Jon Ronson on CNN.

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:07 am

Well done Andrew Johnson.
THATS what i was trying to say!!

Listen to this guy if no one else Ronson.

And that is an excellent idea Justin. It is true that continued dialogue really only leads to one unified opinion.

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:26 am

I have to say Ronson is being ingenious in feigning ignorance of this issue, over the last 2-3 years the issue has been on his forum non stop, at least half the posters over there are clued up, it's where I originally come across flame. Unfortunately they always seem to deploy moderators who insult those who say 911 was a scam. Such as this big tool;

SILAS - I am not remotely convinced that the WTC buildings were demolished. That does not make me a Bush stooge, regardless of the paranoid fantasies enjoyed by Albert and armbar.

On the other thread you posted in praise of armbar's links, which are all the products of the most seriously delusional brains I've ever come across. Don't be one of those guys, Willow. It is not good for your mental health.

I'm sick of trying to get you chickenshit internet conspiracy nutjobs to engage in dialogue.

Crawl back to your padded room, psycho.

Anyway, I was out for drinks with Ronson two years ago at least and give him a copy of Plane Sight, some deception dollars and we had a chat about false flags, he surprised me in his belief that Libya were behind Lockerbie but then again Shayler has said the same, I grew up 20 mins from Lockerbie I think they are thoroughly wrong.

I have to say Ronson was being devious in his Guardian comments yesterday, first he says he's arguing with the '911 truth campain' then deploys a straw man technique in lurching away from any 911 and muddying it with allegations of anti semitism. Not very subtle or original.

So don't believe his ignorance and approach otherwise you'll end up getting shat all over like Icke and Jones did when he done programs on them.

A typical 911 thred on Ronson forum ;->

www.jonronson.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php? ... 3e7da55e1d

andrewwatson · Post by **andrewwatson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:30 am

Bravo Andrew!

As ever, your no-nonsense approach blows away the cobwebs.

I find lot of the US blogs seem diffident about both Controlled Demolition and the Pentagon non-evidence. I can't understand this. Even old Eric the rant doesn't waver on those two.

I like your line about gravity denial. Neat.

Keep up the great work.

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:24 am

Much as I would love to believe Jon is genuinely open to reasoned dialogue and analysis of the evidence, I think you are almost certainly right Ally.

Mr Ronson has great power to bring the 9/11 truth movement to the wider public. Not because of his superior research skills or knowledge of the subject but because he is a name and for some reason or other that counts.

So Mr Ronson, there are 2 ways you can demonstrate that you are for real

1) Write a straight piece of journalism based on an analysis of the main evidence and players within the movement (and not the fringes, which seems to be your forte). You do know who the main campaigners are don't you? If you must refer to those you consider to hold 'anti-semitic' or far right views (and they do exist), be sure to clearly state that they are a small minority amongst campaigners and don't lump us together as an homogenous mass and refer to 'us' as 'them' or 'they'. That would be dishonest and you wouldn't want to be dishonest would you?

2) The second way would be for you to accept my invittation to a public debate of the evidence. It is hoped that David Ray Griffen will be in the country for the 5th anniversary. Perhaps you would like to debate the issues with him. I'm sure this can be arranged

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:23 am

"So don't believe his ignorance and approach otherwise you'll end up getting shat all over like Icke and Jones did when he done programs on them."

I think you will find that I have a good relationship with both Alex Jones AND David Icke. Especially Alex Jones. If you dnt believe me, read this...

Mainstream Book Highlights Occult Practices of US Establishment

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | September 4 2005

A new book by an author that had previously scoffed at claims that the US establishment was involved in bizarre occult practices at Bohemian Grove has now released a bestselling book that relates how those same practices evolved over three decades and are still being used today.

Jon Ronson will be known to many readers of this website as the filmmaker who documented Alex Jones' infiltration of Bohemian Grove in July 2000. The program was part of a series called Secret Rulers of the World which aired first in the UK and then multiple times in the US on the Trio Network.

The series was very popular but many felt it was a well edited smear effort made to portray its main subjects as crackpots. This despite the fact that Ronson himself was hotly pursued by Bilderberg security after attempting to research that organization's 1999 meeting in Sintra Portugal.

In the Bohemian Grove episode, Ronson took a relativistic stance on the fact that world leaders like to dress up in Ku Klux Klan style hooded robes and make mock sacrifices once a year in secret.

However, Ronson's new book, Men Who Like to State at Goats, details how, "In 1979 a secret unit was established by the most gifted minds within the US Army. Defying all known accepted military practice - and indeed, the laws of physics - they believed that a soldier could adopt the cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them. Entrusted with defending America from all known adversaries, they were the First Earth Battalion. And they really weren't joking. What's more, they're back and fighting the War on Terror. 'The men who stare at goats' reveals extraordinary - and very nutty - national secrets at the core of George W Bush's War on Terror."

The book promo continues,

"With first-hand access to the leading players in the story, Ronson traces the evolution of these bizarre activities over the past three decades, and sees how it is alive today within US Homeland Security and post-war Iraq. Why are they blasting Iraqi prisoners-of-war with the theme tune to Barney the Purple Dinosaur? Why have 100 de-bleated goats been secretly placed inside the Special Forces command centre at Fort Bragg, North Carolina? How was the US Military associated with the mysterious mass-suicide of a strange cult from San Diego? 'The men who stare at goats' answers these, and many more, questions."

Two excerpts from the book are carried on the Guardian website here and here.

We are very supportive of the fact that Ronson has presented these bizarre activities as entirely factual. We hope that this goes some way to helping others understand that the US establishment engages in the most outlandish activities while claiming to be headed up by a straight laced no nonsense Christian conservative like George Bush and his administration.

*

Andrew, I will contact you in the coming weeks. You are clearly among the sanest and easiest-to-talk-with people on this forum. I do find the rudeness and fundamentalism displayed by others on this forum to be terribly off-putting. You are doing your movement no service. And I mean that in the most constructive way possible.

John White · Post by **John White** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:31 am

Well I certainly accept that you are Jon Ronson, considering the balance of the thread. I did wonder about impersonation following your second response, and I hope you can understand why

Rudeness?: well if you say so: I wouldnt, I know what a rude forum is like...theres a certain amount of frustration and a large amount of tolerance on disply in this thread: from my perspective

Fundamentalism though: I understand that you may have a need to see members of this forum in that way Mr Ronson: but its nonesense, and I believe that deep inside, you know it

Thinking, examining and asking questions are the indicators of a fluid flexible and intelligent mind: fundamentalism is the sleepwalk of a programmed rigid conciousness

When you bandy such labels around, its hardly suprising people might question where your coming from: its terribly hollow, and a bad show, and shows dogma on your part, if nothing else...and being as I'm a fan of Irony, that sits very nicely with this thread opening with the use of the label "shill"

I'd certainly encourage a real conversation, if one could be had

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:39 am

Jon,

I look forward to hearing from you. I will be away on holiday next week and probably won't have much net access - if any. Can I point out that I am just an ordinary person however and have no special information nor contacts. The only story I have to tell is my experience as a grass roots campaigner - and in that capacity I am probably less active than some of the other members on this forum anyway (and other people who don't post stuff here as well).

I heard you on "Coast" a few months back with Alex and I think I understand where you are coming from and I know you and Alex respect each other etc. In fact I archived the broadcast here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/J ... 202005.mp3

If anyone wants to listen. I also found your "Crazy Rulers of the World" series fascinating and have followed up the story of people like John Alexander and Joe McMoneagle, as well as the intriguing story of Comet Hale Bopp.

Sadly, the "net forum" mode of communication seems to bring out the worst in people. But perhaps it is as a result of frustration and anguish at the suppression of the truth.

Regards

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:52 am

jonronson wrote:"So don't believe his ignorance and approach otherwise you'll end up getting shat all over like Icke and Jones did when he done programs on them."

I think you will find that I have a good relationship with both Alex Jones AND David Icke. Especially Alex Jones. If you dnt believe me, read this...

I don't doubt you were/are sincere to these people but the way they are edited in Secret Rulers does them little justice, you prefer to portray people as eccentrics which totally undermines anything they are trying to convey in their message, like you writting this below and still completely side stepping the whole issue of 911 with more straw man attacks on individuals who's questions you refuse to answer.....

jonronson wrote:Andrew, I will contact you in the coming weeks. You are clearly among the sanest and easiest-to-talk-with people on this forum. I do find the rudeness and fundamentalism displayed by others on this forum to be terribly off-putting. You are doing your movement no service. And I mean that in the most constructive way possible.

that is just my own perception of things...I bought your last two books...

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:57 am

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Sadly, the "net forum" mode of communication seems to bring out the worst in people. But perhaps it is as a result of frustration and anguish at the suppression of the truth.

poetically put Andrew

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:33 pm

"that is just my own perception of things...I bought your last two books... "

Well in that case, you can say what you like to me!

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:56 pm

jonronson wrote:Andrew, I will contact you in the coming weeks. You are clearly among the sanest and easiest-to-talk-with people on this forum.

That's encouraging. Andrew is indeed amongst the sanest and easy to talk to amongst 'us' although my experience is that whilst we may be a slightly eclectic and eccentric mix, we are no more or less sane than the wider British public. Andrew is as good a place to start as any in terms of understanding the evidence and understanding how as a loose network we work

jonronson wrote:I do find the rudeness and fundamentalism displayed by others on this forum to be terribly off-putting. You are doing your movement no service. And I mean that in the most constructive way possible.

I/we do know this. Occasionally you will come across people you consider rude and fundamentalist (although I would say a lot less so than on many other discussion boards) as demonstarated by the almost total lack of need to moderate the site.

You may be interested to know that a more structured formal campaign is in development (details are post on this forum) that aims to present a more credible voice especially for people learning of the 9/11 truth movement for the first time. This is under the chairmanship of Ian Crane. This forum and network is distinct from this campaign. There is no central committee policing this site and within the principles of the forum all viewpoints are welcome. Therefore don't be surprised if you come across views that you consider off-putting.

The alternative is a campaign dominated by key spokespeople and organisations run by self appointed committee that endlessly try and control campaigners and keep them 'on message'. A route that has caused relentless division and acrimony amongst different 'factions' within the US and a path we have tried to consciously avoid. Surely it is the evidence and the need for a further inquiry that should be our unifying platform

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:47 pm

Thanks to all for reading and commenting on my posts. Appreciated.

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:31 pm

eh Ronson...who pulled your strings to set up Alex Jones /Bohemian Grove and was Alex supposed to get that far into the Grove or was that a zionist c*** up?

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:41 pm

Specifically, the decision to lure Alex into the Grove was made during a conference call between me, Ariel Sharon, and Henry Kissinger.

It was Sharon's fault that Alex managed to get that far in, which is why he was punished with that 'stroke'.

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:50 pm

You may believe most of us to be rude or fundamentalists but you really should put yourself in our shoes for a moment. We believe that OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS are involved in the most brutal and sadistic attacks against US. That tends to generate a lot of anger, fear and a whole host of powerful emotions. So can you really be surprised at the response that people like yourself recieve from some of us? We feel like we are fighting for our very lives, aswell as YOUR life.
Please, try to understand this. I have a wife and two daughters of whose future i contemplate EVERY day of my life. I worry about what state the world will be in when i'm gone and if people like yourself are going to fully realise the threat posed against us.
I know you aswell want a peaceful world. One in which you can raise your loved ones with hope for the future. And it would seem that your views on life allow you a far greater degree of hope than some of us.
If i have come accross as rude or fundamentalist i sincerely apologise. I'm just sick of being made to feel like the wacko for caring about the world i live in.

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:03 pm

Fair enough, but I don't see how calling me a "twat" will accomplish any of your aims.

Or I assume that's what you were doing when you wrote: "Shill...shill...say it with me....la la, twat."

And you also misrepresented my views on Bohemian Grove.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:10 pm

only just read this thread.

great stuff. thanks for joining in the discussion mr ronson. Aside from a few initial insults hurled at us, I find your opinions totally reasonable and can understand how the opinions of a minority of posters on this forum might result in a misjudgement of what most of us are about.
(although i do think the bilderbergs powerful influence should be regarded more seriously than being a bit 'silly'. but I can understand you not wanting to be seen to be fuelling certain theories a mainstream news program)

there are also extremely difficult questions for the 9/11 Truth Campaign to answer,

yes I agree. And as someone said earlier. Why should WE answer these questions? We can't. We only have information in the public domain.
This doesn't mean we should sit back and let corporate news networks tell us what to think.

I personally want to see the US government (and other governments) pressured into opening new independent investigations.

I also understand your skeptism with regard to the passengers and the level of secrecy. But like 'Defector' said.. check out the manhattan project. It is conceivable that a 'new pearl harbor' could be kept secret from the public, however remarkable.

I don't know what happened to the passengers on flight 77. I'm prepared to accept that a plane full of passengers did hit the pentagon. Although I find the neat hole it made through the 3 wings of reenforced concrete very unusual. I also find the 9/11 commission and national media's failure to acknowledge this (aswell as other abnormalities such as the the collapse of WTC7, reports on mamoud ahmed, identical terror drills etc...) as being somewhat unusual, quite suspicious.

For me science > sociology. Until someone pushing the official line can give me a reasonable explantion as to how the buildings collapsed (and I believe the twin towers did have centre columns), what caused the molten steel in rubble, where steven jones' thermate came from, and why kevin ryan was fired for asking very sensible questions.. I'll carry on believing that what went down on september 11th 2001, was very different to what we are supposed to believe.

please ignore the insultive comments and continue discussing this with us Jon. Most of us are interested in independent thinking and I personally would like to see a rational debate on the events of 9/11 brought into the mainstream.

brian · Post by **brian** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:49 pm

Personally - anyone who argues that Sept 11 was not an inside job is either -

a) Someone who is not familiar with the evidence

b) Familiar with the evidence but emotionally unequipped to face the facts.

c) A liar

As far as jonronson goes - why come here and offer what is an idiotic question in the scheme of things?

What happened to the passengers? This we can expect from some juvenile ignoramus, not someone who is supposedly well informed.

The secrecy - if Mossad, for example, were the main players in the operation why should secrecy be a problem.

Personally again - I would be inclined to heed Ally

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:04 pm

Although attention has already been drawn to this by Ally:

http://www.jonronson.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1226

Jon, I feel I ought to point this out as an example of how 9/11 sceptics are regarded on your own forum - without so much as a provocative question:

http://www.jonronson.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1231

I realise that you cannot be held responsible for what others write but you are a moderator on your forum and to complain about rudeness here does seem a bit rich. And perhaps the frosty welcome you received from some on hear may give you some idea why certain members of this forum chose to absent themselves from yours, myself included.

There are members there who flourish by reducing any discussion to the level of celebrity gossip - a skill which the media (whether Zionist controlled or not) deploy ever more adeptly. Along with a number of other open publishing sites such as Indymedia to even question the position of a comma in the official account of 9/11 elicits accusations of lizardry which I believe has been encouraged by your style of sarcastic journalism.

So, if you find it difficult to distinguish between those who merely question the official account of 9/11 and those at the extreme who have packaged their own fantastic theories - you might like to acknowledge a small part in the water-clouding and steroetyping which has caused it.

But I must thank you, Jon, for had I not watched 'The Secret Rulers of the World' I would not have found infowars.com and I would not have been listening to Alex Jones in July of 2001 when he predicted that something was going to happen.

And I would not question why so-called (fundamentalist) Christians and Jews would be in flagrant breach of the first commandment whilst running amok at Bohemian Grove.

And I would still be as dumb as the overwhelming majority of anti-G8 protesters who have never heard of Bilderberg.

As for your question about where the passengers are, at least it is a somewat more intelligent rebuttal that George Galloway's in which he cited United 93 (a Hollywood film) as evidence.

Yes, Jon, where are the passengers? I remember reading in a scientific investigation into spontaneous human combustion that human bones are virtually indistructable by fire - so much so that after a cremation the bones must be crushed to a powder in a special device.

It is really not the responsibility of those who question the so-called truth to provide an alternative scenario - simply to prove that there are lies ought to suffice - indeed, there are many on here who actively discourage it as much as possible. You cannot expect us to provide an answer if you cannot prove the official theory by answering the same question yourself.

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:40 pm

"I realise that you cannot be held responsible for what others write but you are a moderator on your forum and to complain about rudeness here does seem a bit rich."

Fair point, although I myself have never been rude to anyone on my forum.

"...a skill which the media (whether Zionist controlled or not)..."

Not.

"...elicits accusations of lizardry which I believe has been encouraged by your style of sarcastic journalism."

Huh? Nothing to do with me. My film about David Icke wasn't about lizards at all. It was about the burgeoning pressure-cooker of paranoia on both sides of the fence.

Watch it for yourself...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... ews+ronson

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:46 pm

Jon,
do you not think the request for a new and independent investigation into 9/11 is a reasonable one?

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:48 pm

That is absolutely fair enough. Why not? Who would be against that?

As I say, I am not inclined to believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I'm not trying to stop anyone from investigating it. Maybe I'll investigate it one day.

I tell you what, though, all this obsession with the "zionists" makes the whole thing look nuts to an outside eye.

Here is a question, though. If 9/11 was an inside job, why would they bother knocking down the towers? Flying planes into them would have been enough to facilitate the Patriot Act, the war, etc.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:50 pm

well, our foreign affairs minister Ian Pearson to name but one person.

Also the National Institute for Science and Technologies who declined an offer to meet with the scholars for 9/11 truth people and have a discussion.

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:52 pm

I have added some more to my above post.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:02 pm

i don't really know about the zionist stuff. I've not done much research on it and find the theory that zionists are behind it all quite hard to grasp on to. so i'm with you on that.
I'm not ruling it out though. I don't think I know enough about the history of isreal to speak either way about it really.

As for the towers being demolished. fair point. Perhaps the powers that be decided they needed the towers to collapse for the operation to be a sure fire success. The towers collapsing is a very powerful image which was broadcast all over the world and had a very powerful effect on the mindset of the western public. The 3000 death toll also helps with the public shock factor. I obviously don't know what was discussed in the secret PNAC/able danger/CIA meetings. But i find it conceivable that the people behind this decided that they needed the towers to collapse for the shock factor. Much evidence suggests the 1993 WTC bombings were a CIA related operation. Perhaps in light of this they decided that simply knocking a chunk out of the buildings wasn't enough to get the effect they wanted. Or perhaps they needed to make sure the planes and their contents were completely destroyed.

I think the arguement 'why would they do it this way when they could have done it this way' is no grounds to ignore the very real evidence and abnormalities in the official story as the the mainstream media is doing

brian · Post by **brian** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:07 pm

jonronson writes -

"As I say, I am not inclined to believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I'm not trying to stop anyone from investigating it. Maybe I'll investigate it one day."

May I ask what you are actually doing here?

Believing or not believing something so important and world changing should not be a matter of inclination.

Perhaps it would be better for all concerned if you were to investigate the subject before tying up peoples time with frankly ill thought through questions.

"Maybe I'll investigate it one day." you say.

Well bully for you - meanwhile the world is going to hell and its being perpatrated on the basis of the Sept 11 lie.

Time is of the essence.

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:24 pm

"May I ask what you are actually doing here?"

I came here because you were all slagging me off in my absence, calling me a "shill", so I thought it only right that i should come and defend myself. So I am the monster that you created, When I did come, the insults got worse, so peversely I decided to stay.

Also, I found some of your arguments interesting. So I became interested.

The world is truly going to hell on the back of 9/11. But was it an inside job?

But I don't want to be shouted at and patronised. So I'll be off.

Andrew, I will try and contact you in a few weeks, but I won't be posting here any more.

sonic · Post by **sonic** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:33 pm

Hi Jon.

Welcome to the forum.

I just got through reading all the 6 pages and found it very interesting.

I hope you don't decide to leave the forum for good.

How does it go... "stick and stones..."

Peace,

Sonic.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:46 pm

Jon. If you aren't convinced about 9/11 being an inside job I think you should atleast study the abnormal way the media has responded to the 9/11 truth movement and write a book or make a film about it.

Charlie Sheen being labelled a gay pedophile by yahoo news and many other mainstream newspapers (without mentioning 9/11 in the articles i might add)

WTC7 not been shown on TV (except for 2 recent showings)

The several fox news attacks at st911.org

the bbc strangely insisting that 9/11 truthers were small in number twice during the recent pentagon video

Judicial watch publically saying that the pentagon video CLEARLY SHOWS A 747 hitting the pentagon

there are many more interesting occurances like this. the 9/11 truth movement has grown pretty big recently. even if you can't accept it as being an inside job you should carry on investigating, it would make for the basis of some very interesting reading.

jonronson · Post by **jonronson** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:46 pm

Okay, this is my very last post. I don't want to be like one of those ageing rockers always coming back for farewell tours.

I come to your site. I ask two questions about 9/11. I am serious about hearing the answers. And, on both occasions, these questions are met with a barrage of "How juvenile!" "How ill-informed!" etc etc.
Do you do that with everyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe?
And you wonder why people won't meet you or listen to your arguments?
But Timmy G, those are interesting points. I will look those up.