| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | IronSnot wrote: | | Andrew you've named several people in your post who I consider highly suspicious. I thank you for bringing them all together like that and hope you are able to admit to mistakes when one or several of them take a fall. |
I wonder if Andrew banned him for that comment?!?
I'm still waiting for Andrew to explain what heating aluminum to the melting point of steel has to do with anything? |
The exercise in proving that aluminium and steel glow orange at the same temperature was pointless since the temperature could only have been produced by thermite or ome other high-heat/energy input. That metal flow is evidence of melting iron. However, the debunkers have come up with a theory that the ironmelted because - get this - aluminium from the plane burned then reacted with steel... They will try anything. What would a jury make of it do you think? Best to stick to the 5 Israelis, Bush and his first plane, and really easy to understand stuff like that. I explained to the guy who hosts my server the ghost train from Luton story - I could not get through to him the importance of the government faking witness statements.
KISS
G911
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In a completely different thread and context, flamesong wrote: | The more No Planers and Beamers use the tactics of Jehovah's Witnesses the less anybody will take any notice of them.
In fact, they are doing the 9/11 Truth Movement a service by flagging themselves up as avoidable. |
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Do you have any points of evidence to correct what I have written above?
Do you have any personal correspondence from Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer or others mentioned above to share with us, or the gist of same?
The only thing to discuss is evidence. Let's try and stick to that, as I have done above. I have documented clear contradictions with facts above and documented behaviour by certain individuals which are inconsistent with the goals of revealing the truth behind 9/11.
To be fair, you posted this originally to a thread where TSWU3 had thoughtfully reposted my article, but thoughtlessly deleted all the links to the evidence, so perhaps, Patrick Brown style, you would like to check the evidence now and come to some conclusions about - rahter than making sweeping generalised statements comparing one "group" of people to another who are not even mentioned in the article above (i.e. Jehovah's Witness"). This the classic decoy tactic to which I referred, above.
Thank you. |
Quite, this is the first time I have looked at this thread and I am somewhat amazed that there is a post from me in it.
I note that the thread I posted it in no longer exists - at least I cannot find it via a forum search.
I therefore cannot place it in context and feel no compunction to justify it other than to say it was a comment on the posters style of browbeating with swathes of copied and pasted text - not only in threads but via PM.
To disingenuously use somebody elses words in such a 'Mum, flamesong hit me' way is pathetic, Andrew! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was convinced 9/11 was an inside job years before there was any notion of controlled demolition, let alone thermite/mate, missile pods, CGI, beam weapons, bath tubs, pennies or pianos. There was enough evidence by the end of 2001 to warrant a global rethink on the story being fed foie gras fashion to the general public.
Andrew, you have got yourself embroiled in these problems yourself. If you want to associate yourself with exponents of one theory or another, that is entirely up to you. I don't. I am for the greater part ambivolent whether Steve Jones or Jim Fetzer has the upper hand. They are fighting in the street and the outcome of their brawl has no significance to me or, I suspect, the vast majority of 9/11 truthers. I just wish they would scrap it out in a cellar somewhere. To quote Bill Hicks, 'give 'em chainsaws!'.
But every now and then I get a whiff of some of what you are saying. A couple of days ago I read that you seemed to base your 'problem' with the concept of real planes hitting the World Trade Center on the 'delayed fireball'. I responded by saying that as far as I was concerned:
'The fireball wasn't 'delayed' at all! Allowing for the time taken for the wings to break up, the compartmental fuel bags to rupture, vapourisation, ignition and the time taken for the fireball to expand through the building's structure, I'd say that was perfectly consistent.'
The fuel didn't hit the building in a giant bubble pursued by an olympic torch!
Like many other departures from the core, your credo seems to be based on the need to explain an imaginary problem. That, as they say, Andrew, is your problem!
As I hope to have made clear, I am not interested in your exotic theory or any of the half dozen other exotic theories which are hovering around. As far as I am concerned, they are irrelevant to the main task in hand and, as is virtually universally agreed on this forum, they are a distraction and have served to do nothing more than to cause division.
So don't be surprised if I challenge the odd bit of evidence without giving a shít about how it sits in your belief system.
And if in the process of trying to promote it you present feeble foundations, such as above, or toe-curling witnesses - don't expect an easy ride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew I've copied your article here: http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=71
And here: http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=72
I've done this so members can comment anonymously on it without the fear of being banned from this forum.
I'm aware it doesn't have all the embedded links but I haven't got time to add them. If you wish to copy your article with all the embedded links to the thread I will amend my post and then delete yours.
I hope this doesn't seem provocative as I'm just giving people the opportunity to pass comment without fear of reprisals. IronSnot may have been banned because of his comments on this thread although this is just speculation at this point in time.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iro
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | I was convinced 9/11 was an inside job years before there was any notion of controlled demolition, let alone thermite/mate, missile pods, CGI, beam weapons, bath tubs, pennies or pianos. There was enough evidence by the end of 2001 to warrant a global rethink on the story being fed foie gras fashion to the general public.
Andrew, you have got yourself embroiled in these problems yourself. If you want to associate yourself with exponents of one theory or another, that is entirely up to you. I don't. I am for the greater part ambivolent whether Steve Jones or Jim Fetzer has the upper hand. They are fighting in the street and the outcome of their brawl has no significance to me or, I suspect, the vast majority of 9/11 truthers. I just wish they would scrap it out in a cellar somewhere. To quote Bill Hicks, 'give 'em chainsaws!'.
But every now and then I get a whiff of some of what you are saying. A couple of days ago I read that you seemed to base your 'problem' with the concept of real planes hitting the World Trade Center on the 'delayed fireball'. I responded by saying that as far as I was concerned:
'The fireball wasn't 'delayed' at all! Allowing for the time taken for the wings to break up, the compartmental fuel bags to rupture, vapourisation, ignition and the time taken for the fireball to expand through the building's structure, I'd say that was perfectly consistent.'
The fuel didn't hit the building in a giant bubble pursued by an olympic torch!
Like many other departures from the core, your credo seems to be based on the need to explain an imaginary problem. That, as they say, Andrew, is your problem!
As I hope to have made clear, I am not interested in your exotic theory or any of the half dozen other exotic theories which are hovering around. As far as I am concerned, they are irrelevant to the main task in hand and, as is virtually universally agreed on this forum, they are a distraction and have served to do nothing more than to cause division.
So don't be surprised if I challenge the odd bit of evidence without giving a shít about how it sits in your belief system.
And if in the process of trying to promote it you present feeble foundations, such as above, or toe-curling witnesses - don't expect an easy ride. |
i agree with every word of that flamesong. Great post
Andrew - good effort on putting that article together, but i have to disagree with your polarisation and your intent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick Brown said
"I can concede that some of Jones “evidence based” conclusions may be slightly off the mark"
Well Patrick perhaps you can enlighten us as to where his conclusions are slightly off the mark? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
