• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wieck Chickens Out

TruthSeeker1234 said:
He is afraid of allowing the evidence to be shown.
Click to expand...


he's not afraid. he's not going to entertain a claim that can be debunked by him bringing on the thousands of people who were there that day who witnessed the plane crashes in person.

care to help him with paying for their airfare?
 
Ace,

This is a serious question. Have you ever considered psychiatric help?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
*snip*
But really, Ron, your intellectual cowardice could not be more obvious. Clearly your intent in having me on the show would be to discredit 9/11 truth. If the "no planes" theory is really "idiocy", seems you'd want to air it, just to make me look bad.
Click to expand...


Don't overestimate your own importance (I realize that is very hard not to do ;) ). Air time costs money. Why should anybody spend money to make an idiot look bad? You don't need any help to do that.

The truth is, the plane crash videos are fake as hell, and you are scared to death of a TV audience actually being shown them, slowed down, frame by frame, and having the crash physics explained.
Click to expand...

Dude, several thousand people, probably tens of thousands, saw the second plane hit, with their own eyes. The rest of us saw them on direct TV or what had originally been aired as direct TV. Recorded by scores of independent professional camaramen, working for scores of independent news services, from all over the world. For quite a few, this was the shot of their lifetime. Do you think they'd have noticed if anybody tampered with it.

Yes, to deny that planes hit the buildings is not sane.

I pointed out that a better analogy would be a bowling ball falling into a stack of bowling balls, or balsa wood falling into a balsa wood frame.
Click to expand...

None of the analogies fit the facts. There is no really useful analogy for the behaviour of a megastructure with a low weight to strenght ratio.

So I'll wait to hear from Greening, to see if he's getting cold feet or not. Perhaps there is a little TV studio in Hamilton College.
Click to expand...

I suggest you consider the possibility that some of the pople who refuse to speak with you are not getting cold feet. They may just not think you are worth their time.

Hans
 
Hey TS, why not debate the people who saw the plane? I'm sure they would be more than happy to tell you what they saw.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
He is afraid of allowing the evidence to be shown.
Click to expand...



The clear response to this (other than, "Ace, you are once again completely wrong"), is to show all of Ace's clips and phots without any comments whatsoever. If, as Ace contends, the only reason everybody doesn't believe as he does is they "haven't seen the evidence", that should convince them, right?
 
I have one question for everyone here. WHO CARES? Why does anyone even give this nutter responses? It is obvious that he is only doing it for attention. Just treat TS1234 like a child. Ignore him, and eventually he will go away.
 
> I propose getting a steel beam, or other solid heavy object, and attaching
> some dust to it, then throwing it over a cliff to see what happens.
Click to expand...

Since all the cool kids are doing it, I'm stealing this line for my sig. It's easily one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum. I need all the laughs I can get at the moment, so thanks!
 
Alt+F4 said:
Everytime you post this lie, I will keep responding:

I SAW THE SECOND PLANE CRASH INTO THE SOUTH TOWER OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. I DID NOT SEE THIS ON TELEVISION, I SAW THIS WITH MY OWN EYES.
Click to expand...

Out of all the responses on this page guess which one TS has studiously ignored....??

I wonder why?
 
MRC_Hans said:
Don't overestimate your own importance (I realize that is very hard not to do ;) ). Air time costs money. Why should anybody spend money to make an idiot look bad? You don't need any help to do that.
Click to expand...


The idiot isn't the only one who looks bad: Everybody involved looks bad.



Dude, several thousand people, probably tens of thousands, saw the second plane hit, with their own eyes. The rest of us saw them on direct TV or what had originally been aired as direct TV. Recorded by scores of independent professional camaramen, working for scores of independent news services, from all over the world. For quite a few, this was the shot of their lifetime. Do you think they'd have noticed if anybody tampered with it.

Yes, to deny that planes hit the buildings is not sane.
Click to expand...


This is what led me to conclude that Ace is--what was that wonderful phrase I just heard?--a few Zionists short of a New World Order.



None of the analogies fit the facts. There is no really useful analogy for the behaviour of a megastructure with a low weight to strenght ratio.
Click to expand...


I wasn't making an analogy to the WTC. My bowling ball scenario was simply to suggest that all the interest lies in determining what caused the ball fall, that what happens after it falls is obvious.


I suggest you consider the possibility that some of the pople who refuse to speak with you are not getting cold feet. They may just not think you are worth their time.

Hans
Click to expand...

Well said.
Click to expand...
 
I must report that Dr. Greening no longer believes that his computer contracted a virus from an e-mail sent by Ace Baker.
 
pomeroo said:
The idiot isn't the only one who looks bad: Everybody involved looks bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as they say: Don't wrestle with pigs............

I wasn't making an analogy to the WTC. My bowling ball scenario was simply to suggest that all the interest lies in determining what caused the ball fall, that what happens after it falls is obvious.
Click to expand...

Quite. And it is even the same with controlled demolitions; once those supporting structures have been cut, everybody just stands back and waits for the dust to settle.

Hans
 
Ace:

After I received your e-mail with the crazy date I wondered what was
going on!

I saw a thread on a blog saying that December 31, 1969, was linked to a
virus that messed with the inbox of your e-mail.

Needless to say I wasn't very happy about that and, given the times we
live in, suspected the worst.....

However, I do not appear to have any virus on my computer.

I apologize for suggesting that you sent one to me.

Is that ok?

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ace Baker" <ace@acebaker.com>
To: "Ronald Wieck" <ronniejames@att.net>
Cc: "greening" <greening@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Libel Per Se


> Gentlemen:
>
> Libel per se is a special case of libel. It involves falsely accusing
> another person of committing a crime, or of harboring a loathsome disease.
> "Clinically Insane" may be considered a loathsome disease. And sending
> someone a "document that contained a virus" may be a crime. Libel per se
is
> interesting, because the plaintiff need not show actual damages.
>
> You guys have done both. I suggest you check with your attorneys, to see
if
> you might wish to offer an apology of some kind.
>
> If Greening is indeed having computer problems, it is no fault of mine.
The
> December 31, 1969 thing is a very well-known, well-documented mac OS X
issue
> that occurs when the rechargeable battery becomes worn out. On the other
> hand, I can't find anything at all about a "Wednesday December 31, 1969
> virus".
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ace Baker
>
>
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ace Baker" <ace@acebaker.com>
To: "Ronald Wieck" <e-mail address deleted>
Cc: "greening" <e-mail address deleted>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Libel Per Se



> Gentlemen:
>
> Libel per se is a special case of libel. It involves falsely accusing
> another person of committing a crime, or of harboring a loathsome disease.
> "Clinically Insane" may be considered a loathsome disease. And sending
> someone a "document that contained a virus" may be a crime. Libel per se
is
> interesting, because the plaintiff need not show actual damages.
>
> You guys have done both. I suggest you check with your attorneys, to see
if
> you might wish to offer an apology of some kind.
Click to expand...



I can do better than an apology. I can use my Jedi psychic powers to post the full transcript of the court proceedings stemming from your libel suit:


Ace: Ronald Wieck called me insane because I can prove that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center didn't exist.

Judge: Case dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
pomeroo said:
I can do better than an apology. I can use my Jedi psychic powers to post the full transcript of the court proceedings stemming from your libel suit:


Ace: Ronald Wieck called me insane because I can prove that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center didn't exist.

Judge: Case dismissed.
Click to expand...
You left off the part where the judge's jaw bounces off the bench.
Then he says "Case dismissed."
Click to expand...
 
A quote comes to mind in relation to anyone debating Ace.

"[SIZE=-1]Arguing with a fool proves there are two. - Doris M. Smith"

I think Ace needs to comprehend that just because someone declines to debate him doesn't mean they cannot refute his facts. He is simply not worth the time and money.
[/SIZE]
 
pomeroo said:
I can do better than an apology. I can use my Jedi psychic powers to post the full transcript of the court proceedings stemming from your libel suit:


Ace: Ronald Wieck called me insane because I can prove that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center didn't exist.

Judge: Case dismissed.
Click to expand...

Judge: In the case of the people of the United State versus Ace Baker, for assualt and battery of common sense and science, I find you not guilty by reason of mental defect.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom