Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - 9/11 & Free Energy - Page 4

Tags: No planer Abe, Abe is a kooks website spammer, Abe contradicts himself, Abe is terrible at science and logic, BEAM WEAPONS ARE BAD, Abe cant comprehend perspective errors, So wrong Pookie got kicked out of AE911Truth, Don't let Abe cut your brain, Jews with laser beams did 911, 9/11, Truth, Beam Boy [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to General Discussion | Reply to Topic ]
PookztAPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 19:11
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Muertos,

Thanks for the extensive reply. I appreciate the time it took you to respond.

Many of your responses were based on opinion and were not evidence-based. For example, after discovering that an incredibly large percentage (80%) of 'eye witnesses' did NOT see or hear airliners on that day, instead of acknowledging the disturbing fact that roughly 80% of the people at ground zero did not see or hear airliners, you turn it around by suggesting that since a small minority (20%) of eyewitnesses claim to have seen or heard airliners, that this small minority testimony must be conclusive that there were airliners, and that this small minority percentage of testimonies is somehow conclusive that Dr. Wood, Andrew Johnson, myself, and many others, are flat out wrong about the physics and evidence surrounding 9/11. This disturbs me, because you are literally skewing little bits of evidence, and then drawing strong conclusions from those tiny pieces of skewed evidence. By only considering the fact that 20% of the ground-zero witnesses saw and heard airliners, without considering the fact that the majority (80%) of eyewitnesses did NOT see or hear airliners, you have revealed your strong biased approach to this, which is unscientific and therefore not worthy of continued discussion.

The way you ignore the disturbing fact that 80% of ground zero eye witnesses did NOT see or hear airliners, only to twist it around in your 'favor' by only considering the 20% (minority) who claim they did, shows your lack of objectivity and extreme bias in attempting to literally assert your beliefs related to 9/11. Myself on the other hand, is only sharing information which must be explained in an attempt to defend my evidence-based conclusions to you, information and evidence which is related, and has only successfully been explained by Dr. Judy Wood. This is my final reply, because the way you ignore some data, and skew other data, just to back your beliefs, shows your true bias and unscientific, subjective approach to examining 9/11. This is not scientific, this is simply you attempting to 'prove your beliefs to everyone', by hand-selecting evidence which favors your view, and skewing or ignoring the evidence which contradicts your view. Unscientific indeed.

Also, you have repeatedly ignored, and not even attempted to explain the obvious video fakery which clearly shows the 2nd plane entering the towers from conflicting angles, one 'live' shot showing the 2nd airliner rapidly descending, while the other 'live' camera shot shows the airliner flying perfectly horizontal. Here is the video again in case you still haven't watched it. Your ignorance of this obvious point is very concerning to me, for it further demonstrates your extreme biased approach to discussing evidence related to 9/11. You have ignored this major piece of evidence for quite some time, which concerns me. You can view the live footage I speak of in this compilation video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

Furthermore, you mentioned, more than once, that I must think that the "government" is in on the coverup because they blamed Osama Bin Laden. That is not a correct understanding of my opinion, and after I clearly stated that I do NOT think the government organized 9/11, it blows my mind how you can repeatedly try to suggest that I somehow am pointing a finger at our government. Why you continue to purposely misrepresent my opinion by putting words in my mouth is beyond me, but taking this fact into account along with the other unscientific and bias attempts you have made at ignoring and skewing evidence which does not agree with you, leads me to believe that you are not interested in exploring all sides of this topic from a scientific, unbiased point of view. It seems you are purposely trying to misrepresent my opinion, which is unfair, disrespectful, and most importantly, unscientific. To clarify for the 3rd or 4th time: I do NOT think our government organized or covered up 9/11, in fact, i think that a majority of our country was tricked into blaming the wrong person on that day by the major media corporations (such as FOX news), and whatever connections they have to the true terrorists, whoever they might be. Again, this video (same one as above) clearly shows the obvious media fakery used on that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

As for the 'dancing Israelis' and Dr. Sabrosky, I love how to explain these two data points you simply say "that is a rumor", then link to a very biased, unscientific website, and for Dr. Sabrosky, you simply try to attack him by attempting to convince others he denies the holocaust. First of all, the police officers which arrested these 'dancing Israelis' have spoken on camera about the arrests, and their concern that these Israelis were celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Rumor? I think not, and the link you provided certainly does not disprove the testimonies of the officers who arrested the 'dancing Israelis' on that day. (see one of their testimonies in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw ). As for Dr. Alan Sabrosky, I love how you waste no time in completely ignoring / disregarding his credentials, experience, honors/recognitions, but, you certainly wasted no time in initiating an attack on his personality by misrepresenting his beliefs. How unscientific of you, as you are once again ignoring and skewing major pieces of evidence (his testimony) only to attack his personality. This unscientific approach of yours is extremely obvious and concerning to me, especially considering this is a Conspiracy'Science' forum (actually, it is an unscientific blog, but the name is certainly misleading). You sure do value the testimonies of that meager 20% of ground-zero eyewitnesses which claim to have seen or heard planes, but at the same time, you quickly dismiss the 80% of people (large majority) who did not see and hear airliners, just like you quickly dismiss the highly-qualified professional conclusion of Dr. Alan Sabrosky (who is Jewish). Amazing how you selectively hand-pick evidence which favors your beliefs, while disregarding, ignoring, or misrepresenting/skewing evidence which contradicts your claims. Scientific? Nope.

Those "collapses" defied physics, and anyone who has not figured that out yet is someone who's intellectual integrity I question. (i am sure you feel the same about me)

All in all, because the "collapses" did not happen the way we were told, because NIST's explanation of those "collapses" also defied physics (perhaps because of the major conflict-of-interest between NIST and the corporations which hired them to do the "research"?), because of the obvious corporate media fakery used to trick our country on that day, and because those buildings were turned primarily into a fine dust, I strongly encourage you to look closer at 9/11 and start exploring the large amount of evidence Dr. Wood has gathered and displayed at www.drjudywood.com, instead of ignoring and skewing the evidence as you have clearly done on multiple occasions throughout our recent conversation.

After viewing as much of the evidence as possible over the last few years, I strongly agree with Dr. Judy Wood, because only she has put forth a single, cohesive, scientific conclusion which explains all the evidence. Mr. Hutchison also has filed an affadavit with the courts, to legally testify to the numerous similarities observed in his experiments and samples of his which are being studied all over the world, and the attacks of 9/11. You may not agree with their conclusions, and I am fine with that, but please do not push your beliefs on me or others using unscientific, biased rhetoric.

Dr. Wood is the only person who has explained all this evidence, and that is why I support her. If you can explain all the evidence with a more simplified, scientific conclusion, then please let me know... because so far, you have done little more than give unscientific reasons as to why you think many of the pieces of evidence are not related to each other, and give unscientific reasons as to why you think data like the abnormally small rubble pile of the Twin Towers or undamaged PATH train and basement gift shops are not abnormal (these are only two such examples), even though you provide absolutely no proof of your claim that these abnormal pieces of data are somehow normal, expected, and do not contradict the official story. In reality, such data points are actually abnormal, unexpected, and do indeed contradict the official story, which is most likely why you have ignored many of these data points, while attempting to skew and misrepresent others.

Again, here are a small number of data points which must be explained:

• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
• Why was Hurricane Erin at its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, yet it was not reported on by the major corporate media stations?
• How come there were statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 Alaskan magnetomer stations detecting normal readings until the 9/11 attacks commenced, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?
• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?
• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage about Dr. Judy Wood? Why was I later contacted by AE911Truth when they discovered I was telling people about what they did to me? They could contact me to offer me a refund to stop telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t have just response to my email which asked Richard Gage if he had heard of Dr. Judy Wood?
• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?

If you disagree with Dr. Wood, then please explain all the evidence with one cohesive theory that is simpler than hers. Until then, her conclusions are far stronger and more evidence-based than your own, and that is why I support Dr. Judy Wood. She is the only person who has successfully explained all the evidence, and that is why a growing number of people are finally examining the evidence she has gathered for themselves.

Cheers,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

#91 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 19:32
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

Many of your responses were based on opinion and were not evidence-based. For example, after discovering that an incredibly low percentage of 'eye witnesses' either saw or heard airliners on that day, instead of acknowledging the disturbing fact that roughly 80% of the people at ground zero did not see or hear planes, you try to turn it around by implying that 20% of eyewitnesses must be conclusive that there were airliners.

I am so thankful for you giving us your full name. I will screen all of my future doctors who share it.

#92 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 19:35
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

Its clear Abe has limited understanding of perspective and the anomolous occurences of depth perception error when images are taken from different angles.

My advice Abe look up the typical depth perception errors and view errors in photography and film, then when you think you have a vague understanding come back and re address your erroneous point about the ball coming downwards at an angle on the first shot in the 7 minute area of that video.

Just a quick starting point for you to look up how easy it is to misunderstand what you are looking at: http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/illusion.html</p>

Also, you have repeatedly ignored, and not even attempted to explain the obvious video fakery which clearly shows the 2nd plane entering the towers from conflicting angles, one 'live' shot showing the 2nd airliner rapidly descending, while the other 'live' camera shot shows the airliner flying perfectly horizontal. Here is the video again in case you still haven't watched it. Your ignorance of this obvious point is very concerning to me, for it further demonstrates your extreme biased approach to discussing evidence related to 9/11. You have ignored this major piece of evidence for quite some time, which concerns me. You can view the live footage I speak of in this compilation video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

#93 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 19:42
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

I've made an honest attempt to get through to this guy, but it seems it's just not going to work.

It's still difficult for me to accept that people can believe this stuff. Beam weapons. BEAM weapons! It amazes me that anyone could find that notion at all credible. Abe has not looked at any of the real evidence. He thinks Judy Wood's graphs and photos speak louder than the eyewitnesses who saw what happened, the passengers on the hijacked planes who spoke with their own voices about what was going on, the mountains of documentary evidence that make it incredibly clear what happened on 9/11.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

If I found out my doctor was a Truther, I'd ask for another doctor. Good medical care requires logic and critical thinking no less than any other profession. Since Truthers are by definition impaired in their critical and logical thinking skills, I wouldn't feel comfortable with my life in the hands of someone who believes in beam weapons from outer space.

#94 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 20:10
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

He should be banned for reposting the same points we responded to. He is clearly a troll who has no interest in having a rational discussion.

#95 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
PookztAPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 20:14
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Muertos,

Good physicians must consider all clinical evidence, including the unpopular evidence. I am proud to be who I am and to love my country as much as I do, and you attempting to write me off as "not a good physician" simply for looking at all the evidence and drawing my own conclusions is something that further displays your ignorance.

I see that you are once again resorting to more unscientific attempts at further misrepresenting Dr. Wood's conclusions, by claiming she believes "Space Beams" or "Beam Weapons from Outer Space" are what turned the buildings to dust. This does not surprise me, and after I leave this forum, I think it is safe to assume that this type of inaccurate, unscientific, disgustingly biased dialogue will continue.

To clarify before I go:

Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

Referring to her conclusions as "Space Beams" or "Beam Weapons from Out of Space" is unscientific, inaccurate, and wrong. I am glad that you aren't in medical school, because I would certainly never trust someone as unscientific as you to care for me or any member of my family.

Have a good evening,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

http://facebook.com/AbrahamHafizRodriguez<br /> http://youtube.com/pookzta

#96 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 20:21
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

Thankfully, something tells me you will not graduate from medical school. It would be great for the world if your professors or department find these posts in a Google search when determining your status for M3.

#97 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 20:25
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

Abe = Looking at all the evidence that fits his worldview, not the evidence that discredits his worldview.

#98 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Edward L WinstonPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 20:30
(0)
 

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!

Level: 150
CS Original

PookztA,

I responded to your list and even showed how some things were wrong, or asked for proof they even happened, yet you simply ignored it and posted your retarded list yet again. For the sake of your own membership, either respond or shut up, and don't post the list again, we already understand what stupid things you believe, but won't defend.

#99 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 20:36
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original

I'm surprised he didn't bring the usual rhetoric yet.

"Well, just laugh about 911Truth, but nobody believed in germ theory at the beginning, too!"

Lots and lots of stupid medical references, such a goldmine for CTs.

#100 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Sil the ShillPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 21:22
(0)
 

Level: 9
CS Original

Going by his FB page, it would seem his tendency to believe lies passed off as truths extends to his tastes in movies, since he has listed "What the Bleep Do We Know?!"

#101 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 22:54
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original

I sure hope he doesn't consider watching "The Secret" medical treatment.

#102 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 23:04
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

At this point, it'd be best if he dives all the way into pseudoscience and metaphysics. It might curtail his advancement in school. In all seriousness, I hope he figures things out and doesn't turn into another Joe Mercola or Mike Adams.

#103 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 23:07
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

Actually, going on truther logic, he hasn't proven he isn't 15 year old with a 1.0 high school gpa.

Therefore, he is.

#104 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Sil the ShillPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 23:16
(0)
 

Level: 9
CS Original

"The bad news... you have cancer, but here's the good news!I wave this incense candle in front your face and... ALL CURED"

#105 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 23:17
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original

PROVE THAT THE LAW OF ATTRACTION DOESNT CURE CANCER

#106 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Aug 29, 2010 - 23:53
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

what the bleep does Abe know

#107 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Edward L WinstonPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 01:43
(0)
 

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!

Level: 150
CS Original

Water memory is real! There was a puddle that remembered the time I made that 3 pointer on my drive way that no one ever saw! Really! Bubbles are in the form of balls, therefore they're basket balls, what more science do you need?

#108 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Sil the ShillPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 01:44
(0)
 

Level: 9
CS Original

"Water memory is real! There was a puddle that remembered the time I made that 3 pointer on my drive way that no one ever saw! Really! Bubbles are in the form of balls, therefore they're basket balls, what more science do you need? "

Does the movie actually say shit like this? MUST. FIND. TORRENT.

#109 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 06:48
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I dont know if its been said but the truther you're arguing with here has already been kicked out of AE911Truth and his name removed from their petition.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172126

Of course Gage cant bring himself to just say its nuts, but the fact that even he doesnt want someone like PookztA representing them should tell you all you need to know :)

#110 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 08:51
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

Finally, an Ed sighting.

After reading the Randi thread Ed posted, it's clear that Abe is a lost cause. I think it would be best for our sake to prevent him from making anymore posts at this site. We will only waste time by giving him one more minute of attention.

#111 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 11:47
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

This took about as much time to make as Abe has spent critically thinking:

http://www.aaronmhatch.com/images/logic-intuition.jpg</p>

This flow chart shows how a rational person uses a logical premise to reach a conclusion, which is then compounded by a another logical premise. Adherence to this process keeps one on the track to truth and reality.

Abe starts with a logical premise (the towers came down, but we can't 100% rule out a laser as the cause) and then uses his intuition to make the illogical conclusion that they probably did fall via such means. This thought process is compounded by further intuitive analysis, which has already sent him down the wrong path to fallacy and insanity.

Abe's problem is that he doesn't realize that he has mixed and matched logic with intuition. He fell off track and doesn't know it.

One way I may edit this flow chart is that Abe at times uses logic again to further his intuitively failed scheme. For example, after having decided the towers turned to dust, he correctly concludes that such dust would fall at free fall speed. Of course, this is the fallacy of "begging the question". He is using his conclusion to prove its premises.

#112 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Sil the ShillPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:49
(0)
 

Level: 9
CS Original

Yeah, most of his posts contain something along the lines of "Well, then WHY was I removed from the A&E for 9/11 truth group, then?" As if we give a shit about what any of those idiots think.

#113 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Edward L WinstonPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 13:01
(0)
 

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!

Level: 150
CS Original

Lasers on 9/11 are simply crazy, at least thermite provides something that actually exists and doesn't require that every piece of footage of planes be faked and every witness be lying.

#114 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 13:20
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

I'm currently working on an article regarding Abe and his thought process.

#115 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 13:33
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

"at least thermite provides something that actually exists"
-
The thermite they talk about doesnt ;)

#116 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 13:57
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

That JREF post is very interesting. Thanks.

Aaron, I look forward to your article.

#117 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
sorryPosted: Aug 30, 2010 - 18:59
(0)
 

Level: 12
CS Original

I've finished my article on Abe. Thanks to Muertos for proof-reading it.

http://www.aaronmhatch.com/projects/abe/abe.html

#118 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
PookztAPosted: Sep 01, 2010 - 18:34
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Hilarious!

Oh well, the evidence is all that matters...

Funny how little of it is actually presented and discussed in the article you wrote, haha. I guess it would only make it harder for you to try and discredit me if you were actually discussing the factual evidence which my conclusions are based off of. :)

I love how inaccurate the article is, claiming that I think "our government" covered it up, and that a "space beam" took down the towers. How inaccurate, although I can't say I didn't expect it... :)

Perhaps you could write editorials for a local newspaper or something?

EVIDENCE:

1. http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html<br /> 2. http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/<br /> 3. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml</p>

Have a good evening folks,

-Abe

#119 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Sil the ShillPosted: Sep 01, 2010 - 18:36
(0)
 

Level: 9
CS Original

"Hilarious :)

The evidence is all that matters..."

Your "evidence" (and I use the term while lol'ing) has already been discussed in other posts. Putting all your ridiculous and debunked claims behind him, Aaron then decided to focus on you specifically.

#120 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]