Update, 18 April 2010: After numerous e-mails to Mark Bahnisch and his moderator, a request to Mark Bahnisch in person on Saturday 10 April 2008 at a forum on the $15 billion Queensland fire sale at which he spoke, a further e-mail and my writing about the censorship of my views on johnquiggin.com here (14 Apr), here (16 Apr) and here (4 Mar), a comment of mine finally appeared on Larvatus Prodeo today, but only after it had been first placed in their moderation queue. The comment announced the meeting called by Concerned Residents Against Milton's Excessive Development to be held this Thursday 22 April. Hopefully, at least I will be free to put my views on most issues (if not subjects deemed taboo such as 9/11) from now and more hopefully without my posts being singled out for moderation.
Update (3 March 2010): Larvatus Prodeo moderator tells me she is "comfortable with how [she's] represented," but I am still waiting to be advised if I have been intentionally banned and why. See Appendix 3: Further Correspondences with the Larvatus Prodeo administrators from 2 Mar 10.
Introductory explanation for update, 2 March 2010
This article was first posted on 29 December 2009. When I originally wrote it, I was given the assurance that I would not be banned from Larvatus Prodeo and I acknowledged that in my article. However, shortly after I found that my posts were being blocked again. Other priorities prevented me from following that up until now. On 1 March 2010, when I found that my posts were still being censored, I felt motivated me to update this article with two appendices in order to better substantiate the original article.
The appendices are:
Appendix 1: Excerpt from Larvatus Prodeo Forum: This contains some of the exchanges which occurred shortly before the discsussion was suddenly ended on 28 December 2009. I believe those exchanges clearly demonstrate that I was winning the argument. They comprise what I think is a good case study in dishonest debating techniques and how to overcome them.
Appendix 2: Correspondences with the administrators of Larvatus Prodeo This concerns the abrupt ending of the forum, my being smeared as an anti-Semite by a moderator and my subsequently being implicitly scapegoated for the abuses that others had perpetrated by being banned from that site. Should those I corresponded with believe that they have been unfairly dealt with by this article, they are more than welcome to state their case by posting comments to this article.
Main article
In the last three months of 2009 a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo, about the controversy surrounding 9/11, turned into the online equivalent of a lynching. On 28 December at the point at which the intended victim (myself) was able to turn the tables on his tormentors, the moderators abruptly closed the disccussion. I have been barred from contributing to that site ever since, as if I had been blamed for the abuses of others.
The following is a brief response to what was written (be warned before you click this link, the total size of all the files comprising that page is now 5.3MB) posted by someone I will call 'Barry' on the "Saturday Salon -- The Truth is Out There! edition" on the Australian forum discussion site Larvatus Prodeo. I initially asked that a post that this article is based upon be posted, but that request was refused.
After I pressed with my complaint, the offending words, included below, were removed to the credit of the Larvatus Prodeo administrators and they have assured me that I am welcome to continue contributing posts to (in fact, it turned out that I was not welcome after all -- see footnote)Larvatus Prodeo1. However, a number of concerns remain. These include the fact that I have been asked not, at least for a while. to raise the issue of 9/11 on that site, even though the official myth of 9/11 remains the justification for the current "War on Terror", including in Afghanistan. Barely a week goes by, when this justification is not repeated2 in at least one of our major daily newspapers.
The attack below was the last of a long line of nasty personal attacks that I have been subjected to as a result of my choice to put and defend my views on the controversy over the 9/11 attacks. The latest of the personal attacks, BTW include being accused of advocating the views contained in the anti-Semetic forgery of the Russian Tsarist secret police known as "The Protocals od the Elders of Zion". Now that that forum has been closed, I am no longer able to defend myself against such smears on that forum.
'Barry' wrote:
Daggett, whatever personal or emotional problems you are avoiding by transference onto this weird little obsession of yours, you'll be a much happier individual if you just confront your own demons instead of insisting that there are demons "out there" that we must all confront.
This is the kind of put-down that political activists have become accustomed to, We are told that there is nothing essentially wrong with the world and all that needs to be fixed with the world lies within ourselves.
Well, tell that to the million-plus dead who died as result of wars, for which 9/11 was used as a pretext.
Also, why assume it is me and not those on the other side of the discussion, who is avoiding his/her own demons?
'Barry' continued:
This is not the kind of discussion that Mark set up this blog to encourage, ...
It's not the kind of discussion I like to participate in either --- a dozen plus people, attacking me personally, just as you did last night, doggedly and tenaciously, over many long months, employing every conceivable dishonest debating technique that was ever devised, whilst generally avoiding discussing the facts on hand. As I wrote, last night to [two Larvatus Prodeo Administrators]:
In a way it would be a relief if you were to confirm that I had been [banned], but I think principles of open and free discussion are more important than my personal convenience, particularly when we are all facing the threat of Mandatory Internet Filtering.
I didn't want to get involved in such a long, time-consuming discussion, but I believe it is important to defend one's views when they are attacked, and not run away (of which I was accused on more than one occasion when I momentarily ceased contributing to that forum) in the way that they were.
If you had examined the discussion, you will notice how it was those on the other side of that discussion, and not me, who insisted on needlessly bloating the size of their own contributions, and who added trivia against my objections, for no better purpose than to make the forum reach some new unprecedented record for this web-site and who openly welcomed the opportunity that it gave them to publicly humiliate me:
"Welcome to StoushGym TM."
"Let's face it folks, this thread has turned into StoushGym TM with Daggy as a multfunctional piece of workout equipment.
"So far Fyodor's been hogging it but at least he's not leaving any sweat behind on the seat."
"WE really all should club together and buy Daggy a yearly StoushGym TM pass."
"100 comments to go! [until the 2,000th post]"
"I really don't think M. Fyodor is looking to change Daggy's mind here so much as to work out the kinks in his left jab. Gotta work on not dropping the shoulder so slightly to telegraph the punch."
Well, in the end, it was those people, and not me, who were humiliated, simply because I persisted, amidst the torrent of smear, abuse and ridicule to patiently put the facts and expose the illogicality and outright deceit of my opponents' case. My two main detractors have said little in 10 days and nothing over the last four, and I somehow doubt if it was just because of Christmas.
Anyhow, no-one need take my word for it. They can check for themselves (but see above warning about the 5.3MB size of the page).
'Barry' continued:
... and we've indulged it faaaaaaar too long. ...
As I have just pointed out, I am not the person who has been indulged by this forum.
'Barry' continued:
... Start your own blog, patiently build up a large audience over many years and maybe you'll get a readership. ...
I have already done so and achieved precisely that. Why not follow the link to my own home page, and see for yourself?
'Barry' continued:
... But your days of attempting to leverage off our audience are over.
Why assume that I was attempting to do that? I saw no evidence of any sizable numbers of your audience that were particularly worth my effort.
I persisted in the argument only because I believed it important to win the argument and show that it had been won. The fact that it was won by me remains on the record, however much my detractors try to pretend otherwise.
Footnotes
1. ↑ In fact, contrary to the assurances given, I have found that my posts to Larvatus Prodeo have all vanished without trace. My latest attempt to post to Larvatus Prodeo on 1 March 2010 failed.
E-mails to the administrators even to simply ask if I have been banned have been ignored by Mark Bahnisch the owner of Larvatus Prodeo and moderator Anna Winter. I include below correspondences with them.
If you agree with me that free speech, democracy is not best served by the banning from the pages of Larvatus Prodeo my views on a large range of topics including 9/11, then please consider making them known, perhaps by saying so on the pages of Larvatus Prodeo or by contacting the Larvatus Prodeo administrator by e-mailing vodkandlime at gmail dot com. Please be sure to send us a copy, perhaps as comment to this article.
2. ↑ See, for example in "We must stay the course in Afghanistan" of 17 Aug:
It is all too easy in the face of this appalling human loss to question why Australia and its allies should continue to dedicate so much precious human capital to a country so far away. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's answer to that vexed question was to note that the mission to defeat the Taliban was essential to his country's security because "three-quarters of terrorist plots against Britain come from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan".
Essentially the same argument can be mounted for Australia's continued military involvement in the country. Australians are all too aware, courtesy of vile and deadly bomb attacks in five-star hotels in Indonesia or alleged terrorism plots here in Australia, that the web of al-Qa'ida-inspired extremism is truly global. We have little choice but to attempt to confront this violence at its source, and to help Afghanistan restore a semblance of stability and security.
An editorial "Taking on the Taliban" in the Australian, another of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, of 23 Sep 09 stated:
NATO nations must pull their weight in Afghanistan
...
And what would be a catastrophe for Afghanistan would be a disaster for the rest of the world. The last time the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, it harboured Osama bin Laden. It seems certain a second Taliban state would be a safe haven from which to launch terror attacks across the globe, including at Europe. Mr Obama and Mr Rudd say they have always understood the dangers of Taliban rule. It is time they convinced the Europeans that they have no choice but to join the US, Australian and Britain in taking the terrorists seriously.
Political leaders such as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and US President Barack Obama, frequently repeat the lie of 9/11. Here's Kevin Rudd speaking to US news presenter Jim Lehrer as reported on the ABC radio's The World Today of 26 Mar 09:
... the bottom line is this: [Afghanistan is] the right place to be.
When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down3. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.
We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again. It's going to be tough, it's going to be hard, and it's going to be difficult and dangerous.
3. ↑ See article "Why Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should take another look at the 'image of the twin towers coming down'" of 30 Dec 09.
Explanatory introduction: I have copied below just a very few of the 1979 posts comprising the Larvatus Prodeo forum dubbed by the moderators as "Saturday Salon - The Truth is Out There! edition". Before anyone clicks on the link, please bear in mind that its sizes is 5.6MB.
The critical posts are mine (daggett's) numbers 1929 and 1944 at the end. The posts I was responding to precede those. In turn others of mine that they responded to are included. It may be easier to understand the discussion by starting at the end and working backwards. I don't expect anyone to find reading my detractors' posts any less gruelling than I did, but they are included here to better allow people to form their own judgement.
The dates at the start of each post link back to the original post in the forum itself. Anyone is welcome to check the original forum itself, although as it is, overwhelmed with bloated posts (simlar to Bob's posts on this forum) and all sorts of irrelevent and trivial comments, most obviously intended to disrupt the discussion, it would be quite a challenge to navigate through. If time permits I woud like to extract more useful content and make it more accessible, either as additions to this page or elsewhere.
My Main detractor "Bob" changed his identity at each post. Not knowing what his actual identity was, I decided to refer to him as "Bob" because his gravatar image was that of the Simpsons character, Sideshow Bob Terwilliger.
daggett
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Bob,
Can you explain the following?
On Page 18 of "Chapter 1 INTERIM FINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS" at http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf we find this:
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. (my emphasis)
Yet in "Figure 3-6 : Progression of Simulated Fire on Floor 12 of WTC 7" on page 30 of the "Final Report of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 -- Draft for Public Comment" (aka NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation) we find a raging out-of-control fire at 5.00PM barely 15 minutes later. There is also a raging fire at 4:00PM
.
How could a fire raging at 4:00PM have been "burned out" by 4:45PM and be raging out of control again at 5:00PM?
--
BTW, a very illuminating post on WTC 7, sadly buried amidst the spam and trivia, but well worth going back to, is Andrew's at 1042 . My most recent somewhat substantive post is 1873.
Nick
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 3:45 am
"How could a fire raging at 4:00PM have been "burned out" by 4:45PM and be raging out of control again at 5:00PM?"
1) You compared a statement from an interim report released in June 2004, up against the final report released four and a half years later in November 2008. If you'd cared to download and read Chapter 5 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9, and examined all the additional photographic evidence collected and analysed since that June 2004 interim report, you would have come across Figure 5-152, which showed that fires were still burning on Floor 12 at 5pm +- 10mins. They were not found to have been "burned out" by 4:45PM.
2) NIST stated very clearly above Figure 3.6:
There were far fewer photographs and videos of WTC 7 than of the towers; and, thus, the details of the WTC 7 fires were not as precise as for the fires in the towers. However, the imagery was sufficient to guide the WTC 7 fire simulations. Unlike the computations for WTC 1 and WTC 2, the fire simulations for WTC 7 were conducted for each floor individually, as there were no obvious pathways for the flames and heat to pass from one floor to another, aside from the debris-damaged area in the southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 9). The fires on Floors 7, 8, and 12 were simulated using input from the visual imagery and established fire physics. The fire on Floor 9 was similar to that on Floor 8, and the simulation was derived from it. For the same reason, the fires on Floors 11 and 13 were derived from the fire on Floor 12. While use was made of the appearance of flames and window breakage in photographs and videos in formulating the simulations, the Investigation Team realized that the absolute timing of the simulations might not align exactly with the timing of the fires on September 11, 2001.
Let me take a wild guess: you didn't read any of it, did you, dags.
You ripped this straight from a troofer site and threw it up here without any questioning or attempting to verify the information for yourself.
You're the best.
1892 A clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 9:26 am
It seems as if Bob, in his last post, is attempting to imply that, because, in the following sentence:
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.
...David Chandler omitted the qualifying phrase "in that 2.25 second period", he was therefore must have meant over the whole observed collapse period.
No, Daggy, I'm not "seeming" to "attempt to imply" that David Chandler omitted the phrase. I'm stating it, because he did not qualify his statement.
This is what any clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person will recognise as pedantry used in a desperate ploy to avoid having to admit what a pathetic, miserable liar he has been through the long course of this discussion.
How would you know what a "clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person" would or would not recognise? You've shown yourself totally incapable of clear thinking or critical analysis. You're the muddle-headed dupe of some dopey conspiracy theorists.
There's no pedantry, no avoidance and no lying from me, Daggy.
YOU are the one who has been caught lying.
YOU are the one avoiding questions.
YOU are the one caught up in pedantry and trivia.
The fact of the matter is that you claimed I was lying about Chandler and challenged me to quote the guy, and I have.
I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it.
Anyone who watched and understood those videos would have to know from the overall context, in which he was measuring the acceleration in that 2.25 second period of free-fall, that the qualifying phrase was implied.
Bullshit. There's no implication or inference required or indicated -- THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. As I told you, if you have a problem with WHAT HE SAID, tell him.
The fact was, whether Bob chooses to acknowledges it or not, that in the earlier draft reports, NIST attempted to conceal the 2.25 period of freefall by averaging the acceleration over the whole period.
Rubbish. As I told you, they hid no such thing. They found, correctly, that WTC 7 took longer to collapse than a free-fall. That's an incontrovertible FACT, Daggy.
The rest of his post consists of similar games with the meaning of words designed to keep this discussion going around in circles or indefinitely or until I give up.
Squib. The only nitwit going round in circles here is you, Daggy, returning over and over again to debunked and discredited arguments.
Again, I can only suggest that others read my previous post and decide, for themselves, whether it makes more sense than Bob's.
As your comment contains no evidence, why should they even bother?
daggett
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Bob demands to know:
How would you know what a "clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person" would or would not recognise?
Once, again, because of the context, Bob.
The whole point of his measurement of acceleration is explained towards the end of "WTC7 in Freefall" that I linked to above:
Notice that a little after the three second mark on our graph. abpit two and a half seconds after the building begins to drop, the acceleration ceases to be uniform. This indicates that the falling building is starting to encounter more resistance. Any measurement of the of the average acceleration that contains more than the first two and a half seconds[1] of fall, will show that for a significant two and a half seconds, the building was in literal free fall.
The article in which the video is embedded states:
Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5[1] seconds during the fall.
How velocity and acceleration are measured of that about 2.5 second interval are clearly shown by David Chandler.
Given all this, I would have thought the question that should be asked is why anyonewould insist that David Chandler's quoted statement could have been mistaken for meaning:
Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.
... as Bob wrote and as I responded to earlier.
Footnotes
1. I have taken the free fall period time to be 2.25 seconds, David Chandler has taken it, here to be "around 2.5 seconds". Given that it is not easy to establish, with great precision, using the video evidence, where this interval began or ended, this is not important. It was certainly at least 2.25 seconds.
--
Nick,
Figure 5-155 on page 239 taken at 5.13PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-151 on page 236 taken at 4.40PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-150 on page 235 taken at 4.39PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figures 5-148 and 5-149 on page 234 taken seconds at aroound 4.38PM show no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-147 on page 233 taken at 4.37PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figures 5-148 and 5-149 on page 234 taken seconds at aroound 4.38PM show no evidence of fire on Floor 12
.
Figure 5-147 on page 233 taken at 4.37PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-146 on page 232 taken at 4.20PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
The only evidence of any fire at all is Figure 5-152 on page 237 shows only one small fire in the North Western corner burning, and nowhere else, supposedly at around 5.00PM.
That is no doubt why in 2004 the NIST interim report stated as I cited above:
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. (my emphasis)
Now again, I ask Bob, or you, if you like, to explain this massive discrepency between the evidence and the computer simulation that supposedly explains the first and only 'collapse' in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition, of a steel-framed building, caused entirely by fire.
A ginger-headed, personably-minded thinking critic
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Bob demands to know:
How would you know what a "clear headed, critical-minded thinking person would or would not recognise?
Once again, because of the context, Bob.
Nope. Context doesn't affect your assessment of the recognition ability of people with clearer heads and more critical minds than yours. As I implied, you simply don't know what such people would or would not recognise. The context of the situation has no bearing on your incompetence in assessment.
The whole point of his measurement of acceleration is explained towards the end of "WTC 7 in Freefall" that I linked to above:
Notice that a little after the three second mark on our graph. abpit two and a half seconds after the building begins to drop, the acceleration ceases to be uniform. This indicates that the falling building is starting to encounter more resistance. Any measurement of the of the average acceleration that contains more than the first two and a half seconds of fall, will show that for a significant two and a half seconds, the building was in literal free fall.
The article in which the video is embedded states:
Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds during the fall.
How velocity and acceleration are measured of that about 2.5 second interval are clearly shown by David Chandler.
Given all this, I would have thought the question that should be asked is why anyonewould insist that David Chandler's quoted statement could have been mistaken for meaning:
Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.
...as Bob wrote and as I responded to earlier.
There's no mistaken meaning -- that's WHAT HE SAID. Let's look at it again, shall we? Chandler's assertion to the NIST hearing was:
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?
There's no qualification there. There's no mention of 2.25 seconds -- or 2.5 seconds, for that matter -- of freefall. The meaning is clear: Chandler asserted to NIST that the building fell with an acceleration equivalent to gravity. He even refers to NIST's (accurate) calculation of total observed collapse taking 40% longer than estimated freefall time. He is thus CLEARLY referring to freefall over the whole period of collapse. There's no other meaning in that statement.
Now, Daggy, you may have found instances -- unsurprisingly -- where Chandler contradicts himself and, as I suggested to you, you should take up those inconsistencies with him.
However, you cannot refute the fact, and the fact is that he asserted to NIST that the building fell at gravitational acceleration. It didn't, obviously, but that's WHAT HE SAID.
As I said, get over it.
Now again, I ask Bob, or you [i.e. Nick], if you like, to explain this massive discrepancy between the evidence and the computer simulation that supposedly explains the first and only 'collapse' in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition, of a steel-framed building, caused entirely by fire.
First, there is no "massive discrepancy". As Nick pointed out to you, photographic evidence from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 shows that fires were still burning on Floor 12 around 5pm. Let me quote from the report (page 245):
[Regarding the 12th Floor] An image taken around 5:00pm showed that the fire had continued spreading West, and intense flames were coming from windows on the North face at the Northwest corner.
Second, the building did not collapse in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition. Collapse was progressive, not instantaneous, and there was no evidence of any explosives or controlled demolition of any kind -- no material evidence and certainly no audio evidence.
Third, as I pointed out to you before, the WTC buildings were not the first or only steel-framed buildings to collapse due to fire, and nor did WTC 7 collapse solely due to fire -- it also withstood damage from the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.
Fourth, Nick was right: you ripped this crap straight from a troofer site without bothering to verify the information yourself. [HINT: reading the NIST report would have saved you the embarrassment, AGAIN]
daggett
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 am
Bob is attempting to put a different meaning to David Chandler's words to the meaning that is abundantly clear from the context that I described, by isolating them from the context.
If Bob is so adamant that David Chandler could only have meant from these words that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for the whole observed period, then why was that ridiculous meaning not also abundantly clear to Shyam Sunder at that briefing about the NIST preliminary report?
Why, instead of refuting Chandler's argument, which would surely have been so easy to do, did he, instead, make a complete fool of himself?
The only conceivable reason can be that Sunder, as had everyone else who was there or who had watched his videos, took the meaning of those words to be exactly as I said they were, that is, that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for around 2.5 seconds and not for the whole observed period.
This, of course, makes Bob not only a liar, when he claimed,
Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.
... but also a time-wasting pedant.
And he remains a liar for having claimed that I have produced no evidence and that I have been debunked in places where I clearly have not.
The part of Bob's post dealing with the discrepencies between the photographic evidence and the simulated fires contains nothing new and has all already been answered in the posts he is purporting to respond to. They are 1889, 1895.
His (implied) claim that other steel-framed buildings have been totally destroyed by fire has been shown to be a lie early on.
His implication that the collapse of the North Tower somehow contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7 has already been acknowledged by NIST itself to be false.
What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Bob is attempting to put a different meaning to David Chandler's words to the meaning that is abundantly clear from the context that I described, by isolating them from the context.
Nope, I'm just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.
If Bob is so admant that David Chandler could only have meant from these words that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for the whole observed period, then why was that ridiculous meaning not also abundantly clear to Shyam Sunder at that briefing about the NIST preliminary report?
I agree that Chandler's meaning was ridiculous, but it was also clear, to me and to Sunder. Let's look at Sunder's response [from 1:41 onwards] in this video:
Chandler [as read by some dude at a computer]: Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?
Sunder: Can you repeat the question, please?
[Repeated]
Sunder: Well, um, first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure, applies to every body, all bodies on this particular...on this planet, not just on ground zero. The analysis showed there's a difference in time between a freefall time -- a freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it -- and if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the 17...for the roofline of the video, to collapse down the 17 floors, that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, what the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows, the same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds, it's about 1.5 seconds, roughly 40%, more time for that freefall to happen, and that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.
Now, Daggy, Sunder isn't a particularly eloquent or confident speaker, but we do know he heard the question correctly, as he asked for it to be repeated.
We also know that Sunder clearly addresses the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE -- the 5.4 seconds, or freefall plus 40% -- questioned by Chandler. There is no mention of 2.25 seconds or 2.5 seconds of freefall by either Chandler or Sunder -- the whole discussion, both question and answer, addresses TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE, not some discrete period within the overall collapse. Clearly, Sunder took the obvious meaning of Chandler's assertion and question.
Not only that, but Sunder explicitly reaffirms that the collapse of WTC 7 took 40% longer than estimated freefall time, REFUTING Chandler's assertion that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration.
Why, instead of refuting Chandler's argument, which should surely have been so easy to do, did he, instead, make a complete fool of himself?
As noted, he refuted Chandler's assertion. As for making a fool of himself, I suggest that you're not competent to judge the foolishness of others, for the obvious reason.
The only conceivable reason can be that Sunder, as had everyone else who was there or who had watched his videos, took the meaning of those words to be exactly as I said they were, that is, that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for around 2.5 seconds and not for the whole observed period.
I've just demonstrated that Sunder took the same meaning I did, because THAT'S WHAT CHANDLER SAID.
This, of course, makes Bob not only a liar, when he claimed,
Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.
...but also a time-wasting pedant.
I've just proved, again, that I did not lie and the only pedant wasting time here is you, with your ineffectual blather.
And he remains a liar for having claimed that I have produced no evidence and that I have been debunked in places where I clearly have not.
Nope. You have produced no evidence and you have been debunked, each and every time I say so. Every single time, you have been defeated by the facts and logic and anyone reading this thread can see for themselves.
The part of Bob's post dealing with the discrepancies between the photographic evidence and the simulated fires contains nothing new and has already been answered in the posts he is purporting to respond to. They are 1889 1895.
I didn't claim I was presenting anything new on the photographic evidence. Indeed, I noted that Nick had introduced it in his refutation of your assertion. And, no, Daggy, you did not "answer" Nick's evidence, which showed clearly that fires were observed on Floor 12 at or around 5pm on the day in question. He proved you wrong, and I simply reminded you of that.
His (implied) claim that other steel-framed buildings have been totally destroyed by fire has been shown to be lie early on.
No, it hasn't. Produce the comment where you claim this occurred.
His implication that the collapse of the North Tower somehow contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7 has already been acknowledge by NIST itself to be false.
Nope. From NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page xxxvi:
The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 110m (350ft) to the south. The debris also cause structural damage to the southwest exterior of WTC 7, primarily between Floors 7 to 17. The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and last until the time of the building collapse. These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings. Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented. However, the collapse of WTC 7 highlights the importance of designing fire-resistant structures for situations where sprinklers are not present, do not function (e.g. due to disconnected or impaired water supply) or are overwhelmed.
Now, NIST states later on that it was the fires that brought down the building, not the structural damage done by the nearby collapse of WTC 1. However, the fires were ignited by the collapse of WTC 1, and it was the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 that impaired the water supply to WTC 7, preventing the sprinkler system from working properly in containing the fires that eventually brought down the building. The collapses of WTC 1 & 2 most definitely "contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7".
If you had the read the report, you would know this, and would not have embarrassed yourself. Again.
1914 daggett
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Bob wrote:
Nope, I'm just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.
I would have thought that "what Chandler said" isolated from the context I described was ambiguous.
If Bob insists that David Chandler must be held to the literal meaning of that sentence:
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.
... in isolation from the context, how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to, if he did not qualify it in that sentence did not refer to the whole period of collapse and not just the observed period of collapse?
He cannot, nor can he claim that the meaning of the words did not apply to the 2.25 second period.
Of course, if we put the sentence back in context the meaning is clear.
So, as I wrote, Bob is a time-wasting pedant.
And there is nothing in that last post that adds anything to this discussion.
I would concede that I have not yet directly answered Nick's latest piece of sophistry regarding the supposed behaviour of the Towers as brilliantly efficient 'pistons' during the 'collapses', which had not been put at the time Bob falsely claimed I had been thoroughly debunked on that question, but I don't see why I should be obligated to respond to each and every piece of sophistry by people who have shown themselves to be disingenuous at best and liars at worst.
Besides, Nick has not responded to my latest post in regard to the claimed 'piston' effect either.
The rest of the post is yet another pretence aimed at the willingly gullible on this forum and casual vistors who don't have the time to wade through it all that the previous post has in some way answered, when they have not been.
If any of the individuals here can show me anything new in Bob's latest post, then I will respond to it.
If not, I don't see why I should risk having by broadband choked by furhther responding to this forum, now that I have used up 8Gig of my allowed 10Gig, largely thanks to the spam and trivia posted here by Bob and others.
My previous posts that Bob has claimed to have responded to include 1905, 1895, 1889, 1873, 1870, 1868.
1915 daggett
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
...
As I wrote, I don't consider myself obligated to participate any further in this circus, except on my own terms.
So don't be too surprised if I only post every other day, or even less frequently, from now on.
At least this forum stands as a record, from which people can learn
a lot about various online contributors, including at least one historian -- and I very much doubt if it will be to their credit in the eyes of
critical thinking and open-minded people -- as well as, in between, 9/11 itself.
What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Bob wrote:
Nope, I'm just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.
I would have thought that "what Chandler said" isolated from the context I described was ambiguous.
Yes, you've already said that you thought that, and you're wrong. His meaning was unambiguous, as evident from Sunder's reply, as I showed in my last comment.
If bob insists that David Chandler must be held to the literal meaning of that sentence:
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.
...in isolation from the context, how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to, if he did not qualify it in that sentence did not refer to the whole period of collapse and not just the observed period of collapse?
How can I -- and thus we -- know this? Because of Chandler's sentence after the one you quoted, which you left out for a reason not impossible to fathom.
Here's the full quotation of Chandler's statement/question to Dr. Sunder of NIST:
Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?
As highlighted in bold, Chandler was referring to NIST's timing of the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE, to which sunder replied, as I noted in my last comment.
He cannot, nor can he claim that the meaning of the words did not apply to the 2.25 second period.
I can, to both. Chandler CLEARLY referred to the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE. There is no mention of the 2.25 second period.
Of course, if we put the meaning back in context the meaning is obvious.
The meaning is obvious regardless of your spin. It was the meaning that Sunder replied to.
So, as I wrote, Bob is a time-wasting pedant.
Says the twit who's just received another lesson in English comprehension on the same bit of text.
Honestly, Daggy, have you considered taking lessons in literacy? It's one thing debunking your garbage, it's another having to teach you the fucking language while I'm at it. And you have the gall to accuse me of wasting time?
And there is nothing in that last post that adds anything to this discussion.
Apart from debunking your dopey assertions yet again, squibber.
I would concede that I have not yet directly answered Nick's latest piece of sophistry regarding the supposed behaviour of the Towers as brilliantly efficient 'pistons' during the 'collapses', which had not been put at the time Bob falsely claims I had been thoroughly debunked on that question, but I don't see whay I should be obligated to respond to each and every piece of sophistry by people who have shown themselves to be disingenuous at best and liars at worst.
Squib. Nick demolished your arguments and the fact that you have failed to rebut his arguments says all we need to know about who is the disingenuous liar on this thread.
The fact is that you're not under any obligation to substantiate your assertions, Daggy. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. Of course, if you fail in this, as you have repeatedly, we'll form the natural assumption, correct to date, that you have no case and your arguments are bunk, as they are.
The rest of the post is yet another pretence aimed at the willingly gullible on this forum and casual visitors who don't have the time to wade through it all that the previous post has in some way answered, when they have not been.
If any of the individuals here can show me anything new in Bob's latest post, then I will respond to it.
Yeah, that's right, Daggy: keep squibbing on the same stuff over and over again.
If not, I don't see why I should risk having my broadband choked by further responding to this forum, now that I have used up 8Gig of my allowed 10Gig, largely thanks to the spam and trivia posted here by Bob and others.
*plays world's tiniest violin for poor widdle Daggy*
Boo-feckin'-hoo, Daggy. This thread is so long because you insisted
on recycling discredited and debunked troofer garbage over and over
again. Your case was destroyed more than a thousand comments ago and
yet here you are, moaning about the length of the thread. Grow up. The
ONLY person responsible for using up your 8Gig is YOU.
As I wrote, I don't consider myself obligated to participate any further in this circus, except on my own terms.
So don't be too surprised if I only post every other day, or even less frequently, from now on.
The only surprise coming from you, Daggy, would be a solid argument.
At least this forum stands as a record, from which people can learn a lot about various online contributors, including at least one historian -- and I very much doubt if it will be to their credit in the eyes of critical thinking and open-minded people -- as well as, in between, 9/11 itself.
Heh. Oh, it'll be a record, alright. I warned you it would be more than a thousand comments ago, but you wouldn't listen.
You should ask yourself, Daggy, what you think people will think of you when they read it. Better yet: why don't you ask some of those critical thinking and open-minded people you keep mentioning?
daggett
Dec 26th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Bob wrote:
[HINT: reading the NIST report would have saved you the embarrassment, AGAIN]
No, Bob. We both know that out of you and me I am not the person who need feel embarassed. We both know that there is nothing in that the claptrap in your post that answers my previous posts (@ 1895 and 1889), however much you and all your sycophants here choose to shout and scream otherwise.
And we also both know that my reading all the NIST reports from one end to the other as well as the 9/11 Commission Report and any other piece of lying US Government propaganda would not alter one iota your refusal to argue logically and with due acknowledgement of the evidence I have presented.
Bob wrote:
How can I -- and thus we -- know [how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to]? Because of Chandler's sentence after the one you quoted, which you left out for a reason not impossible to fathom.
Sure, Bob. I left out the second and third sentences, hoping that no-one else, least of all, you, would see that when you quoted it in your previous post (@ 1910), there was another sentence following that I didn't want others to know about.
Bob then goes on to insist that those two sentences:
Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?
... must somehow qualify the literal meaning to the previous sentence.
No, Bob. It does not. The literal meaning, in isolation remains ambiguous.
If you want to add implied meaning to words, you just can't just broaden the context to an arbitrary degree that suits you, but refuse to allow the context to be broadened any further.
Bob wrote:
Not only that, but Sunder explicitly reaffirms that the collapse of WTC 7 took 40% longer than estimated freefall time, REFUTING Chandler's assertion that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration.
Sure, Bob. David Chandler can only have meant that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for all of the 5.4 second period of 'collapse', even though that contradicts his statements and all the measurements demonstrated in those YouTube Broadcasts and repeated many times before and since that free fall occurred only for (around) 2.5 seconds.
Anyhow, even if David Chandler inexplicably tried to make the claim on that one occasion, that Bob insists that he was, the fact remains that free-fall did occur for 2.25 seconds during which WTC 7 fell through 8 floors.
This brings me back to that other glaring piece of idiocy that Bob and Nick try to pass off as a rebuttal of the controlled demolition hypothesis. Here it is again (and, no doubt, Bob will moan and groan that we have "been over this" before, but, of course, 'neglecting' to show anyone where we have "been over this' before):
I wrote:
If all the structural strength in those 8 floors had been lost before the observed free fall period began, then free-fall would have commenced at that point.
Then Bob wrote:
Yes, free-fall commenced in Stage 2 after the structural strength had been lost in Stage 1. We've been through this.
I had also written:
Until a structure begins to fall at free fall acceleration, then, logically, something, namely structural strength, is preventing that structure from falling at free fall acceleration.
To which Bob responded:
Yes. As noted oh-so-many times now structural strength was lost during Stage 1. AFTER Stage 1, during which structural strength was lost, Stage 2, a period of gravitational acceleration, was observed.
This, we are told, "thoroughly debunks" my argument, but it doesn't even acknowledge that argument.
"[S]tructural strength was lost during Stage 1" he tells us.
But how much? And for which floors?
Clearly it could not have been all the structural strength and it could not have been for all 8 floors.
So, what does that statement mean?
daggett
Dec 27th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Bob 'rebuts' posts 1895 and 1889:
First, there is no "massive discrepancy". As Nick pointed out to you, photographic evidence from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 shows that fires were still burning on Floor 12 around 5pm. ...
No, Bob. There is a massive discrepency and you are a shameless, barefaced liar to have claimed otherwise.
On the one hand, NIST's 'explanation' of the 'collapse' requires raging fires for 3 to 4 hours as illustrated in figure 9-11 on page 384 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2. On the other hand, the photographic evidence from 8 photos from 4.20PM until 5.13PM shows no evidence of fire. I could add to that list 4-145 on page 231 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 at 4.10PM and 5-144 on page 229 at 3.55PM. The latter two flatly contradict the simulated 4.00PM image in figure 9-11.
Only in one image ('crudely estimated as being around 5.00PM') do we see any fire at all on Floor 12 and that is one very small isolated fire. (Where you meaning to construe this single fire as two so that you could use the word 'fires' instead of 'fire', Bob?)
So, that makes at least 10 photographic images of Floor 12 from 3.55PM until 5.13PM containing no evidence of fire and only one with a single small isolated fire -- all this during a periond when a fire hot enough to cause the total structural failure of steel on that floor was supposedly raging throughout Floor 12.
As I pointed out before, even NIST had acknowledged that the fires on Floor 12 had burnt out by 4.45PM.
The reason for this massive discrepency, is that NIST could not possibly have hoped to come up with an even remotely plausible explanation for the first ever global collapse of a steel-framed building caused by fire alone without grossly exaggerating the severity of those fires, and that is what it did. And in doing so, NIST is guilty of scientific fraud and both Bob and Nick by peddling their lies on this forum are accomplices in that fraud.
This is all abundantly demonstrated in chapters 9 and 10 of "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 -- Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009) by David Ray Griffin. (BTW, the page number of the above reference is 227).
I am placing this corrrespondence on the public record in order to allow readers to form their own judgement.
Few of the arguments and facts I put to Anna Winter or Mark Bahnisch were acknowledged.
Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur
Date: 27/12/09 10:51 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Mark Bahnisch, Anna Winter
Reply to: James Sinnamon
Dear Mark and Anna,
I have now been accused of advocating the World View of The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, etc. etc. and cannot reply.
So, could you please either post the attached file that briefly answers that
or unblock the post containtin the same?
I have not been able to at
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/ ?
I hope I have not been banned.
In a way it would be a relief if you were to confirm that I had been, but I
think principles of open and free discussion are more important than my
personal convenience, particularly when we are all facing the threat of
Mandatory Internet Filtering.
If I have been banned, I think it would only be fair to stop others from
attacking me personally.
Sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Re: Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur
Date: 27/12/09 11:19 pm
From: Anna Winter
To: James Sinnamon
CC: Mark Bahnisch
James, don't repost comments again, it just makes the spam filter more
likely to take your comments.
Your comments are out now.
2009/12/27 James Sinnamon
> Dear Mark and Anna,
>
> I have now been accused of advocating the World View of The Protocols of
...
Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 10:18 am
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Reply to: James Sinnamon
(Subject was: Re: Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur)
Dear Anna Winter,
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Anna Winter wrote:
> James, don't repost comments again, it just makes the spam filter more
> likely to take your comments.
I have followed that advice this time.
>
> Your comments are out now.
Thank you.
However, the discussion has since been closed (and as owners of
larvartusprodeo.net it is obviously your right to do so, as much as I may
disagree with that decision).
In closing that discussion, mercurius made a number of further personal
attacks against me, which I consider unfair and I believe that I am entitled
to respond to those.
I also believe that I am entitled also to respond to a further unfounded
smear, made by another that I promote the anti-Semetic views of "The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
So, I posted a response to
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/26/saturday-salon-christmas-edition-2/
However, it disapppeared into your spam filter, that is, if it was not
deleiberately deleted.
Could you please either take my post out of the spam filter, if you can, or,
else, publish the attached html snippet on my behalf?
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Ph 0412 319669
Re: Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 12:23 pm
From: Anna Winter
To: James Sinnamon
CC: Mark Bahnisch
I think that thread is long enough for people to make their own judgements
about everyone on it. I'm not even a little bit interested in having that
debate spill over to any other threads. You have already responded, and your
comment at 1971 will remain there in that thread.
You've had plenty of opportunity to make all of your points now, and others
had the right to respond to you. And to be very clear, I won't be changing
my mind on this point, so don't think that sending more and more emails will
get me to do that.
Cheers
A
2009/12/28 James Sinnamon
> (Subject was: Re: Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur)
Re: Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 02:42 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Reply to: James Sinnamon
Hi Anna,
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> I think that thread is long enough for people to make their own judgements
> about everyone on it. ...
You are failing to acknowledge that a discussion can be disrupted if a number
of people are resolved to do so. That clearly has happened and has happened
over a long period of time.
If you check the forum, you will see that a least the following "Unacceptable"
practices from
http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/comments-policy/ have been
repeatedly employed by my detractors:
# Excessively long comments, which break up the give and take of discourse.
Please post such screeds on your own blog and post a summary in comments with
a link to your own post
# imputing ideas or motives to others ...
# Consistently repeated and aggressively stated opinions which fail to engage
with others is regarded as a form of trolling.
So, for these and many other reasons I won't go into, I don't accept your
contention that, in these circumstances "[I had] plenty of opportunity to
make all of your points."
In spite of all that, I believe that I had finally reached a point in the
discussion where it was no longer possible for my detractors to employ those
techniques against me as successfully as they had before.
I believe that the fact, that the moderators stood back whilst, for months on
end, I was subject to relentless open cyber-bullying by a large number of
other contributors all proclaiming their glee at their claimed humiliation of
me, but chose to close down the discussion, just at the point where I was
clearly winning, will seem suspicious to others.
> ... I'm not even a little bit interested in having that debate spill
> over to any other threads. ...
OK, then why not put it on the thread that it concerns?
> ... You have already responded, and
> your comment at 1971 will remain there in that thread.
>
> You've had plenty of opportunity to make all of your points now, and others
> had the right to respond to you. ...
The point remains that the forum has ended with yet a further unwarranted
personal attack against me.
If the forum had simply been closed down without my having been smeared in the
way I was, then I would have been prepared to let things stand.
However, I have been pronounced as effectively a nutcase by a moderator, as
well as an anti-Semite.
I believe that I should be entitled to an apology for that, but I have not
even given a chance to defend myself.
> ... And to be very clear, I won't be changing
> my mind on this point, so don't think that sending more and more emails
> will get me to do that.
Well, I think you should change your mind. But, if you choose not to, I
believe that others will recognise that I have been treated unfairly.
>
> Cheers
> A
Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Re: Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 02:53 pm
From: Anna Winter
To: James Sinnamon
CC: Mark Bahnisch
I have removed all references to you in the final comment on that post, so
that you've had a chance to respond to the last comment that insulted you.
Cheers
A
2009/12/28 James Sinnamon
> Hi Anna,
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> > I think that thread is long enough for people to make their own
> > judgements
Re: Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 03:56 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Reply to: James Sinnamon
Hi Anna,
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Anna Winter wrote:
> I have removed all references to you in the final comment on that post, ...
Thanks for doing that at least.
> ...so that you've had a chance to respond to the last comment that
> insulted you.
I am still not happy that such an inflamatory statement as:
"I'm sure you'll find a way to pin it on the Jooooooooz, Dag.
"And that's why you deserve every ounce of spite you're gonna get,
here and elsewhere."
... as well as all the other unfounded accusations of me of being an
anti-Semite have not been answered as adequately as I would have wished, in
the short time that was available to me, or, else, repudiated by the
moderators or else removed.
Anyway, in the longer term, I suspect those comments, if left there, will
reflect more on those who posted them, as well as on LP, than on me.
> Cheers
> A
So, can you tell me, am I welcome to comment, henceforth, on the other forums
on Larvatus Prodeo or not?
Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Re: Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 04:04 pm
From: Anna Winter
To: James Sinnamon
CC: Mark Bahnisch
You are more than welcome to comment, however for the time being at least,
not about 9/11 issues. You've argued your case on that, and we don't want it
derailing any other threads.
Please consider that our blog isn't for your soapbox. If you contribute to
discussion and community on the topics of the posts then you are always
welcome. Saturday Salons are generally for fun, lighthearted subjects,
especially at Christmas time. Feel free to join in,
Anna
2009/12/28 James Sinnamon
> Hi Anna,
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Anna Winter wrote:
> > I have removed all references to you in the final comment on that post,
> ...
Re: Another post of mine filtered?
Date: 28/12/09 04:59 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
Reply to: James Sinnamon
Hi Anna,
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> You are more than welcome to comment, ...
Thank you.
> ... however for the time being at least, not about 9/11 issues.
> You've argued your case on that, and we don't want
> it derailing any other threads.
For my I don't intend to go out of my way to raise 9/11, not that I believe I
did anything terribly wrong on that thread, as I have already explained.
> Please consider that our blog isn't for your soapbox. ...
I understand and accept that as a general principle. In any case, I much
prefer to use my own blog as my soapbox.
> ... If you contribute to
> discussion and community on the topics of the posts then you are always
> welcome. ...
> ... Saturday Salons are generally for fun, lighthearted subjects,
> especially at Christmas time. Feel free to join in.
Sure, thanks.
But, unfortunately there's a great deal more going on in the world that isn't
fun and lightheated and if we don't come to grips with that somewhere our
future will be very bleak.
>
> Anna
Yours sincerely,
James
A post of mine has vanished
Date: 02/01/10 09:46 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Reply to: James Sinnamon
Hi Anna,
I tried to post the follwing just now:
I have updated the story featuring that interview/debate between myself and
Andrew Fraser I mentioned a few weeks ago. I have included the full
transpcript (warts and all) or all threeYouTube Videos. I have also added a
Table of Contents and other supporting documents as well as links to other
articles. The story is Anti-privatisation candidate
confronts Queensland Treasurer".
... but it's nowhere to be found.
Can you tell me what happened?
Thanks.
regards,
James
Resend: A post of mine has vanished
Date: 03/01/10 02:29 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Reply to: James Sinnamon
(See above)
Update (3 Mar 10): Larvatus Prodeo moderator tells me she is "comfortable with how [she's] represented in [my] post," but I am still waiting to be advised if I have been intentionally banned and why.
Cyber-bullying, censorship, Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth
Date: 03/03/10 02:48:33 am
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Reply to: James Sinnamon
Hi Anna and Mark,
I have decided to put on the public record our correspondences over my being
banned from publishing on Larvatus Prodeo, seemingly as a consequence of my
being scapegoated for the abuses of others during the long running forum at
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-846594 .
I published the correspondence in the article "Cyber-bullying, censorship,
Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth" at http://candobetter.org/node/1741#appendix2
I was moved to do so, when, the day before yesterday, I found that I was still
banned from your site.
Please let me know if you don't think the article is unfair to you.
You are welcome to post comments there, even if I am not welcome to post
comments onto Larvatus Prodeo.
Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Re: Cyber-bullying, censorship, Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth
Date: Today 09:57:29 am
From: Anna Winter
To: James Sinnamon
CC: Mark Bahnisch
I'm comfortable with how I'm represented in your post.
...
Re: Cyber-bullying, censorship, Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth
Date: Today 10:31:43 am
From: James Sinnamon
To: Anna Winter
CC: Mark Bahnisch
Hi Anna,
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Anna Winter wrote:
> I'm comfortable with how I'm represented in your post.
Thank you for your reply.
Can I take this as meaning that you intend to maintain the ban on my
contributing to Larvatus Prodeo?
If so, could you tell me what caused you to change your mind after you assured
me that I was still welcome to contribute?
Sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Martin Bryant has been sentenced to prison for the rest of his life because he was convicted of killing 35 people and wounding 23 others at Port Arthur in 1996. According to Vietnam Veteran, the late Brigadier Ted Serong, only the most elite of Australian troops could have performed such a feat of rapid movement and marksmanship, rarely missing, and with such a high proportion of fatal hits.
Martin Bryant, aged 29, had an IQ of 66, equivalent to that of an 11 year old child, which put him in the lowest 1%-2% of the population.
I knew there had to an answer to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that would make the facts clear to non-experts. This 5 minute video (Also at 
In this video on February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presents what he sees as evidence of an illegal scheme begun in 2009. His documents include originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner. They show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland. Lord James claims this has been censored or ignored by the mainstream press. There is little in the alternative media either. The same Lord James attracted headlines about a mysterious Foundation X in 2010.
National Academy of Science member and Distinguished biologist and Professor in Geoscience endorses David Ray Griffin's work exposing the truth of 9/11
I comment here on the nanotechnology aspect of Jerry Mazza’s masterful review (Rock Creek Free Press, January 2010, page 6) of David Ray Griffin’s extraordinary 2009 book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False. 
Burial at sea?
John Faine refused to debate Kevin Bracken, a caller to his Melbourne ABC 'talk back' show on the 
... there was no urgency by the Bush Administration and/or Congress to make sure that common sense changes were made from "lessons learned". In response, we asked, "what will your excuse be the next time an attack occurs?" Apparently, the same excuses are being used again.
Says Martin Hanson, who had also attended Gage’s Wellington presentation of the 21st of November: “The hall was full except for two or three empty seats.”
The 1st of December is Gage’s last night in New Zealand on this tour. He is flying out tomorrow morning to Japan for the start of the 
Recent comments