Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Andrew Lowe Watson + Disinformation Discussion (47 posts)

  1. JohnA
    Member

    Andrew - what are you trying to accomplish here?

    You have posted a video on YouTube that gives humble thanks to all those very same researchers who have called for the arrest - torture and execution of witnesses, posted videos of feces justaposed against images of 911, all while advocating a line of research that is so absurd as to be nearly Orwellian in its fundamental premise - planes that thousands of people witnessed did not exist.

    what do you expect to accomplish here? do you expect to convert us? do you expect us to blindly respect your truely golden intentions by peering deeply into your heart of hearts and discerning your oh-so-sincere intentions?

    what do you expect? we only know you by your actions and the research and researchers you promote.

    Let me give you an example. Nico Haupt recently sent a broad range of 911 victim's groups (and various political contacts like Paul Craig Roberts) an email with a photo attached of a person being forced to consume his own liquid feces. I should know - I took it to the police and nearly every newspaper in town reporting it as digital harassment of 911 victims. It is my hope to get Haupt arrested for terrorizing this community.

    and you stand before us beating your chest with rightious indignation in defense of Haupt and those who advocate his fine work? defending those who provide him with an IP address and an income to continue to terrorize people?

    on what level of basic human decency and basic community standards is this behavior defensible?

    so. this is a no-brainer Andrew. There is nothing left to debate here. I do not give a rat's ass who you are and what your true intentions are. It does not matter. whether you are an agent provocateur - or not - does not matter. the work of Haupt and his circle of researchers is not just an effrontery to the entire 911 community - it violates the most basic common-sense standards of basic human decency.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Arabesque
    Member

    The antics of Nico Haupt are truly disgusting, and we need to take a stand againt them. John's film is hopefully an important statement against these kinds of attacks.

    Just yesterday, I posted a blog on 911blogger about harassing phone calls... by Jim Fetzer: http://www.911blogger.com/node/9785

    According to Steven Jones, (who I trust as much as anyone):

    "Alex Jones is a well-known 9/11 researcher and extremely effective radio-show host. He told me that Fetzer had phoned him and verbally attacked with profanities. Fetzer has done the same with me and I was obliged to ask that he cease from using profanities while talking to me. (Our conversation soon came to an end.)"

    As I say, Inappropriate phone calls, ad-hominems and misleading claims? Par for the course for Jim Fetzer:

    9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disin...

    This is the modus operandi of people who care about disrupting--not justice or research. I don't care what you think about 9/11, this behavior is WRONG, period.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    Strategy - pragmatic response

    ALW's presence may be an opportunity. For instance, he indicated that Fetzer and CB Brooklyn are at odds with 911researchers.com. I'm not sure where else I would have found that out. What more can we learn from him? He's on our turf, and here to defend himself at that. We have some idea what he's about. We all know what his associates have done and where they stand. The lines have been drawn. Therefore, his presence, assuming he is able to follow the forum guidelines, may be constructive. Maybe. Five new registrants from JREF would receive quite a different response.

    Have no fear. This forum will not be subject to trolling or distraction. We've deleted a lot of crap so far. I am very comfortable with enforcing the forum guidelines and they will develop as necessary. Kicking someone off will not be some big moral dilemma that requires heavy debate. Its you're basic three strikes with adequate flexibility. So far ALW hasn't quite violated any of the forum quidelines, but if I have to hear that Nico shit story again... :)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    lol

    i will refrain from giving details on Nico's antics. but - sometimes his offenses are so...offensive... that it becomes impossible to confront it without violating community standards. just talking about some of his behavior itself skirts the lines of common decency.

    I have, in the past, tried reasoning with ALW - but - like his associates he seems impenetrable. you cannot wake a man who feigns sleep.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    Actually details like that Nico story are key. All you need is one detail like that and everyone sane is pretty much guaranteed to turn away. I've found that certain details about someone, like the fact that they were willing to come onto David Duke radio as a guest, are an instant turn-off for people and can work very well to isolate them from sincere activists. Those very salient revolting details function like a firewall around that person - no one who has any sense at all will come near them once they know.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    Fetzer's MO is to waste the time of Steven Jones. Period. Anything he can do to achieve that is what he does. Steve shouldn't respond to him at all anymore, but the difficulty is often in the many people who WORK to keep the situation energized and prodding him to respond, making excuses for Fetzer, etc. As long as Steve is trapped in the swamp, he isn't submitting a paper to the Journal of whatever to break 911 research into the mainstream. I'm amazed he gets as much done as he does.

    With Fetzer the abusive personality has been one way to keep people wrapped up in the swamp of idiocy and time-wasting. The psychology of abuse is a very powerful way to keep people engaged and unable to resist involvement. I had about 2 emails with him and then shut it down 100% because it's that toxic. His ability to manipulate people emotionally is very sick stuff.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. AndrewLW
    Member

    Thank you all for debating my possible insanity, foolishness or otherwise usefulness to the 911 truth movement.

    In answer to your question TruthMod, I understood that I was banned from 911blogger because my comments were consistantly attracting very low scores. I presume the reason for this was that I argued vigorously with Arabesque and Greg Jenkins on the subject of the possibility of beam weapons having been used at the WTC. I have never stated categorically that they were used, and consider it very foolish indeed to behave in the hysterical way that most of the posters in this thread have done whenever the subject has come up. In my increasing frustration at the closed minds and apparent censorship on 911blogger ( several of my posts were rejected) I on occasion referred to it as a pro-government site. I never resorted to name-calling although as you can tell from the video I was called many myself. Mostly my courtesy and good faith was met by insolence and taunts.

    I do not in any way support the sending of that email by Haupt and was as appalled as you, John that he should have done it. As to the photo of horse manure he stuck on the wall of, I understand, a parish room at St. Mark's church Manhattan, that was a photocopy of a photo posted on 911blogger by DBLS.

    My support for Nico and the others on my list is for their research and that only. I cannot answer for their other actions. I happen to believe that there is overwhelming evidence that the TV coverage of the events of 9/11 was manipulated. If you choose not to believe that, fine. Just keep an open mind or you may all one day look very foolish. On the other hand it coul be me who ends up looking foolish. That's life!

    In any case, I am resigning abolutely from 9/11 activism. I feel I have done all I can to put forward my views, and wish to concentrate all my available energies on my music. It is very likely that I will delete all my videos. The reasons for this decision are many and complex. but at the end of the day it is as a composer that I want to be known and remembered, not as a political campaigner. I wish you all well.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. Arabesque
    Member

    In any case, I am resigning abolutely from 9/11 activism. I feel I have done all I can to put forward my views, and wish to concentrate all my available energies on my music. It is very likely that I will delete all my videos.

    No doubt because they contained extensive "TV Fakery". Sorry, couldn't resist.

    "I have never stated categorically that [DEW] were used."

    I think you said something to the effect of we were covering up for the perps by debunking your arguments and other similarly ridiculous statements.

    In my opinion the articles in the journal of 9/11 studies have obliterated the DEW hypothesis beyond recovery.

    I don't think you should have been banned. But it seems like you were there to do one thing and one thing only--argue the most controversial 9/11 theories and occasionally call us perps for debunking the arguments.

    I could easily make a video showing all of the embarrassing statements you made on 911blogger, and I'm sure that would be quite entertaining, but I suppose that project is best left to people with less valuable time on their hands.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. truthmod
    Administrator

    Exactly.

    I could easily make a video showing all of the embarrassing statements you made on 911blogger, and I'm sure that would be quite entertaining, but I suppose that project is best left to people with less valuable time on their hands.

    Let's move on. We cannot let these people succeed in diverting our energy.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. Victronix
    Member

    I can see not wanting to ban people -- give hoax promoters some rope and let them hang themselves. People do learn from it. It's important, at some point, for people to see it in order to get it.

    At the same time, imagine a world where they were all banned. Imagine what could be accomplished. Being able to focus, for one thing. Building up the best evidence without distraction. Hard to picture.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. Arabesque
    Member

    At the same time, imagine a world where they were all banned. Imagine what could be accomplished. Being able to focus, for one thing. Building up the best evidence without distraction. Hard to picture.

    I agree. I would prefer to spend my time writing pieces on why the official story is false, and research pieces on areas that other people haven't had the time to look at (i.e. a comprehensive analysis of the Pentagon eyewitness testimony, which I am still working on).

    I can see arguments on both sides that it is a waste of time to debunk these arguments, but it is also I think destructive to just let them hang around. For example, people like Dr. Jones ultimately had to answer questions about the DEW hypothesis during his presentations, which I found extremely annoying. Now he can just refer to the papers in the journal and move on. Once an argument is debunked in a respected venue, it's reasonably time to move on, and people who want to debate the same arguments over and over can refer to these papers. If they are left to hang and we don't respond to them, it could also be treated as a straw-man argument for the debunkers to kill and create guilt by association for the movement.

    The latest movie by Von Kleist is pretty bad. I took the time to watch it and it leaves you spinning how many junk arguments there are in the movie. The Pentagon is especially highlighted of course, and the best evidence is completely ignored (thermite (only briefly mentioned)? War games? Insider Trading?), and it even has poison pill Fetzer as part of the supporting cast. It almost seems like an intentional case of ignoring the best and focusing of the non-existent evidence. Although there are some good parts, they are almost completely overweighted by the bad.

    If you give 10 misleading arguments to support a true (or false) conclusion, it does nothing to support a genuine conclusion.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. AndrewLW
    Member

    I don't think you should have been banned. But it seems like you were there to do one thing and one thing only--argue the most controversial 9/11 theories and occasionally call us perps for debunking the arguments.

    You are obviously anaware of my many posts on other subjects than tv-fakery and DEWs on 911blogger. I started 9/11 activism in February 2006 and had never heard of Judy Wood until I read her groundbreaking beam weapons research in October 2006. I was initially strongly opposed to Nico's theories, but disliked the way I saw him being marginalised and ridiculed for his work, especially in view of the fact that he was one of the first people to argue for Controlled Demolition at the WTC and lobbied the Kean/Zelikov 9/11 Truth Commission. Were you there also, Arabesque and John Albanese?

    I was also a great fan of 'George Washington' and he made my then blog Shout For Truth the subject of one of his blogs.

    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/05/shout...

    I was also surprised and chuffed when a quick review article I wrote on the BBC hit-piece "The Conspiracy Files" was featured on Alex Jones's site.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. truthmover
    Administrator

    I started 9/11 activism in February 2006 and had never heard of Judy Wood until I read her groundbreaking beam weapons research in October 2006. I was initially strongly opposed to Nico's theories, but disliked the way I saw him being marginalised and ridiculed for his work, especially in view of the fact that he was one of the first people to argue for Controlled Demolition at the WTC and lobbied the Kean/Zelikov 9/11 Truth Commission.

    Fallacy #1 Judy Wood's research would not be considered groundbreaking to anyone who had a basic appreciation for the scientific method.

    Fallacy #2 We've met and talked to Nico on a number of occasions and have monitored his actions and development within the movement. The 9/11 truth movement has been marginalized and ridiculed for its work. And as the movement slowly works to some kind of critical mass of awareness and support, Nico and his peers have worked to maintain their marginalization. He has stated for the record that he intends to bring down the reputable core of the movement, such as TruthMove, as we are all limited hangout gate keepers. Our critique of him has been logical. His critique of us has been childish. His marginalization is certainly no reason to alter your logical opposition to his work.

    Fallacy #3 You are not legit just because you've done some legit things in the past. There is a long history of patient infiltration of nearly every anti-establishment movement in this country. The standard approach is to begin by building some kind of reputation within the group in line with the groups principles. Then at a certain point you move in a different direction, either creating internal strife within the group, or promoting death by association. The Eric Williams fiasco comes to mind. Neither you, nor Nico, are any more legit in the present for your past contribution, if you now work to undermine the movement.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. P45
    Member

    Seen a few of your online retirals Andrew, this has to be the shortest one yet.

    More recoveries than James Brown in concert, minus the applause unfortunately.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  15. Victronix
    Member

    For example, people like Dr. Jones ultimately had to answer questions about the DEW hypothesis during his presentations, which I found extremely annoying. Now he can just refer to the papers in the journal and move on.

    Yes, this is the best way. Document it, archive it, then reference it as needed.

    Forums are more complex. If hoax promoters get on and basically dump onto a forum, they take over, since most people on our side have jobs and lives and can't post 24/7. That's why I advocate for banning. Otherwise discussion of relevant issues ends up being impossible.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  16. truthmod
    Administrator

    We warned ALW as soon as he joined that this was not a place for the debating the merits of baseless and damaging claims. If he had posted one more fallacious argument, he would have been banned.

    We feel good about being a place where the issue of disinformation can be discussed in an open yet responsible manner. Perhaps we should start a dedicated forum for disinfo/misinfo discussion--what do people think?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  17. Victronix
    Member

    Disinfo Festival Alert

    Fetzer refers to Moret's PhD research - she never got a PhD, although started one, apparently. I guess TV Fakery is as good as anything else when anything goes.

    REVISED/UPDATED REGISTER NOW! THE MADISON CONFERENCE "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?" 3-5 August 2007 http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_con...

    Scholars for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring its first conference, which is on "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", from 3-5 August 2007 at the Radisson Madison in Madison, WI. The purpose of this conference is to provide an opportunity (a) to review multiple proofs that the "official account" of 9/11 cannot possibly be true, (b) to explore some of the issues that have generated controversy in the research community, (c) to afford an opportunity for serious students of 9/11 to interact personally with leading investigators, and (d) for participants to reflect upon 9/11 in the context of the neo-con agenda.

    SPEAKERS:

    This cutting-edge conference boasts ten stellar speakers:

    ALEXANDER "ACE" BAKER, a music composer and producer, is currently the co-composer for "American Dragster" on ESPN and has also been the composer for independent feature films, such as "Mohave Phone Booth", winner of multiple film festival awards and scheduled for SHOWTIME. In scoring for film and television, Ace works with digital video on a daily basis. He recently completed a study of television film fakery involving the hit on the South Tower, which is entitled, "Chopper 5 Composite".

    KEVIN BARRETT, Ph.D., the leading 9/11 activist in the world today, is the author of TRUTH JIHAD, co-editor of 9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE, and the founder of MUJCA-NET, a society that brings together Christians, Muslims, and Jews in pursuit of the truth about 9/11. He will present an overview about political aspects of 9/11 activism.

    JAMES H. FETZER earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. A former Marine Corps officer, he has published 28 books, including THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY with contributions from 11 experts on different aspects of the case. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he also maintains the society's web site at 911scholars.org.

    BOB FITRAKIS, Political Science Professor at Columbus State Community College, Columbus, OH, earned his Ph.D. from Wayne State University and his J.D. from The Moritz College of Law at Ohio State. He has published many books, including STAR WARS, WEATHER MODIFICATION, AND FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. An expert on election fraud, he has received many awards for excellence in investigative journalism.

    JERRY V. LEAPHART, J.D., is an activist civil rights trial lawyer and a bar member in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. He has more than 33 years experience as a lawyer in both domestic and international areas. He was the moving force behind the use of the Data Quality Act to submit Request for Correction to the NIST, which may lead to shattering the 9/11 cover-up.

    LEUREN MORET, an independent radiation specialist, has worked in 46 countries as a professional geo-scientist. An expert witness on DU weaponry at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Tokyo in 2003, she was recently appointed an expert witness on DU weaponry for the Canadian Parliament. She has published on exotic weapons, including HAARP, weather-modification, tectonic warfare, mind-control, 4th generation nuclear weapons, and scientific issues related to 9/11. She also received a University of California President's Mentoring Fellowship in the Sciences during her Ph.D. research on atmospheric dust and the history of the Earth's magnetic field.

    MORGAN REYNOLDS, Ph.D., Economics Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University and former Chief Economist in the Department of Labor in the Bush Administration, he has also served as Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX. The author of six books, he has taken a leading role in studies that support the conclusion that no big planes crashed on 9/11. He has a web site at nomoregames.net.

    DOUG ROKKE, Ph.D., former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project, earned his B.S. in physics at Western Illinois and his M.S. and Ph.D. in physics and technology education the University of Illinois. He has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, and emergency management, and served as a staff physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for 19 years. His military career spanned four decades, including combat duty in Vietnam and Gulf War I.

    DAVE VON KLEIST was among the first to spot problems with the videos of the planes hitting the South Tower, which were featured in his documentary on 9/11, "In Plane Site". He co-hosts "The Power Hour" with Joyce Riley, which can be accessed at thepowerhour.com. He is an outstanding 9/11 activist and researcher who has been instrumental in focusing attention on the planes.

    JUDY WOOD may be the most qualified scientist studying 9/11 in the world. She holds a B.S. in civil engineering, an M.S. in engineering mechanics, and a Ph.D. in materials engineering science. A former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, Dr. Wood has done pioneering research on the destruction of the WTC and maintains a web site at drjudywood.com, which is the most important research web site in the 9/11 community.

    PROGRAM:

    The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not 3-5 August 2007, Madison, WI

    The conference will be held at the Radisson Hotel Madison, 517 Grand Canyon Drive, Madison, WI 53719. Information about the hotel may be located on-line at www.radisson.com/madisonwi.

    The hotel provides complimentary breakfasts, has a pool and exercise room, with very nice accommodations. The rooms run $99 per night. Registration, including two lunches, will run $125.

    SCHEDULE:

    FRIDAY, 3 August 2007

    7-10 PM, Registration

    SATURDAY, 4 August 2007

    7-9 AM, Registration

    9 AM-Noon: THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF 9/11

    Jim Fetzer, Scholars, and Kevin Barrett, Scholars and MUJCA

    Noon-1 PM: Deli Sandwich, Soup, and Salad Buffet

    1-4 PM: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

    Judy Wood, Scholars, and Bob Fitrakis, Independent Scholar

    4-6 PM: TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST NIST

    Jerry Leaphart, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Scholars

    6-8 PM: Dinner on your own on the town

    8-11 PM: 9/11 AND THE NEO-CON AGENDA

    Leuren Moret, Independent Scholar, and Doug Rokke, Independent Scholar

    SUNDAY, 5 August 2007

    9 AM-Noon: VIDEO FAKERY AND MISSING PLANES

    Morgan Reynolds, Scholars, Ace Baker, Scholars, and Dave von Kleist, Independent Scholar

    Noon-1 PM: OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FUTURE

    1 PM-2 PM: Hot Lunch Buffet, Closing Remarks

    The conference will be limited to 150 participants. The program ends early on Sunday for afternoon flights. The hotel has a limo service to the Dane County/Madison Airport.

    REGISTRATION:

    Rooms at the conference rate are only guaranteed until 13 July and thereafter depend upon availability. And you must register in order to reserve your room.

    To register, send a check to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, WI 53575. Please contact Jim Fetzer, Program Chair, if you have any suggestions or recommendations.

    This is the conference of the year, which pushes the envelope of scientific research in a concerted effort to finally figure out what actually happened on 9/11. You don't want to miss it!

    Jim

    James H. Fetzer Founder Scholars for 9/11 Truth jfetzer@d.umn.eduThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )

    Posted 17 years ago #
  18. AndrewLW
    Member

    2 years have passed since the above discussion. During that time, I have undergone a major shift in thinking and approach to the 9/11 cover-up.

    I would appreciate the good faith and tolerance of some of you who were my fiercest critics. It requires nerve to admit in public that one has been mistaken, so please do not take advantage of my discomfort.

    I now accept, without qualification, that the contention that no planes hit the twin towers is entirely implausible, unhelpful and ultimately highly damaging to the credibility of the global 9/11 Truth movement, of which I have been an active member since February 2006. Furthermore, I believe the heated debate over what hit the Pentagon is a foolish distraction from the glaring question of why ANYTHING should have been allowed to impact one of the most defended structures in the world.

    My further research has persuaded me that there is enough evidence of a cover-up of, at the very least, an intentional decision to disregard warnings of an attack, to justify calls for a new investigation. It is harder to prove direct complicity, and in the case of controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, I believe the evidence is compelling but to some degree speculative. There will always be some who will be unable to accept the premise that the towers were primed with explosives, at least until the emergence of eyewitness testimony that would stand up in court. However I strongly support the work of Richard Gage and ae911truth and am proud to be a signatory to their petition.

    In summary, I think the best way of winning over doubters is to concentrate on presenting a credible and logical case for a wide-ranging and independent inquiry leading to probable criminal prosecutions of those involved. In the meantime, we should remember that divisions and name-calling within the movement damages our credibility, as does junk science masquerading as evidence.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  19. JohnA
    Member

    I for one do not believe or forgive you.

    in the past you have worked to promote activists who have launched some of the most vicious attacks against witnesses and activists in the movement - in an utterly transparent disruption campaign involving the utterly ridiculous disinformation claim that no-planes were used on 9/11.

    and now you show up saying "my bad?"

    your complicity in that attack campaign is well documented. it is MY opinion that your actions were PROFOUNDLY dishonest - and NOT the product of well-intentioned but misguided activism. it is my OPINION that you are intentionally dishonest - and that you have done NOTHING to help promote the cause of 9/11 Truth. On the contrary - you have done incalculable damage to this movement - as well as aiding and abetting internet stalkers who launched VICIOUS online campaigns against witnesses and activists - complete with calls for VIOLENCE.

    Andrew - i am aware that I may be breeching this forum's guidelines by saying this - but i do want to tell you go fuck yourself and take your lies elsewhere.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  20. truthmover
    Administrator

    Yeah, I agree with John and will not be moderating his abrasive comments toward you. You've earned them.

    This sounds like a rather typical attempt to rebuild credibility so that you can burn it down again. It's way too little way too late.

    But as I found your message truly compelling, even as I don't believe it, I'll offer a bit more.

    John and I have spent SO MUCH DAMN TIME confronting the crap you so actively promoted for so long that a simple recanting of your behavior won't cut it. Some part of me wanted to believe you. But then the impact people like you have had on my psyche and a huge social movement for justice can't be made up for with a simple apology.

    Of course you now have even more ammunition with with to go back to your peers and claim that we are elitist or intolerant assholes. Feel free as we have little concern for the opinion of unsuspecting dupes and their handlers. Aware or not you've done the devil's work and can only make up for it with actions.

    On the other hand, if you really are being honest, don't apologize. Don't tell anyone that you've changed your mind. Get out there and do some of the work we've been doing to counter the bullshit you've been spreading. Get out there and promote what does help this movement. Get out there and actually promote facts. You can't undo the damage you've done, but you might have some kind of positive impact from this point forward, if that's really your intent.

    Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

    (If you REALLY are being honest, I hope you can accept that you really have earned this response and that it's healthy for you to hear this.)

    Posted 14 years ago #
  21. AndrewLW
    Member

    Typical smug sanctimoniousness from John Albanese. You had your chance and blew it, John, in that prime-time TV interview when you waffled on about a 'sociological phenomemon' instead of giving concise answers.

    Truthmover, you are welcome to your opinion that I have no integrity. It seems that honesty and self-criticism are not qualities you respect in a person. A pity.

    Naturally, I regret some of my past actions and associations, but I have no problem with my conscience. At the time, I believed what I was doing was the right thing. I have NEVER supported online stalking and threats, and have myself been the object of similar attacks from my former online 'friends', some of whom turned out to be very disturbed individuals. I was banned from "Killtown"'s forum for criticizing the no-planer videos September Clues.

    I shall of course continue to do what I have always done, which is to promote the cause of 9/11 Truth in whatever ways I can. For example, I have compiled a lengthy list of email addresses of journalists and prominent media and entertainment figures, some of whom I know through my work, and regularly forward press releases from ae911truth or articles on 911blogger. Every morning I go straight to 911blogger and read the headlines, watch videos and leave comments on newspaper articles. As I have been living with Parkinson's for 13 years, my opportunities for active campaigning are limited, but I am as determined as ever to play my part in waking people up to the lies and injustice that surround us and dictate our lives.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  22. truthmover
    Administrator

    As I said, don't apologize, go do something good. But not something with your name attached to it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.