The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud

[LateOutOfBedcaptain of 100]

So, LIT (cutting to the chase), for how many years/decades are you willing to wait for even one of those legions of bomb-planters to step forward and admit that he and his accomplices secretly planted tons of high explosives/incendiaries in three huge buildings? Or, that failing, for how many years/decades are you willing to try to find proof that legions of bomb planters secretly planted tons of high explosives in three huge buildings? Any videotape? Any eyewitness accounts? Any evidence of tampering on the columns? Anything other than your imagination run-amuck to substantiate your claim?

As I have said, more than a decade has passed and you still don't have an inkling--not even a "guessestimate"--as to who installed all those high explosives/incendiaries in those buildings. Nor do you have a clue as to where they obtained exotic, military-grade NT. Nor can you explain why thousands of employees and visitors never saw anything suspicious in the weeks/months if would have taken to install the explosive material.

I think my friend Shirlock Holmes said it well when he said "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

I think LIT, Col. Flagg. Dr. Jones, and many others have proven inconclusively that the official story is crap. That the damage done by the airliners could not have brought the towers down in the manner that they fell.

Therefore, we have a situation where we have very few other options of what really could have happened.

Thus, even though the probability of someone being able to set up incendiary destruction of these buildings being very low, it's really the ONLY OTHER POSSIBILTY!

Nobody can prove that explosives weren't setup, you ask for evidence they were placed! BM5 - Well, I want evidence they weren't placed!

Given the evidence that particles relating to incendiaries were found in multiple studies of the dust... well... that at least shows that explosives COULD HAVE BEEN IN PLAY SOMEHOW!

So, therefore, BM5. I ask you to prove inconclusively that people weren't paid off and threatened and or killed after the fact to place these devices. By the way, it appears like this could've been planned over many many many years. You can't prove this no matter how much you try.

I know, the probability is low. But what other low probability things could it be instead?

-- Geoff

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

You affirm once again that people who disagree with your intepretation of conditions that lead you to your version of "truth" are ipso facto liars. By extraplation, then, I can conclude that anyone who does not believe what you believe is axiomatically a promiscuous prevaricator.

BM, this is where the disconnect is and where your rebuttals are getting smoked - you keep using the terms 'interpretation' and 'theory' - the science, physics, facts and truth are anything but - get it?

[dconrad000captain of 1,000]

...I know, the probability is low. But what other low probability things could it be instead?

-- Geoff

I appreciate your train of thought, Geoff. I'll add some thoughts:

In my mind, the probability is actually very, very high. Luciferian-secret-combinations have been using false-flag terror throughout the ages...and througout the ages, wicked governments have murdered more people than any other force on earth.

As to the question of how to accomplish the rigging of the buildings? When you have enough members of the secret combination, such a thing is very feasible indeed. You simply turn control of security of the entire complex over to a fellow secret-combination-member. He then arranges for some elevator maintenance/renovation work to occur in the complex in the months leading up to the event. Every person involved is extremely evil and has made a blood-oath to the secret combination. The "elevator" personnel have total access to all the inner areas and workings of the buildings. The "security" team ensures that only "authorized" personnel have access to those areas. Those areas of the buildings are always off-limits to the general public, anyway -- and people are used to that. The buildings are rigged with demolitions explosives by a large team of extremely evil men who have sworn a blood-oath (as in the days of the Jaredites and Nephites) and who are trained in the art of bringing buildings down symmetrically into their own footprints (along with the necessary training in elevator mechanics as their cover).

Under those conditions, it would be little more difficult to accomplish the task, than it would be for a legitimate demolitions company to rig buildings for public disposal.

...and there certainly is enough evil walking the earth in our day, to fill any and all of those necessary roles with respect to the happenings on that infamous day.

...and even if one or more those evil individuals ever had a change in heart, would it ever be expected that they would come forward and say, "Under the cover of elevator rennovations, I helped place explosives in the word-trade-center buildings...sorry...forgive me..."?

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

So, LIT (cutting to the chase), for how many years/decades are you willing to wait for even one of those legions of bomb-planters to step forward and admit that he and his accomplices secretly planted tons of high explosives/incendiaries in three huge buildings?

I don't wait for that, because I don't need to. I have a conclusive PROOF that they did plant the bombs/incendiaries without their confessions. Under your logic none can ever be convicted of say a murder unless they admit to it! Fat chance! That is a very stupid position to take! We have irrefutable EVIDENCE of controlled demolition of all three towers INDEPENDENT of the confessions of the perpetrators. Again, under your logic, none can ever be convicted of a crime unless they admit to it! That is actually a stupid position! We have EVIDENCE, whether they admit their crimes or not! Do you even read what your write!

Or, that failing, for how many years/decades are you willing to try to find proof that legions of bomb planters secretly planted tons of high explosives in three huge buildings?

You do not need "legions." You can do with a couple of hundred. In fact, if you have years to preparer, you can do it with a few dozens!

Any videotape?

Yeah! We have multiple videotapes of FREE-FALLING WTC7, and uniformey accelerating WTC1 and WCT2!

Any eyewitness accounts?

Yep! Hundreds of eyewitness and first hand accounts of explosions!

Any evidence of tampering on the columns?

Yep! Hundreds of photographs of the columns half melted and corroded like Swiss cheese with sulfidation, a byproduct of thermitic reaction!

As I have said, more than a decade has passed and you still don't have an inkling--not even a "guessestimate"--as to who installed all those high explosives/incendiaries in those buildings.

Really? Don't you know how to read, Professor? Have you not read in this thread multiple "inklings" and "guessestimate" as to who done it? We have pointed out the people who have written about and called for the "New Pearl Harbor" a year or so before 9-11. They happen to be at the top of the Bush administration during the attacks. And we have provided video interview with Aaron Russo (at the top of this thread) where he gives more than an "inkling" about the Rockefeller involvement. For you to assert that we didn't provide an "inkling" is a blatant lie!

Nor do you have a clue as to where they obtained exotic, military-grade NT.

We have done that too. Learn to READ Professor!

Nor can you explain why thousands of employees and visitors never saw anything suspicious in the weeks/months if would have taken to install the explosive material.

We have provided video recorded testimonies in many documentaries in this very thread, pointing to just such suspicious activities and events immediately before 9-11, including power outages, "elevator modernization" that gave ample access to all key columns, etc. (Not to mention the suspicious insurance policies secured by Larry Silverstein three month before 9-11, where he got paid billions for an investment of a few millions!) etc, etc.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

BM5, if this thread hits 100 pages, I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

So, LIT (cutting to the chase), for how many years/decades are you willing to wait for even one of those legions of bomb-planters to step forward and admit that he and his accomplices secretly planted tons of high explosives/incendiaries in three huge buildings?

I don't wait for that, because I don't need to. I have a conclusive PROOF that they did plant the bombs/incendiaries without their confessions.

Sorry, you're wrong. Why? You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Kindly take note:

"In popular scientific discourse, the unfortunate tendency is to use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. News stories refer to scientific experiments 'proving' that some food has negative health consequences or that cellphones cause cancer. However, these experiments do not prove anything. They merely provide evidence that supports one theory or another while the theory itself cannot be proved or disproved. In reality, proofs belong more in the realm of mathematics than science." ("What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science," Liz Frasier, eHow Contributor, Aug. 21, 2011)

Ms. Frazier adds: "Proof exists only when you can say that a statement or theory is absolutely true in all instances [emphasis added]. Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions."

So, LIT, you do not have proof that a cabal of bombers secretly planted explosive devices on steel columns in three large WTC buildings. You can speculate, you can conjecture, you can presume, you can surmise, but you cannot provide proof.

: Under your logic none can ever be convicted of say a murder unless they admit to it! Fat chance! That is a very stupid position to take!

Of course it is; so, don't impute statements to me that are of your spurious manufacture.

: We have irrefutable EVIDENCE of controlled demolition of all three towers INDEPENDENT of the confessions of the perpetrators.

Evidence isn't proof. Evidence is specific observations of a given phenomenon. Do you know of any credible eyewitness accounts verifying that even one person saw even one bomber installing explosives on even one column in even on building? No you don't.

: Again, under your logic, none can ever be convicted of a crime unless they admit to it! That is actually a stupid position! We have EVIDENCE, whether they admit their crimes or not! Do you even read what your write!

Do you think there's a possibility you might be embarrassing yourself here?

The balance of your post, replete with slurs targeted at me, does not come within the width of the Grand Canyon of providing your suppositious "conclusive proof" that a crew/cabal/team/whatever of bombers secretly planted explosives on dozens/hundreds of steel columns in three very large WTC buildings.

You haven't begun to make your case.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

So, LIT (cutting to the chase), for how many years/decades are you willing to wait for even one of those legions of bomb-planters to step forward and admit that he and his accomplices secretly planted tons of high explosives/incendiaries in three huge buildings? Or, that failing, for how many years/decades are you willing to try to find proof that legions of bomb planters secretly planted tons of high explosives in three huge buildings? Any videotape? Any eyewitness accounts? Any evidence of tampering on the columns? Anything other than your imagination run-amuck to substantiate your claim?

As I have said, more than a decade has passed and you still don't have an inkling--not even a "guessestimate"--as to who installed all those high explosives/incendiaries in those buildings. Nor do you have a clue as to where they obtained exotic, military-grade NT. Nor can you explain why thousands of employees and visitors never saw anything suspicious in the weeks/months if would have taken to install the explosive material.

: Nobody can prove that explosives weren't setup, you ask for evidence they were placed! BM5 - Well, I want evidence they weren't placed!

The conspiracy theory, the centerpiece of which is controlled demolition of three WTC buildings, is the creation of the Truthers. Thus, the burden of proof is in your lap--not mine.

: So, therefore, BM5. I ask you to prove inconclusively that people weren't paid off and threatened and or killed after the fact to place these devices.

Pardon me, but how do you "prove" [something] "inconclusively"?

[truefreedomcaptain of 50]

One would think that after a decade+. something would have come to light to give credence to your conspiracy theory--to actually prove it conclusively. The harsh truth is that nothing has. But by all means, soldier on.

It's like saying, after so many decades, something would have come to light to give credence to your assertion that the Sun rises in the morning, but alas, it hasn't! That is an extremely DUMB statement on your part!

So, LIT (cutting to the chase), for how many years/decades are you willing to wait for even one of those legions of bomb-planters to step forward and admit that he and his accomplices secretly planted tons of high explosives/incendiaries in three huge buildings? Or, that failing, for how many years/decades are you willing to try to find proof that legions of bomb planters secretly planted tons of high explosives in three huge buildings? Any videotape? Any eyewitness accounts? Any evidence of tampering on the columns? Anything other than your imagination run-amuck to substantiate your claim?

As I have said, more than a decade has passed and you still don't have an inkling--not even a "guessestimate"--as to who installed all those high explosives/incendiaries in those buildings. Nor do you have a clue as to where they obtained exotic, military-grade NT. Nor can you explain why thousands of employees and visitors never saw anything suspicious in the weeks/months if would have taken to install the explosive material.

Not legions,just a few working steady for 4-6 months.
After they took part in killing 3000 people and getting us into wars in the middle east i don't think they would ever step forward.

As for tampering with the columns.
Turner Construction had complete access to columns.
"Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome, participated in the post-9/11 Ground Zero clean-up and performed extensive renovations within the World Trade Center towers just prior to 9/11, was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001. The Port Authority of NY/NJ now claims that records describing such work or other projects were destroyed on September 11, 2001.A December 2000 WTC property assessment described required renovation work to be completed within one year, upon steel columns within elevator shafts of both WTC towers that was immediately pending or already underway.

[truefreedomcaptain of 50]

Turner Construction work orders.

[truefreedomcaptain of 50]

Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for NAVSEA the branch that researches energetics and the only source for aluminum nano-powders(nano-thermite) in the U.S.

(NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the “National Center for Energetics”, the “Pentagon’s jargon to broadly describe explosive materials, propellants and pyrotechnics” and as the “only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Impressive, truefreedom! Thanks!

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Sorry, you're wrong. Why? You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Kindly take note:
"theory itself cannot be proved or disproved"

Here goes BM5, litteraly asserting in an earlier post that the Sun does not rise in the morning, and now that a theory can be neither proven nor disproved! Wouldn't you like that, so that no truth can ever be established and you can get paid the wages of a liar? Well, for your information, theories can be proven right or wrong within the conditions they are applied. If I have a "theory" that all sledgehammer become lighter than air every Tuesday, that theory can be easily disproved on any Tuesday by an observation of any sledgehammer. So you are wrong. Also if I have a theory a brick will fall to the ground if dropped, I can easily ascertain it by a simple experiment. So theories can be both proven and disproved, as long as the conditions of their applicability are specified.


And yes, we have provided an IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. And you calling black white, and up down, will not change that FACT.

Evidence isn't proof.

Conclusive evidence IS proof. Our evidence is conclusive and cannot be refuted, any more than you can refute that the Sun rises in the morning.

Do you know of any credible eyewitness accounts verifying that even one person saw even one bomber installing explosives on even one column in even on building?

Have you seen the wind? No. But you have seen the effects of the wind. So we have not seen bombs attached to columns, but we have seen the indisputable effects of the bombs and metal cutting incendiaries on the said columns and on the buildings, including FREE FALL of WTC7 over 8-9 stories, molten metal in the basements, sounds of explosions, iron micro-spheres in the dust, sulfidation (sulfur induced corrosion) of the steel columns, (even a countdown overheard on the radio immediately before the building came down!) all the byproducts of a thermite/thermate demolition of the buildings.

Do you think there's a possibility you might be embarrassing yourself here?

It is hard to embarrass oneself, or to lose more credibility than you have in this thread, my friend! In the minds of most readers, you are the definition of a troll and a liar.

You haven't begun to make your case.

Just as much as the Sun does not rise in the morning (according to you)! You are a pitiful sight! All this learning in the service of a lie! I pity you!

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Its not okay to be called a "useful idiot" but it is okay to use "ultra-right-wing extremists"....LOL

I wonder if I'm permitted to say this; oh well, what the heck: "ultra-right-wing-extremist" is a political characterization; "useful idiot" is a personal attack.

LOL...its all perspective isn't it!

Of course the really funny ironic part is that this is so stereotypical of your responses and tactics on here -

To be quite blunt....the vast portion of your posts are based on false premises....which you yourself have admitted to time after time (for example that government lies)....

How do you manage to reach the tenuous conclusion that by my saying the government has lied (at least at times it has), that I have based that view on a "false premise"? Isn't that what you and the Truther cabal say ad nauseam--that the government has lied? Or are you reversing/revising your position?

[. . . and yet sincere seekers of the truth have patiently (and not so patiently) replied to your continual stream of posts (the saga) on here in an effort to present the truth as we know it.[underlining added]

I have tried to present the truth as others know it. Is there something illegal or morally unacceptable about that? Why do you imagine that your "truth," as you know it, supercedes the truth of all others as they know it?

LOL...very funny and deeply ironic coming from someone who "imagines" fire wiping out 10 floors of a building (concrete, steel, etc) all at once such that it vaporizes allowing the structure above to free fall through air... You truly are a useful idiot....

But by all means please continue to ignore the questions (and the logic behind them)....just as you have the rest of the extensive (and at times exhaustive) efforts on here to get the truth out.

I have not ignored the questions and the logic; I have responded with credible information from well-respected sources. It is that
information which has been ignored--by you.

You are an idiot and a liar. You have no credible information from well-respected sources....you have spam and junk propaganda....and when you've been pushed on it....you lie and fail to deliver (see attachment at the conclusion of this post from other thread).

What is really frustrating and well as ill-reflective of your character is the constant obfuscation of the topic. For example you'll ignore the main point and pick one tiny aspect and then twist it into something it isn't. Basically instead of having a conversation about opinions and knowledge...you turn it into a debate game.

If you make a statement that is demonstrably wrong, am I obligated to agree with you? Is that what is meant by "conversation?" You or one of your ilk recently claimed there are no remains of the passengers, and still another Truther has posited that the hijackers are alive and living in some Middle Eastern country. I posted links that debunk that maligant misinformation.

You can disagree to your heart's content....and by all means if its demonstrably wrong.....provide the demonstration material!!!

"ilk"....LOL

links....LOL I can provide links to people who claim aliens landed and abused your mother.....your point???

One in which it is obvious even to the most casual observer that you have no interest in the truth and instead are engaged in a war of words/opinion based strictly upon tactics rather than principles as well as the material at hand. Useful idiot indeed...

My posts clearly show that your statement is false.

"clearly"....LOL

....again you lie!!!

Instead of addressing the truth (concerning the inherent dishonesty of your approach). . . .

Here you conveniently omit "as we know it" (above) with reference to "truth." The "truth" as you know it is not indisputable. . .it is vulnerable to challege by responsible, experienced engineers and scientists. You believe I am guilty of "inherent dishonesty" (yet another personal attack), because the truth I endorse (together with thousands of engineers and scientists) conflicts with the truth you endorse. . .the truth "as you know it."

Of course its up for dispute. But when you claim that 10 floors of a building vaporized due to a fire burning office furniture.....supported by 72 columns no less....

Oh yeah the thousands of engineers and scientists who have publicly signed or pledged their name and reputations in support the government story.....lies lies lies...

. . . you pick one little thing...in this case "useful idiot"....

Denigrating someone by labeling him/her as a "useful idiot" is not "one little thing"; it is a clear violation of the rules of responsible, mature debate, and I had every right--a duty, in fact--to "call" you on it.

call away....doesn't change the truth that you are indeed a "useful idiot"!!!

which you then complain to the moderators, respond with multiple posts, etc....all with the focus on "useful idiot"....not once addressing the basic foundation which set the stage for the tagline "useful idiot".

"Multiple posts?" Please enumerate them for me.

...click your name [top left corner of one of your posts]....then select "Search user's posts" on right hand side.....and read away from day 1 to the present ...

Nor is this a one time event but is your modus operandi for nearly every single post you have made on the forum.

Inasmuch as that is my "modus operandi for nearly every single post I have made on this forum," you should be able to provide "chapter and verse" for your claim. So, please provide a list--in context--to substantiate your claim.

see reference above....

You finally watch a video and your only response is the guy talks to fast.....never addressing the subject matter that undermines your paradigm.

He did talk too fast; hence, I couldn't understand him.

hmmm....millions of other people understood him (video went viral for weeks with over million hits in the just the first couple of days after release)!

****Reference point noted for my claim noted above (since I doubt you took the time to review your posts)...

Its like the eugenics discussions. Not once do you address the principles or lack thereof....

That is far afield of the the truth. What I said, in summary, was that the program was well-intentioned; and that it did, indeed, help some desperately poor women (some in fragile health) who were single mothers already burdened with six or more children. I also said that the program involved some abuses, and I cited the case of a woman who was sterilized even though she didn't have any children or perhaps only one child (she was the subject of a recent TV documentary). I said that was "evil." Your characterization of my posts re. the eugenics program is false--a gross distortion. Note to viewers: Enter "eugenics" into "Search" and see, for yourselves, what I actually said about the program.

Yes...viewers....please follow his advice. In fact click his name, search user posts, then search "eugenics"....and what do we find -

Eugenics, for example, as "sick" as it sounds today, was actually well-intentioned. Some women were having six, seven, eight children by different fathers, and the states were having to support those women. So, the decision was made to sterilize them. Were there abuses? Absolutely. Many women were not informed that they were being sterilized, and their signatures were forged on the consent forms (or simply signed by an administrator).

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20037&p=241338&hilit=+eugenics#p241338

...no mention of the one of the main determining factors being an IQ test - i.e. not how many children the women had...modus operandi

The state sterilized people who were mentally ill, "feeble minded," poor, or thought to be promiscuous.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/07/ ... dered.html

Chill out: You make a baseless assumption. I didn't say I supported the program. I said the program was well intentioned, and I added that there were abuses

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20037&p=241362&hilit=+eugenics#p241362

Are you unaware that China has a "one child" policy, or that it's acceptable in India to let a female baby die because of the burden females impose on families in that country? Where do they get that "right"? In their laws. Where did states involved in the eugenics program get the authority to do what they did--and in secret? I have already told you, the program was legal. Was it moral? No. You might as well ask, Where did certain southern states get the right to discriminate against blacks before the Civil Rights Act? Discriminatory language was written into their laws.

Under Hitler, it was "legal" to experiment on human beings by, among other atrocious acts, injecting them with deadly diseases. Some victims were told the injections would improve their health. Note, however, the following: "The current care of patients with infectious diseases owes a tremendous debt to healthy volunteers who allowed investigators to induce a disease in them for the study of transmission, natural history, and treatment" (Oxford Journals, "Infectious Disease Experimentation Involving Human Volunteers," Nov. 13, 2001). Obviously, the risks were fully disclosed to those volunteers. My point, though, is that even if the risks had not been disclosed, what was learned would have been just as medically valuable. I am NOT advocating that approach; I'm simply pointing out that disclosure, by itself, does not affect the usefulness of such an enterprise.

I think you know the answers as well as I do. For Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, etc., there were no restraints; they were the ultimate authorities to make "such decisions". . .the "ultimate authors." Who would "instigate such behavior"? Principally, I believe, psychopathic personalities. The people who instigated the eugenics movement were not, to my knowledge, psychopathic; they sincerely believed--misled though they were--that they were making a positive contribution to society. Alfred Kinsey, on the other hand, postured himself as a serious human sexuality researcher; he was, in fact, a pedophile.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20037&p=241417&hilit=+eugenics#p241417

I have said that the program was well-intentioned, and--in fact--it benefitted at least some women who could ill afford to have another child, inasmuch as they already had 6 or more from different fathers, all of whom moved on to impregnate still more women. Note, too, that 1) the women were not entirely blameless; and 2) some welcomed the fact that they would not have to bear more children. If there's anything satanic about that scenario it relates principally to the sperm donors, not to the eugenics program proper.

As I have said before, Jason, it seems to me that you consistently overlook the fact that a middle ground exists re. difficult issues; i.e., not everything has to be polarized.

Please visit the Church's online Gospel Library and open "Birth Control." There you will find the following statement:

"When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. . . . Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children."

What do you think the health/financial status was of many of the poor women who were burdened with caring for 6+ children without the help of a husband?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20037&p=241592&hilit=+eugenics#p241592

Not once do you address the reality that it just isn't right nor do we have the right to take away others rights by force or by secret (without God given mandate...example - Nephi/Laban or Israelites foray into land promised to them by God).

The church states (above): "Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children." Many/most of the women in the eugenics program were not LDS and did not have husbands. Furthermore, most of those women were dirt-poor, victims of a variety of mental and physical ailments, and (once again) already burdened with too many children. Additionally, some had no understanding of birth control. So, if an LDS couple, as a result of praying and fasting--based on church counsel--determines that they should not have more children, is that wickedness? Is that a direct violation of their inalienable rights? Your understandable rejoinder will be, "Of course not; they had full disclosure." The designers of the eugenics program, seeing the plight of certain women, and seeing that they had no one to whom they could turn (and, yes, recognizing the burden they were placing on the welfare system), took the initiative to come to their aid and did so with the best of intentions. Did that constitute wickedness? What if disclosure had been given to the women? How many of them, given their desperate circumstances, would have said, in effect, "Oh, no, I want more children--seven isn't enough!" I don't pretend to know the answer, but I can make a well-reasoned guess. And what of the children born in abject poverty without a father for a role model? What would the future hold for them--and for society? Your characterization of the eugenics program as wickedness per se (I'll cut your some slack) is unreasonable and unfair. You don't know even a tenth of the circumstances; you weren't there. Were there abuses? Of course; a recent TV documentary tells the heart-rending story of a woman who, as I recall, didn't have any children and was still sterilized--and without her knowledge. I think that's indefensible; and yes, I think that's wickedness.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20037&p=241646&hilit=+eugenics#p241646

...so you are justifying or excusing wickedness? Just wanted to clarify that for you (I'm sure its obvious to the other "viewers")

I have not "supported" eugenics; I have tried to explain it. The program was well-intentioned, and it did help some desperately poor women. Those who designed and implemented the program were not satanic.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14104&p=243517&hilit=+eugenics#p243517

Isn't wickedness and satanic one and the same? Or is that the wordsmith in you???

Again it was not sanctioned of God and it was done against their will (i.e. without their knowledge or consent)...i.e. wickedness or satanic. Now what did Moroni say about judging by the fruits?

Speaking of fruits...more specifically lies....I digress we'll shortly get back to that point.

I never said it was "right." I said it was well intentioned, and its designers were not evil men and women. You might want to read The Rise and Fall of Silas Lapham, by the American realist author William Dean Howells (1837-1920). Howells believed our individual acts have a cascading effect on society, and he demonstrates in Lapham the mechanism by which that happens. My point: A single woman with six childen who has yet another child to be added to the welfare rolls affects not only her physical and mental well-being, but all of society's. If there was divine justification for Nephi to do what he did to Laban (and I believe there was), is it reasonable to claim that there was no justification for the eugenics program?

You cry and whine when someone calls you a liar....when your approach is inherently dishonest.

The more relevant point is that what justification is there for you--or anyone else--to have the arrogance and temerity to call me a liar (which you and LIT have done repeatedly?) The fact that my "truth" conflicts with your "truth" does not make me a liar, nor does it make me "inherently dishonest."

Its hard to conflict truths when you don't have any.....I'll add more on the liar note in a minute...

You cry and whine when someone calls you wicked or states that they worry about your salvation....when you have stated your support of unrighteousness (satan's plan).

Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e, Jason, get a grip. What you post here is unmitigated fiction. And by what right do you call me "wicked"?

See statements captioned above...

Isn't it about time you have a serious conversation with the man in the mirror???

The man in my mirror is a portrait of the Savior posted on the opposite wall. I pray to him day and night.

...might heed His advice/counsel as well....specifically with regards to principles of truth and righteousness

Or you can just pull some little thing out of this post to focus on and ignore the bigger picture. Choice is yours.

I believe I have responded responsibly--and civilly--to your charges against me; so, enough said.

Allrighty then....now for a specific point blank example of evidence used to support the "liar" statement....

LOL....you cut n' paste a couple paragraphs from Blanchard's website ImplosionWorld. I give you an F-.....too lazy to even go back and look at the research I did for you (not even getting into the false pretenses). Surprised you made it out of grade school....

I pre-empted your juvenile, obstreperous outburst by prefacing my post with the observation that you would accept none of it. You did, however, manage to insert yet another in a long, toxic stream of personal insults.

So, Jason, how many controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings have you witnessed, on site? How many have you documented, from that personal observation, in photographs and text? How many controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings have David Ray Griffin witnessed, on site? David Chandler, on site? Richard Gage, on site? Steven Jones, on site? Niels Harrit, on site?

Eh? (Be sure to post your response in big, bold letters.)

You didn't preempt jack diddly squat. You lied. End of story.

You haven't answered one single question yet out of the three posed. You haven't delivered when you said you would. You haven't delivered what you said you would.

How about you give us his credentials??? Ya know like education, background, how many buildings he's personally been involved in imploding (like planning and design...not just taking some pictures), etc etc etc....

Thanks for giving me the opportunity; I relish it. Look for my response tomorrow.

I have five pages of Mr. Blanchard's credentials; however, I wanted to get a quotable, current statement directly from him via e-mail. He hasn't responded as of this writing. If I don't hear from him by this evening, I'll use the material I have.

Rather than address what you promised (because you can't deliver - i.e. you lied) you instead sidestep (ironically what you accuse others of) and say stuff like this -

So, Jason, how many controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings have you witnessed, on site? How many have you documented, from that personal observation, in photographs and text? How many controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings have David Ray Griffin witnessed, on site? David Chandler, on site? Richard Gage, on site? Steven Jones, on site? Niels Harrit, on site?

...and this -

Even if it is his personal website (which is questionable; I'll deal with that in another post), do you find something ignoble about that? Didn't Prof. Jones and some of his associates have a site of sorts called "Scholars for Truth & Justice" (stj911.org/)? Click on that link now and you'll see these words: THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED.

...and this -

How about you giving me his credentials?

...and this -

But you would rather not be in the discomforting position of having to repeat them here. I understand.

...and this -

A question for you, Jason: How many controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings have you personally witnessed--not via video tape or on television, but at the scene?

Were we discussing MY credentials? Or "Steve Jones and associates"? Did I promise credentials? Nope, nope, and nope. Sidestepping and lies if ever anything could be called sidestepping and lies...and that's just in the past day or two just on this thread alone....not even beginning to address your long history in the endless saga on the other thread.

Maybe I'm off base but I certainly see a penchant for dishonesty, side stepping, etc....that has been a trend since some of your first posts on here. I hope you're uncomfortable with the direction that type of behavior takes you...and if the truth comes across as "long, toxic stream of personal insults" - i.e. making you uncomfortable....then you just might consider rethinking and redirecting your course. Its almost never too late!

The truth shall make you free.....or condemn you.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brent-blanchard/20/865/9aa

Administrative Contact :
Implosionworld.com LLC
brentb@protecservices.com
PO Box 355
Rancocas, NJ 08073
US
Phone: 8562342202

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-s ... nworld.com

Implosionworld.com, LLC was established as an independent corporation in October 1999, and premiered in grand style with the world's first real-time webcast of a building implosion project, live from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

http://www.implosionworld.com/about.htm

Owner name: Implosionworld.com Llc

Address:
PO Box 355
Rancocas
US

Owner e-mail address: protecusa@comcast.net

Phone(s): +1 856 234 2202, Fax: +1 416 645 3920

http://www.checksitetraffic.com/traffic ... nworld.com

....senior writer (and only), website contact,

Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Blanchard, Brent
brentb@protecservices.com
151 Algonquin Trail
Medford Lakes, NJ 08055
US
Phone: 609-654-6333
Fax: 999 999 9999

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-s ... rvices.com

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm

...oh look....Brent is also the main contact for Protec Documentation Services. So who is Brent Blanchard??? A photographer? a writer? a senior editor? a website owner/manager? demolitions documentations team manager? Director of Operations?

According to the state of New Jersey Brent Blanchard is the registered owner of

ACTION ENTERTAINMENT
PROTEC
IMPLOSIONWORLD.COM
BLB PARTNERS

...all registered at

199 KNOTTY OAK DRIVE
RANCOCAS WOODS/MT LAUREL/MOUNT LAUREL

...which happens to be this house

http://maps.google.com/maps?pq=new+jers ... CB4Q8gEwAA

....screams spookville to me.....

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/bla ... index.html

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Impressive, truefreedom! Thanks!

My thouthts exactly - nice find! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the financial motive in demolishing both towers - by destroying them with very high-tech military ordnance and the planes as the cover, Silverstein saved over $2 BILLION in asbestos removal, upgrade and maintenance costs on two aging dinosaurs that had become liabilities and to make it even sweeter, walked away with $4.5 BILLION in insurance payouts - not too bad of a return on a $350 million investment - who wouldn't want to save $2+ BILLION in costs and then make $4.5 BILLION? That is a 1,300% return on your money for the death of 3,000 people, two sick, evil, unconstitutional 'wars' for profit, covering up massive financial crimes and theft involving Washington, the big banks and Wall Street and the beginning of the end for the U.S. Constitution. But this is all heresay, right BM?

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

I just want to do my part in making this thread go to the 100 page mark!!!!

I don't want to spam so...

WTC 7 was demolished by explosives. This is so clearly seen that an untrained, non-engineer type of a person can recognize it. We did.
This was a BOLD plan taking years and years to plan. They tested the plan to with the car bomb. In fact, this plan had been going on for so long that it was drawn in cartoons, written into comic strips and the Simpsons foretold it too and even a full movie about this exact thing happening was aired on TV. This could not have been pulled off without total control of the media. So many mistakes happened, mistake after mistake. Yet, even with all the mistakes we have proven over the years the majority of people are still under the official illusion of what happened. Which just tells you how powerful the media really can be. Media backed my supposed trusting official in government all telling the same big lie over and over again is a huge psyop operation.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

This is so clearly seen that an untrained, non-engineer type of a person can recognize it.

You mean, like Brent Blanchard?

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

You know guys...I have become completely disallusioned with some people here who "claim" to be LDS. I know it doesn't make any difference to some of you to know that I know Bluemoon personally and he is NONE of the names you have called him. He is certainly not an idiot...and more importantly, he is not a liar. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make him/her either of those adjectives! In fact, when people engage in that sort of dialogue, it usually tells me more about the deliverer of those words than the person they are meant for. Now, before someone comes back at me and says that Blue has gotten "snarky", too...if you go back to the beginnings of this thread, it was Blue who was attacked first and it has deteriorated down to today...with many times Blue trying to change the dialogue. My experience in the past few years with "truthers" ( I know you hate that!) is that they have no room for anyone else's perspective and you seem to always revert to calling everyone else "liars and idiots". I have also noted other posters here who have gotten banned for much less....or had replies deleted, etc., also for much less....which leads to a little confusion regarding the rules.

I think it's time for everyone to realize and accept the fact that after much research, others have come to different conclusions....making neither liars or idiots. For myself, I am perfectly happy and content with my conclusions and am happy to let you have your conclusions. They differ...and it doesn't make any of us who differ from the many of you on this forum, evil or lacking in intelligence...nor do we have the need for anyone to "testify against us" in the hereafter. Personally, I think that I am going to spend a great deal more time on the four fold mission of the Church...hoping beyond hope that many more people can be brought to the truth of the Gospel. In the front of the Family History manual it states that the number one objective of the Church is to spread the Gospel. I think that some of the discussions on this forum do not do that.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

I just want to do my part in making this thread go to the 100 page mark!!!!

I don't want to spam so...

WTC 7 was demolished by explosives. This is so clearly seen that an untrained, non-engineer type of a person can recognize it. We did.

Bluemoon5 says it wasn't and says no one can prove it.

This was a BOLD plan taking years and years to plan.

Not sure about years, but definitely months.

They tested the plan to with the car bomb. In fact, this plan had been going on for so long that it was drawn in cartoons, written into comic strips and the Simpsons foretold it too and even a full movie about this exact thing happening was aired on TV. This could not have been pulled off without total control of the media. So many mistakes happened, mistake after mistake. Yet, even with all the mistakes we have proven over the years the majority of people are still under the official illusion of what happened. Which just tells you how powerful the media really can be. Media backed my supposed trusting official in government all telling the same big lie over and over again is a huge psyop operation.

Right on the money Cylon!

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

You know guys...I have become completely disallusioned with some people here who "claim" to be LDS. I know it doesn't make any difference to some of you to know that I know Bluemoon personally and he is NONE of the names you have called him. He is certainly not an idiot...and more importantly, he is not a liar.

Then he must be engaging the 'truthers' for kicks because no rational, logically thinking person can be exposed to all of the information proving the truth about 9/11 here in this thread and continue to spew questions and fire as if nothing has been proven scientifically or likewise.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make him/her either of those adjectives! In fact, when people engage in that sort of dialogue, it usually tells me more about the deliverer of those words than the person they are meant for. Now, before someone comes back at me and says that Blue has gotten "snarky", too...if you go back to the beginnings of this thread, it was Blue who was attacked first and it has deteriorated down to today...with many times Blue trying to change the dialogue. My experience in the past few years with "truthers" ( I know you hate that!) is that they have no room for anyone else's perspective and you seem to always revert to calling everyone else "liars and idiots". I have also noted other posters here who have gotten banned for much less....or had replies deleted, etc., also for much less....which leads to a little confusion regarding the rules.

I somewhat agree - there has been no need to resort to name-calling, but you have to admit Nat... he has dished it out as much as he has absorbed it.

I think it's time for everyone to realize and accept the fact that after much research, others have come to different conclusions....making neither liars or idiots. For myself, I am perfectly happy and content with my conclusions and am happy to let you have your conclusions.

I don't think you've ever offered that to us... can you expound on that so we know what that is?

They differ...and it doesn't make any of us who differ from the many of you on this forum, evil or lacking in intelligence...

It may not be any of those adjectives, but what would you call someone who flagrantly ignores broken laws of physics, facts and scientific evidence?

nor do we have the need for anyone to "testify against us" in the hereafter.

This was about as absurd as the official story - I still can't believe someone said that.

Personally, I think that I am going to spend a great deal more time on the four fold mission of the Church...hoping beyond hope that many more people can be brought to the truth of the Gospel. In the front of the Family History manual it states that the number one objective of the Church is to spread the Gospel. I think that some of the discussions on this forum do not do that.

Many don't, but this forum was designed specifically for like-minded Saints who are passionate about their country, freedom, the truth, justice, the Constitution, preparedness, factual information on the political and financial stages and support for various candidates, uplifting others spiritually and to be able to gather to express themselves and their views and for the most part, that's what goes on. LDS Freedom Forum is not and was not intended to be a missionary tool, although, I am sure others with curiosity in the church have stumbled across this site and some have been turned off by the content, but they just need to understand the context in which this site was created and intended. Maybe Brian needs a disclaimer at the top of the site saying something like 'Any comments made by the members of this site are not to be considered endorsed by the LDS church'.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Saw this today during lunch break... thought it deserved some attention as this is one of a small handful of articles I've seen in the mainstream media about it:

http://njtoday.net/2012/01/16/privatizi ... ntractors/

Privatizing the War on Terror: America’s Military Contractors

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”—James Madison

America’s troops may be returning home from Iraq, but contrary to President Obama’s assertion that “the tide of war is receding,” we’re far from done paying the costs of war. In fact, at the same time that Obama is reducing the number of troops in Iraq, he’s replacing them with military contractors at far greater expense to the taxpayer and redeploying American troops to other parts of the globe, including Africa, Australia and Israel. In this way, the war on terror is privatized, the American economy is bled dry, and the military-security industrial complex makes a killing—literally and figuratively speaking.

The war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has already cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and could go as high as $4.4 trillion before it’s all over. At least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) of that $2 trillion was lost to waste and fraud by military contractors, who do everything from janitorial and food service work to construction, security and intelligence—jobs that used to be handled by the military. That translates to a loss of $12 million a day since the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan. To put it another way, the government is spending more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

Over the past two decades, America has become increasingly dependent on military contractors in order to carry out military operations abroad (in fact, the government’s extensive use of private security contractors has surged under Obama). According to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States can no longer conduct large or sustained military operations or respond to major disasters without heavy support from contractors. As a result, the U.S. employs at a minimum one contractor to support every soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (that number increases dramatically when U.S. troop numbers decrease). For those signing on for contractor work, many of whom are hired by private contracting firms after serving stints in the military, it is a lucrative, albeit dangerous, career path (private contractors are 2.75 times more likely to die than troops). Incredibly, while base pay for an American soldier hovers somewhere around $19,000 per year, contractors are reportedly pulling in between $150,000 – $250,000 per year.

The exact number of military contractors on the U.S. payroll is hard to pin down, thanks to sleight-of-hand accounting by the Department of Defense and its contractors. However, according to a Wartime Contracting Commission report released in August 2011, there are more than 260,000 private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the number of ground troops in both countries. As noted, that number increases dramatically when troops are withdrawn from an area, as we currently see happening in Iraq. Pratap Chatterjee of the Center for American Progress estimates that “if the Obama administration draws down to 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by September 2012, they will need 88,400 contractors at the very least, but potentially as many as 95,880.”

With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed by George W. Bush as the “coalition of the willing” has since evolved into the “coalition of the billing.” The Pentagon’s Central Command counts 225,000 contractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Between December 2008 and December 2010, the total number of private security contractors in Afghanistan increased by 413% while troop levels increased 200%. Private contractors provide a number of services, including transport, construction, drone operation, and security. One military contractor, Blackbird, is composed of former CIA operatives who go on secret missions to recover missing and captured US soldiers. Then there is the Lincoln Group which became famous for engaging in covert psychological operations by planting stories in the Iraqi press that glorified the U.S. mission. Global Strategies Group guards the consulate in Basra for $401 million. SOC Inc. protects the US embassy for $974 million.

Unfortunately, fraud, mismanagement and corruption have become synonymous with the U.S. government’s use of military contractors. McClatchy News “found that U.S. government funding for at least 15 large-scale programs and projects [in Afghanistan] grew from just over $1 billion to nearly $3 billion despite the government’s questions about their effectiveness or cost.” One program started off as a modest wheat program and “ballooned into one of America’s biggest counterinsurgency projects in southern Afghanistan despite misgivings about its impact.” Another multi-billion-dollar program resulted in the construction of schools, clinics and other public buildings that were so poorly built that they might not withstand a serious earthquake and will have to be rebuilt. Then there was the $300 million diesel power plant that was built despite the fact that it wouldn’t be used regularly “because its fuel cost more than the Afghan government could afford to run it regularly.” RWA, a group of three Afghan contractors, was selected to build a 17.5 mile paved road in Ghazni province. They were paid $4 million between 2008 and 2010 before the contract was terminated with only 2/3 of a mile of road paved.

Mind you, with the U.S. spending more than $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, these examples of ineptitude and waste represent only a fraction of what is being funded by American taxpayer dollars. (Investigative reports reveal that large amounts of cash derived from U.S. aid and logistics spending are being flown out of the country on a regular basis by Afghan officials, including $52 million by the Afghan vice president, who was allowed to keep the money.) Yet what most Americans fail to realize is that we’re funding the very individuals we claim to be fighting. The war effort has become so corrupt that U.S. taxpayers are not only being bilked by military contractors but are also being forced to indirectly fund insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban, which receives money from military contractors in exchange for protection. This is rationalized away as a “cost of doing business” in those countries. As the Financial Times reports, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan “found that extortion of funds from US construction and transportation projects was the second-biggest funding source for insurgent groups.”

Despite what one might think, the boom in contracting work in the war zones isn’t necessarily aiding U.S. employment, given that large numbers of contractors are actually foreign nationals. For example, over 90% of the private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghans. One contractor, Triple Canopy, most of whose guards are from Uganda and Peru, has a $1.53 billion contract with the State Department to protect its employees. ArmorGroup North America (AGNA), which is contracted to secure the US embassy in Kabul, hires many Nepalese (known as Gurkhas) whose English is not proficient. “One guard described the situation as so dire that if he were to say to many of the Gurkhas, ‘There is a terrorist standing behind you,’ those Gurkhas would answer ‘Thank you sir, and good morning.’”

The practices employed by the military contractors also reflect poorly on America’s commitment to human rights—both in the way that they treat their employees and in their employees’ behavior. For example, Triple Canopy houses its employees in overcrowded shipping containers. In addition to soliciting underage Chinese prostitutes, AGNA contractors have also been described as “peeing on people, eating potato chips out of [buttock] cracks, vodka shots out of [buttock] cracks (there is video of that one), broken doors after drnken [sic] brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity…” This behavior is not reserved to lower level employees, and has been observed and even encouraged by upper level management. Blackwater employees have also been accused of weapons smuggling as well as cocaine and steroid use. Despite all this, Blackwater—which, as the New York Times has reported, “created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq”—still won a cut of a $10 billion contract given out by the State Department in 2010.

Despite the high levels of corruption, waste, mismanagement and fraud by military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government continues to shield them, resisting any attempts at greater oversight or accountability. War, after all, has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire, is one of its best customers. Indeed, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope and dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. It’s the military industrial complex (the illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government) that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago and which has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today.

Unfortunately, Americans have been inculcated with a false, misplaced sense of patriotism about the military that equates devotion to one’s country with supporting the war machine so that any mention of cutting back on the massive defense budget is immediately met with outrage. Yet the military-industrial complex is engaged in a deadly game, one that all presidents, including Obama, foster. And the consequences, as Eisenhower recognized, are grave:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children…This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Perhaps it wasn't designed to be a missionary tool, Col...but there are those three big letters in the title: LDS...which, in my mind, obligates us to be missionaries, whether to each other or to someone who is not a member. In fact, we don't need to have any indication that we are LDS or affiliated with the Church...we are obligated by covenant to be a missionary.

As I said...I'm aware of Bluemoon striking BACK at some of you....but if you will start from the beginning, you will see where it all began...and it happens that way so often. If we don't agree with your conclusions we are reviled. I for one will not be dragged down that road again. Just accept the fact that I have a much different position than you do.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

As I said...I'm aware of Bluemoon striking BACK at some of you....but if you will start from the beginning, you will see where it all began...and it happens that way so often.

So, what you're saying is "well, they started it!" That doesn't work when my 7 year old tries that, and it won't fly here among grown-ups.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/protecservices.com

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm

...oh look....Brent is also the main contact for Protec Documentation Services. So who is Brent Blanchard??? A photographer? a writer? a senior editor? a website owner/manager? demolitions documentations team manager? Director of Operations?

According to the state of New Jersey Brent Blanchard is the registered owner of

ACTION ENTERTAINMENT
PROTEC
IMPLOSIONWORLD.COM
BLB PARTNERS

...all registered at

199 KNOTTY OAK DRIVE
RANCOCAS WOODS/MT LAUREL/MOUNT LAUREL

...which happens to be this house

http://maps.google.com/maps?pq=new+jers ... CB4Q8gEwAA

....screams spookville to me.....

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/bla ... index.html

Great stuff, Jason.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

You know guys...I have become completely disallusioned with some people here who "claim" to be LDS. I know it doesn't make any difference to some of you to know that I know Bluemoon personally and he is NONE of the names you have called him. He is certainly not an idiot...and more importantly, he is not a liar.

Then he must be engaging the 'truthers' for kicks because no rational, logically thinking person can be exposed to all of the information proving the truth about 9/11 here in this thread and continue to spew questions and fire as if nothing has been proven scientifically or likewise.

BM5: natasha won't mind, I'm certain, if I insert some comments here. Flagg claims that "no rational, logically thinking person can be exposed to all the information proving the truth about 9/11 here and continue. . . ." That is a statement of breathtaking errancy if not arrogance, ruling out the professional analyses of many accomplished, distinguished engineers and scientists. To assume that one has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth re. an event as complex as 9/11 is to willfully take on an obligation that would give pause to some of the world's prominent scientific minds.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make him/her either of those adjectives! In fact, when people engage in that sort of dialogue, it usually tells me more about the deliverer of those words than the person they are meant for. Now, before someone comes back at me and says that Blue has gotten "snarky", too...if you go back to the beginnings of this thread, it was Blue who was attacked first and it has deteriorated down to today...with many times Blue trying to change the dialogue. My experience in the past few years with "truthers" ( I know you hate that!) is that they have no room for anyone else's perspective and you seem to always revert to calling everyone else "liars and idiots". I have also noted other posters here who have gotten banned for much less....or had replies deleted, etc., also for much less....which leads to a little confusion regarding the rules.

I somewhat agree - there has been no need to resort to name-calling, but you have to admit Nat... he has dished it out as much as he has absorbed it.

BM5: Please distinguish between personal attacks on posters and attacks on the content of their posts; i.e., on the validity/rationality of their arguments.

I think it's time for everyone to realize and accept the fact that after much research, others have come to different conclusions....making neither liars or idiots. For myself, I am perfectly happy and content with my conclusions and am happy to let you have your conclusions.

I don't think you've ever offered that to us... can you expound on that so we know what that is?

They differ...and it doesn't make any of us who differ from the many of you on this forum, evil or lacking in intelligence...

It may not be any of those adjectives, but what would you call someone who flagrantly ignores broken laws of physics, facts and scientific evidence?

BM5: Surely you can find within the circa 650,000 words in the English language terms that civilly convey your feelings and that nullify the need for name-calling and character assassination.

nor do we have the need for anyone to "testify against us" in the hereafter.

This was about as absurd as the official story - I still can't believe someone said that.

Personally, I think that I am going to spend a great deal more time on the four fold mission of the Church...hoping beyond hope that many more people can be brought to the truth of the Gospel. In the front of the Family History manual it states that the number one objective of the Church is to spread the Gospel. I think that some of the discussions on this forum do not do that.

BM5: It should be obvious that natasha has her priorities right; she is the epitome of a quality, caring human being. It would be nice if more posters really knew her.

Many don't, but this forum was designed specifically for like-minded Saints who are passionate about their country, freedom, the truth, justice, the Constitution, preparedness, factual information on the political and financial stages and support for various candidates, uplifting others spiritually and to be able to gather to express themselves and their views and for the most part, that's what goes on. LDS Freedom Forum is not and was not intended to be a missionary tool, although, I am sure others with curiosity in the church have stumbled across this site and some have been turned off by the content, but they just need to understand the context in which this site was created and intended. Maybe Brian needs a disclaimer at the top of the site saying something like 'Any comments made by the members of this site are not to be considered endorsed by the LDS church'.

BM5: The subtext of your opening sentence suggests that this forum cannot accommodate posters who do not love their country, honor the Constitution, and revere truth/justice/freedom in lockstep compliance with your criteria. Latter-day Saints honor individuality, because they understand that before they came to this estate, they had disparate experiences, the pivot-point of which was free agency. That fact is worthy of serious introspection.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Perhaps it wasn't designed to be a missionary tool, Col...but there are those three big letters in the title: LDS...which, in my mind, obligates us to be missionaries, whether to each other or to someone who is not a member. In fact, we don't need to have any indication that we are LDS or affiliated with the Church...we are obligated by covenant to be a missionary.

As I said...I'm aware of Bluemoon striking BACK at some of you....but if you will start from the beginning, you will see where it all began...and it happens that way so often. If we don't agree with your conclusions we are reviled. I for one will not be dragged down that road again. Just accept the fact that I have a much different position than you do.

Right back at you. Accept that we have a very different position from you. Also be not under delusion that your opinion can change fundamental laws of physics or reality. Truth is absolute, and is not subject to opinion. It exists independent of you, whatever your opinion of it might be.

[MrD90captain of 10]

I talked with a woman Summer 2011 at Sundance who said that she was a Director at the National Emergency Response Center in North Carolina. When I asked her what the most challenging situation that she had faced as a Director she said 9/11. I asked her what happened. She said that the morning before the attacks the National command center was transferred from New York to North Carolina, before the attacks. She then said that people have no idea about what really happened that day. I told her that I had a pretty good idea. I then said, "It was an inside job wasn't it?"

I watched as her jaw almost hit the ground and she looked incredulously at me and said, "yes". I asked her if everyone that worked at NERC North Carolina Knew that. She said no, but everyone that was a director level and above did. . .

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

I talked with a woman Summer 2011 at Sundance who said that she was a Director at the National Emergency Response Center in North Carolina. When I asked her what the most challenging situation that she had faced as a Director she said 9/11. I asked her what happened. She said that the morning before the attacks the National command center was transferred from New York to North Carolina, before the attacks. She then said that people have no idea about what really happened that day. I told her that I had a pretty good idea. I then said, "It was an inside job wasn't it?"

I watched as her jaw almost hit the ground and she looked incredulously at me and said, "yes". I asked her if everyone that worked at NERC Norht Carolina Knew that. She said no, but everyone that was a director level and above did. . .

Thanks MrD90, and welcome to the forum.

You see, if we could ever get a REAL investigation with subpoena power, such testimony would come out publicly. There is another that I (and a few others) know of like this, a witness who is just afraid to come forward and speak out publicly.

But, a REAL investigation with subpoena power, will it ever happen in this lifetime, in Amerika?

[MrD90captain of 10]

Perhaps if Ron Paul is elected more people will be willing to publicly admit that the Emperor has no clothes.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

Turner Construction work orders.

Your reason for posting these was to try to prove. . .what?

Do you suppose you might be hearing from the folks at Turner Construction?

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Your reason for posting these was to try to prove. . .what?

You really don't see the significance of this do you?