Alex Jones' Prison Planet Starts a Forum [Archive]

View Full Version : Alex Jones' Prison Planet Starts a Forum

Foolmewunz

8th August 2007, 01:57 AM

DarkMagician

8th August 2007, 02:14 AM

Now we don't have to rely on Alex Jones's attachement to the place to show that the articles aren't worth crap. We can just point to the forum.

Thanks, Alex!

boloboffin

8th August 2007, 03:27 AM

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/MarkPost.png

That didn't take long.

qarnos

8th August 2007, 03:55 AM

Two forums about Ron Paul????:boggled:

Brainache

8th August 2007, 04:32 AM

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/MarkPost.png

That didn't take long.

Interesting definition of "mindless ad-hominem attack" he uses.

8den

8th August 2007, 05:13 AM

Wow the "ain't it cool news" forum, now has competition for the "sewer of the internet" title.

ref

8th August 2007, 05:21 AM

Latest registrations:

Ace Baker and 28th Kingdom. Oh the intelligence that is gathering there.

The Doc

8th August 2007, 05:23 AM

Haha Ref, I was just about to say that Ace Baker had found a new home :p

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 05:30 AM

That is too funny...

an Admin telling a MOD that they should Ban Mark...lol

TAM:)

Cl1mh4224rd

8th August 2007, 05:44 AM

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/MarkPost.png

That didn't take long.

Next someone should ask for clarification about that "84%" nonsense...

Drudgewire

8th August 2007, 05:48 AM

Interesting definition of "mindless ad-hominem attack" he uses.
And I love that they claim they're still interested in debate after saying he should be immediately banned.

So the debate will be between those who think 9/11 was an inside job, and those who REALLY REALLY think 9/11 was an inside job. :p

boloboffin

8th August 2007, 06:16 AM

That is too funny...

an Admin telling a MOD that they should Ban Mark...lol

TAM:)

They are asking for volunteers for moderators. I've got that screenshot, too.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/ModPP.png

"Clearly here to sabotage..."

There will be no sabotage like reminding Alex Jones of his own words!

MarkyX

8th August 2007, 06:20 AM

Didn't Alex Jones boasted about having millions of hits on his site daily? The forum is pretty dead.

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 06:32 AM

Well it is kinda new. Given AJ's cult following, it will likely become a popular place to talk twoof. Like LCF but with free bullhorns.

TAM;)

Unfit4Command

8th August 2007, 06:38 AM

We should all volunteer to be mods :)

Damn, Gravy got banned after his first post...is that a new record?

There's a topic JUST for chemtrails?! :jaw-dropp

volatile

8th August 2007, 06:39 AM

Do you think there are any genuinely concerned but ill-informed people who actually come to see how terrible the "Movement" is when they come across posts like this?

It seems that all these guys are doing now is preaching to the converted. Anyone who's just seen Loose Change and has developed a mild curiosity as to its themes would run a mile if they saw behaviour like this.

They're imploding. This movement won't last much longer...

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 06:47 AM

I agree...The movement is in its death throws, and will be all but a whimper when the DEMs winning in 2008 will seal the coffin.

TAM:)

Spins

8th August 2007, 06:48 AM

Didn't Alex Jones boasted about having millions of hits on his site daily? The forum is pretty dead.
Patients young grasshopper ... patients ... give it a few months, once word gets around, and that place will be overflowing to the rafters with some seriously concentrated woo!

:D

MarkyX

8th August 2007, 07:17 AM

Anyone who's just seen Loose Change and has developed a mild curiosity as to its themes would run a mile if they saw behaviour like this.

People are already running a mile away from these nuts. There is so many debunking sites nowadays that not only give you the correct information, but also show how the 9/11 deniers get their information (e.g. quote mining, cropping photos, or simply lying). When you say you tell the truth and find out that you have been manipulating "evidence" to get things your way, you tend to be viewed as very untrustworthy. Examples in Loose Change is Marcel Bernard, not showing the generator damage at the Pentagon, or quote mining the NYFD. Oh, and I guess having them on video/audio laughing at the victims or saying the NYFD are paid off doesn't really help them.

Going a bit off-topic, but I would suggest that when the 9/11 6th anniversary comes, we should start pimping the 9/11 Deniers Speak - Ground Zero edition, just to show the people out there how these folks "pay their respects" to the family members and the heroes of that day.

Hyperviolet

8th August 2007, 07:27 AM

Hahaha Gravy banned after 1 post!

quixotecoyote

8th August 2007, 07:33 AM

....

They're imploding. This movement won't last much longer...

No offense, but that's been said quite a few times over the last couple years.

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 07:36 AM

I believe, there were a couple of people here who actually got banned over at LCF before they made a single post...mod saw name registered, and banned them...cant remember who.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 07:37 AM

No offense, but that's been said quite a few times over the last couple years.

it is a slow, agonizing implosion...

TAM:)

volatile

8th August 2007, 07:40 AM

No offense, but that's been said quite a few times over the last couple years.

True enough. The core will still be doing this in twenty years' time. But it seems that general participation is waning, and boredom is setting in. On top of that, if they carry on like they are doing, banning all dissenters in public, then they will fail to win any new recruits to the cause. When LC was new and exciting, and before the camps had fissured into planers, no-planers, space beamers etc. etc. there was much to entice passers by; these days, they are doing all they can to drive curious onlookers away, screaming.

They are set up to fail.

Alareth

8th August 2007, 07:46 AM

I believe, there were a couple of people here who actually got banned over at LCF before they made a single post...mod saw name registered, and banned them...cant remember who.

TAM:)

I don't know about LCF, but it did happen to one of our posters in under 1 minute over at PFT. Now if I could just remember who. The details are in the old JDX megathread.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 07:52 AM

And I love that they claim they're still interested in debate after saying he should be immediately banned.

So the debate will be between those who think 9/11 was an inside job, and those who REALLY REALLY think 9/11 was an inside job. :p

do you think that ad hominem attacks belong in debates?

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 07:53 AM

We should all volunteer to be mods :)

Damn, Gravy got banned after his first post...is that a new record?

There's a topic JUST for chemtrails?! :jaw-dropp

hah that is funny, that you mention that, because this site has a topic JUST for talking about that sites forum. lol.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 07:55 AM

Patients young grasshopper ... patients ... give it a few months, once word gets around, and that place will be overflowing to the rafters with some seriously concentrated woo!

:D

uhm, where is the hospital?

Unfit4Command

8th August 2007, 07:59 AM

hah that is funny, that you mention that, because this site has a topic JUST for talking about that sites forum. lol.

This forum has a thread talking about just that forum, not a topic. Maybe I should have been more clear.:)

Viper Daimao

8th August 2007, 08:00 AM

hah that is funny, that you mention that, because this site has a topic JUST for talking about that sites forum. lol.

True. The difference being that that site's forum really exists.

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 08:09 AM

do you think that ad hominem attacks belong in debates?

What is it with truthers and misunderstanding of the nature of the ad hominem logical fallacy? I'm beginning to think that the formal definition of a conspiracy theorist should be "someone who doesn't know a personal attack from an ad hominem argument". Or maybe their ad hom from their elbow.

Do you think that demonstrating, with documentary proof, that your opponent has lied in a previous statement in a debate, does not belong in that debate?

Dave

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 08:12 AM

do you think that ad hominem attacks belong in debates?

Of course not, but if we left them out, crickets would make more noise than the truthers.

TAM:)

krítique

8th August 2007, 08:16 AM

do you think that ad hominem attacks belong in debates?No, but expressing concern over inconsistencies in the other person's argument and asking for clarification of their position does not constitute an ad hominem attack, and should be welcomed.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 08:22 AM

What is it with truthers and misunderstanding of the nature of the ad hominem logical fallacy? I'm beginning to think that the formal definition of a conspiracy theorist should be "someone who doesn't know a personal attack from an ad hominem argument". Or maybe their ad hom from their elbow.

Do you think that demonstrating, with documentary proof, that your opponent has lied in a previous statement in a debate, does not belong in that debate?

Dave

so now you have turned the question around and attempted to attack me for asking it? All I did was ask a question. for which you did not answer

As to answer your question, I believe it would depend on the context, but it is still an ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the person rather than the argument.

Kage

8th August 2007, 08:24 AM

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Am I niave, or did that first sentence in the membership agreement make anyone else think that they wont have too many posts?

Foolmewunz

8th August 2007, 08:26 AM

No, but expressing concern over inconsistencies in the other person's argument and asking for clarification of their position does not constitute an ad hominem attack, and should be welcomed.

Welcome, new guy....

It won't matter what you say to the new troofer. They keep coming back with this same misinterpretation of "ad hom" over and over. Normally I wouldn't say this because it's a guarantee the guy will show up, but we have a certain "William" person who uses it over and over, and has basically characterized almost any argument posted by a skeptic as an "ad hom attack".

All: As to the PPForum, I don't think they should be construed as a 911 site. AJ has his irons in a lot of different fires, and I predict that his forum may get rather huge. NWO, The Grove, Vaccinations, HIV, Genetically Improved Crops,.... You name it, they'll be on it.

SpaceMonkeyZero

8th August 2007, 08:27 AM

This ought to be interesting.....

Since he can't shout you down with a bullhorn, my vote is that he will go to bannings at the merest sign of any disagreement.

Anyone seriously enough into self-torture that you want to join?
paranoid rant begin
If you have a static IP address, I would suggest using an anonymous proxy. You never know when he'll play dirty and let your IP address become public knowledge... I hope you have a good firewall! :)
paranoid rant end
:D

Foolmewunz

8th August 2007, 08:30 AM

so now you have turned the question around and attempted to attack me for asking it? All I did was ask a question. for which you did not answer

As to answer your question, I believe it would depend on the context, but it is still an ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the person rather than the argument.

Please identify the ad hom attack you're speaking of. I see a lot of people citing known comments and activities. No one's yet said that Alex Jones is a fat head. I haven't seen anyone calling him stupid or retarded, yet. We haven't started speculating on what sort of medication he's on. In short - none of the stuff we're always willing to say about AJ,.... So please point out the ad hom attack that you're speaking of.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 08:31 AM

Welcome, new guy....

It won't matter what you say to the new troofer. They keep coming back with this same misinterpretation of "ad hom" over and over. Normally I wouldn't say this because it's a guarantee the guy will show up, but we have a certain "William" person who uses it over and over, and has basically characterized almost any argument posted by a skeptic as an "ad hom attack".

All: As to the PPForum, I don't think they should be construed as a 911 site. AJ has his irons in a lot of different fires, and I predict that his forum may get rather huge. NWO, The Grove, Vaccinations, HIV, Genetically Improved Crops,.... You name it, they'll be on it.

uhm, lets see what the definition of Ad Hominem attack is

Ad Hominem attack consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I think it is quite accurate, but I didn't make claim as to whether or not it is accurate, I asked a question, do they belong in debates. What is funny, instead of answering the simple question, you have tried to attack me.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 08:32 AM

Please identify the ad hom attack you're speaking of. I see a lot of people citing known comments and activities. No one's yet said that Alex Jones is a fat head. I haven't seen anyone calling him stupid or retarded, yet. We haven't started speculating on what sort of medication he's on. In short - none of the stuff we're always willing to say about AJ,.... So please point out the ad hom attack that you're speaking of.

I was not speaking of any attack in particular, I was simply asking a question. DO THEY BELONG IN DEBATES? if you read the thread again you will see the context in which I asked the question, it was brought up before I ever spoke.

The Doc

8th August 2007, 08:38 AM

What is it with truthers and misunderstanding of the nature of the ad hominem logical fallacy?

Exactly! I've been saying this for months now, and I'm glad someone else brought it up.

A truther would call this an ad hominem:
Alex Jones isn't a very respectable person in my opinion.

However, they fail to see that (although that may be considered a personal attack), it is not an ad hominem until it is more along the lines of:
In my opinion, Alex Jones isn't a very respectable person, therefore what he is saying must be false.

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 08:41 AM

so now you have turned the question around and attempted to attack me for asking it? All I did was ask a question. for which you did not answer

But that question wasn't relevant to the situation under discussion - demonstrating incompatibility between the statements of a debator concerning the subject under debate has nothing to do with the ad hominem fallacy. No, ad hominem is not a respectable debating technique, but there's a difference between saying "You can't trust my opponent's statements about 9/11 because he can be shown to have repeatedly lied about his previous statements on 9/11" and saying "You can't trust my opponent's statements on 9/11 because he falsified his tax return in 1978".

As to answer your question, I believe it would depend on the context, but it is still an ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the person rather than the argument.

You score a respectability point by actually answering. The point is, it is not an ad hominem argument to demonstrate that a statement made in the debate, by one's opponent, is a deliberate lie; it is a direct attack on the credibility of the argument.

Dave

The Doc

8th August 2007, 08:42 AM

I think it is quite accurate, but I didn't make claim as to whether or not it is accurate, I asked a question, do they belong in debates. What is funny, instead of answering the simple question, you have tried to attack me.

That definition is only valid if the person is being attacked in an effort to disprove their argument. Me calling Judy Wood a seedy nut job isn't an ad hominem, because I'm not using it to disprove her arguments. I'm simply making a comment about her. If I were to say that her arguments are incorrect based on the fact that she's a seedy nut job, well then yes. That is an ad hominem.

nicepants

8th August 2007, 08:44 AM

I was not speaking of any attack in particular, I was simply asking a question. DO THEY BELONG IN DEBATES? if you read the thread again you will see the context in which I asked the question, it was brought up before I ever spoke.

I would submit that ad-hom attacks do not belong in good debates. Having said that, I don't believe Gravy's OP contained such attacks. It may not be what the PP regulars wanted to hear, but it was the truth, and seemed civil.

CHF

8th August 2007, 08:47 AM

Foolmewunz

8th August 2007, 08:54 AM

Sorry, FatesWebb, but if you're really interested in a philosophical question, then go start a thread on the topic. You can put it in CT, but it more properly belongs in General Skepticism or Philosophy (or whatever that sub-forum is called). But in a thread on Prison Planet, their new forum, and Alex Jones by extension, why'd you even bring up the derail?

And I stand corrected by The Doc. The examples I gave would all just be our typically childish behaviour. To make them into ad homs, I'd have to have added, "No one's yet said that because AJ's a fathead, he has no credibility..." and/or similar extensions of the insults I mentioned. A mere insult is not an ad hom argument - it's an insult.

Judy Wood is ugly. Fact (and insult)
Judy Wood's math is wrong. Fact
Judy Wood is ugly so her math is wrong. Ad Hom

In short, statements one and two can be true, but do not necessarily lead to the accuracy of statement three.

procrastinate maybe

8th August 2007, 08:58 AM

Just what the twoof movement needs: another on-line Stalinist police state where dissenting posters are executed en mass.

Why oh why are twoofers so terrified of alternate views? Do they not think their solid evidence can stand up to scrutiny?

Troofers are usually the first to cry "censorship" when they are banned from messageboards for not following the rules. I regularly post on DU and many a Troofer has been banned for "Jooooos did it/Jooooos are evil111" (though not to say that all Troofers are anti-Semitic). Of course the Troofers ban opposing views from their own forums because they take dissent to their views personally, just like religious believers do when their views are questioned.

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 08:59 AM

Ad Hominem attack consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Would you say, then, that proving a claim is a lie does not constitute "producing evidence against the claim"?

Dave

The Doc

8th August 2007, 09:00 AM

Judy Wood is ugly. Fact (and insult)
Judy Wood's math is wrong. Fact
Judy Wood is ugly so her math is wrong. Ad Hom

In short, statements one and two can be true, but do not necessarily lead to the accuracy of statement three.

Nice analogy :) You could use that to demonstrate the post hoc fallacy too lol.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 09:04 AM

Would you say, then, that proving a claim is a lie does not constitute "producing evidence against the claim"?

Dave

Dave,

I would say that that would be considered addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim, therefore my answer for you is no.

I would submit that ad-hom attacks do not belong in good debates. Having said that, I don't believe Gravy's OP contained such attacks. It may not be what the PP regulars wanted to hear, but it was the truth, and seemed civil.

thanks technically you are the first person to actually answer my question directly.

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 09:06 AM

thanks technically you are the first person to actually answer my question directly.

Hey! I said it three minutes before he did! No fair!

Dave

Alferd_Packer

8th August 2007, 09:07 AM

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/MarkPost.png

That didn't take long.

No "biosolids!"

The "admin" over there has some real anger management issues.

:D

I'm gone.

(for now)

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 09:11 AM

Dave,

I would say that that would be considered addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim, therefore my answer for you is no.

So here we get back to the point. Here's the sequence of events.

(1) Alex Jones says "Just like you heard it: he claimed we blamed the firemen. We never said that. He just made it up."

(2) Mark Roberts replies with evidence that on a previous occasion Alex Jones published, on his website, the headline, "Update: People Died in WTC7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter".

Mark Roberts is demonstrating that Jones's claim in (1) was a lie (since he is presumed to be aware of the content of his own statements and therefore cannot be mistaken). How is this an ad hominem fallacy?

Dave

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 09:32 AM

RedIbis

8th August 2007, 09:33 AM

So here we get back to the point. Here's the sequence of events.

(1) Alex Jones says "Just like you heard it: he claimed we blamed the firemen. We never said that. He just made it up."

(2) Mark Roberts replies with evidence that on a previous occasion Alex Jones published, on his website, the headline, "Update: People Died in WTC7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter".

Mark Roberts is demonstrating that Jones's claim in (1) was a lie (since he is presumed to be aware of the content of his own statements and therefore cannot be mistaken). How is this an ad hominem fallacy?

Dave

I would agree that Mark's post on PP was not an ad hom attack. It was aggressive, sure, but it wasn't a personal attack. And Mark is making a good point that AJ accused the FDNY of exploding the WTC.

I wish they wouldn't ban him at PP or LC. I don't find Mark's arguments to be very solid. There is a heavy dependence on eyewitness statements and incomplete reports, such as the 9/11 CR and NIST. There is this insistence that he will destroy any opponent with an alternative view, but the gravy (the sauce, not the person) is a bit thin.

A lot of people on this forum appear to be obsessed by LC and PP. Perhaps, they are easier targets than say Jim Hoffman, Nafeez Ahmed, or Paul Thompson. If Mark has challenged or debated these guys, I haven't seen it.

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 09:40 AM

well yeah I can see that as being valid... I mean really what does the FDNY have to do with it anyways? Really.... that was a stupid thing to say.

I would agree that Mark's post on PP was not an ad hom attack. It was aggressive, sure, but it wasn't a personal attack. And Mark is making a good point that AJ accused the FDNY of exploding the WTC.

Having agreed that, does either of you find it cause for concern that Mark has been banned at PrisonPlanet for expressing a dissenting view? If Jones's theories are sound, wouldn't it make more sense to allow dissent for the purpose of proving them in open debate? Why do you think Jones behaves like this?

Dave

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 09:40 AM

All I can say is that seeing the Enterprise as one of the forum's backdrops makes me self-conscious about being a Trekkie. As if Rich Hoagland's Enterprise Mission wasn't bad enough :(

nicepants

8th August 2007, 09:42 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418946b9e400ed981.png

One of the mods over there kept claiming that by accusing the "FDNY", Alex was only accusing higher-ups, not firefighters. I was banned for pointing out that Firefighters are also members of the collective "FDNY".

Check my posts (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=35.30), no personal attacks, no foul language.

Chalk up another point for ignorance!

volatile

8th August 2007, 09:49 AM

"Now please can we all get back to educating people and fighting the New World Order rather than attacking Alex based on fuzzy logic derived from 4 year old articles?"

:D

RedIbis

8th August 2007, 09:54 AM

nicepants

8th August 2007, 09:57 AM

"Now please can we all get back to educating people and fighting the New World Order rather than attacking Alex based on fuzzy logic derived from 4 year old articles?"

:D

I love how Alex's direct contradictions are "Fuzzy Logic". Perhaps they're just referring to Alex's arms.

Revolutionary91

8th August 2007, 09:58 AM

I would agree that Mark's post on PP was not an ad hom attack. It was aggressive, sure, but it wasn't a personal attack. And Mark is making a good point that AJ accused the FDNY of exploding the WTC.

I wish they wouldn't ban him at PP or LC. I don't find Mark's arguments to be very solid. There is a heavy dependence on eyewitness statements and incomplete reports, such as the 9/11 CR and NIST. There is this insistence that he will destroy any opponent with an alternative view, but the gravy (the sauce, not the person) is a bit thin.

A lot of people on this forum appear to be obsessed by LC and PP. Perhaps, they are easier targets than say Jim Hoffman, Nafeez Ahmed, or Paul Thompson. If Mark has challenged or debated these guys, I haven't seen it.

Nail on the head. Debunkers pick the easiest targets.

For example, Popular Mechanics did a television debate with Dylan and Jason, who are just filmmakers. Yet they refuse to debate Griffin who has actually written a book on their work. They also refuse toi debate Kevin Ryan.

Spins

8th August 2007, 10:00 AM

There is a heavy dependence on eyewitness statements and incomplete reports, such as the 9/11 CR and NIST.
What, in your opinion, is wrong with the 9/11 Commission report and NIST's investigation into the collapse of the WTC? If they are just incomplete then why are the points they did cover not considered worthy?

I also find it bizarre how you don't think Mark's arguments are sound because of the sources he often uses but have the nerve to later mention Paul Thompson who relies heavily on mainstream media reports, including incorrect ones, in his terror timeline.

Revolutionary91

8th August 2007, 10:00 AM

If I had a forum I would ban Gravy. He is well known as someone who attacks people.

Dave Rogers

8th August 2007, 10:00 AM

Did you read where I said "I wish they wouldn't ban him (Mark) at PP or LC."

Yes, so can I infer that your answer to the first two questions is "yes"? What about the third?

Dave

Spins

8th August 2007, 10:01 AM

Nail on the head. Debunkers pick the easiest targets.

For example, Popular Mechanics did a television debate with Dylan and Jason, who are just filmmakers. Yet they refuse to debate Griffin who has actually written a book on their work. They also refuse toi debate Kevin Ryan.WRONG!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88469
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86934
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2725213

Revolutionary91

8th August 2007, 10:06 AM

Gravy at PP

I look forward to a fruitful participation in these forums.

ROFL

Alferd_Packer

8th August 2007, 10:08 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418946b9e400ed981.png

High Five!!!

"admin's" justification:

Yes I agree, the troll's shifting attack points and circular arguments characterize this as an obvious smear attempt.

I can see that forum having a short life. Toe the Party Line or Else!!!

Alferd_Packer

8th August 2007, 10:16 AM

OK, so who has been banned, so far?

Mark Roberts
Alfer_Packer
Nicepants

How about Brainster and par?

are they still in the mix, or has "itchy finger" AKA "admin" puuuulled the trigger on them as well?

Mince

8th August 2007, 10:18 AM

There's a war on for your mind.

Uh, no Alex, there is no war on for my mind. And if there was, you wouldn't be a participant.

Mince

8th August 2007, 10:21 AM

OK, so who has been banned, so far?

Mark Roberts
Alfer_Packer
Nicepants

Looks like the thread itself was banned. Tsk. Tsk. Mustn't disparage their heroes.

RedIbis

8th August 2007, 10:22 AM

Yes, so can I infer that your answer to the first two questions is "yes"? What about the third?

Dave

Why do I think Jones acts like this?

I have no idea. I'm not a member of his forums, don't listen to his radio show, and have never sent him a penny for anything. I have read a lot of info that is posted on his site. What is valuable are the links embedded in the article. Often I'll read an interesting story, find the original, and quote from that, bypassing any association with PP or AJ.

He's an entertaining extremist, but the biggest problem with AJ is not that he's sometimes off base. The real problem is that he's not offbase all the time. I'm sure this forum heartily disagrees, but his broadcast from 7/01 was damn spot on. If this crazy cable access conspiracy guy can finger OBL before the attacks, why didn't the US gov't?

Spins

8th August 2007, 10:26 AM

He's an entertaining extremist, but the biggest problem with AJ is not that he's sometimes off base. The real problem is that he's not offbase all the time. I'm sure this forum heartily disagrees, but his broadcast from 7/01 was damn spot on. If this crazy cable access conspiracy guy can finger OBL before the attacks, why didn't the US gov't?
They did, why don't you read the 9/11 commission report. There is a full chapter devoted to the intelligence gathered in the run up to 9/11 with regards to possible attacks and OBL etc. (Chapter 8 "The System Was Blinking Red")

Mince

8th August 2007, 10:28 AM

If this crazy cable access conspiracy guy can finger OBL before the attacks, why didn't the US gov't?

What do you mean by "finger"? OBL has been wanted by the U.S. Government since at least 1998 (two African bombings). But wanting and getting are, of course, different concepts. Other than that, why would you "finger" someone before they've committed the crime?

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 10:29 AM

Having agreed that, does either of you find it cause for concern that Mark has been banned at PrisonPlanet for expressing a dissenting view? If Jones's theories are sound, wouldn't it make more sense to allow dissent for the purpose of proving them in open debate? Why do you think Jones behaves like this?

Dave

wait, I happen to know for a fact that Alex doesn't post on forums, and actually is against it. so these forums are something that he had to have been talked into, and I guarantee that he is not moderating them, it is someone else that is trigger happy doing that...

as for Alex himself, he does sometimes say some stupid things, but it is his job to spread the word, he isn't perfect he is just a radio guy.... but just because he has been wrong before doesn't mean he is always wrong.

RedIbis

8th August 2007, 10:34 AM

They did, why don't you read the 9/11 commission report. There is a full chapter devoted to the intelligence gathered in the run up to 9/11 with regards to possible attacks and OBL etc.

I've read the Comission Report and it covers AQ in much greater depth than the actual day of 9/11.

The gov't excuse is that 9/11 succeeded because of a failure of imagination, that planes used as suicide weapons was unheard of. This has been proven false over and over again. Project Bojinka is just one of many examples.

I'm not saying that AJ was any kind of geopolitical prophet. The neo con playbook is not that hard to predict. He was just watching the plan unfold.

nicepants

8th August 2007, 10:40 AM

Nail on the head. Debunkers pick the easiest targets.

For example, Popular Mechanics did a television debate with Dylan and Jason, who are just filmmakers. Yet they refuse to debate Griffin who has actually written a book on their work. They also refuse toi debate Kevin Ryan.

Does refusing to debate make them wrong?

What about the fact that Kevin Ryan, and David Ray Griffin, have both refused to debate Gravy?

Mince

8th August 2007, 10:42 AM

do you think that ad hominem attacks belong in debates?....I was simply asking a question. .

Do you think the term "neo-con" is a pejorative term that constitutes a personal attack?

nicepants

8th August 2007, 10:43 AM

Back to the PP forum....guess who just showed up...PDOHERTY76!!!

He bashed Gravy for this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2024411&postcount=70)

I was debating whether or not to post a screencap of Pdoherty's call for the killing of swat teams (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1858&view=findpost&p=22840http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1858&view=findpost&p=22840)

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 10:44 AM

I can see that forum having a short life. Toe the Party Line or Else!!!

They want the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth!

Alareth

8th August 2007, 10:50 AM

I'm just waiting to see if Perry Logan makes and appearance there ...

Mince

8th August 2007, 11:02 AM

I'm just waiting to see if Perry Logan makes and appearance there ...

You'd better be super-vigilant because I guarantee both that he will make an appearance there and it will be amazingly brief.

Alferd_Packer

8th August 2007, 11:07 AM

Accept it or don't, either way, it was a lambasting post and it will not be tolerated here.

Understand it or not, don't do it. It takes away from real truth, namely mine!

LOL

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 11:09 AM

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=56.0

TRAITORS TO THE CONSTITUTION: Which group of traitors should get the most exposure?

Citizens that protect or follow orders from the international media conglomerates: GE, National Amusement, Disney, News Corporation, AOL

Gee, maybe I shouldn't buy Mary Poppins on DVD then.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 11:10 AM

Do you think the term "neo-con" is a pejorative term that constitutes a personal attack?

hmmm, well actually the term is in reference to a movement started by pnac, in which they believe the way to world peace is through war. the whole concept is outlined in this document.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Now I am not one to personally attack people, but then again I think this is a pretty crazy/imperialistic concept, and certainly is not in line with the concept of the USA, or at least the USA created by our forefathers, so I am almost inclined to answer with a yes. however since personal attacks are against my own better judgment, I will abstain from a direct answer.

jhunter1163

8th August 2007, 11:13 AM

FYI, it was JREF poster "Bell" who was banned at PFT before his first post. He was also banned from LCF before his first post. Posters "Coritani" and one other I don't remember now are tied for the fastest ban after an actual post, at three minutes. Something to shoot for anyway.

Jhunter1163, Custodian of JREF Banning Records

AZCat

8th August 2007, 11:16 AM

RedIbis

8th August 2007, 11:23 AM

Whoah, you're way off. Look up Leo Strauss. Neoconservatism predates PNAC by decades.

True. The concept starts with Strauss at the U of Chicago, where he taught disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz.

Par

8th August 2007, 11:24 AM

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 11:31 AM

Whoah, you're way off. Look up Leo Strauss. Neoconservatism predates PNAC by decades.

hmm, so the guy who made up the idea taught the guys who made pnac, so I was not WAY OFF, I was actually right on, but slightly incorrect.

FatesWebb

8th August 2007, 11:33 AM

I think you’ve linked the wrong paper. This one is a proposal to increase military technology spending.

nope that is the correct document, and if you read it... it is a lot more than that, it is an outline for war, including the one that we are in right now...

it states that we need to get saddam out of office, of course the document predates this war, even 9/11 even gwbush as president.

it also says we need to goto war with iran and china.

Spins

8th August 2007, 11:35 AM

AZCat

8th August 2007, 11:36 AM

hmm, so the guy who made up the idea taught the guys who made pnac, so I was not WAY OFF, I was actually right on, but slightly incorrect.

No. You took the PNAC document as the sum total of the neocon philosophy, when actually it is much more broad than that. This is why you should look up Strauss, so you can understand what neoconservatism is really about, rather than basing your understanding on an offshoot of the movement.

twinstead

8th August 2007, 11:37 AM

NO, NOT the PNAC AGAIN.

FatesWebb, do you think you are the only person on this forum who has read the PNAC?

BigAl

8th August 2007, 11:43 AM

Whoah, you're way off. Look up Leo Strauss. Neoconservatism predates PNAC by decades.

Their precursor was The Committee on the Present Danger which claimed that the USSR had weapons undreamed of by the CIA and used the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" about Soviet superweapons. Reagan, Teller and Perle were members. Perle has the distinction of twice seeing weapons that weren't there; USSR and Iraq.

http://www.fightingterror.org/ (official site)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Present_Danger

bsw2009

8th August 2007, 11:43 AM

I would agree that Mark's post on PP was not an ad hom attack. It was aggressive, sure, but it wasn't a personal attack. And Mark is making a good point that AJ accused the FDNY of exploding the WTC.

I wish they wouldn't ban him at PP or LC. I don't find Mark's arguments to be very solid. There is a heavy dependence on eyewitness statements and incomplete reports, such as the 9/11 CR and NIST. There is this insistence that he will destroy any opponent with an alternative view, but the gravy (the sauce, not the person) is a bit thin.

A lot of people on this forum appear to be obsessed by LC and PP. Perhaps, they are easier targets than say Jim Hoffman, Nafeez Ahmed, or Paul Thompson. If Mark has challenged or debated these guys, I haven't seen it.

I agree with the above post. My skepticism is with the 9/11 Commission report and the events surrounding 9/11. I personally respect the views of others here and elsewhere, no matter how misplaced I believe them to be. I think everyone is done a disservice when people are banned because their views happen to be different. If they (PP) wanted a fan club, I'm sure there are plenty of fanatics willing to join. Personally, I am not a fan of AJ, never have been. There is no room for his type of rhetoric anywhere. Is he a hypocrite? (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13110&hl=) Surely not.....

Arus808

8th August 2007, 11:55 AM

I agree with the above post. My skepticism is with the 9/11 Commission report and the events surrounding 9/11.

then you'll have no problem in listing what your problems with the report are.

I personally respect the views of others here and elsewhere, no matter how misplaced I believe them to be.
condescending aren't we?

I think everyone is done a disservice when people are banned because their views happen to be different.

But, that's what truthers do. WE aren't doing a disservice when ware point out the hypocrisy, and the lies of those who claim to be "for the truth", but once we offer an opposing view, they call "Personal ATTACK" and ban you for it.

If they (PP) wanted a fan club, I'm sure there are plenty of fanatics willing to join. Personally, I am not a fan of AJ, never have been. There is no room for his type of rhetoric anywhere. Is he a hypocrite? (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13110&hl=) Surely not.....

Oh he is a hypocrite. Just read the articles on Prisonplanet.com and Infowars.com

Spins

8th August 2007, 11:55 AM

nope that is the correct document, and if you read it... it is a lot more than that, it is an outline for war, including the one that we are in right now...Par was taking the [rule 8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss) so the jokes on you. ;)

Mince

8th August 2007, 12:00 PM

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=56.0

Gee, maybe I shouldn't buy Mary Poppins on DVD then.

I see you've met sane from Prison Planet's old haloscan message board. He is known to spend up to 15 hours a day posting links in mind-numbing bulk every few minutes. This is not hyperbole. If you've spent any appreciable amount of time on haloscan, certainly you know what I'm talking about. He once boasted that he could spend 70 consecutive hours posting. I believe him; and he probably did spend 70 consecutive hours posting. He is in equal parts inspirational and frightening. Although much of what he peddles is pure propaganda, if I were in a war, I'd certainly name him my minister of "information". I call him Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce). Although I don't think Joyce was this good or toiled for such long hours.

Mince

8th August 2007, 12:05 PM

NO, NOT the PNAC AGAIN.

FatesWebb, do you think you are the only person on this forum who has read the PNAC?

PNAC? You mean that document wherein the globalist elites inexplicably announced they were going to commit the 9/11 attacks well before they happened? I mean, that whole "New Pearl Harbor" was a direct reference to 9/11, right? Why do you think PNAC admitted to the world they were going to execute the 9/11 attacks?

In My Spare Time

8th August 2007, 12:11 PM

Deleted to avoid derail. Didn't realize I wasn't on the last page when I hit reply.

funk de fino

8th August 2007, 12:12 PM

it states that we need to get saddam out of office, of course the document predates this war, even 9/11 even gwbush as president.

it also says we need to goto war with iran and china.

your wrongness count is getting to the critical point now

DGM

8th August 2007, 12:23 PM

nope that is the correct document, and if you read it... it is a lot more than that, it is an outline for war, including the one that we are in right now...

it states that we need to get saddam out of office, of course the document predates this war, even 9/11 even gwbush as president.

it also says we need to goto war with iran and china.
Just out of curiosity, How many pages is the doc you read? The one we have has 90.

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 12:32 PM

Thread's gone.

Sabrina

8th August 2007, 12:35 PM

I've read the Comission Report and it covers AQ in much greater depth than the actual day of 9/11.

The gov't excuse is that 9/11 succeeded because of a failure of imagination, that planes used as suicide weapons was unheard of. This has been proven false over and over again. Project Bojinka is just one of many examples.

I'm not saying that AJ was any kind of geopolitical prophet. The neo con playbook is not that hard to predict. He was just watching the plan unfold.

Speaking as someone who actually WORKS in the intelligence community, you are pretty much dead wrong with your second statement, RedIbis.

Allow me to explain how intelligence is utilized, inasmuch as I can, within the community.

1. Intelligence is received.
2. Intelligence is evaluated for its usefulness.
3. Assuming it is determined useful, intelligence is drafted into various types of reports and sent up the chain to the proper personnel to determine what should be done, if anything, with it. Do you have ANY idea how many of these reports are generated PER DAY? I couldn't even begin to estimate it, and trust me when I say, most do NOT get to the President's Daily Brief.

In fact, it was a "failure of imagination" that led to 9/11. Prior to 9/11, the US government was not aware that terrorist acts are by their very nature almost unpredictable. Prior to 9/11, most actionable intelligence was always, ALWAYS evaluated with an eye to the PATTERNS. That word is important RedIbis; pay attention to it. Intel analysts would try to determine a pattern of attacks by evaluating the likely courses of action. That's another important word; "likely".

The events of 9/11 WERE in fact considered as possibilities, but were dismissed as "UNlikely" because they did not fit a pattern. Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda, as a general rule, targeted their targets with EXPLOSIVES. Not planes; explosives (see the Beirut, Kenya, and Tanzania embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and the failed attack on the WTC in 93 as examples). Hijackings, also, followed patterns; prior to 9/11, nearly every hijacking ever carried out was for political or monetary gain on the part of the hijackers. Suicide hijackers were thought unlikely at best. When Rice and Cheney said we had no idea this was possible, they were wrong, absolutely. What they were NOT wrong about was that it was hardly conceived of, because it wasn't considered LIKELY.

And as to the warnings we supposedly had; have you even read the ones that are available on the web? I have, and of the forty-sixty I've seen, MAYBE TWO mention the possibility of attacks WITHIN the US, and do not give any details of what shape those attacks may take. The rest either posit attacks on US interests OUTSIDE the US or do not mention attacks at all. The one that reached the PDB about Osama didn't mention the likelihood of attacks; it just said Osama was dangerous. To which I would've said, "Um, duh; now what can you tell me about what he's PLANNING?"

The long and the short of it is, RedIbis, we were arrogant SOBs who could hardly conceive of an attack on our own soil. The last time anyone had attacked us on our soil, we kicked their butts so thoroughly that we ended up establishing ourselves as the biggest badasses on the planet, at least in the eyes of most of the world at the time. After a while, we started believing the hype ourselves, and therefore didn't comprehend that terrorism is, by its very nature, the most unpredictable type of opposition we have ever faced and can be carried out by small groups of people with minimal technology at their disposal. We know it now, and we have made great strides in finding ways to prevent ourselves from facing an attack of that magnitude again, but we are NOT omniscient or omnipotent, and we cannot stop everything. On a daily basis, thousands of bits of intel float through the IC; do you seriously think we can spend that much time on ALL of them? If you do, no offense, but you would be incredibly naive. I don't see you as naive, so perhaps you could explain to me why you find it so hard to understand that the US government is not omniscient and cannot possibly plan for every eventuality that MIGHT happen.

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 12:35 PM

I see you've met sane from Prison Planet's old haloscan message board. He is known to spend up to 15 hours a day posting links in mind-numbing bulk every few minutes. This is not hyperbole. If you've spent any appreciable amount of time on haloscan, certainly you know what I'm talking about. He once boasted that he could spend 70 consecutive hours posting. I believe him; and he probably did spend 70 consecutive hours posting. He is in equal parts inspirational and frightening. Although much of what he peddles is pure propaganda, if I were in a war, I'd certainly name him my minister of "information". I call him Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce). Although I don't think Joyce was this good or toiled for such long hours.

:boggled: Gee, well. That certainly makes him special all right.

It's nice to meet another poster on the web whose personality doesn't match their screenname.

nicepants

8th August 2007, 12:41 PM

Gravy, just FYI, they have deleted the topic you created. Apparently it's "trolling" to point out anything Alex Jones does wrong, and it's against the forum rules to have any posts that in any way make Alex look bad.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418946ba0bcf9f7d3.png

Hey PrisonPlanet forum mods....sorry we all attempted to "ruin" your forum with facts!!!! Now that you've banned us and deleted the thread, your circle jerk of ignorance can continue undisturbed.

For anyone who missed the thread, the Jones-ites were trying to say that when AJ made claims about the "FDNY", he was not referring to any firefighters......kind of like when I talk about "The Atlantic Ocean".....of course I'm not referring to the wet parts.

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 12:46 PM

I'm still there, but I don't know if I wanna play with them anymore right now.

twinstead

8th August 2007, 12:51 PM

Nice precedent they are setting for that forum.

Sword_Of_Truth

8th August 2007, 01:20 PM

hmmm, well actually the term is in reference to a movement started by pnac, in which they believe the way to world peace is through war.

Since actions speak louder than words, we can infer that Fateswebb believes that ad hominem attacks are acceptable.

I also hear that PNAC members occasionally forget to floss when brushing and are responsible for organizing several country music awards shows. :p

Brainster

8th August 2007, 02:15 PM

Civilized Worm

8th August 2007, 02:29 PM

Ad hominems have no place in rational debates. Now would someone please tell Alex Jones?

What is it with truthers and misunderstanding of the nature of the ad hominem logical fallacy? I'm beginning to think that the formal definition of a conspiracy theorist should be "someone who doesn't know a personal attack from an ad hominem argument". Or maybe their ad hom from their elbow.

If they understood logical fallacies they probably wouldn't commit them all the time.

Nail on the head. Debunkers pick the easiest targets.

For example, Popular Mechanics did a television debate with Dylan and Jason, who are just filmmakers. Yet they refuse to debate Griffin who has actually written a book on their work. They also refuse toi debate Kevin Ryan.

So what is it that makes a water tester and a theologian/parapsycologist hard targets? Doesn't say very much for your movement does it?

Alferd_Packer

8th August 2007, 02:30 PM

So, Brainster, did you get banned yet?

qarnos

8th August 2007, 02:44 PM

A lot of people on this forum appear to be obsessed by LC and PP. Perhaps, they are easier targets than say Jim Hoffman, Nafeez Ahmed, or Paul Thompson. If Mark has challenged or debated these guys, I haven't seen it.

Nail on the head. Debunkers pick the easiest targets.

For example, Popular Mechanics did a television debate with Dylan and Jason, who are just filmmakers. Yet they refuse to debate Griffin who has actually written a book on their work. They also refuse toi debate Kevin Ryan.

We had a thread about this a while ago. The problem is that truthers jump up and down screaming "debate this guy! debate this guy!".

When someone eventually does, and destroys them, they turn around and accuse us of picking easy targets and trot out the next flavour of the month and start demanding another debate.

Additionally, someone was, IIRC, trying to set up a debate with Griffin, but he kept on pulling our for some reason or other (correct me if I'm wrong, guys - I'm going from memory, here).

But all this is a bit superfluous - science isn't done by debate. Someone once made the example of an imaginary debate between Newton and Einstein to "decide" which theory of gravity is the correct one.

The truther arguments can not stand up to the slightest amount of scientific scrutiny. How will a debate change that?

jhunter1163

8th August 2007, 04:38 PM

[loose end cleanup]

Poster "Mr.Herbert" shares the speed-banning record with poster "Coritani", three minutes from registration to banning. But, as we all know, records are made to be broken. Let's go get 'em!

[/loose end cleanup]

RedIbis

8th August 2007, 04:55 PM

But all this is a bit superfluous - science isn't done by debate. Someone once made the example of an imaginary debate between Newton and Einstein to "decide" which theory of gravity is the correct one.

I agree completely! An excellent debater could destroy an opponent even if the position is false.

Both DRG and Steven Jones are somewhat softspoken, mild mannered gentlemen. I imagine they have little interest in engaging what passes as discourse in this forum. I do see them and others calling for civil debate, not with a jref spokesman, but with the actual NIST scientists. This challenge remains unaddressed.

I have listened to several PM debates with Goyette and LC, and these editors flat out did not do well.

Arus808

8th August 2007, 04:57 PM

I have listened to several PM debates with Goyette and LC, and these editors flat out did not do well.

what? PM guys PUMMELED LC.

LC guys brought rhetoric and arguments from personal incredulity.

PM brought facts from over 200 scientists they interviewed.

Guess you watching and listening with one ear and one eye closed.

Revolutionary91

8th August 2007, 05:02 PM

I agree completely! An excellent debater could destroy an opponent even if the position is false.

Both DRG and Steven Jones are somewhat softspoken, mild mannered gentlemen. I imagine they have little interest in engaging what passes as discourse in this forum. I do see them and others calling for civil debate, not with a jref spokesman, but with the actual NIST scientists. This challenge remains unaddressed.

I have listened to several PM debates with Goyette and LC, and these editors flat out did not do well.

Heres a transcript of Popular Mechanics Davin Coburn against Goyette. Strangely enough, after this Coburn was pulled from all his other scheduled interviews LOL

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

PM: Very little... there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.

CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven't seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.

PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material...

CG: I've talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they're not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don't really show much of anything.

PM: They don't show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it's not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.

CG: Are you telling me that's the only video?

PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they're still being used for various investigations.

CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it's five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

PM: I think there's plenty of evidence out there...

CG: It's not the evidence we've seen that we're concerned about, it's the evidence we haven't seen. Does that make any sense?

PM: Oh sure it makes sense.... The evidence is abundant...

CG: It's the dog that didn't bark... We know the evidence we've seen, that doesn't cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don't see. It's not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

PM: "Hearst."

CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, "Oh shut up, you peons don't know what you're talking about, everything's fine, keep on moving, there's nothing to see here." Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn't it?

PM: (does not answer this question)

CG: ...I want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn't bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..

PM: It's not up to us...

CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don't know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We're told who did it, we've invaded two countries in response to it, we've spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

PM: How can I answer the question?

CG: Because you don't know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?

PM: (Cannot answer question)

CG: ...Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics...say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed... there was damage to Building 7.... What we found out was...about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it... Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower...

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true... I go, oh that's interesting...if that's true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.

PM: ...We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate....

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ....What did you see there that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ....I can't answer that question.

CG: I know you can't.

PM: (is speechless)....

...Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, "We're alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We're alive and well." How do you explain that one?

PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.

Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes...

Caller: What remains?

PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you're correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh...I mean, where the hell did they get it? You're not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don't.

PM: I'll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had...hijacked those planes. Good, I'd like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don't...

CG: You don't understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers' DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that's bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it's conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers...

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that's worth answering....

CG: ...You've told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You're the one with the answers, I'm not. I just ask questions.

PM: ...A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over....

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard about that?

PM: The way that you're framing it is intentionally...

CG: Of course it is, 'cause it's five years later and we haven't heard the answer. And you haven't given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that's it. You see, it's the way I'm framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that's it. Hey Davin, thanks...the Charles Goyette Show.

Civilized Worm

8th August 2007, 05:25 PM

An excellent example of how the right use of bravado can help you at least appear to win a debate.

Arus808

8th August 2007, 05:27 PM

that whole debate can be summed up simply:

it was like trying get a plumber to answer questions about heart surgery.

nearly all of the questions asked by CG was on things that PM editors didn't have knowledge of, or would bother to comment on because its out of their scope of expertise. PM isn't about discussing politics; PM isnt about discussing legal matters. So why is CG trying to ask these questions?

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 05:29 PM

nope that is the correct document, and if you read it... it is a lot more than that, it is an outline for war, including the one that we are in right now...

it states that we need to get saddam out of office, of course the document predates this war, even 9/11 even gwbush as president.

it also says we need to goto war with iran and china.

Well then, I guess you won't have any trouble providing the quotes that specifically state that the US should start wars with Iran and China and get Saddam out of office.

pomeroo

8th August 2007, 05:35 PM

Nail on the head. Debunkers pick the easiest targets.

For example, Popular Mechanics did a television debate with Dylan and Jason, who are just filmmakers. Yet they refuse to debate Griffin who has actually written a book on their work. They also refuse toi debate Kevin Ryan.

Uh, how can the PM team refuse to debate guys who refuse to debate?

Griffin doesn't do debates and Ryan hasn't stopped running since Mark accepted his bogus "challenge."

pomeroo

8th August 2007, 05:36 PM

hmmm, well actually the term is in reference to a movement started by pnac, in which they believe the way to world peace is through war. the whole concept is outlined in this document.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Now I am not one to personally attack people, but then again I think this is a pretty crazy/imperialistic concept, and certainly is not in line with the concept of the USA, or at least the USA created by our forefathers, so I am almost inclined to answer with a yes. however since personal attacks are against my own better judgment, I will abstain from a direct answer.

Look, you may be a kid, but such abysmal ignorance is shocking. If you have absolutely no idea what a neoconservative is--and trust me, you don't have a clue--do a little research before making a fool of yourself.

Brainster

8th August 2007, 05:37 PM

So, Brainster, did you get banned yet?

Not so far. I have mostly been doing the "just asking questions" routine. I asked one of the global admins if they believe that the FDNY brass was in on it, then did that mean Chief Peter Ganci? That thread of course has been deleted, but I have posted on another thread with no problems.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 05:40 PM

So why is CG trying to ask these questions?

Its easier to make someone look stupid when you blind slide them with something they haven't researched or have full information about than it is to make someone look stupid by asking them questions they do know the answers to. More or less its a psychological game than it is an intellectual game.

Par

8th August 2007, 05:57 PM

Look, you may be a kid, but such abysmal ignorance is shocking. If you have absolutely no idea what a neoconservative is--and trust me, you don't have a clue--do a little research before making a fool of yourself.

No, no, no. He’s got it figured out. Perhaps ironically, he is Neo and the Neocons are the Agent Smiths. I think Alex Jones might be Morpheus (just don’t tell Alex that whatever you do – Morpheus is black!)

Cl1mh4224rd

8th August 2007, 06:10 PM

If this crazy cable access conspiracy guy can finger OBL before the attacks, why didn't the US gov't?

Oh, come on! It's suspicious that the USG fingered OBL so soon after 9/11 and that 9/11 isn't on his Wanted poster, but it's also suspicious that they hadn't fingered him prior to the attack?

W...T...F...

And it's not at all surprising that some nutbag using spray-and-pray conspiracy-mongering would accidentally hit upon something on a rare occasion (not that AJ even came close). As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Cl1mh4224rd

8th August 2007, 06:15 PM

hmmm, well actually the term is in reference to a movement started by pnac. . .
hmm, so the guy who made up the idea taught the guys who made pnac, so I was not WAY OFF, I was actually right on, but slightly incorrect.

Do you consider geocentricism "slightly incorrect", too?

And how is one "right on" and "slightly incorrect"? Cognitive dissonance made manifest, apparently...

nicepants

8th August 2007, 10:51 PM

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard about that?

If they knew where the suspected hijackers had been living, it would not be difficult at all to gather DNA samples from their respective homes/apartments. Hair left in sinks/showers, etc, skin on sheets/pillows/clothing would be the logical place to start.

Hyperviolet

8th August 2007, 11:07 PM

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z257/ISYWM/ban1.jpg

I was being polite aswell!

Rahne Everson

8th August 2007, 11:17 PM

Christ, they've got 4 boards and 8 subforums for Ron Paul?!

beachnut

8th August 2007, 11:47 PM

uhm, lets see what the definition of Ad Hominem attack is

Ad Hominem attack consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I think it is quite accurate, but I didn't make claim as to whether or not it is accurate, I asked a question, do they belong in debates. What is funny, instead of answering the simple question, you have tried to attack me.Are you asking standard dumb truther questions?

If you had some facts or even tried to read about 9/11 you would not feel so incomplete and useless. You post why did the core of the WTC not stand. But you never studied how the WTC was built, and what the core and shell of the building did. Big mistake after 5 years to ask really dumb questions. The teacher was telling a lie when she said there are no dumb questions! 9/11 truth not only asks really dumb questions but they make up equally dumb ideas on 9/11.

Calm down, take a deep breath, get some facts, and try again.

beachnut

8th August 2007, 11:54 PM

If I had a forum I would ban Gravy. He is well known as someone who attacks people.
You have zero comprehension abilities reflected in that statement. Gravy is banned due to facts. The real dumb guy, Alex Jones, can not have any dissent. We are all lucking he is not in charge of anything important. Alex Jones would put those who speak against him, present facts, in jail if he had the power. Alex Jones would live up to everything he has made up about the government and others.

If you like Alex Jones and what he says, you must be as dumb as dirt; about like believing a loose change video.

Alex Jones's forum will ban the truth, like LCF, and p4tf. "no truth for you" as the "truth/censor NAZIs" show their true colors.

Rev91, join right in with the idiots for 9/11 truth, you have found your destiny.

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 12:04 AM

We should all volunteer to be mods :)

Maybe we should! I second that motion!!

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 12:41 AM

WTF?

"Expose Enemies of the Constitution" & "Promote Supporters of the Constitution" at the PPF? :confused:

Ooooo....k! That's messed up!

nicepants

17th October 2007, 10:41 AM

This ought to be interesting.....

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/

Since he can't shout you down with a bullhorn, my vote is that he will go to bannings at the merest sign of any disagreement.

Gold medal goes to "Foolmewunz" as he predicted correctly the actions of the board admins at prisonplanet.

Even the LCFers are ticked at them now! (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=17262) Apparently one of their moderators "sane" has gone over the edge a long time ago. Any posts which disagree with him are deleted and the posters are insta-banned. There is some level of debate over whether Alex approves, or is even aware of the way his forum is being run.

Jonnyclueless

17th October 2007, 10:45 AM

This is good for the Wooers. The more forums they have to repeat the same things over and over, the less they have to realize they are saying the same things over and over because they are spread over 100 different forums.

CHF

17th October 2007, 10:53 AM

Good to see that Prison Planet forum is living up to its name.

"Hey, he disagreed with me! Off with his head!"

And these idiots are "battling fascism."

Plantfoam

17th October 2007, 11:48 AM

Truther:
yes he banned me permantly
and as my IP is dynamic, i think he must have banned my entire ISP

because i disgreed with alex jones on peak oil. I don't believe in abiotic oil, period. I argued with facts, quotes, documents etc, and asked him to do the same and he just got upset and banned me.

lol duh, Everyone knows that oil is abiotic, silly pants! BAAAAZZZAAANNNED!!!eleventy!!!

StoneWT

17th October 2007, 08:16 PM

Wow, it looks like the 'sane' character is an already known truther from another forum.

We know who you really are sane. You can't continue to use the PPF as an outlet for your juvenile behavior. Losing your position and getting banned at other forums will not be allowed as an excuse to destroy the forum. You will be exposed when the time is right. :mad:

beijingyank

24th December 2008, 02:24 PM

Jones has done some nice things. He's made many people finally think about whom and what is going behind the curtain.\

The new scientific research coming out once and for all proves a sophisticated form of thermate was used. You don't buy this stuff at your local hardware store.

Still Alex loves to shoot himself in the foot. I never forget him referring to seeing Chinese in the airport and it reminding him of "cockroaches."

Then there was the time he said "China attacked Japan first."

And his barking like a snake oil salesman for gold is a little thick.

Alex can't spell. He can't use simple math. And his economic background and knowledge fills up a thimble.

He has great guests. At times when he is quiet, he has a good interview. How he is able to get Roberts on his show is a mystery. Most sane people run away from Alex in fear.

WildCat

24th December 2008, 02:44 PM

The new scientific research coming out once and for all proves a sophisticated form of thermate was used.
No, it doesn't. There is no such "scientific resarch".

Mince

24th December 2008, 02:55 PM

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Alex Jones is a fearmongering propagandist who's utterly brainwashed a relatively small group of sub-intellects. His oft erronious speculation, misinterpretive skills, and outright fraud, are legendary. Alex Jones profits greatly (and sadly) from the 9/11 tragedy. He is our generation's Lord Haw-Haw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw). Lord Haw-Haw was executed for his efforts. Alex Jones collects a paycheck for his.

And, as it's Christmas Eve, I'm being kind.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_117124952ae251d140.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14696)

Jonnyclueless

24th December 2008, 04:30 PM

Alex Jones has just made me realize how much like a religion his movement is. If people disagree, just shut them out and don't ask questions. Not that I think anyone is wrong for being religious, it's just a similar mindset. I asked many such friends if they would teach their kids every religion and let their kids decide. None of them would agree in showing all the information and would only limit them to the information they agreed with. Any information aside from that was viewed as dangerous and compared to teaching kids how to do drugs or shoot people, etc. Seems kinda the same thing with the truth movement. If you point out a contradiction in Jones or the Bible, they are seen as an attack rather than a question.

beijingyank

26th December 2008, 12:36 AM

No, it doesn't. There is no such "scientific research".

And Bernie Madoff is money manager of the year!

Fix the blinders you have on, they are on crooked.

dtugg

26th December 2008, 12:54 AM

Fix the blinders you have on, they are on crooked.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

Most ironic thing I've heard all day. Thanks! I had a great laugh at your expense!

kookbreaker

26th December 2008, 06:34 AM

The new scientific research coming out once and for all proves a sophisticated form of thermate was used. You don't buy this stuff at your local hardware store.

Another one who thinks iron microspheres are something to be impressed by. :rolleyes:

T.A.M.

26th December 2008, 06:50 AM

T.A.M.

26th December 2008, 06:51 AM

Blender Head

26th December 2008, 09:28 AM

How come a 1/2 ton of thermite could not cut a car in half?

PPAYZMzGMwQ&

beijingyank

26th December 2008, 09:28 AM

Thermate, C4, Nukes Prove
911 Was An Inside Job
edward19@cox.net
By Ed Ward, MD
1-15-8

Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes and 911 Was an Inside Job Is The Only Proven Theory that Complies with All of the Evidence in One Proven Theory.

To date, not one valid referenced fact has been established to refute a single proven fact in about 300 references presented in the article, let alone the primary evidence for micro nukes in the WTC.

1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us gov LIDAR proof:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

2. Five Acres of WTC Land Brought to Seering Temperatures in a Few Hours by an 'Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled "Fire" - Impossible by Basic Laws of Physics. See us gov Thermal Images proof:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us gov (DOE report) proof: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

4. An Impossible "Fire" (Combustion Process). See Laws of Physics for Fire/Combustion Process and Dr. Cahill's data on 'anaerobic incineration'. http://rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm

5. And More Proprietary Evidence

Ed Ward, MD - 911 Related Articles - Chronological:

Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Micro-Nukes at the WTC

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm General evidence for inside job and background of micro nukes

Update: Micro-Nukes at the WTC

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

Main micro nuke evidence presented in this article.

Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/04/16/ward.htm

Verifying the Source of WTC Tritium Levels that Are 55 Times "Background Levels" http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm

Prof. Jones Denies, Ignores, Misrepresents Proven

Tritium Levels 55 Times Normal Background Levels

http://www.rense.com/general77/levels.htm

Steven Jones Replies To Dr. Ed Ward

http://www.rense.com/general77/ward.htm

Prof Jones Gladly Assists Testing Unaffected WTC Items

http://www.rense. com/general77/profjh.htm

Vancouver Conference: Drs Deagle and Jones debate Micro Nukes (video) in the WTC http://www.911blogger.com/node/9590

Update: Factual Evaluation of the DOE WTC Tritium Report Data - 911 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Firehose Water - 4 Million Gallons of Dilution http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

Prof Jones Accepts Validity of Stable Isotopic

Testing For Neutron Activation of Fusion Reactions

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/142

Note: According to Dr. Deagle, he has been unable to find anyplace

in the world that will perform the needed tests on the WTC sample.

Hello!?! 48,000 Curies of Tritium Would Have to Have Burned to Leave the 3.53/2.83 nCi/L of WTC Tritium Residue

http://groups.yahoo. com/group/EdWard-MD/message/147

Note: This is based on evidence in which some of glass Tritium containers were not even melted by fire. All of the Tritium found was only in/on the unmelted glass. In any fire that can melt glass, ALL of tritium escapes into the atmosphere, unless water is poured over the source DURING the initial fire.)

Ed Ward, MD

Dear Ed,

I'm not too sure you can prove the use of C-4.

But watch out for the attack from the Chertoff Popular Mechanics groupies. Like Shakespeare wrote, "I think they protest too much."

Contaminated steel from a pure hydrogen Alpha wave nuke isn't too much of a health problem if you ship it off to China and India or use it to make the hull of the USS New York.

I remember your earlier work with the strange cancer cluster coming out of lower New York and within the rescue workers. Man alive, that tritium is dangerous stuff.

Of course there was that radiation spike coming out of the Israeli embassy on the East Side of New York. Nobody seems to be too upset about that.

Nobody seems to be upset or knows why Barry Jennings died either.

No big deal The truth will start to come out when the war criminals start going to The Hague. They will begin to sing like canaries for reduced sentences and then it will get interesting for all the people that thought they could get away with it.

Merry Christmas Dr. Ward.

twinstead

26th December 2008, 09:33 AM

LOL

kookbreaker

26th December 2008, 10:36 AM

Seriously, spraying junk science links like a squid sprays ink is not evidence.

Arus808

26th December 2008, 11:29 AM

notice how all those links are other propaganda sites? not one even remotely to a respected scientific or engineering journal?

twinstead

26th December 2008, 12:43 PM

That's 'cause respected scientific and engineering journals are controlled by the Man, dude. WAKE UP!

ETA: I love the scattergun debate technique. Just throw as much crap against the wall as you can and hope the hell SOMETHING actually sticks.

DavidJames

26th December 2008, 12:59 PM

ETA: I love the scattergun debate technique. I don't believe it's always a debate technique. I think many of them are simply mentally incapable of preparing and presenting a single argument.

Yes, there are some who know they don't have the details to present any one topic in depth and hope others are as intellectually weak as they are to notice.

T.A.M.

26th December 2008, 01:16 PM

Thermate, C4, Nukes Prove
911 Was An Inside Job
edward19@cox.net
By Ed Ward, MD
1-15-8

ok #1, I am ashamed to say that he is a mem ber of my profession, but every profession has kooks and believers in snake oil (a few of them even go into homeopathy and other such CRAP!!!).

Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes and 911 Was an Inside Job Is The Only Proven Theory that Complies with All of the Evidence in One Proven Theory.

To date, not one valid referenced fact has been established to refute a single proven fact in about 300 references presented in the article, let alone the primary evidence for micro nukes in the WTC.

1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us gov LIDAR proof:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

2. Five Acres of WTC Land Brought to Seering Temperatures in a Few Hours by an 'Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled "Fire" - Impossible by Basic Laws of Physics. See us gov Thermal Images proof:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us gov (DOE report) proof: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

4. An Impossible "Fire" (Combustion Process). See Laws of Physics for Fire/Combustion Process and Dr. Cahill's data on 'anaerobic incineration'. http://rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm

5. And More Proprietary Evidence

Ed Ward, MD - 911 Related Articles - Chronological:

Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Micro-Nukes at the WTC

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm General evidence for inside job and background of micro nukes

Update: Micro-Nukes at the WTC

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

Main micro nuke evidence presented in this article.

Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/04/16/ward.htm

Verifying the Source of WTC Tritium Levels that Are 55 Times "Background Levels" http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm

Prof. Jones Denies, Ignores, Misrepresents Proven

Tritium Levels 55 Times Normal Background Levels

http://www.rense.com/general77/levels.htm

Steven Jones Replies To Dr. Ed Ward

http://www.rense.com/general77/ward.htm

Prof Jones Gladly Assists Testing Unaffected WTC Items

http://www.rense. com/general77/profjh.htm

Vancouver Conference: Drs Deagle and Jones debate Micro Nukes (video) in the WTC http://www.911blogger.com/node/9590

Update: Factual Evaluation of the DOE WTC Tritium Report Data - 911 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Firehose Water - 4 Million Gallons of Dilution http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

Prof Jones Accepts Validity of Stable Isotopic

Testing For Neutron Activation of Fusion Reactions

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/142

Note: According to Dr. Deagle, he has been unable to find anyplace

in the world that will perform the needed tests on the WTC sample.

Hello!?! 48,000 Curies of Tritium Would Have to Have Burned to Leave the 3.53/2.83 nCi/L of WTC Tritium Residue

http://groups.yahoo. com/group/EdWard-MD/message/147

Note: This is based on evidence in which some of glass Tritium containers were not even melted by fire. All of the Tritium found was only in/on the unmelted glass. In any fire that can melt glass, ALL of tritium escapes into the atmosphere, unless water is poured over the source DURING the initial fire.)

Ed Ward, MD

Dear Ed,

I'm not too sure you can prove the use of C-4.

But watch out for the attack from the Chertoff Popular Mechanics groupies. Like Shakespeare wrote, "I think they protest too much."

Contaminated steel from a pure hydrogen Alpha wave nuke isn't too much of a health problem if you ship it off to China and India or use it to make the hull of the USS New York.

I remember your earlier work with the strange cancer cluster coming out of lower New York and within the rescue workers. Man alive, that tritium is dangerous stuff.

Of course there was that radiation spike coming out of the Israeli embassy on the East Side of New York. Nobody seems to be too upset about that.

Nobody seems to be upset or knows why Barry Jennings died either.

No big deal The truth will start to come out when the war criminals start going to The Hague. They will begin to sing like canaries for reduced sentences and then it will get interesting for all the people that thought they could get away with it.

Merry Christmas Dr. Ward.

I was going to tackle this, as it is from someone, a physician, who I would have thought would have better sense, but like I said in my earlier quote above, you get a few idiots in every med school class...he is OBVIOUSLY one of them. I have decided it is not worth my time. No this is not a duck, or "I can't reply", but merely truther fatigue. Like others have said, a shotgun approach here, and it is not going to get me to take the bait.

TAM:)

twinstead

26th December 2008, 01:40 PM

If he could present one or two of these points he obviously thinks are compelling alone instead of en masse, maybe he'd get a better response.

I'd like to know more about this "radiation spike" from the Israeli embassy, for example.

twinstead

26th December 2008, 01:43 PM

I don't believe it's always a debate technique. I think many of them are simply mentally incapable of preparing and presenting a single argument.

Yes, there are some who know they don't have the details to present any one topic in depth and hope others are as intellectually weak as they are to notice.

Basically I fear beijingyank has cut and pasted a world view, not an argument.

WildCat

26th December 2008, 02:40 PM

Bell

26th December 2008, 02:48 PM

When posting at the prison planet forums, does one need to write in all caps?

Eta: Damn, I tried to type this post in all caps, but the forum software doesn't let me.

dtugg

26th December 2008, 05:53 PM

Thermite, C4, AND mini-nukes? Wow! Why not just say it was also a giant laser from outer space?

Jonnyclueless

26th December 2008, 06:00 PM

When posting at the prison planet forums, does one need to write in all caps?

Kind of. It's like invasion of the body snatchers. If you speak intelligently you will be exposed and everyone will point and moan.

Grizzly Bear

26th December 2008, 06:06 PM

Good god, did I just miss the last trip to the land of OZ on that one?

When posting at the prison planet forums, does one need to write in all caps?
Don't the loudspeakers Alex Jones uses at his rallies hint at the reason for the CAPS LOCK LOL?

Bell

26th December 2008, 06:15 PM

Don't the loudspeakers Alex Jones uses at his rallies hint at the reason for the CAPS LOCK LOL?

Your mistake. That would be the bullyhorn.
Especially when used in front of the new WTC7.

Foolmewunz

27th December 2008, 02:26 AM

Dang, well Merry Christmas to me... bumping an old thread like this....

So back to the OP. In the year and a half (or nearly so) since they opened their forums has anyone been able to stomach the place, or able to mask their intelligence sufficiently to stay on board?

Any other stories from the front?

Rika

27th December 2008, 03:05 AM

I just saw the thread. Forum's down. Site isn't.