure us that this forum has no affiliation with the Jesuit Order. Whether this pleases you or informs you remains to be seen. But it pleases me and it informs me. Which was why I asked it.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Well, I do.

As to being 'an instrument of satan', I can say only that I live my life wishing not to be and devoted with my heart not to becoming. If this is the same as you that's fine. Let God judge.