Ron - the rude Khalezov fan

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
ron103

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by ron103 »

Hello Simon

Your buddy hoi just erased my elaborate response to him.

Even you didn't step so low.

I guess power corrupts (Admin power is too much for you to handle hoi ?)

You gotta decide if this a private country club for believers only or a research center.
ron103

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by ron103 »

In one paragraph i will make it clear ,why this "all the event was fake" is not only foolish or unscientific but destroys the credibility of the no planes research as well :

Are the witnesses claiming that they saw a missile/Cessna or not see a large plane credible?
according to you yes.

Have you examined the witnesses that say the towers fell exactly as we see in the footage ? no.
Not only that - have you encountered any witnesses who testify to some other scenario of the collapse? no.

Discredit ALL the witnesses who approve the towers collapse as we see them in the footage. then we"ll talk.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Ron - please stop trolling here, thanks. However, as the idiot I am - I'll answer your last two questions:
ron103 wrote: Are the witnesses claiming that they saw a missile/Cessna or not see a large plane credible?
according to you yes.
No. Please read this page of the SC website: http://www.septemberclues.org/faq_4.htm
ron103 wrote: Have you examined the witnesses that say the towers fell exactly as we see in the footage ? no.
Not only that - have you encountered any witnesses who testify to some other scenario of the collapse? no.
How do you describe exactly such an event? I have heard no witness describing it in much detail, no.
The only witness reports with any sort of specific and consistent observation sounds like this:
"I saw the top part of the tower fall down". (about half-a-dozen testimonies exist to this tune).
That certainly doesn't make any sense at all - considering what we have in the collapse imagery.


Yes, this is a research center - and as such, bad-mannered clowns are not welcome, and will never be.
Now, please consider picking up another hobby - like collecting stamps.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

ron103 wrote:Hello Simon

Your buddy hoi just erased my elaborate response to him.

Even you didn't step so low.

I guess power corrupts (Admin power is too much for you to handle hoi ?)

You gotta decide if this a private country club for believers only or a research center.
I'll have you know that I erased nothing. I admit when I delete responses. Your assumption that I am responsible is errant and arrogant. Instead of being bitter and using argumentum ad hominem, paraphrase yourself or compose your posts in a text program so you can paste it when/if there are errors.

That is, if you're not just making up this "eloborate" response you claim to have written. If so, here are some other possibilities you may not have considered:

1. Simon or nonhocapito erased your post because they didn't like it. You may have noticed I haven't been at my computer for the last several hours.

2. There was a posting error. Fred and others have encountered this before.

Your reasoning is based entirely on your world view that we are some kind of social club gathering around for shits and giggles. Your argument that we deface or hurt any aspect of the "9/11 truth movement" is because you haven't yet realized that only individuals can be trusted to do their own research and no "leader" like Simon or me or this fake "ex-KGB" fool is worth anyone's time that they don't want to spend looking at it.

We are content with being as mistrusted as necessary. Why aren't you and why do you insist everyone merely trusts you? Are you going to huff off like all the other people who come on here with nothing but negative things to say, trying to bully us into shaping this forum in your image, and then pretend you didn't get your way because we are your "enemy"? We are people, too, "ron" and we don't have to take your word for anything. So stop trying to tear down walls and start making cohesive arguments.

Thusfar, your two questions (that Simon just answered, apparently) turned out to be not very thoughtful, did they?

Your friend is someone who tells you to trust yourself and mistrust others. Take some of Simon's advice and get another hobby if you are just looking for converts to your personal belief system. If you are actually interested in the truth, swallow your pride and admit that maybe there are no "heroes" in the 9/11 truth movement and the only hero is YOU and you just have to trust yourself to do the research instead of pointing at everyone and saying they are wrong.
warriorhun
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by warriorhun »

Dear ron100s,

you say:
What's fake about these shots of WTC collapse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD3mV-LhLIY
You convinced me. simonshack and septemberclues got it all wrong.
My knowledge also says Khalezov is aware of the original plan, and he nearly solved the mystery.

One week before 9/11, I was serving in the French Foreign Legion. We were patrolling near Sidi-bel Abbes, to pacify the rebelling Algerian fellahs.
We signed up under false names, I will not reveal mine, but my binom was called "Dreyfus". He was talking about a conspiracy of airplanes carrying nukes flying into tall buildings, but I wrote it off as him having acid flashbacks. One day in the heads I took a glance at his member to compare dick size, and he was circumscized. He showed me a letter he wrote to his brother. He signed it as Gideon Naudet. Six days before 9/11 he went AWOL.
One day we saw Arabs chasing a herd of elephants to catch for the New York Zoo, and their bearded leader came to us. Later I recognised him on a threatening islamist video SITE found: he was Osama bin Laden. He said how he hated our freedoms, and about the plan he made with the Freemasons to bring down tall buildings with mini-nukes (that is why I know Khalezov tells the limited truth he knows), and how George W. Bush vetoed it, so the new plan will be a big surprise. When asked how big surprise, he pointed at the herd of elephants: that big.
Image
See the above image of WTC Building 7? It is CGI fakery, but it does not mean what we see on it is not real. What those fucking Freemasons did is through the tunnel for mini-nukes they sent in the herd of wild elephants who panciked. A few of them were trained to hit the walls with their tusks to create a plane-shaped hole. The rest of the elephant herd just went wild, and trampled 3000 victims underfoot, and lots of victims were jumping from the windows to avoid getting impaled on the ivory tusks. The building fell because the elephants started kicking the columns holding the roof. Of course the media tried to cover up what is happening: on the WTC-fall videos, the loud boom-boom-boom is altered audio to cover the elephants squeals and trumpeting. If you see the pictures and videos, you will notice the original colour of the towers are altered to gray, so you will not be able to distinguish the elephants. You see that dust coming out of the side of Building 7 between the floors? That's the elephants exhaling, but they photoshopped out the end of their trunks.
But, of course it is logical, that just because the picture is totally faked, it does not mean it is not solid evidence to show you the truth and reality.
And because this is totally in line with the "no planes", if the people of septemberclues do not accept the elephant theory, that discredits them all and means they are total dickheads. :D
ron105
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by ron105 »

Dear Simon.
It was never my intention to Troll this forum (i am certainly not a government shill too).
I only posted 1 post asking a question about Ferbanks Video on 911 thread (which was erased).

But you have requested me now to stop writing here. this is certainly my last post .
You need to understand. I am raising here valid questions regarding "all is fake"

Your position is easily debunked with witnesses that saw the collapse.
+ witnesses that will confirm the footage that that's how the tower collapsed too.
Unless you discredit ALL of them you look very silly, quite cuckoo actually.

Further more the same position you took with me - that some WTC videos are fake then all of them are -
Your critics - who will easily debunk that the towers didn't collapse as we saw on video - will discredit the no planes videos - on the same grounds.
saying you fucked up with the towers. for sure you messed up with the planes too.

When i say the witnesses to missile/cessna etc. are credible - i meant we are sure they are not shills for the official story, they are not lying.

You don't have witnesses contradicing with the footage of WTC collapse.

Any youtuber will easily go and ask people in Manhattan etc. how they saw WTC fall down - honest people.. who have no ties to Media.

And will shred to pieces the position "that all is fake".

Try not jump to conclusions
Some WTC collapse raise questions - try to figure out why.
Is it possible the same collapse sequence is credited to different photographers because they just want to take credit that its their work etc., so they reproduce it in differnet angle. (but the collapse is still exactly the same)
Just an ego thing nothing more sinister than that.

Or even more interesting idea - September clues is a huge threat to the preps and government,
so they produce also "fake" collapse videos - in order for you to bite the bait - and then easily debunk you later and discredit SC ?


You not willing to listen to anything on the grounds of something that hasn't been established at all -
the collapse is fictitous as we saw it on video. it didnt happen like that etc.

Hense my "Turing machine" analogy - you guys are just using this strategy to not face the fire.

You say that the few people you heard say - the top fell down.
but that is exactly what is being observed in the first 5 seconds.

and the aftermath well observed (rubble pile etc. confirms 2/3 building mass dustified) .

But in order to prove such an argument you need really solid evidence - bullet proof - like in the case of the planes.

And you don't - try to accept that. I know its hard. you really want to hammer that nail all the way down.

OK.
I am off collecting stamps now.
Please understand i don't regard you as an enemy.
try to see the point I"m making - and avoid its unavoidable aftermath.
Best of luck
Ron

hoi.polloi

I ask your forgiveness for blaming you having erased my post.
I am truly sorry, I just got very pissed.

warriorhun

Khalezov could be for all i care George Bush's nephew.

Irrelevant to who he is - his story of what happened and how it happened fits with the evidence of the crime scene during that day and the months after that.
You refuse to watch his presentation - and that's fine . but that puts you automatically in a zero position to criticize him, understand that.

I am not trying , and haven't tried to convert anybody - this whole episode started by me simply declaring that i support SC and Khalezov work in the mandatory description post.
The argument rose up when Simon without having seen Khalezov presentation - blocked me for just mentioning him.

Best of luck people
Last edited by ron105 on Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by fbenario »

ron103 wrote:Have you examined the witnesses that say the towers fell exactly as we see in the footage ? no.
This is absurd. The collapses were likely cloaked in a thick black screen of smoke camouflage. NO ONE saw the collapse - they saw the TV videos "live", and that became their memories.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by reel.deal »

Image

witnesses say this, witnesses say that... whatever.

ron, if its a "nuke", that atomizes, vaporizes... 'people', 'titanium plane engines', '110 storey skyscrapers',
surrounding vehicles, etc... why doesnt the petrol in the vehicles gas-tanks ignite ? why did all the loose
fluttering office papers remain unscathed, unscorched, intact ?

If the fountains of 'volcanic' plumed eruptions of the twin-towers destruction, and consequent 'pyroclastic'
engulfing of half of manhattan... were real...
then why does WTC2 look like it was tired, and half "laid down", on WTC4... for "a rest" ...instead ?
You cant have it both ways...
Which is real ?
The 'multi-directional' exploding WTC2 videos ? ...or the 'flattened WTC2' aftermath debris photos ?

So, nukes ? not really... some kind of sonic frequency weapon far more conceivable.
especially if '93 basement bomb was a preparatory "softening-up" operation.
Collapse videos, photos ? ...fabrications, fictions. SFX, CGI.
Aftermath photos ? still more staging/photoshopping going on...
Last edited by reel.deal on Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by reel.deal »

Image
:o
Last edited by reel.deal on Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
ron105
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by ron105 »

You prove nothing...
the elephant herd theory...
So stop trying to tear down walls and start making cohesive arguments...
You leave me no choice but to directly address these statements:

1.Does a herd of elephants pulverize 2/3 of mass of building to microscopic dust ? LIDAR photo (laser mapping)
Image
including 1000 people pulverized ?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html

2.Does a herd of elephants create a molten rock crater under WTC4 ?
(Silverstein Properties comes out with a "surprising" announcement in 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn1bvdEGhPk
more photos (starts at min 1:58) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0s

This is where WTC 4 is in position to other towers
Image
This is where Dimitri Places the Nukes (screen shot of part 16)
Image
Image
Does wtc4 get pulverized closest to the nuke? sure. but further away corner from nuke stays standing
Image
Does wtc3 get damaged too from wtc2 (first tower collapse)? sure but is not pulverized to the ground
Image
WTC3 will get pulverized when WTC1 nuke is detonated - again further away corner stays standing
Image
See the first LIDAR photo for the placements of the remains of wtc 4 and 3

Does WTC6 which is severely damaged ,pulverize completely too ? (its right next to wtc1) - it doesn't. its way off the nuke point.
Image

3.Does a herd of elephants elevate Tritium levels X55 more than background levels and raise levels of Strontium and barium? i don't think so
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/wtc_nuke.htm

4. Does a herd of elephants create a 90 foot hole in the deep underground bathtub wall ?
http://www.ny1.com/?SecID=1000&ArID=20029

5.Does a herd of elephants kill off 1000 + rescue workers due to exotic cancers .. many of leukemia (classical ionizing radiation) ?
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/201 ... int__.html

6.Does a herd of elephants leave 1500 degrees Fahrenheit under rubble for over 15 weeks regardless of continues water spraying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8

7.Does a herd of elephants change every dictionary from 2001 and beyond - the term ground zero
which up until 2001 is the scientific phrase for a place of nuclear detonation?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/15 ... ound-zero/

There is much more to this story than TV fakery - and it is well substantiated .

What does Occam's razor points to? nobody saw the collapse and all of the above is fake or this is the outcome of an underground nuke ?




* Small note for reel.deal (I just saw your post):
The destruction of the towers is not being done by nuke heat - but rather by mechanical pressure,
Turns all matter instantly to solid dust (the form still keeps its shape).
underground nuke creates 3 phenomena:
1. cavity from vaporized rock - white area
2.crushed zone (solid dust) - blue area
3. damaged zone - green area
Image

That photo you provide is not very clear. but still - You are not seeing complete WTC2 laying on WTC4 - its some rubble + some outer columns pieces from WTC2 upper floors laying on it. you can see it better on the photo above of WTC4 debris.
you can see in the picture above - even the nuke couldn't reach all the way up the tower - so those are parts from the top part of the tower (damaged + undamaged zones).

That big chunk falling down - scatters the already dustified tower beneath it - hence a collapse for the top is observed .

That is why WTC7 looks so different- it is much shorter, the pulverization effect reached it all the way to the top.
So it falls down "normally" there is no solid material to fall on top of it.

Regarding flying papers - you can see many of them all over the streets even before the first collapse.
Many of them are from the undamaged upper zone too (in any case - heat was not involved in the destruction)
I think i heard someone say that because of their mass/size ratio - they are not affected - but i don't know if this is true.

In general - much of the confusion about nukes used rises from as follows:
There is a big difference in the effects created between Atmospheric nuclear detonation (Hiroshima) and an underground detonation
watch part 7 he describes the differences in detail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2_Of2f5Dr4


Sorry Simon for posting one last time.
Dandy
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Dandy »

ron105 - No need to ever apologise for expressing your opinion and do keep posting, your writing is good, your manner has been respectful and you patently believe in what you are professing. I have some empathy with your concerns about stating that 'all is fake' as it is a rigidly binary position and inhibits free and flowing thought; I am far more comfortable with 'much is fake'...

Truth is a slippery eel as exemplified by the seemingly objective statement 'we live in a wholly subjective world'. :unsure:
Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Equinox »

reel.deal wrote:Image
:o
Nice work reel deel!!
Cloned! :D

I am starting a new thread on these faked collapse shots. I still feel as though I and many others here could learn more on this matter. I suggest we keep, the “introduce yourself “ thread free from further collapse debate and move the conversation to...

CGI Collapse footage.....
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2350843

Discuss!! B)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack »

Dandy wrote:ron105 - No need to ever apologise for expressing your opinion and do keep posting, your writing is good, your manner has been respectful and you patently believe in what you are professing.
Dandy,
That ron's writing 'is good' is your own opinion - but I'd beg to differ on that. To be sure, his writing resembles that of "Khalezov" himself - who left several interminable comments/ramblings on my YT channel inbox in the days after he appeared on the scene. Back then, and for the record, I took due time to go through all of his theories and presentations. Lately, I have also read long articles featuring Khalezov stating things such as "It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein was the actual owner of the missile that struck the Pentagon". I hope you will understand this forum must draw a line somewhere - when it comes to allowing different theories and opinions. Even more so, when those submitting their own peculiar theories systematically dodge addressing/confronting the evidence patiently presented to them on this discussion board.

As for your opinion that "ron's manner has been respectful" please know that, so far, he has managed to call me "a dick, a hypocrite, an idiot" - and in a post I had to delete for its utterly unacceptable language, he basically called all of us here a bunch of "wankers".

I believe to have shown adequate openness, good manners and patience throughout the years, allowing countless debates on various subjects to take place on this forum. However, there comes a point in which us administrators must take necessary actions to keep this place as much as possible free of confusion, rudeness, trolling and outright disruption. Hoping for your - and everyone's - kind comprehension as to the difficulties this entails, the rules of this forum will from now on be applied with increased severity.
ron105
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by ron105 »

Dear Simon.

and I do mean dear.
I actually used SC material (also Khalezov material) on a respectable Israeli science news website 2 days ago - and drove them to foam at the mouth.
my nick there was Shlomi1
you can even see the website publisher addressing me right away (his name is Avi)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... ent-286285

I am not Khalezov. Khalezov nick is 911thology
my nick on the different forums is ronisrael or ron101
you can check it out here - me and khalezov are chatting
(Dimitri is first, scroll down.. I"m there too)
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 6#22482455

But what nonsense you are misquoting Khalezov saying :

"It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein was the actual owner of the missile that struck the Pentagon"

He is telling what the US government thought the source of the missile was.
http://skypotrol.net/2011/02/05/reality ... n-bangkok/

Its Not his own assertion
He says that the origin of the Granit anti ship missile is the sunken Kursk submarine
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/08 ... v-on-9-11/

Is this the kind of research you did on Khalezov ?
You did not watch the whole presentation - you would have known he talks about the Granit and the Kursk

You are so prejudice to Khalezov - you also know perfectly well that he innocently used the 39 beam video.
But you name that shot after him - in a very vindictive way.

And he has been friendly to you from day one. he still doesn't hold any grudge against you. (to my amazement)

But it seems you are on some personal mission to discredit him at all cost.
Why is that Simon?
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by reel.deal »

'They say'... 80 + trucks immediately brought in 'millions of tons' of 'dirt' to 'fill in' ALL 'the craters'...
What 'craters'... ? ...AT "GROUND ZERO", ON "9/11"... there were... NO 'CRATERS'!
EVEN THE LIDAR GRAPHIC SAYS 'NO CRATERS'... just a big hole in WTC6 !!!

You say... "you can see in the picture above - even the nuke couldn't reach all the way up the tower -
so those are parts from the top part of the tower (damaged + undamaged zones)."

Contradiction. The 'TOP' was undamaged ? ... The 'TOP' was obliterated, ATOMISED ???

The 'TOP' DID NOT 'LAND' ANYWHERE, like it SHOULD... 'from the VIDEOS'...
the vertical perimeter shards impaling Church St at Cortlandt St, are NOT consistent with the
DIFFERENT THINNER CLAD of the 'TOP' 4 STOREYS. 'THE ROOF' & UPPERMOST STOREYS are TOTALLY ABSENT.

There were NO "9/11 craters... "just a couple of areas, AFTER they destroyed the CLOUD FORTRESS SCULPTURE,
FOR EXAMPLE, where they KNOCKED THROUGH the plaza to the level below... FOR 'EFFECT'.
Everywhere else, the 'CLEAN-UP TRUCKS' DRIVE ALL AROUND 'GROUND ZERO' - JUST FINE !!!
WHATEVER SILVERSTEIN'S 'PLANET OF THE APES' NYC-RUINS STYLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION PICS ARE SAYING...
Locked