911myths.com discuss

[James C]

[Pikey]

Another enlightening and positive contribution from A Sharp Major:-

[A Sharp Major]

[Justin]

To A Sharp Major

I suggest you take your energies elsewhere - your somewhat childish ramblings and one liners do you no credit at all. I, for one, will not be replying to any more of your postings.

Justin Walker

[Andrew Johnson]

OK - so A Sharp Major didn't DIRECTLY e-mail me off list. Justin forwarded an e-mail from him to ask me to help answer some questions.

I replied, referring him to the Physics thread, which contain many of the arguments he appeared to be making. Nuff said.

[A Sharp Major]

[Ally]

ban this fool

[Andrew Johnson]

ASM,

Your posting must have been coincident with another e-mail that Justin received.

We hope that people will come on here and make some kind of positive contribution.

It has already been made abundantly clear to you that we DO NOT BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY. Elements of it can be proven SCIENTIFICALLY to be lies. A lot of people seem to be afraid of saying that. I am not.

Now, crossed/mistaken e-mails identities accepted, do you have some kind of positive contribution to make to our discussion - please?

[Garrett Cooke]

ASM wrote:

[ian neal]

[Ally]

A ban is severe, I just wanted to send the turd a message really. The trolls can be good for people to sharpen their debating skills with. I've been dealing with these sorts for years and tend not to waste energy on them but others may want to have fun.

What do others think?

[A Sharp Major]

Andrew Johnson

[Ally]

banthetroll

[skadseye]

banning is insane

[Corn4Texture]

For what my HO is worth here, as a newcomer Yank who lived roughly 3 hours from NYC on Sept. 11th...

I usually enjoy a good debate, particularly when it comes from an open-minded source - such as someone who's not buying what I'm saying, and has good reason to question it. I've had such debates, and it has lead me to realise I had assumed a few things I perhaps shouldn't have.

However, I've been on about 9/11 for the past year and a half, when I read David Ray Griffin's book about the 9/11 Commission Report. The light bulb went on and stayed on.

Over that period of time I have been supremely annoyed by the MSM's obvious attempt to adhere to the government's unofficial ban on anything that questions their official version of events, despite what I saw as glaring errors, critical omissions and outright distortions and lies. And I have been pummeled by what I have perceived to be agents of the guilty parties - shills for the government, defense industry and "managment perception" agencies such as The Rendon Group. I denote these shills by their attitude as well as behavior. I'm a liberal Democrat at heart, and I frequent the liberal message boards. These shills most often come in as the most rabid anti-Bush people you'd ever met - suggesting impeachment if not the actual disembowlment of Dubya. Then they streak over to the 9/11 forums, and are the most obstinate, non-negotiable debaters who end almost every thread with "You people are all a bunch of paranoid lunatics! Go Cheney yourselves!" They also use particular common phrases in their put-downs, as well as other similarities I've noticed.

So, the result is that - to the weak-minded - you begin to think "maybe I am just paranoid", since belief in these people as an organized entity would be one more layer of paranoia, if not mild schizophrenia. The job they do is failry effective at times.

Then I began researching entities such as The Rendon Group. These guys normally deal in media manipulation - such as the manufactured stories planted in Baghdad papers recently - but John Rendon quite proudly claims that he has "people working the internet" as well. That fit my description too well, and some of my feelings were confirmed. Why wouldn't the government and defense contractors and who knows whom else put an effort into steering message boards in the right direction, inorder to quell this groundswell? They most certainly would. (Along with that, we had the infamous "self-outing" of an NIST shill a while back.)

I'm on the Air America boards a lot, and 2 of the hosts - Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, have recently begun to "come out" on 9/11, particularly Malloy. In the past week since Malloy's big unveiling, I have seen a plethora of new members, with ridiculously obivous, unimaginitive liberal-sounding names who sometimews don't even bother to make a political post. They streak over to the 9/11 forum and disagree with everything anyone says that's anti-government. They also direct attention to the new darling of government disinfo sites, 911myths.com. Or, 911miss.com, as we call it.

So, as I encounter what I see as somewhat unreasonable friction in these discussion groups, I have to draw some kind of line, between real, useful debate that is the true sharing of data amongst people who see a problem, and deliberate distraction from the issue for sinister purposes. Obviously that's what you here are trying to decide as well.

The bottom line is - yes, censorship of any kind is the first cousin of the gagging device that lead us into this mess in the first place, as Bush administration pressure kept a complicit media from the slightest mention of anything falsely painted as "anti-American". So, disallowing alternate veiwpoints is truly wrong. But, on the other hand, "The Perpetraiters" (as I call them), have all the help they need in the media. They don't need any push in these forums, particularly from those who's only argument is "this could never happen, you're all insane." I make that distinction on my own system, and that's how I must do it. But I will not simply leave a discussion board when I determine someone is a shill, since that is one of their definitions of a victory. To drive the truly committed away in disgust or frustration.

Just my 2 cents.

[xmasdale]

[ian neal]

Just to clarify

I'm not suggesting censorship or banning ASM for being critical of us.

I am only suggesting a separation

One forum which is an on-line community for supporters and another which would be for supporters and our critics to engage in debate. So no censorship just a separation

The options range from 1) keeping things as they are, 2) a separate section called critics corner (or similar) on this forum or 3) a separate forum with a separation in memberlists but a clear link posted between the sites.



I hope this clarifies what I'm proposing

[A Sharp Major]

Ally says

[Corn4Texture]

I visit a lot of 9/11 message boards. And I can't help but notice one additional anomaly surrounding these debates.

The most vehement deniers of conspiracy are almost always relatively newbie members. I'd say 90% of the time. And what I'd say are the 'cream of the crop' of absolute, unquestioning government story supporters - across the board from JFK through MLK to OKC and 9/11 - it's closer to 100%.

Does that raise anyone else's eyebrows?

"Hey kids, were you bullied in school because you were the dummy? Do you long for a day when you can tll lots of intelligent people that they're full of *? Try an exciting new career in the government's new Media Perception Management Team, we're hiring like crazy right now..."

Just a thought.

[Pikey]

As I have said in previous messages IMO this website forum is a learning resource centre to seek the truth of the events of 911 and as a networking tool to share the latest news. To date it has worked marvellously and IMO is a key asset, second only to the dedicated 911 Truth campaigners who regularly visit this website and 911 truth campaign in their local area.

We all know the official version of 911. I have no problem with those who support the official version (after all I supported the official version until I read David Ray Griffins outstanding book "The New Pearl Harbour) coming on this forum and trying to convince those who believe the official version is cpver up/lie that they are wrong.

Sadly there is not one post from ASM to date that enters into a reasoned debate or offers any new 911 information for us to consider . All that ASM does is get personal and insult.

I do not believe we should facilitate the forum for people like ASM who are clearly intent on playing the man and not the ball. Yep in my opinion he/she deserves the red card if we value this website forum as a 911 truth seeking, learning resource centre.

ASM appears to possess the qualities of an attention seeking school bully,
so lets just ignore him and not waste our limited energy.

Peace & truth

[ian neal]

Ban/Red Card? No I don't think so. ASM is more polite and reasoned than some I've met on the internet discussing 9/11. Besides this thread is not so much about ASM (although it helps that s/he is here because it illustrates the point) but about how we (both this forum and the 9/11 truth movement in general) engage with our critics on the internet and how critical voices can change the nature of a thread.

I would stick with the 3 suggestions I made earlier
Either we keep it as is: namely critics and supporters on the same forum
Or separation into 2 forums or 2 sections of the same forum.

In the meantime perhaps we can experiment with a specific thread to explore 9/11 myths and invite a sharp major to post there

http://nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=3430#3430

[Andrew Johnson]

I don't think there can be any compromises on "freedom of speech", unless there are libellous or legal implications which would cause a lot of trouble for people (here or there!)

All of us can ignore any post we choose.

If we get Spam posting about Porno sites or stuff like that, that can be deleted (and already has). But we stand for truth and freedom, so we have to stand by that idea - even when it means we could make mistakes (i.e. I probably made a mistake about that e-mail mentioned above - I think I assumed it was from ASM and it was probably from someone else. This is a problem for me when processing 100's of megabytes of information in a day!)

I don't like abusive language, but aren't most of used to having baseless accusations made against us at one level or another? I certainly am (and I mean in situations far outside this board too).

[skadseye]

keep things as they are.. everyone stay polite and respect the fact that nobody truly knows for sure what happened.

keep in mind that everybody here is interested in truth, and work together. don't assume we know everything yet.

[A Sharp Major]

Pikey, you are being disingenuous. Whatever the insult/bully threshhold is, I'm on the polite/benign side of the line compared with Ally or now, Corn4Texture. Also, you haven't responded to my critique of the way you jump to conclusions and process available information. Perhaps you feel you don't need to but you did walk into a couple of traps. Perhaps acolytes don't care but guests on the site may notice and draw their own conclusions about the intellectual base here.

Corn4Texture, your observation about the majority of posters opposed the site orthodoxy being newbies isn't a great discovery. Most people enter conspiracy sites with their minds made up one way or another. It's already been pointed out since I made my unwelcome appearance that this site is for those who are "on message" and prepared to spread the message (and tell each other how clever they are).

[Graham]

ASM, so you haven't read the Comission Report. How can you "defend" it?

If your such ASM, could you explain to us lesser mortals how WTC7 collapsed?

[xmasdale]

[James C]

Personally, I don't have any problem with criticism but I think ASM's method of attack should be ignored.

ASM is only interested in trying to divert our attention and offers no conclusive proof of the counter arguments. ASM prefers to pick on our use of language, intellectual capacity and persona as a way to criticise the group as a whole. It would be better if we didn't rise to this.

If we are to engage with ASM then it would be better to stick to the facts and leave all aggravating language out. ASM will then have to follow suit or be ignored.

Just my thought anyway.

[A Sharp Major]

[ianrcrane]

Xmasdale wrote:

[brian]

Talking of tactics -


Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet

--Rumsfeld’s comments are intended to awaken his constituents to the massive information war that is being waged to transform the Internet into the progeny of the MSM; a reliable partner for the dissemination of establishment-friendly news. --

--The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline. --

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm

The "enemy" Rumsfeld refers to is truth itself.