he's changed his story once again
he was claiming he couldnt pay his child support because the County of Santa Barbara didnt have some documents he claimed they had from the 1970's
so your apology was NOT needed
Chri$toFEARa is a massive LIAR
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
he was claiming he couldnt pay his child support because the County of Santa Barbara didnt have some documents he claimed they had from the 1970's
so your apology was NOT needed
Chri$toFEARa is a massive LIAR
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 346
thats not what he asked, you fucking deadbeat moron.They have always been well taken care of.
he asked if YOU were taking care of your own fucking children yet, like any good parent would do (and even bad parents do).
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 346
They have always been well taken care of. Mother needed extra $ for drugs so went on welfare after I objected to the drinking and using. I cared for the child about 5 days a week for 4 years to be sure he was not abused or exposed to dangereous situations.
The current situation is explained here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2326682-post6171.html
Actually, Christopher, I owe you an apology. And I am serious.
While I think you are off your rocker about the 9/11 stuff... I was out of line with the child support thing. First of all, it isnt' any of my business. Second of all, I know how the system is stacked against fathers and biased toward mothers. I have seen many men screwed out of alot of money by courts and ex-wives.
So again, I apologize. I didn't think before I posted and should have.
while i agree with almost everything you say i feel the need to point out that mr browneye has not been screwed by the courts or his ex. he never paid any child support. he screwed the good taxpaying citizens of america that had to pick up the slack. its just like when he applied for social security disability and was denied because he was actually working under the table at the time.
he's a lowlife scumbag of the highest degree.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #2,084
They have always been well taken care of. Mother needed extra $ for drugs so went on welfare after I objected to the drinking and using. I cared for the child about 5 days a week for 4 years to be sure he was not abused or exposed to dangereous situations.
The current situation is explained here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2326682-post6171.html
Actually, Christopher, I owe you an apology. And I am serious.
While I think you are off your rocker about the 9/11 stuff... I was out of line with the child support thing. First of all, it isnt' any of my business. Second of all, I know how the system is stacked against fathers and biased toward mothers. I have seen many men screwed out of alot of money by courts and ex-wives.
So again, I apologize. I didn't think before I posted and should have.
Apology accepted. The welfare, child support, family law courts are another conspiracy designed to damage the family unit and weaken society.
Please examine the apology of a moderator at P4T who had previously banned me at the loose change forum. I've duplicated it here. It relates to his position on the core issue, where he had unequivocally supported the FEMA deception.
This is by far the best account of a "FEMA believers" mindset being opend up to trutly include facts, then realizing that what they had been giving credence had little, and the information they had been banning me for evidencing and reasonably showing consistency with in all areas proving a concrete core.
He does not admit to that belief fully. A few months after this he seemed to switch back to the FEMA deception, but held back greatly. The entire thing, including what happens here and now attests to the unconscious aspects of our social fears and how much we are really controlled by them. I can get you the original post url if you would like to verify this.
http://algoxy.com/psych/painters.understanding.html
Dear Christopher A Brown, AKA Christophera,
I want to publicly apologize for a variety of slights, insults and injuries against you and your research that have accumulated over a long period of years. 1. A complete inability on my part to grasp the significance of your WTC concrete core hypotheses and the evidence you provided for it dating back to the 9/11 forum at Democratic Underground and elsewhere. 2. The development within myself of a prejudice toward you and the information you presented as being disinformation that, at best, had little significant grounds for genuine consideration. 3. The carrying of this prejudice into my role as an Administrator of the Loose Change Forum where I banned you in October 2006. 4. The further threat of banning you from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum based on this long established prejudice as expressed in this thread and this one. I hope that you will accept my sincere apology. I've spent much of the day reading through information on your web site: http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html where I have watched your two videos and listened to a good portion of your 2007 interview with Fintan Dunne, which I make available to the members of this forum below:
Chris, I have eliminated your warn-level tics. I've also sent you a lengthy PM. I want to share a little of that PM publicly here because I think it is relevant to continued discussion. I've bolded and emphasized the parts that most interest and concern me:
(painter) Yes, I saw the email from Gage to M*** on your page and the email from Gage to you linked from your forum. First of all, I have to say that my acceptance of your evidence regarding a concrete core has been somewhat emotionally difficult for me. Not only accepting that I could be wrong about something as important and fundamental as this (what, me, mistaken?!) but also trying to deal in my own head with the consequences of the error in the bigger picture of the movement itself.
You might not appreciate the comparison but it is just about at the same level as if I were to suddenly realize that Killtown or Haupt and the no-planers are right. ACK!! It has actually kind of shaken me up so that in a way it is difficult to know what I believe, whom to trust, how I feel about all this or what to think regarding what should happen next. So far as Gage's email to M***, I'm willing to accept it at face value, a statement of opinion based on a cursory examination of your presentation with prejudice similar to my own. Although one would logically presume that Gage would read and follow everything you posted to the forum, that might not necessarily be the case. Who knows. You and I [may] take to the 'forum' medium quite easily. I know plenty of folks who don't and it is conceivable that Gage is one of them.
I, too, have seen the photographs he is referring to which seem to verify the steel column core. The difference, of course, is that I'm not an architect or an engineer; I don't really know what I'm looking at except very superficially. There are still some images you've posted that I can't "see" the way you do, even with a description. This shouldn't be the case with Gage. But, then again, even with Gage's background, he didn't begin to question the events of 9/11 straight away. I'm willing to assume that he wasn't someone (like myself) who had already begun to think about the role counter-intelligence plays in our social perceptions of what is "real" on broad scale. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, that he is simply and honestly stating his opinion. The photographs seemed to corroborate the steel core blue prints.
So far as the conversation with M****** and Gage's email, it is unfortunate that you used the word "board" rather than "forum". This could be a simple, verbal misunderstanding coupled with prejudice or at least the apprehension (subliminal or conscious) that the concrete core hypothesis is a ) not sufficiently substantiated or documented in the public domain to be convincing, b ) marginally relevant given other factors (e.g., WTC7), c ) potentially divisive within the truth community (flying in the face of conventional perception) and d ) adds a whole other level of complexity in terms of the grasp of events. That is, in order to accept the concrete core hypothesis, one has to also accept that not only were the towers demolished, they were likely rigged for demolition during construction and, moreover, a body of evidence once in the public domain was removed clandestinely, not to mention that the blue prints we have been given (which, in themselves, still don't make the "collapse" hypothesis possible) are false and have been altered.
It makes my head swim just thinking about it and I knew 9/11 wasn't what we were being told from the moment I heard about it. In fact, I'd been anticipating something like it. I appreciate the vote of confidence several have given me in this thread for my apology. I want to say, however, that although I'm willing to give interest and credit to the evidence Chris is providing, I'm still not quite ready to embrace the full theory.
There are many unanswered questions and problems that need to be discussed. I do agree now that the evidence for a steel core as described in the blue prints is slight -- that part of the real question is, WHY were the blueprints withheld not only from the public but, as I understand it, initially from the engineers first tasked with the question of what had happened at the WTC? How can we be certain, given what we know from the alleged Flt 77 FDR (for example) that these blueprints are the actual diagrams of what was built -- especially in light of other evidence Chris has so diligently and persistently provided. Then there is the whole 'pre wired for demolition' hypothesis which has to be discussed and, if possible, verified.
Like others have expressed, early on I wondered out loud and in forums whether such a scuttling feature might be built into a sky-scraper of such proportions. Lord knows that if for some reason it was thought that the thing might topple sideways, there would be need for some method to bring it down least the consequence be even more devastating to a large segment of lower Manhattan. However, as is so easily done, I was persuaded by some that this was highly unlikely and that, in any case, the explosives would likely loose potency over time. Moreover, just because something might be feasibly or technically possible doesn't mean that it happened or, even if it did, that it can be substantially proven by available evidence.
That is the problem with the whole concrete core hypothesis. Not that there isn't any evidence for it but that, at least at present, is NOT widely accepted and what evidence there is seems so 'relative' to the substantial steel-core documentation that it is easily dismissed, even if true. This has been a question all along -- regardless of the truth of the matter, does the adoption of a concrete core make it easier or more difficult for people to wrap their heads around 9/11 as a false-flag operation? If it can not be clearly and easily established to such a degree that even members of the truth community, such as members of ae911t, can embrace it as, at the very least, an alternative possibility worthy of consideration, then I have no idea where to go with this.
Mind boggled: painter
I want to publicly apologize for a variety of slights, insults and injuries against you and your research that have accumulated over a long period of years. 1. A complete inability on my part to grasp the significance of your WTC concrete core hypotheses and the evidence you provided for it dating back to the 9/11 forum at Democratic Underground and elsewhere. 2. The development within myself of a prejudice toward you and the information you presented as being disinformation that, at best, had little significant grounds for genuine consideration. 3. The carrying of this prejudice into my role as an Administrator of the Loose Change Forum where I banned you in October 2006. 4. The further threat of banning you from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum based on this long established prejudice as expressed in this thread and this one. I hope that you will accept my sincere apology. I've spent much of the day reading through information on your web site: http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html where I have watched your two videos and listened to a good portion of your 2007 interview with Fintan Dunne, which I make available to the members of this forum below:
Chris, I have eliminated your warn-level tics. I've also sent you a lengthy PM. I want to share a little of that PM publicly here because I think it is relevant to continued discussion. I've bolded and emphasized the parts that most interest and concern me:
(painter) Yes, I saw the email from Gage to M*** on your page and the email from Gage to you linked from your forum. First of all, I have to say that my acceptance of your evidence regarding a concrete core has been somewhat emotionally difficult for me. Not only accepting that I could be wrong about something as important and fundamental as this (what, me, mistaken?!) but also trying to deal in my own head with the consequences of the error in the bigger picture of the movement itself.
You might not appreciate the comparison but it is just about at the same level as if I were to suddenly realize that Killtown or Haupt and the no-planers are right. ACK!! It has actually kind of shaken me up so that in a way it is difficult to know what I believe, whom to trust, how I feel about all this or what to think regarding what should happen next. So far as Gage's email to M***, I'm willing to accept it at face value, a statement of opinion based on a cursory examination of your presentation with prejudice similar to my own. Although one would logically presume that Gage would read and follow everything you posted to the forum, that might not necessarily be the case. Who knows. You and I [may] take to the 'forum' medium quite easily. I know plenty of folks who don't and it is conceivable that Gage is one of them.
I, too, have seen the photographs he is referring to which seem to verify the steel column core. The difference, of course, is that I'm not an architect or an engineer; I don't really know what I'm looking at except very superficially. There are still some images you've posted that I can't "see" the way you do, even with a description. This shouldn't be the case with Gage. But, then again, even with Gage's background, he didn't begin to question the events of 9/11 straight away. I'm willing to assume that he wasn't someone (like myself) who had already begun to think about the role counter-intelligence plays in our social perceptions of what is "real" on broad scale. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, that he is simply and honestly stating his opinion. The photographs seemed to corroborate the steel core blue prints.
So far as the conversation with M****** and Gage's email, it is unfortunate that you used the word "board" rather than "forum". This could be a simple, verbal misunderstanding coupled with prejudice or at least the apprehension (subliminal or conscious) that the concrete core hypothesis is a ) not sufficiently substantiated or documented in the public domain to be convincing, b ) marginally relevant given other factors (e.g., WTC7), c ) potentially divisive within the truth community (flying in the face of conventional perception) and d ) adds a whole other level of complexity in terms of the grasp of events. That is, in order to accept the concrete core hypothesis, one has to also accept that not only were the towers demolished, they were likely rigged for demolition during construction and, moreover, a body of evidence once in the public domain was removed clandestinely, not to mention that the blue prints we have been given (which, in themselves, still don't make the "collapse" hypothesis possible) are false and have been altered.
It makes my head swim just thinking about it and I knew 9/11 wasn't what we were being told from the moment I heard about it. In fact, I'd been anticipating something like it. I appreciate the vote of confidence several have given me in this thread for my apology. I want to say, however, that although I'm willing to give interest and credit to the evidence Chris is providing, I'm still not quite ready to embrace the full theory.
There are many unanswered questions and problems that need to be discussed. I do agree now that the evidence for a steel core as described in the blue prints is slight -- that part of the real question is, WHY were the blueprints withheld not only from the public but, as I understand it, initially from the engineers first tasked with the question of what had happened at the WTC? How can we be certain, given what we know from the alleged Flt 77 FDR (for example) that these blueprints are the actual diagrams of what was built -- especially in light of other evidence Chris has so diligently and persistently provided. Then there is the whole 'pre wired for demolition' hypothesis which has to be discussed and, if possible, verified.
Like others have expressed, early on I wondered out loud and in forums whether such a scuttling feature might be built into a sky-scraper of such proportions. Lord knows that if for some reason it was thought that the thing might topple sideways, there would be need for some method to bring it down least the consequence be even more devastating to a large segment of lower Manhattan. However, as is so easily done, I was persuaded by some that this was highly unlikely and that, in any case, the explosives would likely loose potency over time. Moreover, just because something might be feasibly or technically possible doesn't mean that it happened or, even if it did, that it can be substantially proven by available evidence.
That is the problem with the whole concrete core hypothesis. Not that there isn't any evidence for it but that, at least at present, is NOT widely accepted and what evidence there is seems so 'relative' to the substantial steel-core documentation that it is easily dismissed, even if true. This has been a question all along -- regardless of the truth of the matter, does the adoption of a concrete core make it easier or more difficult for people to wrap their heads around 9/11 as a false-flag operation? If it can not be clearly and easily established to such a degree that even members of the truth community, such as members of ae911t, can embrace it as, at the very least, an alternative possibility worthy of consideration, then I have no idea where to go with this.
Mind boggled: painter
Last edited:
stannrodd
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 209
- 52
I wrote to "painter" at P4T and this is what he said to me ... about Chris.
We have corresponded a few times and he is a well balanced individual.
He got it right IMO.
Stann
I find Chris' overall presentation paranoid and delusional --
We have corresponded a few times and he is a well balanced individual.
He got it right IMO.
Stann
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #2,087
When you can get painter to come here and say that, you've done something. Until then you are just an agent with text.
BTW, painter, nor anyone else ever provided independently verified evidence of steel core columns.
I do that with the concrete core that is verified by independently secure evidence.
Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992
The east core wall of WTC 1 toppling into the empty core area.
BTW, painter, nor anyone else ever provided independently verified evidence of steel core columns.
I do that with the concrete core that is verified by independently secure evidence.
Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992
The east core wall of WTC 1 toppling into the empty core area.
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,020
The current situation is .....
Null post.
Please move along folks, it's just Chri$$y's usual jumping up and down trying to get your attention. If you refuse to feed him, he will go away.
Sir, if I've asked you once, I've asked you a hundred times, PLEASE don't feed the troll. You are disturbing his natural habits. Here's some bread crumbs, go feed the pigeon over there.
As far as Chri$$y;
you have posted photos showing the steel core, dipshitWhen you can get painter to come here and say that, you've done something. Until then you are just an agent with text.
BTW, painter, nor anyone else ever provided independently verified evidence of steel core columns.
<delusional bullshit removed>
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,020
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #2,091
you have posted photos showing the steel core, dipshitWhen you can get painter to come here and say that, you've done something. Until then you are just an agent with text.
BTW, painter, nor anyone else ever provided independently verified evidence of steel core columns.
<delusional bullshit removed>
When we see this,
your words will be true.
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,020
you have posted photos showing the steel core, dipshitwhen you can get painter to come here and say that, you've done something. Until then you are just an agent with text.
Btw, painter, nor anyone else ever provided independently verified evidence of steel core columns.
<delusional bullshit removed>
when we see this,
your words will be true.
bwa-ha-ha-ha
MY words are ALWAYS true, dipshityou have posted photos showing the steel core, dipshitWhen you can get painter to come here and say that, you've done something. Until then you are just an agent with text.
BTW, painter, nor anyone else ever provided independently verified evidence of steel core columns.
<delusional bullshit removed>
When we see this,
your words will be true.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #2,094
False, but you are profoundly stupid.
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,020
False, but you are profoundly stupid.
Let's talk about stupid.
says the proven liar and deadbeatFalse, but you are profoundly stupid.
just more proof you are fucking INSANE
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 346
When we see this,
your words will be true.
i can see it. was it supposed to be invisible like your invisicrete?
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,020
stannrodd
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 209
- 52
Christopharter said:When you can get painter to come here and say that, you've done something
He already said it .. would his coming here and reaffirming what he already said, change the fact that you really are delusional and paranoid.
His apology was a joke Chris .. you just didn't get it.
Get it ? And you think it was a genuine apology .. oh dear .. tried basket making yet ??
Painter is sensible and a very fine artist too. He doesn't paint delusional pictures in the cathedral of his mind .. which is very unlike the graffiti in the cesspool of yours.
Stann
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #2,100
Agents text has no credibility.
Evidence does, particularly when it explains things.
Concrete can be instantly fractured by a small amount of explosives to fall freely.
Steel cannot.
Another image of the same piece of the WTC 1 east core wall from a different perspective.
Evidence does, particularly when it explains things.
Concrete can be instantly fractured by a small amount of explosives to fall freely.
Steel cannot.
Another image of the same piece of the WTC 1 east core wall from a different perspective.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 125
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 332
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 257
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 257
- Replies
- 527
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 3
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 56
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8521
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-