FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Site censorship?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MadgeB wrote:
John, you do sound uncannily like someone supporting the official 9/11 story arguing with a sceptic. "Oh, you conspiracy theorists are all the same, you just want to believe your little plots and there’s no reasoning with you. Never mind the evidence - there’s really nothing to see here. Move along please."

I suggest that watching this short vid will allow people to make up their own mind whether flamesong's statement bears any relation to the truth, amongst other things. (The link didn't seem to come out properly last time.) http://www.911researchers.com/node/428


Yes and we have a whole section for you to show those videos in, and you can, and I can make whatever comments I like

This thread is now going there

Do I sound like a critic?

Good: and that shows you how rigerously I debate when I continuously wipe the floor with critics in critics corner: and thats the standard of debate these "no planes" threads regularily fail to make: if that is invisible to you, it is entirely your responsibility to correct

If my arguments are brief, it is simply that the errors in NPT evidence are usually so basic that I am under no obligation to expend energy and time laying them out when it should be obvious to anyone with basic contemplative ability

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banish
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/B534B6F558E44FC7846E99E0 7E41E8DB/cnn-fake-footage-blasted-mor.aspx
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:45 pm    Post subject: Boinggggg...... Reply with quote

Banish, why are you posting a link to a video which has been posted umpteen times already?

Anybody remember The Gong Show?

I mean, that last section, 'Dustbin' is hardly used.

Get my drift?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not the right answer.

The correct answer is you are a spammer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm - more abusive posts here - not that surprising really.

But to answer the original question, there is no such censorship or checking of users.

The amount of spammer accounts we get per day (10-20 per day in the last week) means it can be difficult to find genuine posters - especially when they use short or anonymous handles and supply no further details.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I get when someone signs up:

==================
Hello,

The account owned by "Dark_" has been deactivated or newly created, you should check the details of this user (if required) and activate it using the following link:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=activate&u=2628&act _key=07155c8d2

Verify the account profile here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2628

Member details:

E-mail: Dark_@biofreemail.com [OK]
Interests:
Occupation:
Website:
Signature:
IP Address: 58.65.239.218 [58.65.239.218]

--
Thanks, The British 9/11 Truth Campaign
==============


biofreemail is a likely spammer domain - but it could be genuine. This is the "privilege" of moderation - filtering the action of what could well be "spambots" for all I know.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
david carmichael
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian neal wrote:
Not aware of that. No censorship on the grounds a user being linked to 9/11 researchers or any other 9/11 group. Fred would be welcome. Suggest he contacts Andrew Johnson or JHR re log on problems


...well, good for you Ian...

...your own moderator, John White, has further raised the bar on what could be subject to censorship AS EVIDENCED BY his conduct on the thread titled :

Analysis of "CNN Footage Faked.. Part III"

"Physicians...heal thyselves" motif when it comes to censorship, correct?

John White????

Care to chime in on your conduct on that thread for the benefit of the people of White Pine County, Nevada and their County Commissioners who will be visiting this forum?

How about the folks from Weeks Island, Louisiana?

Desperate communities in desperate straits.

Based on this thread, I'd tell the people of those two communities THAT IAN NEAL is nothing like what you, Marky54, Fallious and others have proven yourselves to be on that thread...

....would you concur, mr 911UK forum moderator, John White??

Say it then--,maybeeeeeee, something like this...

"I, John White, moderator of the 911UK Forum...wish to distance my friend and Forum Administrator, Ian Neal...from the "intellectual dishonesty" that I displayed on the "CNN Fake footage thread.

I, John White, wish to welcome the people of White Pine County, Nevada and Weeks Island, Louisiana..... and to PLEASE ASK you all not to judge Ian Neal by the conduct of me as his moderator"

How's that sound, John White?

Unless, of course...you're all proud of the conduct you engaged in... Then we can work up a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT statement where you LINK Ian Neal's ethics...

...to what you tried to pull off in that thread?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banish
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I make one errant post and I'm a spammer. I wonder how many of FS's 1k plus posts contain information and how many are attacks on other members or pointless drivel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banish wrote:
I make one errant post and I'm a spammer. I wonder how many of FS's 1k plus posts contain information and how many are attacks on other members or pointless drivel.

Now there's a little job for you...

Don't forget to keep a tally on all the insults I dished out, eh!

I had actually been reconsidering whether or not I thought you were a spammer, seeing as most of the posts of that video weren't from you - but then you responded with:
Banish wrote:
What, are you the post police? * off *!

And blew it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:48 pm    Post subject: Right said Fred Reply with quote

No other video showing the same alignment as in the CNN footage of the second plane hit has been forthcoming, but apparently some people have suggested the shot might have been taken from the water.

Fred has obliged by giving us some footage taken from the water, which again shows the CNN images to be impossible.

http://www.911researchers.com/node/432#new

The footage of the second hit shown by CNN was faked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Right said Fred Reply with quote

MadgeB wrote:
No other video showing the same alignment as in the CNN footage of the second plane hit has been forthcoming, but apparently some people have suggested the shot might have been taken from the water.

Fred has obliged by giving us some footage taken from the water, which again shows the CNN images to be impossible.

http://www.911researchers.com/node/432#new

The footage of the second hit shown by CNN was faked.


Good grief. You people (apparently) will believe anything, but seem unable to contemplate anything that isnt accompanied by hacknied trance and an urgent need to keep everything moving, and base a point on an angle glimpsed for half a second. More so, there is an apparent mystical wonder at the fact that the apparent location of objects in relation to each other alters based on the point of perception. This is called perspective

If fred and the other amateur sleuths at "9/11 researchers" want to make a case, here is how they do it:

They take still images from video, indicate where and how on those images the CNN video gives the appearance of being faked by virtue of getting the buildings in the "wrong place" and show comparisons showing the "correct" view. Now there is something concrete a dialogue can be based on, and if it matters enough to get the "truth" out, I'm sure one of the "9/11 researchers" can make the effort

Then I'll be happy to pwn it for you

Until then, still laughing Laughing

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Right said Fred Reply with quote

John White wrote:
MadgeB wrote:
No other video showing the same alignment as in the CNN footage of the second plane hit has been forthcoming, but apparently some people have suggested the shot might have been taken from the water.

Fred has obliged by giving us some footage taken from the water, which again shows the CNN images to be impossible.

http://www.911researchers.com/node/432#new

The footage of the second hit shown by CNN was faked.


Good grief. You people (apparently) will believe anything, but seem unable to contemplate anything that isnt accompanied by hacknied trance and an urgent need to keep everything moving, and base a point on an angle glimpsed for half a second. More so, there is an apparent mystical wonder at the fact that the apparent location of objects in relation to each other alters based on the point of perception. This is called perspective

If fred and the other amateur sleuths at "9/11 researchers" want to make a case, here is how they do it:

They take still images from video, indicate where and how on those images the CNN video gives the appearance of being faked by virtue of getting the buildings in the "wrong place" and show comparisons showing the "correct" view. Now there is something concrete a dialogue can be based on, and if it matters enough to get the "truth" out, I'm sure one of the "9/11 researchers" can make the effort

Then I'll be happy to pwn it for you

Until then, still laughing Laughing


For some strange reason, your post reminded me of the TOS Star Trek episode where they visited a planet that someone had left a cheap gangster novel on some years previously, and Kirk & Co. found the whole planet was like Chicago in the '30's.

Now you've gone and given them a rational method.
Hopefully that'll be safer than Tommy guns. Smile

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And it follows that if they can't find a single image to compare and deomonstrate the CNN video to be "fake", then there isn't a single frame in the video that shows there case: QED case closed, theory dismissed

chek wrote:
Now you've gone and given them a rational method.
Hopefully that'll be safer than Tommy guns


You've got a point chek. Lets hope they can handle it

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:


At this point, its clear that Fred is either unable to work out how to activate his own account, or simply lying: which makes you either a gullable dupe, or a willing stooge

Beleive it or not, there is a collective experiance here that the 9/11 researchers crowd would do well to listen too, if they can get out from under the bulk of that obvious fraud Fetzer


You are obviously unaware of the importance of Fred's work. I suggest you check out these videos and then think again whether you might regret your chosen words.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/B534B6F558E44FC7846E99E0 7E41E8DB/cnn-fake-footage-blasted-mor.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/E1891BA2CEBD423686A30D85 BD6C7271/hoax-if-by-land-hoax-if-by-se.aspx


And by the way, why is Fetzer a fraud?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its up to "fred" to impress, not for me to be impressed. I give my honest opinion, I owe 9/11 truth no less

Quote:
again whether you might regret your chosen words.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/B534B6F558E44FC7846E99E0 7E41E8DB/cnn-fake-footage-blasted-mor.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/E1891BA2CEBD423686A30D85 BD6C7271/hoax-if-by-land-hoax-if-by-se.aspx


Je reget nein. Seen the first one, addle headed, second already linked by madge b, pay attention, unlike popeye, opinion already given: deluded

Quote:
And by the way, why is Fetzer a fraud?


Well cheifly I'd say the way he stabbed 9/11 truth in the back by splitting ST9/11 over wood's beam weapon quackery as soon as the dems got into congress on the back of the anti-republican sentiment 9/11 truth was partially responsible for generating. There were serious warnings about Fetzer coming out of the JFK research community beforehand. Should have listened to them (speaking personally, I don't like to be wrong about someone: who does? But I didnt see Fetzer for what he was till it was too late. Not that it would have made a difference). Anyway, carry on trusting him if you want. I won't

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World


Last edited by John White on Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:41 pm    Post subject: We got stills, we got overlays Reply with quote

I'm afraid you're not paying attention check and John. There are plenty of stills about at the sites already linked to, and there are frames nicely put on top of one another in the videos (overlays) to show buildings lined up, with the same perspective, but then not fitting with other features in the CNN video.

If you find the music problematic you can go straight to 2.06 on this video - Peggy Carter deserves some credit too (see her earlier blogs).
http://conspicuousplot.blogspot.com/

You can't wiggle out of it - the damn thing is a fake. Why is that so surprising when it's coming from the same criminals who faked so many other aspects of the story?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In that case bring 'em over here and make your case: unlike you, I'm not running around the internet like a whipped dog "proving" things that, according to "fred" (or was it bsregistration?") we are all too thick to understand

Like perspective

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
Its up to "fred" to impress, not for me to be impressed. I give my honest opinion, I owe 9/11 truth no less

Quote:
And by the way, why is Fetzer a fraud?


Well cheifly I'd say the way he stabbed 9/11 truth in the back by splitting ST9/11 over wood's beam weapon quackery as soon as the dems got into congress on the back of the anti-republican sentiment 9/11 truth was partially responsible for generating. There were serious warnings about Fetzer coming out of the JFK research community beforehand. Should have listened to them (speaking personally, I don't like to be wrong about someone: who does? But I didnt see Fetzer for what he was till it was too late. Not that it would have made a difference). Anyway, carry on trusting him if you want. I won't


If you have really looked at Fred' videos and can see no evidence of animation, then I cannot help you.

Fetzer didn't stab 9/11 truth in the back. He refused to be browbeaten by Steven Jones's attempts to silence debate about DEWs. As Jones himself has first-hand experience of energy weapons from his time at Los Alamos - where he still holds a security pass - some of the more sceptical of us put two and two together, and began to smell something bad.. I'd say it was the comprehensive selling down the river of the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement. That it has succeeded can be judged by the fact that the most important research is relegated to a special thread away from the public gaze.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If you have really looked at Fred' videos and can see no evidence of animation, then I cannot help you.


Amazingly, there are many members here who feel exactly the same for reverse reasons

Quote:
Fetzer didn't stab 9/11 truth in the back. He refused to be browbeaten by Steven Jones's attempts to silence debate about DEWs.


Well spoken loyal follower. so your familiar with the opinion of Fetzer in the JFK community then? Goooo google Wink

Quote:
As Jones himself has first-hand experience of energy weapons from his time at Los Alamos


LOL!

Quote:
- where he still holds a security pass -


proof please...

Quote:
some of the more sceptical of us put two and two together,


Also known as "imagined" when concluded without evidence: evidence for tower destructing space beams i am of course, still waiting for... on the basis that wood can't even understand perspective (common fault, obviously) it really doesnt look good there

Quote:
and began to smell something bad..


I'd agree there was a noisome stench coming from ST9/11. But I wonder if by identifying with a "side" you lost objectiviety as to the cause?

Quote:
I'd say it was the comprehensive selling down the river of the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement. That it has succeeded can be judged by the fact that the most important research is relegated to a special thread away from the public gaze


How is this section less "public" than any other? You mean your assuning the public is too damn lazy to look down a page? Nice to know you think so little of others. In fact, (useful things), there are plenty of views in controversies. Subjects being in controversies simply reflects consistant polling that only a small minority finds the arguments compeling. Produce evidence for the "chosen truth" (that is so clear to you but not to the majority) that reaches people and convinces them and that will change. Really not sure "9/11 researchers" has the skill base though: and highly skeptical that beams and "no planes" is the truth. Many attempts have been made: all flawed, all pwned

I tell you what though, I can prove the 9/11 commision was a whitewash, clear prior knowledge on the part of the administration, protection of the patsies, stand-down of Norad, and physical impossibility that the plane impacts and subsequent blaze had the required energy to bring the towers down, how about that?

I'll weigh that against squinting at a blink-and-you'll-miss-it-its-only-there-if-you-believe-it "You Tube" effort any day as my chosen "weapon" to expose the truth of inside job and get us justice anyday

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:36 am    Post subject: Whitehall building Reply with quote

The Fred vid is conclusive, since the buildings can be - and are - lined up. It was alleged that "they can't find a single image to compare and demonstrate the CNN video to be fake" - this is false.

Now I do most humbly apologise for my lack of technical expertise, but I don’t know how to insert shots from a video into this post to make this as simple as possible for those who prefer not to look at the images they're criticising. I’ve tried to attach two screen shots putting the compared images side by side. But anyway I will gladly outline the scene I referred to earlier.

On the left we have a building which is overlaid with the image of the same building from the CNN footage. I would say that the edge of this building (the Whitehall building), is pretty much aligned, in that the size matches, the roof line matches up, the windows match, the ledge under the windows lines up, etc.

In my simple, layperson’s understanding of the word, I would say that the Whitehall building is here, in these two overlaid images, viewed from the same perspective.

The image is 2 clicks away at 2.06 on this video. http://conspicuousplot.blogspot.com/2007/04/911fake-footage-definitive -proof-for.html

The twin towers are vastly different in the two compared images however, and I would therefore say they were viewed from different perspectives.
The twin towers in the ‘underlaid’ shot are shown at 1.29 in the video. This is another proof that the CNN footage was faked.

But perhaps there is a different understanding of the word ‘perspective’ that someone could enlighten me with?



screenshots.doc
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  screenshots.doc
 Filesize:  1.11 MB
 Downloaded:  106 Time(s)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

if its conclusive proof there is no longer any need for you to waffle on here and try to presaude the rest is there?

it should be sent to the right people asking the right questions like cnn for example, good luck.

or is the only reason for all this just to presaude everyone and nothing comes of it even though its conclusive?

if not theres no point wasting time presuading everyone is there?

you've made your mind up why do you expect me to change mine all of a sudden showing the same stuff and going over it. all that matters is you think you have conclusive prove nothing i or others say makes any differance as we either dont see it or disagree, so your next step seems to be doing something about it if your so sure its conclusive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear. "No Planes Theorist" caught out manufacturing evidance again?

Here is the CNN shot




And here is fred/bsregistrations comparison image, wrongly labeled as live video when it is in fact a still, which this latest video claims shows a mis-match in the location of the damage



In fact, this is clearly photoshopped damage and fake smoke on a still photo taken sometime prior to 9/11.

Very very naughty!

Of course this also blows the whole trees argument right out of the water as well.... without even doing a perspective comparison to show that the edge of the council building is coming from another location: close, agreed, but not close enough

Blimey "believers" get desperate!

"I know fakery is true so I'm gonna fake stuff to prove it!"

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World


Last edited by John White on Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First up 9/11 controversies refers to the most contentious areas of 9/11 research which most divides opinion within the movement. Nothing more. Nothing less. So this includes Steven Jones thermite theories as well.

Second can I appeal to both sides that no matter how convinced you are of the truth of these issues to try not to polarise debate?

My take on this film analysis is that it is interesting research that deserves to be taken seriously and looked into in greater depth. The trees are less convincing since trees do indeed grow and it is 5 and half years since 9/11, but the discrepancy between the 'scaffolding' on top of the building in the CNN footage and its absence in the independent footage is hard to explain and certainly no harm will be done by putting some pertinent questions to CNN.

More generally my main concerns with certain voices within the 9/11 researchers community is how they communicate and relate to the wider 9/11 community. For example, my understanding is that Steven Jones did work at Los Alamos and the US military already have direct energy beam weapons in service. But it is one thing to ask Steven Jones to account for his associations with Los Alamos or to explore the hypothesis that DEW were used in 9/11 and another to chuck abuse and silly jibes like 'plane huggers' and 9/11 truthling at those that do not believe DEW or TV fakery or No plane theories are proven.

Thankfully in Andrew Watson and Andrew Johnson we have 2 voices who to the best of my knowledge have never gone down the route of abusing those that disagree with them, so thank you to you both.

andrewwatson wrote:
That it has succeeded can be judged by the fact that the most important research is relegated to a special thread away from the public gaze.


Whilst I acknowledge the work of 911 researchers is important and there are many long standing, influential campaigners involved, I see this work as on going research and the hypotheses (that no big boeings were involved and DEW and TV fakery were involved in the WTC collapses) as yet unproven. Grounds for suspicions, grounds for questions and further research certainly. Proven beyond reasonable doubt: no way, at least in my humble opinion.

Meanwhile we have a whole catelogue of proven facts and evidence from mainstream media sources that do not rely on exotic and specialist technology and which do prove (at least to my satisfaction) that the US authorities and mainstream media were and are complicit in the events of 9/11 and its cover-up.

Let us not confuse research with campaigning. Research explores the unknown and the edges of our knowledge. Campaigning (atleast effective campaigning) relies on presenting known facts and the most compelling and least contested evidence. Just because there is a gap between the 2 need not be a problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian neal wrote:
. Proven beyond reasonable doubt: .


Ahh - if only there could be an agreed definition of this. Are the laws of Physics reasonable or unreasonable? Certain things can be said as certain from that basis - and have been many times over.

Ultimately, this is why we should all be free to show the public what we wish to show them and not have other people ridiculing and debunking in an impolite fashion - this is what this all boils down to.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Different perspectives Reply with quote

I understand that Fred would like to reply directly to the considered comments of his critics, but is still unable to log in, having received an email that says, “Your account is currently inactive, the administrator of the board will need to activate it before you can log in. You will receive another email when this has occured.”

Argument sharpens up the thinking and clarifies the issues, so I think it would be a good thing if this debate was played out, with someone who is being accused of fakery being allowed to defend himself.

In the meanwhile, John White and chek, do I take your silence on the question of perspective as agreement, at least, that we all DO have the same understanding of the word, and that we’ve established that if a building (say the Whitehall Building) is lined up exactly in two images then it’s viewed from the same perspective?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dont ask me: ask Andrew Johnson: he only has to click a button

As for "fred" (who is also "bsregistration", correct?)

If he wants to come over here and explain why he found it nessacary to fake evidence, I'd book a circle ticket and a bag of popcorn

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Witchfinder General
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
ian neal wrote:
. Proven beyond reasonable doubt: .


Ahh - if only there could be an agreed definition of this. Are the laws of Physics reasonable or unreasonable? Certain things can be said as certain from that basis - and have been many times over.

Ultimately, this is why we should all be free to show the public what we wish to show them and not have other people ridiculing and debunking in an impolite fashion - this is what this all boils down to.



Yes John White is doing an awful lot of ridicule and slagging off of posters on this forum. This is surely unbecoming of a moderator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Witchfinder General wrote:

Yes John White is doing an awful lot of ridicule and slagging off of posters on this forum. This is surely unbecoming of a moderator.


Shut your trap about John, it's not going to get you anywhere. You've got far more important things to do, like explaining what Fred is doing FAKING evidence.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eh? one mintue its conclusive proof the next minute its fake/possible fake.

i aint seeing the case for it being faked by cnn or by fred, i never saw anything in it at all, take the extra piece on the building marked in red for example, just because its in one shot and not the other its assumed to be faked by cnn, yet i dont know and have not seen proof that the piece in question was'nt built after 9/11 etc.

its to complicated to know because things get built,grow and change all the time, im sure if you filmed in most places 5 years latter there would be changes. so unless your there(in new york) its hard to appreciate what is being talk about or to know certain things are strange.

i just hope who ever is trying to prove this is honest, because most of us dont live in newyork to beable to see the prespective our selves to know there is no way the cnn footage can be matched.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: The logic Reply with quote

So can we agree that this is a fair summary of where we are so far with the CNN footage argument?

- No images found so far, whether taken in order to test the CNN footage, or ‘tourist’ footage found on the internet, can be shown to tally with the perspective(s) of the CNN footage.

- The critics here can see what’s wrong with the attempted matches, but they can’t say where the camera should be to correct the shot.

- They can’t work it out scientifically, and unfortunately neither can they fly to New York to solve the problem for us for once and for all, so there is no hope of an ‘empirical’ solution at the moment.

- Therefore, we must rely on theory, bearing in mind that that the CNN footage itself can’t be questioned. Its authenticity must be taken as an article of faith - no evidence needed.

- Therefore it must be Fred who is the faker. This too must be taken as an article of faith - no evidence needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group