Hurricane Erin 9/11 : Checking the Evidence

[Stephen]

Lee,

You carnt come on this forum and say people are playing ping pong with the truth movement when you have your bat out for at lest 4 forum posters on this thread alone.

[Stephen]

What insults?

Well maybe there not quite insults but there below the belt.

This is your opinion. Show me how.

I dont think I'm able to on this comp. Also Its a waist on time, I took a load of picture to a meet a Fishes house a few years ago to show you then.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Lee,

You carnt come on this forum and say people are playing ping pong with the truth movement when you have your bat out for at lest 4 forum posters on this thread alone.

You have misinterpreted the "ping - pong" metaphor.

The "pinging" and "ponging" is an argument between the people that fail to listen to each other and simply thwack the ball back into the opposition's half without engaging in what they are saying.

Simple fact is I have engaged with the Johnson stance and checked the evidence.

Just because you wont accept that evidence as contrary to your belief system doesn't mean I'm playing the usual endless ping-pong ballgame of "I'm right!!!" - "no I'm right!!!"

I have presented evidence.

Care to check it?

[Stephen]

Your seeing things different from me. Thats ok. But its all gone to far now even for me. As I keep saying we are just waisting energy.

You say wont trust anyone, but you do trust Steven E Jones,
David R. Giffin Richard Gage and freinds coz you are subcribing to there theory. IE planted bombs, wired explosive and thermate etc...
Heat at WTC, when you say there was no hot dust cloud.
Molten Metal, when the first responders were standing on top of GZ and were walking underneath in the basments?
Real Planes that cut through steel girders and can fly at 500 MPRH at sea level.
Thermate that cuts through steel core. But were are all the steel beams?
Large debrie pile that is consistant with over 220 storys more like 400 storys if you include the rest of the WTC complex.

I could go on but theres no point mate.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

I suppose you're right. However disheartening that may be.

I dont personally believe Jones, Griffin et al. I have always questioned everything they've ever said and researched for myself their claims.

What I did believe was that at one point long ago now, we all believed that there was a strong body of evidence against the OCT and we all agreed that we should all do our best to share that same body of evidence with as many people as possible.

It was a "truth movement" and that would suggest finding the truth whatever that may be.

Now it seems we all have different evidence to show seperately to people. Including evidence against what once united us all.

That may still be effective in challenging the OCT.

But in my opinion, there comes a time when evidence must be discarded if it does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

I could list many reinforcements for the evidence you claim is bogus and much more to suggest why yours is bogus.

But you're right. Waste of time. People believe what they want to believe. Including those that believe the OCT.

Maybe we will never find the truth, just "this could have happened - maybe that happened" in the never ending pointless ping-pong ball game.

[Pikey]

Maybe we will never find the truth

You'll certainly never find the truth by ignoring the evidence. Thats exactly what the Keane commission report did.

I find it incredible how they manage to hide the evidence. Like the 7/7/ London bombings where did those train carriages with the holes in the floor go?

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Maybe we will never find the truth

You'll certainly never find the truth by ignoring the evidence. Thats exactly what the Keane commission report did.

Are you suggesting that I'm ignoring evidence?

If you are then I have to seriously doubt your integrity on this site because that's exactly what you've done throughout this whole thread.

It's ok saying dont ignore evidence, but must you really swallow it whole without question?

[Pikey]

GSTT my friend.

I call you friend because we have something in common dont we?

We both do not accept the OCT of 911 and wish to know the truth dont we?

Keeping it simply and following on from this:-

Quote:
That's your evidence is it?

Watching video whilst having an open mind?

How very rigorous of you.


My question is this:-

Having fully considered the evidence shown of all three building collapses, WTC1, 2 and 7 would you say:-

A - all structures collapse are the same?

B - all structures collapse are different?

C- two structures collapse are the same? If yes name the structures that are the same WTC1, 2 or 7.

GSTT despite repeated attempts you still have not answered my key question, so my conclusion is that yes you are ignoring the evidence.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

GSTT despite repeated attempts you still have not answered my key question, so my conclusion is that yes you are ignoring the evidence.

No Pikey.

Engage with the evidence about Erin on this thread first.

Dont ignore it as you have been doing with every post you have made on it so far.

Then we can get to your new topic.

[Pikey]

GSTT I'm not ignoring your thread, in fact you confirm that Hurricane Erin was indeed present and relatively close to the twin towers site on 911.

Your debunking efforts do not convince me and imo Andrew Johnson's top quality research is credible. HAARP and DEW technology does exist and thats a fact.

Now please would you respond to the simple question I have raised.

My question is this:-

Having fully considered the evidence shown of all three building collapses, WTC1, 2 and 7 would you say:-

A - all structures collapse are the same?

B - all structures collapse are different?

C- two structures collapse are the same? If yes name the structures that are the same WTC1, 2 or 7.

[flamesong]

Now please would you respond to the simple question I have raised... blah blah...

Said, it has to be assumed, with a whingey voice.

Pretty rich coming from somebody who litters the forum with a trail of unsubstantiated claims which he himself refuses to qualify.

I'm still waiting for an answer regarding the búllshit you posted about how only elected individuals could be tried for treason.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

GSTT I'm not ignoring your thread, in fact you confirm that Hurricane Erin was indeed present and relatively close to the twin towers site on 911.

Your debunking efforts do not convince me and imo Andrew Johnson's top quality research is credible. HAARP and DEW technology does exist and thats a fact.

Now please would you respond to the simple question I have raised.

My question is this:-

Having fully considered the evidence shown of all three building collapses, WTC1, 2 and 7 would you say:-

A - all structures collapse are the same?

B - all structures collapse are different?

C- two structures collapse are the same? If yes name the structures that are the same WTC1, 2 or 7.

Yes you are ignoring the evidence in this thread.

Erin was one of 9 hurricanes present (not to mention tropical storms) in the North Atlantic throughout 2001 and 1 of 3 on or around 9/11.

Here they are...



The questions raised by Johnson about why it wasn't mentioned by the astronauts and why it wasn't mentioned by msm before 9/11 have been answered.

You continue to ignore that evidence as though it wasn't there.

You have no evidence or proof that Erin was used in conjuction with DEW and you and Johnson know it.

But I'll engage with your question nevertheless.

A) All structural "collapses" are the same in the sense that all three are the only buildings in history to completely "collapse" from fire.

B) All structural "collapses" are different because wtc1 and wtc2 began "collapse" from different points within their structure as did wtc7.

C) Two of the "collapses" could be construed as the same because they were identical structures and displayed similar "collapse" signatures that contrast with the other which was a totally different structure. But a close inspection of data would conclude that all three "collapses" displayed individual "collapse" characteristics.

[Pikey]

You have no evidence or proof that Erin was used in conjuction with DEW

Agreed.

Fact is though is it was there and a huge source of huge potential "free energy".

BTW Lee, thank you for answering my questions.

Besides GSTT do you blog on here in any other name(s)?

[GodSaveTheTeam]

You have no evidence or proof that Erin was used in conjuction with DEW

Agreed.

Fact is though is it was there and a huge source of huge potential "free energy".

Yes. I suppose for some, research consists of believing someone else's without question. You're not a no-planer as well by any chance are you?

BTW Lee, thank you for answering my questions.

You're welcome. But you continue to ignore the evidence. Only to be expected.

Besides GSTT do you blog on here in any other name(s)?

No. I dont blog anywhere. Though I do have many internet aliases.

Dont tell me, that makes me an evil perp-protecting shill doesn't it.

Watch this space for some cracking checking of the evidence coming soon....

[Pikey]

Pikey wrote:

Besides GSTT do you blog on here in any other name(s)?


No. I dont blog anywhere. Though I do have many internet aliases

I take it you have other internet aliases on this forum then. Just out of interest what would they be.

I'd also be interested for what reasons and purposes a forum moderator like your goodself employs this modus operandi.

[chek]

Fact is though is it was there and a huge source of huge potential "free energy".

I would like to scotch this myth.

All energy is "free".

The wind in your hair, the sunlight on your face, the black rocks you can find on the ground in some areas. All free.

Where it acquires cost is in harnessing it to do useful amounts of work, and then also distributing it in an accessible form to where that energy is needed.

For all the likes of Johnson et all know - which isn't very much, generally being laymen - a zero point energy conversion unit could cost £100 billion pounds, per household. And equally, go off like a personal H-bomb if it developed a fault - for all they know.

Do you have any information to the contrary, or is the free energy meme comforting just as it is, in its pie-in-the-sky form of belief?

[flamesong]

Two thoughts:

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe
Carl Sagan

[chek]

Two thoughts:

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe
Carl Sagan

Hi A, good to see you round these parts again.

But please, don't go introducing reality.

Most punters here have bought into the post modern idea that you create your own reality.

It certainly shows - plus it saves on all that unwanted effort in actually learning about anything to an objective standard, which is oppressive obviously.

[flamesong]

Hi A, good to see you round these parts again...

Well, my absence was beyond my control.

But I see little has changed in some respects.

You can wait forever for certain members (like those based in Morecambe, for example) to back up their claims with evidence.

I'm still waiting for some substantiation of allegations made some years ago - Mr Williams knows exactly what I'm talking about - and I will be on his case until one of us departs this mortal existence.

Those professing to seek the truth should not practice mendacity.

Cue 1). Member A dives to the ground and tries to attract the attention of the referee.

Cue 2). Member B pipes up and says that the libellous statements made by Member A should be forgotten as an invasion of Iran is imminent (three years on).

Does this behaviour sound familiar? I mean in a global context?

[flamesong]

But please, don't go introducing reality.

Sorry, I missed that bit!

[Andrew.]

Fact is though is it was there and a huge source of huge potential "free energy".

I would like to scotch this myth.

All energy is "free".

The wind in your hair, the sunlight on your face, the black rocks you can find on the ground in some areas. All free.

Where it acquires cost is in harnessing it to do useful amounts of work, and then also distributing it in an accessible form to where that energy is needed.

For all the likes of Johnson et all know - which isn't very much, generally being laymen - a zero point energy conversion unit could cost £100 billion pounds, per household. And equally, go off like a personal H-bomb if it developed a fault - for all they know.

Do you have any information to the contrary, or is the free energy meme comforting just as it is, in its pie-in-the-sky form of belief?

Is Mr Johnson et all working to find out about zero point energy for the household. Is there any info on this on his website about this ? or is he just concerned ? that others may have it.

[Andrew Johnson]

I made the post below on a new Thread in "Controversies". Sadly, one of the moderators moved it to the Bin. So, it seems the truth seekers here want to deny admission of a mistake and a "right of reply". Wow.

==========

Lee Woudberg recently posted a YouTube video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmrB8VKUPw0[/youtube]

in response to my earlier video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AGBTuFKxyc[/youtube]

I have to commend Lee on finding a mistake in my video in that Thermite IS (sort of) mentioned in Jones' RFC - the word is in a link to his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... %20J24.pdf

and I had indeed missed this (it wasn't a deliberate error on my part) . It goes to show that everyone should indeed, "check the evidence" to find errors. I provided links on the YouTube video to enable people to do just that.

Having said that, does this mean that Thermite destroyed the WTC? What does Lee Woudberg think? (I posted 2 or 3 comments on his video).

I have posted further thoughts on this blog, some of which are included below.

http://911thermitefree.blogspot.com/200 ... d-was.html

e.g. Thermite Paper has a disclaimer and was updated in Jan 2007. "The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author." Amazing. Does that imply that the co-submitters on the RFC DO NOT support Jones' connclusions?

So come on folks, what turned those cars upside down and levitated those people etc etc - what's YOUR explanation. Can Lee do us a video EXPLAINING WHAT DID IT? Thanks!

Again, thanks to Lee for checking the evidence and allowing me to find further points on interest in Jones' "paper".

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Now how about checking the Erin evidence Mr Johnson?

[GodSaveTheTeam]

I take it you have other internet aliases on this forum then. Just out of interest what would they be.

You can find the answer to that question elsewhere on this forum in another thread. If you bother to look for it, but judging by your research standards and your complete and utter lack of engagement in anything that challenges your belief system I'd say that's highly unlikely.

I'd also be interested for what reasons and purposes a forum moderator like your goodself employs this modus operandi.

Hmmm, asking people to check evidence is ok as long as it comes from someone whose theory you find untouchable.

Modus Operandi?You're not Stephen in disguise are you?

Please. You lot are all the same. Totally paranoid.

Do watch the above videos. Ta.

[Pikey]

Sadly, one of the moderators moved it to the Bin

That action replicates what those responsible for the crime of 911 did with the evidence together with a corporate MSM.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Sadly, one of the moderators moved it to the Bin

It shouldn't really amaze me how with every post you continue to ignore the subject matter at hand, even the bungled "Thermite Free" episode.

It shouldn't amaze me. But it does.

[flamesong]

*For information only*

Wikipedia:

Troll
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

[gruts]

Isn't it amazing how andrew johnson has nothing to say about the evidence that disproves his Hurricane Erin garbage? he is fully aware that this thread has been here for months but refuses to address this evidence.

you'd think that if he had any integrity or credibility he would do so.

I wonder why he won't?