Jump to content
The Education Forum

Matthew Lewis

Members
  • Content Count

    611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Matthew Lewis

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Panama City, FL
  • Interests
    My interests lie in astronomy, space flight, contrail formation, weather, and of course aviation.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,514 profile views
  1. Aerosols sprayed from rooftops and vehicles on the ground is in no way comparable to what people call "chemtrails" and actually does more to show that they wouldn't be spraying something from 30,000 feet when it is far easier to achieve the desired effect from the ground. Still no evidence that what we see in the sky is anything other than contrails
  2. I don't really care. I wasn't talking about WTC 7. does this mean you're conceding the nonsense about WTC 6?
  3. The above is a not correct. The footage was NOT filmed at 9:04. The video shows someone was speaking to Tom Clancy. Years ago when Jack White brought this nonsense up I searched through the online video archives for that day and found the footage in question. The footage was from 11:53, AFTER both tower collapses when they were reshowing footage from the earlier collapses. The screen capture with "voice of Tom Clancy" was clearly showing the first collapse. The dust cloud is from that collapse. Here is the post http://educationforu...285#entry119397 The link in that post to the video archive still works so you can watch for yourself. Moderator Note: I have edited the above post to remove ambiguity; the post could be misunderstood to mean that Matt was saying that Steven had lied; this is not what the post meant. It meant that Matt asserts the statement by Chris Bollyn was a "lie". To ensure that the ambiguity was removed, I have edited the post to read "not correct".
  4. You'll probably ignore this but the above two statements do not really go together. Yes, most USAF bases have radar but NOT the kind of radar in the first statement. An AF base will have approach radar for the airfield and usually that is about it. This radar is short range and designed for approach control for landings at that area. Space radar is located at only a few facilities and is very different. It does not and can not track aircraft. Typically they use the PAVE PAWS or a similar system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Surveillance_System
  5. Citation Mr. Gaal? ====================== http://progressiveal...five-obama.html Len Colby said... As an undercover CIA agent, I professionally debunk government conspiracies on discussion forums. It's my profession to lie and to know when other people are lying. Sarah Palin, like most Republicans, is a xxxx. ========================= xxxx xxxx, Pants on Fire! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkv_29Rncg&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkv_29Rncg&feature=related And the proof that is him and not somebody pretending to be him? Such a mature response by the way. It says volumes. ######################################### COLBY'S TROLLING BUDDY POSTING SAME BLOG PAGE LESS THAN 6 hours before, (guess he Lamson) sent email to Colby ,who (Colby) also wanted to weight in/against Palin. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Craig Lamson said... Republicans are lying, evil fascists, who are determined to destroy the USA. Vote for Barack Obama and save America! September 4, 2008 1:42 PM And the proof this "buddy" was who he said he was? I could go to multiple forums any time I want and post anything I want under the name of Steven Gaal. It wouldn't mean you posted it would it? Oh that's right you don't have any proof.
  6. It might be different in the US but in the UK you could never win an election after slagging off 47% of the voters. It is probably true that about 30% of the electorate would never vote for your party, but never 47%. If that was the case, it would not be worth standing. One of the things we know about elections in recent years is the importance of the "floating voter" that is often close to 40% of the electorate. It is actually 46% of the US population that do not pay income-tax. However, that includes a large number of retirees, students and members of the military not paying income-tax. Is he really not interested in these people like he said in the video? ("My job is not to worry about these people.") Yet, he did not correct these comments following the release of the video. As Obama pointed out yesterday, he was "the president of all the people, not just those who voted for him". His comments about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is factually incorrect and will make it impossible to be a peace-broker in the region. That probably makes no difference to most of the US electorate but it does mean a lot to the international community. It would seem that Romney is no better informed about foreign policy than Bush. It reminds me of an incident that took place many years ago. I found an article written by Keith Joseph, a Conservative politician, in his youth, saying the the role of the party was to help the rich to stay rich. He was a government minister at the time. When he asked for questions I read out part of the article and asked him if he still believed this. He looked around him to see if the press was present than said: "yes, everyword of it". Of course, this was a time before the video phone. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of that 47% don't pay attention to politics or news and most of them won't vote anyway. Turnout even for presidential elections is usually depressingly low.
  7. Citation Mr. Gaal? ====================== http://progressiveal...five-obama.html Len Colby said... As an undercover CIA agent, I professionally debunk government conspiracies on discussion forums. It's my profession to lie and to know when other people are lying. Sarah Palin, like most Republicans, is a xxxx. ========================= xxxx xxxx, Pants on Fire! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkv_29Rncg&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkv_29Rncg&feature=related And the proof that is him and not somebody pretending to be him? Such a mature response by the way. It says volumes.
  8. And you prove my theory by continuing the childish font, color and size changes. Thank you. So, in other words you don't really know, you're just guessing. Ooh! Bolded even! Why couldn't they? Do people on their own pay for/maintain the bunk sites?
  9. You have a habit of making up facts, post a link to this supposed blog and my supposed response. Even IF true, how do we know it wasn't a joke? Or that it wasn't somebody posing as him? Should we believe everything posted on the Internet?
  10. Almost forgot this bit. As if I was only referring to a single post of yours when a quick glance at nearly every thread you've been involved in has the multiple font size and color changes.
  11. Translation: I like to make it harder for others to read. It makes me feel superior in some way. Translation: I'm lazy and can't bother to use multiple quotes. Plus that would make it too easy for others to read. Translation: Of course I have no proof. All I have is that he posts in opposition to me and how dare somebody think differently than me! Here's some examples of my paranoia sprinkled with accusation of pedophilia. Yes, I'll stoop that low. You've made me remember why I hardly come here anymore. Before you there were others that seemed to regard this place as their personal dumping ground blog. It is clear you aren't interested in discussion, only being right.
  12. You didn't answer the question. And you're still writing so it looks like a 10 year old girl. You avoided that question too. Here's another question you'll probably avoid: why can't you use the quotes on the forum software? You can change font colors 10 times within a post but you can't click a quote button? You really are just trying to make everything harder to read aren't you?
  13. So because someone else in your opinion diverts threads it is ok to attack the messenger? He made a statement of opinion based on your posting time. So what? What's with the constant bolding, and font color change? Reminds me of what my sister used to do when she was a preteen. Any actual purpose to it besides making everything harder to read and follow?
  14. Your opinion was they became weaker? He's tired of dealing with what has essentially turned into your private blog? I have yet to see ANY proof that he or anyone else here is paid to post yet this seems like an accusation
×
×
  • Create New...