Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: A Truth
Questioning a theory is neither a rejection of that theory, nor is it criticism of the originator or proponents of the theory. Rather, it is a means of learning and understanding the theory.
At times, questioning a theory may be a challenge of the theory (as in a scientific peer review) but that also is neither rejection nor criticism. It is, in fact, done to strengthen the theory.
If we, the 911 Truth Movement, are afraid to accept, and indeed, embrace, both of these forms of questioning, we are doomed to failure. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
We embrace questioning. Um - critics corner. Do you still want to debate evidence?
Well, for one, the motive behind the creation of a critics corner is the exact opposite of embracing questions IMHO, but we've aready tilted our lances over that and was not what I was referring to, anyway. What I am talking about is exactly the idea conveyed in your sig, "Ask the tough questions". This is exactly what I did in the chemtrail thread. I wasn't disrepectful, I simply asked questions I didn't know the answers to because I hadn't ever come across the chemtrails idea. Yet, hypocritically if you actually believe your sig, you attacked my character. I guess I just didn't realize that the critics corner was for critics of ANY theory, no matter how wild or unsupported. Perhaps you could clarify?
Quote:
What campaigning have you done, if any?
None, unless you consider private discussion with friends and family. I suppose that means my opinion is now invalid. Oh well. Frankly, though I suggest various resources for interested individuals to look deeper into 911,I'm loath to suggest this site for the very fact of all these strange theories that are allowed to remain relatively unchallenged here. Fine, you're a 911 site devoted to campaigning for the Truth, so you are uninterested in further discussion of that truth (unless it's supportive). Why then do you allow discussion of non-911 related conspiracy theories that do nothing for furthering the campaign of 911 truth? Why not let those who want to discuss these theories create their own sites for that discussion? Hell, you can link to them if you like. I don't understand this selective censorship. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:21 am Post subject:
MiniMauve wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
We embrace questioning. Um - critics corner. Do you still want to debate evidence?
Well, for one, the motive behind the creation of a critics corner is the exact opposite of embracing questions IMHO, but we've aready tilted our lances over that and was not what I was referring to, anyway. What I am talking about is exactly the idea conveyed in your sig, "Ask the tough questions". This is exactly what I did in the chemtrail thread. I wasn't disrepectful, I simply asked questions I didn't know the answers to because I hadn't ever come across the chemtrails idea. Yet, hypocritically if you actually believe your sig, you attacked my character. I guess I just didn't realize that the critics corner was for critics of ANY theory, no matter how wild or unsupported. Perhaps you could clarify?
Quote:
What campaigning have you done, if any?
None, unless you consider private discussion with friends and family. I suppose that means my opinion is now invalid. Oh well. Frankly, though I suggest various resources for interested individuals to look deeper into 911,I'm loath to suggest this site for the very fact of all these strange theories that are allowed to remain relatively unchallenged here. Fine, you're a 911 site devoted to campaigning for the Truth, so you are uninterested in further discussion of that truth (unless it's supportive). Why then do you allow discussion of non-911 related conspiracy theories that do nothing for furthering the campaign of 911 truth? Why not let those who want to discuss these theories create their own sites for that discussion? Hell, you can link to them if you like. I don't understand this selective censorship.
MM, I have to say I agree with your approach and in many ways I think the 'critics corner forum' is the main part of the site (even though they generally dictate the agenda), and the 'general' forum is the sandbox.
Let me say that I'd agree that there is a world full of conspiracies and 'interesting' and underhand policies out there, and I have no problem whatsoever with open minded (and not so open minded) people discussing those ad nauseam if those are what they feel are the most urgent topics.
But it is a playpen for the already converted, in kind terms.
One suggestion I might make is that the 'General' section be locked to unregistered members, because I'd agree that some (not all) ideas expressed there may appear too whacky for visitors expecting to find out something to add to the details they have discovered at whatever stage of their journey to 911 truth they're at.
I understand that the motives of our regular critics are dubious to say the least, and they aren't seeking anything we can offer them, but their faux arguments have to be opposed, or we'll end up living in a dark age where notions that aiplanes and fires can destroy buildings. Maybe they do on a flat Earth.
Looked at on it's own, that one issue may never be proved 100% either way (with the physical evidence having been methodically and almost totally erased), but testimony from witnesses, first responders and unbiased analysis of the evidence the media (commercial and private) recorded and fulland proper analysis of the comparatively tiny amount of remaing artifacts, will go a long way to establish 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is our legal measure. Not '100% proof'.
Looked at in conjunction with the NORAD non-response, the intelligence and political activity the preceeding months and the blatant cover-up since, it becomes beyond damning for those with eyes to see.
The rising number of deaths in NYC are already changing the political climate that allowed abominations such as the FEMA/NIST non-investigations and the Hamilton-Kean 911 Commission to get away with their cherry-picked fabrications, evidence bending and no fault found except for bad hijackers conclusions. I'm firmly convinced that
providing martial law or some other desperate measure is not imposed,
we are already seeing the last days of the OCT.
Btw, thanks for adding your voice over in CC - while none of the counter-arguments are life-threatening in themselves, sometimes the sheer volume of nonsense can get wearing. Cheers.
Before I watched Loose Change nearly a month ago, to me, 9/11 was an unearthly terrorist attack. Despite holes and assumptions I don't subscribe to, LC2 woke me up.
So I have tried to use my 'O' level understanding of physics and bit of common sense to muster an informed opinion.
I've asked questions here and got very little informed opinion either way. The constant inclusion of irrelevant information and other conspiracy theories just dilutes the discussion, sending the whole subject matter to the lunatic fringe where I really feel it doesn't belong.
No wonder the press gives it a wide berth.
If it is the intention of the owners of this website to grow its visitors and registered members and retain them, then there must be a more grown up approach to the subject matter. If you want to get the 9/11 message out to the mainstream you have to play the mainstream game.
And there was talk of getting MPs in parliament. At the moment it would be odds against anyone getting on a school governing body, let alone Westminster!
Well done to MM and chek. I totally agree with you.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:10 am Post subject:
Critics corner was formed becuase of the behaviour of the critics: before its creation there was a hardly a single thread that stayed anywhere like on topic, it appeared. Giving the critics their own space has immenslty improved the relevance of topics and actually given the critics a far better focus to make their case and made it easier for members to engage their arguments: if they choose
However, this does not mean that theories should not be subject to question. As soon as we lose the courage to question, we cease to be advocates of truth, and start to construct dogma. Upholding the coruage to question also means having the courage to be questioned
Otherwise, we are all going to end up advocates of hologram planes by default becuase we wont have the ability to shot down its absurdities in debate.
Staying on topic and posting with balance whilst displaying ethics must be the key _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject:
ComfortablyNumb wrote:
Before I watched Loose Change nearly a month ago, to me, 9/11 was an unearthly terrorist attack. Despite holes and assumptions I don't subscribe to, LC2 woke me up.
So I have tried to use my 'O' level understanding of physics and bit of common sense to muster an informed opinion.
I've asked questions here and got very little informed opinion either way. The constant inclusion of irrelevant information and other conspiracy theories just dilutes the discussion, sending the whole subject matter to the lunatic fringe where I really feel it doesn't belong.
No wonder the press gives it a wide berth.
If it is the intention of the owners of this website to grow its visitors and registered members and retain them, then there must be a more grown up approach to the subject matter. If you want to get the 9/11 message out to the mainstream you have to play the mainstream game.
And there was talk of getting MPs in parliament. At the moment it would be odds against anyone getting on a school governing body, let alone Westminster!
Well done to MM and chek. I totally agree with you.
Regs
Hi CN and thanks for the comments.
I'd just like to let you know that I too am only a humble IT Tech (the humblest) and barely scraped A level Physics.
But that is not important as I see it - if we all had to be geniuses (genii?) where would the world be? Luckily, most of us are reasonable people able to conduct reasonable research and draw reasonable conclusions from it.
That doesn't necessarily mean our research is correct, but as long as we are willing to test it and adapt it to fit reality, then we maintain the spirit of the rational method most likely to yield useful results.
I would never go so far as to say for instance that the No Planers are outright 'wrong' - but I remain unconvinced that such a technology even exists from the evidence I've seen, and there are to my mind more important things to be getting on with.
Likewise the chemtrail thread - some arguments and observations seem quite evident indeed, but I still need to understand what the phenomena could represent.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that while there is no structure as such to the movement - as you can tell I'm fairly new and junior on this forum myself, but not to the idea of the inside job - other people will pursue what they perceive to be important, and yet others will only have passing interest in 911 itself and be more interested in what it is a part of.
It really does take all sorts and everyone can find a role.
But if we can each pursue what we think matters most with honest intent, then we won't go far wrong. And we are no longer regarded as obviously a lunatic fringe today as we were even 6 months ago, let alone this time last year.
Thanks for the support, guys. Good points you've all made. I might tend towards overstating the danger of these dubious theories that would be impossible to prove even if they were true, but I can't help feeling they will be what will prevent rational 911 suspicions from ever being taken seriously in the mainstream.
Chek, I'd pitch in more in CC but I've already done the exhautive, marathon posts with critics. Unfortunately, I only have so much time in the evenings to devote to 911 research and discussion so I tend to pick my spots now. I think it's important to continue to challenge their assertions like you are, since people coming here intending to find out more about 911 should see that. It's another danger of creating a CC, come to think of it. Most of the Truth Movement tends to avoid the place so the critics often outnumber their challengers. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
[quote="MiniMauve"]
None, unless you consider private discussion with friends and family. .
Fair enough. If you don't feel the evidence is strong enough to take "out onto the streets" or e-mail media people etc then this board is of little use outside "Critics Corner". The points you raise here are , in my view "splitting hairs". As a suggestion, download this:
It's a word document - you can edit it if you don't like the content. It shows pictures of controlled demolition. This showas 9/11 was an Inside Job. You can show this to people in the street. Show them the squibs and the destruction.
Or are you still not sure?
Our sign up notice now says:
The people who run this board, and the majority of its members REJECT the official account of 9/11. This is the reason this forum exists. Posts which try to ridicule, reject or deny evidence or support the official story will be moved to a special area of the forum when moderators have the time to pick them up.
We welcome questions as to why we reject the official accounts, but would politely ask that these be asked AFTER as much as possible of the evidence linked on the home page has been carefully reviewed and analysed by people who want to ask these questions. i.e. we are all volunteers with a limited budget of time and so it is easier for curious people to review the available evidence in order to answer questions they may have BEFORE posting them on the forum.
If you are supporting the official account of 9/11, which we reject, your posts will be moved to a special area of the forum called "Critics Corner" and those who are interested can debate with you there.
The problem is the evidence. Technology and the power of influence is so advanced nowadays it is/will be extremely difficult to seperate facts, fabricated facts, falsehoods, fabricated falsehoods and total dubbish put there to distract from the main themes. _________________ "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley
I knew this was coming. If you're not with us, your against us? Now where have I heard that before?
Shall we take a poll to make sure that everyone who posts in this forum is also 'on the streets'? Perhaps you should implement a full membership process in which one becomes a full member by proving to you they are campaigning on the street and don't allow non-members to post anywhere but the CC?
Quote:
MiniMauve wrote:
None, unless you consider private discussion with friends and family. .
Fair enough. If you don't feel the evidence is strong enough to take "out onto the streets" or e-mail media people etc then this board is of little use outside "Critics Corner". The points you raise here are , in my view "splitting hairs". As a suggestion, download this:
It's a word document - you can edit it if you don't like the content. It shows pictures of controlled demolition. This showas 9/11 was an Inside Job. You can show this to people in the street. Show them the squibs and the destruction.
Or are you still not sure?
Entirely respectfully, what the f**k are you talking about, Andrew? Please indicate where I have criticized, or even questioned, the idea that 911 was an inside job. I think it was an inside job and I don't need you to 'vet' that opinion, thank you very much.
And "taking it out on the street" may work for some of you but I know for me I have more success talking to individuals I know, prodding them to open their eyes. They wouldn't listen to someone who approached them on the streets.
Quote:
Our sign up notice now says:
[i]The people who run this board, and the majority of its members REJECT the official account of 9/11. This is the reason this forum exists. Posts which try to ridicule, reject or deny evidence or support the official story will be moved to a special area of the forum when moderators have the time to pick them up.
Please indicate where I have ridiculed, rejected or denied evidence that 911 was an inside job.
Quote:
If you are supporting the official account of 9/11, which we reject, your posts will be moved to a special area of the forum called "Critics Corner" and those who are interested can debate with you there.
Please indicate where I have supported the official theory.
If you are going to continue to moderate in this fashion, Andrew, i suggest you change your sig. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
I asked you a "challenging" question. If you look at the top of this board it (as you know) says "British 9/11 Truth Campaign".
The board, as I have said before is not primarily for discussing whether the evidence for an inside job is strong enough.
So let me get to the point: You started a thread "A truth" (in "General" forum - not in Critics Corner) where you are seemingly suggesting ways in which our campaign might behave. Yet, you admit you have done no campaigning yourself. This strikes me as rather curious. When I begin to question you regarding this, you are (essentially) rude to me.
You also put in
Quote:
I knew this was coming. If you're not with us, your against us? Now where have I heard that before?
I never said this and it was not the thrust of my post. Your other extrapolations are also not automatically inferred by anything I said - so I must've touched a nerve...
I want to encourage people to take the CD evidence out from their circle of friends and "use" it their own way. I have tried to provide editable word documents for people to use - that's why this is called a "campaign" site - not a "9/11 Debate" site.
It's up to you what you do - and everyone reading this. I apologise if my post seems "unfair" or whatever, I just feel that time is running short before the next phase of whatever plan 9/11 is a part of is close to being unfolded and the more people who in their own way and under their own initiative etc CHOOSE to campaign in a small or large way the better. If you're not one of those, then fair enough - do as you will.
I posted the new "sign up" message for information, and it is kind of relevant to what you were asking. I suggested that we put this in our sign up notice and other long standing campaign members did not object, so the site admin guy has put it in.
It may have appeared that I was suggesting you support the OCT, that wasn't my intent.
I won't be taking up your suggestion of changing my sig, sorry - after all, perhaps I asked you a tough question. It seems to have been by the way you reacted to it.
I encourage everyone to do this - and ask me tough questions too. I will do my best to answer.... _________________ Andrew
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: A Truth
MiniMauve wrote:
Questioning a theory is neither a rejection of that theory, nor is it criticism of the originator or proponents of the theory. Rather, it is a means of learning and understanding the theory.
At times, questioning a theory may be a challenge of the theory (as in a scientific peer review) but that also is neither rejection nor criticism. It is, in fact, done to strengthen the theory.
If we, the 911 Truth Movement, are afraid to accept, and indeed, embrace, both of these forms of questioning, we are doomed to failure.
This post is a philosophical statement: its not a challenge to the campaigns integrity: its a defense of the concept of integrity
Quote:
It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it
Aristotle
Flexibility of mind: anything else becomes dogma
Surely if a post crosses into "critics" territory, all a mod needs to do is split the topic to start a new thread commencing with that post in critics corner? Theres no need to browbeat the member for having an opinion
Quote:
Be mindful least one becomes what one fights
_________________ Free your Self and Free the World
"bad language" can be very effective to add emphasis or indicate outrage, when only used for such, which I do. Here, it's the former, because yes, you did "hit a nerve". I won't have my opinions be misrepresented nor will I be bullied, but my outrage comes from the fact that these attacks are coming from a 'moderator' and fellow critic of the official theory. I have been continually attacked by truthers since I came to these forums for asking tough questions about dubious and divisive conspiracy theories NOT for questioning any of the accepted criticisms of the Official Theory. If you are going to protect these largely unsupported fringe theories, then put it in your CoC.
Quote:
I asked you a "challenging" question. If you look at the top of this board it (as you know) says "British 9/11 Truth Campaign".
Which I dutifully and honestly answered. Are you now going to ask everyone? Why single me out? Is it because I ask tough questions?
Quote:
The board, as I have said before is not primarily for discussing whether the evidence for an inside job is strong enough.
Again, indicate to me where I questioned that 911 is an inside job. I insist.
Quote:
So let me get to the point: You started a thread "A truth" (in "General" forum - not in Critics Corner) where you are seemingly suggesting ways in which our campaign might behave. Yet, you admit you have done no campaigning yourself. This strikes me as rather curious. When I begin to question you regarding this, you are (essentially) rude to me.
Suck it up, princess. If you think that's rude than have a gander at the truthers on this forum that have been as rude to me as your average critic is in the CC. Look again please, I in no way questioned the way in which the campaign is conducted. If it works in your area, great. I know it wouldn't in mine, as much because of my personality as the area, probably. That's common sense, not everyone is suited for every job irreguardless of experience and intelligence. I'm not a salesmen, never have been.
Quote:
You also put in
Quote:
I knew this was coming. If you're not with us, your against us? Now where have I heard that before?
I never said this and it was not the thrust of my post.
Of course, I know you didn't say that. I inferred it. Perhaps you aren't aware of the inference, so hopefully this will open your mind to how this 'moderation' comes across.
Quote:
Your other extrapolations are also not automatically inferred by anything I said - so I must've touched a nerve...
Of course you have. Why would you think it wouldn't?
Quote:
I want to encourage people to take the CD evidence out from their circle of friends and "use" it their own way. I have tried to provide editable word documents for people to use - that's why this is called a "campaign" site - not a "9/11 Debate" site.
It's a public forum. How could it not be 911 debate site, irreguardless of what else it is used for? You have a campaign forum on this site, so I would assume that would be for campaigning topics and debate would be frowned upon, quite rightly.
Quote:
It's up to you what you do - and everyone reading this. I apologise if my post seems "unfair" or whatever, I just feel that time is running short before the next phase of whatever plan 9/11 is a part of is close to being unfolded and the more people who in their own way and under their own initiative etc CHOOSE to campaign in a small or large way the better. If you're not one of those, then fair enough - do as you will.
So, talking to people I know (who then talk to people they know, and so on) is not campaigning. I suppose it isn't, but it is NOT an indication that I am any less committed to outing the insiders than anyone else here. Nor is my asking tough questions of irresponsible theorizing an indication of lesser commitment to the truth. I would argue that it is a GREATER commit to the truth and that preventing or segregating such questioning will create an atmosphere of akin to that which exists in western soceity where we are often called unpatriotic because we question our government. I mean, what's the difference???
Quote:
I posted the new "sign up" message for information, and it is kind of relevant to what you were asking. I suggested that we put this in our sign up notice and other long standing campaign members did not object, so the site admin guy has put it in.
I disagree. I think it's completely irrelevant because I have never disputed in any way, shape, or form that 911 was an inside job. Nor have I in any way supported the Official theory. So, what in the sign up message have I challenged?
Quote:
I won't be taking up your suggestion of changing my sig, sorry - after all, perhaps I asked you a tough question. It seems to have been by the way you reacted to it.
Which I answered. Your point? If you're not going to change your sig then maybe a little self-reflection is in order. You are a moderator after all. All I can do is ask and answer the tough questions. You have the power to prevent them if you choose. I've always believed that the greatest weakness of those in power is that they often lack that one critical characteristic - introspection. I'm not the enemy. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
Which I answered. Your point? If you're not going to change your sig then maybe a little self-reflection is in order. You are a moderator after all. All I can do is ask and answer the tough questions. You have the power to prevent them if you choose. I've always believed that the greatest weakness of those in power is that they often lack that one critical characteristic - introspection. I'm not the enemy.
.
Nice post MM. Yeah - just off to cook myself some humble pie. Would that be OK for you?
I have no power - you seem, for some reason to perceive I have. As I said, you are free to do what you wish re campaigning - but your last post tried to turn that as being a criticism of me. Why?
It's all clever psychology ay? Got to make some food now. Then do some kind of campaigning - rather than trying to defend my character. People who know me know I am a sanctimonious git, so why should I try to present any different an image on here?
Do what you like and say what you like. I will do the same. _________________ Andrew
Sorry for the delay in replying. Work has been crazy busy lately.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
MiniMauve wrote:
Which I answered. Your point? If you're not going to change your sig then maybe a little self-reflection is in order. You are a moderator after all. All I can do is ask and answer the tough questions. You have the power to prevent them if you choose. I've always believed that the greatest weakness of those in power is that they often lack that one critical characteristic - introspection. I'm not the enemy.
Nice post MM. Yeah - just off to cook myself some humble pie. Would that be OK for you?
I have no power - you seem, for some reason to perceive I have.
The title Moderator would seem to imply the power to lock or move threads. Also, people naturally assume a moderator has 'paid his dues' thus his opinion is I think more influential than the average poster. I know I'm certainly more inclined to follow up a dubious theory if a moderator expresses support for it. In fact, I spent more time on NPT (i.e. no planes period) than I otherwise would have b/c you expressed your opinion that there might be some validity to it. So, that is what I meant.
Quote:
As I said, you are free to do what you wish re campaigning - but your last post tried to turn that as being a criticism of me. Why?
Criticism of you? How so? If you mean defending my point of view, that's called disagreement, not criticism. Lets be clear. I think you obviously have 'paid your dues' and deserve to be a moderator, however, I do occassionlly disagree with your opinions and I very much disagree with your criticism (both implied and overt) of my questioning of some theories.
Quote:
It's all clever psychology ay?
What exactly does this mean? If you have something to say, say it.
Quote:
Got to make some food now. Then do some kind of campaigning - rather than trying to defend my character.
Why you feel the need to defend your character is beyond me. Your character hasn't been attacked. As I said earlier, I very much disagree with your portrayal of my posts and therefore have been defending my point of view. If you don't like this battle (which is perfectly understandable. I'm not enjoying it much either), then consider the path that brought you here. I didn't start this.
Quote:
People who know me know I am a sanctimonious git, so why should I try to present any different an image on here?
Do what you like and say what you like. I will do the same.
Of course and always. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:24 am Post subject:
MiniMauve, I've just skimmed this thread due to a lack of time more than anything else, but I think I'm pretty much in complete agreement with you.
I find the attitude here puzzling at times. I'm even more puzzled with the encouragement given to what can only be called 'not mainstream' theories by the owners of this board.
MiniMauve, I've just skimmed this thread due to a lack of time more than anything else, but I think I'm pretty much in complete agreement with you.
I find the attitude here puzzling at times. I'm even more puzzled with the encouragement given to what can only be called 'not mainstream' theories by the owners of this board.
i get the sense that will change and is changing slowly as the group develops its own coherence
I'm glad we agree. I'm going to leave it at that except to say I don't regard the ability to move a few posts around on a message board that a few people may read as "power". Each of us has more power - for example writing to media people - rather than cross-examining each other on posts like this. So why the hell am I typing this? And why are you bothering to respond to it? That's the psychology. _________________ Andrew
I find the attitude here puzzling at times. I'm even more puzzled with the encouragement given to what can only be called 'not mainstream' theories by the owners of this board.
But who owns this board - do you actually know? (Just because somebody posts here frequently doesn't mean they "own" it.) _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Why don't you do something like this? Plenty of bits to download on that campaign thread, print out and give to people.
Or, send me your address and I will send you some stuff. How about that?
22 Mear Drive
Borrowash
Derbyshire
DE72 3QW
UK
As you should realise, whatever your opinions of me or this board, the general public seems all but ignorant of the cause of certain events of 9/11. Here's an example: 3 out 3 people I asked had never heard of what happened to WTC 7:
I find the attitude here puzzling at times. I'm even more puzzled with the encouragement given to what can only be called 'not mainstream' theories by the owners of this board.
What is THE attitude? Surely the only attitude is the one we collectively create.
There is no such encouragement but equally neither is there censorship of 'non mainstream' theories
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Why don't you do something like this?
Not right now, but I don't have any problems with it. I have a couple of other ideas which I will act on within the next 6 months or so. And I hate to do this but I don't like your poster.
Quote:
Or, send me your address and I will send you some stuff. How about that?
Maybe. (thanks for the offer)
Quote:
Here's an example: 3 out 3 people I asked had never heard of what happened to WTC 7:
Not surprising, I was ignorant of WTC7 for longer than I would have liked as well.
Quote:
So, what would you rather do then?
I'd rather keep away from the rubbish. For example it's obvious two planes flew into the towers in NY. To even consider holograms or cgi scripts is to invite ridicule and turn people away from helping to expose this conspiracy. And Dean Warwick is also not worth the bandwidth, but I see he's getting some moderator support on another thread. It's bloody obvioius he was some sort of fantacist/conman.
As for myself, I'm mostly collecting information at the moment. For example I've got all the BTS information for all domestic flights for about 12 months around Sep 2001. (160 megs for each month) I've got all the SDRs (Service Difficulty reports) for the planes from 97 - 03. And I've got quite a lot of information about Passengers/Attendants on the flights. I have flight schedules from 2001 which are of some interest. For example Flight 93 was not a regular flight from Newark. It was only 6 days old. It replaced Flight 839 which flew out of Newark at 8:30 am. Before 5th September Flight 93 left Philadelphia to San Francisco. After 11th September Flight 293 flew this route. (ie for some reason they're trying to hide the earlier connection between Philadelphia and UA 93)
My plan is to try and find more of these sorts of connections, disrepencies, and considering I have doubts about which aircraft crashed in PA or into the Pentagon, I'm hoping I can find the actual aircraft.
I'm not currently trying to convince anybody, I'm trying to find the evidence to convict somebody.
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
But who owns this board - do you actually know? (Just because somebody posts here frequently doesn't mean they "own" it.)
Well having just looked up the DNS info it would seem Simon is the owner. But I've always assumed you and Ian have some sort of ownership as well, and despite your names not being on the DNS info, I suspect this is at least partly correct.
. And I hate to do this but I don't like your poster.
Fine - I'm no graphic designer. Design your own. But then again, I think this is the wrong site for you. You are looking and thinking about evidence and maybe you'll start campaigning in 6 months. Fine. At your own speed.
Quote:
I'm not currently trying to convince anybody, I'm trying to find the evidence to convict somebody.
OK - well, if you still don't think you've found some...
Also, when you have, you'll need to find someone who'll take the case and an objective judge. Could be tricky, you know - but good luck.
Board ownership - well, I pay nothing toward the running costs. So, you there's a possibility you need to be more careful in some of your assumptions maybe.
As for moderation of the forum myself, I can take it or leave it. It does amuse me, however, when some people (not you) want to debate the wording of my signature rather than issues of actual campaigning like (the clue is in the title of this site, at the top of the page - as I've said before.....) _________________ Andrew
Goddamnit Andrew, If you don't want to continue the discussion then leave it the frick alone. I did not start this quarrel and I did not single out your hypocritical sig til you attacked me for asking questions in another thread. I am neither a Critic nor a shill and I am getting extremely tired of your insinuations. You're absolutely right that my time is better spent discussing the issues (which I was attempting to do when you attacked me) but I WILL NOT let your veiled insults go unchallenged. I do not back down when I believe something. Perhaps, that is a character flaw. Oh well.
I was mulling over your offer but I felt I should have a lot better rapport with someone that I only know on the internet to provide them with home addresses and such. This sort of comment from you just reinforces that feeling.
I will continue to introduce people to 911 in the manner I have been. I don't need pamphlets nor a bullhorn to do that. No doubt, I'll be negatively judged for that by you and others. Oh well. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
