Patrick Brown wrote:You might be right Stefan.
I started posting here again after Christmas in the hope that things were going to get better. Unfortunately reading posts here is still akin to strolling around the London sewer system. Some people, such as John White, have tried to suggest that the shills and dis-infomationists will burn themselves out although that doesn't seem to be happening.
I have always been an advocate of a stricter moderation policy which removes nonsense and gives warnings to members that are seen to have ambiguous motives. The only motive any 911 truther should have is towards the truth.
The irony is that perhaps 90% of members here aren't into the truth! I sense that many members on this forum have a hidden agenda which falls into two camps:
1. Lets confuse everyone because at the end of the day we all know that Muslim extremists did it.
2. The westerners are scum so lets sew doubts about their governments and bring chaos to the non-believers.
When I reflect I realise that I haven't really gained much from this forum in the way of understanding.
Might soon be time for another period of abstinence from this place!
Well I wouldn't say 90%, and I don't think everyone who has supported the theories which are particuarly weak are neccesarly "shills"- while I suspect the theories origins may have government sources I just think some people, in their personality are always looking for the most "exiting" and "hollywood" answer for everything, and put far too much weight on knwoing what we can't ever know- the exact method and exactly who did this or how, when it isn't actually neccesary for us to do that at all.
In short- some people are more gullible and easily led than others and shouldn't be punished for that- in my opinion we should simply make sure that this is not put forward as part of our aims or profile through a public forum.
Re. This site (or the .net site which I beleive is a better thing to focus on now) "copying" the evidence bank. Why have them as separate or even competeing entities?
I suggested something in the Chat section of the EB a while ago and you still haven't commented-
We have the .net website- which is a perfectly presented and sober front end for the campaign- this has an articles section already.
Why not use the EB as a "backstage"- that we collect and discuss the evidence there, and when articles are in a finished state send them for publication in the .net articles section.
I think if you look at the J7 forum the way they have very specific forum headers for very specific areas of their research- it really works. Maybe the EB could borrow some of their method, and then when we have the finished goods they could be entered into the .net site.
I also think with the EB it would be good to get some volenteers to be writers for the site. I think if the EB begins to be wideley used (as it should) by the posters here who are more interested in only the most solid and non speculative sides of the issue, the problem remains that someone needs to be there to collate the submissons and the improvemnets and additions suggested in the discussion part into well written final articles.
This probably belongs more in the suggestion section than here.
I just think between the .net and the EB (perhaps taking some prompts for development from J7) we have all the tools we need to increase our public image and effectivness.
This forum continues to be a drain on both.
Sorry first time I’ve seen this interview.