Hello

[Miss Anthropy]

I just thought I would say hello and make a little introduction. I have been reading the board for many months and I must say some things which wil probably not endear me to the majority of the users of this board. First of all I feel the moderation from certain 'mods' is quite reprehensible. The constant trolling and pack-like bullying towards those who happen to have a 'controversial' take on what happened on 9/11 is very sad and very frustrating indeed. This board is a bit of a mess and I feel this may be by design. There seems to be an awful lot of people on here who are either:

1) damaging the credibility of this fine movement by purposely preventing the exploration of so called 'controversies'.

2) demonstrating an all-pervading sheep mentality and blindly going along with what certain mods tell them to believe in, for instance, 'it was remote controlled planes'.

I do not believe planes hit the twin towers, or the pentagon and I have seen a great deal of evidence on these very boards that have helped me to arrive at this belief. For instance, I have yet to see a plane hit the north tower and the second plane arrives on our screens in a multtude of sizes, colours and flavours and then fades into the south tower like a special effect.

I know I am likely to be banned from here for daring to air my 'controversial' views but I must say, that unless certain moderators are muzzled and this board becomes a more balanced environment, then, the enemy has won again and is probably laughing at us right now.

[TonyGosling]

no,

You're unlikely to be banned unless you regularly break the rules... but nobody takes much notice of you 'no planers' so you'll find such nonsense moved into an obscure corner of the site.

[Miss Anthropy]

[alkmyst]

Tony Gosling wrote:

[Stefan]

Miss,
Not at all. There are posters and members of this forum who have brought up questions or made statements regarding no plane theories or elements of same.

They are generally respectful and as a result generally respected.

In the last month there has been a continual steady stream of new posters, mostly from the US who clearly came to this forum with an organised agenda and a very negative and bullying MO:

They post the same videos over several threads. And continue to post several new threads with the same videos in every day,

They don't refine their arguments when they are shown to be lacking, simply increasing the font size or adding bold and underline to the font

They repeat the same claims over and over again.

They claim none of their points have been answered while ignoring the answers given.

People who express cynicism or disagreement are inserted into new videos, personally named on blue screen captions sometimes along with an ad hominem slur. They are named in new threads (featuring the same videos) and slurred, being called liars, government agents, and accusations that everyone who disagrees with them are the same person posting under different names.

They then start to attack the organisers and moderators of the board claiming they are trying to bring the truth movement down, that their moderators ae trying to obscure the truth.

They then claim to be oppressed and, ignoring the fact that any terse responses they get are in reaction to their own aggressive posts, claim they are being attacked for speaking the truth.

They often start with a post suggesting they are on the fence or have been won over by the arguments of the existing corps, or with an "innocent" wide eyed question about John White, and do not admit until later that they already knew fred before coming here.

Unsurprisingly this appraoch has brought them little respect.

[Miss Anthropy]

[telecasterisation]

[Miss Anthropy]

[Disco_Destroyer]

On a more comedic approach, to quote from a well known but maybe unsurprisingly non-respected comedy duo

[Stefan]

[Eckyboy]

I like to try and look at all angles and although I currently believe in the planes ( although only at the WTC) theory I would never dismiss any other theory just because it does not fit with what I believe. If evidence came to light tomorrow that showed there were no planes or that 911 was actually a training exercise that went tragically wrong I would be very interested in checking it out.

[Miss Anthropy]

[telecasterisation]

It would be most help Miss Anthropy if, as an NPT'er, you could just bring everyone up to speed in a precised format, as to exactly where you stand on the NPT front?

By this I mean, what do you believe happened if there were no aircraft? Are you a cloaked missileologist, nothing flying, just smoke and mirrors and large speakers projecting aircraft noise? Does this limit itself to just NY or The Pentagon too, what about Shanksville?

There are so many diverse and colourful angles of NPT, it would be helpful to know where you stand in the mix?? A simple paragraph will suffice.

[Miss Anthropy]

[Stefan]

Yes.

A critical thinker keeps all options open until they are proved false, and does not form solid conclusions where the evidence does not support them; a magical thinker always looks for some certainty or concrete answer, and in the absence of one, takes what fits their world view the most and decides it is certain.

Why is it so scary to admit that we don't know what happened on 9/11?
Why is it so difficult to keep our personal theories to ourselves or for the pub if they cannot be proved?
Would it make you feel less in control of the world?

Good.

That would be a call to action to get involved in positive action based campaigning to highlight what we do know and what we don't know, and demand answers to the questions we still have.

Rather than this we have had a flood of semi-religious pulpit sermons on how you alone know the truth and anyone who denies this truth is a sinner, a liar, or an agent of evil.

I think you need to get out of your bubble and remember our task is to get people to look into these events and this official story for them selves.

[Miss Anthropy]

[Stefan]

OK Explain to me how the possibility that hijackings took place has been ruled out?

Please note from the above that I simply don't have an opinion on whether we are talking remote controlled planes, or piloted planes, or a hijacking is the case. I'm not proposing a hijacking, I'm just saying it can't be ruled out as in this element of the case we have nothing but our imaginations to go on. So why focus on it?

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks Missanthropy for posting here. I, too, find your observations very interesting.

Sadly, the debates tend to be fairly cyclical and some people seem to want base their view on distorted laws of nature and often they castigate someone's character rahter than refuting specific points of evidence or discussing why other evidence supports their conclusions.

I think there is quite a bit going on here. But I've found only a little of benefit in the debate here, so have just stuck to copying disks for the time being!

[marky 54]

[Eckyboy]

For me the plan of 911 had to be workable for the perpetrators and having no planes would mean that the entire area of the WTC complex would have to be controlled and managed. The Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites could have been managed and controlled but the WTC complex is filled with too many variables that would be impossible to control. The chance that they would be found out is too high at least for me. Of course I do not know exactly what happened on 911 but other than the people involved nobody else does either.

The truth is out there somewhere and regardless of our personal thoughts and opinions we are all pretty much agreed that the official story is pure nonsense. This is our common ground.

[Miss Anthropy]

[telecasterisation]

[Miss Anthropy]

[telecasterisation]

[Dogsmilk]

What I don't get it is how remote control planes are so implausible but hypothetical cloaking technology isn't. I don't myself claim that the planes were remote controlled, but at least such technology is known to exist. When did these cloaking devices go online?

[telecasterisation]

Here is a quick overview;

Miss Anthropy is an NPT'er who believes;

[Annie]

[scubadiver]

Miss Anthropy,

I am not totally sure about NPT one way or the other but you shouldn't accuse us more down-to-earth folks of being disinfo agents if we feel the conclusive proof isn't there for your argument.

Its all very well spouting this stuff on an anonymous forum board but have you told friends and family that you believe no planes were used on 9/11. If so what was their reaction?

[KP50]

[ian neal]

It is with regret that I banned Miss A earlier.

I did so because she posted 'Idiot' in response to snowygrouch. Users are free to post controversial views but not to abuse other users.

I am dismayed that Miss A feels certain posters promoting controversial theories are being bullied and that the forum moderators are conspiring to do so.

This is not the case although I can understand how she might think that when TG and JW are clearly not supporters of NPTs. When moderators post here they are expressing their own views. However moderation is on the basis of the moderation policy which shows no favour to supporters of certain theories over other theories.

Yes there has been some name calling and ad hominem attacks, accusations and counter accusations and so forth, but this has been from users on both sides of the argument.

Some users seem to be struggling with accepting that this forum does NOT endorse ANY one theory or presentation of the evidence. It provides a space for discussion and that's it.