Why "Truth Ministry" agents avoid substantive 9/11 discussions.

[Abe Linkman]

Whether you're a T.M. agent or sincere 9/11 researcher, the last two of these links are particularly strong and few bushco 9/11 CTers can muster the courage to even begin to try and rebut them -- at least not in any real substantive manner. See for yourself.


http://www.911inplanesite.com /

Recent Developments:

http://www.rense.com/general56/lied.htm
http://letsroll911.org /
http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer03.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm


THANKS "Blue Member" for providing these important links.

[MercutioATC]

1. I'll handle VonKleist's rantings...

1) He claims "There is no trace of recognizable wreckage from a Boeing 757...There is no fuselage, no tail section, there are no wheels, engines, wings, luggage or passenger seats, nor are there any bodies to be found."

Fuselage:



Wheels:



Engines:



Bodies:

U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tony Rose.
“I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry. To wonder why someone could do this. You can come after me. I'm a soldier. I have sworn to protect and defend, but that wasn't right,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/earlyshow/main521568.shtml

...not to mention the DNA recovered at the crash site...

2) He asks "Why is there no visible damage on either side of the hole where the wings would have struck?"

The ASCE report http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html
(written by people who were THERE, not just looking at pictures) tells us "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20)."

3) He states "On reviewing the first three pictures, one can easily see that only one of the buildings rings was penetrated."

Again, the ASCE report (remember, they were THERE) says "Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the building, the most severe damage was confined to a region that can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the trajectory of the aircraft in plan, with a base width at the aircraft entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft path of approximately 230 ft." More than the first ring was penetrated.

4) VonKleist says "Are we to believe that a plane with 8,600 gallons of fuel would not generate a fireball and enough heat to singe the pages of an open book only feet away? or to melt the plastic case of a monitor?"

Again, from the civil engineers who wrote the ASCE report, "The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a “fluid” consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments." Clearly, a significant portion of the fuel on AAL77 traveled through the Pentagon mixed with debris causing substantial damage before it ignited. It should also be noted that the picture in which the monitor can be seen is a post-collapse picture. Areas which were not subject to the intense heat of the fire were exposed by the collapse.

5) In his "From Deception to Revelation Part II" section at the bottom of the page, VonKleist displays five photos which "are self-explanatory and are irrefutable evidence that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was not caused by a Boeing 757, and in fact the story about the airliner is a complete fabrication." He goes on to talk about the size of the entry hole (which we've already established is not as he's presented it) and wire spools (the significance of which is unclear). However, his first section's conclusion reads "Please note that there are no accusations being made and there are no "theories" being proposed in this report."

VonKleist has obviously made the leap from "no theories being proposed" to "irrefutable evidence" based on an erroneous understanding of the size of the entry hole and the existance of some wire spools.

Was THAT the kind of rebuttal you were looking for?

[Abe Linkman]

3. You just posted from that same old biased Gov't report. No WTC stuff.

All you did was quote from a Gov't "report" that isn't objective or credible.

Obviously, you can't rebut what he says about the Pentagon events...and though most reasonable people would say that if the Gov't is lying about THAT, then they're probably lying about the rest of the 9/11 events.

However; in the interest of allowing you to redeem yourself, I'd like to invite you to try and rebut the arguments and conclusions Mr. Spencer makes about the WTC "attacks". And, do try to aim for something more than your usual minor detail. Which reminds me: The "Truth Ministry"
must use a lawyer to train student agents in how to argue, because all we get from them here is what you'd expect at a criminal trial -- a clever defense lawyer propounding an-often irrelevant little detail in hopes of influencing at least one juror to have enough doubt that s/he will vote "not guilty." That strategy works in a criminal defense case, but it doesn't work here, because at best, you will only influence ONE single DU reader, and that isn't enough to "win". You only need to convince ONE juror in a criminal trial, and you win your case, but not so here. You'll need to convince a lot more than just one person. And to do that, agents need an effective methodology for how to rebut an argument, not merely how to raise one irrelevant, minor detail and magnify it's importance out of all proportion to its worth as evidence of a theory.

[MercutioATC]

19. Blah, blah, blah. Give me the Spencer WTC "attacks". I'll rebut them.

What I did was show how VonKleist has no idea what he's talking about. Remember, I'm not even trying to convince YOU, I'm postng for the neophytes who will read these posts. I'll let them decide if a comprehensive report written by a group of civil engineers who actually visited the site and observed the damage first-hand is more reliable than a webpage authored by a man with no technical qualifications who's looked at some pictures.

Abe, I've always made you the same offer. If you have an arguement, state it. If I have facts that refute it, I'll let you know.

As far as your rant at the end of your post, I'll be kind and not even comment.

[tngledwebb]

55. Neophytes and many others

WILL surely be educated and informed by the 9/11 posts on DU, hope someone is saving them for posterity. Some of the arguments posted are airtight enough to hold up in a court of law, if we still have them after November elections. Some arguments are strikingly similar to junior high last minute term-paper gobbledygook. On occasion there is substantive debate. Factual analysis and photos present the most compelling evidence.

[RH]

28. I'll comment.

As usual Abe has got it all upside down and inside out.

I've sat as the Foreman of a Jury. Juries do not at all let people off charges because of irrelevant details. Jurors rather tend be imbued with sense of due responsibility whereby they put themselves in the position of the accused and any victim, not the prosecutor. Believe it or not they do actually tend to presume that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Juries therefore ask themselves above all else if there is sufficient evidence to prove a charge. It really is essentially as simple as that. Details are only considered to the extent that the detail confirms or refutes crucial evidence. Any such detail would not thus be irrelevent. Apart from the trial itself the thing mostly on the mind of a juror is when they're going to get home and back to work. You better believe it. Irrelevant details are the last thing they're going to want to be bothered with.

Besides which, what "irrelevant" detail? Because of what I wonder would we presently expect the supposed detail to be anything but irrelevant?

[DulceDecorum]

11. Say what you like

Everyone who watches the video is coming away appalled.
It is hitting harder than Farenheit 911.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

[MercutioATC]

18. I don't doubt the power of a well-made video.

I haven't seen it. What I have as an example is VonKleist's website. I'd hope that people that were "appalled" would actually research the issues and make an informed decision.

[DulceDecorum]

30. See the video BEFORE you write a review

I'd hope that people that attack
IN PLANE SIGHT
would actually research the issues and make an informed decision
by WATCHING THE VIDEO BEFORE THEY ATTACK IT.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. But you have to buy it to see it...

...which leads me back to the question: Why are you here advertising a DVD without paying DU for ad space, Dulce?

This video was put together by VonKleist, right? So when we look at VonKleist's writings and can see he's using old arguments long ago debunked, we can pretty much tell how ignorant the video is going to be. Unless you're saying that he discards all of his old arguments and has entirely new ones in the video?

[reorg]

36. no

you can just as well put together what von Kleist shows from other, publicly available sources.

What he does is cutting some of the more interesting parts together and showing them in slow motion, which you can do by yourself without using his video.

Saves you some time, of course, if you can use it. You could lend it from someone else, maybe, if you cannot afford the price? To tell you a secret: I didn't buy it myself, but was still able to watch it.

[tngledwebb]

51. The 9/11 Report costs money

You often reference it and other Govt reports so, by your logic, are you shilling?

[Bolo Boffin]

52. I downloaded the entire 9/11 report for free.

It'd be nice to have it in a book form, but the pdf file I'm using was teetotally free.

Dulce knocked us for slamming it before we saw it, but apparantly the bulk of the argument is found in VonKleist's writings, and since his writings are a bunch of hooey, I don't hold out any hope for the DVD. As I said, I'd be happy to watch a reviewer's copy and even send it right back after I'm done with it. For free, though.

[LARED]

53. No it doesn't

I downloaded a copy from the net the day it was released.

See here

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

[reorg]

33. hi, I just watched the video

What I found most impressive were the much clearer images of the pod phenomenon than those found at websites.

Even though one might wish to have even better pictures: given that these images are taken from publicly available DVDs issued by CNN etc., von Kleist can make a strong case that something was going on that could not have been orchestrated by a group of Arab students.

Not only is this phenomenon discernible from four different perspectives, when the plane is about halfway into the building, and both the engines and the phenomenon have just passed into the facade, there are three small distinct clouds clearly visible: one where each of the engines vanished, and a somewhat smaller one exactly behind where the pod phenomenon was located, under the fuselage, and slightly to the right.

I guess we will never get this explained by those who would not even watch these images ...

[Bolo Boffin]

34. I'll be happy to watch the video...

...if someone will send me a copy, for free. Call it a reviewer's copy and have VonKleist write it off on his taxes.

[MercutioATC]

41. Is there an online or free copy available?

Paying VonKleist just isn't going to happen. If the video is anything like his page, I'd have a really hard time financially supporting him.

[MrSammo1]

61. The tell?

Do you notice that Michael Moore slipped one past the censors? Did you see the scene of the collapsed portion of the Pentagon wall burning brightly...........on the night of 9/13/01?

[RH]

62. If you've got some kind of proof,

some kind of complaint or other testimony to show to the effect that any photo of the Pentagon at that time was ever censored, please do tell.

It would be the first that I have ever heard of it.

[demodewd]

14. re:evidence

If your evidence is "recognizable", why wasn't it examined and verified by some of your "experts" who would then report to the 9-11 Commission? Oh..I forgot...the guilt ,motive, and conclusive "evidence" had already been declared by the officials. Case closed. No need to resort to NORMAL investigative procedure.

[RH]

15. According to what exactly then

was any evidence not examined and reported?

May we please be allowed to examine whatever evidence you have to that effect. Do we get to see a case made out or are we simply supposed to accept your assertion of guilt, motive, and conclusion as already declared?

[MercutioATC]

17. What? That doesn't even make sense.

If you'd rephrase it in some format resembling a question, I'd be happy to answer.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. How much did you pay DU for this DVD advertisement, Abe?

Just wondering what the going rates were...

[Abe Linkman]

4. bolo: your interest in films is OFF TOPIC. Start another thread.

If you can't contribute to the topic, and simply must let us know about your strong interest in the entertainment business, start another thread somewhere.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Three of your links are plugging that 911 video, Abe.

Therefore, it's precisely the subject. You did know what you were linking to before you linked, correct?

[Abe Linkman]

7. bolo: Do you need to go to the bathroom?

Are you jumping up and down because you need to go to the bathroom, or because you're trying to avoid responding to a strong argument that conflicts with your stated support of "Osama & The Cavemen Did It" fairy tale?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. No. Are you earning a commission for plugging this video?

Just wondering...

[MercutioATC]

22. Bolo, Blue Member is the one who started posting this link.

As both he and VonKleist are from Missouri (about 70 miles from each other) I asked Blue Member if he WAS VonKleist. I didn't recieve an answer.

[RH]

6. Do you know how to count?

one, two three, four, that sort of thing?

Look at Leonard Spencer's Flight 11 page.

With the cheek to tallk about a cavalier attitude towards evidence he shows a FEMA diagram of the scar in the building, he says "The interesting thing here is that FEMA's rendition of the scar is much too small."

Count the severed columns in the FEMA version, one by one. How many?

Now count the severed columns in the photos. How many?

Now count the number in what he proposes as a "more accurate version".

:silly:

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Excellent, RH.

Spencer has deceived himself (and thus others) because he doesn't recognize how the FEMA drawing is relaying its information. It's a 2-D representation of the damage. The pieces are drawn flat in their proper place in the grid. Of course the "scar" looks smaller in the FEMA drawing - the damaged pieces aren't drawn in a 3-D representation! In the picture, you can see the pieces are bent back into the building, creating a larger-looking "scar".

It's a lot like looking at a Mercator map of the world and saying that the mapmakers think Greenland is as big as Africa.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demodewd]

35. FEMA makes hole 63% of actual size.

Spencer's point is that the FEMA grid covers only 23 of the 37 pillars for the alleged Flight 175 which is true. By shrinking the size of entry FEMA has deviously attempted to hide the fact that the hole is considerably larger than the craft itself which suggests shaped charges.

[reorg]

38. they even admit it themselves

in note (3) under the graph, that:

"There is not sufficient information to detail damage to column lines 408-411 at level 83-84"

While it may be true that it is not possible to render the perfect outline of the damage, from the photo and the videos it is perfectly clear that there IS damage, and Spencer's rendition shows where it is.

FEMA seem to neglect the damage in the aluminum facade and only mark obvious holes that cut through the steel columns, while Spencer also outlines (possibly) more superficial damage up unto the points where the wing tips entered/disintegrated.

In addition, while there is still some rubble to be seen in column lines 418-423 at level 79-80, it is clear from the photo that there is considerable damage as well, the facade at least is destroyed, and I, for one, cannot see any intact steel columns there. This is where the pod phenomenon would have made an impact, not? Strange that FEMA did not see this damage, ts, ts.

[RH]

43. So what is the argument about then?

A scar that is demonstrably too large?

By my reckoning there were 59 columns in each 208 foot face of the WTC, which gives a column spacing of 3.52 ft.

The B767 had a wingspan of 156 ft. (not 158 as claimed by Spencer)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/technical.html

That gives 44.25 columns for the full 156 ft. span.

But with a tilt equivalent to cover five floors of the building, i.e. 62 feet, the effective width would be 143 ft. (square root of 156^2-62^2) which gives a result of 40.6 columns.

Spencer's own diagram shows damage from column 110 to 152, i.e. 42 columns, but his other diagram shows a cross section of a B767 that stetches from column 108 to 152, i.e. 146 columns.

A scar that is demonstrably too large?

:shrug:

In the vertical direction columns appear to have snapped off as they bent back where the floors of the building resisted the momentum. The damage was also presumably spread as the fuselage exploded outwards on impact. What else would happen?

[reorg]

47. return to sender

there is no intelligible connection of message #43 to #38, the quotes must be from someone else.

[RH]

49. The quote

is Spencer's theme, supposedly the whole point of his diagrams.

I'd hoped that somebody could make some sense of it.

I am also bewildered.

[RH]

42. Really?

So at the WTC the hole was too big, so there must have been shaped charges, and at the Pentagon the hole was too small so there must have been shaped charges?

Have I got that right?

:shrug:

[demodewd]

37. I counted

Severed pillars FEMA version-30
Severed pillars photograph-45
What's your point?

[RH]

40. Rosarch test.

Eye of the beholder.

How about the completely severed columns, not just the superficial damage?

[demodewd]

44. 45 severed pillars

45 severed pillars...FEMA claims 30 because they reduced the size of the hole to eliminate embarrasing large gaps that can't be explained by the plane's dimensions and form and then placed their remake on the grid...thus only 30.

[RH]

45. In the FEMA diagram

I see columns severed from 112 to 144 inclusive.

That's 33 columns (notwithstanding the caveat of colmuns 111 to 115 being estimated) plus two shown bent plus two shown thin.

How do you get 30?

[demodewd]

46. 33

Stand corrected but 33 is not 45

[RH]

48. This photo shows

the columns from 111 on the right to 153 on the left, with 110 only just visible in the corner, which makes 45 columns altogether, yes?

Spencer's diagram shows damage extending up to 110 so I'll assume no damage beyond that.

I'm curious then to know how you get 44 columns completely severed. Two columns (152&153) on the left edge of the photo are clearly not severed and I'd say that the next eight columns are not completely cut. Columns 145 and 146 are bent back inside the building but not severed, exactly as shown by FEMA. Maybe you need to increase your screen brightness to see the difference.

[demodewd]

54. plane's entry

The plane's entry involved 45 columns.FEMA represents it as 33 columns,thus drastically diminishing the actual size of the hole.

[RH]

56. That was not the question.

I was wondering how you managed to come up with 45.

Spencer's version shows damage from column 110 to 151, possibly 152. That's not a total of 45, is it?

[LARED]

8. I'll address Spencer's seismic sophistry

Be back later.

[LARED]

23. Addressing Spencer's Seismic Sophistry

Is there any more evidence lying around that casts further light on the strange case of 'Flight 11'? I believe that there is. Although I've stressed the importance of the video and photographic record, there is at least one other major source of hard 9-11 evidence that is readily available to the public. I'm referring here to the work of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, whose seismic data and analyses have proved an invaluable repository of hard facts.

So far so good

The seismic reports have told us to within a fraction of a second the exact times at which the first two planes hit their targets and 'Flight 93' crashed in Pennsylvania.

Whoops, first misrepresentation. From the very first page of the link Spencer provide

Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s.

So it really was not fractions of a second it was an order of magnitude bigger – 1 or 2 seconds. One wonders if he even read the article.

They have informed us that the strike on the Pentagon caused no measurable seismic readings whatsoever. They show us that immediately before the collapse of each tower Manhattan was subjected to a massive seismic spike that had the magnitude and properties of a medium-sized underground nuclear explosion.

Interestingly enough there is no reference to “medium-sized underground nuclear explosion in the material he references. I wonder if there is some relationship between his use of this apparent speculation and his theory that missiles and bombs were used on the tower. Did Spencer make up the nuclear stiff or was there some other sourcing he chooses not to reveal?

Before taking a closer look at the diagrams, let's acquaint ourselves with a few basic facts. According to the official version of events the planes that hit the Twin Towers were both Boeing 767s that had left Boston Logan airport on scheduled flights to LA. Both planes had been airborne for around 45 minutes before they crashed so both planes would have been carrying roughly the same payload and the same amount of fuel. It has been calculated however that the first plane was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the north tower and the second plane at 590 mph (close to the top cruising speed of a 767) when it struck the south tower. It is reasonable to predict therefore that the second plane struck its target with considerably greater force than did the first plane — about 50% greater force according to one calculation I have seen.

Using the kinetic energy of the planes as the measure this is correct.

The seismic evidence however tells a different story. As already noted, the first plane generated an impact of magnitude ML=0.9 compared with a value ML=0.7 for the second plane. Despite the fact that it was travelling much more slowly than the second plane, the first plane nonetheless managed to cause an impact 30% greater in magnitude. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the relative amplitudes of the two collisions in the graphs above.

Of course it tells a different story. But first I question the statement that one is 30% bigger in magnitude. Looking the two images referenced by Spencer it is clear that the first is somewhat larger but I think the difference is more like 10 not 30 percent.





Getting back to the different story. Spencer fails to grasp a very fundamental issue. The seismic measurements are measuring the amount of energy transferred to the bedrock under the towers not the energy of the aircraft. These are two very different parameters. The WTC’s steel structure is tied to the bedrock. The energy transferred to the bedrock from the aircraft is dependant on many things;

1. How much of the impact was absorbed by the structure verses how much was absorbed by non-structural elements.

2. The position the jets hit the tower. The higher the larger the moment arm created at the foundation. If Spencer had bothered to look at the energy at the moment arm he would have discovered that the difference between the two towers goes from 50 to about 12 percent.

3. The direction and position the jets hit the towers. One hit nearly dead on center and on hit off center and at an angle.

In short without addressing how the energy of the jets impacting the towers is transferred to the foundation, Spencer is blowing huge clouds of smoke. It is patently obvious the only issue for Spencer is to puff up his pet CT theories.

Now it gets real interesting. His ignorance is in full display.

Look now at the duration of the two impacts as recorded on the seismic charts. It can be seen that while the impact of the second plane was two to three seconds in duration, that of the first plane lasted around ten seconds, which by all accounts is one mighty long impact. That's about as long as it took for each tower to collapse.

Both impacts took less than a second to occur. The duration seen in the above graph is the time it took for the towers to stop swaying from the impact. If you look real close you can see the frequency of the towers are about the same. A rough analogy is hitting a tuning fork. The initial impact starts the vibration, but it takes time for the energy to be fully dissipated. The time he is calling the impact is really the time it took for the towers to fully dissipate the energy of the impact.

The seismic records lend further credence to the notion that the north tower was hit, not by a Boeing 767, but by a sequence of powerful missiles and bombs. This explanation fully accounts for the unexpectedly high force of the impact and its remarkably long duration. The official account cannot explain these facts.

The above is pure unadulterated horse-pucky.

The most profoundly disturbing thing about all this stuff is just how straightforward it really is. 9-11 is an easy one. All the hard evidence, without exception, clearly and unequivocally supports the view that 9-11 was an inside job, from top to bottom.

Spoken like a true believer nut job.

[Robb]

25. Nice work.

Especially this part:

"3. The direction and position the jets hit the towers. One hit nearly dead on center and on hit off center and at an angle. "

Comparing a single component of a three-vector measurement is, well, silly. Although no sillier I suppose than anyone who interprets data they don't understand, posts it on the internet, and convinces people they know what they're talking about. :eyes:

...In case you didn't get it, I was talking about me a couple of years ago. ;)

[LARED]

57. One last try to get a CT'er to respond to my rebuttal

Any takers?

[demodewd]

58. a response

1. We are all CTers. You just support the unsubstantiated government CT.
2. I have no reason or expertise to agree or disagree with your statements.
3. It would be interesting to obtain the opinion of a seismologist.
4. I wouldn't doubt that some of Spencer's speculations are inaccurate but he does make some astute observations and should not be offhand entirely rebuked.
5. You often resort to tedious and annoying name calling and demeaning of anyone who offers a non-govenment CT explanation of 911.Maybe I could interpret this persistant annoyance as a reflection of your own uncertainties. This is often the case of people who respond and act in your manner.

[LARED]

59. A response

1. We are all CTers. You just support the unsubstantiated government CT.

Well, you a certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am not a CT'er. There is way to much tangible evidence establishing that the official story is largely factual. This are some issues that are not addressed adequately, but nothing indicates a conspiracy.

2. I have no reason or expertise to agree or disagree with your statements.

Can I assume that means you do not know if Mr. Spencer's theories are credible?

3. It would be interesting to obtain the opinion of a seismologist.

About which aspect. The length of the impact times? Do you really believe the impacts took 10 seconds. There is no evidence that is true. And if you did a little research you will find that comments have been made about the seismic spikes but knowledgeable people. You need to look for them.

4. I wouldn't doubt that some of Spencer's speculations are inaccurate but he does make some astute observations and should not be offhand entirely rebuked.

Please point out any astute observation by Mr. Spencer that indicate 9/11 was a conspiracy? I missed them.

5. You often resort to tedious and annoying name calling and demeaning of anyone who offers a non-govenment CT explanation of 911.

Name calling? Like disinfo agent? Like Bushco apologist? Like a PR flak? Names like that? Me making statement like that a rare. Please point out where I have named called any DU member. If you mean I call the people that create the idiotic web sites that pump out revisionist tripe 7-24 names. Yep. I'm guilty as charged. They are scum and need to be exposed.

Maybe I could interpret this persistant annoyance as a reflection of your own uncertainties. This is often the case of people who respond and act in your manner.

Not uncertain here. Sorry.

[MercutioATC]

60. Re: Name calling...

I'd actually like to thank demodewd for NOT namecalling. I hear a lot of it from other people (yes, like "PR flack", "bushco apologist" etc....."Truth Ministry" is my current favorite). Demodewd has kept the discussion more civil than that.

[Dancing_Dave]

9. I'm with you, Abe!

These arguments often get so fruitless that a lot of the best people who used to contribute cutting-edge research to this DU forum don't even bother to come here anymore.

I think we're moving into a new phase of the 911 truth movement, and there will be exiting developments in various places. The INN World Report will be watching developments connected to the anti-RNC events in New York City--some very interesting things may come to light! http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/

[DulceDecorum]

10. It is truly sad to think that a few DU members

have been permitted
to silence some of the finest investigators
of the most heinious crime in history.

Bush said "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom!"
and there are some here
who are doing EVERYTHING they can
to support his reign of secrecy and terror.

Luckily there is always indymedia
where one can really roast a troll
and baste him in his own juice.

In the meantime,
those of us who have chosen to remain
in opposition to the forces of darkness
shall do what we can to ensure that this forum remains alive.

[MercutioATC]

21. Who's been "silenced"?

...and by whom?

I see plenty of people here expressing all sorts of opinions. I haven't seen anybody punished for expressing their beliefs, no matter how "unique".

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

13. Exactly.

Fruitless. Nothing grows on infertile ground. You can't make a truth out of a risible lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Ditch Eastman did at least prove that.

[demodewd]

12. wow

Wow!!! The two Spencer articles are the best analysis that's come down the pike to date. :wow: :wow: :wow:

[LARED]

31. I addressed one part of Spencer's article.

The seismic data.

His analysis is well --- not substantive at all. In fact it is the same old baseless and willfully ignorant speculation dressed up in a nice sounding articulate article that is the MO for the better revisionists.

demodewd, care to respond to my post.

That is the challenge if I'm not mistaken.

[LARED]

39. Abe, why are you posting another article for the

so called Truth Ministers to debunk when you haven't addressed the debunking of the seismic data?

You asked for a serious rebuttal to the links you posted and then when you get one you just seemingly want to move on to other silly 9/11 CT web sites without responding.

If you are not going to engage is discourse (after you asked for it) what is the point of even posting the challenge.

[LARED]

50. CT'er avoid substantive 9/11 discussions.

Very strange indeed. The chief apologist for the government MIHOP asked for substantive 9/11 discussions and seems to be MIA when he gets what was asked for.

[MercutioATC]

63. Missing for 2 1/2 weeks, in fact.

I'm wondering what happened to Abe...

[LARED]

64. Yeah I noticed that myself.

I hope he's well.

[WoodrowFan]

65. maybe the meds took hold?? (NT)