Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

Take it to John if you are unhappy. I informed him of what I did at about the time I made them invisible.

[Mark Stapleton]

There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.

Are you serious?

[Evan Burton]

There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.

Are you serious?

Mark,

Yes, quite. He is not saying he wants it to happen, but he is saying that it takes something like that to wake people up again to the threat.

He basically says that in the quote Peter posted:

"The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another period"

[Mark Stapleton]

There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.

Are you serious?

Mark,

Yes, quite. He is not saying he wants it to happen, but he is saying that it takes something like that to wake people up again to the threat.

He basically says that in the quote Peter posted:

"The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another period"

......of massive profits.

[Evan Burton]

It's easy to assign such negative traits to him - he surely has not done anything positive to dissuede people of that opinion - but to be fair to him, his comments make sense. People DO become complacent... and terrorists will look for such an opportunity that complacency supplies. You can see it even down to low levels such as a house buglary. Someone gets robbed, and they are very cautious about locking up, alarm systems, etc. Six months later without incident, they get lax... and the theives have the opportunity to strike again.

[Len Colby]

Since when is bickering as you call it grounds for post removal? If you used that criteria, you should be removing many other posts as well, including some of your own

where you repetitively hector other members.

Hogan must have forgotten that the reason John instituted the moderation system iin the 1st place was to reduce bickering. He also ignores that Evan specifically objected to bickering unrelated to the topic of the thread. Though Members are asked to take care with spelling and grammar such errors are not relevant to the topic of this or any thread.

Your willingness to chastise me, with no mention of the other person involved that did the name-calling further illustrates your bias.

You weren't chastised, he simply asked you to avoid bickering. I assume he addressed his comments to you because you asked. He has given me "warnings" on occasions when he felt I stepped over the line. If you chose to hector someone you can't complain when they are less than polite in their replies to you.

Your decision to delete those posts in the manner you did is unjustified by Forum precedent or Forum rules. It's a case of your biases and your ego getting the better of your judgment

Rubbish other posts have been set invisible in order to "maintain the peace"

Edited May 19, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Len is correct. Some of his posts were set invisible (notice invisible, not deleted. Moderators can see what has been set invisible, and if it is decided so, they can be made visible again).

I tried to avoid - successfully, I think - any post that actually had something relevant to the thread. The only posts that were made invisible were the to and froing between you and Len. A little bit of heated exchange is understandable, but a certain point I'll switch it off. I didn't berate anyone; I simply made the posts invisible, hoping that the point would be understood. It seemed to have worked.

[Jack White]

Len is correct. Some of his posts were set invisible (notice invisible, not deleted. Moderators can see what has been set invisible, and if it is decided so, they can be made visible again).

I tried to avoid - successfully, I think - any post that actually had something relevant to the thread. The only posts that were made invisible were the to and froing between you and Len. A little bit of heated exchange is understandable, but a certain point I'll switch it off. I didn't berate anyone; I simply made the posts invisible, hoping that the point would be understood. It seemed to have worked.

Nonsense. Arbitrarily making a post INVISIBLE is censorship and for all practical

purposes of members viewing it amounts to deletion. Semantics.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Len is correct. Some of his posts were set invisible (notice invisible, not deleted. Moderators can see what has been set invisible, and if it is decided so, they can be made visible again).

I tried to avoid - successfully, I think - any post that actually had something relevant to the thread. The only posts that were made invisible were the to and froing between you and Len. A little bit of heated exchange is understandable, but a certain point I'll switch it off. I didn't berate anyone; I simply made the posts invisible, hoping that the point would be understood. It seemed to have worked.

Nonsense. Arbitrarily making a post INVISIBLE is censorship and for all practical

purposes of members viewing it amounts to deletion. Semantics.

Jack

Poppycock. Deletion means that the post is gone. Invisible means that John, Andy, and moderators can view the post to ensure that the correct decision was made. If a reversal is called for, it is made.

[Michael Hogan]

Which moderator is removing posts from this thread with no explanation?

And why?

Me. Stop the bickering, especially if it has no relevance to the thread.

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Yeah, right.

[Randy Downs]

I have no idea what to make of this.

In one paragraph will be something that makes a lot of sense to me: "A drill simulating a terror attack provides the greatest possible camouflage of the criminal intent of the perpetrators and allows the terror attack to occur through minor departures from the scenario."

Aye, that seems quite sensible. So i begin to give this work some credence.

But then he insults David Griffin, Mike Ruppert, Amy Goodman, Greg Palast -putting down all the wrong people. And then coming up with very provocative "operations" like "Able Danger", "Sudden Response", "Granite Shadow" -and nothing to back all this up.

It's just..weird.

Oh and "Ward Churchill is an agent provocateur" for the State. I've never spoken to Mr. Chruchill so i don't know who he truly believes is responsible. I do know him from his writings on the genocide of the American Indian peoples and the deliberate eradication of their culture. He's professional, scholarly, and he has sources to back him up. He's done respectable work there, on a subject nobody wants to talk about. A shill for the white eyes? I don't think so.

I know he's in public disfavor, but that's a side issue.

To be honest, it seems to me to be a misinformation/disinformation piece.

There are no references or citations, so one is supposed to merely take his (often sarcastic) word for what he says.

And while it's important enough to slam someone for 2 pages, it's not important for that person's name to appear in the index.

So i'm hoping somebody has read this book, and can talk about it regardless of their own feelings about Mr. Tarpley.

Regards,

Randy

[Jack White]

Check this:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-t...to-hit-wtc.html

Very persuasive. Killtown has the most comprehensive website on the net re 911.

Jack

[Randy Downs]

Thanks for responding.

It's not like i'm new to the field of research; i'm not anybody important but i am good at it and i've been doing this for over half my life.

I have Mr. Griffin's work, have read "Deep Politics" before "parapolitics" became a household word, i'm working thru "9/11 and American Empire" and i have that roundtable on tape, and of course Paul Thompson's outstanding timeline. My point is, i'm not some guy reading his first book.

Which is why i came here with my question.

Tarpley's list of military ops is fascinating, and i really want to follow up on those.

Aplogies, Mr. Lemkin, but he really slams Ward Churchill on pg. vi, vii; this is not a disagreement, i've seen people argue and this is character assassination.

And insulting people like Goodman and Palast, (pg.xviii)....that just turns me off. One of my "criteria" as i navigate the shadows of hidden truth, private misinformation and secret government disinformation, has been: how does this person treat those whom i've already come to know as true?

It's one of a few and a small one; e.g. if someone says "Well Mr. Scott is a whack job and has no idea what he's talking about." You just lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. Little things like that help me separate the wheat from the chaff. I know it's possible for me to be deceived, therefore i'm very careful about what i accept as true.

Live nuclear bombs ready to be launched? That's the first i've heard of that (pg. xii).

It's been a long, long time since i've read a book that threw me off balance, and with no citations how do i follow up to see if a claim is true?

Regards,

Randy

[Randy Downs]

Sorry, made a small error in the title -which is "911 In Plane Site"

Basically, this film posits that flight 93 never did crash. That a bomb scare chased everyone out of an airport (people were not allowed to use their cars, everyone had to flee on foot and armed gunmen surrounded the place), whereupon flight 93 landed, was diverted into a hanger where the people disembarked.

Has anyone seen this?

They make a very compelling case about this plane (which obviously didn't crash in some field), but what i want to follow up on, is: what happened to those people? You empty an airport, you hide the plane from sight, ....but everyone on that plane is supposed to be dead so you can't afford to have any of those people ever show up in public.

Does anyone have any follow-up on this?

Regards,

Randy

Edited May 22, 2008 by Randy Downs

[Jack White]

Check this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexa...u_b_103107.html