ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th January 2008, 01:26 PM   #121
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,729
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Someone posted links to his shows and I'll credit Ron for being civil, but in no way was that a level playing field.
It certianly was fair when they had the loose change guys on. That was 2 on 1 debate, with the moderator being on Mark's side, but not overly helping him.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 01:36 PM   #122
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Sorry Ron... but if your interested... Aldo is mouthing off already at the new LCF....

Quote:
FYI,

Would you believe Ronald Weick called us frauds and had never even seen the interviews we had conducted? Same with Mark Roberts.

Would you believe that he "laughs" and calls us freaks and he too had not even watched the interviews?

What a couple of psychos.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...topic/47788/4/

He is stating that you and Mark are afraid to debate him and Craig.
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 01:39 PM   #123
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Ok, I watched Part I of the Fetzer debate.

Ron does not host or moderate a debate, he joins in the debate. This is essentially two on one. Dare I say that until he starts getting into space beams, Fetzer beats the doubleteam.
So you admit that Fetzer is off the wall once he starts talking about space beams. Did it ever occur to you he might be off on pretty much everything else? Has he said anything that can be supported by facts?

An example of his unsupported claims are that of the death of Senator Wellstone. He says the senator was murdered. Guess the fact that the pilots flying the plane were of questionable skill and they were flying in bad weather had nothing to do with it.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 01:40 PM   #124
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by nicepants View Post
Surely you haven't been banned from the NEW forum already!?

Assuming you haven't, you should be able to formally issue your invitation at the address below.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

I tried and I can't post.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 01:44 PM   #125
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Sorry Ron... but if your interested... Aldo is mouthing off already at the new LCF....


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...topic/47788/4/

He is stating that you and Mark are afraid to debate him and Craig.

Ask him if the number of witnesses who observed a flyover of the Pentagon remains zero.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 01:51 PM   #126
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
i have... they claim that all the 911 calls were sealed permanently and that there were probably people who reported it then....and some other dung that I havent had the time to read yet.
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:02 PM   #127
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,630
I put up a challenge to Griffin, Gage & Jones on SLC; we'll see if any of them take up the offer. Diane, the gal who does the Activist NYC blog seems quite sane; don't know if you'd consider her.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:16 PM   #128
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I put up a challenge to Griffin, Gage & Jones on SLC; we'll see if any of them take up the offer. Diane, the gal who does the Activist NYC blog seems quite sane; don't know if you'd consider her.

Thank you, Brainster. The first three certainly won't debate. I don't know Diane, but I'd consider her.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:29 PM   #129
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Thank you, Brainster. The first three certainly won't debate. I don't know Diane, but I'd consider her.

I've checked out her blog and I can't find an e-mail address for her. If anyone knows how to contact her, extend my invitation and ask her how I can get in touch.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:29 PM   #130
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Sorry Ron... but if your interested... Aldo is mouthing off already at the new LCF....


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...topic/47788/4/

He is stating that you and Mark are afraid to debate him and Craig.
[ot]

The CIT dolts have been desperately trying to get attention- a few days ago Merc was in my YouTube videos demanding that I recognize that they have been censored by the JREF forums and that we debate them.

When he couldn't even address my Challenge, he walked away.

[/ot]

I think the last people that deserve to be on the show are the CIT wackos- they debunk themselves- so it would be quite a short session. It would be worse than bringing Judy Wood on (in the eyes of the "Truth Movement" at least).
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:33 PM   #131
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
i have... they claim that all the 911 calls were sealed permanently and that there were probably people who reported it then....and some other dung that I havent had the time to read yet.

Point out that when they say "probably," they mean "certainly not."
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:39 PM   #132
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
I think the last people that deserve to be on the show are the CIT wackos- they debunk themselves-
You got that right.

Quote:
61. Which of the above videos that you've seen would you be least likely to recommend to others? Top choice: The Pentacon, 29%

77. Please name the three theories promoted by TM members that you think have been most damaging in terms of public perception of the movement. Rank them from most to least damaging.
1) No plane at Pentagon, 39%
2) No planes at WTC, 32%
3) Pod theory, 14%


80. Finally, If you could change one thing about the 9/11 Truth Movement, what would it be?
Top choices, lose no planers, 25%, Agree on talking points, platform, 24%

source
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:53 PM   #133
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
i have... they claim that all the 911 calls were sealed permanently and that there were probably people who reported it then....and some other dung that I havent had the time to read yet.
One of my favourites....

"Well, you know, I saw this plane fly over the pentagon just after the explosion..... so I called 911... told them what I'd seen... they were very nice.... took my details.... said thank you.... it was such a terrible day.... Brian, my husband, says we should ask why our report isn't mentioned on the news these days.... but I... well.... you know... I don't want to make a fuss..... "
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 04:48 PM   #134
JAMartell
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 55
Ron,

You might want to consider having Sander Hicks on the program. You have mentioned to me that you're sick of covering the same things and want to do a show to discuss different aspects of 9/11. You've even said on your program and to me that you'd be interested in doing a show about LIHOP. Sander's book is LIHOP, why not discuss what's covered in 9/11 and the Big Wedding?. Also, he lives right in NYC so you won't have to fly anyone out there. Give controlled demolition, no plane at the Pentagon, and Shanksville a rest, you've already done several shows on these topics. I'd like to see a serious debate about things like ISI, Randy Glass, Coleen Rowley, etc.

Last edited by JAMartell; 18th January 2008 at 04:56 PM. Reason: false info
JAMartell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 04:55 PM   #135
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,251
Maybe you could try to get a prominent former Truther like Mikey Metz(?). He could offer an interesting perspective.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 04:57 PM   #136
JAMartell
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 55
Metz isn't prominent, he's rude, and a trouble maker.
JAMartell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 05:09 PM   #137
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
Ron,

You might want to consider having Sander Hicks on the program. You have mentioned to me that you're sick of covering the same things and want to do a show to discuss different aspects of 9/11. You've even said on your program and to me that you'd be interested in doing a show about LIHOP. Sander's book is LIHOP, why not discuss what's covered in 9/11 and the Big Wedding?. Also, he lives right in NYC so you won't have to fly anyone out there. Give controlled demolition, no plane at the Pentagon, and Shanksville a rest, you've already done several shows on these topics.
I don't speak for Ron, but he's been trying to get a truther to debate the FDNY's Arthur Scheuerman for some time, and the BBC is doing a program on WTC 7, so that seems like a good tie-in.

Justin, do you have any idea why truthers, who make so many claims about the FDNY's involvement in 9/11, are afraid to face an experienced and knowledgeable member of that force?

A few things about Sander Hicks:

– He claims that no U.S. fighters were scrambled on 9/11 until after the Pentagon was hit.

– He insists that Senator Paul Wellstone was murdered, but offers no evidence of such.

– Along with the likes of Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs, he spoke at a conference organized by a Holocaust denier, then threatened to sue a photographer who posted a picture of him shaking hands with that Holocaust denier.

– He's an admirer of Webster Tarpley and hosted a talk by Tarpley at his coffee shop.

– He claims that Senator John Kerry publicly stated that building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.

– Although he's from New York, I've never once seen a NYC truther (in person) refer to anything he's said.

What do you think about these things, Justin? Does Hicks sound like a solid researcher to you?

Quote:
I'd like to see a serious debate about things like ISI, Randy Glass, Coleen Rowley, etc.
I'd like to see a truther claim about these subjects that isn't filled with nonsense and falsehoods.

By the way, I never saw your retraction of the false claims you made in the Mark Roberts error threads on this forum and LCF. You're an honorable guy, right?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 18th January 2008 at 05:12 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 05:14 PM   #138
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
Metz isn't prominent, he's rude, and a trouble maker.
Some people are grateful to have their ignorance pointed out. It's part of the learning process. Others find that troubling and inconvenient.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 05:33 PM   #139
JAMartell
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 55
Quote:
What do you think about these things, Justin? Does Hicks sound like a solid researcher to you?
I am referring specifically to the information featured in his book. Also, can you please source all of your claims? Not that these claims refute ANYTHING featured in Sander's book, these are all attacks on his character not on the information presented in 9/11 and the Big Wedding.

Quote:
I'd like to see a truther claim about these subjects that isn't filled with nonsense and falsehoods.

By the way, I never saw your retraction of the false claims you made in the Mark Roberts error threads on this forum and LCF. You're an honorable guy, right?
I retracted my misquote. However, I will not retract anything more because the EPA lied about the quality of the air after 9/11 and you want to make excuses for them. This is also not the subject at hand.

Quote:
Some people are grateful to have their ignorance pointed out. It's part of the learning process. Others find that troubling and inconvenient.
Mark, you know NOTHING about my dealings with Metz. Metz has never once discussed the issues with me, instead he has called me vulgar names and questioned my character. He also had the audacity to mock the fact that my organization raised over $1000 dollars for the FealGood Foundation. Oh, but he's just someone trying to point out the "ignorance" of others. Please, he's an abrasive and obnoxious pest who would rather throw insults around than actually discuss anything.

Now, can we actually discuss what I suggested instead of trying to bring the discussion off topic? I have never seen the "debunkers" discuss anything other than Controlled Demolition, the Pentagon, and Flight 93. If his claims are filled with non-sense, then why not debate him and prove it? Surely, his claims can't be more absurd than Fetzer/Wood's DEWs, and Ron wants to bring them on. You wouldn't want to debate him simply because you're not in control over the debate topic, and that's how you operate. For instance, you told Kevin Ryan that he could pick the time, place, and debate topic. However, you knew with him it would be CD. Therefore, you remain in control.

Last edited by JAMartell; 18th January 2008 at 05:36 PM.
JAMartell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 05:34 PM   #140
jon
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 897
by the way, one UK TV show replaced a guest who failed to show up with a block of lard - then went ahead with the show. If the BBC want Gravy - why not invite Jones on the show, and either have him debate Gravy if he shows up, or have Gravy debate a block of lard (and people phoning in) if Jones doesn't show up
__________________
Holford Watch: the truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist.
jon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:05 PM   #141
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
I am referring specifically to the information featured in his book. Also, can you please source all of your claims?
Sure.

Quote:
– He claims that no U.S. fighters were scrambled on 9/11 until after the Pentagon was hit.
His website, false claim still there in 2008.

Quote:
– He insists that Senator Paul Wellstone was murdered, but offers no evidence of such.
His website and books.

Quote:
– Along with the likes of Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs, he spoke at a conference organized by a Holocaust denier, then threatened to sue a photographer who posted a picture of him shaking hands with that Holocaust denier.
Account of Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times and Pat Curley of SLC, who were there.
Quote:
– He's an admirer of Webster Tarpley and hosted a talk by Tarpley at his coffee shop.
His promotional literature for the Tarpley talk.

Quote:
– He claims that Senator John Kerry publicly stated that building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.
His website.

Quote:
– Although he's from New York, I've never once seen a NYC truther (in person) refer to anything he's said.
My experience.

Quote:
Not that these claims refute ANYTHING featured in Sander's book, these are all attacks on his character not on the information presented in 9/11 and the Big Wedding.
You mistake my pointing out Hicks' errors, incompetence, and reliance on others' incompetence, for needlessly attacking his character. Please don't.

Quote:
I retracted my misquote. However, I will not retract anything more because the EPA lied about the quality of the air after 9/11 and you want to make excuses for them. This is also not the subject at hand.
False. You did not retract your false statements about me, either here or at LCF. An honorable person would correct that error.

Quote:
Mark, you know NOTHING about my dealings with Metz. Metz has never once discussed the issues with me, instead he has called me vulgar names and questioned my character.
If that's anything like the character attacking you just accused me of, I'll tend to side with Metz. As I said, you've got a chance to show your honorable character. If you choose not to, what are people to think, Justin?

Quote:
He also had the audacity to mock the fact that my organization raised over $1000 dollars for the FealGood Foundation.
I encourage truthers to devote their energies to good causes. If they keep doing that, soon they won't be truthers.

Quote:
Oh, but he's just someone trying to point out the "ignorance" of others. Please, he's an abrasive and obnoxious pest who would rather throw insults around than actually discuss anything.
No, he's someone who learned that the movement he'd been supporting is entirely based on ignorance, and he had the courage to admit it and change his ways.

That's what I call honorable. That's what I call growing up and facing difficult realities. Abrasive though he may be, you could learn a lot from that "pest," Justin.

Quote:
Now, can we actually discuss what I suggested instead of trying to bring the discussion off topic? I have never seen the "debunkers" discuss anything other than Controlled Demolition, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.
Please use the search function on this forum. You will find hundreds of other 9/11 discussions. You may find my site and 911myths.com to be enlightening. Have you read 911myths' take on these issues? Mike has done much good research and analysis.


Quote:
If his claims are filled with non-sense, then why not debate him and prove it? Surely, his claims can't be more absurd than Fetzer/Wood's DEWs, and Ron wants to bring them on. You wouldn't want to debate him simply because you're not in control over the debate topic, and that's how you operate. For instance, you told Kevin Ryan that he could pick the time, place, and debate topic. However, you knew with him it would be CD. Therefore, you remain in control.
Perhaps you missed my requirement that the debate opponent be influential. Fetzer wasn't influential? Then who helped get your group started, Justin? I've seen no such influence by Hicks, whose name I see mentioned by truthers perhaps a handful of times in a year, and who is merely an energetic incompetent.

Nick Levis, a co-founder of 911truth.org, made nearly identical statements to me as you just did, when he challenged me to a debate. You know, these controlled demolitions people and no-planers are easy targets. I said I'd be happy to debate his topics: ISI, hijackers, NORAD stand down, etc. That was September, 2006. I reminded him of that again months ago when he was mouthing off at Democratic Underground. He fled the scene.

Are those crickets or katydids I hear from the truth movement, Justin?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 18th January 2008 at 06:23 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:08 PM   #142
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
– He insists that Senator Paul Wellstone was murdered, but offers no evidence of such.
As I pointed out earlier two below average pilots flying in bad weather is what killed the senator.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:18 PM   #143
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by AMTMAN View Post
As I pointed out earlier two below average pilots flying in bad weather is what killed the senator.
I always find it hilarious when truthers who say the NTSB should have been more involved in the 9/11 investigation dismiss out of hand the NTSB's thorough report on the Wellstone crash.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 18th January 2008 at 06:18 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:38 PM   #144
JAMartell
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 55
The day you answer my question that I emailed you some time ago, I'll retract my statements about you, even though you continue to be an apologist for the EPA. From this point on I am only discussing the pros and cons to possibly having Sander Hicks on the program.

Quote:
Perhaps you missed my requirement that the debate opponent be influential. Fetzer wasn't influential? Then who helped get your group started, Justin? I've seen no such influence by Hicks, whose name I see mentioned by truthers perhaps a handful of times in a year, and who is merely an energetic incompetent.
Fetzer did help us a lot, that's true. However, you already debated Fetzer. That's why I'm saying instead of rehashing the same things why not debate issues that arent's discussed as often. If you feel that Sander isn't influential enough then so be it, perhaps Ron will want to debate him. I'd personally like to see you and Ron respond to Hick's research on David Graham. Interestingly enough, I sent the 9/11 Graham Report to Ron Weick and he promised he'd read it. I've heard NOTHING from him. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen it discussed on this website or SLC. I'd be glad to email it to you, Mr. Cucumis.

If Sander is the type of person and researcher that you portray him as, don't you think it would be important to expose him as such on Hardfire?

Last edited by JAMartell; 18th January 2008 at 06:44 PM.
JAMartell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:46 PM   #145
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
JAMartell:

I agree that LIHOP is under discussed. I also think many of your comrades in the truth movement are turning to it, ONLY because the MIHOP arguments have been so nailed to the wall. LIHOP is about the only thing left, and it is harder to debunk, no doubt.

Your comments about Metz do not do you any favors. Clearly you are peaved he switched sides. I imagine you were not so hard on him when he was "one of you".

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:49 PM   #146
JAMartell
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 55
Quote:
Your comments about Metz do not do you any favors. Clearly you are peaved he switched sides. I imagine you were not so hard on him when he was "one of you".
I barely knew Metz when he was on my "side." I'm only peaved at the vicious things he has said about me personally and couldn't care less which side of this argument he chooses to associate himself with.
JAMartell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:51 PM   #147
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
The day you answer my question that I emailed you some time ago, I'll retract my statements about you, even though you continue to be an apologist for the EPA. From this point on I am only discussing the pros and cons to possibly having Sander Hicks on the program.



Fetzer did help us a lot, that's true. However, you already debated Fetzer. That's why I'm saying instead of rehashing the same things why not debate issues that arent's discussed as often. If you feel that Sander isn't influential enough then so be it, perhaps Ron will want to debate him. I'd personally like to see you and Ron respond to Hick's research on David Graham. Interestingly enough, I sent the 9/11 Graham Report to Ron Weick and he promised he'd read it. I've heard NOTHING from him. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen it discussed on this website or SLC. I'd be glad to email it to you, Mr. Cucumis.

If Sander is the type of person and researcher that you portray him as, don't you think it would be important to expose him as such on Hardfire?

Justin, I have not received the Graham Report.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 06:51 PM   #148
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
The day you answer my question that I emailed you some time ago, I'll retract my statements about you
Doing the right thing is conditional for you, Justin? That's highly immature. I told you all you had to do was rephrase the question. You still haven't.

Quote:
even though you continue to be an appologist for the EPA.
Lying is frowned upon here, Justin. Please don't do it.

Quote:
From this point on I am only discussing the pros and cons to possibly having Sander Hicks on the program.
Ron may be more than happy to have Hicks on a future program. I provided a few examples of Hicks' dishonesty and incompetence. Haven't seen a rebuttal from you. Can you give a reason that rational people should debate dishonest incompetents who aren't influential?

Quote:
I'd personally like to see you and Ron respond to Hick's research on David Graham. Interestingly enough, I sent the 9/11 Graham Report to Ron Weick and he promised he'd read it. I've heard NOTHING from him. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen it discussed on this website or SLC. I'd be glad to email it to you, Mr. Cucumis.
You'd be surprised about the things I know about. If Hicks has evidence that Graham was poisoned, he should take it to the DA. Has he done that?

Quote:
If Sander is the type of person and researcher that you portray him as, don't you think it would be important to expose him as such on Hardfire?
I don't, because he's hardly made a ripple in the truth movement. See my posts above.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 18th January 2008 at 06:55 PM. Reason: typo
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 07:01 PM   #149
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
The day you answer my question that I emailed you some time ago, I'll retract my statements about you, even though you continue to be an apologist for the EPA. From this point on I am only discussing the pros and cons to possibly having Sander Hicks on the program.
How exactly is Gravy an apologist for the EPA?
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 03:56 AM   #150
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,546
Mod WarningPlease keep the personal stuff off the thread, and perhaps in PMs instead? Keep to the topic of sorting out a Hardfire episode for Ron.
Posted By:chillzero
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 04:18 AM   #151
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,630
Sander's an interesting person, but I don't think he represents the mainstream of the MIHOP crowd. He highlights a lot of dubious characters in his book like Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, Leo Wanta and Randy Glass. I don't recall any specific discussion of WTC-7 in the book. If the BBC wanted to do a bit on the ISI connections he might be useful, but I don't see him adding a lot to the WTC-7 discussion.

Kevin McPadden? Too nuts, I guess?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 05:01 AM   #152
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
McPadden is a flip flopper, whose story changes depending upon the audience he is addressing. Useless for Ron's purposes IMO.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 06:03 AM   #153
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
Metz isn't prominent, he's rude, and a trouble maker.
Good
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 08:43 AM   #154
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
I always find it hilarious when truthers who say the NTSB should have been more involved in the 9/11 investigation dismiss out of hand the NTSB's thorough report on the Wellstone crash.
In the end it really does not matter how involved the NTSB was. They would be saying preety much the same stuff.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 10:54 AM   #155
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
I e-mailed Doug Plumb of AE911, hoping he'd be able to come up with some opponents for Mark.

We'll see....
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 06:45 PM   #156
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
How about Eric Douglas? He's the New York based architect who wrote a paper for JONES:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...estigation.pdf

also:

http://nistreview.org/NCSTAR1-REVIEW-DOUGLAS.pdf

As discussed in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=70939

His email addresses are eric@douglasarchitecture.com and eric@ericscottdouglas.com and his cellphone is 917-292-0355, these details are on his websites:

http://www.ericscottdouglas.com/profile.html
http://douglasarchitecture.com/profile.html

He isn't exactly famous within the movement, but he is a registered architect. This post contains all the things I found out about him:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...22#post2194522

He's also a member of ae911truth.org:

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999932


Edit to add: if it was at all possible, I'd like to see Jowenko involved as well.

-----------------------------------

Interestingly, here's a UK 7/7 conspiracy theorist group's excusesreasons for shying away from appearing on the BBC:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-b...les-offer.html

Sound familiar?

Last edited by maccy; 19th January 2008 at 06:49 PM.
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 10:30 PM   #157
Tbone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by maccy View Post
Interestingly, here's a UK 7/7 conspiracy theorist group's excusesreasons for shying away from appearing on the BBC:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-b...les-offer.html

Sound familiar?
Man, that is a LOT of words to say "No."
Tbone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 12:47 AM   #158
JAMartell
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 55
Quote:
I don't, because he's hardly made a ripple in the truth movement. See my posts above.
As a member of the movement I do not agree. I feel that sander has been very influential. It was a mere suggestion, because I feel it would be a much more interesting show than a rehash with Fetzer. Whether or not you like his research, he is one of the few members of the movement who has actually done some investigative work. He's spent time with Randy Glass, Vreeland, etc.

As far as the other points you have raised about him concerning Sen. Paul Wellstone (I haven't looked into this enough to comment), Sen. Kerry (I think that Kerry simply had no idea what he was talking about and was trying to make it sounds as though he did), etc; I don't feel that I have to defend Sander's positions on these matters because it's not these matters that I raised. I was referring specifically to the information presented in his book 9/11: The Big Wedding. None of the things you brought up in response are mentioned in the book.

ANYWAY, it was a mere suggestion because I think it would make a more interesting program. I'm sorry, Mark, that you got your panties in a twist!
JAMartell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 01:08 AM   #159
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by JAMartell View Post
As a member of the movement I do not agree. I feel that sander has been very influential. It was a mere suggestion, because I feel it would be a much more interesting show than a rehash with Fetzer. Whether or not you like his research, he is one of the few members of the movement who has actually done some investigative work. He's spent time with Randy Glass, Vreeland, etc.
Yes, he has spent time with liars, kooks, and others who are disconnected from reality. And from what you're saying, the paranoid Mr. Hicks seems to find these people credible. That's bad, Justin. For instance, I suggest you read this site about Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, and tell us if he's credible. The con-man Randy Glass has been discussed here before. I'm sure a search will turn up some posts.

Quote:
As far as the other points you have raised about him concerning Sen. Paul Wellstone (I haven't looked into this enough to comment), Sen. Kerry (I think that Kerry simply had no idea what he was talking about and was trying to make it sounds as though he did), etc; I don't feel that I have to defend Sander's positions on these matters because it's not these matters that I raised. I was referring specifically to the information presented in his book 9/11: The Big Wedding. None of the things you brought up in response are mentioned in the book.
My response was entirely apropos to his fitness to discuss the events of 9/11. Someone who claims that no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit and that Kerry publicly said WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, is not to be taken seriously.

Quote:
ANYWAY, it was a mere suggestion because I think it would make a more interesting program. I'm sorry, Mark, that you got your panties in a twist!
I'm sorry that you are unable to take correction, apologize when you've made false statements about someone, or differentiate between good sources of information and absurdly bad ones. What are they teaching at my college these days?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 20th January 2008 at 01:17 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 10:49 AM   #160
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
My response was entirely apropos to his fitness to discuss the events of 9/11. Someone who claims that no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit

Uh, besides Sanders that list of people who also claim that no fighters were scrambled before the Pentagon was hit would have to include General Richard Myers and NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder.

Do you consider Myers and Snyder as loony as Hicks?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.