The constant bickering is destroying this site

[Eckyboy]

Time and time again when I use this forum I find there are heated and pointless debates regarding what exactly hit the towers. Surely we should all just focus on our common ground. That the towers and WTC7 were brought down in a controlled demolition. The constant bickering between the planers and the no planers is serving nobody but the people who carried out the attacks and their subsequent cover ups. I do not know what happened with the planes but I know enough about the towers and building 7 to know that they were destroyed by explosives.

I am not here to have my theory proved right that is not surely what this site is about. It is about discovering the truth of what happened that day.

This site seems to have become less effective over the past six months and I find it a real struggle to keep up with threads and articles that are seemingly moved with little reason or thought behind it. There are a few people on this site whose motives are not the truth. Whether directly employed by the intelligence services or freelancers these people are a disgrace and yet if we stick to the strongest evidence and do not get bogged down in small details they cannot stop us. If we are ever to uncover the truth we must work together and to do that we must focus on our common ground.

[TonyGosling]

So what's your solution?

[marky 54]

there is also constant bickering about how the towers were destroyed, have you not noticed? it was explosives, no it was'nt it was beams etc,
judy wood is a shill no s.jones is a shill etc etc.

it aint just no planes or planers, its everything.

peak oil!, no thats disinfo! no it isnt! etc on almost everything.

however i don't see it as arguements or bickering, i see it as a debate that is trying to get the facts straight.

are you suggesting nobody should respond if they have questions or believe the information to be wrong because of other evidence?

what is a debate? what are discussion topics if they cannot be discussed?
what is the reply tab for if people cannot have a say or opinon?

what do you class as a debate and an arguement?

i agree it would be best to conentrate on what can be proved, but even then you have members who disagree on those parts also.

[blackcat]

I disagree.

[TonyGosling]

I disagreed first

[John White]

Is it worth me pointing out that the root problem here is the nature of consciousness as applied through mind creating ego identification with relative positions created through thought?

(meaning: we ain't gonna solve this in this incarnation!)

What we miss is how we are defined through what we do not say as much as by what we do. Beneath the appearance of conflict, there always exists unity, even if mind is determined not to see it

[TonyGosling]

No it isn't and I take extereme personal offence at you even suggesting as much since my spirit guide died of mind creating ego identification only yesterday. How could you be so cruel and insensitive? You could only have known that if you are getting messages straight from GCHQ which is only just a short train ride away from you.
I shall make a formal complaint to the mother superior who takes her instructions from the messiah his/herself.
Only trouble is nobody can see her only the messiah so noone will hear unless they tune into more four news tomorrow.
Rats, I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT I'm gonnna have to retract everything EXCEPT that the moderators of this insignificant web site just can't see the light man

[John White]

ROFL!

And:

(of course...)

I DIS-AGREE!

[TmcMistress]

I disagree with all of you, simultaneously. I am omnipresent Disagreement.

[Rowan Berkeley]

[Eckyboy]

I am not saying that people should not debate things it is just that for me it is hard enough to get your average joe public to accept the basic facts about 911 without adding in energy weapons and holographic planes. The simple stuff is already too much for a lot of people and I believe that we should stick to the simple things in order to influence people. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the No planes theory or the energy weapon scenario is wrong just that your average joe public would find it overwhelming and I think it would be counter productive to mention it. These outlandish and far fetched (although they very well could be true!) scenarios are the first thing so called skeptics take issue with. Just my thoughts.

[whoop45]

You’re dead wrong Eckyboy.

We are living in a cause and effect reality .Therefore only the total truth about 9/11 will buttress itself.

• No planes were hijacked.
• Nobody turned any transformers off and changed directions.
• No planes were flown into any buildings.
• There is no plane in that empty hole in Pennsylvania. If there is why doesn't someone pull it out and show it to us?

• There was no stand-down of NORAD on Sept. 11, 2001 because no planes were hijacked. Numerous false blips were injected onto air traffic control radar screens as part of the National Reconnaissance Office Drill. After the fact, the perps gleaned picked and culled from amongst those false blips so that singled out false blip “pseudo-paths” could be coalesced into the illusion that planes had their transponders cut off and veered sharply off course. Agaon,nobody turned off any transponders and no planes made sharp eastward turns as the official lie insist. And again, no planes were flown into any buildings on Sept. 11, 2001. The whole thing is a lie.

Those pre 9/11 warnings that planehugger half truthlings such as yourself want to trumpet were part of the false veneer needed to add believability to the fake counterfeit "terrorist attacks" that took place on Sept. 11,2001 .Those warnings were every bit as phony concocted and spurious as the planted evidence in that bevy of rental cars attributed to the non-existent hijackers , complete with copies of the Koran, instructions on how to fly jumbo Boeing jets ,terrorist guidebooks , cockamamie Operation Bojinka gobbledygook and the like.


No Eckyboy, only total 9/11 truth will emancipate humanity from the curse of the 9/11 myth/fable/lie. All homage to the official lie needs to be rooted out of the parley. Short of this, the internment camps cannot be far behind.

[Eckyboy]

Well good luck with convincing even one member of the general public with that scenario Whoop45. There is a wealth of evidence not only from the FAA but NORAD and NEADS as well that there was a stand down order. The testimony of Norman Mineta shows (at least to me) that there was a stand down in effect.

[Easy Rider]

The stand down was make believe

There was no need for a stand down because there were no planes

WAKE UP ECKYBOY

[Eckyboy]

So Norman Mineta told a lie that could incriminate Dick Cheney for what purpose? All these contradictions and conflicting stories from the military and the FAA are all false then. In which case why are they so bad. They make the military and the FAA seem like total imbeciles. As I have said before you will not convince anyone of 911 being an inside job if you bombard them with outlandish (although they could be true theories). Listen to the opinions of David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan etc to understand what they are talking about. The buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition therefore what may or may not have hit them is irrelevant.

[Rowan Berkeley]

well, it's relevant in terms of assigning responsibility. I think that the Pentagon part of 911 was "piggy-backed" onto the WTC part by different perpetrators (specifically, by Cheney, using some sort of air force black ops. team) which would explain Mineta's observation as dealing with a real plane approaching the Pentagon to fire a cruise missile at it - but it wouldn't tell us anything about the OTHER, the PRIMARY operation, the WTC one, and who was behind that.

[peanut1]

You're totally wrong Eckboy.

The abolitionist movement ,the women's suffrage movement ,the Negro movement and the present day 9/11 truth movement were to one extent or another subject to this seemingly inescapable discord.

Those at the leading edge of the movement would get accused of hurting the cause and accused of being infiltrates from the FBI or conentel-pro types .While those at the leading edge reciprocated. Do we offer partial truth in order to more easily sway the uninitiated or peddle to the metal hurtling toward the unqualified truth. Let us free only the slaves over 30 years old. Let's give only women east of the Mississippi the vote rather than rock the boat and jeopardize the movement's success. Let's hold onto 60% of the 9/11 myth .Break them in easy because total 9/11 truth would scare them away. Is this what you are saying Eckboy ?I'll answer that . This is what you are saying.

There are remnants of the 9/11 myth being defended by the don't go too far too fast truthlings on this site and -of course- elsewhere. Creating false warnings before the crime in order to incriminate the innocent ,or for that matter non-existent are the building blocks of empire. While planehuggers drone,facts support TV-fakery. Nineeleven truth is the defining issue of these times in which we now live. The stakes are too high for your kind of rhetoric.

[peanut1]

You're totally wrong Eckboy.

The abolitionist movement ,the women's suffrage movement ,the Negro movement and the present day 9/11 truth movement were to one extent or another subject to this seemingly inescapable discord.

Those at the leading edge of the movement would get accused of hurting the cause and accused of being infiltrates from the FBI or conentel-pro types .While those at the leading edge reciprocated. Do we offer partial truth in order to more easily sway the uninitiated or peddle to the metal hurtling toward the unqualified truth. Let us free only the slaves over 30 years old. Let's give only women east of the Mississippi the vote rather than rock the boat and jeopardize the movement's success. Let's hold onto 60% of the 9/11 myth .Break them in easy because total 9/11 truth would scare them away. Is this what you are saying Eckboy ?I'll answer that . This is what you are saying.

There are remnants of the 9/11 myth being defended by the don't go too far too fast truthlings on this site and -of course- elsewhere. Creating false warnings before the crime in order to incriminate the innocent ,or for that matter non-existent are the building blocks of empire. While planehuggers drone,facts support TV-fakery. Nineeleven truth is the defining issue of these times in which we now live. The stakes are too high for your kind of rhetoric.

[chek]

[John White]

Peanut one = whoop 45 = delusional moonbat inventing people to make himself feel right

Says his IP address

[chek]

[mason-free party]

you wouldn't all disagree if you applied logic...truth is truth..no planes hit the twin towers whether you like it or not...no molten metal is also fact...once you get your heads around them 2 simple facts then bickering should cease

[chek]

[Killtown]

I suggest every legit person here just ignore Chek and John White, the cause of 95% of the bickering at this forum.

[ian neal]

Here is just an idea I'm floating

If those that belief in or are undecided about Tvfakery/NPTs and DEWs wish to have a space created on this forum that is exclusively for their use, a space from which those people who believe these theories are disinfo / false would be excluded then such a space could be created. It would be quite departure from current arrangements but it might provide a solution to current tensions.

If this idea has any support it would need to be discussed further but I thought I would float it

[Killtown]

How about simply rid this place of trolls like John White and Chek?

Don't know why you are trying to make things so complicated Ian.

Create a "Sandbox" like we did at http://forum.911movement.org for the trolls.

[chek]

[jfk]

i think ian is right, it would give them a chance to find some actual evidence to refute the tv fakery evidence

[marky 54]

[marky 54]