Jason wrote: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
Jason wrote: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
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....
You are an idiot and a liar
Jason wrote: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 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).
Jason wrote: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!!!
links....LOL I can provide links to people who claim aliens landed and abused your mother.....your point???
Jason wrote: 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.
....again you lie!!!
Jason wrote: 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...
Jason wrote: . . . 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"!!!
Jason wrote: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 ...
Jason wrote: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....
Jason wrote: You finally watch a video and your only response is the guy talks to fast.....never addressing the subject matter that undermines your paradigm.
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)...
Jason wrote: 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 -
BlueMoon5 wrote: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).
...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
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/07/ ... dered.html
The state sterilized people who were mentally ill, "feeble minded," poor, or thought to be promiscuous.
BlueMoon5 wrote: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
BlueMoon5 wrote: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.
BlueMoon5 wrote: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?
Jason wrote: 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
...so you are justifying or excusing wickedness? Just wanted to clarify that for you (I'm sure its obvious to the other "viewers")
BlueMoon5 wrote: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.
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.
BlueMoon5 wrote: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?
Jason wrote: 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...
Jason wrote: 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...
Jason wrote: 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
Jason wrote: 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....
Jason wrote: 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.)
Jason wrote: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.
Jason wrote: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....
BlueMoon5 wrote:Thanks for giving me the opportunity; I relish it. Look for my response tomorrow.
BlueMoon5 wrote: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.
Jason wrote: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 -
BlueMoon5 wrote: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?
Jason wrote:...and this -
BlueMoon5 wrote: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.
Jason wrote:...and this -
BlueMoon5 wrote:How about you giving me his credentials?
Jason wrote:...and this -
BlueMoon5 wrote:But you would rather not be in the discomforting position of having to repeat them here. I understand.
Jason wrote:...and this -
BlueMoon5 wrote: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?
Jason wrote: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/20/865/9aahttp://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.checksitetraffic.com/traffic ... nworld.com
Owner name: Implosionworld.com Llc
PO Box 355
Owner e-mail address: email@example.com
Phone(s): +1 856 234 2202, Fax: +1 416 645 3920
....senior writer (and only), website contact,
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-s ... rvices.com
Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Blanchard, Brent firstname.lastname@example.org
151 Algonquin Trail
Medford Lakes, NJ 08055
Fax: 999 999 9999
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.
...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
...all registered at
199 KNOTTY OAK DRIVE
RANCOCAS WOODS/MT LAUREL/MOUNT LAUREL
...which happens to be this househttp://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 VIEWPOINThttp://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/bla ... index.html