When does a theory cease becoming a 'controversy' here?

[Killtown]

For instance TV fakery. If it's posted in another section, it gets moved here. When does a 9/11 theory not qualify to be moved in this section anymore?

Ok ok, I can hear it now: "When there is enough evidence for it to make it at least make it plausible."

If the above is the case, then who here determines that?

If the reason theories are moved here is because "most" in the movement "thinks it's" a controversial theory, how and who determines most in the movement think that?

[marky 54]

likewise who gets to say when something is proven if there is disagrement?

the evidence speaks for itself regardless of what it is and will always have a percentage who disagree, mainly because its impossible on subjects like 9/11 to get all to agree even with 100% obvious evidence if there is any.

my guess would be those who decide are:

the general public.

or

a new investigastion.

all evidence regardless of how good it is, is useless. untill the above two groups are informed or taking notice of the subject, IMO which they believe is'nt important only that a new investigastion is carried out to find out once and for all, whats what.

unless of course you think it is more important and all about which theory is more believed and the rest is secondary?

[ian neal]

controversial merely refers to the areas which are most contentious and cause the most division amongst campaigners and is not a reflection of whether these theories are true or not. IMO it is not the job of moderators to determine where truth lies.

That said I'm happy to consider renaming this section or revisit how the forum is structured once other proposed changes are agreed and enacted (see future of the forum thread).

[Killtown]

After thinking about it, I wouldn't mind if you kept the section name. I like controversy. People like controversy. Controversial topics usually get more views. I feel like posting all of my threads in this section sometimes.

[Indubitably]

I must take this opportunity to say thanks to Killtown, Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren and other truly independent researchers over these years for having provided worldwide some of the most detailed, impartial and accessible resource material that shows fakery and misinformation is part of the ongoing war on truth.

It is not a coincidence that rulers of the corporate MEDIA control what is believed (or not believed) and what is discussed (or not discussed) on that tragedy. Nor is it a coincidence that No Planes Theory is hated by large 'truth' forums.

Look around the internet. We have a supposed 9/11 'truth' movement which, in actual fact, wants members to hate No Planes. Who simply don't want to accept the plain fact that FAKE film footage of planes WAS broadcast BY THE CORPORATE MEDIA on 9/11. That the nose cone of a plane is given on prime time TV as having exited a tower of the WTC.

There is therefore a BOGUS 'truth' movement. It admits (because that is undeniable) 9/11 was an inside job. Great. But it can't handle the fact that members of the corporate media were accomplices to the crimes of 9/11. It has never asked the corporate media to comment on its broadcasts that day. Nor can it allow/encourage detailed discussion/analysis of the actual broadcast footage of 'planes' from 9/11/2001.

The 9/11 truth movement exposes media fakery. Because media fakery was an integral part of the crimes of 9/11.

[marky 54]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH......

i want to make love to killtown blah blah blah...


yes we have heard it all before.

i however thank nobody, because all my opinons have come from my own mind and not from somebody elses.

therefore i thank my self for haveing my own thoughts and opinons.

[mason-free party]

Marky...do abit of research mate or people will think you are a disinfo troll

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[truthseeker john]

[Stefan]

I've suggested for a while that the name "controversies" be changed to either "heated debate" or "competing theories" as that is what the board is really for - the discussion of detailed theories like thermite/mate or DEW/NPT which cause disagreement between us.

In fact no details are needed to be an effective campaigner, anyone who spends any time actually campaigning on 9/11 knows that they will have far more success showing the OTC to be false than proposing any other alternative theory.

[Stefan]

[marky 54]

[KP50]

[marky 54]

im starting to think they don't want us checking all the clips for ourselves, yet doing so will confirm it once and for all to each person who can check(may involve expensive software), however we need to know their methods of how they confirmed them fake so we don't miss anything and discard them without checking properly.

why nobody who believes fakery has answered yet is puzzling, you would think they would jump at the oppertunity to help people so that they can 'find out' the truth about tv fakery.

there can only be three reasons why nobody can answer or will not answer.

1) those claiming to be researchers or those claiming that they know clips are fake have been told and convinced by word of mouth or what somebody written on the web, and they have not checked the clips themselves to confirm it is indeed faked rather than just the result of video compression etc, and therefore have not got a clue what the methods are because they are acting like sheeple who just follow each other and repeat what others say.

2) if the methods are given then people might find out that either:

a) none of the clips are faked, it was all made up.

b) that some clips are faked but the clips of the same angle from the news websites are not, exposing that someone has tampered with clips after the event.

3) all 'research' is done just by looking at clips and relying on human eyesite and judgement, people might not want to admit this as it would make it obvious non of the research is in anyway technical, and we all know what tricks the human mind and imigination can play.

these are the only reasons possible for no answer to the questions.

yet if they have got a case to 'prove' then shareing that information will help people to apply the same methods so they to can see the so called 'fakery' for themselves, a chance you would think they would jump at and something im suprised they have not done before now.

i leave people to draw their own conclusions as to why answering questions about their own research methods is tricky.

[marky 54]

now killtown maybe you can read the above post and help me out here, and actually help people to find out the 'truth' rather than just trying to presaude(fool or whatever) about the 'truth'.

[marky 54]

[PepeLapiu]

NO-PLANERS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?

[Jennifer]

[PepeLapiu]

You are being stoopit Jennifer. I do not support the official story and you know that. However, I do support the hanging of traitors.

NO-PLANERS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?