Many a true word................

[Bushwacker]

Every now and again one of the ragged army of truthshirkers has a thought which they have not just picked up from their usual round of websites, and sometimes you feel that they might even be getting the glimmerings of some insight into what they are doing. Here, for example, is Fallious in his "My super controversial idea!" thread:

"By ignoring and subverting normally indisputable evidence, and discounting the majority of counter evidence or witnesses as plants, I can build a case for my 'Not 9/11' theory. Just like 'No Planes' and 'Beam Weapons' this requires that believers ignore the bare faced facts of the day, and instead favour a chain of events which aim to explain minor anomalies, rather than the events as a whole."

If you merely substitute "inside job" or "controlled demolition" for "Not 9/11 theory" this not a perfect description of the conspiracists usual methods of operation?

[Patrick Brown]

[Bushwacker]

[Anti-sophist]

[chipmunk stew]

[chek]

[A Sharp Major]

Patrick Brown regrets

[chipmunk stew]

[Patrick Brown]

All I said was:

[blackcat]

[gordboy]

[Patrick Brown]

[Bushwacker]

[Patrick Brown]

[chipmunk stew]

[Fallious]

I hope you don't consider me to be a troll. I wrote the thread in question to highlight what I consider to be absolutely glaring problems with NPT, Beam Weapon and, well any other theory which relies on subverting a constant that every freakin human on the planet trusts in. It's also structured so as to perhaps hint at the abominable format most 'Pet Theories' take, and who would have guessed it, it was quickly hijacked by the NPT loons.

Unfortunately for you critics, the bare bones of 9/11 truth, rich with it's evidence of quashed investigations, prior knowledge and inside assistance is anything but an anomaly explanation. Considering the backdrop of similar government sponsored events throughout history, and the audacious cover-up of the commission investigation. The overarching explanation of 9/11 truth shines as a well rounded, complete time-line of events, establishing far more convincing means, motive and opportunity than the official lie.

"ignoring and subverting normally indisputable evidence"
"discounting the majority of counter evidence or witnesses"
"Ignore the bare faced facts of the day, and instead favour a chain of events which aim to explain minor anomalies, rather than the events as a whole."

Would you look at that.. It seems I can apply my previously quoted statement to the official lie! Neat!

[chek]

[Bushwacker]

[Anti-sophist]

Two comments:

1) No matter how many critics you ban, kids, there will always be people who disagree with you. You can keep crawling into darker and deeper holes, and letting less and less people in, but there will always be critics of your ideas. In the end, the true fascists like blackcat will be all alone.

2) The Dems victory combined with the new "star wars beam weapon" theories is pretty much the death knell of the truth movement. Ninety percent of "truthers" are ignorant but well-intentioned political cynics whose hatred for bush blinds them and has let them down this path. With the "bush-era" about to be over, most will leave. Without the hatred for Bush, and with true crazy people showing their colors talking about microwave beam weapons from space, this movement is dying rapidly. Sorry.

[John White]

[Anti-sophist]

[John White]

Memory serves me well again:

It is critics who bought up the issue of Wood into this section of the forum: all Chek and co have done is ensure fair hearings for the credible parts of her work. After all, there HAS to be some

Its not working AS, I see right through you matey

Ever wonder why I stick to theme's and not the specific claims of luminaries?

[Anti-sophist]

[John White]

WRONG!

[John White]

[Anti-sophist]

[John White]

She spelt her name right: and she's right that the towers didnt fall over 'cos a plane hit them

Anything else is irrelevant, and given her character, questionable

Just like you AS

[Anti-sophist]

Ok, so her conclusion is credible because you agree with it, but none of her analysis is credible that got her there?

[A Sharp Major]

[Patrick Brown]

When I first reads Woods billiard ball analysis of the twin towers collapse I thought it was quite good although I wasn't aware of her “Beam Weapon” theory at that time. Her billiard ball graphics are even used in the documentary “911 Mysteries” which has been around for at least a couple of months.

It's seems that the “Beam Weapon” idea was tagged onto her work at a later date which may have had something to do with one of her pupils being murdered!