Moderator: Moderators
no we don't agree - you just edited what I wrote to make it appear that way.jfk wrote:good to see we agree that the height is a match.what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in
Here's a hypothesis: The first impact was captured on videotape and seen by a few eyewitnesses; the second impact was captured on many videotape and stills cameras and seen by many eyewitnesses. No proof has been put forward that all of the eyewinesses were lying, or that the majority of the videos and stills photographs are anything but genuine. The planes may not have been those designated as Flights 175 and 77.jfk wrote:good to see we agree that the height is a match.what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in
i don't.Why would you want to know who flew a graphic plane?
i want you to put forward a hypothesis that supports your view that 175 and 77 hit the towers, instead of just trying to debunk other people's work.
You really have to come to the realisation that the event did not only happen on TV. Once you can allow yourself to fully grasp that, then the rest should follow.jfk wrote:wow! so maybe you agree there was something to hide on tv?.
...and invariably those oh-so carefully chosen cherry-picked 'witnesses' turn out to be either in the wrong location or didn't look quickly enough to see a fast event .jfk wrote:also, there are many witness' that stated they DID NOT see a plane.
Plugging one's music compositions, on the back of the pain and tragedy that was 9/11, puts Shack beyond redemption.
Gracefully! This is Simon Shack writing to me, personally:"I will gracefully listen to anyone's objections and suggestions..."
Actually, he was wrong about who had written the debunking, it was not me but a friend of mine, Nick Irving, and that was made absolutely clear on the website where the work was published, but Shack has never been one for details. Here is another one of his "graceful" responses.Anthony Lawson? Is that your real name?
Let me tell you how grateful I am for the chokers I had tonight reading your 'debunking' of September Clues.
Thank you, man - thank you.
I do not have much time for you, but just to give you an idea of the belly laughs I've had tonight, here's the winner :
(Page 22 of your sad piece of horseshit) :
"The “ball out” is a piece of debris falling from one of the Towers. "
More likely, your eyeballs are falling out of the debris of your head and brain.
Just WHO are you dude? Am I supposed to think I'm writing to my own killer ? Are you CIA ? I don't give a damn, kid, just come and get me - I've lived enough, had a good life and am so eager to leave this rotten planet in resplendent martyrdom.
You know where I am, don't you? Come and get me, you cretin.
Warped regards
social (October 13th, 2007)
Anyone who admits to trusting Shack and his totally transparent video manipulations, over reasoned argument and what can be seen with one's own eyes, is either a fool or a member of a paid or volunteer disinformation group.Whoever you are, Mr Lawson, one thing is clear: you have failed to deliver to the people who financed you to denigrate September Clues. Your utter arrogance oozes and stinks of falsity. You are a jerk, all in all, evidently at the mercy of your own insignificance as a human being.
SIMON SHACK — 26 November, 2007
A comment on the most insignificant point of my post. Look at the rest of his video list: Shack makes music videos. Don't bother to answer this, I'll not be responding.jfk wrote:music video?
there is approx 50 secs of music on 7 min video!
not exactly mtv.
have you even watched it?
i think you should if you are going to issue judgement
Is that all you have got? The video was pretty much silent Anthony. Don't be embarrassing. Can you at least offer some intelligent opinion to 911 amateur part 2 ?Anthony Lawson wrote:Music videos
Plugging one's music compositions, on the back of the pain and tragedy that was 9/11, puts Shack beyond redemption.
He cannot even avoid lying when he puts up his CV, stating his age as 100. But these are the quotes I like best:
Shack, in a mild moment to his adoring and gullible public:Gracefully! This is Simon Shack writing to me, personally:"I will gracefully listen to anyone's objections and suggestions..."Actually, he was wrong about who had written the debunking, it was not me but a friend of mine, Nick Irving, and that was made absolutely clear on the website where the work was published, but Shack has never been one for details. Here is another one of his "graceful" responses.Anthony Lawson? Is that your real name?
Let me tell you how grateful I am for the chokers I had tonight reading your 'debunking' of September Clues.
Thank you, man - thank you.
I do not have much time for you, but just to give you an idea of the belly laughs I've had tonight, here's the winner :
(Page 22 of your sad piece of horseshit) :
"The “ball out” is a piece of debris falling from one of the Towers. "
More likely, your eyeballs are falling out of the debris of your head and brain.
Just WHO are you dude? Am I supposed to think I'm writing to my own killer ? Are you CIA ? I don't give a damn, kid, just come and get me - I've lived enough, had a good life and am so eager to leave this rotten planet in resplendent martyrdom.
You know where I am, don't you? Come and get me, you cretin.
Warped regards
social (October 13th, 2007)Anyone who admits to trusting Shack and his totally transparent video manipulations, over reasoned argument and what can be seen with one's own eyes, is either a fool or a member of a paid or volunteer disinformation group.Whoever you are, Mr Lawson, one thing is clear: you have failed to deliver to the people who financed you to denigrate September Clues. Your utter arrogance oozes and stinks of falsity. You are a jerk, all in all, evidently at the mercy of your own insignificance as a human being.
SIMON SHACK — 26 November, 2007
Which are you, jfk?
Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!jfk wrote:A.Lawson wrote (re.911 amateur pt 2)
andYes, it is garbage.i wonder if A.L supports anything but the official story"Loose Change". Frankly, I'm not a fan of those videos,
Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.chek wrote: Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
Thats not going to happen Anthony, if we were prepared to act like that we would just close controversies: theres nothing to fear in their opinions, and the community as a whole has made its opinion of these theories very clearAnthony Lawson wrote:Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.chek wrote: Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
That is a pity, because this forum is losing a lot of strength by being over tolerent with timewasters. Sometimes it is necessary to draw a line, and allow serious contributors to converse without the constant interruptions of those who have, quite obviously, nothing to contribute themselves.John White wrote:Thats not going to happen Anthony, if we were prepared to act like that we would just close controversies: theres nothing to fear in their opinions, and the community as a whole has made its opinion of these theories very clearAnthony Lawson wrote:Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.chek wrote: Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to be committed to discovering the truth about 911 without resorting to video evidence at all!
Imagine that!
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
But then we would become what the irrational accuse us of rather than the fair minded site we actually areAnthony Lawson wrote:What a pity
That is a pity, because this forum is losing a lot of strength by being over tolerent with timewasters. Sometimes it is necessary to draw a line, and allow serious contributors to converse without the constant interruptions of those who have, quite obviously, nothing to contribute themselves.John White wrote:Thats not going to happen Anthony, if we were prepared to act like that we would just close controversies: theres nothing to fear in their opinions, and the community as a whole has made its opinion of these theories very clearAnthony Lawson wrote: Chek: I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
a slightly authoratarian tone there mr lawsonAnthony Lawson wrote:They will scream "Free speech", but there are plenty of other places where they can blurt out their inanities; it’s time for this forum to weed out some of the timewasters.
please forgive me!Anthony Lawson wrote:I think that these two, jfk and sidlittle, are deliberately setting out to muddy the waters of the 9/11 truth movement. If they are not, their contributions are worthless, anyway, and I think that they should be banned.
Supporting blatant and proven lies can hardly be described as having your own views, and continually quoting the words and phrases of others, out of context, is far from being polite. But I bow to those who know best: let them continue with their disruptive prattle, which diverts attention away from what really matters.jfk wrote: please forgive me!
i realise now that i should not have my own views!
god forbid any polite debate on the subject
Hey, Chek: You forgot stretched. The aspect ratio is now 2:1 instead of 4:3 which helps the nose-cone look, no end. And what about his new buzz phrase: "Pixel Blast" what the hell is that?chek wrote:Smoothed (i.e. modified), computer "enhanced" (i.e. modified), repackaged, regurgitated and re-presented.
But the same old, same old tired video clip that's been in circulation since 2001.
And the same old clique still fooled by it.
Well spotted Anthony, that one had escaped me. I guess that makes Shack a pernicious and manipulative liar.Anthony Lawson wrote:Hey, Chek: You forgot stretched. The aspect ratio is now 2:1 instead of 4:3 which helps the nose-cone look, no end.
The sort of techno-sounding babble a pernicious and manipulative liar would use perhaps?Anthony Lawson wrote:And what about his new buzz phrase: "Pixel Blast" what the hell is that?
Somehow I don't think 'jfk' has what it takes to question orders from HQ.Anthony Lawson wrote:Get jfk to ask his hero why he hasn't analysed the videos shot from the other side of the South Tower. There are no fades to black on those, and you can see what has been identified as an engine fly out of the building.
Some graphic, that, with smoke trail and all! And it wasn't even a Fox video.
