David W Jackson Posted July 17, 2007 at 01:16 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 at 01:16 AM Stumbled across this rather interesting spat. I'm not a scientist and so am not in a position to refute or confirm the physics but perhaps someone out there can? http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2007/160707BBC.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Jackson Posted July 17, 2007 at 03:26 AM Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 at 03:26 AM http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm This seems to nail it. And here's a peer-reviewed paper about it: http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roddy Posted July 17, 2007 at 08:25 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 at 08:25 AM Theory: 9/11 was a set-up by forum administrators designed to generate huge amounts of traffic. The whole thing backfired when the posts produced turned out to be nothing but pointless links to spurious websites with 911 in the url. The conspirators had no choice but to frame the Bush administration and move to China. Have I not asked you to refrain from posting of this nature in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianlondon Posted July 17, 2007 at 08:51 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 at 08:51 AM Banned myself so I can get some work done Do I report this as a bug? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhwj Posted July 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM This is the best conspiracy thread ever! "Look at this interesting conspiracy argument!" "Oh, my mistake. It's wrong, and here's proof!" And then everyone goes away happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Jackson Posted July 18, 2007 at 01:39 AM Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 at 01:39 AM Roddy, I don't recall you explicitly asking me not to post on 911. If you have, I'm curious to know why you feel the need to do so. I can understand to some degree that as administrator of this site, you may sometimes confuse your identity with the Fat Controller in the sky, but really, you're a self-determined individual why not allow others the same right? You're happy to accept the official version, that's your right. But do you really have the right to deny others an alternative view? Does your contempt for this forum's users who disagree with you extend to banning, (already asking for self-censorship is sad indictment enough)? Smacks of control-freakery, at best, and fascist power play at worst. Shame on you. "Bigot" - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnd Posted July 18, 2007 at 02:56 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 at 02:56 AM I don't think Roddy is indicating any view on 9/11. He is talking about "isn't this interesting" posts with a link. You haven't quoted from your source, and you haven't made any [interesting] comments or analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gougou Posted July 18, 2007 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 at 02:58 AM Roddy, I don't recall you explicitly asking me not to post on 911 Restrict yourself to the languagey culturaley bits in the future thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Jackson Posted July 18, 2007 at 04:43 AM Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 at 04:43 AM Roddy, I apologise to you if I have read you wrong, which it would seem that I have. Sorry, please don't take it to heart. I'm learning a lot today: for example, that a post is not worth posting - in the view of the administrators - devoid of interesting comments or analysis. It's sounds to me tantamount to saying that a Guardian article, for example, cannot hold a reader's interest in itself, it absolutely must be available to be commented upon - as though before the advent of "comments" nobody read the paper. Perhaps it's due to a clash of social styles - are the vast majority of your posters technical types I wonder - anally retentive nitwits, exclusively fixated on the minutiae and nuance of form over content, that they can't see the trees for the woods? Whatever the explanation, the knee-jerk oversensitiveness and resultant faultfinding I find tedious and too small-minded for words. Have you guys nothing better to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gougou Posted July 18, 2007 at 04:50 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 at 04:50 AM We can argue how much of a topic this thread had when it started out, but I think it's fairly obvious that by now, we are completely off-topic - closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roddy Posted July 18, 2007 at 07:50 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 at 07:50 AM Just to round off, I'm quite happy to ask people to stop posting on certain topics when those topics are not relevant to the core content of the board and / or likely to generate more heat than light. There are thousands of forums where anyone who wants to can discuss 9/11 to their heart's content. Any comments on moderation can go through the normal channels. Double-closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts