FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Split from "Jon Ronson on CNN"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

C'mon lads, I'll give you a start -

"A Fairy Tale from Hell: An Introduction to 9/11"

Once upon a time there were 19 Magical Jihadists from a faraway land.
They used itsy-bitsy box cutters to terrify 8 professional airline pilots. These pilots were so terrified of getting a nasty boo-boo they actually let the Magical Jihadists fly 4commercial aircraft loaded with innocent passengers. Then the Magical Jihadists chanted a secret verse from their Koran making the planes disappear from all Air Traffic Control monitors. Now they could fly them all around the mighty USA air defense system, completely unbothered, for almost 2 hours. Even the mighty Harry Potter on a magic carpet couldn’t find them!

Pretty cool, huh? You can read the rest of our government’s fantastic modern-day Fairy Tale, (which surpasses Alice In Wonderland for sheer nonsense), by -

http://www.tyrannyalert.com/800.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keep in mind they were not just your run of the mill 19 Magical Jihadists - we know this because half of them are known to be alive and well (magic indeed) and none of them are listed as even being there.

Well thats the story - aint it so lads?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well here we are.
i knew they'd have to resort to cheap insults eventually.


look guys. the thing is.. we sit on different sides of the political spectrum. You have complete faith in the american government and we recognise that they cheat and lie constantly. we (well me anyway)recognise they have a significant monopoly on the distribution of information in the western world. so for us it is entirely plausable that they would, and could do something like this. more plausable than fire in one side of a building, magically weakening steel supports evenly enough across a whole floor for that floor to collapse at the same time at all points. not only this but for the mass of the top section of the building to pulverize the building completely, straight down into its footprint. this is what happened. you can see it on video

the powers that be can come up with any explanation they like. just like they did with jfk, and get away with it.

the collapse of the buildings is just one part of the 'conspiracy'. i really think there is little point continuing this debate with you if you think we are intellectually lazy. which is cleary not the case

do you not think a new investigation into 911 is a reasonable request?

_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chipmunk stew wrote:
THIS IS THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY LAZY GROUP OF PEOPLE I'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED IN MY LIFE. I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY THIS, BUT YOU LOT ARE WORSE THAN THE LOOSE CHANGE FORUMITES.

DISAGREEMENT != SHILL

BLOODY SIMPLETONS...


More quality.

Anyway, this might not be such good quality (though there is a lower proportion of capital letters in it) - I made it a few months back. Debate on the Physics forum following my posting of it ran for almost 9 months, with 900 forum pages containing over 14,000 posts! (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf

Care to check the science for me? Thanks.

Want the petition of 11,000 signatures? I can send it to you (about 75 pages of A4) by 1st class post!

By the way, only some people have called you a "shill" etc. You have therefore judged the group as a whole, without addressing the statements made by individual members.

If this is your way of checking and judging evidence, it's no wonder you haven't spotted any serious flaws in the OCT of 9/11.

As I said to other posters, whatever your motives are, your actions are futile - the same as going onto a message board solely dedicated to talking about Pet Rabbits and saying:

"Rabbits are rubbish - lets talk about Guinnea pigs - they're the REAL thing!!"

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chipmunk stew wrote:

It wasn't freefall. And there was nothing about the collapse that defied physics. Defied common sense expectations, perhaps, but not physics.

Before speculating too far on the most likely chain of events, I'd like to see the final NIST report for WTC7, due out this winter I believe.


There is no need to speculate. The most important part of the events are recorded on video - inlcuding a pyroclastic flow (= high energy) of dust.

And so, now to the most important part of my post:

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Also listen to attachment. Sorry, I can't be serious when JayRef and Gravy and I've already forgotten the other one's name aren't being serious.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ian neal
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3010
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a suggestion

Conducting a genuine evidence based debate on an open discussion forum without it resorting into a pointless pantomime is nigh on impossible. It is the nature of the medium.

Gravy has clearly studied much of the evidence as I know has Andrew.

With the permission of the two of you, I suggest a considered email exchange which, at its conclusion, could be published on-line here and anywhere else in cyber space.

If you agree we could discuss the detail of how this is best done by email. The rough length of each post. Which topics the debate should cover. Rough idea of frequency and number of email exchanges and so on.

So we get as full a picture as possible, both 'sides' could call upon others for advice and comment as they see fit. The other recently arrived critics could perhaps contact gravy (by PM) and offer to help him. I believe he will need it, but then I would say that

Just an idea. But I believe it will create more light and less heat.

Feedback?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dodgy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like a good idea to me, although I believe the continuation of the Monty Python quotes should not be hindered Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2651
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I spent a long time on the Above Top Secret board - 9 months or so - until I started to get attacked by the owner at that time -Simon Grey from Bristol and one of his moderator s- as a result of my postings around 21/7
Now I remember these replicate postings by Chipmonk Stew and Jay Ref - they are an exact clone of tandem postings on ATS of 'Howard Roark' and another whom a brief search fails to reveal
But they were both there doing this kind of thing in both the 9/11 postings and the chemtrail threads
I did some time with these guys who seem to have the capacity to be up 24/7 and in my view their constant insult and circular arguments aren't worth engaging. They certainly are shills sent here to divert from more pertinent practices and just to promote more keyboard tapping
If I were a moderator, I'd feel tempted to see 'em off
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ian neal
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3010
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are of course a range of options

1) We say that these boards are an online community solely for the use of people who support the campaign statement on the front page and ban those people who don't support the need for a further inquiry and who come to 'challenge' us

The consequence of this, is that our critics will be able to say that we avoid having our beliefs tested and refuse to engage in debate. We are therefore fundamentalist fanatics, blah blah. We also close the possibility that we might learn something from 'them'

2) A possible solution that I have suggested previously is that we establish a separate parallel forum where we enage 'our' critics. I believe political discussion boards can be powerful, but fair and consistent moderation is essential (and sadly lacking on many boards when 9/11 is discussed). In order for these discussions to be meaningful they would need to polite and respectful and possibly restricted to people who have demonstrated that they are knowledgeable

Parallel to this nice polite forum, you could even have a rant zone that turns into a big bun fight and where we can give into the 'dark side of the force'. I would of course need to invent an alter ego so I don't undermine my sensible persona here Wink

3) We leave things as they are and see how things plays out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2651
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leave them be and ask them for evidence
On the chemtrails front , it's easy - ask them to come up with photographic evidence of chemtrails pre -1997 and they're left floundering
On 911 of course you will be presented with a bunch of government hype and reaction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gravy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
Ally,

Your time is never wasted. It just saves the rest of us the bother. I agree with you that with most of these people it is not a matter of honest disagreement. They are rotten people peddling false and deliberately misleading information.

Your evidence?

Quote:
People should ask themselves this. Why would anyone who believes the official line bother to make themselves experts in obscure, highly technical (yet false) justifications of that official line. The official story is all the public get to hear and see......so what's your problem, if you believe it?

The only reason I do this is that I don't like people spreading misinformation about 9/11. I have never encountered a less truthful bunch in my life than the 9/11 Truthers. I often have lengthy exchanges with them in which they don't get a single fact right. That's quite disturbing to me: when people say thay stand for the truth but can't be bothered to do the least bit of fact-checking. 9/11 is important. Understanding how it happened is important. The lessons to be learned from it are important. It's not a subject for baseless conspiracy theories. It'a a subject that deserves serious study by people who care about critical thinking, logic, and standards of evidence. Do those things matter to you?

Quote:
Only a mighty skepticism of the official line could serve as motivation for doing all that research......or, alternatively, some of the billions the PTB spend on propaganda is used in the continuing (but losing) battle to cover up their crimes.

Huh?

Quote:
It is impossible to perceive these individuals as anything other than paid shills.

Why? Please present your evidence that I've received any remuneration for my efforts. If you don't have any evidence, then you're simply paranoid. Please think about that.

Quote:
If they were merely sceptical of our arguments and genuinely inquisitive, they would not arrive here as fully-fledged 'experts' on every aspect of the evidence.

You think this is my first time dealing with these issues?

Quote:
No doubt these people will attack these comments and present a different motivation for themselves (they are quite creative) to the readers of this forum.

"These people" merely ask that you support your statements. You're not doing that here. I don't give a fig about your opinions. Give me facts.

Quote:
However, let common sense (as usual) prevail.

You'll find that the standards of common sense vary widely. That's why juries aren't asked to rely on their intuition, but on facts. If you were accused of a serious crime that you didn't commit, would you want your jury decide according to the law and the facts of the case, or on their inbividual intuitions?

Quote:
Just think of the collapses of the World Trade Centres. There is a simple obvious explanation for what happened (controlled demolition by insiders) that contains no anomolous contradictions regarding the actual evidence.

Escept for the facts that:
1) that idea couldn't be less simple, and
2) there isn't a shred of evidence that supports it.


Quote:
There is also a wriggling, fantastical conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box-cutters hijacked airplanes

Except that:
1) this is an extremely simple plot, and
2) all the evidence gathered by thousands of experts supports it.

Quote:
......that US air-defence witlessly stood down at exactly the wrong moment,

Please present your FACTUAL evidence of a stand-down, not your opinon. No one has done so yet.

Quote:
that aluminium panels self-powdered to create a natural 'thermite-type' collapse that...etc., etc.

Since no evidence of thermite or thermate was found at the WTC, your statement is nonsensical.

Quote:
Give me common sense every time.

See, common sense just failed you utterly. You are demonstrably wrong about your points above.

Quote:
These people are shills almost to a man/woman. The site is currently under attack from quite a few of them.

It's childish to make accusations without proof.

Quote:
Answer their questions (it is good for one's own education) until it becomes obvious that there is no real exchange of views taking place and the obvious dawns and you start to feel the anger and nausea.

Please answer this question: how are your defensiveness, name-calling, baseless accusations, failure to check facts, and appeal to intuition conducive to a "real exchange of views?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waking life
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gravy wrote:


I don't give a fig about your opinions. Give me facts.


Right then.

Quote:
Escept for the facts that:
1) that idea couldn't be less simple, and
2) there isn't a shred of evidence that supports it.


Your biased opinions are not facts.

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the demolition of those three buildings, but it is easier and safer to try to ignore it all. Instead you and others are forced to come up with far-fetched excuses and ridiculous explanations, so you can cling on to the official conspiracy theory.

Quote:
Except that:
1) this is an extremely simple plot, and
2) all the evidence gathered by thousands of experts supports it.


Again more biased opinions.

Any chance you could enlighten us all on the simplicity of the plot?

Don't forget about the funding of the plot, which according to your precious 9/11 commission, was strangely of little importance.

Any chance of a list of the thousands of experts who gathered all the evidence, that supports the official theory?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe this kind of generous offer below has been made several times now. Each time it has been made it has been ignored completely.
I think that is rather telling as it is the same position taken by NIST.

ian neal wrote:
I have a suggestion

Conducting a genuine evidence based debate on an open discussion forum without it resorting into a pointless pantomime is nigh on impossible. It is the nature of the medium.

Gravy has clearly studied much of the evidence as I know has Andrew.

With the permission of the two of you, I suggest a considered email exchange which, at its conclusion, could be published on-line here and anywhere else in cyber space.

If you agree we could discuss the detail of how this is best done by email. The rough length of each post. Which topics the debate should cover. Rough idea of frequency and number of email exchanges and so on.

So we get as full a picture as possible, both 'sides' could call upon others for advice and comment as they see fit. The other recently arrived critics could perhaps contact gravy (by PM) and offer to help him. I believe he will need it, but then I would say that

Just an idea. But I believe it will create more light and less heat.

Feedback?


The response?

Gravy wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
Ally,

Your time is never wasted. It just saves the rest of us the bother. I agree with you that with most of these people it is not a matter of honest disagreement. They are rotten people peddling false and deliberately misleading information.

Your evidence?

Quote:
People should ask themselves this. Why would anyone who believes the official line bother to make themselves experts in obscure, highly technical (yet false) justifications of that official line. The official story is all the public get to hear and see......so what's your problem, if you believe it?

The only reason I do this is that I don't like people spreading misinformation about 9/11. I have never encountered a less truthful bunch in my life than the 9/11 Truthers. I often have lengthy exchanges with them in which they don't get a single fact right. That's quite disturbing to me: when people say thay stand for the truth but can't be bothered to do the least bit of fact-checking. 9/11 is important. Understanding how it happened is important. The lessons to be learned from it are important. It's not a subject for baseless conspiracy theories. It'a a subject that deserves serious study by people who care about critical thinking, logic, and standards of evidence. Do those things matter to you?

Quote:
Only a mighty skepticism of the official line could serve as motivation for doing all that research......or, alternatively, some of the billions the PTB spend on propaganda is used in the continuing (but losing) battle to cover up their crimes.

Huh?

Quote:
It is impossible to perceive these individuals as anything other than paid shills.

Why? Please present your evidence that I've received any remuneration for my efforts. If you don't have any evidence, then you're simply paranoid. Please think about that.

Quote:
If they were merely sceptical of our arguments and genuinely inquisitive, they would not arrive here as fully-fledged 'experts' on every aspect of the evidence.

You think this is my first time dealing with these issues?

Quote:
No doubt these people will attack these comments and present a different motivation for themselves (they are quite creative) to the readers of this forum.

"These people" merely ask that you support your statements. You're not doing that here. I don't give a fig about your opinions. Give me facts.

Quote:
However, let common sense (as usual) prevail.

You'll find that the standards of common sense vary widely. That's why juries aren't asked to rely on their intuition, but on facts. If you were accused of a serious crime that you didn't commit, would you want your jury decide according to the law and the facts of the case, or on their inbividual intuitions?

Quote:
Just think of the collapses of the World Trade Centres. There is a simple obvious explanation for what happened (controlled demolition by insiders) that contains no anomolous contradictions regarding the actual evidence.

Escept for the facts that:
1) that idea couldn't be less simple, and
2) there isn't a shred of evidence that supports it.


Quote:
There is also a wriggling, fantastical conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box-cutters hijacked airplanes

Except that:
1) this is an extremely simple plot, and
2) all the evidence gathered by thousands of experts supports it.

Quote:
......that US air-defence witlessly stood down at exactly the wrong moment,

Please present your FACTUAL evidence of a stand-down, not your opinon. No one has done so yet.

Quote:
that aluminium panels self-powdered to create a natural 'thermite-type' collapse that...etc., etc.

Since no evidence of thermite or thermate was found at the WTC, your statement is nonsensical.

Quote:
Give me common sense every time.

See, common sense just failed you utterly. You are demonstrably wrong about your points above.

Quote:
These people are shills almost to a man/woman. The site is currently under attack from quite a few of them.

It's childish to make accusations without proof.

Quote:
Answer their questions (it is good for one's own education) until it becomes obvious that there is no real exchange of views taking place and the obvious dawns and you start to feel the anger and nausea.

Please answer this question: how are your defensiveness, name-calling, baseless accusations, failure to check facts, and appeal to intuition conducive to a "real exchange of views?"


NIST also avoid a proper debate:

Me wrote:
No confidence at all in their own work. How pathetic and cowardly. It's so evident that they know damn well that they speak of impossibilites and wish not to have to twist themselves in to a pretzel trying to explain it.


http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html
Quote:

With millions of Americans now questioning the U.S. government’s official account of the events surrounding September 11, 2001, and with a growing number of professors, engineers, and former government officials, men and women that are uniquely qualified to challenge the government’s account of how World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed, as well as the government’s official account of the events at the Pentagon and United Flight 93, it is now time for the nation to witness a fearless and thorough debate on 9/11 that publicly answers the questions and concerns of a troubled and divided nation. It’s time for The National 9/11 Debate™.



http://newsbusters.org/node/6267

NIST: Will not participate in National 9/11 Debate!

http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html

Change in Venue or Date will not Alter Decision




Even FEMA's best explanation of the collpase of building seven was admittedly one of "low probability" and still unkown. They couldn't possibly admit the truth, that it was entirely impossible!

http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html
Quote:

The Report is inconclusive about the cause of Building 7's collapse, stating:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.



This is what you debunkers are willing to hang your hat on? This inconclusive nonsense? What a joke! Be a little more discerning.


I think 'Me' nailed the reason here:

Me wrote:
No confidence at all in their own work. How pathetic and cowardly. It's so evident that they know damn well that they speak of impossibilites and wish not to have to twist themselves in to a pretzel trying to explain it.


Gravy claims to want facts not opinions
waking life wrote:
Gravy wrote:


I don't give a fig about your opinions. Give me facts.


Right then.

Quote:
Escept for the facts that:
1) that idea couldn't be less simple, and
2) there isn't a shred of evidence that supports it.


Your biased opinions are not facts.

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the demolition of those three buildings, but it is easier and safer to try to ignore it all. Instead you and others are forced to come up with far-fetched excuses and ridiculous explanations, so you can cling on to the official conspiracy theory.

Quote:
Except that:
1) this is an extremely simple plot, and
2) all the evidence gathered by thousands of experts supports it.


Again more biased opinions.

Any chance you could enlighten us all on the simplicity of the plot?

Don't forget about the funding of the plot, which according to your precious 9/11 commission, was strangely of little importance.

Any chance of a list of the thousands of experts who gathered all the evidence, that supports the official theory?


The official conspiracy theory cannot be sustained through discussion of the facts. This crew who turned up the other day arent here for a reasoned debate, they made that clear from the off. Gravys claim to want facts not opinion is dishonest, in line with his/her first post. Nothing could ever persuade this gang even though they dont have the confidence to engage in a proper debate. Refusal to reply to Ians respectful offers says it all to me. They are here to drain energy/time and little more, and i feel it is somewhat ironic they chose this thread to kick off in considering the first post and subsequent descriptions of the same. Perhaps this threads development can serve as a good example for Jon Ronson of why some people use the word shill. It may not be a fair word to use in this case but when you understand what is at stake and have encountered this type of group attack before it is impossible not to think of that possibility.
A lot of money is being spent to cover up the blatent inside job that occured on September 11th 2001. I hope Jon realizes what is at stake here and makes every attempt to blast this issue into the media. In the UK the media has thus far been shamefully silent on this issue.
He will be a hero in the eyes of millions if he chooses to do so. Immortalised forever as someone who did his best to save humanity from the terrible fate that is planned for us all.
9/11 was the catalyst for a paradigm shift and we can and will reverse it. 9/11 truth is THE key!
People like Jon, in positions of influence, could be highly valuable in this regard as could anyone reading this thread. If you are new here then please examine the evidence for yourself (plenty of media on the frontpage) and dont allow the many pressures to not act prevent you from doing so once you have learnt the terrible truth.
Our future and our childrens future depends upon it.

"Silence is Betrayal." MLK.

Fear and ignorance divide, love and truth unite.

Love to all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2016
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gravy wrote:
I don't give a fig about your opinions. Give me facts.


It is perfectly clear to me and everyone else on this site that facts are the very last thing in which you are interested.

David Frum, who used to write speeches for George W. Bush (he came up with the "Axis of Evil" idea) recently wrote an article agonising about and then declaring (eventually) that yes, it is morally OK to lie in the interests of Israel.

The post was here: http://frum.nationalreview.com but I can't find it now.

The Talmud also says it is OK to deceive in the interest of Jews. It is full of racist wickedness. Christ, in his day, condemned it (and those who wrote rewrote the sacred texts, the Pharisees) severely...."O, ye brood of vipers..."etc.

It is hard not to suspect that gravy is coming from somewhere like this.

This post might sound racist. Actually I hope it isn't. Most Jews are not Talmudists....but those who are and follow its teachings are not to be trusted. The cause for condemnation is in the book itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

The official conspiracy theory cannot be sustained through discussion of the facts.

I would disagree with that assessment. Consider the following:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57424
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618

Quote:

This crew who turned up the other day arent here for a reasoned debate, they made that clear from the off.

I am here for a debate of the facts. If I have expressed anything but, please point me to the post so I can make an appropriate retraction of comments.

Quote:

Gravys claim to want facts not opinion is dishonest, in line with his/her first post.

Link please?

Quote:
...Refusal to reply to Ians respectful offers says it all to me.
You realize of course that (1) real life can interfer with 'net forum posting, and (2) there is a -4 GMT offset between this forum (based on the URL) and Gravy's location (-5 GMT in my location), right?

Quote:
They are here to drain energy/time and little more, and i feel it is somewhat ironic they chose this thread to kick off in considering the first post and subsequent descriptions of the same. Perhaps this threads development can serve as a good example for Jon Ronson of why some people use the word shill. It may not be a fair word to use in this case but when you understand what is at stake and have encountered this type of group attack before it is impossible not to think of that possibility.

Even if your assessment of the JREF forumites is 100%, your still going to have to deal with us in the court of public opinion and media. You might as well hone your debate, presentation skills, etc now

Quote:

A lot of money is being spent to cover up the blatent inside job that occured on September 11th 2001.

If 9/11 is such a blatant inside job and/or you have clear evidence of this coverup money, please present it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
I would disagree with that assessment. Consider the following:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57424
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618


I had a look. Hardly a discussion of the facts, just self-important negative losers spitting arrogance at each other.
Are you trying to tell me that Loose Change is the entire crux of the argument for an inside job? It has quite a few flaws as shown by Hoffman:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Note the attitude taken in producing this was:
Quote:

* To help separate substantial claims about the attack from ones without merit
* To provide additional resources for readers to explore issues raised by the film
* To help the producers of Loose Change to make better future versions of their film


They have taken it on board so get your debunking pencil out for 'final cut'

I thought this quote was pertinent as to the general attitude @ JREF upon hearing about Loose Change:
chipmunk stew wrote:
I haven't watched it. Is it that Alex Jones video? I had a guy trying to convince me to watch some Alex Jones video, but at the time I flat out refused because of some of the blatantly specious stuff he was quoting from it.
I guess I'll have to watch it now that it's all over Google video so I can tear it apart next time someone tells me I just have to see this thing.


hardly that of an open mind is it. Professional debunkers...

Quote:
I am here for a debate of the facts. If I have expressed anything but, please point me to the post so I can make an appropriate retraction of comments.


Ok then maybe you will take up the gauntlet that gravy and others have refused to engage in, your post indicates otherwise. If you were being honest you would have already replied to ian instead of me...:

ian neal wrote:
I have a suggestion

Conducting a genuine evidence based debate on an open discussion forum without it resorting into a pointless pantomime is nigh on impossible. It is the nature of the medium.

Gravy has clearly studied much of the evidence as I know has Andrew.

With the permission of the two of you, I suggest a considered email exchange which, at its conclusion, could be published on-line here and anywhere else in cyber space.

If you agree we could discuss the detail of how this is best done by email. The rough length of each post. Which topics the debate should cover. Rough idea of frequency and number of email exchanges and so on.

So we get as full a picture as possible, both 'sides' could call upon others for advice and comment as they see fit. The other recently arrived critics could perhaps contact gravy (by PM) and offer to help him. I believe he will need it, but then I would say that

Just an idea. But I believe it will create more light and less heat.

Feedback?



Quote:
Link please?

You are within the thread on the same page as this was explained quoting from the post in which this was quoted from.
Pathetic.

Quote:
Refusal to reply to Ians respectful offers says it all to me. You realize of course that (1) real life can interfer with 'net forum posting, and (2) there is a -4 GMT offset between this forum (based on the URL) and Gravy's location (-5 GMT in my location), right?


gravy replied AFTER ians proposal. Your point is irrelevant in light of that.
Why dont you read the thread first before jumping in with this rubbish.

Quote:
Even if your assessment of the JREF forumites is 100%, your still going to have to deal with us in the court of public opinion and media. You might as well hone your debate, presentation skills, etc now


Reasoned debate will be impossible as i have shown above. I have far better uses for my time than engaging in your timewasting.
If you are truly dedicated to debating the facts then contact ian and let the chips fall where they may.
I will say that your ilks obsessive nature at web-based debunking of the truth is rather strange. The official story is the one your media and ours cling to and we are in wars thanks to that denial. Why are you here again?
Contact ian or go away.
My time is spent showing open minded people the facts not debating with timewasters. Thus, I shant continue this. Goodbye.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scar wrote:
Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
I would disagree with that assessment. Consider the following:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57424
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618


I had a look. Hardly a discussion of the facts, just self-important negative losers spitting arrogance at each other.

Opinion noted.
Quote:

Are you trying to tell me that Loose Change is the entire crux of the argument for an inside job?
I made no such claim. I was presenting an example of the lengthy discussion of 9/11 between two sides of the issue that covers many, if not all, the points of contention that I have seen.

Quote:

It has quite a few flaws as shown by Hoffman:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Note the attitude taken in producing this was:
Quote:

* To help separate substantial claims about the attack from ones without merit
* To provide additional resources for readers to explore issues raised by the film
* To help the producers of Loose Change to make better future versions of their film


They have taken it on board so get your debunking pencil out for 'final cut'

Please clarify what you mean by that last sentence.

Quote:

I thought this quote was pertinent as to the general attitude @ JREF upon hearing about Loose Change:
chipmunk stew wrote:
I haven't watched it. Is it that Alex Jones video? I had a guy trying to convince me to watch some Alex Jones video, but at the time I flat out refused because of some of the blatantly specious stuff he was quoting from it.
I guess I'll have to watch it now that it's all over Google video so I can tear it apart next time someone tells me I just have to see this thing.


That was the third reply to the original thread, post date of 3rd March 2006, 12:13 PM. Since then, Chipmunk Stew has been involved in debating the issue on JREF, LC, and other sites. I think you will find Chipmunk Stew's knowledge of the evidence to be quite substantial.

Quote:

hardly that of an open mind is it. Professional debunkers...

Quote:
I am here for a debate of the facts. If I have expressed anything but, please point me to the post so I can make an appropriate retraction of comments.


Ok then maybe you will take up the gauntlet that gravy and others have refused to engage in, your post indicates otherwise. If you were being honest you would have already replied to ian instead of me...:

ian neal wrote:
I have a suggestion

Conducting a genuine evidence based debate on an open discussion forum without it resorting into a pointless pantomime is nigh on impossible. It is the nature of the medium.

Gravy has clearly studied much of the evidence as I know has Andrew.

With the permission of the two of you, I suggest a considered email exchange which, at its conclusion, could be published on-line here and anywhere else in cyber space.

If you agree we could discuss the detail of how this is best done by email. The rough length of each post. Which topics the debate should cover. Rough idea of frequency and number of email exchanges and so on.

So we get as full a picture as possible, both 'sides' could call upon others for advice and comment as they see fit. The other recently arrived critics could perhaps contact gravy (by PM) and offer to help him. I believe he will need it, but then I would say that

Just an idea. But I believe it will create more light and less heat.

Feedback?


Ian's post was addressed to Gravy and Andrew. It would be presumptuous of me to step in before both of them respond.

Quote:

Quote:
Link please?

You are within the thread on the same page as this was explained quoting from the post in which this was quoted from.
Pathetic.

And how am I supposed to know that Gravy's first post in this thread was his first post on this forum? That is why I was asking for link, so I did not assume incorrectly.

Quote:

Quote:
Refusal to reply to Ians respectful offers says it all to me. You realize of course that (1) real life can interfer with 'net forum posting, and (2) there is a -4 GMT offset between this forum (based on the URL) and Gravy's location (-5 GMT in my location), right?


gravy replied AFTER ians proposal. Your point is irrelevant in light of that.
Why dont you read the thread first before jumping in with this rubbish.

Hardly. You are assuming that just because Gravy replied after Ian's post, but was not replying to that post specifically, that he does not intend to reply to that post. For all any of us know, he may have emailed Ian directly regarding it. I for one, would rather not make an assumption on the matter until evidence becomes clear, but then again, that's also why I haven't been convinced by any of these CT's yet.

Quote:

Quote:
Even if your assessment of the JREF forumites is 100%, your still going to have to deal with us in the court of public opinion and media. You might as well hone your debate, presentation skills, etc now


Reasoned debate will be impossible as i have shown above. I have far better uses for my time than engaging in your timewasting.
If you are truly dedicated to debating the facts then contact ian and let the chips fall where they may.
I will say that your ilks obsessive nature at web-based debunking of the truth is rather strange. The official story is the one your media and ours cling to and we are in wars thanks to that denial. Why are you here again?
Contact ian or go away.
My time is spent showing open minded people the facts not debating with timewasters. Thus, I shant continue this. Goodbye.

I've assumed that you won't be reading my post, so my replies are mostly intended for any third party readers that are following.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re Modeartion:

I will ask JHR to set up a separate sub-forum 9/11 OCT supporters. We can move all the posts there.

I think that, due to the onslaught of 4 gravity deniers in only 2 days, we now need to do this.

It dilutes the serious debate which the rest of us want to engage in - based on evidence, not ridicule and insults.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian neal wrote:


Just an idea. But I believe it will create more light and less heat.

Feedback?


You can do that if you want Ian, but all my thoughts are already posted here and on the Physics forum thread. I don't really see what either of the 2 parties would gaiin by endlessly send links to one another.

It's the irrestible force meets the immovable object again, I'm afraid.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
sonic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 196

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I for one would prefer not to have any more of my precious times wasted on this forum by the current CD deniers.

peace,

Sonic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Arkan_Wolfshade, Gravy, Chipmunk Stew, and Jay Ref - all very new prolific posters (no doubt working together) who feel they have to protect the official story of 9/11 from decent people searching the truth.

Have you chaps read David Ray Griffin's books? No, I didn't think you had. Is there any part of the official story you have doubts about? Probably not, but just in case there are, please enlighten us.

Do you have any doubts at all about the international network of secret societies, which are known about (Bilderberg, Trilateral, Club of Rome, Skull and Bones etc etc ) and which operate beneath the radar of public accountability and are an affront to true democracy? Go on amaze me and tell me they are just private debating societies/think tanks made up of very rich but harmless people who only have our very best interests at heart at all times.

What do you think about Zionism and the fact that hundreds of thousands of decent orthodox Jews around the world are opposed to the state of Israel and its existence and support the Palestinians in their pursuit of justice? I know you are going to tell me they are just self-hating Jews, aren't you? And I suppose you are quite happy with the 'collateral' damage going on in the Lebanon - all those dead children......no, just unfortunate and a price worth paying, isn't it?

And what about the erosion of our civil liberties? No...I guess you guys are happy to accept the new restrictions and the way our 'plods' can shoot first and ask questions later. After all, you are fine upstanding citizens with nothing to hide and who always do as you are told. Hey, I've got a good idea - why don't you get yourselves microchipped? Go together and you might get a good deal. And don't forget your ID Cards - have you volunteered to have one yet?

With people like you chaps around I can sleep a lot easier at night. I know you are alert and looking out for us. Thanks, you are doing a great job!

Best wishes

Justin

_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3172
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me:

Just to say I greatly appreciated you above post

I'd just mention (and I'm sure you were holding back) that its not co-incidence how this thread has developed:

Always troll the positivity

One constant pattern across the net

Ian and Andrew:

I feel a "conspiracy theory deniers" sub-forum is an excellent idea. Contrary interpretations can be posted to individuals hearts content, those views are available in the campaign, and it is freedom of choice as to wether people want to click into there, read the threads, and debate if they wish to

But I do wonder:

Is freedom of choice something our "new posters" have it within themselves to accept and respect?

_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

Enjoy the View from the Hills:
http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sonic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 196

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer a Controlled Demolition deniers sub forum. Or a 911 Truth opposers sub forum John.

What do the rest of you think.

If it is implemented we will soon see by the reactions of some whether they are genuine or whether they are "out to make mischief".

Peace,

Sonic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian neal
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3010
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:

Is freedom of choice something our "new posters" have it within themselves to accept and respect?


Well just to clarify, those posters who clearly do not support the campaign and need for a further inquiry would only be allowed to post in the 'critics corner' and if that is abused then their posting rights will be removed. Simple.

If they find something that they particularly want to challenge that is posted in the main part of the forum, they could always cut and paste the material they are challenging into the 'critics corner' and start a debate there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ian neal
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3010
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before we proceed with this plan to create a separate area where (those that wish to) can debate the evidence with our critics, can I check if there are any dissenting voices out there.

Personally I would call it something neutral like critics corner, but as long as everyone understands its purpose I don't mind

Gravy, do you have any feedback on my suggestion of an email exchange or an answer to my question here

ian neal wrote:
Gravy

Can I ask do you accept the report as an adequate explanation of the events of 9/11 and do you see no need for a further inquiry?

If you do NOT accept it as an adequate explanation, where do you feel the gaps are and how should these gaps be investigated further?


Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i have no objects to a 'critics corner' or 'official story believers' section
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian neal wrote:
There are of course a range of options

1) We say that these boards are an online community solely for the use of people who support the campaign statement on the front page and ban those people who don't support the need for a further inquiry and who come to 'challenge' us

The consequence of this, is that our critics will be able to say that we avoid having our beliefs tested and refuse to engage in debate. We are therefore fundamentalist fanatics, blah blah. We also close the possibility that we might learn something from 'them'

2) A possible solution that I have suggested previously is that we establish a separate parallel forum where we enage 'our' critics. I believe political discussion boards can be powerful, but fair and consistent moderation is essential (and sadly lacking on many boards when 9/11 is discussed). In order for these discussions to be meaningful they would need to polite and respectful and possibly restricted to people who have demonstrated that they are knowledgeable

Parallel to this nice polite forum, you could even have a rant zone that turns into a big bun fight and where we can give into the 'dark side of the force'. I would of course need to invent an alter ego so I don't undermine my sensible persona here Wink

3) We leave things as they are and see how things plays out


I dont think there is anything to be said against banning those who do not support the call for an independent inquiry. How can there be when that is the reason for the boards existence, what reason is there for them being here? We cannot be seriously attacked for asking for an independent inquiry so why worry about what they can say? They are the ones fighting a rearguard action when various polls show a majority dont accept the official fairy tale.

As for learning from them - we are not going to solve the issue here no matter how sophisticated we become on the matter and the only worthwhile objectives are the matter being addresed in an independent inquiry and the promotion of its necessity by raising awareness. These shills, and there is no doubt that is what they are, are a hindrance to these objectives so I can only see negative reasons in their continued presence.

As for setting up side boards - why give these people, whom most of us know are quite literally protecting monsters, any forum to cloud the issue?

The thread Andrew Johnston on the physics board has all the points raised by the shills if anyone wants to get better informed of the intricate details.

We saw what took place on September 11, we are witnessing the murder and mayhem resulting from it, we know what these people are capable of and we ought to know they will use any means to continue their agenda. I can see no reason to help them doing so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since it seems clear that rather than have an evidence based discussion you would rather limit/silence dissent I'll leave you to your little Osama apologist/9-11 denier forum. If, however, you want to engage in actual discussion over the evidence feel free to come to the JREF forums http://forums.randi.org - we don't relegate dissenting views to sub-forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG wrote:
well here we are.
i knew they'd have to resort to cheap insults eventually.


look guys. the thing is.. we sit on different sides of the political spectrum. You have complete faith in the american government and we recognise that they cheat and lie constantly. we (well me anyway)recognise they have a significant monopoly on the distribution of information in the western world. so for us it is entirely plausable that they would, and could do something like this. more plausable than fire in one side of a building, magically weakening steel supports evenly enough across a whole floor for that floor to collapse at the same time at all points. not only this but for the mass of the top section of the building to pulverize the building completely, straight down into its footprint. this is what happened. you can see it on video

the powers that be can come up with any explanation they like. just like they did with jfk, and get away with it.

the collapse of the buildings is just one part of the 'conspiracy'. i really think there is little point continuing this debate with you if you think we are intellectually lazy. which is cleary not the case

do you not think a new investigation into 911 is a reasonable request?

It's absolutely a reasonable request. For instance, as I've said elsewhere, I'd love to hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say, and I'd love to find out the truth behind Able Danger.

However, many of the questions, anomalies, and insinuations put forth by the Truth Movement have answers.

Who, in your opinion, should conduct this new investigation?

TimmyG wrote:
look guys. the thing is.. we sit on different sides of the political spectrum. You have complete faith in the american government and we recognise that they cheat and lie constantly.

I don't have complete faith in the American government, and I doubt we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, unless you are a warmongering, hardline neocon.

TimmyG wrote:
you think we are intellectually lazy

I apologize for that comment. It was at least the sixth time since I'd registered that I'd been accused of being on someone's payroll rather than having my posts actually addressed. I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement.

There are a few here to whom I think it does apply, but not all of you, by any means.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3172
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:
Since it seems clear that rather than have an evidence based discussion you would rather limit/silence dissent I'll leave you to your little Osama apologist/9-11 denier forum. If, however, you want to engage in actual discussion over the evidence feel free to come to the JREF forums http://forums.randi.org - we don't relegate dissenting views to sub-forums.


Oh no, you should stick around: after all skeptics are such niave left brain prisoners, it would do you good to get some air

Shall we have a look at Osama Tim Osmans links to Bush and the CIA?

That makes for some interesting reading

Not that I could find much 911 discussion on there, the little I did see seems to represent the view that governments would never deliberately harm their "own" people whilst psychopathically murdering and inflicting terror on "other" governments people, so any thought otherwise must be fruity

Which kindergarten view of the world is that?

_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

Enjoy the View from the Hills:
http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group