[Q24]

Scott G, on 01 September 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

Do you mean the comment about your only seeing fragments of what they wrote you over at P4T? Or is this remark of a more general nature?

I think that as a general rule I'm fairly good at sticking to the issues. Could you cite a specific passage where you think I'm getting too personal?

From this page (edit: now the last page) alone: -

• “Q, I have a feeling that all this disagreement with your beliefs, at times in a rather harsh manner over at P4T and CIT, may have gotten to you.”
  
• “Your only strong weakness is, in my view, your over confidence…”
  
• “For your sake, Q, I suggest you make sure you know what you're talking about before you say it.”
  
• “However, in comparison with those over at P4T and CIT, who have studied the issues extensively for years, you're frequently way behind them.”
  
• “I mention all of this because I would like to suggest to you that your personal feelings towards these groups is getting in the way of you seeing their strong arguments.”

These are all comments directed at the messanger rather than the argument.

Scott G, on 01 September 2009 - 04:25 PM, said:

This seems to be a reasonable question. I think that perhaps it got too low to be seen by radar; note that Minetta didn't state they lost it -at- the pentagon, but rather in the general vicinity, when it was definitely rather low. From there, it was fairly close to an airport that I forget the name of, and which some believe it may have landed at.

Yes, this makes sense – if the aircraft stayed low and landed immediately after a flyover then it would disappear from radar in the same way as if it had crashed. I assume it would be National Airport that you are referring to. One problem I see: -



Is it conceivable that approximately 100 witnesses saw the aircraft approach along A-B and yet not one single witness saw the aircraft fly the path B-C?

No, this would be beyond reason.

This post has been edited by Q24: 01 September 2009 - 07:44 PM

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #326, Part 3

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:52 AM, said:

Scott G said:

Not many would have been required for that. Are you atleast curious to know who took the official photos of Lloyd's taxi cab?

I really don’t see why it matters who took the photos of Lloyd England’s cab.

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:52 AM, said:

Scott G said:

I'm still not sure if the footage was faked or not, but it seems that it was. Regardless, what was seen in the grainy 5 frame video was certainly not a plane.

How do we know the blur in the Pentagon security footage was “certainly not” a plane?

A good question. Upon reflection, I remember it being said that it wasn't a boeing 757, but that doesn't rule out other types of planes. Ofcourse, I would say that the eyewitnesses mean that the video had to have been faked, but I've brought the issue up over at P4T anyway; I'll see what happens with it.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 02 September 2009 - 12:49 AM

[merril]

Quote

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

I'm beginning to think this is a racial issue. If this man was anyone else (younger, white), you internet bullies would think multiple times before using him, the way you do.

Which is exactly why I detest left wing liberal tactics.

He's black, undereducated, old, and needs to defend his position, but you know he can't.

That is why I bet most people think this conspiracy talk is the product of cowards and low-lifes.

They blame the innocent, with crazy talk.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #326, Part 4 (last part)

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:52 AM, said:

Scott G said:

The fact that you now question the NTSB data is, I believe, good progress in this regard.

I have always questioned the NTSB data in so far as the animation goes.

Alright.

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:52 AM, said:

The aim, which I was very clear on in the opening post, was to present every such witness account that supports the official South of Citgo approach. I was quite prepared to note concerns against them along the way.

Yes, I noticed you did this.

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:52 AM, said:

There came a point where I was prevented outright through deletion of my posts from providing anymore witnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path.

I thought it was clear that atleast one of your posts was deleted, due to the fact that post 100 in the south side witness thread was responding to a post that no longer existed of yours. However, I had the following exchange with Rob:

rob balsamo said:

scott75, on Sep 1 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

For this reason, I feel that it was unfortunate that Rob felt the need to delete his posts, causing him to leave. But what's done is done.

Posts? Scott, why do you lie?

I didnt delete his "posts" and you know it.

I edited a part of his post (singular) which was designed to obfuscate and evade the questions he was asked to answer based on his past claims in the thread.

What Rob didn't know is that I didn't know. Because post 100 was responding to something that didn't appear in any post of yours that I saw, I assumed that he had deleted a post, not edited out part of one. Assuming that Rob is correct, and he didn't delete but instead only edited your next to last post, it was an honest mistake. Half an hour later, I was suspended until December 10. I understand the pressure that Rob has felt, but these types of things don't help his case.

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:52 AM, said:

I had no choice but to make my next post the last; there was no value in continuing. As I said, I will make sure that as many people as possible hear about this censorship of the facts and evidence by P4T.

Well, I've now actually been suspended, and for much longer than you were. I know that Rob censors some things, but so does any relatively large forum that allows complete strangers to come, as far as I know. The real issue, then, becomes what they censor; harsh language, in my view, is something that -should- be censored, but you and I don't use that type of thing. I'm not exactly sure what the information he edited out was, but I seriously doubt it should have been edited out. Nevertheless, I do believe that -Rob- felt it should indeed have been edited out. These things will take time to resolve. There are a lot of emotions in all of this type of thing, so it's understandable that there can be misunderstandings on various things and that these misunderstandings can lead to problems.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 1

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

Scott G said:

Q24, on 19 August 2009 - 01:39 PM, said:

All I’ve heard said is that an explosion was set-off at the time of the flyover. Yet not one single eyewitness that believed the plane was too high to impact.

The mass media is a powerful thing. If the mass media said that it hit the pentagon, and it seems that it could have, then many people will conclude that it did. However, CIT has explained how the details stated by some of the eyewitnesses concerning the approach of the plane make it impossible for it to have actually hit the pentagon.

And here it appears is the whole problem – “the details stated by some of the eyewitnesses”. As demonstrated by the study of American psychologist and expert on human memory Elizabeth Loftus, eyewitness accounts of what they have seen are frequently little better than guesses.
http://www.simplypsy...20Testimony.pdf

I don't agree that this type of thing applies here, particularly since so many witnesses say the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, all of the south side witnesses you brought up here and at P4T simply aren't credible.

[Q24]

Scott G, on 02 September 2009 - 01:10 PM, said:

I thought it was clear that atleast one of your posts was deleted, due to the fact that post 100 in the south side witness thread was responding to a post that no longer existed of yours. However, I had the following exchange with Rob:

Forget the “However” and please don’t make excuses for what occurred. You see my post #98, how many times do you see me fire off a one-liner like that? I don’t. The post was originally much longer and included a summary of complaints against the accounts of Paik and Morin and presented evidence of the next witness who supports the official flight path, Don Mason. The text of the post is no longer there so you decide if that is ‘deletion’ or not. All you then get is Balsamo attempting to obscure the issue by bringing up whether he censored ‘a post’ or ‘posts’ – like that matters. It was only one post that was deleted but it goes without saying that if I had reposted that text or presented another witness then it would have been deleted again.

The thread was derailed and I was prevented from continuing its original purpose. The fact is they don’t like certain evidence over there and are quite prepared to use censorship to restrict it.

This is a common tactic of Balsamo that many others have pointed out long before me, ie it is not the first time he has been noted for deleting and/or banning the views of those who disagree with him. Some examples in case you missed them earlier in the thread (credit to Obviousman for these): -

“Incidentally beyond what is there is another post from myself where I again lay down the challenge and again it is not accepted. Johnny [johndoeX aka Rob Balsamo] actually mods this post to make it look as though I hurled a load of insults at him. I didn’t, I simply restated what I had already stated. Also he has worded his response to my modified post so as to invite me back to further discuss it. This invitation is false as he has banned me and I not allowed to respond.
…
Looks like banning, censorship and lies are once again the norm on a truthseeker forum.”
http://forums.randi....45&postcount=94


“I notice you edited that without any record of an edit. Maybe that is just an administrator privilege or somebody who can't admit to an error. Or maybe it is somebody who likes to control information to make things look the way they want with no accountability?”
http://s15.invisionf...showtopic=12518


“I got banned for not disclosing my real name.....

So it would seem that D'oh had to circumvent his own rules just to ban 'lil ol me. As far as I could tell no else had a problem with me, and I broke absolutely none of the posted rules....”
http://forums.randi....19&postcount=24


“Who is the incurable hypocrite that has banned me here, for being unprofessional, making personal insults, etc? Well, that's you, you petty little tyrant. I did nothing here that remotely broke any rules, yet you felt the need to ban me me for absolutely no good reason.
…
You just ignore or delete or ban anything that you don't want to hear. That's poor science and a very poor way of doing research.”
http://forums.randi....73&postcount=34


“I think it is time for the silent readers to speak too. Why doesn't everybody pipe in here and weigh in on whether or not the person who tries to control our communication and dominates the forums after coming out of nowhere and destroying our cohesiveness from anonymously behind a computer 24/7 - A person with 3 or 4 months investigating this.”
http://forums.randi....2&postcount=496

Scan over just my bolded text again to know what we are dealing with here.

Scott G, on 02 September 2009 - 01:10 PM, said:

Well, I've now actually been suspended, and for much longer than you were.

You were suspended because you continue to raise points that question Balsamo’s theory – they can’t have that because their theories wouldn’t stand up in the case that any considerable opposition should build. I don’t know why anyone would put any faith in him or the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum when they are afriad of open debate.

Scott G, on 02 September 2009 - 01:19 PM, said:

I don't agree that this type of thing applies here, particularly since so many witnesses say the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, all of the south side witnesses you brought up here and at P4T simply aren't credible.

Why not, because Balsamo and his cronies say so? All they have done is to go out and cherry-pick a handful of witnesses with details that do not match the official flight path from amongst the hundred or so available. They hold these witnesses up as shining lights of virtue and attack all the rest that do not agree with them. It really is a disgusting charade. Again, why do you believe the many South side and/or impact witnesses ‘not credible’?

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 2

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

Scott G said:

Have you ever considered the possibility that to anyone observing, the explosion would have seemed to have swallowed up the plane?

I do not believe the explosion would have seemed to swallow up the plane to all eyewitnesses because there were multiple viewpoints from all sides of the Pentagon– it is not possible for an explosion at a particular point to conceal an aircraft flying all the way over and off into the distance.

I haven't seen evidence that there were eyewitnesses that were on all sides of the pentagon, or that this would mean that they would definitely see the plane continuing instead of the blindingly bright explosion. Therefore, I see no evidence for your assertion that it wasn't possible for the explosion to conceal the aircraft.

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

Scott G said:

There were 2 eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly over the pentagon, however. They were not in a position to see the explosion itself, and were apparently lulled into thinking that it was a second plane; only there was only one plane that was close enough to have executed such a low flyover- the one that allegedly crashed into the pentagon.

The first you mention must be Roosevelt Roberts. Notwithstanding that there is much ambiguity in his account that could fit with him seeing the C-130 fly away, who is the second eyewitness claimed to have seen the alleged Flight 77 perform a flyover?

I forget; I've asked over at CIT, we'll see what happens.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 3

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

Scott G said:

Since you started the thread with the testimony of Madelyn Zackhem, I'll start with that your belief that she was a credible south side witness.

What is your view of Madelyn Zakhem’s eyewitness account?

My view is that she's not a credible south side witness.

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

The report says Madelyn described the aircraft as “directly overhead” her location at the Smart Traffic Centre (STC) at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

I took a look at your source for the above information. There is no evidence that Madelyn described it as "directly overhead". The person who wrote the -article- described it that way. Madelyn herself said:
"It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared"

Over at P4T, Skeptic pointed out to you the implication of her being able to see the cockpit:

Skeptik, on Aug 22 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

If Madelyne could see the cockpit, she could hardly have been under the aircraft when it passed her.

I know you responded to his point in post, essentially admitting that she couldn't have both been underneath the aircraft -and- seen the cockpit. Neither of you apparently realized that Madelyn had never been quoted as saying she had been "directly underneath" the airplane though.

Finally, CIT's Aldo Marquis finished off the credibility of Madelyn as a south side witness, in posts #22 and #23, neither of which you responded to.

Q24 said:

Madelyn has confirmed by e-mail that the aircraft flew “straight to the Pentagon”. So I place the witness described flight path here (Madelyn’s position the green dot): -



Is this a closer description of a North or South of Citgo flight path in your opinion? Do you believe I have misrepresented the account? Are there any other problems you believe in Madelyn’s account?

Q, in terms of beliefs regarding Madelyn, you can't separate my beliefs from those of P4T or CIT. I find that the arguments that they have presented are quite good, and have been carefully delineated to you in the post you were responding to; that is, my post #322. I can't make heads or tails of what you've said above, but why should I even bother to try, when you can't even say as much concerning the points that I made in my post #322? As Rob Balsamo told you, "You dont read our posts in full, why do you expect any one to read yours?". I have read your post 327 in its entirety, but I'm not going to try to ferret out where every single point that is wrong with it when you haven't even responded to many of the -last- batch of arguments against your case for Madelyn being a credible south side witness. I can easily imagine that Aldo's 2 posts may have already countered every one of the points you just made.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 03 September 2009 - 04:17 AM

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 4

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

Scott G said:

Q24 said:

Edward Paik and Terry Morin pretty much said the aircraft flew over them. The image below shows where these two eyewitnesses were located: -

Posted Image

The yellow line is what CIT try to claim that Paik describes, though his account does not actually show this at all. After some pressuring, Ranke even admitted as much.

Can you cite this alleged admission from Craig Ranke?

Yes I could but I’m not interested in anyone else’s opinion in this moment in time except yours and mine.

The reason I ask for a citation actually has to do with my own opinion. You see, there have been times when you have claimed that Craig, Aldo and others have claimed something when, in fact, you atleast partially misunderstood what they said.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 5 (last part)

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

Scott G said:

I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T. Rob Balsamo, founding member of P4T, responded to your post in post #92:
http://pilotsfor911t...post&p=10775828

Aldo Marquis, founding member of CIT, responded to your post in post #113:
http://pilotsfor911t...post&p=10775901

Now I know that you responded to Rob's post in post #93, Rob countered back in post #94, stating at the end:
I look forward to your diagrams depicting aircraft scale, physical damage path.. .and consistent with witness statements.. .as every one you have provided thus far is impossible.

You responded in post #96, stating the following:
As you claim to be ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’ I would have thought that plausible alternative flight paths such as the one I suggest above would have been your place to investigate. Still, a diagram of the format you give as an example would perhaps get the message across. Yes, this is becoming more appealing the longer I think about it - I can show how a flight path can line up with all of the physical damage and be supported by far more witnesses than a North of Citgo approach. As I like a challenge, I will see what I can come up with. Then perhaps you would be kind enough to start addressing my arguments. Thank you for the inspiration.

Rob apparently misinterprets what you say, apparently think that you are asking what evidence -his- flight path theory has, as he responded in post #97 with videos he has done to demonstrate P4T's case:

rob balsamo, on Aug 28 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon
The North Flight Path
The North Approach Technical Paper


Unlike you Q24, we provide ample information to back our claims. Not only that, but we put our names, faces and professional reputations to the same.

We are still waiting for you to provide a flight path consistent with witness statements which are consistent with the physical damage. To date, you have failed.

I agree with Rob. It's clear to me that, unlike the large amount of evidence in favour of P4T and CIT's flight path theory, yours simply can't hold water. The fact that you want -him- to provide the evidence for your own theory certainly doesn't speak well of it.


You responded in post #98:

Q24 said:

To date, I’ve hardly begun.

Finally, Rob Balsamo laid down the gauntlet in post #99:

rob balsamo, on Aug 28 2009, 09:40 PM, said:

Clearly...

As every diagram you have proposed has been an utter failure.

Q24, this thread is up to five pages of your frivolous claims, football field sized excuses, and failed diagrams. Are you waiting for page 10 before you "begin"?...

Please can you personally address how the account I give for Paik and Morin is wrong. All you say is, “I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T” but you don’t explain how or why you believe this.

Clearly, as can be seen from the above quote of my previous post, I say a great deal more than "I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T" :-p. The reasoning was included in the first link in the above quote of mine, which goes to a post from Rob Balsamo. Now I know that you no longer want to listen to what they have to say concerning your lines, or anything else for that matter, but what they've had to say concerning your lines has been the foundation for -my- view, so if you want to understand my view, you're going to have to understand theirs. Since it seems that you failed to click on the link to Rob's post, I will quote from it directly:

rob balsamo said:

you have not provided one flight path consistent with witness statements and the physical damage path for any flying vehicle on this planet.

Whenever you wish to provide such a path, please draw the diagram and we'll analyze it just like we have proven your other paths to be impossible.

Q24, on 31 August 2009 - 09:57 AM, said:

The blue line is how I interpret the described flight path as it passed over Paik and Morin (positions shown by the green dots). The yellow line is for the North of Citgo claim - do you see that this is inconsistent with Terry Morn’s account as it places the aircraft behind him as he looked out from between the wings of the Navy Annex?

Aldo compared your line to the NTSB line in post #113, and I had linked to his post as well. Here's the relevant part:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:

Oh so you are just making up flight paths as you see fit regardless of who or what it contradicts.

Ahem...

Now as we know, clearly Aldo doesn't believe in the NTSB line. I'm guessing he brought it up to subtly allude to the very real possibility that your line wouldn't account for the damage to the light poles -or- the damage to the pentagon itself. I have now asked for confirmation of my educated guess over at CIT.

In all honesty, -no- line, official or otherwise, would account for either, from what I have seen, but the one with the best chances of atleast -looking- possible to those who haven't thoroughly studied the issue is the official story line.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 03 September 2009 - 11:42 AM

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #331, Part 1

Q24, on 01 September 2009 - 03:43 PM, said:

Scott G, on 01 September 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

Do you mean the comment about your only seeing fragments of what they wrote you over at P4T? Or is this remark of a more general nature?

I think that as a general rule I'm fairly good at sticking to the issues. Could you cite a specific passage where you think I'm getting too personal?

From this page (edit: now the last page) alone: -

• “Q, I have a feeling that all this disagreement with your beliefs, at times in a rather harsh manner over at P4T and CIT, may have gotten to you.”
  
• “Your only strong weakness is, in my view, your over confidence…”
  
• “For your sake, Q, I suggest you make sure you know what you're talking about before you say it.”
  
• “However, in comparison with those over at P4T and CIT, who have studied the issues extensively for years, you're frequently way behind them.”
  
• “I mention all of this because I would like to suggest to you that your personal feelings towards these groups is getting in the way of you seeing their strong arguments.”

These are all comments directed at the messenger rather than the argument.

I contend that they are directed at both the messenger and the arguments he makes, and are therefore perfectly valid.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 03 September 2009 - 12:34 PM

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #331, Part 2 (last part)

Q24, on 01 September 2009 - 03:43 PM, said:

Scott G, on 01 September 2009 - 04:25 PM, said:

This seems to be a reasonable question. I think that perhaps it got too low to be seen by radar; note that Minetta didn't state they lost it -at- the pentagon, but rather in the general vicinity, when it was definitely rather low. From there, it was fairly close to an airport that I forget the name of, and which some believe it may have landed at.

Yes, this makes sense – if the aircraft stayed low and landed immediately after a flyover then it would disappear from radar in the same way as if it had crashed. I assume it would be National Airport that you are referring to.

I'll go with your assumption for now, laugh :-). I think I remember it being called Reagan National Airport.

Q24, on 01 September 2009 - 03:43 PM, said:

One problem I see: -



Is it conceivable that approximately 100 witnesses saw the aircraft approach along A-B and yet not one single witness saw the aircraft fly the path B-C?

No, this would be beyond reason.

I believe your argument that of the witnesses you have brought up who allegedly saw the aircraft approach on the official flight path, none of them have been credible. On the other hand, I have found that the videotaped witnesses who support the north side approach have been quite credible. I have already mentioned to you that 2 people saw a plane fly over the pentagon; as to people seeing a plane further down, I think I'll ask over at the loose change forum.

Update- I have now found an entire thread addressing this subject over at the loose change forum:
http://s1.zetaboards.../2151855/1/#new

This post has been edited by Scott G: 03 September 2009 - 12:56 PM

[Scott G]

Response to merril's post #333

merril, on 01 September 2009 - 09:42 PM, said:

Quote
Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

I'm beginning to think this is a racial issue. If this man was anyone else (younger, white), you internet bullies would think multiple times before using him, the way you do.

Which is exactly why I detest left wing liberal tactics.
<snip>

>.<

merril, no one has ever claimed that Lloyd took the pictures. At present, we don't even -know- the skin colour of the person or people who took them, although it may have been one or more of the people photographed near Lloyd's car at the time of the event, who weren't Lloyd himself; 2 of them were white, 1 was black. I believe this isn't the first time you've tried to smear elements of the truth movement as being 'left wing liberal tactics'. There are certainly a fair amount of right wingers who also question 9/11. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, as it's insulting and clearly innacurate.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 03 September 2009 - 01:04 PM

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #336, Part 1

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

Scott G, on 02 September 2009 - 01:10 PM, said:

I thought it was clear that atleast one of your posts was deleted, due to the fact that post 100 in the south side witness thread was responding to a post that no longer existed of yours. However, I had the following exchange with Rob:

rob balsamo said:

Quote

For this reason, I feel that it was unfortunate that Rob felt the need to delete his posts, causing him to leave. But what's done is done.

Posts? Scott, why do you lie?

I didn't delete his "posts" and you know it.

I edited a part of his post (singular) which was designed to obfuscate and evade the questions he was asked to answer based on his past claims in the thread.

Forget the “However”

Sorry Q, but I won't do that. I think that Rob had to say was important, if not entirely accurate; I didn't lie, I simply made a somewhat incorrect assumption. Clearly a fair amount of one of your posts was deleted, but not the whole thing, as Rob mentioned, and there were no other posts to which this happened to.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

and please don’t make excuses for what occurred.

I am giving the reasons for why it occurred. Giving you the reason is not the same thing as saying that I -agree- with the reason. You know that I don't agree with Rob for his deletion of most of your post.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

You see my post #98, how many times do you see me fire off a one-liner like that? I don’t.

Alright. Rob has never denied having edited/deleted a part of your post, so I think we have the truth of what happened fairly clear now.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

The post was originally much longer and included a summary of complaints against the accounts of Paik and Morin and presented evidence of the next witness who supports the official flight path, Don Mason.

Do you have a backup?

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

The text of the post is no longer there so you decide if that is ‘deletion’ or not.

It's a deletion of part of your post; it could be called an edit as well, since it wasn't a deletion of your entire post.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

All you then get is Balsamo attempting to obscure the issue by bringing up whether he censored ‘a post’ or ‘posts’ – like that matters.

I would say that it does. I was once in a forum that near the end of my stay there, would delete my posts on a regular basis. They wouldn't even explain why after I asked. For a while, I persisted; I had backups and could simply repost what was deleted. The reason I persisted is because I had a strong feeling that one particular moderator was doing it without the approval of the moderator team. However, I soon came to realize that the other moderators weren't going to interfere, and so I left.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

It was only one post that was deleted but it goes without saying that if I had reposted that text or presented another witness then it would have been deleted again.

I agree. He wanted you to address points that had been brought up previously before allowing you to bring up other witnesses. I disagree with his action; I think they were doing a good job of debunking your witnesses, and I wanted every last one of them debunked. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

The thread was derailed and I was prevented from continuing its original purpose. The fact is they don’t like certain evidence over there and are quite prepared to use censorship to restrict it.

What they don't like is that you don't concede that your evidence doesn't hold water. I understand their frustration, but not their method of dealing with it. For one, I thought they were doing an excellent job of debunking your witnesses; why stop the plays when you're on a winning streak? So what if -you- didn't respond to their points debunking yours? All the counters were there for anyone else to see.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 03 September 2009 - 01:42 PM

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #336, Part 2

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

This is a common tactic of Balsamo that many others have pointed out long before me, ie it is not the first time he has been noted for deleting and/or banning the views of those who disagree with him. Some examples in case you missed them earlier in the thread (credit to Obviousman for these): -

[indent]“Incidentally beyond what is there is another post from myself where I again lay down the challenge and again it is not accepted. Johnny [johndoeX aka Rob Balsamo] actually mods this post to make it look as though I hurled a load of insults at him. I didn’t, I simply restated what I had already stated. Also he has worded his response to my modified post so as to invite me back to further discuss it. This invitation is false as he has banned me and I not allowed to respond.

On the subject of Rob's harsh treatment of those who disagree with him, we both stand as witnesses for that. This doesn't mean that Rob's views are mistaken on the technical aspects, however. As to the part about Rob extending an invitation, perhaps Rob had originally extended the invitation but then changed his mind and banned him. I believe Rob essentially did the same thing with me; originally I received a warning for allegedly "lying" about him deleting posts of yours (which as I have explained above was simply an incorrect assumption), but shortly thereafter I was banned.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

Looks like banning, censorship and lies are once again the norm on a truthseeker forum.”
http://forums.randi....45&postcount=94

We already agree that Rob is rather harsh when it comes to people who disagree with him, and censorship in one form or another is clearly included here. However, someone -stating- that P4T is lying about anything isn't enough. I have seen no evidence that they have ever lied about anything. Misinterpreting the truth is -not- the same thing as lying.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

“I notice you edited that without any record of an edit. Maybe that is just an administrator privilege or somebody who can't admit to an error. Or maybe it is somebody who likes to control information to make things look the way they want with no accountability?”
http://s15.invisionf...showtopic=12518

P4T is accountable to P4T, but to no one else. I agree that Rob engages in too much censorship, and the above doesn't sound good, but none of this discounts from the many good arguments that have been made at P4T.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

“I got banned for not disclosing my real name....."

Again, I know that Rob gets somewhat dicey when it comes to uncredentialed people who disagree with him. Shortly after you left, it became an issue with me. I was saved from that by telling him that painter, who's been a member there for a long time, knew the work of my father, and dMole, an administrator there, had posted in sciforums with me, back when they allowed non official story theories concerning 9/11 on their forum.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

So it would seem that D'oh had to circumvent his own rules just to ban 'lil ol me. As far as I could tell no else had a problem with me, and I broke absolutely none of the posted rules....”
http://forums.randi....19&postcount=24

Not sure what rules D'oh allegedly circumvented, so can't respond to that.

Q24, on 02 September 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

“Who is the incurable hypocrite that has banned me here, for being unprofessional, making personal insults, etc? Well, that's you, you petty little tyrant. I did nothing here that remotely broke any rules, yet you felt the need to ban me for absolutely no good reason.

You just ignore or delete or ban anything that you don't want to hear. That's poor science and a very poor way of doing research.”
http://forums.randi....73&postcount=34

“I think it is time for the silent readers to speak too. Why doesn't everybody pipe in here and weigh in on whether or not the person who tries to control our communication and dominates the forums after coming out of nowhere and destroying our cohesiveness from anonymously behind a computer 24/7 - A person with 3 or 4 months investigating this.”
http://forums.randi....2&postcount=496

Scan over just my bolded text again to know what we are dealing with here.

Again, I'd have to know more details concerning these cases in order to render judgement.