See other 9/11 Articles
Title: DR. STEVEN JONES- PNAC-4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
Published: Apr 30, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-04-30 23:57:52 by Critter
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: 9/11, Truth, Thermate
Views: 7192
Comments: 150
Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-94) not displayed.
.
.
.
#95. To: christine (#33)
Some very good people take the time to post meaningful and important articles on freedom4um.com. Honest debate and serious discussion on these important matters should be welcome by all. BeAChooser has been exposed on every thread he has participated on. He is dishonest and has no interest in the truth, only his agenda. This cartoon phase appears to be a "suicide by cop" tactic. If BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it. It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
BTW,if I was making the decision, either the cartoon spams would stop or BeAChooser would get his wish.
The sociopathic creep is sorry he is not on LP to rub in Goldi's latest step into the dark side of the force. We all know he is not happy here and bored with his role as wanker in any 9 11 discussion. He wants Christine to ban him as icing on the cake of his baitful dog and pony show. I can understand her reluctance to grant him his martyrdom but I would give it to him anyway. There are no winners and no one gains by him lingering where he has made zero friends and annoyed everybody. He claims he is not a returning bannee anywhere, but he is doing something somewhere online, and doesn't wish to be forthcoming about this. He is either working a swiftboat the Truth Movement site, is back at FR in a new nick or in other forums doing his crap. Ban him, let him declare victory and then leave. Enough is enough.
He has invested nearly 10 years of his life into this internet persona. I suspect down deep the person knows the movement demanding a legitimate investigation into 9/11 is right. This "suicide by cop" tactic may be his attempt to acknowledge an inconvenient truth.
Photographs can be deceiving. Until I see it in real life, before my eyes, I can't say what is in it. Until then, I will have to go by what the people say who have it in their custody, that it is 4 stories of WTC tower, copressed and heated to temperatures approaching those of the middle earth, like it said in that video. You keep posting a picture which does not "clearly" show anything. I have stated that I do not know what hit the Pentagon, and won't know until a real independent investigation takes place. Those are not sagging floors and I have proved that using NIST's own words and images. You are the one with the eyesight problem. Or is it just that the photos have deceived you? Yes, they were perimeter sections. Again I have proved it. Photos and video of the are IMMEDIATELY after the collapse show less debris in the footprint than out of the footprint, and no intact structure at all in the footprint that could be considered the driving mass of the collapse. You lose. Battalion Chief Palmer, a NYC Firefighter on the 78th at the time of the collapse agrees with me that there were only isolated pockets of fire at the time of the collapse. His radio transmissions to that effect are available on the web for all to hear. Curious that many of the very experts you quote state that it took 10 to 11 seconds. I think more like 15 seconds, personally. Superficial damage to the middle exterior does not collapse buildings symmetrically. Curious how NIST (your so called experts) got the SW corner damage all wrong. Did the photos deceive them or were they deliberately lying? Orange hot iron will flow as it it melted by thermate. You have an eyesight problem apparently. But worse than that, you have mental problems as well. But worst of all, you support the treasonous bastards that murdered your countrymen in order to persue their global agenda. May God have mercy on your soul.
#96. To: , christine (#95)
It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
#97. To: honway (#95)
"This cartoon phase appears to be a "suicide by cop" tactic. If BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it."
#98. To: Ferret Mike (#97)
He claims he is not a returning bannee anywhere, but he is doing something somewhere online, and doesn't wish to be forthcoming about this. He is either working a swiftboat the Truth Movement site, is back at FR in a new nick or in other forums doing his crap.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#91)
You mean to say, that although you've in the past claimed some experience with buildings, you can't tell that chunk of material in the video and seen in the numerous still photos that I've posted is made of unmelted concrete, steel and rebar (the major components)? Really? Or maybe the truth is getting in the way of you seeing Dr Jones for what he really is?
Is it just coincidence that you also couldn't see a hole in the Pentagon that was larger than 20 feet across (when the hole was clearly many times that size across in the photos I posted)? Maybe the truth just got in the way of your *it was a missile or small airplane* theory?
Curious that you also couldn't see the sagging floors in those images of the WTC towers that I posted ... floors that were sagging many minutes before they collapsed. Maybe the truth gets in the way of your notion that ordinary fires aren't hot enough to deform steel so thermite bombs must be what brought down the towers.
Curious that you couldn't see that the portions of the tower that stood for a moment after the collapse were core components (remember ... you said they were perimeter sections). Maybe the truth gets in the way of your pet theory once again.
Curious that you couldn't see that the debris piles were high enough given that most of the towers was composed of air and debris from their collapse spread out over a much larger area than that defined by the tower's original perimeter. Maybe the truth got in the way of your hope that it was the government's fault.
Curious that you couldn't see the many fires visibly burning in the towers before it collapsed. Don't you remember claiming there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire, Critter? But then I guess the truth threatened to lift the darkness from your belief that it's all one vast conspiracy involving Bush, his cabal and all the structural engineers, demolition experts, materials experts, experts in fire, and macro-world physicists in the world.
Curious that you couldn't see the towers taking about 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 10 or 11 that you insist on because the 911 commission reported that. Of course, the truth would then get in the way of that neat CT claim about them falling at free-fall speeds which is impossible.
Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. But then that would definitely have gotten in the way of your belief that Silverstein said "pull the building" - and they did.
Curious that you couldn't see that the molten material seen falling from the South Tower was orange hot. Wait! You did see that. But then why is Dr Jones now trying to claim it was yellow or whitish yellow?
In any case, I wonder if there isn't some sort of eyesight problem here?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#100. To: Ferret Mike, christine, critter, BeAChooser (#53)
You need to do better then that and learn some respect of others as fellow interlocutors in a BBS, or you should leave, or be severed from this virtual community. I think that is because he regards every single poster here as "the enemy". He is incapable of viewing any of us as living, breathing individuals with separate identities. He even puts down those who who stand up for him, which I've come to the conclusion is a waste of time and effort as he has nothing but contempt for each and every poster here, just because they post here. That is what I see.
I talk of many things in here. But you focus on one issue like it is a job to do so, and you are utterly detached on the personal level from everyone else in forum.
#101. To: Diana (#100)
(#39) Just go away. SKYDRIFTER, answer my two questions. PLEASE. PRETTY PLEASE. Are you saying that ALL THREE HOLES that you speak of did not exist in the building before 9/11. YES or NO? Are you saying that three holes were made in the C-Ring by *whatever* damaged the Pentagon. YES or NO? Don't run. Don't make more adhominem attacks on me. Just answer the two questions. Neil, I hope you are watching this. I've caught him in a deliberate lie here. One I can easily prove by posting photos and our past conversations on this topic. And he's knows it. That's how easy it is to find SKYDRIFTER lying. Why do you tolerate this sort of behavior on your forum? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 14:25:10 ET He's also a whiner and views the casual snitch to the mod a useful tool. Good post, yes you describe him to a 'T'. He stereotypes everybody. In a BAC world ALL Democrats are evil. In a BAC world, all things that do not work to crush Islam and el Qaeda are evil. And the Truth Movement gets in the way of using 9 11 as the perpetrators meant for it to be used. If he came upon incontrovertible evidence that 9 11 was an inside job, he'd destroy it if he could. He is not concerned with the issue to find out the truth, he is annoyed because it is not being used to gain maximum effort in fighting and destroying those he loathes in that part of the world. If he had his druthers, he would be back on Free Republic, and Free Republic would be as big as it was in it's heyday. I have zero use for this meal worm.
40. To: Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER, Goldi-Lox, Diana, all
#102. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, Diana (#91)
He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace Well blubber boy, here is an example where you got a sanction exacted on Sky, yet you have been ad homineming all over the place lately. You should ping Christine and have her give you probation. After all, if this is good enough to get done to Sky for his alleged 'crimes,' don't you think you deserve much the same for your ad hominem attacks?
55. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER, Diana (#52)
#103. To: honway (#95)
I wouldn't count on that. He has to post somewhere and he will. He obviously isn't posting because he has nothing better to do.
if BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#104. To: honway, RickyJ, Ferret Mike, IndieTX, SKYDRIFTER, Critter, Kamala, Esso, Diana, christine, ALL (#96)
Given the strident calls for my banning on this thread, I shall use my first post of the day to respond to that. Why are you folks so fearful of me? You say I'm disruptive of the forum? But I only get 15 posts a day and sometimes I don't even use all of them. If just those I've pinged post 3 times each day, my message will be overwhelmed. Most 4um members, your audience, are behind a bozo filter and can't see me anyway. And no one else listens to anything I write (or so it's claimed by some of you). So why are you worried about what I post in the first place? Now I think I've been a model of debating decorum while at 4um. I haven't called posters names despite considerable provocation on your part. I haven't used obscenities although many have been directed at me. I've tried to respond logically and factually to what I've been asked. Indeed, most of my posts have contained sourced facts and (IMO) sound logic. I have never asked that anyone be banned. I am not posting under any other names on this or any other forum. Hence I'm not talking about Freedom4um behind it's back. And what I've said about Freedom4um here has been decidedly mild. I've contributed by posting an article or two from time to time. I'm not here representing anyone but myself. And I'm certainly not being paid to post (despite what some insist). I have a sense of humor ... as those cartoons surely prove. Maybe it's my laughing that disturbs you? I even find fault with a great many things Bush and his administration have done. So what about the above is sooooooooo disturbing that banning is demanded? My motives are clear. I've said from the beginning that you won't find the truth about 9/11 if you link legitimate questions ... questions that do indeed deserve answers ... to easily discredited allegations ... such as bombs in the towers and no-Flight 77. I've said that you won't find the truth about 9/11 (or any other topic) if the spokesperson for your cause (be it Jones, Ryan, Griffin, Les Roberts, or whoever) makes easily discredited claims, misrepresents the facts, is illogical or outright lies. I've said you won't get a legitimate investigation of 9/11 if your calls for one are based on disinformation spouted by dishonest, self-serving leaders and posters. I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means. Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed. Truth is good (although secrecy is sometimes advised). But to succeed, the movement must be based on facts, not disinformation. For it to be otherwise will in the end only harm the truth and those who seek it. How can any of that be so disturbing that you must demand my banning? That call seems counter to the very principles which you folks claim to support. Think about that. I'm actually trying to help you focus on what's important. The Truth. And the means of finding it. Don't you think your movement should be based on verifiable truth and sound logic, rather than lie filled videos like ... say ... Loose Change 2? Don't you think your movement should be led by leaders who don't misrepresent facts, distort the facts or lie? Rather than folks like Jones, Avery, Griffin, Roberts? By leaders who have no hidden agenda of their own? Now, of course, christine can do whatever she pleases. She is the forum owner. It is well within her right and power to ban me just as it was within her right to limit my posting privileges. But I respectfully suggest that banning me, given the record for honest and civil debate that I've now established on this forum, would make Freedom4um look very bad. Look at the criticisms you folks have leveled against Goldi for relegating threads involving 9/11 theories to her biker bar. Just because she disagrees with them. Yet you apparently want to completely ban someone just because he disagrees with you. The plain and simple truth is that if your theories and claims can't stand up to the criticisms of a single poster (one who even has limited posting privileges), do you really think they are all that sound? Maybe they need some refining. Think of me as someone who is trying to help you do that and we will get along fine. I really mean that ...
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#104)
If you were ever to present your official fairy tale arguments in the same way you presented this one, you wouldn't look like such a shill. All of those copy and paste same old spam posts just mess up the threads and no one reads them. In this one you state: "Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed." That implies that the whole story isn't being told. What is missing from the official fairy tale?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#106. To: Critter (#105)
That implies that the whole story isn't being told. What is missing from the official fairy tale? I think he means he wants the government theory to be accepted as truth by the "truth" movement, because he considers it the truth.
"Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed."
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#107. To: RickyJ, Critter (#106)
BAC has stated this himself on at least one occasion.
I think he means he wants the government theory to be accepted as truth by the "truth" movement, because he considers it the truth.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#108. To: BeAChooser (#104)
Nobody fears you, but we don't work for you like those who put up with Bush's
weird humor about imposing farts on others. We can retaliate where his lackeys
cannot. This is your tough luck, chum. You are not discussing, you are
spamming and dealing in ad hominem behavior despite your lame protestations.
You are a f**kwit because you ignore the evolution of a discussion to
stick with the Chinese water torture of repeating over and over highly
questionable and in many cases clearly debunked material. We don't come
here to trade advertising campaigns, this is a virtual community. And when you
engage in anti-social behavior in such a venue you make yourself unwelcome.
Much as an obnoxious guest at a party can wear thin until expelled. It is
in the vein of you being such a party pooper you are made unwelcome. You
don't like us, make that plain, and cry crocodile tears and wear a hair shirt
when your karma gets run over by your dogma. You seem unable to comprehend
or grasp any social nuance in here, so I am pleased the call for your banning
finally invoked a response from you. Ultimately all this you whine of is
self inflicted. So you'll have to forgive us if we don't tip the forum violin
soloist to play 'My Heart Bleeds for thee" any time soon.
"Why are you folks so fearful of me?"
#109. To: Critter, ALL (#99)
Not that deceiving, Critter. Especially since Jones's own photographer took a photo (that he published in one of his papers) that is quite clear and looks surprising like one of the photos posted earlier in this thread which were taken by someone else. BOTH photos very clearly show rebar and concrete and even steel members sticking out with relatively undeformed cross sections. And that video has images which also show those things. Now since Jones' knighted himself with the title *expert*, he show know what he was seeing in those photos. Then why not go by what all the real experts ... hundreds of structural engineers, demolition experts, materials engineers, seismologists, experts in fire and macro-world physicists have said? Why do you just discount them? And by the way, that media face didn't say "middle earth", he said "inner earth". There's a difference. That's simply false. Here are the photos again. They are quite clear. Readers should note that prior to the attack, the outer face of the Pentagon was a solid wall except for windows here and there. Now Critter, do you really want to go on claiming that you can't see a hole in that outer wall that is more than 20 feet across? Really? Again, you are being dishonest. I invite everyone to go visit this thread on LP where we discussed this topic: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158333&Disp=All&#C28 Here's another thread where we discussed it: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151407&Disp=212#C212 The truth is the experts at NIST have concluded those were sagging trusses in the images I showed you. "New York Times, December 3, 2003 ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." ... snip ... Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. " And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one? No??? I didn't think so. The following are from NIST report NCSTAR 1-6 "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers", September 2005. (You can download it at http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm) Now since the reports are in pdf form, I can't post images directly so readers will have to download the reports and look at the images and captions I note below. ********** "Figure 9-16. Floor sagging observed on the east wall of WTC2 at different stages" That caption happens to accompany what I posted earlier as a figure labeled Figure 9-81 (as it was apparently labeled in NIST media report). "Finding 37: Sagging at the floor edge was due to loss of vertical support at the truss seats. The loss of vertical support was caused in most cases by the reduction in vertical shear capacity of the truss seats due to elevated steel temperatures." "The fire resistance tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse." "Floor sagging at the exterior edge was observed in photographs of the east exterior wall of WTC2, near the impact zone. Floor sagging along one edge would have a tendency to reduce the buckling strength of columns supported by that floor and would increase demand on other components of the floor." "Floor sagging was primarily caused by either buckling of truss web diagonals or disconnection of truss seats at the exterior wall or the core perimeter." *************** Now download and look at the report numbered NISTNCSTAR1-6D.PDF. It is titled "Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire", September 2005. It contains some of the same information plus other new items of interest. Check out Figure E-12 "Floor sagging observed on the east wall of WTC 2 at different times". It shows more of the images. It calls what is seen in the images FLOOR SAGGING both in the text and captions. It was written by REAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, not the wannabe engineers you use as your sources, Critter. And finally, I hope the readers of this thread will take a few minutes to visit http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm and see how willfully blind you are, Critter. Sure you did, critter. Just like you proved those weren't sagging trusses. I think this cartoon had your name on it. For anyone interested, here's the thread where you made your claim. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47596&Disp=All&#C87 See post #13 where you respond to innieway's post which has the following statement from NIST "From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." Your response is this: "I have studied the videos of the so called core remaining standing. If you look at them VERY carefully, they are not core sections at all. They are perimeter sections." Well, folks, here are images of what was standing after the collapse. Decide for yourself if Critter's eyes and judgement are sound: Here is a video as it collapses (no, it didn't vaporize like some CT'ers claim): http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/collapse%2001_spire_clip.mpg Here is a very clear video of the towers collapse with the spire becoming visible near the end. Look carefully and you will easily conclude that is not perimeter columns because the edge of the building was over the lighter red tower in foreground but the spire is well to the left of that building: http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/tower_collapsing4web.qt You know what I think, Critter? I think the bastards who did that should pay the ultimate price ... but you are barking up the wrong tree. You and your friends are actually only making it more difficult to ensure that happens. And you think that logic helps you? That there is less debris in the footprint than out of the footprint? Two points. First, the fact that there is more debris outside the footprint than in it, means the height of the debris pile in the foot print (what you were complaining about) can be less. That only helps my side, Critter. Second, your admission totally demolishes the claim of some of your movement's *experts* that it had to be a demolition because the towers fell vertically inside the footprint. Now one last chance. Think for a moment. The towers were about 95 percent AIR. And what were they ... about 110 stories high? So take all the air away and even if all the debris lands only in the footprint, the pile is 5 stories high ... about 75 feet. But it didn't all land in the footprint. It was scattered all over the place as the images show and you admit. In fact, imaged during the collapse show debris actually coming down on the other side of WTC7 and on many adjacent buildings. In fact, it looks to me like its spread over an area at least 3 or 4 times the area defined by the outer dimensions of the tower. So I don't think the height of the pile as seen from this perspective is indicative of a conspiracy. But it does suggest an inability by you to accept what your eyes see and what logic tells you. Those radio transmissions, if you'd bothered to listen to them, indicated that Palmer was TRAPPED IN A STAIRWELL by two small fires and never got a chance to get out and see what the rest of the floor he was on at the time looked like. And again, videos and photos taken about that time show there were scattered fires all over the building ... a fact your eyes or mind just refuse to see. Do you? Then at least in this one case you've changed your mind. Because previously when confronted with evidence showing a 15 second collapse you wrote "Looking at video I say 10 seconds maybe 11." So maybe there is still hope for you. And you know this because ... ? If that's true, why has only a single demolition expert and 2 structural engineers in the whole world come forward? And none of them have claimed that the WTC towers were demolitions. And your reply avoids the point I was making, anyway. There was clearly a big hole there. The photos show it and the firemen (who I hope we can trust) said it was there. Yet, you seem to have denied it's existance on other threads. Eyesight or just stubborn? Hey, I've not said NIST can't make mistakes. They are human. But at least they had a reason to be fooled by that image we are talking about. It does "look" like there is a hole missing in the corner. Well I certainly hope so.
"You mean to say, that although you've in the past claimed some experience with buildings, you can't tell that chunk of material in the video and seen in the numerous still photos that I've posted is made of unmelted concrete, steel and rebar (the major components)? Really? ... snip ..."
Photographs can be deceiving.
Until then, I will have to go by what the people say who have it in their custody, that it is 4 stories of WTC tower, copressed and heated to temperatures approaching those of the middle earth, like it said in that video.
"Is it just coincidence that you also couldn't see a hole in the Pentagon that was larger than 20 feet across (when the hole was clearly many times that size across in the photos I posted)? ... snip ..."
You keep posting a picture which does not "clearly" show anything.
Left side and center hole damage 
Right side damage. 
Collage of what the damage looked like pre-collapse "Curious that you also couldn't see the sagging floors in those images of the WTC towers that I posted ... floors that were sagging many minutes before they collapsed. ... snip ..."
Those are not sagging floors and I have proved that using NIST's own words and images.
"Curious that you couldn't see that the portions of the tower that stood for a moment after the collapse were core components (remember ... you said they were perimeter sections)."
Yes, they were perimeter sections. Again I have proved it.
The object to the right in the smoke is what remained of the South Tower (WTC2) for a few seconds after it collapsed. Core or Perimeter? You decide. 
This is the spire that stood for ten to twenty seconds after the collapse of the North Tower. It is CLEARLY one corner of the interior box column group. Perimeter columns didn't look like that. Photos and video of the are IMMEDIATELY after the collapse show less debris in the footprint than out of the footprint, and no intact structure at all in the footprint that could be considered the driving mass of the collapse. You lose.
"Curious that you couldn't see the many fires visibly burning in the towers before it collapsed. Don't you remember claiming there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire, Critter? ... snip ..."
Battalion Chief Palmer, a NYC Firefighter on the 78th at the time of the collapse agrees with me that there were only isolated pockets of fire at the time of the collapse. His radio transmissions to that effect are available on the web for all to hear.
"Curious that you couldn't see the towers taking about 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 10 or 11 that you insist on because the 911 commission reported that. ... snip ..."
Curious that many of the very experts you quote state that it took 10 to 11 seconds. I think more like 15 seconds, personally.
"Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. ... snip ...
Superficial damage to the middle exterior does not collapse buildings symmetrically.
Curious how NIST (your so called experts) got the SW corner damage all wrong. Did the photos deceive them or were they deliberately lying?
May God have mercy on your soul.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#110. To: Ferret Mike, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#102)
BAC's gotta go. He didn't cut anyone any slack at ElPee; he deserves no further consideration here. He's a forum parasite, nothing more. All he does is compel the good-guys to refute his Bush-bot postings, while taking down the quality of the forum, between the garbage he posts and the vitriol which he inspires; I'm not alone in that.
#111. To: beachooser, Critter, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#104)
No one is afraid of you, BAC, you're incredibly disgusting AND disruptive with all your spamming of convoluted Bush-bottery. It's long past time for you to go.
#112. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#102)
BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace I remember that. I don't however remember the part where BAC said if they don't deal with the comment, he will deal with it himself. What was that suppose to mean? After SKYDRIFTER got put on probation, I got put on probation for a few days by Goldi who admonished me for talking about it further which I did. Then she warned everyone to quit talking about it, but BeAChooser brought it up again, then HE was put on probation for a few days.
Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself.
#113. To: Diana (#112)
It's up to Christine, now. BAC forgets his back-stabbing of me at ElPee. When, BAC is gone, I'll return.
#114. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, christine (#112)
Thanks for fleshing that out. I also have to say I agree with Skydrifter, there is no need for his crap in this forum. He is a cold fish socially, and sociopathically hateful of all others in here. He is one of the only people in here who has ever earned my utter unqualified distain. Getting rid of him would not hurt free speech, it would encourage others who argued his side of the only issue he covers to fill the niche he is in now, people who would be valuble community members. People whom though we disagreed with some of what they say, we could respect them and form reasonable relationships socially with them.
#115. To: BeAChooser, Ferret Mike, christine, Ricky J, IndieTX, critter, tom007, honway, Red Jones, All (#104)
What would you do if the truth came out, without a doubt, that 9/11 did not happen the way you claim it did, with full evidence, that indeed it was some plot not carried out by Osama from his cave but was in fact a sophisticated intelligence operation involving govt officials? What would you say if this was proven to be the case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Can you PLEASE answer that? I don't interact with you as much as some of the other posters do because I tend to not post on 9/11 threads as much. However I know you have the ability to be insulting without actually calling names, and you refuse to ever be wrong about anything, even when it's pointed out to you. No one can be right 100% of the time, not even you, yet you refuse to accept when you are wrong. I'm not calling for your banning as I believe you have the right to your opinions, but it would help greatly if you would not view everyone here as beneath you. Perhaps you can't help it, maybe it was the way you were brought up or just your inherent personality, in which case I feel sorry for you, but you have to try to get along better with the other posters. I don't like other posters calling you bad names and cussing at you, that accomplishes nothing and is rude, plus you aren't allowed to fight back. I admit there is a huge double-standard there, as they can call you all sorts of vile names but if you fight back you end up in hot water. To avoid all this, and calls for your being banned, it would really help if you would stop being so insulting to other posters and accept them as full-fledged human beings.
I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means.
#116. To: BeAChooser (#109)
I'm not going to pick apart your entire spam post once again, but I will say this: Last year it was: "If that's true, why has not one demolition expert or structural engineer in the whole world come forward?" Next year, maybe you'll be saying: "If that's true, why have only 6 demolition experts and 120 structural engineers in the whole world come forward?"
If that's true, why has only a single demolition expert and 2 structural engineers in the whole world come forward?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#117. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, Ferret Mike, ALL (#112)
Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet. You want to know why? Because you would find that at that time SKYDRIFTER was spending much of his time harassing me with the vilest of comments. He was angry because in late 2003 or early 2004 I caught him pretending to be ZEEGIRL and another poster on the forum when he supposed to be on probation. So he was banned for a time. Then Goldi relented and let him back on. But he came with a grudge to settle. Now I'd basically tried to ignore him during that period. But he wouldn't let go of it. But I finally had enough. So to answer your question, I was telling Neil and Goldi that if they didn't do something to stop his behavior, I was going to start responding in kind and they'd have no excuse to punish me since they would already have let SKYDRIFTER do what he was doing. So instead they decided to give him a rest. Actually, I don't think you have your facts right. Tell you what, why don't you or Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER post a link to that thread and let's see all that transpired.
I remember that. I don't however remember the part where BAC said if they don't deal with the comment, he will deal with it himself. What was that suppose to mean?
After SKYDRIFTER got put on probation, I got put on probation for a few days by Goldi who admonished me for talking about it further which I did.
Then she warned everyone to quit talking about it, but BeAChooser brought it up again, then HE was put on probation for a few days.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#118. To: SKYDRIFTER (#113) (Edited)
What are you talking about? If you hate him so much just ignore him, put him on bozo. He was a jerk to me too on LP but maybe that's just the way he his, maybe he can work on toning it down. Look at how many people here admonish him, and call him bad names, he brings this behavior on himself, maybe, possibly he can try to disagree in a more polite way, but I wouldn't give him so much power, leaving because of him. Just ignore him!!
It's up to Christine, now. BAC forgets his back-stabbing of me at ElPee. When, BAC is gone, I'll return.
#119. To: Diana, christine (#115)
I recently lost my temper and did insult BAC. But I have had it with the disregard for dialog and the hatred of others in here that he exudes. I agree he has cultivated a more subtle manner of insulting, but this too is part of his persona of "I am better then y'all, sorry about your bad luck." He also won't answer what other 9 11 Internet activities he does which would be interesting to know as it would help explain his bizarre incommunicative warpath he runs along. He doesn't care about the feelings or any social intercourse with others in here. Concurrently with the insults, I gave up trying to talk to him and reach him to dialog with him. He is bad for this forum and people are tired of him as they always become with any fuckwit. Fuckwit became an Internet term in BBS and USENET worlds because people like him are a genuine and serious problem. I urge Christine to send him no his way, he is nothing but pure poison.
#120. To: BeAChooser (#117) (Edited)
I thought about doing that bub, but do a search, FROM: Beachooser TO: Diana and they are right damn there. Unlike the posts where I provided because they were from your 375 long pages of mostly spam posts just using a FROM: Beachooser search only, you can find those nuggets with a more specific 'FROM/TO' search.
"Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet."
#121. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, critter, christine (#114)
He can be the designated forum problem-child, which he is. Personally I have a hard time with the concept of banning anyone unless they are threatening or dangerous, of which he is neither, but that's just me. He's been around for a long time and for better or worse he has become a part of this little group. And where would he go? There have been times where I have been so angry with him, furious in fact, but he is lacking in some social skills and he has some blind spots. I'm against banning him, but that is my opinion.
He is a cold fish socially, and sociopathically hateful of all others in here.
#122. To: Diana (#121)
I have rarely seen anyone leave Cafe Paranoia (FR) due to banning and not achieved insight and growth from the process. He is one of those rareties. He is just as two dimentional an ideologue as he was when a FReeper now years later, and after so many years, he ain't gonna change my dear. I had your identical opinion on banning and expressed exactly the same thing in regards to banning TLBSHOW. And I am of the opinion I was wrong. TLBSHOW is the kiss of death and a fuckwit in any forum setting, and it is much the same in regard to this guy.
"There have been times where I have been so angry with him, furious in fact, but he is lacking in some social skills and he has some blind spots. I'm against banning him, but that is my opinion."
#123. To: BeAChooser (#117)
I thought it was from another thread, not the one you are talking about. I was thinking of a different thread where all three of us got put on probation.
Actually, I don't think you have your facts right.
#124. To: Ferret Mike (#120)
I was thinking of a different thread, it sounded similar to that one. I know he does not care about the feelings of others, but that is like a handicap for him. I know he is maddening, but somehow I just don't think he should be banned, he can be entertaining and there are probably people out there who like to read threads he is on, his attitude comes across well so it would be difficult to mistake him for the good guy, so he damages his case without even meaning to.
"Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet." I thought about doing that bub, but do a search, FROM: Beachooser TO: Diana and they are right damn there.
#125. To: Diana (#124)
I see your point and admire how you hold your own on this point. But his tactic is to create a climate where the casual lurker is not drawn into 9 11 threads to learn -- often for the first time -- about the criminal acts perpitrated by NeoCons generally and the Bush Administration specifically. He strives to create a climate that wards off momentum and growth in the Truth Movement in the micro 4UM level, and likely uses what he learns from practice in here to effect things on the macro level of other sites he works on geared to more globally 'Swift boat' the Truth Movement. He is coy, smug, antisocial and savvy enough about programming and other computer and Internet skills to do more harm then is apparent here. I see and have seen people who piss on people's feet and claim it's raining and who keep the discussion on an issue stalled and running in circles banned as fuckwits many times. It is a sound management tactic to weed out the bad to make room to seed in people who are more honest, social and less agenda ridden as BAC. I wish him all the luck in the world elsewhere, but my experiance and strong gut instincts say ban him. And with all due respect to your very admirable compassion and desire for fairness, you are wrong in regards to a banning of him I would agree with you if things with him were as face value as you make the leap of faith that it is. But my spider sense is screaming, it says, "let him go, let him be free to fly away. And I never ignore such strong gut instincts, as it took just too long and too much experiance sharpening them. I am usually very sorry when I do, and so I am loathe to do so here.
#126. To: Diana, ALL (#115)
Diana, how many times do I have to say that there are good questions that can be asked about 9/11? I think there are some things the government hasn't told us. They may have good reasons. Or they may not. I do not rule out the possibility that someone(s) within the government might have taken advantage of the situation around that time to further their own foreign policy (or other objectives) or even allowed it to happen. That is a possibility. I certainly think that mistakes were made and that some people involved in making those mistakes should have been punished and were not. We do not have all the answers to what transpired before, during and after the event. But I will say that I have absolutely no doubt that impact and fire is what brought down the WTC structures and Flight 77 did the damage at the Pentagon. The fact that the CT community can not let go of the claim that bombs, energy beams or nukes brought down the towers and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is symptomatic of what's wrong with the community and why they may never find out the truth about anything else. Sad. Well what do you have to say about the fact that Loose Change and Griffin claim the hole in the Pentagon was no more than 20 feet wide and I've proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that's untrue? What do you have to say now that it has been proven that WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds like all those in the CT community have been claiming for so long? If you don't believe me, look at that video clip I linked a few posts back. It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way. How? By posting sourced material that disproves the lies being spread by some? If that is insulting, so be it. I don't view folks that way. I've been nothing but civil since coming to 4um. If anyone views anyone as beneath them, it is those who are unwilling to discuss the facts but instead choose to label those they disagree with as evil, Bush bots, morons, or worse. You need not feel sorry for me. I'm quite happy and content. And how exactly am I supposed to do that. By agreeing with everything they claim? I appreciate that side of you. But I have been fighting back. Most effectively. Hence the calls to ban me. Again, how exactly am I to do that? By agreeing with them that bombs brought down the WTC towers, Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and that a philosopher and theologian is just as much an expert as anyone else when it comes to structures, materials, fire, demolition and macro-world physics? Really, Diana, I'd like to know.
What would you do if the truth came out, without a doubt, that 9/11 did not happen the way you claim it did, with full evidence, that indeed it was some plot not carried out by Osama from his cave but was in fact a sophisticated intelligence operation involving govt officials?
What would you say if this was proven to be the case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Can you PLEASE answer that?
However I know you have the ability to be insulting without actually calling names,
I'm not calling for your banning as I believe you have the right to your opinions, but it would help greatly if you would not view everyone here as beneath you.
in which case I feel sorry for you
but you have to try to get along better with the other posters
I don't like other posters calling you bad names and cussing at you
plus you aren't allowed to fight back.
it would really help if you would stop being so insulting to other posters and accept them as full-fledged human beings.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#127. To: Critter, ALL (#116)
Tell you what, Critter. Why don't you tell us what you think of that video I linked that proves the WTC 7 collapse actually took more than 13 seconds, rather than the 6.5 seconds that the video shown to the one demolition expert and the 2 structural engineers indicated? Why don't you tell us what you think about the photos that show WTC 7 didn't collapse vertically as the one demolition expert and two structural engineers were led to believe but fell to one side (the side away from the camera in the video shown to those individuals. If they knew that, I wonder if they'd still be so sure WTC 7 was a demolition. And don't forget to tell them the building was on fire for about 7 hours and that firemen noticed the building starting to lean well before the actual collapse. If you did that, perhaps next year I'd be saying: "If that's true, why doesn't a single demolition expert of structural engineer anywhere in the world support your cause?"
I'm not going to pick apart your entire spam post once again, but I will say this:
Last year it was: "If that's true, why has not one demolition expert or structural engineer in the whole world come forward?"
Next year, maybe you'll be saying: "If that's true, why have only 6 demolition experts and 120 structural engineers in the whole world come forward?"
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#128. To: Ferret Mike, Diana, ALL (#119)
Actually I did, you just didn't listen. Diana ... should I be insulted by that term? Or is that what Ferret Mike means by social intercourse?
He also won't answer what other 9 11 Internet activities he does
Fuckwit became an Internet term in BBS and USENET worlds because people like him are a genuine and serious problem.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#129. To: BeAChooser (#126)
This whole 9/11 argument has morphed, maybe purposely, into steel beams, thermite, rates of collapes, melting points, sizes of holes and other technical side issues when the real topic should be why/how/who/what was all involved in the planning and what the real purpose of it all was. However I see little now on this topic, all people seem to want to address is at what rate the buildings collapsed and so on, that's why I don't post much to those threads anymore, plus I don't have the technical background as I not a physicist or engineer like many of the other posters appear to be. But my main point is that people have slowly but surely been led away from the topic of trying to find out exactly who was responsible, instead focusing on nit-picky details which really don't give pertinent information. Planes hit buildings, the buildings fell down, and wars resulted. As far as "you folks" honestly dealing with facts, those posters who don't agree with you are being honest and sincere I might add. They are trying to dig for the truth to determine what happened, at least from a technical standpoint. So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#126)
That's a good example of that attitude. You are basically calling the posters on this forum liars, you are accusing them of not wanting to deal honestly with facts, when they have spent lots of time and effort researching facts. Their only agenda is the truth, they just want to know what happened regarding 911 and why. Nothing has been proven, I didn't say it was, but I asked you what your reaction would be if a truth not to your liking came out and WAS proved. You are in effect saying I'm not worthy of an answer from you, that's the whole basic problem with you. That is how you treat posters here, and people don't like to be insulted.
It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way.
#131. To: BeAChooser (#127)
What is that called, not seeing the forest through the trees?
Why don't you tell us what you think about the photos that show WTC 7 didn't collapse vertically as the one demolition expert and two structural engineers were led to believe but fell to one side (the side away from the camera in the video shown to those individuals. If they knew that, I wonder if they'd still be so sure WTC 7 was a demolition. And don't forget to tell them the building was on fire for about 7 hours and that firemen noticed the building starting to lean well before the actual collapse.
#132. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, Neil McIver, christine, ALL (#125)
You see, Diana, Ferret Mike is still afraid to provide a link to the thread he quoted. Instead he insults ME by suggesting I don't know how to search posts at LP. Well I had no intention of dredging up the old dispute with SKYDRIFTER but he seems to want it so just to prove he's wrong and show you and everyone else who might encounter this thread the whole story behind the quote Ferret Mike and he took out of context, here is the thread in question (btw, I suspect Ferret Mike was posting as ferret on that thread): http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46273&Disp=All&#C59 First, look at the context of the thread. Neil McIver was expressing angst at painting Muslims with a broad brush. So I asked Neil about that and here is what followed: ************* 49. To: Neil McIver, Red Jones (#47) If you support Bush, then you accept everything the nazis stood for, period. Neil, I note your angst at Muslims being painted with a broad brush. You have any problem with this statement by Red Jones? Or is that "OK" in your mind? BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 13:43:39 ET Reply Trace ---------------- 50. To: Red Jones (#47) Granted, Bush (his gang) are not openly using the term "Nazi," but other than that, they are, so far, following the Nazi model, less the obvious mistakes. Reichstag Fire, Enabling Acts, Blitzkreig invasions, etc. Secret detentions, political prisoner camps, extra-judicial punishments, Gestapo powers, War Crime invasions, etc. The "Emergency Health Powers Acts" are clearly a pretext for private property confiscation and concentration camps. Next-Generation Nazism, for damned sure. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-21 13:51:24 ET Reply Trace -------------- 51. To: BeAChooser (#49) I see BAC has his little list of acceptable views. and is seeking censorship. Red Jones posted on 2004-04-21 15:12:41 ET Reply Trace ----------------- 52. To: Red Jones (#51) Be-A-Crybaby is a little bit famous for the sob routine. A "real" man, there. ("Goldi! Goldi!") He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-21 15:17:13 ET Reply Trace ----------------------- 53. To: Red Jones (#51) I see BAC has his little list of acceptable views. The notion that anyone who supports Bush accepts everything the nazis stood for is neither an acceptable or rational form of debate. But then I no longer expect anything rational from you, SKYClone. As to me trying to censure you, no ... I justed want some clarification why one set of dogmatic statements isn't criticized by forum management but another is. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:07:58 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 54. To: Red Jones (#47) If you support Bush, then you accept everything the nazis stood for, period. That's BS Red and you know it. Marine Inspector posted on 2004-04-21 19:12:51 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 55. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER, Diana (#52) He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace ******************* You see, the context matters. What Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER didn't tell you is that SKYDRIFTER got in even more trouble the very next day in this thread: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46534&Disp=All&#C67 Notice that SKYDRIFTER joins the thread at #50. Here's his post and my reply, followed by Neil's reply: ************** 50. To: rotten (#21) Don't forget to remind Be-A-Crybaby that the 50% who have stayed (in theory) won't fight. So that leaves the entire effort approaching zero - as Vinnel, Dyncorp, MPRI, etc. walk away with millions at a time, for having produced nearly zilch. Be-A-Crybaby seems pleased with all that. All being in the realm of War Crimes. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-22 14:37:42 ET Reply Trace ------------------- 51. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#50) So that leaves the entire effort approaching zero - as Vinnel, Dyncorp, MPRI, etc. walk away with millions at a time, for having produced nearly zilch. Be-A-Crybaby seems pleased with all that. Neil ... a while back you dumped Badeye in part for supposedly deliberately mischaracterizing the views of another. SKYDRIFTER is doing the same here. And he didn't even bother to ping me so you could hardly call his an attempt at debate. It is disruption, plain and simple ... another reason you gave for booting a convervative poster in the past. Perhaps a caution to "sky" is in order? BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-22 15:27:03 ET Reply Trace ---------------- 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#50) Sky, I'm shutting down your account indefinitely. Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-22 20:09:24 ET Reply Trace ------------ 63. To: Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER (#56) Sky, I'm shutting down your account indefinitely. Neil, I would ask that you not go to this extreme for this particular offense. Limit (really limit as in 3 per day or 5 per day) his posting privileges if you deem it deserving, but don't prohibit him from posting at all. That was not my intent. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-23 15:13:58 ET Reply Trace ********************** So not only did SKYDRIFTER do it to himself, I even fought to keep him from being banned. I told you that Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER had a reason for not posting the URL to the thread they took the quote from. And just for the heck of it, what follows are some posts from threads that followed SKYDRIFTER's return on 5/1/2004 from what turned out to be a week long suspension (which is what Neil changed the indefinite banning into because I told him I didn't want that ... he said that on a thread later). You see, on returning SKYDRIFTER couldn't help himself. He immediately set about provoking me. Here's the first of many highly uncivil and provoking posts he aimed at me on a thread just two days after his return (that thread is filled with such posts): ************* http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48018&Disp=All&#C220 108. To: Diana (#38) Along with his other NGN positions, BAC obviously approves of these War Crimes. The prison is illegal, the interrogations are illegal and there is zero effort to rectify the situation. With MI running the prison, it's a GESTAPO operation, pure and By-God simple. BAC obviously approves; no surprise! SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-05-03 01:55:34 ET Reply Trace ************* And it didn't stop. Finally, I began to complain to Neil. For example: ************** http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48337&Disp=7#C7 7. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#4) BAC is losing it; his arguments are getting weaker. He didn't resort to lies, for the longest time. That was the evidence of his being a trained disinformationist. Then he got busted for lying a couple of times. I think that was when his handlers cut him loose. It's okay to hit a dead end; it's not okay to lie. Lately, he keeps calling for help. His handlers have apparently cut him loose. He used to present good logic, however perverted it was; he can't even manage that now. But, slime is what slime does. Strictly a disposable utility function. Given enough time, slime just dries up & fades away. Even the smell stops. We wait! Neil, Goldi, how much longer must I be subjected to nothing but bogus, adhominem abuse from SKYDRIFTER? As you can see in thread after thread since returning, he isn't joining the threads to debate me since he doesn't even bother to ping me. He doesn't even discuss the topic really. It's just about *me*. A vendetta, I suppose, for thinking I had him thrown off the forum last time. Now you have thrown folks off the forum in the pass for HARASSMENT and for being DISRUPTIVE. Do you wish to tell me that the current behavior of SKYDRIFTER isn't? Where do you draw the line now? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-05 14:26:47 ET Reply Trace ------------------ 15. To: BeAChooser (#7) You started the name calling with your "liar," "America Hater," etc. Be a man, for Crissake! Quit your damned whining. Goldi & Neil are tired of it - judge the message in their silence. You want it to stop; quit the provocation with your own name-calling, labelling Etc. That's all it takes. Oh yeah, quit lying, while you're at it. Nobody has a problem with a "different" perspective. You're the only one whining to Goldi & Neil. Notice that one has to stand in line to tell you to be a man. On occasion somebody goes over the line with language, graphic postings, etc. That's the time to ping the moderators; not when you get caught distorting information, get caught in blatant deceit - or a lie, or just start to lose a debate. You used to be good at debating; what happened? SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-05-05 18:10:00 ET Reply Trace ----------------- 16. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#15) Neil, I'm asking you to tell SKYDRIFTER to cease and desist. I've tried to ignore him since you allowed him, at my request, back on the forum, posting to him only when he's made a comment that I found particularly distasteful or when commenting on a specific statement he made about the topic of that thread. I've stayed on topic and tried to be civil. But I wouldn't have asked you to reinstate SKYDRIFTER if I'd known the result would be non-stop behavior like this. And that's not all. He's also posting this garbage on FU where I'm not even allowed to defend my self or my views. I've had it. Now is this or is this not going to be a forum for civil debate of issues with facts and opinions? He says I started this. Not ever and certainly not this time. When I've have called him a liar in the past, in every case I've always been able to offer sourced proof to back up my charge. He never does. Asking people whether they really care about American troops when they show no concern that CBS posted photos sure to incite more violence against Americans is not being uncivil. It is getting at the core of the issue and consistency of the opposition. But engaging in the sort of childish behavior SKYDRIFTER is now doing, is uncivil and very disruptive. So do you want civil debate on this forum or not? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-05 18:35:14 ET Reply Trace **************** But Neil didn't do anything and SKYDRIFTER continued his disruptive tactics. And again I appealed to Neil and Goldi. **************** http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47857&Disp=All&#C359 You'll note starting in post 90 that SKYDRIFTER joins the thread and begins to provoke me. Pay particular attention to my posts #311, #316, #334, #336 and #338. Especially the last two because they show the extent of his rude and uncivil behavior. In fact, why don't I just repost #336 and #338 to remind you what was going on at that time. ************** 336. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-lox, Mark_Felton, Diana, SKYDRIFTER, all (#335) Neil, ... knowing that your time is precious, I thought I might help you out by showing you the sort of verbal assault I've been subjected to by SKYDRIFTER here and at FU since you let him back on the forum. You tell me that this doesn't qualify as harassment ... something you've booted people from this forum for doing previously ... or at least warned them not to do. These are all phrases directed at me that were extracted from SKYDRIFTER's recent flurry of posts. And, by the way, only in a fraction of the cases was I pinged. .............. "limp-wristed" "whining" "Maybe he's in the closet, come to think of it." That implies something rather uncivil, wouldn't you say, Neil? "Mossad asset" "Maybe his own have been given the word to cull him from their litter" "insane" "He's one slimey piece of ####" Neil, to spare your sensitivities, I masked the foul word he used. "He came up with some stuff in sealed records (client-attorney information)" That's not just nonsense, but an outright LIE, Neil. Ask him to prove it. "Next-Generation Nazi" "So, I took on the added task of using BAC as an example of the resurrected Nazism." Doesn't that indicate a plan to stalk me, Neil? "not an original American" "In essence, I spent the day calling him everything short of "#####." He boasts at FU of being able to say virtually anything he likes, right under your nose, Neil. "slime' "You regularly wet yourself behind Goldi's skirts" He sure doesn't seem to hold the co-owner of this forum in much regard, Neil. "Slimey SOB" "disinformationist" "institutionalized disinformationist" "woman- hating" "BAC obviously approves of these War Crimes" "You don't command the respect of a "ping." "Or, in your usual disinformationist logic distortion, typical of the argument that child molestation can be re-classified as child "love," Is this sort of analogy ok with you, Neil? I just need to know for future purposes. "Do you even believe in God, for example? Christianity, per chance?" How would you like your faith questioned, Neil, when that isn't even remotely the topic of the thread? "Slither on up to the microphone" "persistent fool" "You and your slime!" "That's BAC's job, to rationalize why the Next-Generation Nazism is okay. Maybe for slime such as himself" "BAC can't cite any kind of honorable position (stand)" "His rationalization of the mercs, is additional testimony as to his sleaziness." Not sure I've even said something about mercs, Neil. "Mercs are the extreme male version of the street whore; BAC seems to think they are okay people." Really, Neil, is this sort of debating tactic ok with you? Be honest. "BAC's got this courage problem" "It's time for BAC to fight like a man - or quit." "The torture is just icing on the Next-Generation Nazi cake. BAC does love it, though." What was that you told Badeye before you kicked him off, Neil? Something about misrepresenting others opinions? Right?" "A 'good' person would evade the prison torture issue & focus on that 'bad' media coverage." "I can't quite make up my mind whether his handlers are CIA or Mossad." And yours, Neil, are the ADL or *whoever* got to Jim Robinson. At least that's what SKYDRIFTER said. "A long time ago, BAC very quickly posted some information which could only have come from a government computer - evidenced by the correct formatting of the material." Another outright lie, Neil. Ask SKYDRIFTER to prove this. Bet he can't. ""It's not murder - it was 'euthanasia." ( Is that your style? )" "Gestapo, Inc., are you proud of that?" "The records don't go back that far" Neil, here he is trying to spin his way out of another lie, but do the *records* really not go back to his first interchange with me? "Go ahead, BAC show your steamy brown colors!" "Let's see if BAC has such a fine sense of manhood & decency as to open up a can of "Goldi Goldi! Woop- ass" on you." "There you go with your lying bullsh*t again." And you call this a *family* forum, Neil? "You're a shameless liar!" Cite a lie I've made, Neil? Go ahead. You too, Goldi. Now look me in the eye and tell me you don't think SKYDRIFTER has lied on this forum. Ask ANYONE on this forum to look *you* in the eye and claim that. "Are your socks gettin a bit damp & yellow? No skirt for you to hold onto?" "You're less than sincere - PHONY!" "You're only worried - obviously - about the American Gestapo Prison System being exposed." etc. etc. etc. ************ That's only a FRACTION of what's he's posted since returning. He's repeatedly distorted my stated positions. Isn't that a bootable offense? And he's distorted and lied repeatedly about historical events. Isn't it wonderful knowing your forum is being used to spread misinformation? That's just what we need in these troubled times. Right, Neil? And what have I called SKYDRIFTER in return during this period, Neil? Why don't you make a list and we'll compare them. Ok? Let's see how fair you are in your characterization of whose to blame. Fair enough? And even before April, what "names" have I really called him EVER, Neil? Liar? Yes. But never not without proving it with sources and his own statements. Anti-American. Yes. IN CONTEXT. There are people whose combined works mark them as such. Fool? Yes. After *you* suggested that would be more appropriate. But have I EVER engaged in the sort of attacks listed above. NO. Have I ever used foul language? NO. And while I'm at it, let me remind you that the first thing that SKYDRIFTER posted on being let back on your forum was "Thank you Neil; I'll try to control my temper." Do you think he has succeeded, Neil? Or was he just lying to you too, while talking about *your* handlers and the source of the money supporting *your* forum behind your back? And do you think he meant this "To BAC, thanks for your support; it is sincerely appreciated" when he said it that day? And here's one more challenge to you Neil. Identify what caused SKYDRIFTER to begin this assault. As far as I can tell, it began here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47916&Disp=61#C61 . Do you think my response in post #65, that the CBS bears some responsibility for harming our troops unnecessarily, merited this sort of rampage? YES OR NO? Because your answer will tell us a lot about whether you and Goldi are really serious about this being a place for honest debate of current events and political issues in a civil manner. Or was the reason SKYDRIFTER lost his temper this post http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47857&Disp=90#C90 ? Is his *real* anger, not about my position on the issues, but the fact that I asked you to reign in bluedot30 for making a comment that was WAY overboard (but not that far from some SKYDRIFTER himself has made in the past)? Did I really deserve this assault for asking you to do *something* about bluedot30 (and mind you, bluedot's statement to me wasn't the only reason you dumped him). Why don't you ask SKYDRIFTER why this started when it did. It certainly wasn't any name I called him after he returned. Because I hadn't called him a name. And in case you haven't noticed. SKYDRIFTER has already turned his attention on others. Using the same tactics. Mark_Felton, for instance. Is that ok with you too? This isn't going away until it is resolved, Neil. The questions I'm asking are valid and deserve an answer. BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 13:38:13 ET Reply Trace -------------------- 338. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-lox, SKYDRIFTER (#337) Neil let me add these to the list "You're the master of disinformation and deceit." "You're the one who originated the "disinformation wolfpack." "You're now famous for your whining" "Check FU if you want to see where all that's gotten you." That's right, Neil, the place where I get talked about regularly without being able to post. But I'm not the only one whose considered a joke over there, Neil. YOu and Goldi get your fair share of barbs too. Did SKYDRIFTER mention that? "your attack style - or deceit style" "You're the censor-monster" "You never contribute" Now Neil, you and I both know that isn't true, don't we? "you're famous for your negativity - unless cheering the clearly Nazi operations is somehow positive in your obviously distorted mindset" And that's from just one post. When is this going to end, Neil? Have you been reading the other thread and the saga of the three "holes"? And what about my observations on that thread concerning your stance on Badeye? You going to respond? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 16:39:37 ET Reply Trace ***************** And because of the provoking SKYDRIFTER was doing and my response (above) to it, Goldi decided to limit our posts to 5/day for a while (see post #363). And you'll note that in the end I did NOT use the bozo filter (I refused to) but I got my full posting rights back. And in the end, SKYDRIFTER couldn't help himself and got kicked off LibertyPost permanently. But Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER weren't going to mention that. Now I'm perfectly willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not bring this subject up again. But that really depends on Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER, not me. And perhaps you, since you always seemed to be in the thick of things in these threads.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#133. To: BeAChooser (#132)
Heehee, ferret is my longtime and openly FReeper handle. I was a poster in good standing at FR for three years as ferret. Infact, I made some posts today as ferret on FreedomUnderground. As for the link crap, do your own work. Stop whining, it's lame. It's easy to use the search feature. You only reveal how much of a fussbudget you are.
"(btw, I suspect Ferret Mike was posting as ferret on that thread):"
#134. To: BeAChooser (#127)
I'm very sure that the reluctance of certified structural engineers coming forward with their doubts has NOTHING to do with the fact that it takes many years of hard work to earn their degrees and achieve any sort of recognition in their fields, and that it could all be taken away in a moment by a phone call from some administration official threatening their employer with all kinds of government provoked hassles, red tape and investigations. Hell, just a threat to sic the IRS on any given company is enough to scare most CEO's into submission. I'm sure their silence has nothing to do with the certain knowledge that their careers would be utterly destroyed in a moment should they be so foolish as to use their credentials to shoot down the official government story. You claim that the silence of engineers proves your claims. I think it only proves what a horrible and vile police state we've become.
If you did that, perhaps next year I'd be saying: "If that's true, why doesn't a single demolition expert of structural engineer anywhere in the world support your cause?"
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#135. To: (#129) (Edited)
bac will not answer your question Diana. which is why ferret mike and I think he should be gone. He isn't here for debate, merely to spam the forum with paste jobs. He has admitted he is doing so on other forums and has slammed 4UM as KOOKS. He doesn;t want to be here for any reason other than to disrupt.
So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
.
.
.
Comments (136 - 150) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest