It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by spoor
That is where you are incorrect, they ARE part of the "truth" movement.
Originally posted by spoor
You do not get to say what conspiracy theories you accept in the "truth" movement
Originally posted by spoor
Who gets to decide that conspiracy theories like explosives being used, or thermite is ok to be part of the truth movement, but equally silly conspiracy tyeories like mini nukes are not?
Originally posted by spoor
Do you really think that people claiming explosives were used are better than those claiming cgi was used?
Originally posted by spoor
Who banned them? Was a meeting held, you showed your membership card of the "truth" movement then a vote was taken?
Originally posted by spoor
But they are, as you do not get to decide which conspiracy theory is acceptable.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There aren't that many 9/11 truth movement research organizations,
and most all of them have banned the discussion of the above theories.
. The research organizations of the truth movement have decided what they will and will not support.
There is abundant evidence of explosives. There is zero evidence for CGI,
And that is one of the reasons why the discussion of it is banned everywhere in the 9/11 truth movement, and finally here on ATS as well.
If you're not an avid 9/11 researcher or 9/11 "truther", I would ask anyone not to lump all ridiculous 9/11 theories in with the truth movement.
Originally posted by spoor
Please show where it has been banned here
Originally posted by spoor
But the 9/11 "truth" movement already has ridiculous conspiracy theories, so more makes no difference at all.
Originally posted by spoor
(organisations set up to make certain people money) ...
because they interfere with their own theories, and reduce their money making potential! ...
probably because they are frightened that they may scare away people buying their DVD's etc
Originally posted by spoor
It appears the 9/11 "truth" movement wants to censor people that may interfere with their money making activities. www.ae911truth.net...
Originally posted by DragonriderGal
I always quote those I am responding to. I hate it when someone just post something cryptic and I can't figure out who it's meant for.
And well, what I've found when googling collapsing buildings were a number of sites that said that fire hasn't ever made a building collapse completely and neatly into it's own footprint except on 9-11. And that the only building collapses on record that do that are planned demolitions. Not even earthquakes can bring them straight down, although they can collapse them. Funny how we got such differing results, eh? So I'm guessing it is all in what you google, how you google it, and then how you interpret the information you receive.
And sometimes people just get over reactive, both in their responses and in what seems to 'insult' them. Sometimes I may state an opinion about someone's behavior and they act like I called them some horrible name. So some of it is playing, I think, to try to win sympathy from other readers. But hey, that too, is just my opinion.
Originally posted by felonius
Didnt you know buildings are always falling?
Screws fall out all the time. The worlds an imperfect place LOL!
Right there with ya sister.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Fresh Idea !!!
Have two 9/11 forums: the existing one governed by the Terms and Conditions . . . and a new "anything goes" 9/11 forum where you can talk about whatever theory you like under conditions similar to the ones that existed prior to the T&C coming into effect, in other words, lots of screetching, all caps posts and moderate bad language and innuendos with unlimited slander of other posers, er, hosers, I mean posters, allowed.
The new forum would require a special log in. Anyone who consistently makes a monkey of themselves in the existing forum would be banned to the new forum, which would be called the 9/11 Zoo.
They would have to apply for reinstatement to the existing forum if they wanted back in, but the membership at large could post in the Zoo if they felt like it.
What do the "mighty men of renown" think?
Originally posted by Varemia
You make good points. I would always think about the unique circumstances of the towers, but I don't think we could prove it in a succinct way without citing laws of physics and integrating math into these discussions. Plus, this thread specifically would not be the place for it. Anyway, I hope to see you making points in the other discussions here. It's fairly easy to talk to you, and it's a nice change from what I'm used to seeing.
Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I vote BoneZ to be new mod on the 9/11 forums
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a recognized and legal non-profit, charitable organization. They sell items and take donations for the operation of the website and to pay a couple/few employees
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Fresh Idea !!!
Have two 9/11 forums: the existing one governed by the Terms and Conditions . . . and a new "anything goes" 9/11 forum where you can talk about whatever theory you like under conditions similar to the ones that existed prior to the T&C coming into effect, in other words, lots of screetching, all caps posts and moderate bad language and innuendos with unlimited slander of other posers, er, hosers, I mean posters, allowed.
The new forum would require a special log in. Anyone who consistently makes a monkey of themselves in the existing forum would be banned to the new forum, which would be called the 9/11 Zoo.
They would have to apply for reinstatement to the existing forum if they wanted back in, but the membership at large could post in the Zoo if they felt like it.
What do the "mighty men of renown" think?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
...the majority of the problems in the 9/11 forum originate with "Truthers" and overly-aggressive conspiracy proponents.