• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Moving On is coming.

Ok we've licked eachother's sacks for long enough. Bottom line, you're a nut who thinks the government did 9/11. Out with it.

Let's see the evidence.
 
jhunter1163 said:
That's what I like about you, Scientologist. You really know how to cut to the chase.
Click to expand...


Well, I just think its ridiculous to sit here and be warm and greet these douchebags like we hold them in some high regard.

They come here as if they are original free thinkers and then they spout off the same goddamn lies that their predecessors spouted.

Cmon Russell P, the majority of us have already figured out that you're an attention seeking wackjob, we are just waiting for you to make your first ridiculous assertion.

OUT WITH IT
 
Scientologist said:
Well, I just think its ridiculous to sit here and be warm and greet these douchebags like we hold them in some high regard.

They come here as if they are original free thinkers and then they spout off the same goddamn lies that their predecessors spouted.

Cmon Russell P, the majority of us have already figured out that you're an attention seeking wackjob, we are just waiting for you to make your first ridiculous assertion.

OUT WITH IT
Click to expand...

Scientologist doesn't even know how to spell the word suttle.
 
Welcome Russ.

I've enjoyed reading about your research on the Pentagon crash at LC. I'm impressed by your analysis and use of data to support your assertion that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

I will be very interested in how you support your current theory that the plane was remote controlled :D.

Actually, considering your fact based research, I'm kinda surprised you even postulate such a theory at this point.
 
Scientologist said:
Well, I just think its ridiculous to sit here and be warm and greet these douchebags like we hold them in some high regard.

They come here as if they are original free thinkers and then they spout off the same goddamn lies that their predecessors spouted.

Cmon Russell P, the majority of us have already figured out that you're an attention seeking wackjob, we are just waiting for you to make your first ridiculous assertion.

OUT WITH IT
Click to expand...

Now, now! We can disagree, but let's be civil and respectful. I happen to have a good deal of respect for Russell and his tedious, intellectually honest research, even if I dont agree with his conclusions.

Give the man a chance, and he most certainly isn't "attention seeking wackjob".
 
DavidJames said:
Welcome Russ.

I've enjoyed reading about your research on the Pentagon crash at LC. I'm impressed by your analysis and use of data to support your assertion that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

I will be very interested in how you support your current theory that the plane was remote controlled :D.

Actually, considering your fact based research, I'm kinda surprised you even postulate such a theory at this point.
Click to expand...

Dude, cmon, they have TOTAL evidence.
 
apathoid said:
Now, now! We can disagree, but let's be civil and respectful. I happen to have a good deal of respect for Russell and his tedious, intellectually honest research, even if I dont agree with his conclusions.

Give the man a chance, and he most certainly isn't "attention seeking wackjob".
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have more respect for Russell than anyone else from the LC boards.
 
Scientologist:

Do as you will, but remember it is not only the argument, and its content, but just as importantly, its presentation, that will convince the audience (THE FENCE SITTERS) of which side they will fall in.

Take it for what it is worth, from a recovering antagonist.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
Scientologist:

Do as you will, but remember it is not only the argument, and its content, but just as importantly, its presentation, that will convince the audience (THE FENCE SITTERS) of which side they will fall in.

Take it for what it is worth, from a recovering antagonist.

TAM
Click to expand...

I agree but you can coat a turd with gold but its still just a turd.
 
fair enough...but I havent seen enough proof that RP is a turd, to label him so. Nor have I seen his arguments enough to call them "turd speak" either.

TAM:)
 
This whole situation has exploded all over the Internet. I first became aware of it on IMDb, which I frequent a lot. This situation has compelled me to join the JREF forums. I am looking forward to discussion and broadening my horizons and of course following the drama.

It's so good, I hope it lasts!!
 
sivazh said:
This whole situation has exploded all over the Internet. I first became aware of it on IMDb, which I frequent a lot. This situation has compelled me to join the JREF forums. I am looking forward to discussion and broadening my horizons and of course following the drama.

It's so good, I hope it lasts!!
Click to expand...


You mean this is THE Russell Pickering who played a faun in The Chronicles of Narnia?

WOW!

Oh and welcome! :)
 
Scientologist said:
I agree but you can coat a turd with gold but its still just a turd.
Click to expand...


Hey, I said a long time ago to Russ (I like to think I was the first one over at LC to invite him here) that I'd watch out for the conduct here.

So Scientologist, RELAX! We have been dealing with the vulgar elements of the CT'ers for so long that we ourselves have become vulgar in turn. While I and most here will probably disagree with Russ, he has started out in a gentlemanly way, and he definitely writes better than any CT'er (and a fair number of JREF'ers) we have previously encountered.

So let the man talk and if he posits truly wierd stuff, there will be ample time and place for the hob-nailed boots.

But if he wants a civil conversation, I for one will try and give it to him and call out anyone who tries to make messes on the debate floor.

In others words, as that renowned intellectual Mr. Archibald Bunker would have said, "Stifle It!!"


Russ;

I offered some advice to mr JDX, which was ignored. I pro-offer some of the same advice to you.

1. You will get a lot of posts in response to yours, and you may find it overwhelming. I would suggest you start thread(s) on a specific topic and present your evidence/reasoning and we'll try to stay on the single subject. Most threads here have ended up derailed due to muddy posts and insults, truth be told on both sides, or the same thing posted round-and-round (see Christophera's thread for an example (if you dare..:eek: ). Find a single subject for us to discuss and stick with it (and keep us on it).

2. One reason you are welcome and respected by those of us who played in the Loose Change playpen is that you seemed one of the few..well, adults, to be frank..that looked to be really interested in research and evidence. We value that here; we also disagree on the data and have more than a little expertise to challenge ideas. You may find ourself outnumbered, but hopefully by people as interested in learning as you are.

3. I also invite you to 'look around' the Forum. I am guessing that many of the things we don't like (Psy, dowsing, etc.) may also fit your POV. And if you see our community area, well, there are some damn decent and fine people in this Forum (something you may find hard to figure after LC, but look around). Now as for our Politics section....:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi

What I am saying is that most CT'ers come to tilt at our 9-11 windmill but are not part of the overall community. I think it is possible to disagree vehemently on one topic and still maintain oneself in a civil way in other parts of the Forum. I hope you look at what else is going on and maybe decide to stick around, even if your arguments are left moot; we're always open to some class folks.

That's all.

Hutch
 
Scientologist,

There is a little history here as to my presence. I did not come uninvited to convert anybody to what I believe. My intent is always to discuss and learn. I have read most of the work here and understand the arguments well.

So I will summarize my beliefs briefly so you can direct your arguments as you wish by subject matter.

1) I believe there is historical precedent that elements within our government have been willing to self inflict damage to further a larger set of goals.
2) I believe that there is evidence of foreknowledge of 9/11.
3) I believe at the very least it was facilitated by elements within our current administration.
4) I believe it has been the subject of a significant cover up.
5) I believe that according to recent polls that I am within a high percentage of the population that feels we have not been told the truth.

With that said, some of my beliefs are subjective but can be supported with evidence I find compelling. Some of the technical details can be argued either way effectively.

I have done more work than our government to demonstrate the reality of a plane hitting the Pentagon. The logical assumption is that they don't feel a burden to prove anything since it is obvious. My point here is that I feel they don't want to dispel the myths about it because it serves as a great distraction from other points. I can only say that if I were the decider I would have made everything clear 5 years ago when all this stuff started. If for no other reason than respect for the families and victims. I would have released everything that was not related to national security and not even given us CT's a leg to stand on. But the fact that they have sequestered all of the hard evidence away and purposefully perpetuated the myth allowing everything we see today is suspicious. On the State department website they even link to rense.com to prove a plane hit the building instead of releasing the pictures themselves.

I have no problem wearing the title "CT" since it is technically the position I hold. I do however differentiate between myself and what I refer to as the "hard core CT".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom