Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: Which WTC 911 Theory Do YOU Support?
A Straw(man) Poll. Please do take part, even you critics. I thought it might be interesting to find out how the forum is divided, or otherwise, on the theory details. Lots of options, take your time to find the one that suits YOU!
Ran out of room for more options so if you don't see your pet theory, find one that's close or make a post below. _________________ Make love, not money.
What will this poll affect? Certainly won't affect the delayed fireball on the videos. The laws of physics and combustion have never been affected by the result of polls.
You seem quite bothered by this Thermate - why?
Oh yes, I forgot - you care about "The 9/11 Truth movement" and a discussion of this evidence "damages the movement".
Sorry for being so dumb there. I know, I know.... _________________ Andrew
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject:
Quote:
One thing's for sure,spreading of the no planes theory does not help to progress the movement,neither is the space beam theory handy in the same regard,surely you must know this AJ?
We have enough evidence already without discourse to even fancier notions.
The glaring omission is the option for those who have no particular allegiance or have not made their mind up.
I do not believe the official version but do not support any voting option in favour of another.
You could term this 'don't know' or 'not sure' - it is not a cop out - it is just I have not seen conclusive evidence that any of the options are cast-iron. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
The glaring omission is the option for those who have no particular allegiance or have not made their mind up.
I do not believe the official version but do not support any voting option in favour of another.
You could term this 'don't know' or 'not sure' - it is not a cop out - it is just I have not seen conclusive evidence that any of the options are cast-iron.
Tele, if you could choose two or more options, how would you vote? _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject:
IronSnot wrote:
None of the above.
You can't whittle it down to a poll weighted towards idiot theories.
The official theory is only mentioned once. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Yeah, I wanted to include a LIHOP and a NONE option, as well as some others, but the forum settings wont allow more options _________________ Make love, not money.
As far as the planes go, there are more option between the official story and remote controlled planes. It's as likely that we are looking at an attack in the style of the earlier WTC bombing where a genuine terror cell were facilitated by the FBI/CIA and allowed to carry out the attack as remote controlled planes are. I think each option is equal in my mind and I have no real prefference.
I have not been shown anything that even smelled of evidence for anything other than an unconventional controlled demolition. What explosives and chemicals were used I have no idea.
No one has even had a go at answering my questions as to how a "death ray" would produce the damage we saw- ie. how if it came from above or below the explosion could start in the middle of the tower, or if it was from the side how the destruction was not increasingly angled on the way down.
The core collumns that remained for a few seconds vefore dropping vertically w/ the north tower also refute a "death ray" but conform to a controlled demolition.
The whole point of the death ray seems to be that concrete couldn't have been pulverised otherwise, and this argument has never been backed up by and figures.
The glaring omission is the option for those who have no particular allegiance or have not made their mind up.
I do not believe the official version but do not support any voting option in favour of another.
You could term this 'don't know' or 'not sure' - it is not a cop out - it is just I have not seen conclusive evidence that any of the options are cast-iron.
Tele, if you could choose two or more options, how would you vote?
I honestly couldn't vote in favour of any above another.
I would vote if there was a 'not decided' option - others would too - and if you want to include everyone and get a complete idea of how people are thinking - then you have to include it.
Incidentally, does the No Planes option automatically mean the hologram aspect is included, or is that another one altogether not listed? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
focusing on any theory only makes people go of track in my opinion. what is important is what is there evidence of that dosnt fit the offical version and what dose that evidence point to. making evidence fit a thoery isnt they way to go. so all that matters is exposing where we were lied to about the events and what there is physical evidence of. i found recently and also think this happens often, because theres so much focus on theorys rather than evidence you can easily see things or be fooled into seeing things that are not what they appear. example being a peice of paper floating about in front of the building before the plane impact, because of the remote control laser guided theory i instantly jumped to a conclusion as it looked like a light on the building at first, without examining it properly. thankfully this was pointed out and now i realise my mistake, but dosnt stop me feeling like a complete idiot. to sum up theorys make you look for evidence to fit the theory rather than evidence of anything. so if there was a option up there saying simply saying conspiracy then i might of voted.
What will this poll affect? Certainly won't affect the delayed fireball on the videos. The laws of physics and combustion have never been affected by the result of polls.
You seem quite bothered by this Thermate - why?
Oh yes, I forgot - you care about "The 9/11 Truth movement" and a discussion of this evidence "damages the movement".
Sorry for being so dumb there. I know, I know....
Andrew I must say I'm very disappointed in your posts of late. Most of us here think the NPT is balls but the only reason we're talking about it is because there are a few people here who are obsessed with trying to convince others that it's a valid theory. All the chat about the NPT is almost certainly a shillish smoke screen to stop people looking at all the other evidence surrounding the events of 911.
Will shills hold positions within the truth movement? Hey lets just take 911 as an example of how easy it is to fool most people. Andrew if your still a moderator/administrator on this forum in the new year I may decide to post elsewhere. It's just getting very tedious reading the same shilly posts. I may set up a free forum like John Whites or simply join Johns and post in the 911 section. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Is it just possible that the people who think there were no planes... wait for it... BELIEVE there were no planes and aren't "shills"?
It's almost like a fashion here to say that everyone who says anything someone doesn't agree with is automatically a "shill".
It's boring. Sorry does that make me a shill now?
Some of those arguing no-planes are doing so using legitimate, thought out arguments, which suggests whether they are right or wrong, they are genuine in their beliefs, and not trying to deceive anyone.
I am willing to listen to them. At current I have seen nothing that would really constitute proof or strong evidence of the idea, but I want to remain open minded to the possibility as all free thinkers should.
What bothers me most isn't that those proposing the more leftfield theories sound like shills but that those who are most vehement in their responses to them sound EXACTLY like deniers (or obedience fanatics, as I like to call them) when you approach them with the more obvious questions, such as WTC7 or what happened to the core columns in 1 & 2. Meaning they don’t respond to the actual points they make but instead go on a “rolling eyes and mocking” approach of rejecting the idea ideologically rather than specifically and factually.
A lot of people here, myself included, feel it could be damaging to the truth being told to circulate these ideas outside a circle of people who haven’t already crossed the initial bridge of denial- so why try to stop a real debate of it right here (as long as it isn’t in the “news” section, that is)? If you think they are wrong- prove them wrong.
What does calling them a shill really do but add the already paranoid atmosphere in this place?
The NPT has been proven again and again to be balls yet people are still allowed to start threads about it. Why?
Koheleth wrote:
What does calling them a shill really do but add the already paranoid atmosphere in this place?
Who's being paranoid?
I figure if any member of this forum starts acting like a shill they should be outed, not allowed to try and convince newbies of a wacko theory. It's called “Neuro Linguistic Programming” (NLP) and if you can get people to believe something wacko you can get them to believe anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
911 was a mind-job so what do you think NPT is?
Oh and by the way this forum seems to be going the same way as st911.org especially when you consider that Andrew Johnson is the not only a moderator but also an administrator here! Andrew is also very close to Fetzer, Woods and Reynolds and is often seen to stick up for them when he's pushing NPT and the half-baked-bean-weapon. Come on work it out or have you been NLP'd? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Patrick,
Well maybe I haven't been here long enough but I haven't seen it categorically disproved. This does remind me a little of when people say they have "disproved" my claims of controlled demolition through virtue of saying "no,no,no,no,no" and hurling some insults at me. I have read very convincing arguments against it, enough that I do not accept it as likley, but nothing that made the theory an impossibility- unlike the "death ray" which no argument at all has been forwarded for that I have noticed.
No I am not a "no-planer", but I want to hear what they have to say. I am very sceptical about it, but I was very sceptical of the twin towers being brought down by controlled demolition once upon a time. Scepticism is good, only when twinned with an open mind, otherwise it is a disability.
The fact that Andrew Johnson is one of the major members of the British group somewhat detracts from the idea he is a "shill", David Shayler's credibility and whistle blowing past, for me, earns him my ear at least if not my agreement.
Your policy that if someone suspects a shill they should call them out seems to be similar in someways to the way the term "terrorist" is being applied as a label to anyone who criticises the government or fights them.
The criteria seems to be narrow- and it seems to be whether you agree with them or not. How far do you go in your shill calling- will it end up a minor disagreement over the most likeley type of explosive used will be fuel enough for someone to earn "shill-ship".
How close I am to be a shill right now? How many more times do I have to disagree with you to earn that badge?
I'm not going to argue the toss with you about this K as I figure what I said above is fair enough. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Patrick,
Fair enough, a difference of opinion is of no harm to either of us. Besides, in retrospect I was a little heavy handed with you above and I appologise for that.
What will this poll affect? Certainly won't affect the delayed fireball on the videos. The laws of physics and combustion have never been affected by the result of polls.
You seem quite bothered by this Thermate - why?
Oh yes, I forgot - you care about "The 9/11 Truth movement" and a discussion of this evidence "damages the movement".
Sorry for being so dumb there. I know, I know....
Andrew I must say I'm very disappointed in your posts of late. Most of us here think the NPT is balls but the only reason we're talking about it is because there are a few people here who are obsessed with trying to convince others that it's a valid theory. All the chat about the NPT is almost certainly a shillish smoke screen to stop people looking at all the other evidence surrounding the events of 911.
Will shills hold positions within the truth movement? Hey lets just take 911 as an example of how easy it is to fool most people. Andrew if your still a moderator/administrator on this forum in the new year I may decide to post elsewhere. It's just getting very tedious reading the same shilly posts. I may set up a free forum like John Whites or simply join Johns and post in the 911 section.
I'm pretty sure that Andrew will remain a moderator just to see the back of you Patrick ---- Good Riddance to you
I'm pretty sure that Andrew will remain a moderator just to see the back of you Patrick ---- Good Riddance to you
Hey I'll still pop-in so I can have a good laugh at all your posts 4U2P! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Andrew I must say I'm very disappointed in your posts of late. Most of us here think the NPT is balls but the only reason we're talking about it is because there are a few people here who are obsessed with trying to convince others that it's a valid theory. All the chat about the NPT is almost certainly a shillish smoke screen to stop people looking at all the other evidence surrounding the events of 911.
:
So sorry. I have heard these sorts of comments before. Anyone can ring me up and talk to me and I will tell them anything they want to know. 01332 674271.
I stick to basic evidence - such as free-fall collapse times and delayed fireballs. In the street I only discuss the former:
People can call me what they like. I've put all my cards on the table - including posting name, address, telephone and even videos of myself. No one needs to snoop on me.
So Patrick, about me, people have the best possible chance of making their own minds up - because they have the most information. For me to say "I am not a Shill" is an empty and meaningless statement because without knowing me, you could never be sure.
I don't enjoy moderating this forum and am surprised that on an issue as important as 9/11, you should even make such a statement. Have I deleted anyones posts? No.
So, why do you care so much about me posting videos of petrol bombs being thrown and seeing a fireball appear a fraction of second after the glass breaks? Are you afraid you might be losing at least part of the argument?
Not to worry, old boy, time will tell who is correct. Judging by the evidemce, and the way the issue is treated by many, I am pretty sure now who is. This is why I tend to taunt and tease rather than be rude and vitriolic. I try to provide evidence when I have the time - as I have provided video evidence above to back up what I am saying.
But go ahead - accuse me of anything you like....
Take care,
ADJ _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:22 am Post subject:
It's late for me but I've just watched your vid Andrew and that is just the sort of stuff I talk about,the only difference is the reaction as I mostly get negative responses,unless they view dvd footage which in some cases is months after receiving it,then it's positive!
You shouldn't leave your number on here as I might give you a ring at 3 in the morning
And Patrick,I'm pretty sure most here have seen SEJ's lectures and I don't believe anyone here disputes his findings(Though I could be wrong on that)
yep you were wrong, although i know s.jones work and seen some things explaining his conclusion i had'nt seen that vid. cheers for putting it up. it was alot more indepth than what i have seen previous, and explanied the process of his conclusion better.
I would vote if there was a 'not decided' option - others would too - and if you want to include everyone and get a complete idea of how people are thinking - then you have to include it.
Good point, Tele, I agree
Seeing this poll, I was curious why there wasn't also a LIHOP or 'terrorists were directly working for the US option' _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:
Thermate wrote:
Something to think about eh...
Yes it's indicative of something.
I just can't quite figure out what that is.
I havn't voted yet by the way. I have yet to be convinced of any of those theories, although I am absolutely certain it was an inside job. CD is the strongest and the most (very) likely, but I don't have the expertise to decide if it's got substance 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 can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
so if you don't see your pet theory, find one that's close or make a post below.
Andrew if your still a moderator/administrator on this forum in the new year I may decide to post elsewhere. It's just getting very tedious reading the same 
