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: 6976
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 (1-64) not displayed.
.
.
.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#62)
(Edited)
Sherlock Holmes, you ain/t. I am from the Pacific Green Party. But it is fasinating youi try to paint me as a Democrat. You see, in all your early LP posts you made plain you serviced the agenda of destruction of the two party system as it is currently. You make plain that the "War on Terror" is your main advocacy, and in that you view the Truth Movement as a distraction from the atmosphere for "the War on Terror" the false flag operations were meant to enhance. Therefore you are not here to determine the truth of whether this is an inside job or not, you are here only to advance President Bush and Richard Cheney's "War on Terror." You don't honestly think I was a poster in good standing at Free Republic for three years as a Clintonite and a Democrat do ya booby? I can't stand the Clintons, and have a bit over 700 posts at DU though I first signed up there in 1998, just like I did at the Free Republic. Try again dear boy, perhaps you might draw blood if you try hard enough, but I doubt it. Thanks for sharing, I always appreciate it when you show yourself to be a fuckwit in interlocutor clothing by showing what you really care about attacking and show your real motives when you post in threads about 9 11.
Really? Yet you called all the real structural engineers in the world morons? But Jones is an expert, isn't he? And his source for the image of that chunk that he used saw the item close up. Surely she could tell the difference between concrete and slag. Surely almost anyone could. Well I'll just let the photos speak for themselves, Ricky. I'll just let the caption by the person who took the photos do my talking, Ricky. "Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport. I acknowledged no such thing. In fact, this is the first I've heard about it. I simply stated that I have not threatened Dr Jones ... which is what you so basely accused me of doing, Ricky. Unfortunately, Ricky, the folks at Fox News aren't here to defend themselves from your base accusations ... like I am.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Thank you. This is very well articulated and I fully agree.
So what do you have to say about this video's claim that the "meteorite" is indeed the product of intense heat, as hot as the earth's core, and that the paper was carbonized? I've noticed that you avoided this question posed to you earlier. Or did you indeed shove the video up your ass as I requested?
"That statement, combined with your instant dismissal of the Ron Brown allegations makes me suspect you are a democRAT? Could I be right, FM?"
#66. To: RickyJ, ALL (#60)
I have no idea what that blob is composed of.
If there is concrete in there then it probably isn't what Jones thought it was.
But I don't know what it is composed of and I don't think you do either.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" So you do acknowledge that someone is threatening Dr. Stephen Jones.
In the attacks against Rossie on Fox news you could almost sense that they wanted to kill her.
#67. To: IndieTX (#63)
"Although I am a hard-core Freedom of Speech guy, you are correct. Once someone has been given a MULTITUDE of chances to prove themselves a value to a forum, once they have repeatedly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a waste of bandwidth, and that they are no longer constructive to discussion, and therefore, no longer of value to a forum, they should be terminated. [Freedom of NON-association]"
#68. To: BeAChooser (#62)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#65) (Edited)
Someone has documented posts from another forum where Looser has posted to people like "DancingFairyBoy" and "BigButtBuddy" et al where he admits to spamming this forum with RNC talking points purposefully. That alone should be cause for removal. He is not here for intelligent discourse, merely to salt the internet with his paste jobs. This isn't a forum for BushCo advertising.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#70. To: Critter (#68) (Edited)
I do notice...good vid by the way...that at the beginning he says "ALL" of the debris is at JFK...then later in the video he gives us the real story...people remember what they hear FIRST. Propaganda technique. Typical You know what I'm getting at right? You tell people that most of the evidence was destroyed and melted down and they say "No I heard on the news it's ALL at JFK. You are a liar!"
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#71. To: BeAChooser (#62)
You claim the pressure for him to resign did not exist in your coy posts taunting others about how people are oft times allowed a measure of dign ity in how they leave, especially when those dooing the firing are wrong. The above quote is coy and sarcastic, meant to muddy the waters of the discussion, not out of a desire for a forthright answer from me much like this dig at Professor Jone's forced resignation. You have ignored much of what I have asked you or points I mentioned as you are doing the cores of a fuckwit -- which you demonstate adherence to by your taunting and derisive remarks answering material I quoted in my post because you think it is so much fun playing fuckwit in here. Without the spam, ad hominem attacks, circular logic meant to stall discussion, there is as much substance to your posts as a serving of cotton candy.
"Tell me, FM, do you think this is slag from a pool of molten steel? That's what Ex-Professor Jones claimed."
#72. To: IndieTX, Ferret Mike, ALL (#69)
Now surely you're not so naive as to think those posts that poster claimed I made were really by me. If you believe that, well then I have a bridge to sell you. I'll state again, for the record. I have ONLY posted at FreeRepublic, LibertyPost and here, and ALWAYS under the screenname BeAChooser. Any more ad hominem smears you want to try, IndieTX, in your defense of Jones? Someone has documented posts from another forum where Looser has posted to people like "DancingFairyBoy" and "BigButtBuddy" et al where he admits to spamming this forum with RNC talking points purposefully.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#73. To: IndieTX (#70)
If he doesn't address what is said in the video, I will have to vote for getting rid of his lying ass.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#74. To: BeAChooser (#72)
How long are you going to ignore this video?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#75. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#71)
What can I tell you but that Dr Jones, himself, said he was NOT forced to resign. "I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing," Jones said in a statement released by the university. "I appreciate the wonderful opportunity I have had to teach and serve and do research at BYU for more than 21 years." You don't want to believe him? Fine with me. But believe this ... ********* Synopsis: Structural engineering faculty of BYU repudiate Jones Source: Ira A. Fulton College News Published: November 1, 2005 Author: BYU College of Engineering and Technology For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use. Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions. The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones. *************
The above quote is coy and sarcastic, meant to muddy the waters of the discussion, not out of a desire for a forthright answer from me much like this dig at Professor Jone's forced resignation.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#76. To: BeAChooser (#75)
You were lightning fast to caim that those posts IndieTX spoke of were not by you. Yet you will not indicate whether you are associated with the anti Truth Movement site you gleened illustrations from or any other debunk the debunkers sites. Why is that? Explain. Your activities here are like the part of the iceberg one sees, what is the rest of the story regarding what you do inline in regards to your advocacy and why this is so?
#77. To: BeAChooser (#66)
I asked you a question, I accused you of nothing but lying. The fact that you take it as more than that is very telling.
I simply stated that I have not threatened Dr Jones ... which is what you so basely accused me of doing, Ricky.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#78. To: BeAChooser (#75)
Because of my concern for college-age students I have taught and loved for decades, I am motivated to speak out emphatically against what I judge - after thorough study and reflection - to be terrible wars, wars of aggression, founded on deceptions. Steven E. Jones Physicist and Co-chair, Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=94829 Nobody with brains and common sense buys your bill of goods regardings Professor Jone's firing.
If another "9/11-like event" is "allowed to happen" in the near future, do you not suppose that it will be blamed this time on Iran or Syria, followed by a swift and deadly attack on the country blamed? Can you not imagine that a military draft will follow next, with college students constrained to enter the military, and handed rifles to go and kill people in the Middle East, by the tens of thousands?
#79. To: BeAChooser (#75)
Still looking through your "Shill for the State" manual to see how to deal with this video?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#80. To: BeAChooser (#66)
No I didn't, that's just you lying again. I said those that truly think the WTC towers came down due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fires are morons.
Yet you called all the real structural engineers in the world morons?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#81. To: Critter (#79)
They obviously have no credibility. As hot as the inner Earth? It could be that Jones was sold a bill of goods regarding this photo, I don't know. It doesn't matter though, his research into how it was impossible for the towers to come down in the time they did due to a progressive collapse is spot on.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#82. To: BeAChooser (#66)
I accused them of nothing either but attacking her verbally with quite visible rage.
Unfortunately, Ricky, the folks at Fox News aren't here to defend themselves from your base accusations ... like I am.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#83. To: RickyJ, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser (#81) (Edited)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#84. To: Critter, BeAChooser (#83)
"Everybody knows 9/11 was an inside job."
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#85. To: Critter, Kamala, ..., Minerva, Red Jones, RickyJ, Nostalgia, robin, HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull (#83) (Edited)
ping to critter's cartoon
#86. To: RickyJ, Artisan (#84)
here's one for you to post on LP to Goldi
#87. To: christine (#85)
It may become a daily continuing saga, if he doesn't respond. hehehe
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#88. To: Critter (#83)
Too perfect!
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
#89. To: Critter, RickyJ, ALL (#87)
I don't know if you even noticed but about 6/10ths of the way through that video they show the chunk of material that your Dr Jones told his audiences was slag from a molten pool of steel. In the video, they say it is the pancaked remains of several floors of the building ... steel, concrete, rebar, furniture, etc. In other words, it is not from a molten pool of anything as Dr Jones claimed. Beyond that, I can't help it if the TV personality says it was "exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth". He was talking for effect ... nothing else. And besides, who is to say he was talking about the core temperatures. And the source that Jones used for his photo got to see that chunk of material first hand. And if nothing else, she let him go around claiming that was a chunk of slag from a molten pool of steel. You'd think he'd be angry with her for deceiving him (at the very least) but apparently he's not. They are still good buddies because she also supplied him with that vial of dust he's fallen in love with. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you think that video proves, Critter. But if you think it irrefutably proves anything, by all means, take it to the media like you have all those other smoking guns the CT community has found. Oh wait ... that's right ... ROTFLOL!
It may become a daily continuing saga, if he doesn't respond. hehehe
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#89)
Obviously the people curating that "museum" are telling people that it was a product of intense heat as hot as the inner earth. Now, since they are holding all of this captive, out the public view, who is to say what it is really made of. That is my one and only point.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#91. To: Critter, ALL (#90)
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?
Now, since they are holding all of this captive, out the public view, who is to say what it is really made of. That is my one and only point.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Still no comment about whether or not you engage in activities on other sites to promote governmental dis-information? Did the question touch a nerve?
#93. To: BeAChooser (#91)
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Never seen a large hole in the south side of WTC7. Seen pictures of smoke, but no large hole. I guess maybe your eyesight is playing tricks on you chooser.
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.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#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.
#96. To: , christine (#95)
BTW,if I was making the decision, either the cartoon spams would stop or BeAChooser would get his wish.
It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
#97. To: honway (#95)
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.
"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 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.
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)
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.
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!
.
.
.
Comments (106 - 150) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest