hi there critics...

[stav]

i dont agree with this critics corner as i i believe you have every right to discuss your points of view on any topic as much as the truth movement does. and as someone who has been banned from the bbc's points of view website 5 time just for asking difficult questions about 911 i dont see the sence in hiding you all in a corner. its wrong and unproductive.
anyway, i have read alot of your (the critics) post on alot of the subjects you post on and have you not all noticed how you all are saying the same thing. boring....
i have been studying 911 for about 2.5 years now and the more you look at all the evidence although circumstantial, but hey thats all we have to go with as most of the evidence was quickly destroyed by the gov, by sending it to china and other places for scrap which incidentally breaks many laws about containing and processing crime scene evidence. my question to you all is why do you think this happened?
in the weeks leading up to 911 there was substantial movement on the stock market concerning put options. all the biggest movers were with companies directly involved with 911, airlines companies, the companies in the towers, insurance companies etc etc. my question is why was there massive movement on these particular stocks when it was a suprise attack?
how is it that there were able to name all 19 hijackers in a matter of days presumably through pos id, and then 9 of them turn up well and alive?
how is it that according the the com report no black boxes where found at the scene yet they managed to find a passport of one of the highjackers in the street?
how is it that 3 steel framed buildings (the only 3 in history ever to fall due to fire) all fell at nearly freefall rate into ther own footprint due to comparitively small amounts of jet fuel?
how is it that 2 seperate planes can bring down 100ft plus steel framed building one minute but then only create a small hole in the pentagon and then only really bring down a comparitivly small section of the pentagon outside wall?
then if a plane did hit the penatgon and all that fuel was released everywhere burning why was the area not environmentally damaged and contained? all that seemed to happen was that sand and rubble was laid down, why?

anyone got any view on these points, i am interested in debate not a slagging match.

stav

[ian neal]

Hi Stav

I note your view that there should be no restriction placed on our critics posting. I believe this set up (a critics corner CC) isn't very restrictive but allows a separation between CC and the remainder of the forum and represents a good compromise. It will be reviewed in light of experience.

Thanks

[scar]

I agree that they "have every right to discuss" their points of view on any topic as much as the truth movement does, and this area gives them freedom to do so without trashing every other thread/constant blazing rows with people here.
If you have been around stav and have read the threads here perhaps you will understand why this area is here.
Im sure if the BBC had given you and others an area to discuss 9/11 you would've been quite pleased...
Many people here dont want angry debates in every thread but its good to have an area to debate with critics, who dont support the campaign at all, freely.
I think this area is going to work well.

I also think you should perhaps pick one of your questions to debate, i doubt someone will want to debate all those topics in one go. Good to have a focus imo.

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

Greetings

I think the critics corner is a great idea,I come to this forum for the latest news on the 911 truth movement.I don't come here to read promotions of the official story, I get enough of those lies from our governments and media thank you.So restricting these people who want to promote the official lies in this section can only be commended.

Thanks.

[Abandoned Ego]

Ian and Co,

I like what both of you say,

But.

Do either of you believe that listening to the alternative views expressed on this forum by the "official conspiracy theorists" weakens our arguments in the slightest ?

I mean, seriously, can we not handle them ?

From what I have read of their arguments it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out who the real truthseekers are here.

I must admit it can be annoying at times. But any impartial observer judging the average logic of the "official conspiracy theorists" responses must surely recognise the infinite flaws in both their logic and their interpretation of the "official" facts of the "official conspiracy theory ( 19 Arabs etc )

All the above said, we must recognise the occasional flaws in our own facts - and be thankful to these people for pointing them out.

Just my own views of course

[Bicnarok]

Its a good idea, as long s the critics can also post logical arguments concerning current ideas and news in other threads.

[Jay Ref]

[MiniMauve]

I tend to agree that creating a Critic's Corner isn't conducive to a completely free and open discussion of 911. I understand some critics have been right buggers on the regular forums. Rather than segregate the forums, I would just hold ALL accountable for ad hominem attacks, spamming, stalking, etc. by simply temporarily banning them as a warning then permanently banning them if they can't discuss things in a civilized manner.

[TK0001]

[marky 54]

i totally agree with critics corner, its not like they carnt have their say or debate there points, its not our fault they carnt see past the t.v. propaganda. those that know there was something strange on 9/11 need a place where they can talk to each other and discuss points raised without being drawn into arguements about stuff that is plain to see if only they opened their eyes. and would their be uproar if a believers corner was made? it would still be the same. the only reason they dont like it is because they cannot call us all nutters when discusing something that is of clear importance. its all i see from most critics, name calling ect. name calling isnt a debate and dosnt offer any valid points.

[blackcat]

[telecasterisation]

[marky 54]

[telecasterisation]

marky

You claim I said the explosion was a bit of masonary landing on a car.

This is completely untrue, I quote my words exactly (easily checked);

'Huge pieces of masonry were dropping from hundreds of feet up, it is more than likely that cars would have been hit and they have tanks containing petrol. There were fires in buildings, there would have been pressurised containers of this and that, not to mention gas. It is the sound of an explosion OR something heavy landing....'

Take careful note of the OR.

The 'evidence' you supplied showed a fireman making an assumption. If it was a bomb that went off in a building - supply the evidence how he knew it was a bomb?

You simply waffle because you feel compromised.

Evidence stacked against me? Nope.

[marky 54]