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: 6966
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 (1-109) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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.
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.
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.
It's up to Christine, now. BAC forgets his back-stabbing of me at ElPee. When, BAC is gone, I'll return.
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.
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'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?"
#111. To: beachooser, Critter, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#104)
#112. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#102)
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)
#114. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, christine (#112)
#115. To: BeAChooser, Ferret Mike, christine, Ricky J, IndieTX, critter, tom007, honway, Red Jones, All (#104)
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)
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
#136. To: Elliott Jackalope, ALL (#134)
By that logic, the forensic pathologists who spent even more years of hard work than structural engineers earning their degrees and licenses in the Ron Brown case should not have come forward to blow the whistle. Yet ALL of them (except the boss at AFIP) eventually did. Despite the threatening gestures from the Administration which included gag orders, threats of prosecution, loss of privileges such as attending conferences, searches of their offices and homes, confiscation of materials, and loss of their jobs. And that was in a case involving the Clinton administration which actually did have a record of using the IRS against their enemies. They had the certain knowledge that their careers would be utterly destroyed (and in some cases they were), yet they still came forward. So explain what makes forensic pathologists and a military photographer so different from engineers and scientists? Sorry, but the assertion that fear is what is keeping thousands and thousands of professionals in disciplines like structural engineering, materials science, fire engineering, seismology, and physics quiet is simply silly. Especially when many of those professionals live and work in countries whose governments are openly hostile to the Bush administration. Now here is what characterizes YOUR side's whistleblowers (like Griffin): 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#137. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, IndieTX, critter, christine, ALL (#129)
There are good questions to ask about 9/11. But you won't get answers to those questions as long as your side insists on making issues of steel beams, thermite, rates of collapse, melting points and sizes of holes. You are the ones doing that. Not me. And doing that, when your side is obviously wrong about those things, only discredits the good questions that might be asked. It has to do with credibility. If your side is claiming evidence shows that someone(s) within the government allowed the hijackers to successfully attack the US and at the same time claiming things that are counter to verifible facts (such as collapse rates of structures which were filmed collapsing) and counter to what ALL the professional in a multitude of technical disciplines seem to think about the physics of those collapses, then I have good reason to doubt the credibility of your assertions about the government and hijackers. If someone your side calls an expert makes claims that turn out to be verifiably false and its something that person should have known as an expert, and when told this you ignore the criticism and continue to insist he's an expert and what he said is true, then I have reason to doubt not only your judgment but any other people you bring forth as experts on any subject. It has to do with credibility, Diana, and this insistence on promoting theories that run counter to a mountain of well established and verifiable facts, and the opinions of the entire technical community that might reasonably be considered experts in the areas under discussion, only hurts the willingness of people like me to listen to anything else you have to say. Especially when the response to my posting facts counter to their theories is to be subjected to a variety of nasty adhominim attacks on my honesty, my sincerity, my character, my motives, my sexuality, my intelligence, my education, my compassion ... not to mention calling for my banning in order to silence me. That doesn't do much to convince me that your theories about government involvement in 9/11 have any merit. But we wouldn't be discussing the notion of bombs in towers and no Flight 77 if YOUR side didn't keep raising it. And what is discrediting your side are those nit-picky details which prove the leaders of your *truth* movement are lying to you. Some of the worst mass murderers in history have been very sincere. And they "honestly" believed in what they said and were doing. Honesty and sincerity go a lot further when backed up by truth. It's the truth component I'm trying to add to the mix here at LP. But apparently few are interested. Then why won't they face the truth about collapse times, the size of the Pentagon hole, sagging floors, and that chunk of WTC debris? Just to start with ... Why should I answer your question when you won't answer mine? I've already proven that some of the claims made by leaders of this truth movement and some posters here at 4um are false. Yet that doesn't appear to have altered yours views or your behavior. Why is that, Diana? And the answer to your question is that I'd be just as persistent and vocal as I have been about other issues where I decided the government was acting improperly. The Ron Brown case is a good example. I did more than just speak out on internet forums. I wrote letters and spoke to various people in the news media including folks like Larry Elder. You are undoubtedly aware that even today I continue to remind folks of that topic and my insistence that the Bush administration is complicit in helping cover up what was likely a crime (as well as a number of other crimes committed during the Clinton years). Vocalizing that belief is what ultimately got me kicked off Free Republic. The irony, now, is that certain members of Freedom4um have tried to use my fact based beliefs about the Ron Brown case as a means of discrediting me here. They ridiculed the notion and even called me a kook for my assertions on the subject. A further irony is that only SKYDRIFTER stepped forward at 4um to support my views when that happened. And note that none of those doing the ridiculing actually wanted to debate the facts of the matter. They ran from that. In any case, I think I have a track record that shows what might happen were I to be convinced of government complicity in 9/11. But so far, you haven't demonstrated that nor have you demonstrated you can face the truth about the physics of what destroyed the towers and the Pentagon. Do the later, and you'll stand a better chance of the former. They aren't honestly dealing with the facts. They are trying to get me banned to avoid facing the facts that I've so carefully sourced. Do you notice that no one has tried to counter the video I posted yesterday that indicates the WTC 7 collapse took more than 13 seconds rather than the 6.5 seconds everyone has been claiming? Why do you think that is? I'm not saying you are unworthy of an answer. I'm asking for equal treatment. I want to be treated with civility rather than insulted in the manner I have been. I want to have MY questions answered rather than just ignored. Do you think that's possible around here?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#138. To: BeAChooser (#137)
your side your side your side You have turned this into such an us against them thing. We do not all think exactly the same.
those questions as long as your side
#139. To: Diana, BeAChooser, BeARecycler (#138)
heh heh, Notice this part of his post? He he either senile, or recycling verbiage from LP posts. He needs to make up his mind whether he is on 4Um or LP.
"Some of the worst mass murderers in history have been very sincere. And they "honestly" believed in what they said and were doing. Honesty and sincerity go a lot further when backed up by truth. It's the truth component I'm trying to add to the mix here at LP. But apparently few are interested."
#140. To: BeAChooser (#137)
But so far, you haven't demonstrated that nor have you demonstrated you can face the truth about the physics of what destroyed the towers and the Pentagon. Do the later, and you'll stand a better chance of the former. I don't feel I have a good enough background in physics to be able to make any real decisions on the rate of collapse, I don't think I've commented much if at all on that aspect. I have an open mind, a lot of the technical stuff goes over my head, yet it's my belief people are focusing too much on those details instead of looking into who was behind it all. We all know the basic facts, but there is no proof of how the whole thing was orchestrated and put together, or by whom. I would like to know very much who was really responsible, but at the present time I don't know. All I do know is that I highly doubt it was done the way the govt said it was because their story is just too fantastic and implausible with too many "facts" having come out almost immediately. I know the insults and attacks are bad, but posters tend to lose their tempers because of you, like SKYDRIFTER.
Especially when the response to my posting facts counter to their theories is to be subjected to a variety of nasty adhominim attacks on my honesty, my sincerity, my character, my motives, my sexuality, my intelligence, my education, my compassion ... not to mention calling for my banning in order to silence me. That doesn't do much to convince me that your theories about government involvement in 9/11 have any merit.
#141. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, all (#140)
You have eyes, don't you? You have a watch? Then you can look at that WTC7 video and time it. It doesn't take a background in physics to see that the collapse started long before the point that the CT advocates have been showing as the beginning of the collapse in their videos. And if you have eyes you can also watch videos that show the WTC towers took 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 9 or 11 seconds that some here still insist. And if you eyes and have a just a little worldly experience, you can look at photos of Pentagon and easily see that the hole in the outer wall was much larger than the 16 to 20 feet claimed by certain truth movement leaders and some here at the 4um. And notice that Ferret Mike would rather focus on my inadvertently saying LP than addressing any of these facts. That should tell you something Diana even if you don't have a physics/engineering background. Now I don't intend to respond further on this subject today. My limited number of posts makes them too precious to waste going around in circles on this. I've said my piece and believe that any rational reader will see my point.
I don't feel I have a good enough background in physics to be able to make any real decisions on the rate of collapse,
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#142. To: BeAChooser (#141)
We have eyes and ears, which is why we know there is so much evidence torpedoing the official story of 9 11. I do not buy you version of the collapse times, and I do not find your strange version of the Pentagon explosion which relies on denial of the facts that the evidence of what happened there has largely been kept from us and that the pictures of the missile impact do not reflect what you claim that they do. As far as your "inadvertently saying LP," just respond saying that's what happened and that suffices. Why are you so defensive? Knowing you have been scanning old LP posts and knowing your propensity to cut and past, it is unreasonable not to be suspicious you cut and pasted old LP verbiage here to make new posts. However, if you say you didn't, I have to accept in good faith this assertation on face value. But this is not so concerning your selective shell game concerning evidence to prove something you obviously have a vested interest in proving. You do not respond to much of inquiry or comments to you and you are hard to talk to in general. You ignore the areas of withheld and destroyed evidence, and your Ron Brown conspiracy theory acceptance and 9 11 conspiracy evidence denial serve a consistent political agenda that creates natural suspision of your motives. I came into the topic a couple of years ago convinced 9 11 was not an inside job and studied the evidence to help argue the case the Truth Movement was wrong. However, even with a critical and suspicious eye and ear to it, I realized with a sinking heart that they were very much on the money. The existing evidence shows the official story is a lie. The destruction and withholding of evidence does too. The coverup and sweep things under the rug tone and nature of the official report of the 9-11 Commission makes their findings not credible. You are a biased and deceptive operator with a hidden agenda at work. You can rehash verbiage and pictures trying to re-invent what is there all you want, but your words do not match what you show and the words you write and cut and paste. You can be clever and coy, but people are smarter then you think. And until you converse with people instead of haughtily preaching at them in a manner indicative you look down on them, you will get nowhere in here.
#143. To: Diana (#140)
There is no proof of who did it, but there sure the heck is a lot of incriminating evidence of who did it. Dancing Mossad agents, NORAD stand down, Bush sitting in a classroom for a good 7 to 17 minutes AFTER hearing about the second plane hitting he towers and that the nation was now under attack. He was way too comfortable sitting there. The secret service failed to do their jobs properly by removing him from a public building that was announced days in advance that he would be there. This is not normal procedure at all. Anyone that thinks Bush didn't have foreknowledge of this attack is crazy. He knew about it, but I doubt he had much to do with it, he was just the "lucky" president that got to see it implemented. This was an attacked helped, and more than likely carried out by top leaders in our military and Pentagon. BTW, it is very important to keep emphasizing the speed at which the towers fell and their symterical collapse despite having asymmetrical damage. This is the smoking gun that will eventually bury them, that's one of the reasons Chooser would rather talk about less sure evidence. WTC7 is the smoking gun that should convince even sheeple that our government was in on it. If it doesn't wake people up nothing will, so yes, that's why chooser desperately wants to change the subject. He might lose his job soon.
We all know the basic facts, but there is no proof of how the whole thing was orchestrated and put together, or by whom.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#144. To: BeAChooser (#141)
It's obvious your job is on the line. I see your fellow employees getting desperate at other sites. Something is about to hit the fan, that's for sure.
Now I don't intend to respond further on this subject today. My limited number of posts makes them too precious to waste going around in circles on this. I've said my piece and believe that any rational reader will see my point.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#145. To: RickyJ (#143)
Funny you should say that. The night of 9/11 when Bush addressed congress, Bill and Hill were both present. Bill, the marvelous actor that he is was pretty much himself, but Hillary... did she put on a side show of rolling eyes and sighs. I could not help but think I was looking at a woman who was thinking, "This was supposed to happen on our watch! Now this asshole is going to get all the glory!" Slick was too slick to let his feelings show, but not Hillary. Not only did Bush know it was coming but Slick knew it was coming and it was probably supposed to happen on Bill's watch. Remember a peculiar occurrence sometime around April in Bill's last year? Bill signed an exec order which would transfer FEMA emergency powers from the Secretary of State to the attorney general and the transfer was supposed to happen in October. It led a lot of us to believe that something was coming in October, because it made no sense to anyone with a brain. Why do that in your last year, sign the order like that, in April and have it carried out in October, unless you wanted the butcher of Waco to preside of something really nasty? He had to know that the next prez would want his own Atty General in there, 4 months later, no? There was a freeper who I highly respected, Harpseal. He was a career navy guy and he told me confidetially, a few times, that a source of his told him something big was coming that October. Harpseal is gone now, God rest his soul, but I sure would like to know if he knew any more. I never did get a chance to ask him.
he was just the "lucky" president that got to see it implemented.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#146. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#142)
My version? Just watch the video of the WTC7 collapse, Ferret. You will see that members of the CT community who have posted videos of the collapse forgot to mention that the penthouse began to collapse about 8 seconds before their videos even start. Yes, over at LP you started out by posting this: ************** 394. To: malador (#393) I believe the rivets heated up to the point of being white hot. I believe the structural stress was sufficient to remove rivet from hole in enough places to bring down these buildings. I read about the architecture of these buildings from the get go when I was a boy watching them rise into the sky in nearby New York. I have also read how when you remove the connectivity of steel between the inner and outer structures - which most of the structural strength of the building was - you had a domino effect as some floors pancaking on others created the force and weight needed to destroy not so heat effected parts of the building. There were many strange things about that day, but no, I do not for a minute believe the government deliberately destroyed the WTC. ferret posted on 2005-01-08 16:06:02 ET ************* Then you didn't post on any LP thread related to collapse of the towers or the damage of the pentagon until post this, likely a link (no longer working) to an article advocating it was a controlled demolition: ************* 4. To: honway (#0) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705controlleddemolition.htm ferret posted on 2005-07-06 12:20:32 ET Reply Trace ************* Your next post on the subject was this: *********** 16. To: honway (#0) Great video, thanks for the link to it. I believe Seven World Trade Center was pulled, and I believe Silverstein got caught telling the truth more literally then the official line had meant him to when he said they decided to pull this building. As for the twin towers, too many questions need to be answered before I'll buy the 'pancake theory' of the official story concerning the collapse. I was near Mount Saint Helens when it erupted planting trees. I saw the lightning in the air from the static electricity of the material in the pyroclastic flows and from the huge plume of material as the uncapped explosive power of this eruption occurred. We could feel the air temperature suddenly changing and the small clouds melt from Mt. Saint Helens. It takes an incredible amount of energy to create pyroclastic flows. The analogy between volcanic pyroclastic flows and those from these building connected the dots for me and I do believe that they must have been created by more then just the collapse of the buildings. ferret posted on 2006-04-12 22:38:27 ET ************** That's quite a transformation with nothing to connect the dots. So what changed your mind between those dates? It certainly wasn't participatory debate on the subject. Was it just your dislike of Bush and company? Was it just your dislike of the war? Or just your dislike of posters like me? Was it peer pressure to conform with the rest of the Kerry voting community? And is this the way you reach all your conclusions?
I do not buy you version of the collapse times,
I came into the topic a couple of years ago convinced 9 11 was not an inside job and studied the evidence to help argue the case the Truth Movement was wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#147. To: BeAChooser (#104)
Your contorted defenses of the WOT, and the Bush policies in general, show you have no intellectual honesty and are therefore not deserving of any special consideration or respect. When you say things - over and over - like Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria, when Rumsfeld himself said "We know" they were in Tikrit which is in Iraq, or that a degraded chemical warhead qualifies as a WMD, or that there were hundreds of thousands of "missing death certificates" when there was never any such thing, you reveal yourself as someone who cannot accept any truth that contradicts your preconceived versions of events. So don't try to pass yourself off as someone who is fighting a lonely battle for truth. You're a liar, who both makes up your own lies and repeats the lies of others, and not even a very good one.
#148. To: AGAviator, ALL (#147)
So you want to join this conversation? Does insisting that WTC 7 only took 6.5 seconds to collapse, when I just linked a video proving that the collapse began more than 7 seconds BEFORE the CT community has been saying it began, show intellectual honesty? Does insisting that WTC 7 collapsed straight down, when photographic proof exists that it didn't, show intellectual honesty? Does insisting that the WTC towers collapsed in 9-11 seconds, when there are videos that prove the collapse took 15 seconds, indicate intellectual honesty? Does insisting that the hole in the Pentagon was only 16 to 20 feet wide and therefore a 757 couldn't possibly have crashed into the building show intellectual honesty when in fact photos clearly show the hole was much, much larger? Is intellectual honesty claiming a chunk of debris came from a pool of molten steel show intellectual honesty when intact rebar, steel members, pipes and concrete are obvious components of that chuck? Does claiming a stream of molten material was reddish-orange but switching to claim it was yellow-white after one learns that color would indicate molten steel show intellectual honesty? Does quote mining show intellectual honesty? Does ignoring the illogic of a conspiracy of thousands show intellectual honesty? First of all, if you check back you will find that I said the ISG said they had a credible expert who told them WMD material were moved to Syria. That certainly leaves open the possibility of WMD being moved to Syria. Especially when the ISG also said that the Iraqis went to extraordinary lengths to sanitize computers, files and facilities that they thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. They were hiding *something* related to WMD. And if you can't tell the difference between Rumsfeld making claims on the basis of intel (which is always incomplete and half a guess) and a *truth* movement member claiming something when photographic evidence that contradicts what is claimed is staring that *truth* movement member in the face, you again show you don't know the meaning of intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is claiming the shell was degraded when the ISG said it contained 40 percent potent sarin. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that Saddam's government told the UN inspectors they had destroyed all such shells. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter whether the shell would work on a battlefield since it was fear that the CONTENTS of shells like it might end up in the hands of terrorists that was a large part of the justification of the invasion. Experts have stated that the amount of 40 percent sarin in that one shell could kill thousands if properly dispersed by terrorists. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring that fact. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that al-Zarqawi (a terrorist) was actively plotting a WMD attack while he was in BAGHDAD before Iraq was ever invaded. And Saddam was basically ignoring his group of terrorists as proven by the fact that when one of them was picked up by his security apparatus he was released on orders from Saddam. Intellectual dishonesty is blindly accepting a multiply flawed study written by researchers who openly admitted their bias against the war and Bush, who hired people in Iraq to do the leg work who they admit "hated" Americans, who don't seem to know exactly how their own study was conducted when queried about it and who published their report in a journal that rushed the peer review process admitting that it too wanted to affect the outcome of Bush's reelection. And I'll let IraqBodyWatch, an organization that is definitely not pro-war or in the Bush camp, respond to your claim that there are no missing death certificates: **************** From http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. And this: If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. ************ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/0.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/1.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/2.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/3.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/4.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/5.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/6.php ************ And Intellectual dishonesty is simply ignoring in debate the more than dozen other serious flaws in the John Hopkins studies that were pointed out. The fact of the matter is that there is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis died from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. And how can that be in a country which has according to the researchers seen 2.5 percent of its population killed (a percentage greater than the percentage of Germany's and Japan's population killed in World War 2 where there was plenty of physical evidence that such a slaughter had occurred).
Your contorted defenses of the WOT, and the Bush policies in general, show you have no intellectual honesty
When you say things - over and over - like Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria, when Rumsfeld himself said "We know" they were in Tikrit which is in Iraq,
or that a degraded chemical warhead qualifies as a WMD,
or that there were hundreds of thousands of "missing death certificates" when there was never any such thing,
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#149. To: BeAChooser (#148)
How is the Log Cabin Convention so far? Are you going to stay until the 6th?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#150. To: BeAChooser (#148)
Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that Saddam's government told the UN inspectors they had destroyed all such shells. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter whether the shell would work on a battlefield since it was fear that the CONTENTS of shells like it might end up in the hands of terrorists that was a large part of the justification of the invasion. Intellectual dishonesty is blindly accepting a multiply flawed study written by researchers who openly admitted their bias against the war and Bush, who hired people in Iraq to do the leg work who they admit "hated" Americans, who don't seem to know exactly how their own study was conducted when queried about it and who published their report in a journal that rushed the peer review process admitting that it too wanted to affect the outcome of Bush's reelection. I guess if you really are one of those disinfo guys you'd never admit to it. The above part reminded me of Jesse Jackson when he goes on a rampage.
Intellectual dishonesty is claiming the shell was degraded when the ISG said it contained 40 percent potent sarin.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest