Does anybody visit this site anymore?

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

How long has Stephen got?

Poll ended at Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:42 am

3 Months
0
No votes
6 Months
1
50%
1 Year
1
50%
 
Total votes: 2

Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Does anybody visit this site anymore?

Post by Stephen »

I dont think the general public visit this site anymore. This website is dead, its the same as the Wakey wakey forum no one there either.
User avatar
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:06 am
Location: One breath from Glory

Post by fish5133 »

Hi Stephen as I am writing their are 15 guests logged on and viewing various topics. This is pretty much the same most evenings so the site is still getting some traffic. Some obviously just window shopping or checking what site is like.
Getting at least 2 or 3 new users each day but obviously dont know what their reasons are.

Might get a bit more attention after next Tuesday as am doing an interview live with Billy Butler on Merseyside along with Tony Gosling. about 3pm. Listen out if you can i will try and mention you Lee Rosie etc as initiating the Merseyside group .
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by Stephen »

Fish, the problem is that most people who still come here must be aready 9/11 Truthers. There needs to be a way to get new people involed.


Good luck with the radio interview. Try and get Mr Bulter's email again.

cheers mate. :D
User avatar
Cromwell
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: Bartertown

Re: Does anybody visit this site anymore?

Post by Cromwell »

Stephen wrote:I dont think the general public visit this site anymore. This website is dead, its the same as the Wakey wakey forum no one there either.
Stephen, whether or not the general public vist this site is something I cant answer.

I come here often, but dont post that often. I would like to say though, that this site is alive, of extremly high quality and that it is

"first among equals" of its global peers

IMO.

I am in fairly deep at the moment in gaining a better understanding of the politicising of the AGW science and the associated social engineering motives behind it. Whilst this subject is not the main purpose of this forum it does however provide me with sound leads in this quest.

Keep it up guys you are definetly adding value, dont ever doubt that and since I am here now I will leave this with you.

THE RULES OF DISINFORMANTION--THE POLITICIAN'S CREDO


Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the government.


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it, especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.


2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.


3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.


4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent, opponent arguments, situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.


5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as kooks, right-wing, liberal, left-wing, terrorists, conspiracy buffs, radicals, militants, racists, religious fanatics, sexual deviates, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.


6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internetand letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning-- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.


7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.


8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.


9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial if they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.


10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the strawman usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues. So much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.


11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made, but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.


12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the issue, and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.


13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.


14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the problem at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.


15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the act was planned with contingency conclusions in place.


16. Vanishing evidence. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.


17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue"with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.


18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anythingelse, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses, which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".


19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a shredded govt. study). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.


21. Call a parliamentary committee study, Supreme court test, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without true public input. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be acceptable to the committee or court as evidence when properly handled, damaging evidence can be discarded. For instance, if you own the judicial or committee officials, it can insure an official hearing hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed, refused or buried and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Oncea favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the govt. innocent, but it can also be used to obtain authority when seeking to extend govt. powers) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.


22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s),leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.


23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.


24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their meeting with an accident, an arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of damaging information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.


25. Vanish or seek less contentious employment. If you are a key holder of dirty secrets or otherwise overly operationally illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Find a cozy non controversial plumb in the public or private sector (secured with your party loyalty) and evade the heat your policies have created. Or if you really F****ED up a lot of people, vacate to a third world dictatorship that understands your brand of politics where your tax swollen bank account will allow you to live like a king.


After the first time I read this, I began to look at all politicians very differently. I hope everyone reads this. It is eye opening. Go ahead and make your own copy and spread it around. The file came without mention of an author, or credit would be given.
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: Croydon, Surrey
Contact:

Post by kbo234 »

Thanks for that Cromwell. As you say, everyone should read this.

Good also to see that someone still rates this forum as being of real value.
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Post by Thermate911 »

Sure, this site is of 'real value' - snag is getting people to realise what an incredible resource it is. The search function certainly doesn't help!

Sticky's are a good way in for newcomers but I've been wondering for the last few days if there could not be a 'Fundamental Nuggets' section, directly accessible from the front page? fish?

I do all in my power to direct people here but the old (mangled) saying "You can lead a man to water but you can't make him think" still applies. Couple that with the onslaught of 'divide and rule' tactics (that have also caused a schism here vs 'truthforum') and we're still up against ignorance, apathy and cognitive dissonance. Cromwell, above, reposts the activists 'thou shalt not' - this should also be a Sticky for those who really want to DO something positive.

Maybe the G20 theatre will galvanise the majority? There again, maybe not...
Chris Knight, the anthropology professor suspended from the University of East London last week for suggesting that bankers might be lynched, was wandering the march alone. "I just met a copper and I said to him, 'Is this the revolution?' He said: 'No, this is the dry run, the revolution starts on Wednesday. Midweek is when we will really start to dance'."
Extracted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... sts-london

We've been here many times before - so have the opposition...
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Post by paul wright »

that have also caused a schism here vs 'truthforum'
What makes you think that?
There's some ex's there that think anti-Tony, but I happily post to both, while gladly entertaining them, and there's a big link to there from the front page here
There're some differences in emphases and history and acceptability and language
But "schism" that's a faith or belief based thing and there ain't no schism
We're both heading in basically similar directions as are many forums
Abundance leads to many choices, and the internet is one thing that remains abundant
It may very soon be curtailed along with everything else and that's what we should be wary of and united about

If we were properly united, we would be usurping the G20 thing away from these sad climate change/STW/SWP/old paradigm leftist/Bakuninist "anarchists"- and- their- Agent- provocateur- infiltraters knackers who are going to get just what they are demanding
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Post by Thermate911 »

schism (skzm, sz-)
n.
1. A separation or division into factions.
2.a. A formal breach of union within a Christian church.
2.b. The offense of attempting to produce such a breach.
3. Disunion; discord.
IMV, 1 & 3 apply. 2a & b may also have been an underlying cause!

And I still view this 'schism' as a classic example of 'divide and rule', watering down the impact of, and attendence to, the original site.

As for 'internet abundance' it don't compute - a central 9/11 site with no intrusive leadership, containing every bit of evidence ever to come to light, would be the most powerful approach to countering the G20 mentality, IMO. In the early days, 911blogger had this magnetism and so did nineeleven.co

And no, I am no fan of supporting 'characters', just Truth (another objection I have to your site, putting that in the title is horribly counter-productive, IMO)

Paul, have you ever waded through Lobaczewski's 'Political Ponerology'? Maybe worth your time...

http://www.ponerology.com/
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

You know what I reckon.
Is that we need a real physical conference or summer school of some sort to build on and develop what we've all achieved here. We're not so much activists as ideas people and that's what ideas people do.
Another possibility is a front end site redesign.
Suggestions and offers welcome.

I had a 'head start' in taking on this site in that some of the original people involved in the UK 9/11 movement were the best bright young things of their generation - and many have moved on... I intend to remain right here.
Many of those that came along later are now squabblers and petty minded, certainly not team players. The most obvious symptom of that is bringing international speakers to the UK without giving an opportunity for activists round the country to help with a tour. Refusing to co-operate with their former fellow campaigners, that's their choice... self-marginalisers I would call them. Some of them were part of the 'split' that took place in 2008 when many former UK 9/11 Truth people departed to join Chris Coverdale in Make War History.
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Annie »

Hi Tony

Well done with continuing this website. It is a useful resource, pulling together all sorts of information, despite the splits and "schisms" of the old 911 UK truth movement.

The additional proof of the influence of this website is what it has engendered. This has always been a meeting place for like-minded people to debate, compare experiences, and organise. Yes, there have been arguments about the best approach to campaigning and different groupings have evolved. Make Wars History has certainly inspired some activists, but I would disagree that it caused splits. MWH should surely complement the movement - we all want accountability and the upholding of international law, don't we?

But other groups and events have evolved from the old UK campaign. Some people want the "big tent" approach, others want more mainstream political activism, such as those involved in 911 Truth Action and We Are Change. And yet more support the professional initiatives: political leaders for 911, architects and engineers, firefighters, doctors, lawyers, pilots etc.

One size does not fit all - that much we've all learnt over the last few years!

I organised David Ray Griffin's European-wide tour in April/May (www.timeforasecondlook.com), and the demand was such that there was no way we could squeeze in more than one event in the UK (believe me, I tried). It wasn't a case of cutting people out of the loop, it was just the need to make the best use of his limited time in Europe.

Gareth and other London-based activists have organised not only his event there, but have also co-ordinated his website and publicity. They've done an amazing job. So, please, no more talk about "splitters"! DRG is one of the best and most credible advocates we have. He deserves all the support we can give him!

Regards

Annie
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
User avatar
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:05 pm

Post by acrobat74 »

Annie wrote:So, please, no more talk about "splitters"! DRG is one of the best and most credible advocates we have.
Oh c'mon, surely this gentleman is with the...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Z_b-06BDk[/youtube]
(strong language warning)


http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15733
David Ray Griffin interview in the 'Conservative Voice'

(please note the link below doesn't work...handy to store the actual text in these cases)
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/34340.html

Excellent argumentation by DRG.

Please especially note the following:
David ray Griffin wrote:By analogy, the 9/11 Truth Movement has provided abundant evidence that the 9/11 attacks could not have been carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists. We need not also specify exactly who did organize and carry out the attacks, all their motives, and why they handled each part of the operation and the cover-up as they did.
By Sam Vaknin
What Really Happened on September 11?
September 08, 2008 09:40 AM EST

An Interview with David Ray Griffin

On September 11, I entertained a couple of house guests, senior journalists from Scandinavia. I remember watching in horror and disbelief the unfolding drama, as the United States was being subjected to multiple deadly attacks on-screen. I turned to the international affairs editor of a major Danish paper and told her "This could not have been done by al-Qaida." I am an Israeli and, as such, I have a fair "sixth sense" as to the capabilities of terrorists and their potential reach.

Enter David Ray Griffin. I was introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. He is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published over 30 books, including eight about 9/11, the best known of which is "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé."

On the face of it, his credentials with regards to intelligence analysis are hardly relevant, let alone impressive. But, to underestimate him would be a grave error. Being a philosopher, he is highly trained and utterly qualified to assess the credibility of data; the validity and consistency of theories (including conspiracy theories); and the rationality and logic of hypotheses. These qualifications made him arguably the most visible and senior member of what came to be known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

In our exchange, he proved to be tolerant of dissenting views, open to debate, and invariably possessed of rigorous thinking. Still, while the 9/11 Truth Movement has succeeded to cast doubts on the official version of the events of September 11 (correctly labeled by Griffin: "the official conspiracy theory"), it failed, in my view, to present a compelling case in support of the alternative conspiracy theory much favored by many of its members: that the Bush administration was behind the attacks, one way or the other. Judge for yourselves.


The Incompetence Theory

A. This administration demonstrated incredible incompetence with Hurricane Katrina, the governing of occupied Iraq, and the subprime mortgage crisis. Why should September 11 and the months leading to that fateful day be any exception?

DRG: It was not an exception: The planning and the execution were terribly flawed, resulting in so many problems in the official story, including both internal contradictions and the obvious contravening of basic laws of physics, that if Congress and the press had carried out even the most superficial investigation, the fact that 9/11 was an inside job would have been quickly exposed. I will give nine examples (in giving these, I cite places in my books where the issues are discussed more fully):

First, President Bush was in a classroom in Florida when the second of the Twin Towers was struck. Although the first strike had been dismissed as an accident, this second one was taken as evidence that America was "under attack," as Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, reportedly whispered in his ear. Back in the White House, the Secret Service took Vice President Cheney down to the bunker under the White House. But the Secret Service agents with Bush allowed him to stay in the classroom for another 10 minutes, as shown by a video that was included in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." If the attacks had really been, as they seemed, surprise attacks by terrorists going after high-value targets, the Secret Service agents would have feared that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school at that very minute. Their failure to hustle Bush away thereby implied that they knew that Bush was in no danger because they knew who was in control of the planes. The White House's apparently belated recognition of this implication was manifested a year later (before the video had emerged on the Internet), when it started telling a different story, claiming that Bush left the classroom within seconds after being told about the second strike on the Twin Towers ("9/11 Contradictions," Ch. 1).

Second, the White House and the Pentagon also later found it necessary to distort the truth about where Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and General Richard Myers were between 9 and 10 AM that morning. Richard Clarke reported in his book, "Against All Enemies" that Myers and Rumsfeld were in the Pentagon's teleconferencing studio participating in his White House video conference, but Myers and Rumsfeld both claimed that they were elsewhere. Although Clarke and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported that Cheney was down in the bunker before 9:20, the 9/11 Commission claimed that he didn't enter it until almost 10:00 (20 minutes after the attack on the Pentagon and just before the crash of Flight 93). And although Clarke reported that he received the shootdown order from Cheney by 9:50 (at least 13 minutes before Flight 93 went down), the Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue this authorization until after 10:15 ("9/11 Contradictions," Chs. 2-7).

Third, much of the evidence that the planes had been hijacked was provided by people who reported that they had received cell phone calls from relatives or crew members on board the planes. About a dozen cell phone calls were reported from Flight 93 alone. But after the 9/11 Truth Movement publicized the fact that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had not been technologically possible in 2001, the FBI changed its report, saying that the only cell phone calls from any of the four airliners were two that occurred when Flight 93 had descended to 5,000 feet (at which altitude they would have been at least arguably possible). This change of story meant, among other things, that the FBI, having stated in an affidavit in 2001 that American 11 flight attendant Amy Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call, needed to fabricate a very implausible tale to support its revised claim that she had actually used an onboard phone ("The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [henceforth NPHR], Chs. 3 & 6).

Fourth, the military's original explanation as to why it was unable to intercept the first three flights before they hit their targets was so obviously problematic that it needed to be changed. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had shown that, even if the FAA had been as slow in notifying the military as NORAD claimed in 2001, there had still been sufficient time for the flights to have been intercepted, especially Flights 175 and 77. So the 9/11 Commission in 2004 simply created a new timeline, claiming, wholly implausibly, that the FAA had not notified the military at all about those two flights ("9/11 Contradictions," Chs. 10 & 11).

Fifth, after considerable evidence was publicized by the 9/11 Truth Movement that Flight 93 had been shot down, the 9/11 Commission created a completely new story about it. Although the military had stated that the FAA had notified it about this flight and even that fighter jets were tracking it, the 9/11 Commission claimed that the FAA had not notified the military about Flight 93 until after it had crashed. Also, as I pointed out above, the 9/11 Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue the shootdown order until about 10:15, even though Richard Clarke reported that he had received this order at about 9:50 ("9/11 Contradictions," Chs 12-13).

Sixth, the FBI first told reporters that proof of al-Qaeda's responsibility for the attacks was incriminating material, including Mohamed Atta's last will and testament, that was found in a Mitsubishi rented by Atta and left in the parking lot at the Boston airport. The FBI also reported that two other members of al-Qaeda who were on Flight 11, Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, drove a rented Nissan on September 10 from Boston to Portland, where they stayed overnight and then took a commuter flight back to Boston the next morning in time to catch Flight 11. On September 13, however, the FBI realized that neither of the Bukhari brothers had died on 9/11: one was still alive and the other had died the year before. So the FBI simply changed the story, saying that Atta and another al-Qaeda operative, Abdul al-Omari, had driven the Nissan to Portland. The incriminating materials were now said not to have been found in the Mitsubishi in the parking lot but in Atta's luggage, which had failed to make the transfer from the commuter plane to Flight 11. One problem with this new story, besides the fact that it did not get fully formed until September 16, is that it made no sense, because it implied that Atta had planned to take his will on a plane that he intended to fly into the World Trade Center ("9/11 Contradictions," Ch. 16).

Seventh, the official story about the attack on the Pentagon said that the pilot of Flight 77, which was a Boeing 757, executed an amazing maneuver in order to strike the first floor of Wedge 1. But the authorities also claimed that this pilot was Hani Hanjour, who could not, as was reported by several stories in the mainstream press, safely fly even a single-engine plane. The identification of the incompetent Hanjour as the pilot was evidently a last-minute decision, because his name was even not on the FBI's first list of al-Qaeda operatives on Flight 77 (NPHR Chs. 2 & 6).

Eighth, eyewitness accounts by journalists and Pentagon employees, along with photographs and videos taken right after the attack on the Pentagon, reveal that there was no sign that the Pentagon had been hit by a giant airliner. Although about 30 people claimed to see an airliner strike the Pentagon, their testimonies were often in contradiction with each other and the physical facts ("NPHR Ch. 2).

Ninth, WTC 7 was evidently supposed to come down at about 10:45 in the morning, shortly after the collapses of the Twin Towers. A massive explosion occurred in the basement at about 9:15, which would have been 90 minutes before the explosions that were supposed to bring the building down (which would have been the same time-interval as that between the 8:46 explosion in the basement of the North Tower, as reported by janitor William Rodriguez, and the explosions that brought the building down at 10:28). But evidently most of the explosives that were supposed to go off at 10:45 failed to do so. As a result, the building did not come down until late in the afternoon, at which time the collapse was captured on several videos, which show the collapse to have been identical to typical implosions caused by pre-set explosives. This fact necessitated trying to keep most people in the dark about the collapse of WTC 7 as long as possible: Videos of WTC 7's collapse were never again (after 9/11 itself) shown on mainstream television; the 9/11 Commission did not even mention this collapse; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology repeatedly delayed its report on this building, finally issuing it only late in 2008, shortly before the Bush administration was to leave office.

As shown by these and many other problems, almost every aspect of the 9/11 operation revealed incompetence. If any of the resulting problems had been pursued by Congress or the press, the 9/11 hoax would have been quickly exposed.


WTC7

Q: Did the US Government possess in-house the expertise necessary to control-demolish WTC 7? Surely they didn't sub-contract or farm out the demolition?

DRG: Apart from an investigation, we have no way to know for certain. But the planners probably did hire someone: As explained by ImplosionWorld.com, true implosions, which cause a building to come straight down into its own footprint (as WTC 7 clearly did), are "by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions" ("Debunking 9/11 Debunking," Ch. 3). If the point of your statement that they "surely" would not have farmed out the demolition is that they would have feared that doing so would result in someone spilling the beans, this is an unrealistic assumption. No one would have been brought into the operation who could not be trusted to keep quiet. And why would someone confess to having participated in a project that killed thousands of fellow citizens?


Q: Why didn't the conspirators wait until a few hours after the attacks and then publicly demolish all three buildings as hazards to the public and for public safety reasons?

DRG: Again, apart from an investigation, in which people are induced to talk by subpoenas and threats of prison, we cannot know why they made the various decisions they made. We can, however, make reasonable guesses in some cases. In this case, the desire to demolish these particular buildings was surely a secondary motive, important to only a few of the conspirators. The main purpose was surely to create a traumatizing spectacle---the planes hitting the buildings and then the buildings coming down shortly thereafter, killing thousands of people---in order to get the American people and Congress psychologically prepared to support attacks on Muslim countries, starting with Afghanistan (against which a war had already been planned), and to accept restrictions on our constitutional rights (the PATRIOT Act). This spectacle could then be replayed endlessly on television to reinforce the public's fury and readiness to support the Bush administration's "war on terror," which could be morphed to attack Iraq (a war against which had also been planned in advance) and, assuming that the wars in those first two countries would go well, some of the other countries on the administration's "hit list," which has been reported by General Wesley Clark and neocon Michael Ledeen (NPHR Ch. 7).


Q: Why was WTC7 targeted and not other WTC buildings which suffered worse damage from debris and fires?

DRG: Again, we could learn the answer to this question easily enough through a genuine investigation, in which the usual types of inducements are used to get people to talk. Because that has not happened, some people have offered theories. One theory is that the building contained records that some authorities wanted destroyed. Another theory is that Giuliani's Emergency Operations Center on the 23rd floor had equipment for drawing the two planes into the Twin Towers, which meant that the building needed to be totally demolished in order to destroy all the evidence. I myself do not speculate about this, as I do not try to develop a complete theory as to what happened that day. I concentrate instead on the various types of evidence that the official story is false, which is all that is needed to point out that another---a real---investigation is in order.


United 93

Q: The conspiracy at the government level, according to the 9/11 Truth Movement, involved a stand-down order: an instruction to the military not to interfere with the hijacked aircraft and to allow them to crash into their targets. If so, why was UA 93 the exception? Why was it shot down (according to the Truth Movement)?

DRG: Let me begin by correcting your first statement. Many, perhaps most, people in the 9/11 Truth Movement do not believe there were any hijackers on board and hence do not believe that there were any "hijacked aircraft" that were simply "allowed" strike their targets. I at least do not believe this (I've explained why at great length in NPHR) and assume, instead, that the whole operation was carried out by the White House and the Pentagon, with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers being three of the central figures.

As to what happened to Flight 93, we will probably never know unless there is an investigation. There is indeed strong evidence that a plane was shot down near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. And this could have been the original plan, in order to have a basis for fabricating the story about the heroic passengers foiling the intention of the evil Arab Muslims to strike another target (such as the White House or the US Capitol building), so that this story could be used by Bush as the beginning of the "war on terror," in which the American victims would strike back against the Muslim terrorists and "the countries that harbor them." But we have no way of knowing for sure.

We can, however, say one thing with certainty: that the official story---according to which there was no wreckage at the site because the plane, headed down at 580 miles per hour, buried itself completely in the ground, although a red headband (like those allegedly worn by the hijackers) and the passport of the al-Qaeda pilot were found on the ground---is not true. For one thing, that description of the plane's descent does not fit what any of the eyewitnesses reported. Also, different eyewitnesses of an airliner flying over the area reported it as going in two different directions, and then two crash sites were cordoned off. From the evidence, therefore, it's very hard to figure out much beyond the fact that the official story is a lie (NPHR Ch. 3).


Q: In your book, "9/11 Contradictions", you accept a purported phone call from the aircraft to a fixed line as a fact (pp. 116-7). Why, then, do you reject the veracity and existence of the other phone calls, allegedly made from other aircraft?

DRG: Actually, you misunderstood. I did not accept the purported call from Tom Burnett as a fact. What I accepted is that Deena Burnett "received a phone call that she believed to be from" her husband, Tom Burnett. The passage to which you refer is from Chapter 12 of "9/11 Contradictions." If you look at Chapter 17, you'll see that I used the calls received by Deena Burnett as a central part of the evidence that the calls were faked. Here's why: She reported that she was certain that the calls were from Tom, because she had recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID. But when the FBI changed its story to get rid of all claims about high-altitude cell phone calls, it said that the calls from Tom Burnett were made on an onboard phone (even though the FBI report written on 9/11 had cited Deena's assertion that Tom had used his cell phone to make the calls). If one accepts this new FBI report (which was presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006), how does one explain the fact that Deena reported seeing his cell phone number on her caller ID? Surely, given the fact that she reported this to the FBI that very day, we cannot assume that she was mistaken. And surely we cannot accuse her of lying. But an explanation becomes possible once we become aware of technology that can fake people's phone numbers as well as their voices. The conclusion that these calls were faked is also supported by internal problems in the statements purportedly made by Tom Burnett.

Once we realize that the cell phone calls were faked, moreover, we must assume that calls reportedly made using onboard phones were also faked: If hijackers really surprised everyone by taking over the planes, why would have people been ready to make fake cell phone calls reporting the existence of hijackers on the planes? (NPHR Chs. 3 & 6).


Al-Qaida and Atta

Q: Why would the FBI and the 9/11 Commission endorse a fallacious timeline regarding Atta's whereabouts and activities throughout 2001? They admit that they cannot explain his movements. They do not use this timeline to support the official history.

DRG: I explained above that the FBI did have a reason for giving a false account of Atta's movements on September 10 and 11: The story about two Flight 11 hijackers having driven a Nissan to Portland had become so well known that, when the FBI discovered that the Bukharis had not died on 9/11, it evidently felt that the best solution was to say that Atta had taken the Nissan to Portland. This revised account did become part of the official story.

With regard to the FBI's timeline for Atta in the early months of 2001, part of the motive for saying that he had left Venice, Florida, never to return, was evidently to cover up the fact that during March and April of 2001 he had lived with a stripper, Amanda Keller, which many people in Venice knew (especially the people who rented the apartment to them). Another motive, suggested by investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, is that Atta---who, according to Keller, took cocaine, which he would obtain from Huffman Aviation, where he was supposedly taking flight lessons (although Keller reported that he was already an expert pilot)---was perhaps involved in a drug-smuggling operation headquartered at Huffman. In these respects, therefore, the denial that Atta was in Venice in 2001 evidently did serve to support the official story.

In NPHR, incidentally, I reported still more evidence that the FBI timeline on Atta is false. Although this timeline claimed that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000, several credible individuals, including a Justice Department official, reported that Atta was in the country much earlier in 2000, as did the military intelligence operation known as Able Danger. It was clearly very important to the authorities to maintain otherwise, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon's inspector general went to great lengths to get Able Danger members to change their stories or, when they would not, to defame them (NPHR Ch. 6). But why it was so important, I do not know. Perhaps the FBI and Pentagon simply felt that, having strongly insisted that Atta did not arrive in the United States until June 3, 2000, they had to stick with it. But it may have also been motivated by the concern to keep his real activities during that period secret.


Q: If al-Qaida were not involved, how do you explain Project Bojinka as well as multiple warnings (by the foreign minister of Afghanistan, various agents, and the intelligence services of countries from Russia to Israel), all of them pointing the finger at Usama bin-Laden? How do you account for multiple intercepted communications that clearly point the finger at al-Qaida and bin-Laden?

DRG: I have never claimed that al-Qaeda was "not involved" at all. I claim only that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda operatives hijacked the planes. They appear to have been involved as paid assets to provide plausible people on whom to blame the "hijackings." The White House and the 9/11 Commission, for example, went to great lengths to cover up the fact that both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia funneled money to them (NPHR Chs. 6, 8).


Q: Everyone al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah mentioned in his testimony had died shortly thereafter. Why has Abu Zubaydah survived? How come he hasn't been liquidated as well?

DRG: I would not presume to know. And perhaps this is a good time to respond explicitly to your apparent assumption that, to challenge the official conspiracy theory, one must have an alternative theory of equal specificity, with answers to all the questions that could conceivably be raised about it. But this is not true. Let's say that you were accused by the authorities of murdering Bill Jones. You would assume that, to get the case dismissed, all you and your lawyer had to do was to prove that you could not possibly have killed Jones. But imagine that, after you had done so, the judge then declared: "Sorry, that's not good enough. You must also tell us who did kill Jones, how the murder was committed, and why." You would surely consider that unreasonable. By analogy, the 9/11 Truth Movement has provided abundant evidence that the 9/11 attacks could not have been carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists. We need not also specify exactly who did organize and carry out the attacks, all their motives, and why they handled each part of the operation and the cover-up as they did. So there is simply no need for us to try to explain why Zubaydah was not liquidated.


Q: The removal of Mahmoud Ahmad from office (as head of Pakistan's ISI) - ostensibly in order to silence him - could have actually provoked him to spill the beans and reveal what he knows. Alternatively, if he were being punished, at the behest of the CIA, for his collaboration with the 9/11 hijackers, this would seem to prove that the Bush Administration has not been complicit in the attacks.

DRG: I do not find it plausible that because Ahmad was removed, he would have been likely to spill the beans. People, especially long-time professionals like Ahmad, usually do not, out of spite, confess to participation in mass murder. And he was probably rewarded handsomely to resign quietly.


Government and Other Institutions

Q: Americans are prone to distrust their government and to attribute to it the worst motives, intentions, and conduct (consider, for instance, the conspiracy theories whirling around the Kennedy Assassination). Isn't the Truth Movement another instance of this brand of "anti-establishment" paranoia?

DRG: Like other a priori charges against the 9/11 Truth Movement, this one fails to fit the facts. If this characterization, according to which we joined the movement because we suspected the worst of the Bush administration (rather than because we became convinced by good evidence), were true, most of us would have started calling 9/11 an inside job the very first week. But if you look at the histories of most of the leading members of the movement, they joined much later. I myself first heard the inside-job theory near the end of 2002 and, when the advocate of this theory sent me what he considered good evidence, I did not find it convincing. It was not until I learned of Paul Thompson's "9/11 Timeline" in March 2003 that I started moving in that direction. To give two more examples, Steven Jones, our leading physicist, did not become involved until 2005, and Richard Gage, who started Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, until 2006.

Another consideration is that paranoid people are usually not very good at weighing evidence carefully. If you look at the writings of people such as Kevin Ryan (a chemist formerly employed at Underwriters Laboratories), Rob Balsamo (founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth), A. K. Dewdney (former columnist for Scientific American), Robert Bowman (former head of the "Star Wars" program), as well as Jones and Gage, you will see that they exemplify careful, empirical observations, not paranoid thinking. The claim that the leading members of the 9/11 Truth Movement are paranoid is a purely a priori charge, not supported by empirical observation.


Q: Previous false flag operations did not take place on American soil and involved a minimal number of casualties. Not so September 11. Why the change in MO? Wouldn't the mere destruction of the Twin Towers (at night, let's say and with explosives) been enough? Why the enormous - and easily avoidable - toll in lives (for instance, in the Pentagon)?

DRG: My answer to this would be much the same as my response to your second question under the WTC 7 (which actually dealt with the Twin Towers as well), namely, that the spectacle of the planes hitting the buildings and then the buildings collapsing (which would be replayed endlessly on television), along with the toll in lives, was surely considered essential to get the American people, and our representatives in Congress, fired up to give the administration carte blanche to do as it wanted.

With regard to your observation that no previous false-flag operation had taken place on American soil, that is true only because President Kennedy vetoed Operation Northwoods. The Pentagon's joint chiefs of staff all signed off on plans to kill American citizens in 1962 in order to have a pretext for a war to regain control of Cuba ("The New Pearl Harbor," Ch. 7).


Q: If not al-Qaida operatives, then who flew the planes? Who were the suicide pilots? Surely not Americans?

DRG: I doubt if anyone was flying the planes that struck the Twin Towers and whatever it was that hit the Pentagon. They were most likely all flown remotely. The evidence suggests that the Pentagon, besides having bombs go off inside, was struck by a missile or some small airplane (which could have been flown by remote control). And the planes that hit the Twin Towers might have been taken out of the pilots' control by means of a technological override. Or, more likely, drones may have been substituted for them when their transponders went off near the Air Force base at Rome, New York (hence exemplifying one of the scenarios suggested in Operation Northwoods). In any case, I do not assume that there were any American pilots who volunteered to commit suicide.


Q: If a missile hit the Pentagon, then where is or was flight 77?

DRG: I have never argued that a missile hit the Pentagon. I reported in my first book (The New Pearl Harbor) that Thierry Meyssan argued this case. But I also mentioned that his main point was that there is no good evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and some evidence that it was a missile or a small military plane. That still leaves, of course, your question: If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to it?

I never cease being amazed at how many people think that, unless those who deny that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon can answer this question, our claim is discredited. But that is simply the most prevalent example of the assumption that, to provide a convincing argument against the official theory, one must provide a fully detailed alternative theory---in this case explaining what happened to Flight 77. But that does not follow. There are many possible things that could have happened to it. It might, for example, have been the airliner that reportedly crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border; or it could have been taken to a US Air Force base. But apart from an investigation, there is no way for those of us not involved in the operation to know what really did happen to it. And there is no need for us to have an answer, just as you, to prove you didn't kill Bill Jones, would not have to be able to say who did it and how.

We do, I might add, have strong evidence that the government used deception to convince us that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. US Solicitor General Ted Olson---who had been instrumental in putting the Bush administration in power by successfully arguing that the US Supreme Court should stop the 2000 vote count in Florida---claimed on 9/11 that he had received two phone calls from his wife, TV commentator Barbara Olson, from Flight 77 shortly before the Pentagon was hit, during which she reported that the flight had been taken over by hijackers armed with knives and boxcutters. This was used as evidence that Flight 77 had been hijacked and that it had not crashed in the Mid-West. When the FBI presented its evidence about phone calls from the planes at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, however, it said this about Barbara Olson: She attempted one call, which was "unconnected," and hence lasted "O seconds." Accordingly, although the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, its report indicates that the story told by Ted Olson, the DOJ's former solicitor general, was untrue---which implies either that Olson lied or that he was duped. In either case, the claim that Barbara Olson gave information about Flight 77 was based on deception. And such deception is one more piece of evidence that the whole story about Flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon is false (NPHR Ch. 2).


Q. Can you please comment on the role of terrorist attacks in domestic politics in the US?

DRG: Clearly the 9/11 attacks played a major role in the elections of 2002 and 2004, helping the Republicans gain control of the Congress and the White House. This role was not, to be sure, sufficient to keep Bush and Cheney in the White House in 2004, as the Republicans also had to resort to distorting John Kerry's war record and also to stealing the election through various means, most clearly in Ohio (see Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again). But there seems to be little doubt that the use of 9/11 to scare people into voting for Republicans played a role (even if irrationally, because the 9/11 attacks, if not either orchestrated or deliberately allowed by the Bush administration, were allowed by its incompetence).

By 2006, the 9/11-based appeal to fear had little effect, and thus far it is still weaker in 2008. This fact has not, however, prevented the Republicans from trying to use it one more time to scare people into voting for them, as the addresses to the Republican convention by Bush, Giuliani, and McCain illustrated.

Many people in the 9/11 community, however, fear that another false-flag attack, perhaps this time employing a nuclear weapon, will come before the 2008 elections, whether to help McCain win or, more fatefully, as a pretext for Bush to declare martial law and cancel the elections, allowing him, by the power he gave to himself in Presidential Directive 51, to assume unilateral control of the federal government. I am not saying that I expect this to happen. But I do not consider the fear unrealistic.


Q. In the days prior to September 11, the volume of put options on the stocks of firms involved in the attacks (mainly airlines and companies whose headquarters were in the WTC) soared. Do we know who bought these options and was it a case of insider trading?

DRG: It does appear to have been a case of insider trading (as I reported in "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," citing the careful study by Allen Poteshman, who teaches finance at the University of Illinois).

But the 9/11 Commission, while assuring us that it was not a case of insider trading, refused to tell us who bought the extraordinary numbers of put options on these companies. In illustrating its purported evidence that all the purchases were innocent, it said that "[a] single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts." The Commission thereby employed circular logic. Beginning with the assumption that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda, with nobody else knowing about the plans, it argued that unless the put option purchasers were connected to al-Qaeda, the purchaser could not have had any inside information. But that argument begs the basic question at issue, which is precisely whether the attacks were planned by al-Qaeda, with no one else knowing about the plans (NPHR Ch. 5).

By not telling us who the investors were, the 9/11 Commission made it impossible for us to confirm its assurance that the purchases did not reflect insider information. We must simply take it on faith---which is difficult to do, given the dozens of lies of omission and distortion within the Commission's report ("The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions").


Sam, thanks for your questions, which have perhaps allowed me to reach a new audience with evidence that the official story about 9/11 is a lie. This evidence---only a small portion of which I have mentioned here---means that the policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 need to be reversed. This point is especially germane in the light of Barack Obama's argument that one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to "go after the people in Afghanistan who attacked us on 9/11." His position, which was stated repeatedly by speakers at the Democratic convention, is also reflected by the New York Times, which refers to the US attack on Iraq as a "war of choice" but the attack on Afghanistan as a "war of necessity," and by Time magazine, which has dubbed the latter "the right war." If we were not really attacked by Muslims on 9/11, these two wars were equally unjustified (as well as equally illegal under international law).



===================================

Author Bio

Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East.

He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, Global Politician, PopMatters, eBookWeb , and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He was the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Post by paul wright »

As far as the lead post, when I just happened to look at the numbers of lookers and lurkers about, there were 57 guests, which I think is fairly respectable
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

How long has this website got?

Post by Stephen »

Just thinking as this forum's traffic has slowed right down over the past 12 months or so. Do you think its days are numbered?
User avatar
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6347
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Disco_Destroyer »

OMGG what about how long has web freedom got?
There is Paranoia and there is Paranoia :roll:
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by Stephen »

I'm only asking the question?
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Post by Thermate911 »

Summer School? Hmm, perhaps a symposium under the aegis of the International Institute of Human Rights would be more appropriate right now?

http://www.iidh.org/accueil.php

Are there any practising lawyers on this forum amenable to putting a case forward on human rights grounds? After all, 1.5 billion Muslims have been demonised by the 9/11 hoax.

That's an interesting interview with DRG. Far from the implication of his being 'associated' with the Peoples/Popular Judean Front ;-), I would respectfully suggest that he is fully 'au fait' with ADL tactics and steers a careful course in his responses.
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by Stephen »

paul wright wrote:As far as the lead post, when I just happened to look at the numbers of lookers and lurkers about, there were 57 guests, which I think is fairly respectable
Paul thats not enough people IMO needs more mate.
Last edited by Stephen on Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by Stephen »

The problem with David Ray Giffin is that he talks about molten metal at WTC but this has been proven wrong. There wasnt any.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60
Last edited by Stephen on Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

How long has this website got?

Post by Stephen »

This forum is nearly dead.

Take the vote
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... highlight=
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Re: How long has this website got?

Post by Thermate911 »

Stephen wrote:This forum is nearly dead.

Take the vote
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... highlight=
I am vaguely curious about your motives here, Stephen, Something of a one track thread wherever you pop up. Yet you appear to have nothing substantive to say or contribute - just a subconcious wish that we may all disappear down a hole, never to be heard of again, perhaps? ;)

You might just as well stand outside city libraries with the same message on large placards - it wouldn't make one iota of difference to the vast collection of knowledge within...

See also:
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... highlight=
The problem with David Ray Giffin is that he talks about molten metal at WTC but this has been proven wrong. There wasnt any.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... ontent&tas k=view&id=91&Itemid=60
Shall we continue this in Critics Corner (for the umpteenth useless time, sigh!) , where we can pit body-builder CB_Brooklyn (aka 'Coffinman', who coyly conflates "“Zionism” (AKA Judaism)" *) against Stephen Jones, DRG, Kevin Barrett, William Rodriguez, Kevin Ryan et al?

* http://crashphysics.blogspot.com/
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Post by Thermate911 »

I'm only asking the question?
Unless you have a peerless crystal ball, you may as well ask how hi is a Chinaman.
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6347
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Disco_Destroyer »

Thermate911 wrote:
I'm only asking the question?
Unless you have a peerless crystal ball, you may as well ask how hi is a Chinaman.
Depends on the pottery technique? :roll:
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Re: How long has this website got?

Post by TonyGosling »

I think he's just depressed and spreading it around a bit.
Not really contributing anything.
Can't even post in the right section.
Again.

Snore....

Maybe he needs a rest.

:roll:
Thermate911 wrote:I am vaguely curious about your motives here, Stephen, Something of a one track thread wherever you pop up. Yet you appear to have nothing substantive to say or contribute
:roll:
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Post by Thermate911 »

Disco_Destroyer wrote: Depends on the pottery technique? :roll:
Ming? as in 'mingin'?

It's been nagging me that stephen tries the old denial trick about the WTC hotspots, so I just checked the source, USGS.

Yep, still there...

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-040 ... -0405.html
Tony Gosling wrote:Can't even post in the right section.
He hasn't shown up in CriticsCorner yet.

ps. Who edited the Poll title? LOL
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6347
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Disco_Destroyer »

Shouldn't joke Paranoia is not good for anyone to be suffering :(
Thing is how does one know from ones own mind?
I hope its not Stephen but it certainly comes accross that way at times :wink:
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

Well done, Stephen! Of course the site is dead! You can happily toddle off and find another! Hopefully, a really 'live' one.
On the other hand (as Chaim Bermont was wont to say), us 'zombies' will continue to pretend we're alive and kicking, and proving a useful resource for Truth Seekers, and an embarrassment and 'thorn in the side' of the 'Powers That Be'.
!A Luta Continua! ('The Struggle Continues!')
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by Stephen »

This forum is dead on its arse.
User avatar
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:05 pm

Post by acrobat74 »

In total there are 14 users online :: 0 Registered, 1 Hidden and 13 Guests

Most users ever online was 283 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:31 am
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
Post Reply