Vote of no confidence in Andrew Johnston

wickywoowoo · Post by **wickywoowoo** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm

thought criminal wrote:F u c k off with this bs. Andrew Johnson has got his head screwed on a lot tighter than you. Start thinking for yourself. What are you so bothered about anyway, I thought you had your own website? Go back there and stop stirring the *.

But before you go, here is a little lesson for you and all you other plane hugging mugsters.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VbDLbVb ... ed&search=[/youtube]

That video is just as supportive of planes as it is of no planes. Did you actually watch the end of it?

ComfortablyNumb · Post by **ComfortablyNumb** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:35 am

thought criminal wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote:Are you in the BNP by any chance?
No, but I might consider joining if I find out you are black.

Where are the moderators here? This poster should be excluded.

May I suggest the Beamers and No Planers start their own site as they are totally discrediting an area of reseach that is frankly not proven (and don't get me wrong I believe 9/11 was a conspiracy). But there's a whole lot of difference between belief and proof.

This forum will switch off anyone who visits to find out more about 9/11 and will think we're all nutters.

Moderators please get a grip of this.

Regs,
Numb

John White · Post by **John White** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:25 am

Yeah, but its not so effective when the comment has been quoted by other users Comfortably numb: kind of horse/stable/bolting, unless I start editing other peoples posts to "clean up". And PB was just as out of line as thought criminal. So its better to encourage them to "grow up", and let them know its been noted... and thats all the action I intend to take... on this occasion

My approach to moderating is to encourage better behaviour and advocate a ban for severe and/or repeat offenders. It would have to be v.bad for me to actually delete a post, barring obvious spam. I'll shift stuff when especially stupid, but as mentioned above, kind of too late in this case. If I started policing every aspect of how people express themselves, I'd be pressing mod buttons full time, with no motivation for members to take more responsibility for how they conduct themselves. Thats why moderators are a double edged sword

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:40 am

John White wrote:Yeah, but its not so effective when the comment has been quoted by other users Comfortably numb: kind of horse/stable/bolting, unless I start editing other peoples posts to "clean up". And PB was just as out of line as thought criminal. So its better to encourage them to "grow up", and let them know its been noted... and thats all the action I intend to take... on this occasion

My approach to moderating is to encourage better behaviour and advocate a ban for severe and/or repeat offenders. It would have to be v.bad for me to actually delete a post, barring obvious spam. I'll shift stuff when especially stupid, but as mentioned above, kind of too late in this case. If I started policing every aspect of how people express themselves, I'd be pressing mod buttons full time, with no motivation for members to take more responsibility for how they conduct themselves. Thats why moderators are a double edged sword

With respect John although I value you as a fair moderator I would have expected you to be more discerning and forthright when the first comment to a fair balanced poll is:

thought criminal wrote:F u c k off with this bs. Andrew Johnson has got his head screwed on a lot tighter than you.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 7260#47260

And

thought criminal wrote:It's you plane clinging lemmings that are the PROBLEM.
You are f u c king it up for everybody else.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 7266#47266

I don't see what is offensive about asking: “Are you in the BNP by any chance?”. I aware that some might see my comment as provocative but I'm not the only person on this forum that is supicious of certain peoples motives. As for TC's comment: “No, but I might consider joining if I find out you are black.” isn't that an offensive and racist comment?

I know I annoy a few people here but more often than not they tend to be the No-Planners and the Beam Weapon types. Results from a resent poll entitled “Which WTC 911 Theory Do YOU Support?” suggests that 75% of members here believe (or know) that planes hit the towers and that controlled demolition using as selection of devices was the cause of collapse.

Total Votes: 32
Remote Control Planes & Controlled Demolition 75% [ 24 Votes]
Remote Control Planes & Orbital Cannon/Beam Weapon/Mini Nuke 0% [ 0 Votes]
No Planes & Orbital Cannon/Beam Weapon/Mini Nuke 9% [ 3 Votes]
No Planes & Controlled Demolition 3% [ 1 Vote]
Hijacked Planes & Gravitational Collapse (*Offical Story*) 0% [0 Votes]

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5842

So not only do the majority of members here have to tolerate disinformationists, provocative and aggressive comments but also the constant propagation of bizarre theories from a moderator who's friend (4U2P) is pretty much allowed to say what they want and is often provocative and offensive. We also have the banning of Tele which was completely out of order. I personally get the impression that Tele's level headed approach was seen as a threat to the propagation of dis-info by a few here. Remember it was Tony Gosling who asked for Tele to be banned and we suspect that it was Andrew Johnson who flicked the switch.

Remember that Tele was un-banned so that action is an admission of guilt i.e. An error in judgment was made on the part of a certain individual/moderator! Was that person Andrew Johnson? If it was Andrew why would he ban one of the most level headed contributers to this forum? Perhaps as I said above Tele was seen as a threat to the disinformationists.

John White · Post by **John White** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:05 pm

Well PB, as I said, I have noticed how thought criminal is expressing himself. Being as both Ally and Prole took a jump before new year for their posting behaviour, there's a clear indicator that there are limits to how long any member can push things: and that limit is getting shorter. I wouldnt expect a "thought criminal" to be especially well behaved: but I'm not instigating a banning/post deleting firing squad just yet. And your BNP crack was provocative: I also understand it as two net warriors giving each other as good as they get. The news there is, make Peace not War

Sorry, no comment on your thougts re AJ and TG, other than to say I find them both to have good hearts and that as a team, we are pulling together more and more: even though we are all human and therefore somewhat flawed

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:40 pm

Fair enough John and I wasn't asking you to take sides and I certainly wasn't asking for anybody to be banned. I do think that swearing should be frowned upon as it only lowers the tone of what is supposed to be a serious and respectful discussion forum. Anyway just felt the need to defend my corner as it were.

Having said that I'm still concerned about the increasing prevalence of NPT and Beam Weapons theorists on this forum. I think the main difference between the other theories and thermite is evidence and I believe that there is quite a lot of evidence for the use of exothermic devices at the WTC.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:21 pm

thought criminal wrote:F u c k off with this bs. Andrew Johnson has got his head screwed on a lot tighter than you. Start thinking for yourself. What are you so bothered about anyway, I thought you had your own website? Go back there and stop stirring the *.

But before you go, here is a little lesson for you and all you other plane hugging mugsters.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VbDLbVb ... ed&search=[/youtube]

THIS IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF NO PLANES

COME ON SNOWY AND FALLEOUS DEBUNK THIS ----AND NO WAFFLE

Fallious · Post by **Fallious** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:42 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: THIS IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF NO PLANES

COME ON SNOWY AND FALLEOUS DEBUNK THIS ----AND NO WAFFLE

You assume the plane is moving in a straight line along the horizon. When in fact its coming in diagonally from above and behind the smoke.

marky 54 · Post by **marky 54** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:47 pm

the video ends by saying after he thought he proved himself wrong he was left to consider if the plane had enough drag force not to of been in shot at the points in question.

which also leaves me to consider how this is conclusive evidence when the last question wasnt answered. so ill ask it.

did the plane have enough drag force to keep it out of the shot taken untill near the towers?

wickywoowoo · Post by **wickywoowoo** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:20 am

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
thought criminal wrote:F u c k off with this bs. Andrew Johnson has got his head screwed on a lot tighter than you. Start thinking for yourself. What are you so bothered about anyway, I thought you had your own website? Go back there and stop stirring the *.

But before you go, here is a little lesson for you and all you other plane hugging mugsters.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VbDLbVb ... ed&search=[/youtube]
THIS IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF NO PLANES

COME ON SNOWY AND FALLEOUS DEBUNK THIS ----AND NO WAFFLE

As I said to the other person who posted this video, he proves himself wrong and finds out a plane COULD have done that. How is it proof of anything?

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:58 pm

Can I vote in this please?

What an absolute HOOT!

Anyway, I have to complain here - it started as a vote of no confidence in me and then turned in to "No Planes". Can't you guys stay on topic?

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:25 pm

James C wrote:I'm with you on this Patrick.

My apologies to Andrew but for someone who claims to be on the side of the people (and not the state) he tends to side with the most extreme and absurd views as promulgated by the likes of Alex Jones. I've a had a few private spats with Andrew and when he cannot answer my questions he just runs away.

Hmm - apologies and accusations in one post. Let's get one thing clear. I am a volunteer here, as is everyone. I have no authority - I have no need to answer anyone's questions - I can't even answer all the questions that people ask. I don't *expect* ANYONE on here to answer ANY of my questions - they have absolutely no obligation to do so.

I "run away"- hmm where exactly? I'm here now. I may not have time to read all the posts. Let's face it, the "Vote of Confidence" thread has been up for 6 days and I only just saw it. To which I say (in a Catherine Tate voice)

"am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered?"

The answer is no - because it's irrelevant to all the evidence I have presented on other threads.

Have fun playing your posting games, now. It's been quite a hoot for me.

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:40 pm

Thought Criminal,

You are very much on the right lines. I'm not sure how close you are, but it looks like you might be 'getting close'

Have you considered that whole clip?

Have a look through this:
http://www.veronicachapman.com/expkit/Experiment.htm

Good luck + happy hunting,

Veronica

BTW, Trolls: Andrew is a very busy person. The fact that he has time to post, moderate, and occasionally defend himself is quite amazing. Judging by the standard & content of your posts, he does more 'per minute' than you appear to do 'per life'.

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:43 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:"am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered?"

The answer is no - because it's irrelevant to all the evidence I have presented on other threads.

Have fun playing your posting games, now. It's been quite a hoot for me.

Well you may not be bovvered but I am! As for your evidence Andrew it's about as much use as a mirror to a blind man. Go figure.

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:50 pm

Patrick Brown wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:"am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered?"

The answer is no - because it's irrelevant to all the evidence I have presented on other threads.

Have fun playing your posting games, now. It's been quite a hoot for me.
Well you may not be bovvered but I am! As for your evidence Andrew it's about as much use as a mirror to a blind man. Go figure.

I love this! It's vintage irrelevance!

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:06 am

will the REAL disinfo agents please stand up?

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:52 am

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:"am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered? am a bovvered?"

The answer is no - because it's irrelevant to all the evidence I have presented on other threads.

Have fun playing your posting games, now. It's been quite a hoot for me.
Well you may not be bovvered but I am! As for your evidence Andrew it's about as much use as a mirror to a blind man. Go figure.
I love this! It's vintage irrelevance!

How about one more time Andrew you know missiles disguised by holographic planes wasn't it? Come on as I won't be here much over the next few months and I'll miss your wit! Have you got anymore good ones before I piss off?

I was laughing my mates were laughing WE were laughing.

By the the way I lied about the wit bit as it's definitely less.

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:40 am

mr super poster, you've been caught out. now b* off.

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:46 am

and anyone who can't even spell the name of their accused has no place even deigning to have an opinion on the subject.

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:26 am

The lunatics have taken over the asylum, Andrew can walk on water and pigs can fly.

Andrew isn't accused of anything as we're talking facts and Andrew has been seen to push the No Planes lie as well as the Beam Weapon lie. We are also aware that Andrew has become very close to Woods over the last few months. The fact that as a moderator Andrew has been aloud to push such baseless theories is beyond belief and says a lot about this forum.

I might be here for another day or so as it'll be interesting to see how Jones deals with Fetzer but after that I really will be taking a break from this place.

Just never forget that no planes equals no brains!

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:36 am

talking facts? surely every single 9/11 theory is just that. and they should all be given equal weight until one can be shown to be as correct as can be made out with an incomplete data set.

enjoy your holiday.

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:09 pm

brianc wrote:talking facts? surely every single 9/11 theory is just that.

So something is a fact even without evidence?

brianc wrote:and they should all be given equal weight until one can be shown to be as correct as can be made out with an incomplete data set.

So something evidence based can be overturned by something without evidence?

Can people see why I'm sick to death of this place?

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:11 pm

I forgot to say when is a theory a fact? I've a few theories about the mentality of some of the members of this forum!

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:22 pm

No, I said that all 9/11 theories are just that - THEORIES. Not facts. Facts add up to evidence. Evidence supports a theory. But when facts are by circumstance either difficult to gather or to confirm in all their aspects, then all theories that are based on a sufficient set of facts (and that is ultimately what is under debate) should be allowed to be aired without being called "crazy". Once there are sufficient facts to disprove a theory then it can be dismissed.

Unless this is too counterfactual for you, Mr Super Poster.

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:45 pm

brianc wrote:No, I said that all 9/11 theories are just that - THEORIES. Not facts. Facts add up to evidence. Evidence supports a theory. But when facts are by circumstance either difficult to gather or to confirm in all their aspects, then all theories that are based on a sufficient set of facts (and that is ultimately what is under debate) should be allowed to be aired without being called "crazy". Once there are sufficient facts to disprove a theory then it can be dismissed.

Unless this is too counterfactual for you, Mr Super Poster.

I had to quote this as I've never heard so much rubbish.

There is no evidence and no facts to support NPT or Beam Weapons.

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:13 pm

well, a lot of people would say that Steven Jones is full of rubbish. I'm not one of them, but according to your logic they'd be right.

try investigating the existence of beam weaponry, you might just be surprised what you find.

oh and by the way, i'm not supporting any specific theory, just saying that people should have more open minds about these things. to some people your theories may sound crazy but that doesn't mean they are. you should just accord others with the same courtesy.

Patrick Brown · Post by **Patrick Brown** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:09 am

So is Andrew still a mod here?

Well I'm off although a may pop up once in a while but to be honest I've had enough of this hole.

bye bye

thought criminal · Post by **thought criminal** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:45 am

Patrick Brown wrote:So is Andrew still a mod here?

Well I'm off although a may pop up once in a while but to be honest I've had enough of this hole.

bye bye

Please don't hurry back. We will be absolutely fine without you.

Bongo · Post by **Bongo** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:15 pm

I would first like to give a big thanks to Andrew for all the hard work he puts into this forum. However, although the question may have been put a little strongly (I don't think there was a need for the poll?), it does raise some serious questions over non-partisan moderation within a discussion forum such as this.

I can fully understand members of this forum perceiving the moderation as being one sided on a specific issue when the moderators are taking part in the discussion. There is of course a simple solution to this problem. The moderators oversee, but do not take part in the debate. It would then be a decision for Andrew (and the other moderators) whether he wished to carry on with the moderation or give it up to become a poster with the masses.

Thermate · Post by **Thermate** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:42 pm

brianc wrote:just saying that people should have more open minds about these things.

I do have an open mind and my open mind, after looking at the information available along with my education and experience as a qualified mechanical design engineer leads me to logically deduce NPT as... complete bs.

Now, on Orbital Bean Weapons, yes they are developing them, yes its possible it was used to destroy the Twin Towers, but you have to ask yourself is it PROBABLE? Based on Judy Wood & Co highly dubious, speculative, manipulated and distorted 'research' efforts my open mind leads me to believe... no way, never.

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Vote of no confidence in Andrew Johnston

Should Andrew Johnston remain a moderator?