Nico Haupt banned on 911blogger
Ewing2001 ?? What the? 911blogger gone elitist? Is 911blogger something better? Time for me to go, too?
noplane | npt
You censored a fellow 911 truther? For what?
Own up!
Apart from the odious concept of censorship per se...
Are you sure you censored him justly? Like, have you applied the EXACT SAME rules and EXACT SAME STRICTNESS to others? Otherwise we can call you hypocrits, you know that.
I know that HERESY is a condition prevalent in the USA. But to me, it does not exist. Even insults and bad behaviour... look, we US-americans cannot really start throwing stones here, eh?
Do you think DRG would have banned and excluded Nico from partaking in discussions here?
Read this: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3692#comment-79612
Funny, now I can no longer confront him without feeling that I WAS NOT EXCLUDED.. You bastards made me into an INSIDER now... and made Nico an outsider.
Urrrgh!! spew!!
Remember Marx's rule where you shouldn't join a club that accepts you to be a member.
So, please re-instate ewing2001 or I will remind yous in every future post that you have censored Nico.
You probably bann me too then.. Maybe it is COMMERCIALLY harmful to have skeptics ruin the mood of advertisers and donors, huh? Oh yeah.. Capitalism is a great culuture... makes you love life... (on a far away island ;-)
Here, I have some consolation for the ANTI-ewing2001 crowd. Maybe this will make you happy again and tolerate dissent.
![[Image]](http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/wreckage.jpg)
(big version: http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/wreckage.jpg )![[Image]](http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/window.jpg)
![[Image]](http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/tire1.jpg)
![[Image]](http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/tire2.jpg)
COMMENTS:
Don't forget to close the
Don't forget to close the door on your way out.
Try to love ... You don't
Try to love ... You don't even know me. Why get worked up about it..
Love and sensible discussion can be such a wonderful soothing thing to the soul of every human being..
Oops, maybe not in America.
I am just listening to V911T.ORG interview on http://vyzygoth.com
and what they say about the germans under hitler... I get the feeling that the WHOLE US SOCIETY is "hardened" for the "big one".
Sorry. I'm just sick of the
Sorry. I'm just sick of the no plane/holocaust denying crowd.
nico is banned from 911
nico is banned from 911 blogger? why? has any explanation been given? nico is banned yet dem bruce lee's foul-mouthed disinfo is the norm? you guys suck and i advise you guys to now block my IP because i am going to fill every thread with comments about your collective 1/2 truth lameness!
what the eff is this?:
I'm just sick of the no plane/holocaust denying crowd.
you equate no-planes with holocaust deniers?
truly you do suck. - james ha.
Screaming no planes borders
Screaming no planes borders on the lines of missiles into the pentagon. It really doesn't matter. There is so much evidence out there about other issues that don't require such exhaustive specialization. Put simply, drop it. You do nothing for the movement and only to alienate it from the mainstream. Move on, no one cares about your crusade to noplanes.
Both Bring 9/11 Down, but Neo-Nazis Eat the Cake
It's one thing to be illogical in terms of what battles should be fought to make 9/11 truth succeed, which is what the no-planers are all about. The best of them seem to ignore the following: IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR THE BUSH CABAL NOT TO USE REAL PLANES (perhaps remote controlled, it does not matter) to hit the WTC, because no matter WHAT HIT THE WTC, it was PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES that brought them down.
On the other hand, holocaust deniers and neo-nazis are the lowest form of slime around. Even the original Nazis had the cojones to state they hated Jews. The neo-nazi holocaust deniers are the castrati version of the original.
Let them have free speech on the streets, let them run around foaming at the mouth; just keep them out of the 9/11 movement. Even zoos do not need to worry about free speech for the wild beasts.
Amen: NoPlaners and Holocaust Deniers are LOSERS
Why should we let them take us down with them ?
Do they really believe their own crap, or are they moles who wish to destroy our movement ?
Either way, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Everybody knows...
that in all likelihood, Nico could have been here forever espousing the NPT if he hadn't played fast and loose with the facts on many occasions, consistently insulted anyone who disagreed with him or even questioned him, and with a few people even went further, into the realm of slander.
Oh, I'm sorry
I meant "tv fakery."
where are the open minded
where are the open minded and what the fuck is this shit about? you can not exclude a fellow truther like nico. he has done a great job so far and in 2003 he was allready about the explosives before a lot of you even thought about 9/11 being a conspiracy!!
where is the FREE SPEECH?
I can't believe this. Kinda reminds me of...
Bill O'Reilly
Nico is literally insane.
Nico is literally insane. Look at the garbage he posted on my San Diegans for 9/11 Truth board. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SanDiego9-11Truth/. He deserved being banned because he attacked anyone who did not agree with him. He spammed our beloved website, 911blogger, with crazy insulting bullshit that only stood to turn people away from the 911 truth movement. Anyone who wishes to drive a wedge into the 9/11 truth movement has no place here. Dont pretend like he is a victim.
A wise man of sorts said it best:
"If you look at any organization or movement, it invariably follows the same pattern. First it emerges to question the status quo of the time with another set of beliefs. Then, instead of evolving in the light of new information and experience, it solidifies and turns those original beliefs into a dogma which becomes the status quo of the next generations. This dogma is defended with the same unyielding vehemence as the old dogma displayed in the past. Anyone who continues to seek and move on in their thinking and perceptions, is condemned as 'extreme', 'loony' and not to be taken seriously--the same response of the old dogma when it was defending itself. At this point, such a movement ceases to be a vehicle for positive change and becomes a block on that change."
--David Icke, ...and the truth shall set you free
Principles work well in
Principles work well in theory on paper, bad in practice in the real world. This martyrdom crap is old.
It's not about dogma.
And it's not about the fact that Nico may seem crazy at times. It's about the fact that he has misrepresented other posters and made erroneous statements that he has corrected very belatedly, if at all.
"David Icke" a "wise man"
"David Icke" a "wise man" HAHAHAHHAHA, GET... THE... F*CK... OUTTAHERE! David Icke thought he was JESUS! So he certainly does think he's a "Wiseman" in his world, but in that thing called reality he's a... wait for it... TOTAL NUTBALL! He now thinks 12foot LIZARDMEN run the planet, end of story! "Wiseman" hahahahaha.... unbelievable.
Hence the "of sorts"
You'll be a force to be reckoned with, if you ever learn how to read the content of people's postings before launching into sophomoric tirades.
David Icke is a nutball who
David Icke is a nutball who thinks we're ruled by lizard people.
I have just gotten around to
I have just gotten around to emailing this user as to why his account was temporarily blocked, if he wishes to share that email here then he can. It was not my intention to 'make an example' of him, nor to publicly denounce him in any public explanation as to why he was temporarily banned, which is how any public posting as to his ban would have been interpreted.
With that said, I will however respond to the criticisms which I received in this thread.
Maybe it is COMMERCIALLY harmful to have skeptics ruin the mood of advertisers and donors, huh? Oh yeah.. Capitalism is a great culuture... makes you love life...
this statement is completely baseless and undeserved. i personally have never received a single penny from running this website, in fact i have spent something over $4,000 out of my own pocket in running this site and advertising for 9/11 related items. I will NEVER make a penny from running this site, and any suggestion otherwise is a baseless insult which I do not appreciate. Any advertising on this site is there for the simple purpose of funding ads which we run for 9/11 related items, not to go into my pocket, this is quite clearly stated in our faq. When these funds are used I personally will post about how they are used as I did a few weeks ago here.
Furthermore, the insinuation that this user was removed because of his personal opinions or theories is ludicrous given that this site currently allows blogs on any subject related to 9/11 so long as they are within our rules, and given that these blog entries have not been removed, nor have we made any rules regarding what subjects can and cannot be discussed here. The fact that this blog entry is still here should quite clearly show our lack of 'censorship'.
The suggestion that we are somehow like bill o'reilly, have gone 'elitist', or can't tolerate dissent is equally as ridiculous given the openness of this site. Quite frankly, if you find this site to be in line with nazis in our moderation then I suggest you try to find somewhere else any better.
The fact that the temporary ban of one user could illicit such responses without so much as an email inquiring about it is quite telling, as was the desire to spam the rest of the site with comments regarding our moderation. Likewise the fact that this spam itself contained insults against other users for their opinions, and called for their banning is 'hypocritical' (as you accused of me) - while complaining about our moderation you in turn call for the moderation of others to be 'fair' despite your insistence with how moderation of another user is completely unfair.
I'm not trying to be a 'nazi' here, but likewise I do not appreciate the easy willingness of some to so quickly (and openly) criticize how this site is run, especially given all the positives of the site which apparently can be so easily overlooked, especially when the poster doesn't even know the reasoning behind the decisions being made.
I don't really know Kurt Nimmo...
But everyone should read this.
O’Reilly Sets Up Truthseekers To Be Disappeared
Now is a time to stick together. Now is not the time to attack each other. If you listened to my show on Visibility 9-11, you'll hear me say at the end of the show that people, including myself, try to answer the unanswerable. We spend an inordinate amount of time trying to do so. We get into arguments, and spend time bickering when we should be doing activism. When we should be visible, and in the streets. Tell people the story of 9/11. The story speaks for itself.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
And...
I would like to think that the 9/11 Truth Movement has mine, and MANY other peoples' backs.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Your timing is so off.
Go put this somewhere else
Now is a time to stick together. Now is not the time to attack each other.
You can diss others and run them off the board. And as soon as you get your way it's all:
"Let's be friends and not bicker."
Just the Bushies line when they got the White House:
"We ran Clinton down. [But that was OK] Now that we are the top dogs- keep your mouth shut and keep the peace."
What a hypocrite.
Nico was "dissing" me...
LONG before I ever "dissed" him. Nico attacked 911Truth.org, Janice Matthews, and David Kubiak all in one post. I don't know if you noticed or not, but 911Truth.org was recently "made fun of" on South Park.
Tell me... why is it ok to spend your time writing articles about other people or other organizations? Why is it ok for a supposed member of the 9/11 Truth Movement to investigate other members of the movement, and then promote their "investigation" (that is full of lies) to damage the reputation of another? Why is it ok to spend your time blatantly lying about 9/11 related information? Why is it ok to take your time correcting those lies, or not even correcting them at all, and instead, argue to keep the lie alive?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
What's so scary?
The very fact you had to shut Nico off by running him off the board shows that your arguments are no good.
If your arguments were good, they'd have stood on their own and everyone could've seen that for themselves.
It wouldn't have bothered you so much.
However, the only way you could win the argument was to constantly agitate for Nico to be banned from the board and have his blogs taken down. The only way you could win, in your own mind, is to remove him. If you really knew inside yourself you were correct and your argument was good, you would've ignored him.
The same psychological issues which cause you to think you "know what's best" for everyone, and for the movement as a whole, are the same issues which cause much of the general public to laugh at our arguments before even investigating. And cause even some, not to be able to see the obvious even when it's right in front of them.
The "South Park' episode was the best coverage we've received. It's more watched than "Time", "U.S News and World Report", and "Vanity Fair" are read. Most people in the U.S., now, do not read. They get their info from TV. If you think the "South Park" coverage was bad, it means you are not even confident in your own arguments. You are swayed when someone calls you a name. And think the power is in "what people think" and not the truth or falsity of an argument.
You think, "It's OK. All the bad news is going to be over now," now that you got rid of Nico. And you can do your little self-congratulatory, self righteous, smug little happy dance.
Tell me... why is it ok to spend your time writing articles about other people or other organizations?
I think he was rightly pointing out the fact that Janice Matthews let the ball drop on a very important opportunity.
How many other "articles" did he write about other organizations?
Why is it OK for you to back stab and disparage other 9/11 truth activists with your superior attitude and snide humor, but not OK for others? That's why I say, "hypocrite"
You see Nico's faults very well but you don't seem to see your own. It was OK with you when others said Nico was an "infiltrator" and against the movement. But he can't say that, even if he gives his reasons.
Also, if you notice, he put a little happy face after what he said, implying that he was less than serious.
You are not reading what is there. You are reading what others are telling you to think.
Why is it ok for a supposed member of the 9/11 Truth Movement to investigate other members of the movement, and then promote their "investigation" (that is full of lies) to damage the reputation of another?
If you don't know the answer to that I can't help you.
Do you honestly think that the people who pulled off 9/11, JFK, RFK, MLK assassinations, October Surprise, numerous coup d'etat in other countries, who run torture outfits, who are making trillions on this, who are now trying their hand at Empire.....are going to let people like you and me defeat them with our little keyboards and fliers - without a fight? A dirty fight?
Do you have any idea about history - about what happened to reformers and anti-Vietnam activists back in the day?
It all has to do with why we are where we are, now.
Do you have any idea what happened to 100's of Kennedy Assassination witnesses?
I have many friends who are long time activists. I hear the history from them.
Do you really think that if governmental parties pull this off - which implies collusion of large numbers of people as well as the Media - that they don't have the means, nor the motive, nor the smarts, to control the opposition groups and/or infiltrate?
So you really think that people who have high profile positions should not be questioned?
This might all sound "crazy" to many people. But that is exactly the point.:
If it didn't sound "crazy" to many people, if great numbers of individuals hadn't been convinced that no such thing is going on, nor could it go on, the perpetrators would not be getting away with it.
What the Perpetrators are doing, which it is glaringly obvious to most thinking people by now - so it is finally sinking in, (which is why I get the response, "I wouldn't be surprised" when I pass out my fliers now), would be impossible to talk about without it sounding "crazy." That is the point of the Big Lie.
Is there anything intrinsically "funnier," or less plausible, from a conditioned person's POV, about our narrative as represented on South Park, with or without the No Planes or Video Fakery information. (Which BTW, was not included)?
To really make our story palatable to the masses, I guess all we have to do is not have a story at all!
That is the whole point of framing us as crazy.
That is the whole point of the Big Lie.
You don't like being called "crazy" or being made fun of, and I don't blame you - so you disparage someone like Nico, at a schoolchild level of discourse, in order to feel better about yourself. "See, I'm not the crazy. It's all Nico."
"We have 'crazy' people in our movement, sure. But it's not me. It's those horrible NO PLANE PEOPLE. wooo. hoo"
"They are the one's ruining it for all of us. They are the ones who are stopping our success."
Bullshit.
Why is it ok to spend your time blatantly lying about 9/11 related information?
That's your opinion. You haven't demonstrated to me that Nico was "blantantly lying" about anything.
Isn't it true that for many years while you believed the government's story Nico was being slandered, smeared and slammed for promoting ideas that were "crazy" and that were "hurting the movement?"
Why is it ok to take your time correcting those lies, or not even correcting them at all, and instead, argue to keep the lie alive?
Maybe if you could actually show the lie was a lie then it would go away?
Like I said: It's your opinion that what he said is a lie. You just make that contention, but go no where near demonstrating that. You smear him instead.
You can't prove him wrong. So the only way to save your little fantasy of "what the truth should be in order for us to win" is to throw tantrums and hound him until he's thrown off here.
And you actually haven't a clue of what is needed in order to "win."
"In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person."
- Galileo Galilei
Peggy, you're being dishonest
or you haven't been paying attention. If Nico had been banned because of his opinions, then you'd be gone, CB_Brooklyn would be gone, james ha would be gone, and so forth. I can think of two instances right off the top of my head where Nico was caught making blatantly false statements (aka "lies") and either never fixed them or fixed them much, much later than he should have and only after being told to do so. Moreover, posts from him that didn't include completely gratuitous, shrill insults were few and far between.
Finally, he was repeatedly warned to spell "Orwellian" with a capital "O," and flagrantly defied this instruction.
"Peggy, you're being dishonest"
'nuff said.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
You must be joking
Nico "flagrently defied [your] instruction" to spell "Orwellian" correctly?
Huh?
Please tell me you're not serious?
You can't be. Please tell me it was your lame attempt at a joke? If it was, it was way over my head.
Oh yea, and please give me those two obvious examples that sprung immediately to mind, where he lied and didn't correct it after your command to do so.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but your chief spelling-police enforcement specialty (You said, "Finally, ..as if this was the last straw !- -haahhahhaha) doesn't support, for me, a great deal of confidence in your reasoning powers.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Peggy, While casseia is
Peggy,
While casseia is looking up those two examples, why don't you go correct your own blog: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3212
7800 mph? 4 inchs thick? At a certain point uncorrected errors become lies. Yeah, yeah, you admitted your mistakes in the comments. That's great. Now go fix your post so that someone with even poorer math skills than you doesn't get sucked in by it. Or do you not care if that happens?
I amend the posts where that is possible
The ones that can't be amended, since they've been responded to, obvously must stay.
Also, if I change it, the sense of the posts which follow are lost.
I think it should be kept, for the proper history/documentation, and I can just write something at the top to warn the reader. Trial and error is no shame. That's how science works.
Thank you for your advise.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
No time limit for editing blogs, however
I don't believe -- and those errors are still present in the one BCS is referring to. You're right, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes and being honest about it gets you a lot of cred in the eyes of most people. But you should fix them and you could always do it in the form of a parenthetical "note."
Yes. Thank you, casseia for
Yes. Thank you, casseia for stating it succinctly and graciously, which I seem unable to do.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
First you say you don't have to update it because you admitted the mistakes in the comments. Now you say you are not able to update the post and in fact *should* not update it for the "proper history/documentation." That's crap, Peggy, and you know it.
I just edited a post of mine with multiple comments. Unless there is some double-secret feature of this site's software that I am unaware of, you CAN edit your post and either correct the numbers or add a note -- right where the mistake is -- indicating that your math and conclusions have been shown to be incorrect. Go to the post. Right about the title there's a little tab that says "edit."
Thank you for your input
Well, you brought it up to me again. I re-thought it and figured, if it's so important that it's being brought up to me again ...no harm in amending it.
So....... I agreed with you. Why the bitterness?
I said I would add a note to it to warn the unwary reader. What's wrong with that? Why are you being so nasty?
I didn't mean to communicate that I didn't think I could edit my blog text. I meant to communciate that was the case for the comments that had been replied to already. And that I wanted to keep the entire interaction intact. I think if you check what I said, you will realize I wasn't denying I could edit the blog.
Thank you for your input.
I don't know why you're
I don't know why you're talking about editing the comments. I am and have only been asking you to edit the blog post itself. Whether you change the numbers or add a note as an addendum is of far less importance to me than the fact that it's all still sitting there as is, in bold.
My gripe is that even after multiple people pointed out to you in the comments thread on your blog post that your figures we incorrect you left the blog post itself intact with those very same mistakes, including a misleading title.
I see that you have made a first attempt at updating the post (sorry you lost your edit, sucks to type a whole bunch and lose it). Thank you. I look forward to seeing it when you get a chance to update it more thoroughly.
Get a sense of humor, woman!
For God's sake, of course that was a joke. JFC.
Okay, the two examples (and you would have to approach the other people involved for details, as I do not remember them)
with Jon Gold: Something about a firefighter/first responder was in question and Nico said the guy in question was under investigation for fraud. As it happened, it was not him, and Jon Gold had to pester him for days to get him to acknowledge that fact.
with John Albanese: This one I really don't recall, but OTOH, I'm sure there was more than one. At some point recently, Nico made a statement that John Albanese was propounding violent action, which he was not. As far as I know, Nico never retracted that one.
There are many, many more. Frankly, I find Nico to be more interesting than your average NPT/ tv fakery-oids (although James Ha, Shep, and Killtown get a lot more credit for being willing to explain things and answer questions civilly.) I just gave up trying to understand him and interact with him because he would pretty much always end up calling me a truthling, a fruitloop, or one of his other colorful insults (which he seems to explain with MUCH more clarity on his website than his actual theories.)
Finally, although I did ask him to use a capital "O" with "Orwellian," I had nothing to do with asking him to retract any statements, I merely observed that others did. Really, I'm a lot more interested in grammar than in spelling but more importantly, I like to encourage non-native speakers of English to post here without worrying about mistakes. I thought Nico could probably handle being teased.
Blame the lack of humor on the audience.
I guess since it was such a great joke, that it was obvious.
Huh?
Sorry for my obtuseness.
Well, it was kind of an "in joke."
Because I've bitched about that before.
I got it.
Very funny.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
As far as the lies go
As far as the lies go, I think it needs a bit more research.
What I've noticed is that some people on this board would hound Nico. If a lie was involved? I think that is highly unlikely. Or if it was a mistake, I think they would blow it up since they were interested in shutting him up and harassing him, since they didn't like what he said..
This is an important issue regarding human interaction and psychology which bears upon how we can get through to people the reality of the situation.
Opponants never actually engaged on points or destroy the argument, they just nit-pick. This mini-strategy within our movement itself mirrors the strategy the Mainstream takes against our movement as a whole.
My theory is that when someone doesn't want to look at facts, they will disparage you personally, discredit you, nit-pit over unimportant details to make you look bad - all because they don't agree with you and have no other argument
I will try to find out what is the citation for the claim that Nico said Albanese was violent.
As far as the firefighter, I remember that and I think it was a mistake, not a lie. There's a big difference. What followed was not a lie, but just a refusal to give into the hounding and that was spun, by people who had an interest in doing so, as a "lie."
You go right ahead then
researching the "lies."
"Opponants never actually engaged on points or destroy the argument, they just nit-pick. This mini-strategy within our movement itself mirrors the strategy the Mainstream takes against our movement as a whole."
Comments like this just make me think you're reading an entirely different board.
Well I am glad you put "lie" in quotations
You started out claiming Nico lied.
Couldn't back it up.
Now your putting the work "lies" in quotations.
Thank you for amending your point.
Lies
Nico has lied. He has not lied to me or about me, but he has deliberately disseminated false information to or about others here. That is called lying. In some cases, it has not initially been clear whether he *intended* to employ false information (lied) or made mistakes which he allowed to remain uncorrected (go ahead and use whatever word you would like here.) However, I certainly believe that the pattern, over time, qualifies as lying.
You still haven't proved it to me
All you've said is, "I know he's done it."
But you admit you can't remember the details. And you admit it might've been mistakes that were uncorrected, ~"but that's the same thing as lying."
Uh, no it's not.
If it were they same thing as lying you wouldn't need two separate sets of words. And you wouldn't have to try to spin it to people, "it's the same thing."
I personally don't think it's the same thing.
People just liked to use those words against him, since it made them feel good. It sounds serious whereas, "makes mistakes and doesn't admit them [even when others advertise them] " does not.
See...
I don't have to prove it to you. If I was the one banning him, then I would have to explain it to him. I think you're completely wrong and I'm done trying to persuade you.
Feel free to have the last word.
Now you know what it feels like?
You're saying stuff without substantiating it.
Is it a lie or a mistake?
Y'all are so full of double standards. No wonder you think it's funny - the word "Orwellian," when it's not. It's so fatal.
Now can I bring it up forever....like you do to others:
"She didn't admit her mistake. She must be lying and trying to deceive. When are you going to admit your mistake? Huh, when are you? When are you? You must be a liar."
"I think you should admit your mistake, apologize for it, or you are discrediting the Truth project. In fact, if you don't, it means you are lying. And I have the right to call you a liar from here on. Because where is the line between not admitting a mistake and lying?"
Maybe I should write a letter to DZ and insist on a ban. We can't have liars here. Liars don't belong here."
:)
Now you know what it feels like?
I guess it was in quotation here too
I guess it was in quotation here too.
Who are you, Pinnochia?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
BTW
I just noticed that my initial use of the word "lies" was also in quotation marks. No point was amended, so you can feel free to STFU.
:)
Nico has lied. He has not
Nico has lied. He has not lied to me or about me, but he has deliberately disseminated false information to or about others here. That is called lying. In some cases, it has not initially been clear whether he *intended* to employ false information (lied) or made mistakes which he allowed to remain uncorrected (go ahead and use whatever word you would like here.) However, I certainly believe that the pattern, over time, qualifies as lying.
Were these your words or did someone force you to write this?
Lying about Lying. How post-modern.
Also, another potential lie. You said you gave me the last word.
Henry Shelton will face a firing squad
Nico is fighting the good fight.
There are some childish characters around... and he also is not fully grown up....
Fact is... 911 will come out.
Its just too obvious.
People will wait another 5 years, but BUSH IS TOAST.
Henry Shelton will face a firing squad.
...
You said I "switched" to using "lies" in quotation marks as if I decided it was too strong a word. To make it clear that I do not, I wrote the paragraph you cite here. Upon re-reading the earlier part of the thread, I noticed I had only used it in quotation marks prior to that post, in contrast to what you suggested. I just felt like pointing that out, because apparently the use of the word "lies," whether in quotation marks or not, is of great importance to you.
"Were these your words or did someone force you to write this?"
Hmm. Is there a little projection going on here?
And as for committing the post-modern sin of lying about lying by offering you the last word and then going back to correct you: guilty as charged.
'aka "lies"' does not equal "lies"
First you said he made blatantly false statements.
Then couldn't remember exactly what, couldn't back it up.
("Other people will have to do that")
And said maybe it was just mistakes he didn't correct.
Then, you didn't correct yourself , clarify or offer proof, and then dropped the subject - which is exactly the thing you accuse Nico of.
So I'm just thinking you must be lying yourself.
What you talking about? It's
What you talking about? It's not about "top dogs", its about the movement succeeding, "no planes hit the wtc" damages that effort so that's why people shun it. Anyone who cares about the issues shuns it, people who don't care and who are conspiracy trainspotters like Nico embrace that shit, and so there's contention. "No planes/pods/mini-nukes" are all divisive issues but EVERYBODY AGREES ON BUILDING 7, why not all rally behind that? As far as I'm concerned "no planes hit the wtc" along with all the other wild crap was thought up by some psy-ops "wag the dog" type assclown, but even if I'm wrong the affect that is has is the same, it's divisive it divides us leaving room for us to be conquered. So if you really care about unity you'd stop pushing such a divisive issue. You've got people on one side with hands out who say “we all agree on these issues right (wtc7 etc etc) lets all unite behind issues like that.” And then you've got the people pushing no planes or even things like Peak Oil I think as well, who say “no we want to be secular unless you start believing what we believe.” So those open hands turn into clenched fists after a while, which I don't think is a positive or productive thing, but don't be surprised when people start to get pissed off. It's not like "stop believing in this", you believe exactly what you want to believe nobody wants censorship. People just want to win this thing, and if you did to you'd recognise such issues as "no planes" are highly divisive and put it all on the back burner. Hell if we can do that and actually get the investigation and trials then you can present the "no planes" idea as a suggestion in a court of law! But until then "no planes etc" hurts that effort, don't you understand?
True dude, but what if some
True dude, but what if some people (Nico) go around telling a story that includes "no planes hitting the towers", itsn't that story going to make people either laugh at the whole issue or vomit, both of which are negative. Don't we need to tell people like Nico to shut the f*ck up and that they don't speak for us?
I don't know what to tell you man...
"Negative" information is being put out there... there's nothing we can do about it.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
All you can do...
Is your best to promote the "positive" information.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Your right man, it’s just
Your right man, it’s just difficult not to respond to this shit sometimes.
What...
You think it's easy for me? phhh... I HATE seeing "BS." I've commented on it SEVERAL times... too many times to count, but I'm tired, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life doing this. I want it to end, and wasting time trying to "fight off" the disinformation is not a fight I signed up for.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Listen to Barrie...
Zwicker.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Yea nether did I actually
Yea nether did I actually come to think of it lol, I started doing this because it was a two-option choice once you come to the conclusion about what went down on 9/11. It’s either you decide that it's *ucked up but you can't do anything about it, or you decide that its just too much of an outrage not to at least try and do something about. "No planes hit the wtc" wasn’t even on the radar back then. I'm glad Nico's been banned anyway, and I damn well hope that he reflects on what he's been "achieving".
Nico, go!
We spend an inordinate amount of time trying to do so.
Time wasted .. is Time Tasted ;-)
We get into arguments, and spend time bickering when we should be doing activism.
you means going on the street, walking up to people?
Yep, US-americans need to do that.
But if you live outside the USA, its best to stay anonymous ... and give yanks the bumsteer wherever feasable. That way we foreigners can practise our independence, anarchy.
http://www.google.de/search?q=graeber+anarchy
When we should be visible, and in the streets. Tell people the story of 9/11. The story speaks for itself.
Is that so?
This year is THE year. We have GREAT DOCUmentaries (911 mysteries)
Convincing people is as easy as showing the films.
For me ... Activism in 21st century USA is almost a de-facto non-sequitur.
How a NORMAL country would handle it...
Lets pick one that "bloody sepos"*** will have trouble reconciling with your matrix world
CUBA
In Cuba, there are neighborhood committees that ELECT a speaker. These HAVE CLOUT and can push topics on the agenda, and have the right to be LISTENED TO. Then the matter goes to parliament, where remedies are granted.
How does it work here at home? We elect a DISTRICT ATTORNEY .. http://da.co.la.ca.us/ but others don't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Attorney
In any case
actually get the investigation and trials then you can present the "no planes" idea as a suggestion in a court of law! But until then "no planes etc" hurts that effort, don't you understand?
Why would it? A United States Attorney is unlikely to presecute NPT or non NPT. Nico's accusations are severe enough for DA to spring into action. But it has been 5 years, and they won't, not now, not ever maybe.
I think a reasonable case can be made for:
Lets find out how 911 was really done. In this way we find the actual culprits. For example if it was a fission-less fusion-micro-nuke, the perps are either israelis or americans... at the highest clearance. If NPT is true then you ficus your search on the implement that hit the towers, and who planted the... damn!
We are doing FAR TOO LITTLE RESEARCH.
I valuable research is to find out WHO IS AN ARSEHOLE.
Arseholes do not recognise a good lead if their face is rubbed in it.
My personal arsehole research has already shown results. And Nico is NOT one of them dickheads.
Lets recap.
Activism.
Take 911 mysteries to your DA and keep filing suits and submissions and phoning until you get an answer.
and Research ... go, Nico, go!
*** my current australian boyfriend call us sepos, = septic tanks = cesspools
What's this, what's this?
What's this, what's this? Nico's been banned? Finally;
YEY !!! HURRAY!! YIPPPIIEEE!!!
YEY!! http://www.911blogger.com/blog/148
... is baaaaack..
thanks for coming round, dz
Also, I retract my COMMERCIALISM accusation. ... Because I know that you make no money. However, your blogads generate fame for you.. and if banning Nico helps you... bla sorry. .. hmm, no, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.
This might all sound "crazy" to many people. But that is exactly the point.:
If it didn't sound "crazy" to many people, if great numbers of individuals hadn't been convinced that no such thing is going on, nor could it go on, the perpetrators would not be getting away with it.
Good quality comment. Ahhh!! the female deconstructive capability ;-)
I now check the bottoms of articles first... to see who wrote them...
If its one of these pillocks like jon or DemBruce .. I skip the drivel ..
True Love is sooo important. It conquers all.
eyewitness
If you want to test the "no-big-Boeing" theory, let's hear from someone at the scene. This is from the Port Authority police transcripts:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-transcript039.pdf
p.14.
MALE A is a Port Authority cop in WTC 5 working directly under the superintendent. MALE B is a friend who is looking out the window with the TV on.
MALE B sees an explosion, and then looks at the TV a few seconds later at a large plane hitting Tower Two.
MALE A: It's bad. B?
MALE B: Yeah?
MALE A: Yeah, the whole building just rocked.
MALE B: Yeah, I know, because they just showed it on...G, as it happened, they showed...it was on the news. The building G-exploded. And, I swear to God, right as that happened, I saw another plane do a real hard left turn...
MALE A: It probably was a hit!
MALE B: ...like it...like it was going to hit the building. Now, I'm not...I don't think another aircraft hit the building. At least I hope that's not the case. But the building G-exploded. Just as I saw this...another aircraft...just as I'm watching the TV screen, a...a twin-passenger jet aircraft,G...made a real hard, that was a...that would be a left turn. A real hard left turn, and it looked like G...just crashed into the fucking building again! And I didn't see it come out the...the other side. And then the...the TV screen went dead. And now the TV screen is dead. And (inaudible) operations...operations having technical difficulties.
...
MALE B: B! My mom said they just said another fucking airplane hit the building, the one you thought didn't hit it. Damn! Now everybody witnessed this. It was on TV! Oh, my God! This is totally unbelievable.
------------
See, it was on TV, so it must be true. That is what everybody thought who saw it, or the replay, on TV. Which was almost everyone.
Nothing left?
Ban Nico? If you ban all voices of objective truth, who will all of these shills attack? Who will be buried in a sea of non-responsive replies crafted to divert attention from the simple truth: the world watched a movie, bought the lie,and the empire marches on. Nico is but a messenger. A child can see the video fakery. But it is this truth which unmask the depth of the real problem and, therefore, this truth which must be buried. So ban them all. Burn the heretics at the stake. It will not alter the truth. If Nico represents awareness of 1) video fakery, 2) the lack of any large commercial airplanes crashing into WTC and 3) a general understanding that those opposing the truth consist of shills, useful idiots and the uniformed, then there are thousands of Nicos. Some just watch, listen and learn. Keep on shillin'.
"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." -James Madison
he isn't banned, look at
he isn't banned, look at u2's most recent post
True but...
the desire to do so remains. I apologize for not seeing that last u2 post. Also, on rereading my comments I noticed I used uniformed when I meant uninformed (though, sadly, they are often found together). The forces at work remain unchanged. Glad Nico has been 'granted' a reprieve.Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." -James Madison
Earth's magnetic field:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home