Whistleblowers of 911.

reply to post by Cassius666

Please indulge me on the why.

Well, as any casual observer of the forum can see, the basic format is the presentation of a thesis followed by discussion, pro and con. If someone puts up a thread and entitles it "Whistleblowers and 9/11 Witnesses that Died Unexpectedly" and then there is no challenge to the proposal an observer can then assume that everyone agrees that the list is indeed, irrefutable source of 9/11 whistleblowers and witnesses that died unexpectedly.

Tell you what, I'll start a thread title "OBL is the undisbuted cause of 9/11" and I don't want anyone to post anything but agreement. If you disagree then start your own thread.

reply to post by Cassius666

And once again, the list.

And once again, no it is not "just a list". It is a factual statement. That you want posted without examination or challenge. Please describe the vetting process for inclusion on the "list". How else is anyone going to add names to the list, as you requested, unless they know the parameters or qualifiers?

Tell you what, here's a list:
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
John Q Adams
William Henry Harrison

Can you add anyone to the list?

I am well aware of the format of the forum.

Then I don't understanbd your problem with any of the questions asked.

Thats why I expressively said that this thread is meant to be just a list and not a forum for discussion.

I thought you said you were aware of the format of the forum? Newsflash: No one cares what rules you wish to impose on a thread, no matter how "expressively" you say it.

I was hoping you and others would be intelligent enough to see the point and courteous enough to respect my request.

Insults only expose yourself. You could have been courteousenough to answer the on topic questions about the material in your own thread.

I am not doing that, because I want to ruin hooper or Goodolddave, but because imo discussing 20 people or more in one thread is not very feasable and opening a separate thread for the person you wish to discuss is far more effective.

They're in your thread, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing them. All 20 of them even.

What is so wrong with making sure what you're saying is even true to begin with?

My mum just rang up with some dreadful news. Her dog died this morning, run over by a car that didn't even stop, She's really upset. And she got even more upset when I pointed out that it's hardly a coincidence that we bought the dog off a woman who once sold a parrot to former under secretary of defence James M Bodner's sister in law.

So definitely add "Grendel" to the list of whistleblowers. And anyone who says she wasn't an insider can take it up with somebody else, because the accuracy of the list is hardly my problem.

Is there nothing to which these 9/11 perps won't stoop??

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Don't forget Michael Jeffery Woods who allegedly died of a heart attack at age 49 in 2006 after his famous brother and actor, James Woods, told the world about his complaining to the FAA about suspicious characters on a flight pre-9/11! Guess they were trying to reach out to Jimmy and tell him to watch his step!

reply to post by Cassius666

Of course I cant examine all the names....

Why not?

....but I will do my best to exclude names which do not fit the bill.

Based on what?

If you whish to discuss any of the names on the list, I suggest opening a seperate thread because its easier to keep track of the discussion that way.

Just as easy to do it here. This way anyone who stumbles on the "list" won't get the mistaken impression that the list is without dispute.

Else you have one group discussing somebodies dog, and you have to skip several pages to keep track of the discussion you whish to partake in.

So what? Are you now officially taking Grendel off the list? Then I want to discuss and remove the babysitter.

reply to post by Cassius666

Of course I cant examine all the names, but I will do my best to exclude names which do not fit the bill.

Absurd. There are what, 20 names? You most certainly can examine all the names. Also, you couldn't exclude any unless you examined them first.

If you whish to discuss any of the names on the list, I suggest opening a seperate thread because its easier to keep track of the discussion that way.

I suggest you accept that if you're going to make (or parrot/repeat/quote) a claim, that the claim is going to be questioned. This thread is a perfectly fine place to discuss the names brought up in this thread. Also, there are only 20 names or so, it is easy to keep track of if you have a brain. Seeings you are using a computer to have a conversation with another person, I think its safe to assume you have one.

Else you have one group discussing somebodies dog, and you have to skip several pages to keep track of the discussion you whish to partake in.

Too bad. Deal with it.

reply to post by Cassius666

Thanks for your input so far. I updated the list accordingly.

According to what? And why is the babysitter still on there, I thought you updated the list? This appears to be the same list. And what about Grendel? And James Woods' brother?

reply to post by Thurisaz


If George Herbert Walker Bush had never been born, JFK would not have been assassinated and the attack on the World Trade Center would never have occurred. Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"