Was a 9/11 "Truther" killed on the Buffalo,NY Continental flight?

[Matt Collins]

I saw something elsewhere on the Net. Someone was floating a conspiracy theory that the woman who was a 9/11 widow that got killed last night in the Buffalo, NY plane crash was apparently a 9/11 "Truther".


Is there any merit to this? Does anyone have any documented facts?:confused:

[asimplegirl]

OMG, one woman who was a truther...lol.

That's so dumb.

[FrankRep]

9/11 Activist Who Sued Government Killed In Buffalo Plane Crash

http://www.infowars.com/911-activist-who-sued-government-killed-in-buffalo-plane-crash/

[Matt Collins]

How did I know that originated with Alex Jones...:rolleyes:

[FrankRep]

How did I know that originated with Alex Jones...:rolleyes:

How is this a conspiracy theory?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/13/plane.crash.victims/index.html?eref=ib_topstories

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1220-04.htm (letter by Mrs. Eckert)

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090213154220896

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

How did I know that originated with Alex Jones...:rolleyes:

it didn't

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

OMG, one woman who was a truther...lol.

That's so dumb.

i'm starting to understand how you got yourself banned. Hold any opinions you want to, but be respectful.... ok?

[FrankRep]

How did I know that originated with Alex Jones...:rolleyes:
Aww.. CNN you mean. :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

How is this a conspiracy theory?
Ok - so she wasn't a "truther" but she was a thorn in the side of the government. What I had read elsewhere implied that she was assassinated.

[FrankRep]

Ok - so she wasn't a "truther" but she was a thorn in the side of the government. What I had read elsewhere implied that she was assassinated.
One person makes a stupid comment and now it's a new conspiracy theory?

[AutoDas]

Why doesn't Alex Jones get assassinated then if our Government is so great at it?

[asimplegirl]

i'm starting to understand how you got yourself banned. Hold any opinions you want to, but be respectful.... ok?

Um, first off, I never said ANYTHING about anyone's opinions.

Secondly, I never said anything about ANYONE.

Thing is, I am just so tired of ANYTHING that has to do with ANYONE that ANYTHING to do with 911...its a conspiracy. Like the government was so worried about the one widow, so they decided to kill 48 other people.

Yeah, because she is so rich, and powerful, and scary. And she was gonna take the whole place down!

WTF ever, man.

AND YET AGAIN:

And, I first got banned for calling BE an ass for saying I was going to hell for not being married by the state and that God had told him personally.

And I got banned the second time for saying BE was a bigot after saying we should kill people that are not Christians.

When you DO understand why I got banned, you may be more scared of THIS place than some widow being part of a conspiracy.

[asimplegirl]

Why doesn't Alex Jones get assassinated then if our Government is so great at it?

Um...exactly.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Eckert

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Um, first off, I never said ANYTHING about anyone's opinions.

Secondly, I never said anything about ANYONE.

Thing is, I am just so tired of ANYTHING that has to do with ANYONE that ANYTHING to do with 911...its a conspiracy. Like the government was so worried about the one widow, so they decided to kill 48 other people.

Yeah, because she is so rich, and powerful, and scary. And she was gonna take the whole place down!

WTF ever, man.

AND YET AGAIN:

And, I first got banned for calling BE an ass for saying I was going to hell for not being married by the state and that God had told him personally.

And I got banned the second time for saying BE was a bigot after saying we should kill people that are not Christians.

When you DO understand why I got banned, you may be more scared of THIS place than some widow being part of a conspiracy.

this is my point. chill. ok :)

[FrankRep]

Why doesn't Alex Jones get assassinated then if our Government is so great at it?
Are you telling me the Government doesn't assassinate anyone?

[asimplegirl]

I think what they are saying is that people running their mouth isn't enough to assassinate someone over...this woman was no real threat.

[asimplegirl]

this is my point. chill. ok :)

That was your point?? What, that someone can't stand up for themselves or tell someone they are wrong without being banned?? If so, you are right..

Otherwise, it makes no sense...BTW, I am chilled..I am talking about some pretty funny stuff around here, and am in a good mood.. You can't READ moods..so don't try.

[Ex Post Facto]

WOW!!! From the news I've been watching I would have never known this. Thanks for posting. Why hasn't the media brought up this point?! She sued the government to hold them accountable for being asleep at the wheel. The only thing I've heard about the families of 9/11 victims is that they were all for killing people in Iraq to fill their empty hearts full of satisfaction that they were spreading the same vile across the world to other families. I thought all the 9/11 victim families were against a non aggressive foreign policy.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

WOW!!! From the news I've been watching I would have never known this. Thanks for posting. Why hasn't the media brought up this point?! She sued the government to hold them accountable for being asleep at the wheel. The only thing I've heard about the families of 9/11 victims is that they were all for killing people in Iraq to fill their empty hearts full of satisfaction that they were spreading the same vile across the world to other families. I thought all the 9/11 victim families were against a non aggressive foreign policy.

9/11 Press For Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360)(Victim's families tell the story the media won't, film official website (http://www.911pressfortruth.com))

[Matt Collins]

WOW!!! From the news I've been watching I would have never known this. Thanks for posting. Why hasn't the media brought up this point?! She sued the government to hold them accountable for being asleep at the wheel. The only thing I've heard about the families of 9/11 victims is that they were all for killing people in Iraq to fill their empty hearts full of satisfaction that they were spreading the same vile across the world to other families. I thought all the 9/11 victim families were against a non aggressive foreign policy.
She also met with Obama last week apparently.

[Matt Collins]

One person makes a stupid comment and now it's a new conspiracy theory?Doing what I do best... stirring the shit :D;):p:cool:

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

9/11 Press For Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360)(Victim's families tell the story the media won't, film official website (http://www.911pressfortruth.com))

In Their Own Words (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679) (companion dvd to 9/11 Press For Truth)

[BuddyRey]

How did I know that originated with Alex Jones...:rolleyes:

It didn't. I first heard about it from my mother early this morning, before it was even on Prisonplanet. I shot Alex Jones an email about it, but he was awfully slow getting to it. It didn't appear on his site 'til around four this afternoon, EST.

[AutoDas]

Are you telling me the Government doesn't assassinate anyone?

No. Only you have said that.:rolleyes:

What I'm reading from the troofers is that she was stirring the pot and the shadowy guberment didn't like it (oh wait, forget that she met with Obama and Clinton last week) just because she was a 9/11 activist (apparently that mean Troofer to some people here) who was meeting with Obama about a 9/11 memorial. Quite the troofer.

[BuddyRey]

No. Only you have said that.:rolleyes:

What I'm reading from the troofers is that she was stirring the pot and the shadowy guberment didn't like it (oh wait, forget that she met with Obama and Clinton last week) just because she was a 9/11 activist (apparently that mean Troofer to some people here) who was meeting with Obama about a 9/11 memorial. Quite the troofer.

Das,

It's okay if you have beliefs contrary to Alex Jones and others, but why do you have to be so...well, so mean about it?

It's your right to express yourself in whatever way you choose, of course, but why do you use a mocking and derisive tone when addressing your opposition? It's hurtful, and doesn't help you convince others (quite the contrary, in fact).

I don't consider myself a "troofer", as it would suggest by implication that those who disagree with me are "liars." Instead, I choose to call myself a 9/11 Skeptic. But however we feel about eachother's interpretations of the events of 9/11, is it so hard for us to see that we're on the same side?

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Das,

It's okay if you have beliefs contrary to Alex Jones and others, but why do you have to be so...well, so mean about it?

It's your right to express yourself in whatever way you choose, of course, but why do you use a mocking and derisive tone when addressing your opposition? It's hurtful, and doesn't help you convince others (quite the contrary, in fact).



That's all they have!

[TheConstitutionLives]

I saw something elsewhere on the Net. Someone was floating a conspiracy theory that the woman who was a 9/11 widow that got killed last night in the Buffalo, NY plane crash was apparently a 9/11 "Truther".


Is there any merit to this? Does anyone have any documented facts?:confused:

Why would anyone start this thread in this particular forum knowing it only adds to our kookery? I'm gonna start a thread on RON PAUL FORUMS concerning the latest news concerning UFOs.

[Matt Collins]

Why would anyone start this thread in this particular forum knowing it only adds to our kookery? If that's the standard to be used then about 40% of the threads on here should've been deleted or locked instantly :rolleyes::p

Besides, if someone didn't think we are crazy by this point, I highly doubt this thread will change their minds :D


But in all seriousness I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said that someone elsewhere on the Net floated it. I wanted to see how people here react to the idea.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

If that's the standard to be used then about 40% of the threads on here should've been deleted or locked instantly :rolleyes::p

Besides, if someone didn't think we are crazy by this point, I highly doubt this thread will change their minds :D


But in all seriousness I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said that someone elsewhere on the Net floated it. I wanted to see how people here react to the idea.

There are two realities. Realize this and pick a side.

[Chester Copperpot]

I hope buffalokid wasnt on there.. has anybody talked to him>?

[cindy25]

she wasn't really a thorn in the side of the government but someone who pushed them into even more onerous reactions, such as requiring passports or other "secure ID" to leave/enter the USA.

[Dianne]

Actually, she refused to take the government pay-off money after 9/11. Anyone wonder why the federal government paid each household 1.8 million dollars if they would keep their mouth shut?

Check it out... Biggest coincidence to me is that she met with Obama last week, now she is dead......

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1220-04.htm

Not trying to sound like Alex Jones here, but this morning on Good Morning America I heard the actual tapes from the female pilot to air traffic control just one minute before the crash. Everything was completely normal and they were hashing out coordinates, etc. One minute later the plane is down and everyone dead.

Now tonight on CNN, the pilot is referred to as a male. The voice box recorder, according to the feds say that there is a lot of discussion and concern as to the ice on the wings and the windshield.

And dudes???? Everytime I have seen a plane crash covered on the national news... even if they know what caused it; it is announced it will take weeks or even months for them to analyze the cause of the accident. Damn a helicopter hit power lines miles from me three weeks ago, and the news reported it will take several weeks to determine what caused the crash.

But this one was miraculous.... within 15 hours of the crash the Feds were able to tell us exactly what caused the crash. Boldly on the news, it was ice. By the way, the pilot had a sex change in the interim.

My Silence Cannot Be Bought
by Beverly Eckert

I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I've forfeited the "$1.8 million average award" for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband's life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.

Beverly Eckert, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, is the founder of Voices of September 11th, a victims advocacy group.


Wake Up !!!!!

[asimplegirl]

And dudes???? Everytime I have seen a plane crash covered on the national news... even if they know what caused it; it is announced it will take weeks or even months for them to analyze the cause of the accident. Damn a helicopter hit power lines miles from me three weeks ago, and the news reported it will take several weeks to determine what caused the crash.

Chad DeRamus and his family were in a plane crash a few miles from where I grew up in a jet. They released that night the reason.

Also, Dr. Salibi. They released that two days later.

There is an airport very near us through the woods. Anytime anything happens we hear of it immediately, and the reason is released. Only crashes that were caused by something that was not obvious take that long.




Alexandria Man and Lake Charles Doctor Killed in Two Separate Plane Crashes, Reports Bill Sumrall of the Town Talk and Renee Allen of KALB.
According to a breaking news article that appeared tonight on the Town Talk's website, two separate small plane crashes killed an Alexandria man and a Lake Charles doctor earlier today. Both crashes occured in Grant Parish. Renee Allen also reported the story tonight on KALB-TV. Dr. Sleiman Salibi was killed en route from St. Louis, Missouri to Lake Charles in a two-seater T-28 former military plane. The causes of the crash are not yet known. Chad DeRamus, son of local businessman Jimmie DeRamus, was killed after a small Piper plane also carrying Jimmie, Peggy, and Jenny DeRamus and piloted by Jon Norman crashed in a field near Fairfield Road. For more information, visit www.thetowntalk.com. Or on KALB. It appears that Chad DeRamus was a world-ranked professional pool player.

[Dianne]

The crash in New York where thankfully everyone survived, was suspected to be birds. The pilot knew what caused his plane's take down, but all the news coverage from CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc said the pilot was not allowed to give a statement until all the fed transportation units interviewed him and their investigation was complete. His wife was allowed to do interviews, but he was not... pending a thorough investigation of what caused his crash.

It is a complete MIRACLE, this crash is an open and shut case so quickly. Sorry, never in my lifetime have I seen case closed within 15 hours of a plane crash.

[RickyJ]

OMG, one woman who was a truther...lol.

That's so dumb.

Nothing dumb about it. She was a widow of one of the pilots that supposedly got killed on 9/11. No body was ever found however. She was seeking the real truth about 9/11, not the official myth so many dumb Americans readily accept as truth because they have lost the ability to think critically about anything an authority figure says. She testified in Washington D.C. at the 9/11 hearings. She and other widows of 9/11 were in a video about 9/11 truth that they put out themselves. They were fighting for the truth because they wanted to know who really killed their loved ones. Love is a powerful force, not even the damn government can stand up to it. Her fight is not over, 9/11 truth will become the rallying point for the next revolution. She will always be remembered for her efforts to find out the truth. What will you be remembered for?

[V-rod]

Los Mexicanos are going to take our inside jerbss!

[pcosmar]

There are two realities. Realize this and pick a side.

There is NO spoon.

[lucius]

^^

[lucius]

I saw something elsewhere on the Net. Someone was floating a conspiracy theory..

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research


...Truther".

[I]The thought-terminating-cliche, a perfect example from Robert Jay Lifton's 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism': Chinese are the original masters...

Always stirring up sh*t, huh mat?

#

[Galileo Galilei]

9/11 Press For Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360)(Victim's families tell the story the media won't, film official website (http://www.911pressfortruth.com))

Press For Truth is a great movie and I recognize Becky from the film. I hope everyone here can watch it.

[Aratus]

!!!

[Expatriate]

Wow, is it possible to even discuss anything like this now in a civilized manner? This is how I read this thread:


"Some people think that crash was a conspiracy theory!"

"Yeah. Conspiracy theory. Tin Foil."

"Wait, I think there are odd things about this story"

"Alex Jones. Tin Foil. Flying Saucers."

"Strange. Is there more info available?"

"Let's not talk about this, it makes us look kooky!"


I know a lot of you feel that seriously discussing "conspiracy theories" or anything not widely accepted hurts the credibility of this forum, but if said viewpoints are really so crazy, couldn't logic and reason be used against them, at the same time defending our credibility to a lurker of the mainstream school of thought?

I just think that using things like the pejorative "conspiracy theory" accusation is poor form and very similar to:

-Playing the "race card",
-Invoking "Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)" to end a discussion,
-Making a joke out of someone's words to avoid discussing the point raised.

I have seen this tactic used to stifle honest discourse quite frequently, and think most of those who use it are not particularly aware of it's purpose, but simply do it because it's the "popular thing to do".

For example, during a recent marketing lecture at my school, a student disagreed with something, and quoted John Hancock to support his point. Before it could be discussed, another student interrupted: "And I'd like to quote John Footpenis...", which made the whole class start laughing, since the joke was from "Family Guy". When the professor mentioned Hancock again, the same thing happened and he skipped ahead to the next slide. The point was never addressed.

The election is over, we don't need to worry about our words reflecting badly on Dr. Paul anymore, and besides he can speak for himself. I don't see what we gain from stifling discussion. I'm not trying to insult those of you who call out paranoia when you see it, I'm just asking you to reconsider your plan of attack.

I think and hope it's pretty unlikely that the "shadow government" took out a whole jetliner to kill one person, but it's not impossible, and besides, "conspiracies" are far more common then most think. I mean, I conspire with my associates on a regular basis, and most successful businesses are based on a conspiracy of some sort. I'm certain conspiracies occur in our government as well. What do we lose from discussing the possibility?

/end rant :)

[Matt Collins]

Always stirring up sh*t, huh mat? Well sometimes I get bored and want to have some entertainment on these forums :p

[kojirodensetsu]

9/11 truth will become the rallying point for the next revolution.
If a conspiracy theory is the reason for the start of a revolution count me out.

I don't mean to sound mean (I probably am though oh well) but I think you truthers just want this to be an assassination so you have more ammo to shoot. If you look back there have been plenty of activists (an easy one that comes to mind is Cindy Sheehan) that haven't died. Hell Ron Paul has probably been more of a thorn to the gov's side and he's still breathing just fine. Do you guys really think that one day she meets Obama and goes "I think you guys should look into 9/11. I don't think it was really explained very thoroughly." And then she leaves and Obama says to his staff "I want her dead. I don't care how you do it I just want her buried in the ground by this time next week."

:confused:

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

If a conspiracy theory is the reason for the start of a revolution count me out.

I don't mean to sound mean (I probably am though oh well) but I think you truthers just want this to be an assassination so you have more ammo to shoot. If you look back there have been plenty of activists (an easy one that comes to mind is Cindy Sheehan) that haven't died. Hell Ron Paul has probably been more of a thorn to the gov's side and he's still breathing just fine. Do you guys really think that one day she meets Obama and goes "I think you guys should look into 9/11. I don't think it was really explained very thoroughly." And then she leaves and Obama says to his staff "I want her dead. I don't care how you do it I just want her buried in the ground by this time next week."

:confused:

I don't think truthers want anything like this to happen at all. They don't want our current situation, but they realize the only way out is to honestly confront it. So no, any truther who says they want or desire some type of killing so that their beliefs will be justified is completely sick. This is not about popularity. It is about finding out the truth no matter what that may be. It means being open to ridicule from people who are not open.

[JordanL]

I wonder how many "Truthers" have gotten into car crashes?

EDIT:

I always get a kick out of people who maintain the government is so all-powerful it orchestrated a massive terrorist attack, yet so incompetent that they "assassinate" people in fantastically spectacular ways.

If the "truthers" were right, and this woman was killed, wouldn't it be so much less trouble if they just cut the brakes on her car, or leaked carbon monoxide into her home, or mixed salmonella into some of her peanut butter?

EDIT2:

And sadly, this thread is a great example of why it took a worldwide meltdown of trillions of dollars for anyone to take Ron Paul seriously...

[revolutionisnow]

The plane was on autopilot when it dropped 800 feet in five seconds.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Plane-That-Crashed-Near-Buffalo-Was-on-Autopilot.html

[Soft Spoken Storm]

I think what they are saying is that people running their mouth isn't enough to assassinate someone over...this woman was no real threat.

More to the point, you don't "silence" anyone unless they become an extreme threat. Leaders of politics on a local or even state level... governors... All kinds of people who you might think are "real threats" really aren't in the grand scheme of things. Words can be beaten with more words. It takes a serious effort to present a real threat, especially the kind that would get any kind of "assassination." People like to banty about this idea that the government or the Company or the FBI or whoever would go about killing anyone who is inconvenient. This simply isn't feasible. People will ask questions. Inevitably, they will dig around and find that the person was making some noise. Then more questions are asked. You've given them a voice much louder than they could ever have hoped to have while alive.

This woman is an example. She died on a plane accident. There is simply no way that any "assassination" is going to take out that much collateral in the process. Also, many people were unaware that she was suing the government or anything. However, she dies in an accident, and everyone is now questioning what happened, coming up with theories, and talking about her actions against the government. Had they been responsible for her death, then they would have caused a ridiculous amount of excess damage, and given a silent story a huge voice. Quite an amateurish way to solve a problem, since you've just expanded it beyond any potential for control.

This is all logical to me and makes sense and is the proper way of observing these things. If you're to assume a government conspiracy, then you have to assume that they know what they're doing. Which then says that they are not killing any "truthers" or anything, especially as such people actually do more harm to movements that seek to change the government. Were I in their position, I would leave all of the "truthers" alone, because every time they make accusations with nothing to back them, or make "documentaries" like Loose Change which are so easily proven wrong that it's laughable, they make it easy to label every "Ron Paul person" a nutjob. So leave the "truthers" alone and they will do the damage to these groups that the government could never hope to do alone.

[lucius]

//

[Roxi]

Wow, is it possible to even discuss anything like this now in a civilized manner? This is how I read this thread:


"Some people think that crash was a conspiracy theory!"

"Yeah. Conspiracy theory. Tin Foil."

"Wait, I think there are odd things about this story"

"Alex Jones. Tin Foil. Flying Saucers."

"Strange. Is there more info available?"

"Let's not talk about this, it makes us look kooky!"


I know a lot of you feel that seriously discussing "conspiracy theories" or anything not widely accepted hurts the credibility of this forum, but if said viewpoints are really so crazy, couldn't logic and reason be used against them, at the same time defending our credibility to a lurker of the mainstream school of thought?

I just think that using things like the pejorative "conspiracy theory" accusation is poor form and very similar to:

-Playing the "race card",
-Invoking "Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)" to end a discussion,
-Making a joke out of someone's words to avoid discussing the point raised.

I have seen this tactic used to stifle honest discourse quite frequently, and think most of those who use it are not particularly aware of it's purpose, but simply do it because it's the "popular thing to do".

For example, during a recent marketing lecture at my school, a student disagreed with something, and quoted John Hancock to support his point. Before it could be discussed, another student interrupted: "And I'd like to quote John Footpenis...", which made the whole class start laughing, since the joke was from "Family Guy". When the professor mentioned Hancock again, the same thing happened and he skipped ahead to the next slide. The point was never addressed.

The election is over, we don't need to worry about our words reflecting badly on Dr. Paul anymore, and besides he can speak for himself. I don't see what we gain from stifling discussion. I'm not trying to insult those of you who call out paranoia when you see it, I'm just asking you to reconsider your plan of attack.

I think and hope it's pretty unlikely that the "shadow government" took out a whole jetliner to kill one person, but it's not impossible, and besides, "conspiracies" are far more common then most think. I mean, I conspire with my associates on a regular basis, and most successful businesses are based on a conspiracy of some sort. I'm certain conspiracies occur in our government as well. What do we lose from discussing the possibility?

/end rant :)



I like you :)

[moostraks]

If a conspiracy theory is the reason for the start of a revolution count me out.

I don't mean to sound mean (I probably am though oh well) but I think you truthers just want this to be an assassination so you have more ammo to shoot. If you look back there have been plenty of activists (an easy one that comes to mind is Cindy Sheehan) that haven't died. Hell Ron Paul has probably been more of a thorn to the gov's side and he's still breathing just fine. Do you guys really think that one day she meets Obama and goes "I think you guys should look into 9/11. I don't think it was really explained very thoroughly." And then she leaves and Obama says to his staff "I want her dead. I don't care how you do it I just want her buried in the ground by this time next week."

:confused:

LOL...So Cindy Sheehan and Ron Paul are the two you pick? Both of whom have been rabidly decreed as wingnuts by the mainstream media so they (and their associates who hold them in favor) are declared nutcases and their case is rendered a useless waste of time. The only time the give Ron Paul his due is when he is discussing economics and now the recent spin, at least locally, is that he is stealing his information from Peter Schiff :rolleyes:

Furthermore, playing devil's advocate here because I admittedly have not really attempted to follow this person, but it would be in poor taste to attack someone whose spouse died for the cause we are waging extensive and expensive warfare for unless she had some evidence of insanity in her background, to which they could use for a smear campaign of the like's that Sheehan and Paul are subjected to by the media.

I was working this thread backwards, but to the poster who wrote you would hope that they would not ditch a plane for one person, google Larry McDonald and Koreign Air 007...

[moostraks]

Why would anyone start this thread in this particular forum knowing it only adds to our kookery? I'm gonna start a thread on RON PAUL FORUMS concerning the latest news concerning UFOs.

Why is disagreeing with media information or questioning a situation always considered kookery? Maybe if citizens questioned more and accepted less we could stop being the lemmings led off the cliff? Ya think?:)

[moostraks]

More to the point, you don't "silence" anyone unless they become an extreme threat. Leaders of politics on a local or even state level... governors... All kinds of people who you might think are "real threats" really aren't in the grand scheme of things. Words can be beaten with more words. It takes a serious effort to present a real threat, especially the kind that would get any kind of "assassination." People like to banty about this idea that the government or the Company or the FBI or whoever would go about killing anyone who is inconvenient. This simply isn't feasible. People will ask questions. Inevitably, they will dig around and find that the person was making some noise. Then more questions are asked. You've given them a voice much louder than they could ever have hoped to have while alive.

This woman is an example. She died on a plane accident. There is simply no way that any "assassination" is going to take out that much collateral in the process. Also, many people were unaware that she was suing the government or anything. However, she dies in an accident, and everyone is now questioning what happened, coming up with theories, and talking about her actions against the government. Had they been responsible for her death, then they would have caused a ridiculous amount of excess damage, and given a silent story a huge voice. Quite an amateurish way to solve a problem, since you've just expanded it beyond any potential for control.

This is all logical to me and makes sense and is the proper way of observing these things. If you're to assume a government conspiracy, then you have to assume that they know what they're doing. Which then says that they are not killing any "truthers" or anything, especially as such people actually do more harm to movements that seek to change the government. Were I in their position, I would leave all of the "truthers" alone, because every time they make accusations with nothing to back them, or make "documentaries" like Loose Change which are so easily proven wrong that it's laughable, they make it easy to label every "Ron Paul person" a nutjob. So leave the "truthers" alone and they will do the damage to these groups that the government could never hope to do alone.

Let's see, someone who wants straight answers and open documents as to the death of her spouse is now a "truther"? Well you just jumped on the derogatory train now didn't you? Maybe we should wonder what is so highly secretive that they are trying to avoid becoming public information rather than us discussing whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? What was worth the 1.8 million dollar payoff?

I think some have a healthy distrust of the government and find it intriguing that an already curious personality meets such an untimely death in spectacular fashion. If you think the government never commits attrocities for the sake of protecting itself,you live in a glass house that can find itself shattered at any moment you cross the line with any government agency that disagrees with you. Piss the wrong one off at the wrong time and find yourself or your family destroyed instantaineously and there is no forewarning.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Let's see, someone who wants straight answers and open documents as to the death of her spouse is now a "truther"? Well you just jumped on the derogatory train now didn't you? Maybe we should wonder what is so highly secretive that they are trying to avoid becoming public information rather than us discussing whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? What was worth the 1.8 million dollar payoff?

I think some have a healthy distrust of the government and find it intriguing that an already curious personality meets such an untimely death in spectacular fashion. If you think the government never commits attrocities for the sake of protecting itself,you live in a glass house that can find itself shattered at any moment you cross the line with any government agency that disagrees with you. Piss the wrong one off at the wrong time and find yourself or your family destroyed instantaineously and there is no forewarning.

I never referred to her as a "truther." The topic title did, but I specifically steered away from calling her one.

I will not get into a debate about 9/11 and the "truth" of it here. I have my own ideas and they do not agree with a lot of people, especially the "truthers." The "truthers" claim to seek "truth" and then cling to some of the flimsiest "evidence" they can, using easily-disproven "facts" to support their claims. And then, if you don't agree with them, as shown above, you are insulted and verbally lambasted.

I do not care to argue with idiots such as that. I will not call all "truthers" idiots, simply the ones who seek to insult all who do not accept their word as "truth." I for one keep an open mind on all things and seek the truth through factual evidence. If you produce farcical evidence, I will laugh and not pay you attention. More to the point, while they beat their chests and insult the rest of us as "mindless sheep" or whatever they want to call us, we are actually working to provide change within the system. I doubt "lucius" is doing anything of the sort. It reminds me of Naomi Wolf, who couldn't complete the paperwork to run for public office, so she cried "conspiracy!" But I know plenty of people who ran for office in the last election cycle, some of whom won, some of whom lost. None of them cried about the paperwork. None of them claimed it was a conspiracy. They know the facts and the real truths.

Do you know why Ron Paul was easily labeled a nutjob, and his followers especially? Look to people like "lucius" and all the people who readily jumped to claim that the government killed fifty people just to take out one woman who was, ultimately, insignificant. The Company's hands may be tied these days, but they are still not the amateurs you seem to believe they are.

[Aratus]

the de-icers were working during the flight that shake the ice off yet there
is a reason why the wing flaps did not fully drop before the plane bellyflops

[Peace&Freedom]

The 9/11 widow was one of the only family members who had not taken a cash settlement from the government, and who thus was pursuing a full court case with sworn testimony and subpeona powers to get some real answers. Her death is significant because there are few other people with the standing to do the same. The death impacts the 9-11 truth issue because her court case was going to be, again, a great vehicle to get some answers.

The details of the crash do in fact suggest the electricity on the plane suddenly went away at 2300 ft (reasons unknown), and the final conversations between the pilot and the air traffic indicated no de-icing or other problems, and manageable conditions for the landing. All other planes that evening landed without issues in the same weather. So there is a mystery, and foul play is one reasonable explanation.

Those who want evidence and facts on 9-11 truth that go beyond flimsy are encouraged to look at over 250 issues raised here:

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

[FrankRep]

Plane that crashed near Buffalo was on autopilot

AP
Feb 15, 2009

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) - The commuter plane that crashed near Buffalo was on autopilot when it went down in icy weather, indicating that the pilot may have violated federal safety recommendations and the airline's own policy for flying in such conditions, a federal official said Sunday.

Steve Chealander, a National Transportation Safety Board member, said the company that operated the flight recommends pilots fly manually in icy conditions. Pilots are required to do so in severe ice.

"You may be able in a manual mode to sense something sooner than the autopilot can sense it," Chealander told The Associated Press in an interview, explaining why the NTSB also recommends that pilots disengage the autopilot in icy conditions.

The preliminary investigation indicates the autopilot was still on when the plane crashed, he said. That has not been confirmed by information from the plane's flight data recorder.
...

Full Story:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090215/D96C9ED80.html

[RevolutionSD]

Why doesn't Alex Jones get assassinated then if our Government is so great at it?

Same reason why didn't they assassinate Ron Paul.

The government is dumb, but not that dumb. Making someone who is in the limelight into a martyr would of course backfire on them.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Of course, being on autopilot, people will claim the plain was taken over like a drone and flown into a building...

News flash, from a guy who works on computers: Computers fail.

Reality check for those of you who still think this is a government job: This is much too sloppy for a government job. The easiest way to do it would be for her to "commit suicide" in order to be reunited with her lost lifelong love. No questions asked, no collateral.

Doing it this way? Now you've killed other people. You've created safety scares for flights again, especially with this model. It will hurt the airline industry and travel, reducing tax revenues and lowering the flow of money from airline-related lobbyists. You have several families asking questions, and they'll all look into it. You then have to have full investigations on the safety of flight paths and residential neighborhoods. You have to go through several layers of bureaucracy to clean up the mess.

No, this was definitely not a government job. It's not clean enough.

[FrankRep]

No, this was definitely not a government job. It's not clean enough.

No one is claiming it was a government assassination.

[Carole]

OMG, one woman who was a truther...lol.

That's so dumb.

She had just met with O-blahma a couple days earlier.:eek::(

[Carole]

I saw something elsewhere on the Net. Someone was floating a conspiracy theory that the woman who was a 9/11 widow that got killed last night in the Buffalo, NY plane crash was apparently a 9/11 "Truther".


Is there any merit to this? Does anyone have any documented facts?:confused:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntD.htm

Dorothy Wetzel was born in Ohio on 1st April, 1920. She became an employee for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) after the Second World War and was stationed in Shanghai, China, where she met her future husband, E. Howard Hunt.

After the war Dorothy worked for the CIA in Paris. She was liaison between the American Embassy and the Economic Cooperation Administration (a CIA front). The couple returned to the United States and settled in Maryland. Her husband spent much of his time involved in covert operations in Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Cuba.
On 3rd July, 1972, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker and James W. McCord were arrested while removing electronic devices from the Democratic Party campaign offices in an apartment block called Watergate. The phone number of E. Howard Hunt was found in address books of two of the burglars. Reporters were able to link the break-in to the White House. Bob Woodward, a reporter working for the Washington Post was told by a friend who was employed by the government, that senior aides of President Richard Nixon, had paid the burglars to obtain information about its political opponents.
E. Howard Hunt threatened to reveal details of who paid him to organize the Watergate break-in. Dorothy Hunt took part in the negotiations with Charles Colson. According to investigator Sherman Skolnick, Hunt also had information on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He argued that if "Nixon didn't pay heavy to suppress the documents they had showing he was implicated in the planning and carrying out, by the FBI and the CIA, of the political murder of President Kennedy"
James W. McCord claimed that Dorothy told him that at a meeting with her husband's attorney, William O. Buttmann, she revealed that Hunt had information that would "blow the White House out of the water".
In October, 1972, Dorothy Hunt attempted to speak to Charles Colson. He refused to talk to her but later admitted to the New York Times that she was "upset at the interruption of payments from Nixon's associates to Watergate defendants."


Dorothy and Howard Hunt in 1958

On 15th November, Colson met with Richard Nixon, H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman at Camp David to discuss Howard Hunt's blackmail threat. John N. Mitchell was also getting worried by Dorothy Hunt's threats and he asked John Dean to use a secret White House fund to "get the Hunt situation settled down". Eventually it was arranged for Frederick LaRue to give Hunt about $250,000 to buy his silence.
However, on 8th December, 1972, Dorothy Hunt had a meeting with Michelle Clark, a journalist working for CBS. According to Sherman Skolnick, Clark was working on a story on the Watergate case: "Ms Clark had lots of insight into the bugging and cover-up through her boyfriend, a CIA operative." Also with Hunt and Clark was Chicago Congressman George Collins.
Dorothy Hunt, Michelle Clark and George Collins took the Flight 533 from Washington to Chicago. The aircraft hit the branches of trees close to Midway Airport: "It then hit the roofs of a number of neighborhood bungalows before plowing into the home of Mrs. Veronica Kuculich at 3722 70th Place, demolishing the home and killing her and a daughter, Theresa. The plane burst into flames killing a total of 45 persons, 43 of them on the plane, including the pilot and first and second officers. Eighteen passengers survived." Hunt, Clark and Collins were all killed in the accident.
Just before Dorothy Hunt boarded the aircraft she purchased $250,000 in flight insurance payable to E. Howard Hunt. In his book Undercover (1974) Hunt claims he was unaware that his wife planned to do this. In the book he also tried to explain what his wife was doing with $10,000 in her purse. According to Hunt it was money to be invested with Hal Carlstead in "two already-built Holiday Inns in the Chicago area".
The following month E. Howard Hunt pleaded guilty to burglary and wiretapping and eventually served 33 months in prison. Hunt kept his silence although another member of the Watergate team, James W. McCord, wrote a letter to Judge John J. Sirica claiming that the defendants had pleaded guilty under pressure (from John Dean and John N. Mitchell) and that perjury had been committed.
The airplane crash was blamed on equipment malfunctions. Carl Oglesby (The Yankee and Cowboy War) has pointed out that the day after the crash, White House aide Egil Krogh was appointed Undersecretary of Transportation, supervising the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Association - the two agencies charged with investigating the airline crash. A week later, Nixon's deputy assistant Alexander P. Butterfield was made the new head of the FAA.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntD.htm

Just for fun. :D

[Expatriate]

I like you :)
I like you too:D

I looked into this a little more, and I am curious, does anyone know anything else about the "unusual loud noise" or "pop" that was heard by witnesses coming from the aircraft before the crash?

And nobody better call me a tin-foil hatter. I'm just looking for information for cryin' out loud.



Ken Smith, her father, said he also heard the pop and guessed that an airplane engine had blown.

“Then six or seven seconds later, I heard the crash,” Smith said.
(http://www.buffalonews.com/515/story/579991.html)



Witnesses reported an unusual loud noise coming from the plane, which crashed about five minutes before it was due to land in Buffalo.
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6PhdI5C1PJEJ11DFiabt3eRxdvg)

[Expatriate]

Does anyone know ANYTHING about the loud noise that was supposedly heard before the plane crashed?

[moostraks]

I never referred to her as a "truther." The topic title did, but I specifically steered away from calling her one.

I will not get into a debate about 9/11 and the "truth" of it here. I have my own ideas and they do not agree with a lot of people, especially the "truthers." The "truthers" claim to seek "truth" and then cling to some of the flimsiest "evidence" they can, using easily-disproven "facts" to support their claims. And then, if you don't agree with them, as shown above, you are insulted and verbally lambasted.

I do not care to argue with idiots such as that. I will not call all "truthers" idiots, simply the ones who seek to insult all who do not accept their word as "truth." I for one keep an open mind on all things and seek the truth through factual evidence. If you produce farcical evidence, I will laugh and not pay you attention. More to the point, while they beat their chests and insult the rest of us as "mindless sheep" or whatever they want to call us, we are actually working to provide change within the system. I doubt "lucius" is doing anything of the sort. It reminds me of Naomi Wolf, who couldn't complete the paperwork to run for public office, so she cried "conspiracy!" But I know plenty of people who ran for office in the last election cycle, some of whom won, some of whom lost. None of them cried about the paperwork. None of them claimed it was a conspiracy. They know the facts and the real truths.

Do you know why Ron Paul was easily labeled a nutjob, and his followers especially? Look to people like "lucius" and all the people who readily jumped to claim that the government killed fifty people just to take out one woman who was, ultimately, insignificant. The Company's hands may be tied these days, but they are still not the amateurs you seem to believe they are.

Did not realize I gave a dispensation on my take of the situation. Try not to assume. The rambling you went on in your previous post read as though you were stating the stance on not ridding the world of truthers being the same reasoning that this story took wings. Something was lost between your words and my reading.

As for your take on how much will come if this were a planned government operation (not that I am saying it was but playing devil's advocate) seems that it is a mute point because folks like you go belittle anyone who questions the government and with her gone the tenacity to get the records public is probably lost as well.

The reason people called him a nutjob was because the media belittled everything that came out of Dr.Paul's mouth as being unreasonable and unfeasible because he did not understand middle east politics and there was no economic crisis looming. I have been around for awhile, so don't re-write history for me...:)

[moostraks]

Of course, being on autopilot, people will claim the plain was taken over like a drone and flown into a building...

News flash, from a guy who works on computers: Computers fail.

Reality check for those of you who still think this is a government job: This is much too sloppy for a government job. The easiest way to do it would be for her to "commit suicide" in order to be reunited with her lost lifelong love. No questions asked, no collateral.

Doing it this way? Now you've killed other people. You've created safety scares for flights again, especially with this model. It will hurt the airline industry and travel, reducing tax revenues and lowering the flow of money from airline-related lobbyists. You have several families asking questions, and they'll all look into it. You then have to have full investigations on the safety of flight paths and residential neighborhoods. You have to go through several layers of bureaucracy to clean up the mess.

No, this was definitely not a government job. It's not clean enough.

Larry McDonald flight 007 Korean Air

[jmag]

I'm really tired of "truthers" being considered synonymous with "kooks". The most plain thing about anything and everything related to 911 is that the buildings were brought down my controlled demolition. Just say wtc 7. Go look at the 15 second clip on youtube of wtc 7 coming down - who is going to admit that they don't believe that is controlled demolition? This is plain fact. We need to get past the mystique of it.

[fj45lvr]

I think there are so many more "targets" to hit than this lady (you know the guys that are out there rattling the sabres about booting the FED (the guys that run the country)).

small potatos

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Did not realize I gave a dispensation on my take of the situation. Try not to assume. The rambling you went on in your previous post read as though you were stating the stance on not ridding the world of truthers being the same reasoning that this story took wings. Something was lost between your words and my reading.

As for your take on how much will come if this were a planned government operation (not that I am saying it was but playing devil's advocate) seems that it is a mute point because folks like you go belittle anyone who questions the government and with her gone the tenacity to get the records public is probably lost as well.

The reason people called him a nutjob was because the media belittled everything that came out of Dr.Paul's mouth as being unreasonable and unfeasible because he did not understand middle east politics and there was no economic crisis looming. I have been around for awhile, so don't re-write history for me...:)


I might be inclined to be friendlier to "truthers" if I hadn't had to deal with so many of them flying off the handle on me and getting angry because I can refute their claims with facts easily enough.

I don't have any problem with questioning the government. I do it myself on a daily basis. However, if you make up some random claim and have nothing to back it, and it has no logical basis to it, then yes, I will disagree with your position, as I do here. An airplane crash is one of the worst ways to take this woman out. They aren't that sloppy. You'll give the government credit for all kinds of complicated plots, but you think they'd have to settle for a messy airplane crash to take out one person? That's not logical, and it's not going to happen.

If you want to know why no one takes Ron Paul seriously, simply go back through the topic and look at this wonderful comment:


Fuck all you mushrooms, non-seekers of truth, ignorant dumb-motherfuckers perfect for only producing more cannon-fodder and dutiful little serfs who keeps the cogs on this abdominal engine of death spinning--wake the fuck-up, of course you are being lied too.

So, because I do not agree with you, I am uninformed, ignorant, stupid, and do not seek truth? You're insulted because I disagree with your position, but you see no insults in statements like that? I find it hilarious that someone who cannot argue his own position would call others ignorant; someone who cannot write a decent paragraph is calling others dumb; and someone who continues to believe in "facts" and "theories" that have long since been disproven is claiming others are "non-seekers of truth."

For the record, I am a very well informed intelligent seeker of truth. And I seek real truth. The government does many things. This was not a government job, nor was 9/11, unless you choose to count blowback as a "government job."

[acptulsa]

I don't have any problem with questioning the government. I do it myself on a daily basis. However, if you make up some random claim and have nothing to back it, and it has no logical basis to it, then yes, I will disagree with your position, as I do here. An airplane crash is one of the worst ways to take this woman out. They aren't that sloppy. You'll give the government credit for all kinds of complicated plots, but you think they'd have to settle for a messy airplane crash to take out one person? That's not logical, and it's not going to happen.

The founder of the John Birch Society died in a plane crash. So did E. Howard Hunt's wife--shortly after she threatened to tell all she had overheard about Watergate. Hell, JFK Jr. died in a plane crash, though it wasn't a commercial flight.

You must admit that, cold-blooded and messy as it is, it does have one huge advantage. And that is that there are a hell of a lot of people like you who categorically refuse to believe that anyone could be that cold blooded, the occasional genocide notwithstanding. And so long as this is true, the outrageousness of the act will pretty much guarantee a lack of suspicion.

I would like to believe with you. There have been, however too few plane crashes over history and too many of those have had someone on board who was a real threat to power.

[Peace&Freedom]

The founder of the John Birch Society died in a plane crash. So did E. Howard Hunt's wife--shortly after she threatened to tell all she had overheard about Watergate. Hell, JFK Jr. died in a plane crash, though it wasn't a commercial flight.

You must admit that, cold-blooded and messy as it is, it does have one huge advantage. And that is that there are a hell of a lot of people like you who categorically refuse to believe that anyone could be that cold blooded, the occasional genocide notwithstanding. And so long as this is true, the outrageousness of the act will pretty much guarantee a lack of suspicion.

I would like to believe with you. There have been, however too few plane crashes over history and too many of those have had someone on board who was a real threat to power.

Bingo +1. Add to this the fact that a plane crash usually destroys whatever trace of the foul play instrument that was used to cause the crash. No chain of evidence, built in plausible deniability. To repeat, the 9-11 widow was one of the ONLY people left who had the standing and freedom to go to court to get real answers. She was NOT small potatoes.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

I hope, if I die in a plane crash, that people do not seek to claim it was a government conspiracy.

I have no doubt that any government, ours included, could kill fifty people. However, this was far from being the best method to silence one voice. Look at how many questions are popping up here. And you can hardly guarantee the evidence will be destroyed, because the black box is very well protected. So there's evidence there. But that's not the only problem. It causes investigations which then create losses of revenue (both for the companies and the government), it causes new laws to have to be discussed, and just creates a big mess. It could be done so much simpler and with fewer questions. And contrary to what some may believe, I've had no training in this stuff and I can come up with a dozen much more effective ways to do it. If I can, then the Company sure as heck can, as can the FBI, and a number of other groups.

And if you think this one person had any hope of bringing down the government, you're overblowing your case. You could get Congress to declare that they officially had 9/11 done to throw America into war, and you know what? Most Americans wouldn't care. But you need to feel like you have some purpose in life. You can't work within the system, you don't have the talent or the patience. So you condemn the system as another conspiracy and make any noise you can to get attention. You act like the government's coming after all of you when you do enough to disprove yourselves. You have to do these things to feel important. Well, here's an idea. Stop your claims that everything is a conspiracy. Go out there and try to create real change in the system. Even if all these farcical claims about 9/11 were true (and I can guarantee it was not an inside job, but simply a combination of blowback and ineptitude), it wouldn't matter. The people wouldn't care. A few unimportant people would get thrown under the bus. Justice would have been served. And thousands of people would still be dead here in America, and over in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

Or, you could try to change the system so that such things can't happen again, and you can make a real difference.

But then, that would take effort, courage, and strength of conviction. Shouting from a soapbox and then insulting anyone who won't listen to you... that takes nothing more than a loud voice.

[acptulsa]

Or, you could try to change the system so that such things can't happen again, and you can make a real difference.

But then, that would take effort, courage, and strength of conviction. Shouting from a soapbox and then insulting anyone who won't listen to you... that takes nothing more than a loud voice.

So, as people who have tried and tried, we can only ask: How do we change the system without convincing people that the system does not fall under the category of, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'?

Fixing it will obviously be a lot of work. It either needs fixing or it doesn't. How many examples of why it needs fixing very much must we disallow, and will we have enough good reasons left after disallowing anything controversial to make people want to go to the trouble?

But you do have one point. So long as the government boxes up every scrap of evidence from plane crashes, crates them, and keeps them under lock and key from thence forward, there's not much we can prove about them.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

So, as people who have tried and tried, we can only ask: How do we change the system without convincing people that the system does not fall under the category of, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'?

Fixing it will obviously be a lot of work. It either needs fixing or it doesn't. How many examples of why it needs fixing very much must we disallow, and will we have enough good reasons left after disallowing anything controversial to make people want to go to the trouble?

But you do have one point. So long as the government boxes up every scrap of evidence from plane crashes, crates them, and keeps them under lock and key from thence forward, there's not much we can prove about them.

And yet, I've seen in just a few months' time a very distinct change in the politics of northeast Florida, and a noticeable shift toward libertarian ideals, fueled by a group working within the Republican Party with a number of "Ron Paulers" at its core. So it can be done, if you go about it the right way. The problem with a number of people is that they try half-heartedly and then give up, claiming it's a conspiracy against them (see Naomi Wolf for a brilliant example). You can't do that, even if you come back for another try (which is also half-hearted). I've been involved in this stuff only since July of last year. In that time I've seen a lot of progress and some great signs. But I know a lot of us have worked hard at it, some of us past the point of exhaustion. I don't get much sleep because when I'm not working, I'm doing things to help push forward this change within the system. And some days I'm just so exhausted I can barely stand, but I keep going. And there's many more like me! But we believe we can change the system, we *know* we can get it done, and we keep at it.

It's as simple as that: Put everything you've got into it and don't back down.

[Peace&Freedom]

And yet, I've seen in just a few months' time a very distinct change in the politics of northeast Florida, and a noticeable shift toward libertarian ideals, fueled by a group working within the Republican Party with a number of "Ron Paulers" at its core. So it can be done, if you go about it the right way. The problem with a number of people is that they try half-heartedly and then give up, claiming it's a conspiracy against them (see Naomi Wolf for a brilliant example). You can't do that, even if you come back for another try (which is also half-hearted). I've been involved in this stuff only since July of last year. In that time I've seen a lot of progress and some great signs. But I know a lot of us have worked hard at it, some of us past the point of exhaustion. I don't get much sleep because when I'm not working, I'm doing things to help push forward this change within the system. And some days I'm just so exhausted I can barely stand, but I keep going. And there's many more like me! But we believe we can change the system, we *know* we can get it done, and we keep at it.

It's as simple as that: Put everything you've got into it and don't back down.

I've seen the counter example of motivation, namely a whole lot of people within the movement who have gotten active, and have not given up, BECAUSE of being woken up by being made aware of the evidence of conspiracy. You can't fix the system from within, unless you know what's wrong, and ignoring the elephant in the room is not the way to solve problems. We certainly don't want a ton of this energy to go down the drain, as it has been for decades, because some people didn't want to touch on touchy subjects that were nonetheless the truth.

The Fed, for example, was one of those very 'anathema' topics pro-liberty people wouldn't champion for ages for fear of being branded 'kooky.' The same goes for the IRS, the NAU, the NWO, media blackouts and vote fraud, etc. So our focus should be speaking truth to power regardless of whether the issue is false money, or false flags. By contrast, our focus should not be on coming to a forum as a fresh newbie with less than 20 posts, with an "I can't stand truthers" air of definitive aggressiveness. That is simply not the most important stance to be taking at this time, regardless of which side, so why all the passion in that one direction?

[Expatriate]

Hi there, I would like to respectfully disagree with a few things you said, Soft Spoken Storm.


I might be inclined to be friendlier to "truthers" if I hadn't had to deal with so many of them flying off the handle on me and getting angry because I can refute their claims with facts easily enough.

I'm sure you could post as many "facts" as you want here, and your opponents would post their "facts", and the veracity of facts on both sides would be disputed. It's likely that the reason people fly off the handle is because they don't think you are considering their side of the argument fairly and impartially, which not to assume anything, might be the same thing that bothers you about them.

I've seen debates on 9/11 "won" by both debunkers and truthers, but the opposition rarely concedes. Given the lack of proper investigation combined with personal prejudice this will probably be the case for some time, unfortunately.


I don't have any problem with questioning the government. I do it myself on a daily basis. However, if you make up some random claim and have nothing to back it, and it has no logical basis to it, then yes, I will disagree with your position, as I do here. An airplane crash is one of the worst ways to take this woman out. They aren't that sloppy. You'll give the government credit for all kinds of complicated plots, but you think they'd have to settle for a messy airplane crash to take out one person? That's not logical, and it's not going to happen.

Sure, there are people who make unproven assertions, and they deserve to be debunked. But once again personal prejudice comes into play. The messiness factor which makes you believe the government had no part in this is something that only adds to others' suspicions.

Might I suggest that we ALL stop posting unproven assertions, and focus on the known facts? They can speak for themselves, usually.


If you want to know why no one takes Ron Paul seriously, simply go back through the topic and look at this wonderful comment:

So, because I do not agree with you, I am uninformed, ignorant, stupid, and do not seek truth? You're insulted because I disagree with your position, but you see no insults in statements like that? I find it hilarious that someone who cannot argue his own position would call others ignorant; someone who cannot write a decent paragraph is calling others dumb; and someone who continues to believe in "facts" and "theories" that have long since been disproven is claiming others are "non-seekers of truth."

I thought lucius said that, not moostraks whom you're arguing with. I know the media does it all the time, but I try not to speak like I'm painting everyone with the same brush. It's kind of a collectivist way of thinking and we're supposed to be individualists.

Of course there are some offbeat folks who support Dr, Paul, there are also militant communists AND offbeat folks who support Obama and I don't see him getting much flak for that. Everyone has a few supporters that they'd rather not be represented by. It goes with the territory.

If pinning the beliefs of individual supporters on the candidate was a viable way of neutralizing them, then why didn't we all go undercover as McCain/Obama/Hillary/Huck supporters during the primaries and demonstrate for 9/11 truth?

Various media sources cover some things more than others for a reason; they can sway public opinion, and I'd be shocked if human agendas didn't play a big part in what gets airtime.



For the record, I am a very well informed intelligent seeker of truth. And I seek real truth. The government does many things. This was not a government job, nor was 9/11, unless you choose to count blowback as a "government job."

I am sure you're quite well informed, considering the letter you wrote to the REC (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1966395&postcount=2), and I appreciate the work you have done in the RLC assuming you are Eric Setzer. That said, I wish you wouldn't state your position as if it is infallible. You'll probably just stir up a hornet's nest, since there's surely people with opposing viewpoints who also think they KNOW the truth. If you don't see evidence of foul play on the government's part then say so, but I'm afraid stating absolutes will just enrage people.

Do you remember the media questioning of Ron Paul during the debates about this subject? He was repeatedly asked to disown the truthers and state that their beliefs were unequivocally wrong, but all he would say was "I don't see any evidence of that". I believe he was telling the truth, and I would say the same thing.

I look forward to your response, and hope I haven't offended you in any way. I have no idea what your personal experience in this area has been. :o

[speciallyblend]

Doing what I do best... stirring the shit :D;):p:cool:

didn't you mean the gop;)

[speciallyblend]

I've seen the counter example of motivation, namely a whole lot of people within the movement who have gotten active, and have not given up, BECAUSE of being woken up by being made aware of the evidence of conspiracy. You can't fix the system from within, unless you know what's wrong, and ignoring the elephant in the room is not the way to solve problems. We certainly don't want a ton of this energy to go down the drain, as it has been for decades, because some people didn't want to touch on touchy subjects that were nonetheless the truth.

The Fed, for example, was one of those very 'anathema' topics pro-liberty people wouldn't champion for ages for fear of being branded 'kooky.' The same goes for the IRS, the NAU, the NWO, media blackouts and vote fraud, etc. So our focus should be speaking truth to power regardless of whether the issue is false money, or false flags. By contrast, our focus should not be on coming to a forum as a fresh newbie with less than 20 posts, with an "I can't stand truthers" air of definitive aggressiveness. That is simply not the most important stance to be taking at this time, regardless of which side, so why all the passion in that one direction?
'

I hear you:) to be honest i can take the 9-11 truthers better then the elected gop leadership! I kinda relate our gop leaders to the same folks who thought the world was flat!!!

[speciallyblend]

that would take effort, courage, and strength of conviction. Shouting from a soapbox and then insulting anyone who won't listen to you... that takes nothing more than a loud voice.



and a leadership position in the gop!!!;) a loud voice that silenced the ron paul republicans. I guess the corrupt gop leadership listens and learns!

[dannno]

OMG, one woman who was a truther...lol.

That's so dumb.

She was a 9/11 WIDOW who was ALSO a truther.

In fact, about half of the members of 9/11 victims groups are also 9/11 truthers.

[dannno]

Why doesn't Alex Jones get assassinated then if our Government is so great at it?

Because he would become a martry. Jeebus are you still here?!?!



Um...exactly.

[Expatriate]

I was working this thread backwards, but to the poster who wrote you would hope that they would not ditch a plane for one person, google Larry McDonald and Korean Air 007...

That's very interesting. I knew of the questionable shootdown of Flight 007, but I hadn't read about Rep. Larry McDonald before. I am surprised I had never heard of him before, he sounds like another Ron Paul. Here's a video of him just before he disappeared:
http://digg.com/politics/Congressman_Larry_McDonald_on_Crossfire_Before_he_ was_Killed

Ron Paul said of him: "He was the most principled man in Congress."

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Hi there, I would like to respectfully disagree with a few things you said, Soft Spoken Storm.



I'm sure you could post as many "facts" as you want here, and your opponents would post their "facts", and the veracity of facts on both sides would be disputed. It's likely that the reason people fly off the handle is because they don't think you are considering their side of the argument fairly and impartially, which not to assume anything, might be the same thing that bothers you about them.

I've seen debates on 9/11 "won" by both debunkers and truthers, but the opposition rarely concedes. Given the lack of proper investigation combined with personal prejudice this will probably be the case for some time, unfortunately.



Sure, there are people who make unproven assertions, and they deserve to be debunked. But once again personal prejudice comes into play. The messiness factor which makes you believe the government had no part in this is something that only adds to others' suspicions.

Might I suggest that we ALL stop posting unproven assertions, and focus on the known facts? They can speak for themselves, usually.



I thought lucius said that, not moostraks whom you're arguing with. I know the media does it all the time, but I try not to speak like I'm painting everyone with the same brush. It's kind of a collectivist way of thinking and we're supposed to be individualists.

Of course there are some offbeat folks who support Dr, Paul, there are also militant communists AND offbeat folks who support Obama and I don't see him getting much flak for that. Everyone has a few supporters that they'd rather not be represented by. It goes with the territory.

If pinning the beliefs of individual supporters on the candidate was a viable way of neutralizing them, then why didn't we all go undercover as McCain/Obama/Hillary/Huck supporters during the primaries and demonstrate for 9/11 truth?

Various media sources cover some things more than others for a reason; they can sway public opinion, and I'd be shocked if human agendas didn't play a big part in what gets airtime.



I am sure you're quite well informed, considering the letter you wrote to the REC (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1966395&postcount=2), and I appreciate the work you have done in the RLC assuming you are Eric Setzer. That said, I wish you wouldn't state your position as if it is infallible. You'll probably just stir up a hornet's nest, since there's surely people with opposing viewpoints who also think they KNOW the truth. If you don't see evidence of foul play on the government's part then say so, but I'm afraid stating absolutes will just enrage people.

Do you remember the media questioning of Ron Paul during the debates about this subject? He was repeatedly asked to disown the truthers and state that their beliefs were unequivocally wrong, but all he would say was "I don't see any evidence of that". I believe he was telling the truth, and I would say the same thing.

I look forward to your response, and hope I haven't offended you in any way. I have no idea what your personal experience in this area has been. :o



It takes a lot to offend me these days, and making your points without referring to me as "ignorant" or "dumb" will hardly cause me offense.

I realize my position is fallible, but I like to think through situations and examine them in order to figure out what the likely truth is. I've got a number of books from authors I disagree with, simply because I want to learn their side of the story (examples including Fair Tax: The Truth, End of America by Naomi Wold, and Conscience of a Liberal). In this case, I looked at things from the perspective of how best to silence a voice, and I couldn't see an airplane crash as being a viable method.

I assure you I am who I say I am, and there are some who can attest to my verbosity proving that claim. Some others might recognize that I tend to enjoy "debating" with some people who go to, well, frankly funny extents to defend their position. I'd hope it teaches people to use more logic and reason to argue their point. If not, well... I can either choose to be offended and get upset, or I can have some fun with the conversation. I'll never suggest that what we're doing isn't serious, but I'd have a hard time always being 100% serious and never having any fun (the infamous "LILY" jokes proved that... and they took on a life of their own).

[Soft Spoken Storm]

As the point of McDonald and KAL 007, you're talking about a Soviet operation. This the same government who willingly murdered millions of their own people to get rid of dissent. So how does that prove anything regarding the American government making such a mess?

[newbitech]

snip

It takes a lot to offend me these days, and making your points without referring to me as "ignorant" or "dumb" will hardly cause me offense.

I realize my position is fallible, but I like to think through situations and examine them in order to figure out what the likely truth is. I've got a number of books from authors I disagree with, simply because I want to learn their side of the story (examples including Fair Tax: The Truth, End of America by Naomi Wold, and Conscience of a Liberal). In this case, I looked at things from the perspective of how best to silence a voice, and I couldn't see an airplane crash as being a viable method.
/snip

i hope you don't mind if I jump in. if not, well then what exactly did you look at to draw the conclusion that an airplane crash would not be a viable method to silence someone?

don't you find it a little convenient that the eroding of our liberties tends to follow these infamous types of airplane disasters? did you know the plane was on autopilot?

[dannno]

don't you find it a little convenient that the eroding of our liberties tends to follow these infamous types of airplane disasters? did you know the plane was on autopilot?

:eek:


Wow. Anybody who has done their 9/11 research should be scared.

[newbitech]

:eek:


Wow. Anybody who has done their 9/11 research should be scared.

well not only was it on autopilot, but the crew had radioed in that the wings were icing up. so its not like the crew didn't know that they should have been manually flying the plane. they are going to of course blame the pilot for breaking fcc protocol and the protocol of the airline. why would the entire crew allow the pilot to do this given the risk involved. of course we will never hear their side of the story either. pretty convenient if you ask me.

[Expatriate]

Let's still not jump to any conclusions, even though I know the whole thing looks pretty convenient to a lot of you.

I still want to know if anyone knows anything about the reported loud pop that came from the aircraft "six or seven seconds" before it went down. I can't find any more information about it, but that doesn't sound like ice to me:



Ken Smith, her father, said he also heard the pop and guessed that an airplane engine had blown.

“Then six or seven seconds later, I heard the crash,” Smith said.
(http://www.buffalonews.com/515/story/579991.html)



Witnesses reported an unusual loud noise coming from the plane, which crashed about five minutes before it was due to land in Buffalo.
(http://www.google.com/hostednews//ALeqM5j6PhdI5C1PJEJ11DFiabt3eRxdvg)

[newbitech]

Beverly Eckert wasn't the only activist that died. I wonder who else was on the plane.

[Peace&Freedom]

Human Rights Investigator and Rwandan Expert Alison Des Forges also died on the flight:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/16/human_rights_investigator_and_rwandan_expert

[JS4Pat]

I assure you I am who I say I am, and there are some who can attest to my verbosity proving that claim.

Yes he is - although he is actually being a bit humble as to the amount of time and work he has put into spreading the liberty message. He has been a welcomed addition to our family of Patriots working in Northeast Florida. :)

[moostraks]

As the point of McDonald and KAL 007, you're talking about a Soviet operation. This the same government who willingly murdered millions of their own people to get rid of dissent. So how does that prove anything regarding the American government making such a mess?

:rolleyes:

Yeah...soviet operation, okay you da boss. Move along nothing to see here...

(The rabbit hole goes deeper than any one nation's government)

[moostraks]

I might be inclined to be friendlier to "truthers" if I hadn't had to deal with so many of them flying off the handle on me and getting angry because I can refute their claims with facts easily enough.

I don't have any problem with questioning the government. I do it myself on a daily basis. However, if you make up some random claim and have nothing to back it, and it has no logical basis to it, then yes, I will disagree with your position, as I do here. An airplane crash is one of the worst ways to take this woman out. They aren't that sloppy. You'll give the government credit for all kinds of complicated plots, but you think they'd have to settle for a messy airplane crash to take out one person? That's not logical, and it's not going to happen.

If you want to know why no one takes Ron Paul seriously, simply go back through the topic and look at this wonderful comment:



So, because I do not agree with you, I am uninformed, ignorant, stupid, and do not seek truth? You're insulted because I disagree with your position, but you see no insults in statements like that? I find it hilarious that someone who cannot argue his own position would call others ignorant; someone who cannot write a decent paragraph is calling others dumb; and someone who continues to believe in "facts" and "theories" that have long since been disproven is claiming others are "non-seekers of truth."

For the record, I am a very well informed intelligent seeker of truth. And I seek real truth. The government does many things. This was not a government job, nor was 9/11, unless you choose to count blowback as a "government job."

I still have yet to have made a personal decision upon this matter and sure would appreciate it if you would quit solidifying my stance without my approval. And as for Dr.Paul you can continue to reiterate your personal opinion on the matter but it does not make it so. Just because you have a chip on your shoulder because someone who disagrees as vehemently about an issue has not caved to your personal charm does not give you a right to wield an ax with everyone who disagrees with you.

You will catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Unless you have some immediate insider knowledge your assumptions are as good as anothers and you are being just as petty as those you have a grudge against.

[moostraks]

That's very interesting. I knew of the questionable shootdown of Flight 007, but I hadn't read about Rep. Larry McDonald before. I am surprised I had never heard of him before, he sounds like another Ron Paul. Here's a video of him just before he disappeared:
http://digg.com/politics/Congressman_Larry_McDonald_on_Crossfire_Before_he_ was_Killed

Ron Paul said of him: "He was the most principled man in Congress."

Pretty interesting fellow. They named a stretch of highway in Georgia after him. Really sad loss for the liberty movement. Been awhile since I looked at the information behind the questionable nature of the flight but seems like there was some non-kooks who did not believe the official story. Wish I had the time to run through it again but bogged down right now. (Seems like I lose hours when I go researching stuff like that...:))

[acptulsa]

This brings Douglas Adams' 'SEP field' to mind. The theory was that humans have an instinct--a strong one--to ignore problems that could in any conceivable way be passed on to someone else to deal with. It was called the 'Someone Else's Problem' field, and it required amazingly little energy to operate because the above-mentioned instinct (which it merely enhanced) is so strong.

For best results, anything (in this case a UFO) requiring to be cloaked with this device should be painted hot pink, as the more monstrous it is the easier it is to ignore it...

[Soft Spoken Storm]

I still have yet to have made a personal decision upon this matter and sure would appreciate it if you would quit solidifying my stance without my approval. And as for Dr.Paul you can continue to reiterate your personal opinion on the matter but it does not make it so. Just because you have a chip on your shoulder because someone who disagrees as vehemently about an issue has not caved to your personal charm does not give you a right to wield an ax with everyone who disagrees with you.

You will catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Unless you have some immediate insider knowledge your assumptions are as good as anothers and you are being just as petty as those you have a grudge against.

Any "chip on my shoulder" came from too many conversations with "9/11 Truthers" that involved them telling me, simply because I disagreed with them, that I was stupid, uninformed, and should piss off. Especially if I refuted any of their claims. I personally don't care if you want to have your opinion. I just find it hypocritical to bludgeon me with a viewpoint and insulting me when I disagree, while whining about people not taking them seriously. Too many people - and this isn't just with the "9/11 Truthers" - will readily say that anyone who does not see things 100% their way is a "sheep" or "mindless" or a "government puppet."

I'll agree that my opinion is my opinion, though it is an informed opinion. If you want me to respect your position, then kindly respect mine. I'll still disagree with you, and anyone else who thinks that every plane crash or other accident in the world is a conspiracy by an organization who would have to be so potent as to be able to do so much better.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

i hope you don't mind if I jump in. if not, well then what exactly did you look at to draw the conclusion that an airplane crash would not be a viable method to silence someone?

don't you find it a little convenient that the eroding of our liberties tends to follow these infamous types of airplane disasters? did you know the plane was on autopilot?

Since there aren't really any rules on this forum to discourage people from joining discussions and I'm all for freedom of speech, I have no problem with anyone jumping in. (That is, after all, what I did.)

An airplane crash, given the scope and the setting, would be viable. However, the most efficient way is to rig a mechanical failure that can be attributed to sloppy workmanship on the part of the crew who service the craft. It would also be better to avoid crashing it in any residential area, as you create too many other problems. And the more people who die, the more families there are searching for answers, and 9/11 proved that people can be pretty tenacious about that and will readily blame the government. Makes it too likely the scheme will be uncovered.

A more likely approach would be a "suicide." This woman lost her lifelong love in 9/11. She tried to fight the government but couldn't win. So there's no reason left to go on, might as well end it. There'll be a tear-filled press conference, some flowers laid on her grave, no family to ask questions or have to pay off (and if there was, the grief money would be cheap for the government). Eventually everyone will forget her except a tiny minority who cry out "conspiracy!" Those people can easily be discounted in the public image.

Failing that, it comes to accidents. Carbon monoxide into the home to knock her out and an electrical fire to burn the home. No one will think about the carbon monoxide, they'll figure the fire killed her. An accident on the roadway. So many other choices. No questions asked, the right clues are given to answer the questions conveniently.

As for the rest...

Yes, I know it was on autopilot. I'd bet more pilots do that than you realize.

I see no correlation with most plane crashes. The Concord crashes just benched the Concord for good. There'll be nothing with this crash. You're caught up in 9/11, but in that case the disaster was caused by men getting on board with weapons, who learned at various flight schools. Not some accident. So there's a huge difference. You could use that for squeezing out liberties, but not this.

[acptulsa]

A more likely approach would be a "suicide."

A bit overused, wouldn't you say? There sure isn't a huge percentage of the population buying that approach where the 'D.C. Madam' is concerned. Of course, in that case a certain amount of warning would be useful and a certain amount of shenannigans would more likely be overlooked--'what did she expect?' being a natural reaction.

All in all, your analysis is quite sane. Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that a sane analysis will get us into the heads of our current government. After watching Dubya get us into Iraq, I feel quite sure that the recklessness of madmen rules the day.

[Danke]

O.K. This is taking this too far. I am not familiar with that plane, but I am pretty certain the autopilot disconnected as soon as it began to pitch and roll outside of normal parameters. In any case, a pilot would immediately take control in such a situation.

Did you know aviation is setting all time records in safety? But how many truthers and my god, Ron Paul supporters that have flown since 9/11? :eek: I guess a wise pilot would search the PAX manifest before taking off!! :p

Meanwhile, I'll stick with my initial analysis of the crash:


Probably iced up and stalled. Maybe engine problems.

[dannno]

An airplane crash, given the scope and the setting, would be viable. However, the most efficient way is to rig a mechanical failure that can be attributed to sloppy workmanship on the part of the crew who service the craft.


Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Why on earth would the elite want to put additional scrutiny on one of their subsidiaries (Boeing) when they can simply blame it on weather and be done with it???

If you want to know the truth you need to spend some more time learning how these establishment types are connected and how they operate.

Checkout the film "Who Killed John O'Neill?" on google video. It's sort of an artsy film about 9/11, but there are characters in the film who present both sides of the argument, it is quite balanced and very entertaining. The first 20 minutes are sort of an intro to the main character, but once they get going into the material with the main character's various personalities you'll want to keep watching.

[tribute_13]

Paranoid Assholes.

I was supposed to be on that plane, but luckily I took a Cleveland flight since it was delayed until 10:10. But saying that 49 people were purposely killed by the government because she was a truther is fucking ridiculous. It was snowing. It was windy. I was flying that day. It went down because of ice. After the crash, all Continental flights were required to go through longer de-icing periods.

A plane crashed, condolences to the families, but this post is in some ways upsetting, whoever thinks the government assassinated that woman needs to be castrated.

[Danke]

I was supposed to be on that plane, but luckily I took a Cleveland flight since it was delayed until 10:10.

Oh shit, so a Ron Paul supporter was supposed to be on that flight too. Guess that debunks my theory...:D

[Mini-Me]

Paranoid Assholes.

I was supposed to be on that plane, but luckily I took a Cleveland flight since it was delayed until 10:10. But saying that 49 people were purposely killed by the government because she was a truther is fucking ridiculous. It was snowing. It was windy. I was flying that day. It went down because of ice. After the crash, all Continental flights were required to go through longer de-icing periods.

A plane crashed, condolences to the families, but this post is in some ways upsetting, whoever thinks the government assassinated that woman needs to be castrated.

That might be taking disagreement a little far, don't you think? ;)
I'm glad you cheated death, though! It must feel overwhelming to have escaped a catastrophe so narrowly. :eek:

[moostraks]

Paranoid Assholes.

I was supposed to be on that plane, but luckily I took a Cleveland flight since it was delayed until 10:10. But saying that 49 people were purposely killed by the government because she was a truther is fucking ridiculous. It was snowing. It was windy. I was flying that day. It went down because of ice. After the crash, all Continental flights were required to go through longer de-icing periods.

A plane crashed, condolences to the families, but this post is in some ways upsetting, whoever thinks the government assassinated that woman needs to be castrated.

It wasn't that bad here in Ohio that day. Is that why you caught the Cleveland flight? We are about two hours roughly from Buffalo, and the weather was fair that night in these parts. Glad to hear you are well but everyone is entitled to their respective beliefs irregardless of your own personal view to the contrary...

[moostraks]

Any "chip on my shoulder" came from too many conversations with "9/11 Truthers" that involved them telling me, simply because I disagreed with them, that I was stupid, uninformed, and should piss off. Especially if I refuted any of their claims. I personally don't care if you want to have your opinion. I just find it hypocritical to bludgeon me with a viewpoint and insulting me when I disagree, while whining about people not taking them seriously. Too many people - and this isn't just with the "9/11 Truthers" - will readily say that anyone who does not see things 100% their way is a "sheep" or "mindless" or a "government puppet."

I'll agree that my opinion is my opinion, though it is an informed opinion. If you want me to respect your position, then kindly respect mine. I'll still disagree with you, and anyone else who thinks that every plane crash or other accident in the world is a conspiracy by an organization who would have to be so potent as to be able to do so much better.

I have said nothing to the effect in a derogatory manner other than we should each allow space for dissent as we can speculate all we want. I do disagree with your attitude of defending the government until proof positive exists to their involvement, but I view the government from the most negative of perspectives. I also see the government with a disregard for necessary casualties as long as the agenda is accomplished. I do not see them as rational, adept, or of exceeding intellect.

You may believe your opinion to be the utmost of informed, I am sure that is why you argue so earnestly. Those of us who have been visciously harassed by government agencies will choose to hold the government in the most negative light until they prove themselves otherwise.

FWIW, this really is a non-issue for me as this is not going to change my opinion one way or the other of the government. I have stated previously and now repeat, since you continue to insist to the contrary, I have no opinion on this particular event. I would appreciate you reading what I stated rather clearly now several times. Since it will never be something one could prove beyond certainity, speculation is really all either side of this argument has to go by. I still have no opinion on this matter even though you are still assuming I think this is government done (re:respect your opinion respect mine,disagree with you and anyone else, etc...)

You seem to have an overwhelming sense of confidence as to your ability to engage with others in arguing a case. Since you seem to be basing this matter solely upon the government being extremely capable and rational, you lost me before you got out of the starting gate with the discussion.:)

[speciallyblend]

Oh shit, so a Ron Paul supporter was supposed to be on that flight too. Guess that debunks my theory...:D

you guys are cracking me up;)

[Soft Spoken Storm]

You may believe your opinion to be the utmost of informed, I am sure that is why you argue so earnestly. Those of us who have been visciously harassed by government agencies will choose to hold the government in the most negative light until they prove themselves otherwise.

I have the "business card" (flimsy piece of paper, more like it) of a DHS detective who came around to my former place of residence (my parents' house), and gave a choice: Either I call him to talk, or he comes to my workplace to have a chat. So, yeah, I think I know that the government has nothing better to do at times.

I think it is rational to not assume guilt from the government until there is reasonable evidence to presume guilt, because to do otherwise is to invite scorn from others who don't look favorably upon the idea of being quick to blame the government. And while you might not care what others think, those others are needed to ensure that the "REVOLution" succeeds.

I guess it's just one of those things you pick up on more when your job is to pay attention to public perception, and that is, really, my job within this movement.

[eOs]

I heard a race car driver died in a minivan. I think the NASCAR commissioner had something to do with it. Like, why would a race car driver be in a minivan in the first place? This is getting too weird.

[blocks]

this woman was no real threat.

^^^

[moostraks]

I have the "business card" (flimsy piece of paper, more like it) of a DHS detective who came around to my former place of residence (my parents' house), and gave a choice: Either I call him to talk, or he comes to my workplace to have a chat. So, yeah, I think I know that the government has nothing better to do at times.

I think it is rational to not assume guilt from the government until there is reasonable evidence to presume guilt, because to do otherwise is to invite scorn from others who don't look favorably upon the idea of being quick to blame the government. And while you might not care what others think, those others are needed to ensure that the "REVOLution" succeeds.

I guess it's just one of those things you pick up on more when your job is to pay attention to public perception, and that is, really, my job within this movement.

I have a daughter with deep psychological problems thanks to the government's help. They destroyed my future while they were at it, rendering me fairly useless unless someone is willing to extend me the benefit of the doubt and look at the whole picture of past events. All this to make a buck...Yet my take will be he who laughs last, laughs best. This wasn't a mere let me look into your life issue, but how can I lie, steal, and cheat you out of your family and future existence.

You need to stop assuming who and what I think or wish. Going around with an attitude presuming the best of a viscious self-serving entity is what got Americans into the mess we are in in the first place. You can put on your happy face and assume the best, and accept the results of your choices. However coming on these forums and silencing people who have a difference of opinion of the character and nature of government will not stop those of us who have felt its wrath destroy our lives Those of us who wish to let the government realize we won't be silenced and they may find themselves under the scrutiny of the public they are suppposed to serve. I don't have a dispensation on this particular issue but I hope tptb know that they are being scrutinized constantly from as many angles as possible.

I guess if your issue is to be concerned with public perception then you need to jump off the liberty wagon now. Revolutions don't occur when people fear public perception. It is those that have suffered most and faced the most ridicule, and yet endured, that will fight most ardently for the rights of those too afraid of being seen as "different".

The fact that you think that Ron Paul was destroyed because of ramblings from this internet sphere, shows how little you are in touch with the public and its decision making process, much less various contributing factors to Paul's downfall.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

I know what the public thinks. I know what goes on in the world. I don't care to argue about it. By your own admission, you're too emotionally charged to discuss - or debate, if a debate it may be - this issue with. And that is not a slander on you, just an honest statement based on your own admissions.

See, I accept that at some point, there's a very real likelihood that I will be burned, bad. Someone's going to decide I'm too much of an annoyance and they'll do everything they can to hurt me. Unfortunately, I've been told by too many people that I'm likely to have a family of my own at some point, which means they'll get dragged down with me. I accept my fate, and it empowers me more than you can imagine. I don't care. I really don't. I'll keep on fighting.

Public perception is important, and if you want to ignore it, you will keep seeing people like Ron Paul lose. Public perception is why people didn't vote for him. You have to win the hearts and minds of the people. No revolution based on violence will correct this nation's course. It will only strengthen the government, pretty much eradicate our liberties, and tear this country apart. It is not idealism, but reality, that drives me to seek a better way to correct things. And I have seen that it works. I have seen the effects of public perception. I have seen change starting, and I believe in a few months it is going to start rolling out even stronger like a tidal wave.

You may seek to throw me out of the movement, but I will not move aside. Not for you, not for the government, not for anyone, not even for any deity you may believe in. I have made up my mind to see this through and see this system change, and I will let no one's pessimism deter me from my duty. If none others have the strength to continue the fight, then I will know, at the end of the day, that I did not back down, that I stood my ground and did not allow anyone to bully me, neither enemy nor ally. It is my preference that we all work together. If I must work separate, so be it.

I hope that you find a way to recover from your losses, and I have sympathy for you. But I will not let emotion override my rationality. Maybe that makes me cold... but sometimes it takes a cold person to truly understand the value of warmth.

[acptulsa]

I know what the public thinks. I know what goes on in the world. I don't care to argue about it.

Well, if this is the case, you know more than me. I'll freely admit that things happen and I don't know all the whys and wherefores behind it. But here in the boiler room of the movement, I don't see why free expression that isn't blatantly harmful to one group or another--racist posts, for example, especially if they go unchallenged--would hurt perception of us as a group. By now, many people understand that we don't buy everything we're spoon fed, and that we're occasionally right.

No, we're not going to get anywhere moving so fast, or going so far afield (be it left field or wherever) that we leave most people behind. I also believe we're not going to get anywhere being afraid to call a spade a dirty shovel.

It's broke and we need to fix it. It's so broken that we don't need to push people beyond their boundaries in order to help them see it. Everyone knows it's broken in some way, even if they won't admit to certain aspects of the situation. We need to tailor our sales pitch to those aspects of the system that our audience of the moment already knows are broken, yes. And that means being well-versed on just about everything. And to my mind, that includes things like this.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

It's broke and we need to fix it. It's so broken that we don't need to push people beyond their boundaries in order to help them see it. Everyone knows it's broken in some way, even if they won't admit to certain aspects of the situation. We need to tailor our sales pitch to those aspects of the system that our audience of the moment already knows are broken, yes. And that means being well-versed on just about everything. And to my mind, that includes things like this.

I tend to leave the 9/11 stuff alone. I don't agree with the "truthers" so that'll end up with me in a debate over it. Other people are often too emotional about it, they don't really understand the concept of blowback when you're talking about a terrorist organization rather than a country.

The other stuff is easier to work with. Especially the economy right now. It's easier every day to talk about the Federal Reserve and things like that. I focus on the basics: freedom for everyone, state sovereignty, abolishing the Federal Reserve, intelligent economics, foreign policy... topics like that. Get them hooked with the broad stuff, don't even mention the marginal stuff. That stuff will be worked out as the rest is. They realize they have a lot in common with your message, you invite them to research it more with the right kind of research, and soon they get the idea that they should be working with you because you have the same goals. Never force on these people the marginal stuff, just stick to the basics, and you build up a strong support group who know that they're trusted to think for themselves and will be that much more loyal because of it.

[moostraks]

I know what the public thinks. I know what goes on in the world. I don't care to argue about it. By your own admission, you're too emotionally charged to discuss - or debate, if a debate it may be - this issue with. And that is not a slander on you, just an honest statement based on your own admissions.

See, I accept that at some point, there's a very real likelihood that I will be burned, bad. Someone's going to decide I'm too much of an annoyance and they'll do everything they can to hurt me. Unfortunately, I've been told by too many people that I'm likely to have a family of my own at some point, which means they'll get dragged down with me. I accept my fate, and it empowers me more than you can imagine. I don't care. I really don't. I'll keep on fighting.

Public perception is important, and if you want to ignore it, you will keep seeing people like Ron Paul lose. Public perception is why people didn't vote for him. You have to win the hearts and minds of the people. No revolution based on violence will correct this nation's course. It will only strengthen the government, pretty much eradicate our liberties, and tear this country apart. It is not idealism, but reality, that drives me to seek a better way to correct things. And I have seen that it works. I have seen the effects of public perception. I have seen change starting, and I believe in a few months it is going to start rolling out even stronger like a tidal wave.

You may seek to throw me out of the movement, but I will not move aside. Not for you, not for the government, not for anyone, not even for any deity you may believe in. I have made up my mind to see this through and see this system change, and I will let no one's pessimism deter me from my duty. If none others have the strength to continue the fight, then I will know, at the end of the day, that I did not back down, that I stood my ground and did not allow anyone to bully me, neither enemy nor ally. It is my preference that we all work together. If I must work separate, so be it.

I hope that you find a way to recover from your losses, and I have sympathy for you. But I will not let emotion override my rationality. Maybe that makes me cold... but sometimes it takes a cold person to truly understand the value of warmth.

Aah.... It is easy to be brave when it is only your own personal losses and you can romanticize the future. We'll see, as only time will tell.

The only thing I have debated with you is the right for others to have a difference of opinion. Something you fail to grasp is free speech is a necessity to one who proposes that they believe in freedom. You are too hung up on public perception. This alone will make you an easy person to manipulate, for what will the Jones' think when you have to take a stand for what is right? That is after all what you keep pontificating.

Paul lost because the writing was on the wall. Politics is in large part scripted and only a naive individual or a fool thinks otherwise once you crawl into the belly of the beast. I sat through the GOP charade while we were belittled and marginalized. I watched them change rules and push through their agenda to guarantee we did not win. I watched voices silenced by the corruption rampant in the GOP. Don't tell me why Paul lost, cause it sure as hell wasn't because someone believes the world trade center was an inside job and voiced it on the ron paul forums.:rolleyes:

You need to study history to realize what it will take to really make a difference. Not challenging the status quo will get you nowhere. Now why you assume (yet again) that I am inferring we must violently revolt, that is your issue, not mine. I am a christian who believes in non-resistance. There is a world of difference between aggression and non-resistance. Both involve standing up for one's beliefs. One feels the need to overpower the other, the other refuses to cave to their values but wishes not to inflict violence upon another allowing the other to reap the repercussions of their actions. Verstehen?

I don't know what change you are witnessing, but glad to hear there is some going on in your neck of the woods. I think by and large nothing is changing for the better, though. Hungry and homeless people tend to be accepting of irrational circumstances and fear motivates people to accept more government, more corruption, more over reaching control and destruction of their rights. Case in point is 9/11 and all the liberties eroded to date because of that catastrophe irregardless of who inflicted it. Putting our heads in the sand waiting for people to independantly realize the error of our governments misdeeds will result in more of the same,imho. I applaud those who do the grunt work bringing the government corruption into the public theater.

As for your opinion of my past, I merely recanted the incident as means for you to understand and perhaps soften to those who are fighting the battle of transparency in government activities and government corruption. The fact that you see fit to belittle me for being overly emotional shows your age. One can relay information without being destroyed by it. The incident I recalled for you defined my battle with the government but was merely one of many attrocities that they have perpetrated and I have been subject to or witnessed. If you don't accept the battle scarred then you end up being nothing but a group of idealists with no history or experience to draw upon.

As for your closing speech, get back with me when you get some battle wounds. You sound fairly young and idealist. I am not for throwing anyone out of the "movement". It isn't for me to do. I will vehemently question the motives of those who show themselves to be intolerant, arrogant, and spiteful. These attitudes have no place in a movement for liberty. True liberty respects the rights of another to hold what every belief they choose so long as it harms no one excepting the karmic response to the individual holding it.

[moostraks]

I tend to leave the 9/11 stuff alone. I don't agree with the "truthers" so that'll end up with me in a debate over it. Other people are often too emotional about it, they don't really understand the concept of blowback when you're talking about a terrorist organization rather than a country.

The other stuff is easier to work with. Especially the economy right now. It's easier every day to talk about the Federal Reserve and things like that. I focus on the basics: freedom for everyone, state sovereignty, abolishing the Federal Reserve, intelligent economics, foreign policy... topics like that. Get them hooked with the broad stuff, don't even mention the marginal stuff. That stuff will be worked out as the rest is. They realize they have a lot in common with your message, you invite them to research it more with the right kind of research, and soon they get the idea that they should be working with you because you have the same goals. Never force on these people the marginal stuff, just stick to the basics, and you build up a strong support group who know that they're trusted to think for themselves and will be that much more loyal because of it.

Why in the world do you feel the need to silence what amounts to nothing more than mere speculation on here? Few who hold contrarian opinions go up to strangers and regale them with their knowledge...

[moostraks]

Well, if this is the case, you know more than me. I'll freely admit that things happen and I don't know all the whys and wherefores behind it. But here in the boiler room of the movement, I don't see why free expression that isn't blatantly harmful to one group or another--racist posts, for example, especially if they go unchallenged--would hurt perception of us as a group. By now, many people understand that we don't buy everything we're spoon fed, and that we're occasionally right.

No, we're not going to get anywhere moving so fast, or going so far afield (be it left field or wherever) that we leave most people behind. I also believe we're not going to get anywhere being afraid to call a spade a dirty shovel.

It's broke and we need to fix it. It's so broken that we don't need to push people beyond their boundaries in order to help them see it. Everyone knows it's broken in some way, even if they won't admit to certain aspects of the situation. We need to tailor our sales pitch to those aspects of the system that our audience of the moment already knows are broken, yes. And that means being well-versed on just about everything. And to my mind, that includes things like this.

Well said. I think that there is a time and place for everything. It seems that some fear perceptions because this is a place where those who challenge conventional thinking gather. Sure will be nice when everyone can feel their right to free speech is protected here without someone coming to silence and/or ridicule them, then we might see a change occur in the real world. Ahh...the idealist in me!!!:p

[Soft Spoken Storm]

Why in the world do you feel the need to silence what amounts to nothing more than mere speculation on here? Few who hold contrarian opinions go up to strangers and regale them with their knowledge...

I didn't say I wanted to silence anyone. I was giving my strategy, not relaying instructions. It's hard to get things like that across with the medium of writing, I understand (which does open myself up to badly misinterpreting what others mean by their writings, I will admit).

I suppose, in physical terms, I am "young," though I often have to fight a perception of being older which bothers me to no end (I will get to being "old" soon enough, and I feel old enough as it is, without people telling me I look or sound or am getting old). However, I am not what most people would call an "idealist." I know quite a few people who've been bothered by my realism - which they call "pessimism" - at times. I do, though, believe that the system can be fixed, and it can be done within the next few decades. That isn't the spontaneity of change that some people may want, but it's a realistic timetable. It can be done.

As for seeing the machine in motion... I've seen it. My first exposure to the interior of politics was going as a guest of the RLC to an REC meeting, where they said that, if we couldn't guarantee all of our members would vote for McCain, we should leave the party and not come back to REC meetings. (Ironically, I was one of very, very few who *didn't* vote for McCain. But regardless, being told how to vote is not right.) I'll also direct you to a recent discussion on Mr. Brian Iannucci. Yeah, I've seen how ugly it can be. But I've also seen how it can get better. This week I saw two wonderful indicators at the REC meeting, people speaking to the room and relaying our message. We've got key REC officers coming to attend RLC meetings, and politicians coming to speak to our group or visit it (such as Ander Crenshaw's challenger for Congress, Jay McGovern (D)). There are so many more indicators. I didn't think the system could be changed, but recently I've been given reason to believe.

I've never relayed my life story to anyone except one person, and I'd never really intended to tell them. If I told you, you'd probably understand a little bit more about me, but I just don't want to share all of that. Suffice to say that almost my entire life, I have had someone trying to inflict some sort of pain on me, I have faced a number of hardships, seen the worst this world has to offer, and I still deal with a lot of those things. But I'm still going. So don't worry about me, the government will never be able to knock me down without my consent. That isn't youthful idealism. That's the will of someone who is used to succeeding when he should have failed, if for no other reason than to spite all the doubters.

I hope that you never give up hope entirely, and always seek to change what you can. Any change, however small, helps.

[lucius]

^^:

[lucius]

//

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I saw something elsewhere on the Net. Someone was floating a conspiracy theory that the woman who was a 9/11 widow that got killed last night in the Buffalo, NY plane crash was apparently a 9/11 "Truther".


Is there any merit to this? Does anyone have any documented facts?:confused:

There's been lots of conspiracies lately, that plane crash, 2 satellites hitting eachother (WHATS THE CHANCES?) 2 nuclear submarines hitting eachother around a week later (WTF THE ENTIRE OCEAN 2 SUBMARINES HIT EACHOTHER ACCIDENT MY ASS)

[tribute_13]

You ignorant prig. You deserve everything coming your way--little better than joe/jane six-pack. Killing is what leviathan does best--plethera of brown-skins, but judging from the true history of Pearl Harbor & Lusitania--have no compulsions serving up american civilians/service personnel to their GOD--ie. GOLD, OIL, & DRUGS, to gain entry into two unpopular wars, which america had no business to be in.

So what's different now? Sadly nothing... :rolleyes:

Fuck me? No, fuck you.

False flag operations such as the Gulf of Tonkin and the Lusitania killed a lot more than 49 people, not judging the value of ANYONE's life, and the government didn't blame it on someone else, the media said it iced over the windshield. So what the hell are we going to do declare war on Winter?!

Count backwards from ten and actually think before posting.


EDIT: Not to mention people, almost 50% of the American public believe that the government had something to do with 9/11 so by saying the government brought down its own plane because one person on the plane was a truther is stupid, they might as well kill half the population. Whats being implied is ridiculous.

[Expatriate]

tribute_13 and lucius, are you trying to get this thread locked or dumped in Hot Topics?

I just don't understand why we can't discuss anything POLITELY anymore without resorting to AD HOMINEM attacks and insults. It's against the forum rules (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22) you know.

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to relational which often result in disruption, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.

Is it really so hard to make your case without dropping multiple f-bombs and telling others they should be castrated?

I don't want to come off as self-righteous, but I really hate seeing potentially informative and thought-provoking discussions repeatedly degrade into such puerile behavior patterns.

Please. Go start a thread in Hot Topics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54) if you must hate on something, it's allowed there as far as I know.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Fuck me? No, fuck you.

LOL!!:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8IP5rEVVJk#t=1m31s

1:31 if deeplink doesn't work

[speciallyblend]

tribute_13 and lucius, are you trying to get this thread locked or dumped in Hot Topics?

I just don't understand why we can't discuss anything POLITELY anymore without resorting to AD HOMINEM attacks and insults. It's against the forum rules (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22) you know.



Is it really so hard to make your case without dropping multiple f-bombs and telling others they should be castrated?

I don't want to come off as self-righteous, but I really hate seeing potentially informative and thought-provoking discussions repeatedly degrade into such puerile behavior patterns.

Please. Go start a thread in Hot Topics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54) if you must hate on something, it's allowed there as far as I know.

passon gets the best of them. so are we on for a RON PAUL FORUM CAGE MATCH, MTV STYLE???

[speciallyblend]

LOL!!:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8IP5rEVVJk#t=1m31s

1:31 if deeplink doesn't work

for unlawful carnal knowledge sounds better and not so dirty sounding:)

[BlackTerrel]

If the government was behind 9/11 why not claim more terrorist attacks? Why wouldn't they say that this Continental flight was brought down by terrorists? Why not say flight 800 was brought down by terrorists? The power outage in New York a few years ago?

The DC sniper that killed 13 and terrorized tens of millions, shutting down whole cities was a Muslim named Mohammed and yet the government and media went out of their way to say despite this fact that it was not terrorism. Why nothing new since 9/11?