Fao Mr Pickering

Fair enough... but were talking here about an issue that has been evolving for a couple of weeks.... If you go farther back in time, lets say 6 months... you will see that RP has been behaving like a gentleman 99% of the time or more...
Recently. he has been the victim of what can only be called a vendetta... whatever the reasons for that are... and even then, his reaction to that was what I would call, just a little bit abrasive...

Why is the situation now so polarised? Is this because of this citgo witness that wont go on record? or is it because of the fdr release? or both?

Just make an official statement of what were allowed to discuss without being 'abused, threatened or defamed' and its going to be allright...

It's unfortunate like racerx said that Russell is the one that get's the ...... end of the stick...

Since the rules have been posted a few comments up, I'm going to do my own little moderator action and report anyone that falls into this category from now on. It's nice to see the rules ,I can't wait until everyone follows them ! =)

This one in particular I will help the moderators out and report anyone I read that falls into this category.

3.1 ( B ) Abusive, threatening, defamatory, racist, or obscene Content;

a·buse (ə-byūz') pronunciation
tr.v., a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es.

1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick.


I see : Abuse a privilege , insulting words


defamation
n. injury to character; calumny. defamatory a.

I see: injury to character... I see this applying to people questioning credibility. I even have fallen into this category when I questioned JDX in the past. I think the entire board runs off character questioning, so this could be a problem if people insult a persons character off claims that are only based on personal perception. I look forward to everyone adhering to the rules and I will follow them as well.




This post has been edited by Logic on Oct 14 2006, 10:03 AM

It's not like we never have liars and trolls here. One thing I've noticed about you. You seem to be a poor judge of character. You can't seem to tell when somebody is full of it. And by the way, your definition of defamation is a little incomplete. According to my dictionary, a few more words should be added to the end. To injure or destroy the reputation of by libel or slander. Kinda changes the meaning a little, doesn't it?

That's just it. It's not just personal perception. Racerx said something about going back in time and reading Russell's posts. Go back to when he was arguing with Merc about Lloyd England and that light pole. Remember when he came up with that lame theory that it was a piece of the light pole and not the pole, itself, that crashed through his windshield, even though it contradicted England's own statement? Remember when they went to DC and Lloyd again claimed that it was the pole, itself. Have you been to Russell's site lately.

"For a split second he saw a plane and then a piece of the pole came through his window."

"Here is the inside of the cab. The dashboard was damaged, the front seat was pushed back and the pole hit into the back seat."



Funny how that picture doesn't show the passenger seat. How's this one?



That picture is sideways, by the way. The top half of the seat is to the right. Notice it doesn't have a scratch on it. You don't see that picture on his site, do you? It contradicts the story he wants you to believe. Well, really it debunks the story he wants you to believe.

And how bout this picture?



According to Russell, that little piece way over to the left is what came from Englands windshield. He knows that contradicts what England claimed. He's pushing disinfo on his site.

Forgot to add the link to his site.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/018.html

In defense of Russell (not sure if this is really a defense).

But Russ has said he needs to update his site. However, he doesnt have the discipline to do it in a timely manner and it doesnt seem to bother him that he has inaccurate statements littered throughout his site yet has new comers visiting his site daily.

I for one could not do one thing extra until i knew my site had the most up to date information first. Its called respect for your visitors, pride in your work, and discipline.

This post has been edited by johndoeX on Oct 14 2006, 05:06 PM

Russel I've come out of hibernation to say you're doing a good job. Keep it up.

JohnDoe how's your site coming along. Last time I looked you had threads with 3 posts on them. Hot stuff

wha??? my website doesnt have a place to post.. pilotsfor911truth.org. check it..

If you are talking about the pilots forum?

Our members have made a total of 432 posts
We have 61 registered members
Most users ever online was 19 on Aug 29 2006, 11:38 AM

Its not LC, its a pilots forum.. so i dont expect it to explode..

But i think 432 posts is a bit more than 3...

All you can do is make thinly vield threats?. This 'the big, I am' is laughable.

I feel thus far I've been a decent judge of character, so care to explain why I'm all of a sudden not a good judge of character from your view, because I agree with Russell you've made this conclusion ?

If you're going to state I'm not picking up on something, please enlighten me with other examples.


Russell updates his site all the time, his very front disclaimer states his information is changing constantly for gods sakes ! It's said that from day one that I can remember, so just becuase there is a picture of the seat with no damage, what does that prove exactly ? I personally think there is no way in hell that the large end of the lamp poll went through the cab's window, so I'd assume it was the end piece too. I would (if it was in my site like Russell's, also state, that this is my OPINION) So, please let me see other instances that discredit Russell, besides not including a picture. Remember he alwasy states his work is changing as he finds things out, so honestly, you can't really pin anything on him unless he finalizes something and then still has flaws.

Just don't read his work or website if you don't agree with his stance, but if you do read his site, it would be good to read the first page before you move on... Here are a few paragraphs from his fiirst page:::

PENTAGONRESEARCH front page info in parts:

I will warn you in advance that I will appear to contradict myself, or more accurately the evidence will contradict itself. I will present alternative points-of-view to my own ideas. I can assure you my disposition is to understand the truth. It would be a relief to have all of my questions answered and to understand this. On the other hand, I believe there is much more to this incident than a terrorist attack on our nation with no other factors involved.

You will see evidence that supports the official story and you will see evidence that makes it difficult to believe the official story. I've tried to present both fairly. Hopefully the questions raised here will produce answers or stimulate you to continue your own research. If you read this and have insights, new information, or photos of your own that can assist in the investigation, I encourage you to share them. If you can prove something here that I've missed I'll post your article on that page and give you credit or leave you anonymous depending on your wishes.

The information on this site will change and be updated as new information is available. I apologize to those with slower internet connections. On the sidebar pages I have left the photos large to allow for the best inspection possible.



BACK TO MY POST:

Do you see where he says "I will present alternative points-of-view to MY OWN IDEAS"...

To me that says, this is a website that is opinion based on findings he has learned. So, I'll go back to what JDX said in the past.. People don't need to be nursed along with ideas, people have their own minds that can make up what you feel has happened.

And to Truthseekers, laughable is the summed up response you have put down to the information Russell posted above ? I'm just making sure this is your answer ?

Don't lose track Logic. Read into what he says without the Pickering tinted specs on.

He has carried out what he laughably states at the bottom of his last post, and look what happened. All for the sole cause to make him look good. It is a psychological gameplay manouver, which easy to recognise.

He is stating that if I don't read and take in what he says as fact, and write anything which does not tally with what he says, he will expose me. That is laughable. And bear in mind that the quest for truth, which he is says he is for, requires questions and opinions to be shared to arrive at the goal. But he makes ludicrous accusations that anyone questioning him, is attacking him!. Sorry, but that is bonkers.

This picture on Russells site is inaccurate and has been known as inaccurate since the 9/11 Commission Report has been released.


http://www.pentagonresearch.com/017.html

Showing this picture to his first time visitors on a daily basis is irresponsible, misinformation, shows a lack of pride in ones work, and lack of discipline in providing up to date information.

The rest of your post i didnt read as this was the most illogical to point out.

This post has been edited by johndoeX on Oct 15 2006, 12:34 AM

ha ha ok that was funny JDX

I guess you're right about the flight path picture. My screen name will come back to haunt me I can feel it now.

Look everyone, I'm not trying to say Russell is a saint. I realize he was quick on the offensive to Truthseekers and I missed the part where he stated he was going to release your public information. I didn't realize that was the reason he is gone now. I was thinking it had something to do with the emails he posted, so I guess you have a valid reason to be mad now, but it is sort of suspect that he was stating this whole time you are not really being nice with the innocent comment you first posted. After reading your replies now, I see you are in fact someone that has a grip with him by the wording you've now been using, so you can't blame him for being on the offensive somewhat right ? I mean honestly were you simply asking this first question to him because you were curious ? It seems you already had your mind made up with what you think about him and you have many examples of you're opinon on where he is wrong, which leads me to believe you have been feeling this way more than just a simple question. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

And honestly I don't really care, I don't even know why I'm going on with this thread, but I feel at the end of the day, there are people out there trying to discredit people in our own movement more so than the people that should be the real focus. It drives me crazy to see so much discourse within the group and also people constatnly calling other peoples 'ideas" wrong. It seems energy should be in other areas and it makes me sad to see it. That's all..


Do what you guys must if it's that important to you. I'll step back and let you have the ring.

Nice honest post Logic.

I'm sure a lot of people out there believe that Russ has been an asset to the movement and don't understand why he is under fire here at Loose Change forum.

Yes he is smooth but bottom line imo he has been deceptive in his presentation of the information.

Yeah, how so?

I believe Lyte has hit the nail on the head here:

And from where I see it, if deceptiveness is used in presentation of information, how, therefore, can any honest belief be expected with regards to any or all information from him?. So, to try to get to the bottom of things, it is wise to question, which I have done.

I know you have probably not had this in mind, but it does appear, in a round-a-bout kind of way, that you think I am responsible for his ban?. I will admit the possibility of me holding the wrong end of the stick, no problems.

At the end of the day, and despite which, I acknowledge how much work Mr Pickering has done, is it not reasonable to say that he is responsible for what he writes, as much as we are all responsible for what each of us writes ourselves?.

I realise you refer to a 'disclaimer', whereby on his site, he refers to contradiction etc... but that to me says, if I have told an untruth, it is not my fault, I am only human. Well, its a great pity he did not take that viewpoint in dealing with other people, who have every right to ask questions in order to arrive at a final conclusion amongst other things of course.

I fully appreciate your point of view, and I believe credit is due for making your point.

Truthseekers,

OK - So lets clear this up.

Can you please source the quote that you started this thread with so that we can investigate its authenticity? It was listed as a quote but not documented.

Here is a new interview just recorded for over 1 hour with Christopher Bollyn on the 11th of October with Eric Hufschmid.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/mp3/Hufschmid_Bollyn_AFP_11Oct2006.mp3 ://http://www.iamthewitness.com/mp3/Hu..._11Oct2006.mp3

In his own words he describes his entire history at AFP and his firing in detail and names everbody he feels was involved. I was not mentioned. Sam danner comes up at 25:30.

We will wait for the source of your quote so that we can all get to the bottom of this fairly.

Russell

Yeah, how so?

By deliberately ommitting and refusing to acknowledge crucial and pertinent information that we learned on the trip for one. Primarily in regards to Lloyd the taxi driver.

In person he acknowledged the impossibity of Lloyd's account, proclaimed he would change his site, post public retractions, and even scan and post the illustration of the cab with the pole sticking out of it that he had Lloyd draw.

But when he got back not only did he refrain from doing this.....he refused to even acknowledge or discuss the issue on the board without ever offering an explanation for his change of mind.

Plus he even went further by consistently RIDICULING me for asserting that the light pole damage was faked or that planted witnesses/agents/patsies were used at the pentagon at all!

Not to mention.....he almost never would answer direct questions that I would ask him during debate. It was like talking to a wall. Instead of engaging me in discussion he would post some general sarcastic or ridiculing response ignoring the specific points or questions that I posed.

If we would catch him on something he would simply refuse to acknowledge it. For instance when discussing Madelyn Zackhem's view of the plane he was working off photos of the area that we took on the trip. When Merc pulled up the satellite image of the area during 9/11 that clearly showed a bunch of trees that were no longer there that would have obstructed her view he literally ignored it.

To me this type of behavior is not indicative of someone looking for the truth but rather someone who has a stake in a particular theory.

Whether that is merely financial or an actual loyalty to other sources I do not know.

*The original post I made on this did not show up so a similar post may show up later*

Truthseekers,

Can you please post a link or reference to the quote you used to start this thread. We would like to investigate its source and authenticity.

Here is a recent interview with Christopher Bollyn on October 11th with Eric Hufschmid. He goes into great detail on his entire employment with AFP. He names the people he implicates in his firing in detail. My name was not mentioned. Sam Danner comes up at about 25:30 - again I am not mentioned.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/mp3/Hufschmid_Bollyn_AFP_11Oct2006.mp3 ://http://www.iamthewitness.com/mp3/Hu..._11Oct2006.mp3

For the record, as of now Eric Hufschmid refuses to release the two part interview he recorded with me which would also clear some things up.

We will await the documentation of your quote.

Russell

How do you go from being banned to being an administrator?

To be fair I will explain the reversal of my ban.

There was in fact no violation of this rule:

"Rule 3.1: "......(l) Content that is invasive of privacy or impersonation of any person/entity;...."

Please read the following quote carefully.

“So here is what I suggest. That the two of you join forces. The "truth seeker" and you JDX. Take your non-factual insinuations, methodologies and tactics and apply them full force directly on me and all of my actions and words. This way you will be brought out into the open for all to see clearly in an expeditious manner.”

The intent of this statement was that by attacking me without facts or documented quotes they will expose themselves for what they are. It says “THIS WAY” which means by the actions in the previous sentence you will bring yourselves out into the open. I did not say I WAS going to do anything.

You can see in Christopher's own interview he did not even mention my name. This is what I mean by "without facts". You can see that truthseekers quote is not even referenced which I hope Truthseekers will take the time to do for authenticity and investigation.

The reason I believe my statement was taken and interpreted as a banning violation lies in this quote from earlier in this thread, "Russ..you are a flat out liar. You do it constantly. Many people on this forum know it. Many admins here dont trust you and are looking for your first f*ck up to shit can you. I dont trust you.”

It has been determined by the rightful owner of this board that it was actually an unfounded violation against me. The actions he has decided on to resolve this have nothing to do with me but are a reflection of his honesty and fairness.

Also to be fair, I at one time did threaten to expose JDX’s identity. I apologized and retracted in public and promised that it wouldn’t happen again because I was wrong to have done it. My frustration got the best of me. That thread where I apologized was deleted. So I took the trouble of going to another thread and apologizing again in public so it was on the record. I will not violate anybodies privacy and did not imply that I would in the above statement. I understand that rule and the right to privacy.

The rule that does get violated here is this:

3. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. No questions. You can attack a persons theory. You cannot attack the person presenting the theory.

This rule has been broken against myself and others countless times and never enforced. I have also been guilty of breaking it myself. From now on when ANYBODY here in the Pentagon forum is accused of being a liar or being deceptive I ask that the accusation be followed with specific references and documentation to substantiate the accusation for all to confirm. Remember that implied in the words "liar" and "deception" is the intent to decieve.

Changes of opinion, honest mistakes, misundersatndings and modifying beliefs as new information is presented may create the appearence of contridiction but is not intentional deception.

Russell

Avenger,

Please don’t start to associate with those that post uninformed non-factual information.

In a phone interview with Lloyd prior to the trip to DC he told me that a piece of the pole went through his window, that somebody helped him with it out of the window, but then he was able to handle it by himself (even though he fell) and that he put it next to the curb. That is why I made the deduction I did that it was the smaller piece against the curb. Simple – no conspiracy. He also said he didn’t skid the car.

When I introduced Lloyd to Dylan, Merc and Lyte Trip he flip flopped right there. Now stop and be honest with yourself for a minute and ask why if I had anything to hide or was being deceptive would I introduce Lloyd to a man with a camera that would record an interview to be seen by millions eventually? When Lloyd changed his story including that he did skid I sat there and kept my mouth shut. I could have said, “Hey that’s not what you told me on the phone” and corrupted the situation right there.

Instead, for the integrity of Dylan’s work I didn’t. We went outside and Dylan recorded for the whole world what Lloyd had to say that day. Yes it was frustrating to see the change because of what he had told me and what I had written but that is not the point of an eyewitness statement……is it? It is their story not mine.

After the main body of the interview was done I wanted to ask Lloyd the details about his new story. He had a blank stare most of the time and seemed confused, finally saying he didn’t remember. During the main interview he even got confused about what direction he was traveling. That is his age and memory. This is all on film so you can see for yourself later.

I never did point out his contradiction with what he told me on the phone. I let it go. I will change my information on this when I am ready for the next phase of updates to my site. Most 9/11 websites are a couple of months out of date and some don’t even have information as current as mine. I am not deceiving anybody and the main point of my site is still intact. After the Doubletree video is released and I wrap up my opinions from the DC trip I will rewrite most of my site. I have been testing the ideas here and weighing the criticism before I go and do approximately 60 hours of work on my site. I don’t jump to conclusions or new information readily.

Russell

A. You most certainly did specifically mention to him that he told you something differently on the phone in regards to skidding the tires. I have it recorded.

B. It was unclear from your unrecorded phone interview what piece it was. We cleared that up definitively in the personal visit that is recorded but you refused to acknowledge it on the forums until now.

C. Yes you brought us to see Lloyd....I believe you honestly allowed yourself to be convinced from your unclear phone interview that it was the small piece that went through his windshield since of course it would be impossible to have been the large piece. The deception in my opinion started when you refused to discuss the matter with us on the forums when we returned and even threatened to put off discussing it further the more we asked. However long it takes you to update your website is your business.

D. Your mouth was not kept shut during virtually the entire interview. You were the lead conductor of the interview.

Lyte Trip,

"Whether that is merely financial or an actual loyalty to other sources I do not know. "

Please document the suggestion of who these "other sources" may be and what "financial" connections I may have. Those are VERY heavy statements. I will produce all of my bank records for you personally and show you a photo of my dogs sitting next to an empty bowl.

Here is Lloyd's diagram.



When we showed Lloyd photos of him at the scene on Lyte's computer he immediately pointed to the large piece of the pole with the base attached. He told the story and drew the pole in the car himself. The notes below are my writing documenting the other things in the story he changed from my phone interview with him so I could change them later on my site (I forgot about the speed and distance change in my post above).

I do not see how Lloyd's cab could sustain the large piece of the pole without damage to the hood. I will rewrite that eventually but I am busy doing other work on the Pentagon now. For people who do not have their own website of well over 100 pages (including sidebars) with about 50 topics to learn about and cover, and the rapid dissemination of information recently I can say it is a lot of work.

I will address your other contentions here so that we can wrap up your allegations and make everything clear before we proceed.

Russell

Lyte.

Please post that recording so I can publicly retract my statement if I remebered it incorrectly.

If you need I will host it on my site for you.

Russell

Thanks for finally posting that.

Of course it belongs in the Lloyd thread but we can still put it there.

When I say financial interest my point was that you may have future plans for your theory such as a book, film etc that hinge greatly on the prior research you have done.

Of course I don't know this to be the case either. I was simply trying to give a possible explanation as to why you would be so selective in presenting information.

I have no idea why I had to call you deceptive in order to get you to finally discuss the Lloyd issue.

It's been almost 2 months since our trip and you have repeatedly refused all discussion on this.

By the way, if you or someone knows where I can host a 2.69 MB audio file for download I will be happy to make the interview available for everyone to hear.

As I said......contrary to what you just posted (and you may have simply forgotten) you DID mention that he told you something differently over the phone about skidding the tires.

Other interesting points.....his wife also chimes in saying it was "the long piece" that he removed from the cab. Surely he didn't lie to her about it when he got home on 9/11 and told her the story.

Also.....I specifically asked him if he removed the pole by himself and he said "a friend" helped him. Slip of the tongue? Could he really have known the person that helped him "remove" the pole from his cab?

While I asked this you hurried him along to the next question as if this was unimportant.

This post has been edited by Lyte Trip on Oct 15 2006, 08:31 PM

Sure.

Send me your email again and I will email it to you to upload and host.

All I ask is that you post your replies and information in this thread:

The Lloyd England Situation

Russell, I recieved what you are asking of in the form of an e-mail on the day Mr Bollyn lost his job. Want to verify its accuracy or something?. I suggest you look at the AFP site which comments about Mr Bollyn losing his job some days later.

I also suspect slightly that you have not understood the first post.

My source will remain private.

Can you answer this Mr Pickering?.

What do you know about this?

OK.

So for the record we are dealing with:

1) An anonymous, undocumented quote even though it was specifically posted as a quote.
2) Christopher Bollyn not accusing me of anything related to his firing in a 1 hour interview about the details of the firing.


Truthseekers can you please give us a direct link to the AFP article to which you are referring so that all people here have a fair chance to review it?

Thank you,
Russell

Lyte,

I understand the Lloyd thing was very important to you. It was not on my priority list though. And to be perfectly honest every time I felt it was being "demanded" of me I further delayed it because I was irritated by my perception of it being "demanded" of me.

I do not fault you for wanting it public. I am eventually going to rewrite my current thoughts on that situation. I wanted to establish other facts for myself first in the whole context of the big picture. I apologize for withholding it.

It did not take you implying I may be deceptive to do this. If you look back I'm sure you might see other ideas expressed along similar lines. What it took is me being fed up with allegations against me.

So we are going to clear it all up and move forward.

Give me a few to get your recording posted and we'll go from there.

Russell

This is the entire point.

The light poles being faked or not is utterly KEY to absolutely everything we have been discussing and Lloyd's impossible account is key evidence in this regard.

I couldn't believe you chose to ignore this pertinent new information that we obtained on the trip in favor of posting long complex detailed analyses of how the mechanical damage (including light poles) all "lines up perfectly". This is not new.

To say that it's important to just me isn't fair as it is extremely important to the investigation as a whole.

I found it silly, childish, and questionable that you would refuse to discuss it simply because I asked you to. To call it a "demand" and to threaten to continue to withhold the information (while you continued to withhold the information) left me no other choice but to think you were being deceptive.

I'm glad you are finally agreeing to clear this up.