A Truth

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:49 pm

Way Hay!!

Sorry if I put you off MM - must be just a "clash of personalities" I suppose - quite a few people have taken up my offer of materials distributed at cost price.

They have done this from places as far apart as Dundee and Ho chi Min City....

I LOVE IT!

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:06 am

Andrew Johnson wrote:But then again, I think this is the wrong site for you.

Ban me then, it would be in keeping with the style of your moderation. Keep the idiots, but ban the dissenters of holograms and assorted other fascist ninconpoopery.

We're not ever going to get along Andrew. Get used to it. This is a broad movement and hopefully as Iro pointed out it's going to get even broader. That's my hope, because then holograms, mason chasers, fascists of various types and idiots like Dean Warwick will be sidelined.

suspecta · Post by **suspecta** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:07 am

By the way, Andrew - great video! I've been asking my friends and acquaintances exactly the same question over the last few months and without exception they all said 'two buildings collapsed'. Nobody seems to know about WTC7 except people who've dug around on the internet.

It's absolutely scandalous. One person, when I told them about WTC7, actually said: 'but how do you know that's true? Because you've read it on the internet?' (Ie why should that make it true?)

This is why I'm ordering dvd's with the intention of copying them and giving them out to as many people as possible to get the info out there. The ignorance of most people on all this is staggering really.

Suspecta

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:45 am

IronSnot wrote:Ban me then, it would be in keeping with the style of your moderation. Keep the idiots, but ban the dissenters of holograms and assorted other fascist ninconpoopery

We're not ever going to get along Andrew. Get used to it. This is a broad movement and hopefully as Iro pointed out it's going to get even broader. That's my hope, because then holograms, mason chasers, fascists of various types and idiots like Dean Warwick will be sidelined..

Way hey! I love these sorts of comments! Probably none of the topics you mentioned have been brought up by me on this thread.

I can't ban you IronSnot my friend - I can only move and delete posts. If you ask JHR nicely, however, he will ban you. How's that as an arrangement? Will our relationship be any better for this?

Never mind. You don't have to talk to me you know - or mention me to anyone you know - or mention anything I've said. I'm a nobody. None of that changes the need to tell people about the destruction of WTC7 for example, as Suspecta reminds us. How we do that is a matter of choice and has nothing to do with holograms, Dean Warwick etc.

So, you have about 1000 people on this board to talk to other than me. Take your pick, man!

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:04 pm

I don't think you should be a moderator. You're too antagonistic to genuine researchers/dissenters and too encouraging of idiots.

Why don't you pass it on to somebody like John White?

Way heh!

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:42 pm

IronSnot wrote:I don't think you should be a moderator. You're too antagonistic to genuine researchers/dissenters and too encouraging of idiots.

Why don't you pass it on to somebody like John White?

Way heh!

Way Hay! Peronalising the issue again? I love it!

But yes! You are right I am entirely too wreckless and scornful to be a moderator. In fact - I am rubbish at it. Really terrible. Soz guys. I'm damaging the movement. Leave me behind. Do your own thing. Ignore me. JHR, JHR, Save me from myself. Save the Truth movement. Do the necessary! Please mercy! You know it's for the best... (sob) Hey! Who needs emoticons!!

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:56 am

A quick summary of this thread for readers:

1) MM opens with suggestions as to how the campaign might behave
2) ADJ (me) responds asking him what campaigning he has done
3) MM says "none apart from speaking to friends"
4) ADJ suggests this is curious
5) MM suggests ADJ should change his sig
6) Later IronSnot joins in saying he "largely agrees with MM" on this thread.
7) IronSnot makes comments about the ownership of the board and incorrectly assumes certain factors about ADJ's role in this
8) ADJ points out these erroneous assumptions
9) IronSnot later suggests ADJ should "ban him" from the board
10) ADJ points out he is unable to do this (I am a moderator, not a sysadmin). ADJ indulges in a little scorn and ridicule (rightly or wrongly) because the discussion does not really focus on any 9/11 Truth issues (apart from ADJ providing some video evidence of his own humble campaign efforts)
11) Offers of free campaign materials are not taken up and not discussed much
12) Ironsnot starts a new thread in General showing ADJ's (yes it is mine) not particularly good Chemtrail time lapse video:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 1081#31081

(ADJ has made his position on Chemtrails quite clear and this can easily be discovered by searching other threads on this board).

Hmm - would be it be that IronSnot and MM have tried to deflect the discussion from 9/11 Truth and portray ADJ in a rather bad light (even though he is a self-professed sanctimonious git)?

Well, how could I possibly comment in a balanced objective way about this evidence, being as I am inimately involved with it....

Readers please decide. Or maybe we should have a poll. Naaa - that would be too crass.

Enjoy today everyone!!

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:49 am

I don't come here to attack people but it's clear ironsnot only comes here for that reason, never seen anything in his vacuous post to indicate otherwise.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:49 am

The impression I get of Ironsnot is of a deeply disturbed thoroughly unpleasant character

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:01 am

Ally/TruthWillSetU3,

IronSnot is a Troll.

He is simply doing his job.

He probably gets a big bonk out of it.

I guess he must get something.

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:37 am

Just to make IronSnot's motives absolutely clear, have a look at his other post here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 1102#31102

Also, listen to the snatch of music...

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:21 am

I suppose Ghostbusters is something that may come to mind.

What came to my mind were the words of my friend in Chicago.

If you bother to read that link a little further, you will find a suggestion about how to clear up a Forum. You will see that one of the suggestions is to suppress the personal attacks - such as the one I made against the Aussie Troll IronSnot (Major Poster ... wow).

Stay in singlethink! Keep perspective. If this Troll had not infiltrated in the first place, then calling a spade a spade and a fork a fork would not have been necessary. Would it?

In this particular case what is happening is that IronSnot is attempting to provoke Andrew Johnson into 'Moderating' IronSnot's posts. This would enable IronSnot to scream "Censorship! Free speech? Rubbish!". And, to IronSnot's chagrin, Andrew isn't biting. This leaves IronSnot empty-handed ... which is the way it should be.

(However it does achieve IronSnot's secondary goal ... that of wasting everyone's time)

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:38 am

Veronica wrote: Stay in singlethink! Keep perspective. If this Troll had not infiltrated in the first place, then calling a spade a spade and a fork a fork would not have been necessary. Would it?

Well, I guess we're learning... (well, I am anyway...!)

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:02 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:Well, I guess we're learning... (well, I am anyway...!)

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime.

Mark Gobell · Post by **Mark Gobell** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:47 pm

Thanks for the 9/11 leaflets Andrew, received this morning. I think they're a great resource and will get busy with them this very evening. The business cards are a great idea too. Well done. Anyone who is interested in having leaflets avialable should contact ADJ they are double sided A5 glossy high quality and well worth the money.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:36 pm

Great thread, a microcosm of the kind of stuff that's typical of this Forum – what sharp minds and abrasive personalities 9/11 seems to attract, good! Never let it never be forgot we’re dealing with mega-crime here, this issue is not for the faint-hearted, we might even be able to use the odd troll or two down the line!

Personally though, being busy as well as old and a bit dim I can't keep up with most of these spats and arguments, despite by some mysterious internal process having been elected a Moderator (sorry not to have done much moderating so far!!)

Actually I no longer see a huge need for Moderation, since we’re on the point of having another more ‘respectable’ website for the Campaign proper, where hopefully consensus rather than conflict will prevail.

I used to think it would be good to have a Critics Corner but where d’you draw the line, with this type of stuff going on even between people purporting to be on the same side – “with friends like this who needs enemies”!!!

But I now think it’s OK to leave people to slog it out freely; as said, most of our regulars are by now inured to the trolls while newcomers will hopefully be more interested in the films and stuff about forthcoming events in the first instance.

My own focus remains the CAMPAIGN as opposed to the debate and making sure that stays on course. The 9/11 Truth Campaign is first and foremost exactly that, a campaign, ie. it’s about getting out there and about DOING stuff and talking to people face-to-face, not just arguing between ourselves on the internet. We have a huge public education job to do and a whole world to wake up; ask yourself when you post anything on this Forum, is what I’m going to say here really helping my colleagues/our work??

If we all practice this discipline it will soon become clear who is genuinely dedicated to the cause and who may have a less honourable interest. I really do urge people with the possible exception of Andrew who’s shrewd and patient enough to make an object-lesson out of these tiresome exchanges! not to waste time and energy arguing with people who are persistently negative/argumentative. We are fortunate that there is sufficient agreement between us on the main issue, namely that the official version of the events of 9/11 is WRONG and that a proper, independent inquiry is needed (including into the cover-up itself), as well as sufficient solid evidence backed up by basic science to show how and why it’s wrong, and with which by now most of us are very familiar. So there’s no need IMO to get bogged down in arguments about peripheral issues that remain speculative, such as what types of planes hit the Towers or whether there were any planes at all, unless of course these arguments take the form of rational and civilised discussion rather than mud-slinging.

I’d say to any seeking to influence the voters on this Forum or worse to disrupt us you’re highly unlikely to succeed unless

a) you have some interesting and genuine NEW info. to impart or a convincingly-argued new angle on the facts;

b) you’re actually DOING something to spread 9/11 Truth as well as talking about it

In the latter respect Andrew ‘wins’ hands down over the types who’ve been baiting him on this particular thread. In fact I doubt anyone can match Andrew’s personal contribution to 9/11 Truth! As a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth as well as our own network he’s helped produce scientific analyses of the events in NY, Washington & Penn.; he regularly lectures on 9/11; he takes his laptop to public rallies so he can literally show people the 3rd Tower being blown up, etc.; he’s regularly on the streets in his home-town talking to the public about 9/11; he’s sent streams of letters & emails to MPs, the BBC, the entire UK police-force, the press & media, scientific and academic colleagues and god knows who-all; he’s prepared and distributed well-written campaigning leaflets and briefings for us all to use (see last post from Mark Gobell!), he keeps me and no doubt a whole string of others supplied with all kinds of informative posts and emails on a daily basis, he’s always available to answer questions and help sort problems, etc. etc..

I doubt the 3-4 newish guys with wierd names have even begun to put their feet where their heads are and following Andrew’s example actually go out and DO something for 9/11 Truth or they’d be singing a different tune.

So stop yacking guys and get stuck in, unless you’ve got anything new to tell us which doesn’t look likely at this stage.

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:18 pm

Yeah I have something.

I'll share it with you when I've expanded it a little. It's about the Al-Shehis. It's very interesting.

Andrew might indeed do a lot of good work for the 9/11 movement. But that's all in vain while he keeps the checktheevidence stuff in plain view, as it gives the Critics the easiest rebuttal there is available.

Andrew is a nut. (I hope you realise this isn't my opinion)

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:27 pm

Veronica wrote:-

Hello again Veronica, always nice to talk. How's the hologram flying going - you should mention it to George Monbiot as he thinks we need to cut down on air travel.

What came to my mind were the [url=http://www.veronicachap

Shock, horror, you're linking your own site.

words of my friend in Chicago

Is that Rosalee, Patricia or Linda? I get them mixed up you see. It's almost like they're the same person.

And, to IronSnot's chagrin, Andrew isn't biting. This leaves IronSnot empty-handed ... which is the way it should be.

Are you sure of your ground here? It seems to me, that he does indeed censor. Go here;

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4892

Or is that a hologram?

And as for your troll business, you know pretty well what to do with that. And of course, I'm not fooled am I?

Nice to talk to you again, Veronica from Hanworth.

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:33 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:A quick summary of this thread for readers:

Ta Andrew. Obviously we have all been conspiring behind your back.

2) ADJ (me)

Really? Who wouldda thought?

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:59 pm

IronSnot wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:A quick summary of this thread for readers:
Ta Andrew. Obviously we have all been conspiring behind your back.

2) ADJ (me)
Really? Who wouldda thought?

yeah - it's called an abbreviation, like. Glad you're enjoying yourself and showing no shame now you've been exposed - and away to Critic's Corner this thread now goes - where it arguably should've been moved when it was 1st started....

Hopefully, a few new readers have been exposed to the way info war is being waged - and why our side must be winning....

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:04 pm

IronSnot wrote: Andrew is a nut. (I hope you realise this isn't my opinion)

Sure - people call me "Brazil" "Hazel" and Pea

Fortunately, neither of these facts change the freefall collapse times of WTC 1, 2 and 7,

Also, I find it encouraging that the national press chose to ridicule my web site and that soon after, someone wished to buy the domain name. Ooo of course - just a fellow nut.

Well, I try not to be rude to people, however nutty I may appear. And I don't have a "nutty" handle - like some of the other posters here. My handle's plain boring, I know - but it is honest. Oops more honesty - I told you I was a sanctimonious git.

Have fun.

Chief Billy Goat Gruff.

chipmunk stew · Post by **chipmunk stew** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:11 pm

Belinda wrote: I’d say to any seeking to influence the voters on this Forum or worse to disrupt us you’re highly unlikely to succeed unless

a) you have some interesting and genuine NEW info. to impart or a convincingly-argued new angle on the facts;

b) you’re actually DOING something to spread 9/11 Truth as well as talking about it

As for "a", I believe that Mark Roberts has put together a convincingly-argued new angle on WTC7--that is, that there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that there was nothing whatsoever nefarious about it, and that in fact, it was entirely expected by those on the ground. I would encourage anyone who finds WTC7 mysterious to at least read what he has to say about it. Even if you don't agree with the final analysis, you're bound to come away with greater understanding of what happened to WTC7.

Word DOC: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
PDF: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:11 pm

Chippy Mon Ami,

With posts like that, we can use you as a perpetual motion machine! Great!

PS Did I ever compliment you on your handle - which surely encourages people to take you seriously. Hmmm, but that's perhaps not your main intent is it?

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:33 am

chipmunk stew wrote:PDF: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Why 'lies'? Are you trying to get to the truth or are you trying to prove somebody else wrong?

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:38 am

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Sure - people call me "Brazil" "Hazel" and Pea

Although not doubting you, I'm not sure about the first two. But I would like to point out that you left out a syllable on the last one.

Also, I find it encouraging that the national press chose to ridicule my web site

I don't, and if you want to expose 9/11 I'd suggest you get rid of it. A more convenient 'truther' could not have been invented.

and that soon after, someone wished to buy the domain name.

Really? Gosh.

Oops more honesty - I told you I was a git.

edited for superfluous words

Have fun.

Waa hey!

MiniMauve · Post by **MiniMauve** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:01 am

You know what? You're right, Andrew. This thread does belong in the Critics Corner because it fits right in with the most one-sided, unflinchingly refusal to face the truth that any critic has portrayed here.

Andrew Johnson wrote:A quick summary of this thread for readers:

1) MM opens with suggestions as to how the campaign might behave

Bullsh-it, sir. The distaste you've shown towards my views started with my opposition to NPT and continued with my questions about chem trails. I DID NOT once tell you how to run your campaign. Here is the pertinent thread:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 57&start=0

This was the original thread, subsequently locked by a moderator.

This current thread I started because of what I see as a dangerous and self-defeating resistance in the movement towards self-reflection and complete, honest truth seeking. To refuse these obvious and undeniable truths is to be no different than the critics you ridicule.

Judge for yourselves.

2) ADJ (me) responds asking him what campaigning he has done
3) MM says "none apart from speaking to friends"
4) ADJ suggests this is curious

Because you can't man up and say what you mean. It's not 'curious' to you. You think it means I'm a shill/critic/whatever, but you're afraid to say so b/c it would alienate all the other reasonable people that are in various stages of their self-education and belief in 911 as a conspiracy.

Do you not understand that it is yours and others resistance to substantive discussion and blackballing of questioners (NOT critics - there is a difference) that turns people away from the movement? Wake up!

5) MM suggests ADJ should change his sig

Absolutely and unashamedly true.

6) Later IronSnot joins in saying he "largely agrees with MM" on this thread.

And thus also becomes a 'troll' and 'negative' and 'argumentative'. Pathetic.

7) IronSnot makes comments about the ownership of the board and incorrectly assumes certain factors about ADJ's role in this
ADJ points out these erroneous assumptions
9) IronSnot later suggests ADJ should "ban him" from the board
10) ADJ points out he is unable to do this (I am a moderator, not a sysadmin). ADJ indulges in a little scorn and ridicule (rightly or wrongly) because the discussion does not really focus on any 9/11 Truth issues (apart from ADJ providing some video evidence of his own humble campaign efforts)
11) Offers of free campaign materials are not taken up and not discussed much

Still can't imagine why, eh?

12) Ironsnot starts a new thread in General showing ADJ's (yes it is mine) not particularly good Chemtrail time lapse video:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 1081#31081

(ADJ has made his position on Chemtrails quite clear and this can easily be discovered by searching other threads on this board).

Hmm - would be it be that IronSnot and MM have tried to deflect the discussion from 9/11 Truth and portray ADJ in a rather bad light (even though he is a self-professed sanctimonious git)?

I've asked you twice in our recent discussions for you to point out EXACTLY where I challenge the idea that 911 was an inside job. I'm asking again. Explain how my doubt in NPT and my honest questions about chem trails 'deflects discussion from 9/11 truth'. Are you going to dissappear from this discussion like you did the other times I asked this or similar questions, to emerge elsewhere with a snide comment or clumsy accusation?

The truth is, Ironsnot and many others are attacking NPT/Chem trails/malthusians/Illumanti/ad nauseum EXACTLY because they fear it IS deflecting attention from 9/11 truth.

Well, how could I possibly comment in a balanced objective way about this evidence, being as I am inimately involved with it....

Readers please decide. Or maybe we should have a poll. Naaa - that would be too crass.

Enjoy today everyone!!

It is time for a long hard look in the mirror, Andrew. I have no doubt that you are a tireless worker for the 9/11 truth campaign but your judgement is suspect and your ego is blinding you to what is important.

chipmunk stew · Post by **chipmunk stew** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:50 am

IronSnot wrote:
chipmunk stew wrote:PDF: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Why 'lies'? Are you trying to get to the truth or are you trying to prove somebody else wrong?

I didn't write it, but the author probably chose that word because part of the document focuses on highlighting misstatements and distorted half-truths perpetuated by some of the most prominent Truth Movement torchbearers that are difficult to classify as anything but lies.

But aside from that, there's a ton of information in there that I'd never seen before--on either a Truth Movement site or an Official Story site. You're doing yourselves and your movement a disservice if you don't at least look at the information.

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:22 am

chipmunk stew wrote:if you don't at least look at the information.

I've downloaded it. I'll have a look at it, but I should add that I'm more interested in hijackers and aircraft at the moment. My physics is nonsense (although I'm quite capable of fixing that) so I don't get involved in the collapse/demolition stuff.

but the author probably chose that word because part of the document focuses on highlighting misstatements and distorted half-truths perpetuated by some of the most prominent Truth Movement torchbearers that are difficult to classify as anything but lies.

So it is as it sounds then.

Indeed it is;

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Move-ment”
Mark Roberts sets out it in fairly plain language the reason for the document.

Did firefighters abandon their fallen brothers
An unsophisticated attempt to appeal to patriotism.

Conspiracist Alex Jones and other 9/11 “Truth Movement” leaders
We arn't all fans of Alex Jones, in fact I can't stand him. And Mark Roberts is attempting to slime by association, having already defined what a 'leader' is.

gather at Ground Zero and accuse Silverstein of murder
too bad, because this is exactly what your side does as well, also on the flimsiest of evidence.

and FDNY heroes
Another unsophisticated attempt to scare away debate by utilising the Un-American epithet.

of heinous crimes, lies and cover-ups.
Nobody is accusing the FDNY firefighters of anything. But basically yes there has been a coverup (this is not even debateable) and we happen to think a hell of a lot of lies (and Press for Truth shows Condoleeza lying in front of the 911 Commission), but once again the use of the word 'henious' indicates a fair amount of bias from Mark Roberts.

Basically it's quite apt that you've linked this document on this thread. We now have two examples from both sides of the argument about how to restrict debate and to define the parameters of what is acceptable. It is quite obviously unpatriotic to question 9/11 at all from Mark Robert's point of view, and unpatriotic/shillish to question Andrew Johnson's approach from this side of the debate. That's exactly the same thing and very, very undemocratic. You're two sides of the same coin.

And it leaves me with absolutely no confidence that what I'm about to read from Mark Roberts is an unbiased scholarly review of the available evidence re the collapse of WTC 7.

John White · Post by **John White** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:55 am

Can you say the word: "opposames"

I dont think thats 100% fair to Andrew, in fact theres a lot of talk on this thread with people not being fair to each other

Nonetheless, its worth noting that whatever we fight we risk becomming, and the challenge of truthseeking is balancing passion with holding clarity

There's "A Truth"

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:17 am

Way Hey!

Challenge:

MiniMauve, IronSnot etc:

Post a name, address and contact telephone number.

Then we'll see who we should take seriously. And MM - you're doing it again - personalising the issue. It's easy with me as everyone knows who I am - you are an anonymous poster whom we know next to nothing about.

9/11 Truth, like other matters on my website is based on EVIDENCE not MY EGO. Let's all remember that shall we? I am a nobody who is not worth insulting. People can check the EVIDENCE for themselves. All I do is "put it out there" with some commentary for people to accept or reject. It's that simple.

All the other points you raise are irrelevant to that larger picture. Sorry guys.

I don't expect respect from people - indeed I don't want it. I want them to wake up to the truth. I hope understand, but I guess, for various reasons, you don't.

People want to drag other things into the discussion - and once 9/11 Truth is fully exposed in the public consciousness, the other issues will follow (I know this from experience). So my view is the exact opposite of yours - and it is one shared privately by a surprising number of people I have spoken to.

Enjoy!!