Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
there are numerous theorys and all those that promote them all believe they have found the truth, if you question any of them the creators and supporters are quick to defend and words like agent/liar etc are used quite often.
the theorys i remember of the top of my head are:
explosives/CD
the offical version/there were hijackers the buildings failed
beams/energy weapons
missles cloaked in holograms/no planes
t.v. fakery
remote controlled planes
there are also some less common ones that have been suggested or attempted to be put into peoples minds but didnt last long, for example technology that made the planes invisible .
if we disagree or argue a case of any of these being wrong then we are told we are on the otherside/agents/thick/a liar etc. yet common sense alone would tell you not all of these theorys can be correct.
therefore some of these storys are disinfo either through seeing things that mean nothing and being convinced, or purposely diverting people and muddying the waters.
funnily enough all the theorys apart from CD try to attack steven jones or discredit his work but do not attack each other, for eample beamers attacking the hologram theory etc, which i think is very strange and something people need to think about, but thats another story.
out of intrest what do people think are the theory's involved on 9/11, it could be one or a mixture, this might help us all understand something and help us all see what we agree on if we do at all.
which do you think could be correct and which are disnfo in your eyes going by the evidence?
I believe that the evidence fully supports TV Fakery, and since we can analyse the videos and go back to the scene of the crime we can conclusively prove that case.
As for demolition, that gets more technical, and the chain of evidence makes it difficult prove the case. For example, to prove thermite was used in demolition we also have to be able to prove that we've obtained a valid sample and that thermite wasn't used as part of the clean-up process. We also need to prove that Al Qaida didn't use thermite.
Clearly there are big problems with the official version or we wouldn't all be here.
As for beam weapons, I suspect that some kind of exotic weaponry was used to turn the towers into dust. There are some very strange phenomena such as toasted cars and and the dissolution of the spire in mid-air, and you can read about that on janedoe0911.tripod.com
With respect to holograms and cloaking, clearly the military does have this sort of camouflage, and it's possible that there was an "air show" to deceive eyewitnesses along with the "TV Show" to convince the world that we were attacked by suicidal Muslims led by a fanatical caveman. There were certainly multiple helicopters and at least one plane circling around the various Septemeber 11 crime scenes.
So, my personal theory would be:
TV Fakery (proven), along with likely use of exotic weaponry and conventional explosives to ensure the destruction of the WTC complex. I suspect that they used missiles to create holes in the WTC towers, but I'm open to pre-planted explosives and other technology. I think that they used a distraction plane to confuse eyewitnesses. People saw and reported missiles and then later saw videos on TV and decided they must have caught a glimpse of the planes that were used. The media were used to sell the idea that terrorists attacked us, and they used a low-tech cover story to cover up a high-tech crime.
I believe that the evidence fully supports TV Fakery, and since we can analyse the videos and go back to the scene of the crime we can conclusively prove that case.
Very diplomatic, lets see how balanced your views are...
Quote:
As for demolition, that gets more technical, and the chain of evidence makes it difficult prove the case. For example, to prove thermite was used in demolition we also have to be able to prove that we've obtained a valid sample and that thermite wasn't used as part of the clean-up process. We also need to prove that Al Qaida didn't use thermite.
Couldn't this exact statement be slightly modified to apply to your TV fakery scenario?
"As for TV Fakery, that gets more technical, and the chain of evidence makes it difficult to prove the case. For example to prove CNN footage was faked we also have to prove that we've obtained valid footage, and that it wasn't legitimately edited at the time. We also need to prove who exactly made the fakery, as it could have been a private citizen looking to make a stack of money.
Realistic critique of evidence, Fred. It works both ways. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
The fact that the CNN Footage was faked goes a long way towards proving that the official story is untrue. People made up their minds about the War on Terror because of that footage. There are hundreds of thousands of copies of that video that can be analysed.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:41 am Post subject:
Quote:
for example technology that made the planes invisible .
It may sound odd but there is this technology available by projecting on a plane the image from its opposite side. I think this is where the holographic plane idea originated. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
for example technology that made the planes invisible .
It may sound odd but there is this technology available by projecting on a plane the image from its opposite side. I think this is where the holographic plane idea originated.
yea im aware of it but the technology exsisting isnt whats odd.
its using it on planes then adding the planes in on t.v thats odd
i think none of them are 100% accurate interms of explaining everything.
which is why most tend to pick more than one theory to try and explain everything.
we all go for differant things also proving that we carnt all be correct, yet most of us think we know and can judge everything accuratly.
the only one i can pick that i can see the evidence for is CD but even then dosnt explain everything.
we will never know the how even if you think you know the how unless a new investigastion happens that is fair.
laying any cards on the table of the how will lead to being proved wrong and called wacko, let them explain the how untill such time the answers emerge.
we all agree on the offical version either being wrong on certain aspects or all out disnfo, so thats what should be being proved as we all agree thats what the evidence points to, and all disagree that evidence points to any of the others.
people should trust what EVERYONE sees evidence for the rest is potential psy-ops/disinfo.
but i think CD has a strong case, the rest i simply dont know.
The fact that the CNN Footage was faked goes a long way towards proving that the official story is untrue. People made up their minds about the War on Terror because of that footage. There are hundreds of thousands of copies of that video that can be analysed.
How long after 9/11 was the CNN footage made public? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: Which is the 'genuine' CNN footage?
Fallious said: “…to prove CNN footage was faked we also have to prove that we've obtained valid footage, and that it wasn't legitimately edited at the time”. “....the vast majority of this forum (let alone the world, academics, artists, photographers and camera man alike) consider the CNN footage to be fully genuine”.
I know that providing evidence or even links to back up your statements is not your thing, Fallious, but please could you direct us to the CNN footage which the vast majority apparently consider to be genuine, and tell how you established that it was valid.
If you want to go that extra mile, you could tell us what would constitute ‘legitimate’ editing of the historic CNN ‘plane-crashing-into-the-tower’ shot. Would it include modifying the location of surrounding buildings, for example?
NONE of this actually matters, except "the offical version" this is the one thing we ALL agree is disinfo.
The fact there are divisions in opinion on minor matters in this movement is perfectly natural, healthy even, and a reflection of the freethinking nature of our members.
But within the CAMPAIGN there should be no division. We all have a sole cause and a sole base beleif - that the official story is disinformation on a massive scale, and that can be proved.
We don't need to have the same views to be united, we only have to focus on the same goals.
We can have a group of four people, one no-planer, one planer, one CD merchant and one beamer all out campaigning on issues they all agree with- the noted contradictions and impossibilities of the official story, the collapse of WTC7 being impossible as a random event, any number of unifying and easy to digest topics.
We can all campaign publicly on what we agree on, then head off to the pub for a hearty and private debate on what we don't.
The "division" people harp on about does not need to affect our success as a campaign in any way, or even affect us all getting on as people, if we stay focussed on our ultimate goal.[/b] _________________
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Which is the 'genuine' CNN footage?
MadgeB wrote:
Fallious said: “…to prove CNN footage was faked we also have to prove that we've obtained valid footage, and that it wasn't legitimately edited at the time”. “....the vast majority of this forum (let alone the world, academics, artists, photographers and camera man alike) consider the CNN footage to be fully genuine”.
I know that providing evidence or even links to back up your statements is not your thing, Fallious, but please could you direct us to the CNN footage which the vast majority apparently consider to be genuine, and tell how you established that it was valid.
Stop right there.. EVIDENCE? Are you perhaps so removed from reality that you believe even %0.1 of the worlds population consider ANY of the CNN 9/11 footage to be fake? Find me 65 million No plane theorists and i'll join you there.
Quote:
If you want to go that extra mile, you could tell us what would constitute ‘legitimate’ editing of the historic CNN ‘plane-crashing-into-the-tower’ shot. Would it include modifying the location of surrounding buildings, for example?
Why would you think the building locations have been changed? What EVIDENCE have you seen to demonstrate this? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: Faith in the official video
Boy, you really like to avoid answering even the simplest question don't you Fallious. What the majority of the world’s population think about the CNN footage is not the point at issue.
Here’s the issue: The footage, the ‘official video’ (along with every other element of the 9/11 fairytale) has been called into question by some critics of the official story, and you are defending the official video. You say that we have to establish the validity (I think you mean authenticity) of the video before proving its fakery, yet you are unable to apply the same standards to accepting the official video’s genuineness.
Can you say what exactly underpins your belief in this aspect of the official story? Or is it just, "No one else doubts it, so why should I? I'll believe any old version you like as long as it's got the official stamp on it." Once again we are back to believing the official video as an article of faith.
BTW, the CNN 'footage' was aired on the morning of 9/11, a few hours after the hits apparently, so I guess that's when it became publicly available.
Let me rephrase my other question: What do you mean when you say, “we also have to prove… that it wasn't legitimately edited at the time”?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: Re: Faith in the official video
MadgeB wrote:
Boy, you really like to avoid answering even the simplest question don't you Fallious. What the majority of the world’s population think about the CNN footage is not the point at issue.
Don't be difficult, it doesn't suit you. For your clarification, you previously asked: "please could you direct us to the CNN footage which the vast majority apparently consider to be genuine,"
To which I replied: "Are you perhaps so removed from reality that you believe even %0.1 of the worlds population consider ANY of the CNN 9/11 footage to be fake? Find me 65 million No plane theorists and i'll join you there."
I forgive you though. Onward...
Quote:
Here’s the issue: The footage, the ‘official video’ (along with every other element of the 9/11 fairytale) has been called into question by some critics of the official story, and you are defending the official video.
Freeze it. Since when am I defending the official video? Although I do enjoy the odd rally against the forces of confusion and disruption now and then, in this thread I haven't for a moment defended the legitimacy of the official videos. Perhaps you could point out where i've done that?
Quote:
You say that we have to establish the validity (I think you mean authenticity) of the video before proving its fakery, yet you are unable to apply the same standards to accepting the official video’s genuineness.
No I apply EXACTLY the same checks to both theories, this is the point of what i've said in this thread, which you seem unable to grasp. HINT: Read my first comment, then my response to you, then this post.
Quote:
Can you say what exactly underpins your belief in this aspect of the official story? Or is it just, "No one else doubts it, so why should I? I'll believe any old version you like as long as it's got the official stamp on it." Once again we are back to believing the official video as an article of faith.
Not even worth comment.
Quote:
BTW, the CNN 'footage' was aired on the morning of 9/11, a few hours after the hits apparently, so I guess that's when it became publicly available.
Many thanks.
Quote:
Let me rephrase my other question: What do you mean when you say, “we also have to prove… that it wasn't legitimately edited at the time”?
I mean exactly that. Oh, right..
"Editing is the process of preparing language, images, or sound for presentation through correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications."
In this case that might include deinterlacing, which could remove the 'flash' you all harp on about, editing the audio track to hide identifying names (another thing you lot freak out about) or cropping the footage to hide faces.
Anything else you've somehow blown out of all proportion, got the wrong idea about or just don't understand? Always happy to help _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:29 am Post subject: Avoidance technique
Just to remind you, the point of Fred’s recent videos has been to show that the CNN footage is not reproducible from any single point of view, ie it has been composited from multiple perspectives, which is yet another proof that it was faked.
The basis of the criticism is that if things don’t line up it must be because Fred hasn’t found the right angle yet. This argument is, by definition, a defence of the official CNN video, as it assumes what it needs to prove, ie that the CNN footage is real and therefore the debunking videos must be wrong.
John White at least has had the guts to put his credibility on the line and goes down with the ship of false allegations against Fred. I have some reading of his magnum opus to catch up on, but the assumed 'sea level' flourish was inventive even if amusing. When John White's latest manoeuvre is also trashed, you Fallious having consistently maintained only a cheerleader role, can say…”oh, but I didn’t say… Can you point out where I said…?”
Madge, in Freds "on the water boat" video you can see exactly the spatial relationship between the buildings as in the CNN shot. The CNN shot would have been closer and higher (someone has suggested on a camera van).
I pointed out VERY early on you can even make out the building on the CNN shot if you freeze frame, it is is exactly where it should be.
Rodins "merging gif" has demonstrated this beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's over.
Fred has been debunked.
This nonsense has only carried on this long because fred, witch finder et all simply refuse to listen to the answers to their questions, simply asking the same poser over and over and ignoring the simple, logical answers they have received at every stop along the way, throwing in continual digs, accusations and insults at anyone who doesn't agree with them.
There is nothing there, just a lot of misplaced conviction from fred and crew in behind a very weak argument indeed:
The idea that CNN created New York from the ground up on a computer in order to fake a shot of a plane going into a building.
If no planers want to win friends and influence truthers, here is my suggested starting point:
A thread entitled:
How it is possible that explosives from within the towers managed to cause the damage we saw.
Arguments which can be explained by perspective or video compression and rely on poor quality compressed videos are going to go nowhere fast - as has been demonstrated throughout this debacle.
Or better still, forget the theories altoegther and put your efforts into action campaigning. Become a campaigner rather than a hobby theorist. Put emphasis on spreading the word, not being a member of a "9/11 club"... _________________
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: Heat and light
Stefan wrote:
Madge, in Freds "on the water boat" video you can see exactly the spatial relationship between the buildings as in the CNN shot. The CNN shot would have been closer and higher (someone has suggested on a camera van).
If it was closer and higher, then the relationships between the buildings would change, remember?
The fact is that Fred has made many videos showing that the perspective of the CNN footage is not reproducible from any one angle - an argument you have just confirmed to by saying it lines up here, oh but the CNN shot would have been been closer and higher (in order for it to line up in other ways).
John White suggested the only way to discuss this was to have an aligned comparison of still images. The comparison was made, White screamed that the non-CNN image was fake and Fred was the faker. He eventually found a way to argue that the bigfoto image was fake by having it conflict with his own imagined sea level. He suggested it was perhaps planted on the bigfoto website as disinfo by an ‘intelligence agency’, perhaps by Fred himself. Desperate stuff - and all because this image conflicted with the CNN video.
Stefan wrote:
The idea that CNN created New York from the ground up on a computer in order to fake a shot of a plane going into a building.
They didn’t recreate New York, they took images of a few building tops from a couple of already-existing shots and composited them to get the image they wanted, presumably wanting to include known landmarks other than the towers to make people feel more insecure.
Stefan wrote:
If no planers want to win friends and influence truthers, here is my suggested starting point: A thread entitled:
How it is possible that explosives from within the towers managed to cause the damage we saw.
Do you mean a thread dealing with how could explosives explain wilted vehicles, burning engine blocks, holes cut into the surrounding buildings etc - oh dear, directed energy weapon territory.
There has certainly been more heat than light generated about the perspectives involved (although I think we all know Manhattan a bit better now). But until such time as someone reproduces on video the identical perspective as in the CNN video (not: exactly here, but closer and higher), Fred’s work stands as one proof among others - such as the plane melting into the building - that the CNN video is fake.
MadgeB is absolutely correct. For those who think that the "boat just off shore" would work for the CNN footage, here is video proof that conflicts with that assertion.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
marky 54 wrote:
which do you think could be correct and which are disnfo in your eyes going by the evidence?
Have you worked it out yet?
If I was given the job of spreading disinformation, I would set up web sites that are convincing enough about 9/11 truth and then use them to push the outlandish theories. I would post widely on forums on the same topics creating much heat and light about my theories so that any visitors will instantly be put off further investigation into 9/11. My evidence would be vague and I would instantly engage with anyone doubting my evidence by accusing them of concealing the truth.
Really, sounds like you've given a lot of thought to how you would spread disinfo and none at all to the truth.
The above video completely discredits the fake CNN tape and those who spread lies here and those who do no research but make post after post attacking others, all the while claiming to be impartial moderators.
Perhaps if you spent less time imagining and more time doing real research your little campaign would get off the ground.
fred said:
QUOTE:
"Perhaps if you spent less time imagining and more time doing real research your little campaign would get off the ground." QUOTE:
where have i heard this type of comment before? it sounds so very familiar. CC?
fred i thought the little campagin that has'nt got off the ground was what you were researching for? you make it sound like something seperate or something your no part off.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
KP50 wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
which do you think could be correct and which are disnfo in your eyes going by the evidence?
Have you worked it out yet?
If I was given the job of spreading disinformation, I would set up web sites that are convincing enough about 9/11 truth and then use them to push the outlandish theories. I would post widely on forums on the same topics creating much heat and light about my theories so that any visitors will instantly be put off further investigation into 9/11. My evidence would be vague and I would instantly engage with anyone doubting my evidence by accusing them of concealing the truth.
Having given this some more thought - and bearing in mind the release of Loose Change 3 will really up the stakes - I would set up one website and try to make it the biggest, most visited site. To achieve this, I would try to get onto all of the other forums and agitate the members so they come back to my site and create more noise. Even better they may try to get their ideas across which all adds to the noise.
The reason for doing this of course is to turn away the newbies who want to take a look into 9/11. So once my site has reached critical mass I will start to debunk it - which won't be hard as most of the front page stories will be ridiculous. In fact they won't need debunking, all you will need to do is to repeat the URL endlessly and set up this site as the home of all things 9/11. Mission accomplished - all 9/11 sceptics are obviously idiots, nothing to see here.
So what should our response be - well difficult as it is, ignoring them is the only way. And that means totally ignoring them, not responding to any posts, not visiting their site. I am now going to take my own advice and adopt this as my policy.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
KP50 wrote:
KP50 wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
which do you think could be correct and which are disnfo in your eyes going by the evidence?
Have you worked it out yet?
If I was given the job of spreading disinformation, I would set up web sites that are convincing enough about 9/11 truth and then use them to push the outlandish theories. I would post widely on forums on the same topics creating much heat and light about my theories so that any visitors will instantly be put off further investigation into 9/11. My evidence would be vague and I would instantly engage with anyone doubting my evidence by accusing them of concealing the truth.
Having given this some more thought - and bearing in mind the release of Loose Change 3 will really up the stakes - I would set up one website and try to make it the biggest, most visited site. To achieve this, I would try to get onto all of the other forums and agitate the members so they come back to my site and create more noise. Even better they may try to get their ideas across which all adds to the noise.
The reason for doing this of course is to turn away the newbies who want to take a look into 9/11. So once my site has reached critical mass I will start to debunk it - which won't be hard as most of the front page stories will be ridiculous. In fact they won't need debunking, all you will need to do is to repeat the URL endlessly and set up this site as the home of all things 9/11. Mission accomplished - all 9/11 sceptics are obviously idiots, nothing to see here.
So what should our response be - well difficult as it is, ignoring them is the only way. And that means totally ignoring them, not responding to any posts, not visiting their site. I am now going to take my own advice and adopt this as my policy.
A good post, KP50. Good luck with the new approach.
I am in two minds as to whether to ignore them or help expose them as the deceitful charlatans they are (with the exception of some innocent folk who get drawn into their web of lies).
At least most of their distractionary drivel is now contained on the "911 controversies" section so most new viewers will realise that these are disputed theories. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
Craig W wrote:
KP50 wrote:
KP50 wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
which do you think could be correct and which are disnfo in your eyes going by the evidence?
Have you worked it out yet?
If I was given the job of spreading disinformation, I would set up web sites that are convincing enough about 9/11 truth and then use them to push the outlandish theories. I would post widely on forums on the same topics creating much heat and light about my theories so that any visitors will instantly be put off further investigation into 9/11. My evidence would be vague and I would instantly engage with anyone doubting my evidence by accusing them of concealing the truth.
Having given this some more thought - and bearing in mind the release of Loose Change 3 will really up the stakes - I would set up one website and try to make it the biggest, most visited site. To achieve this, I would try to get onto all of the other forums and agitate the members so they come back to my site and create more noise. Even better they may try to get their ideas across which all adds to the noise.
The reason for doing this of course is to turn away the newbies who want to take a look into 9/11. So once my site has reached critical mass I will start to debunk it - which won't be hard as most of the front page stories will be ridiculous. In fact they won't need debunking, all you will need to do is to repeat the URL endlessly and set up this site as the home of all things 9/11. Mission accomplished - all 9/11 sceptics are obviously idiots, nothing to see here.
So what should our response be - well difficult as it is, ignoring them is the only way. And that means totally ignoring them, not responding to any posts, not visiting their site. I am now going to take my own advice and adopt this as my policy.
A good post, KP50. Good luck with the new approach.
I am in two minds as to whether to ignore them or help expose them as the deceitful charlatans they are (with the exception of some innocent folk who get drawn into their web of lies).
At least most of their distractionary drivel is now contained on the "911 controversies" section so most new viewers will realise that these are disputed theories.
Have you worked it out yet? This isn't about this site, it is about theirs. If they can reduce this one to rubble along the way, they will be happy. It is hard I know, but if we all ignore them - and I mean totally ignore them - maybe they will go away.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
KP50 wrote:
If I was given the job of spreading disinformation, I would set up web sites that are convincing enough about 9/11 truth and then use them to push the outlandish theories. I would post widely on forums on the same topics creating much heat and light about my theories so that any visitors will instantly be put off further investigation into 9/11. My evidence would be vague and I would instantly engage with anyone doubting my evidence by accusing them of concealing the truth.
If I was given the job of protecting the perpetrators from inside the 'truth' movement, I'd attack anyone who questioned whether the hijacked planes/foreign bogeymen existed. I'd smear them as disinfo! What a laugh that would be, eh.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
KP50 wrote:
Craig W wrote:
KP50 wrote:
So what should our response be - well difficult as it is, ignoring them is the only way. And that means totally ignoring them, not responding to any posts, not visiting their site. I am now going to take my own advice and adopt this as my policy.
A good post, KP50. Good luck with the new approach.
I am in two minds as to whether to ignore them or help expose them as the deceitful charlatans they are (with the exception of some innocent folk who get drawn into their web of lies).
At least most of their distractionary drivel is now contained on the "911 controversies" section so most new viewers will realise that these are disputed theories.
Have you worked it out yet? This isn't about this site, it is about theirs. If they can reduce this one to rubble along the way, they will be happy. It is hard I know, but if we all ignore them - and I mean totally ignore them - maybe they will go away.
So which approach do you think is best now? Take a look at this forum from the outside, hardly anything about 9/11 in any section other than this one - and this one is full of confusing nonsense. Instead of posting images of tumbleweed - ignore the threads completely. You have to realise you can't win these arguments - given that a "success" for them is creating the argument in the first place.
The three
1) Willaim Pepper
2) John Albanese
3) Jim Hoffman
Now only the blind could say that there is not deliberate disinformation out there or over emphasised misinfomation. When you are talking to people you must be aware of this as I have no doubt that this mis/dis information will be the media's first point of target.
EG: the fire melted the columns causing the buidings to collapse emenated from the media/govt and is still regularly thrown back at us, despite it not even originating from 9/11 truth.
Basically, only talk about things you are 100% sure about and have checked out yourself and we can avoid falling down this hole. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: which theorys do you think are correct or disinfo?
KP50 wrote:
KP50 wrote:
Craig W wrote:
KP50 wrote:
So what should our response be - well difficult as it is, ignoring them is the only way. And that means totally ignoring them, not responding to any posts, not visiting their site. I am now going to take my own advice and adopt this as my policy.
A good post, KP50. Good luck with the new approach.
I am in two minds as to whether to ignore them or help expose them as the deceitful charlatans they are (with the exception of some innocent folk who get drawn into their web of lies).
At least most of their distractionary drivel is now contained on the "911 controversies" section so most new viewers will realise that these are disputed theories.
Have you worked it out yet? This isn't about this site, it is about theirs. If they can reduce this one to rubble along the way, they will be happy. It is hard I know, but if we all ignore them - and I mean totally ignore them - maybe they will go away.
So which approach do you think is best now? Take a look at this forum from the outside, hardly anything about 9/11 in any section other than this one - and this one is full of confusing nonsense. Instead of posting images of tumbleweed - ignore the threads completely. You have to realise you can't win these arguments - given that a "success" for them is creating the argument in the first place.
I have to say that, having watched the endless and pointless merry-go-round led by a handful of posters over recent weeks, I understand completely what you are saying.
Personally, however, I would advocate much stricter moderation, in particular, to discourage repetitive posting (ie starting multiple threads about what is essentially the same subject), evasive posts (ie asking questions and then not responding directly to the responses but asking another question, ad infinitum), posters who display a blatant unwillingness to participate in meaningful debate and posters who are repeatedly disrespectful of others.
These people, regardless of the veracity of what they say, do nothing but harm to the cause of the 911 truth movement imo by making this forum look like a bunch of silly squabbling schoolgirls (no disrespect to schoolgirls). _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
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
.
