Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

Good idea, I hadnt realized how bad it was there and no one should have personal attacks on them for their personal views

this does sound good.... but It also sounds like a form of censorship too.

wow... alex jones would not last two minutes in the 911 forum..lol

example:
today some one told me to stop drinking the liberal koolaide.
is that an attack? an insult? I would say yes.

so as long you you mods can tell me that it will be FAIR AND BALANCED
then I do agree as well...

Originally posted by Maya432
this does sound good.... but It also sounds like a form of censorship too.

I think of it as just being respectful to others. All they want is for us to not use calling each other names as an argument. I actually applaud the effort.

As far as censorship, it is after all, their site and they can make any rule they want. Our "freedoms" don't extend all the way into cyberland.

That's just my take on it.

has any one seen this

Another UN official goes public on 9/11 doubts

uk.youtube.com...

Originally posted by martrax40

has any one seen this

Another UN official goes public on 9/11 doubts

uk.youtube.com...

I tried very hard to watch the entire 9 minutes, but couldn't handle it after the first 2. sorry. Can you elaborate on why its so important or at least the jist or overall point of the interview?


oh, and btw,,, Nice handle MARTRAX40

Rofl


begs the perverbial question which came first, the chicken or the egg
lol

Being new to this site and noticing that the last posting to this forum was in Dec 07; I am probably following a dead thread. However, I would like to mention that many very well researched and documented books have been written about 9-11; all presenting good evidence that the "official" version is loaded with inaccuracies, distortions and apparent lies. I have seen nothing containing any valid supporting evidence of the government version.

It is not practical to read all the material published; many contain duplications of information and others are purely speculative. If you can read only one book, I recommend "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert who is now in exile or hiding somewhere in So. America.

What 9-11 has shown us, again, is that the methods of manipulating public thinking as practiced by the Nazis in Germany 80 years ago, still work.
"Make the lie big, repeat if often and people will believe it". The American public has accepted the lie and does not want to be exposed as gullible fools. The 5 to 10% of us who refuse to accept the lies are easily marginalized and pushed to the outer fringes of society.

The focus of the 9-11 sympathy campaign is on the Twin Towers; the lack of evidence at the Pentagon, the collapse of WTC building 7 and the fact that the PA crash site (2 sites - 8 miles apart) indicate that the aircraft was shot down are all ignored by the media and the public in general. If the story doesn't fit the myth, don't talk about it.

Those who accept the official version of the 9-11 story probably also believe that JFK was shot by a lone gunman.

Do you truly beleive this?

Hello to everybody. I am new to this Forum, but it appears to me that I have found a right place to address this issue.

Please, everyone HELP !!!!

There is an article on Wikipedia that describes in exact detail a demolition procedure in regard to both - the WTC Twin Towers and the WTC-7. Here is a direct link to the main article:

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the first article that simply explains the truth without involving any speculations whatsoever.

This article is going to be removed by Wikipedia watchdogs any time soon and has been already scheduled for deletion. But, because Wikipedia tries to pose itself as "free" from any "political correctness", it removes articles by a certain seemingly "democratic" voting procedure (though the invited "voters" themselves are all politically correct). Here is a discussion page in regard to its removal here when everyone can leave his opinion - "keep" or "delete":

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuclear_demolition

(cyberlink can not be created here for the above link, but you can simply copy this entire link "as is" to your brouwser and it will bring you to the page; this deletion discussion page is also acceible from within the main article mentioned above)

Everyone is welcome to visit this page and say word "keep" followed by some short opinion to prevent this valuable Wikipedia article from deletion. Only a few people who will vote "Yes" might save that article.

Your help and help of some of your few friends you might involve might really do a good job.

Thanks a lot.

Obviously I missed the pre-deleted article since the link is only to 'peaceful nuclear explosions.' I've read a lot on 9/11 conspiracies, but I've never seen the claim that the WTC was destroyed by nukes. Did I miss something?

Sorry Charlie but a nuke could not cause a controlled explosion like that of the towers or building #7. Think of it like this; a weak aluminum tube (the airplane) cutting clean in two (and I do mean clean) huge pieces (many of them too) of solid steel. It takes around 3000 degrees to melt steel (they found melted pools of steel at the base of the towers) and fire (which is all that was there) can not get hot enough to do that...period sabre11004.

Awesome!!!

Strict moderation is essential. I'm the moderator over on the TruthMove forum and I know from experience that you have to have very clear forum guidelines to prevent people from turning a discussion forum into mush.

Imposing those guidelines after a forum has been started is particularly difficult and so I applaud the moderators here for doing their best to return this forum to a useful and productive state.

I like the point made that you can say just about anything in a respectful way. For instance, if someone were to say something off topic to this thread and with very little logical merit, such as suggesting that a fission device was used to bring down the towers, I could respond without attacking the character of the person who did so.

I don't mind a bit of attitude, but on the other hand, I also don't mind keeping it to myself. And as this concern is really very important and not at all about any of our egos, I think it makes a lot of sense to avoid name calling.

Glad to be posting here.

Ok, this is my second post on this site, so I expect something of a beatdown if my assumptions are wrong, but I get the feeling this is where I can say what I want about the 9/11 tragedy and not get banned if I don't agree, as long as I don't attack individuals. I have no intent to do so.

Do I think that thousands of pounds of explosives were planted over night by a couple hundred special ops forces who knew what the effect would be, and that major branches of the US government knew about this? No. Too unmanagable. Do I think a couple dozen guys might have been duped into this? Yep. I watched it live as it happened, so unless the TV feed was CGI (yes, a possibility), I know what I saw.

See, I am one of those REALLY crazy mo-fos over at the NWO page. I can sympathize with those who see the manipulation underlieing the act, just as it was at Oklahoma City, but the surgery was much more precise.

Midhodhinn:
"Do I think that thousands of pounds of explosives were planted over night by a couple hundred special ops forces who knew what the effect would be, and that major branches of the US government knew about this? No. Too unmanagable. Do I think a couple dozen guys might have been duped into this? Yep. I watched it live as it happened, so unless the TV feed was CGI (yes, a possibility), I know what I saw.

See, I am one of those REALLY crazy mo-fos over at the NWO page. I can sympathize with those who see the manipulation underlieing the act, just as it was at Oklahoma City, but the surgery was much more precise."

This is a classic incredulity response.

State a mythical implausible occurrence and then dismiss it because it's too implausible.

Where do you derive that assumption Midhodhinn?

An overnight rigging of thousands of pounds of explosives?

Oh really.

Source for that claim please, or is it just conveniently grabbed out of the air to serve as fodder for your propaganda?

MM

Looks like a prety wild scene! Looks like a great site! I just registered. Thanks.

O.K. After that short word from our sponsors we're back with the show. Let's go to our curious citizens live in cyberspace.

This curious citizen want's to know why the compelling and (I think) over-whelming evidence that can ONLY be the result of a VERY SPECIFIC process that converts matter to energy, hasn't been much (if at all) given it's due. Credit due for how much of an impression a device of this type makes when it is used. (Even when it is of a low yield or "mini" type.) Not just from what it will accomplish with the reaction it starts, or in terms of physics where it can be immediately identified by unique traits, but the lasting effects. Long term effects of that reaction that are it's signature legacy and earned it the honor of having an entire "AGE" named after it.

These things occur when a nuclear device is discharged within N.Y. city limits.
1. scores of first-responders die or are found to be presently dying from RADIATION SICKNESS and the resulting intrinsic resperatory complications it brings.
2. pyrocastic flow rains down nothing bigger than dust,* (or ash if you bear witness to the ONLY other process in nature that causes pyrocastic flow, a volcano.)
3. EMP's
4. seismic spikes
5. and the winner, molten pools of metal that DO NOT need oxygen to remain liquid for WEEKS!
*remember the white-gray dust? When's the last time a steel building fell down with so much dedication to gravity it defied the laws of physics with the speed it fell simply turned to dust, (POOF!)?

Originally posted by Charlesnchan
O.K. After that short word from our sponsors we're back with the show.

Ha, Ha, Ha. I can see how my post would appear that way. That's not what it was though, sir. My post was just honest nod to this site. I had just found ATS at the recommendation of people I've met on other forums and was very excited about what I saw.

s1.zetaboards.com...

It was just an honest declaration and effort to say hello. I didn't mean to break the rhythm of anything going on here. Apologies for doing so.







[edit on 14-5-2009 by Paul Tassopulos]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


how does it assail their character to state a fact that they are a member of a certain group?
like, if i say someone who witnesses low level flashes, also goes to my church, is that a blemish on them? if these groups that people belong to make them seem guilty just because they belong, then maybe they are! it seems rather like the bad kind of censorship to not allow us to point out that say, three witnesses were all in the biker gang, and they all told the exact same story but that story is contradicted by all the other witnesses who weren't in the biker club.
i think it's going too far.
it's good, and essential even, to keep the ad hominem argument out of the 911 forum, but there is a difference between an insult and a statement of simple fact.

he was a cop.
he was in the military.
he's a taxi driver.

like, loydd's a taxi driver. he is therefore in the 'club' of taxi drivers.

i think the number of USA today employees is off the scale in regard to pentagon witnesses. USA today is a propaganda outlet. they 'advertise' their 'truth'. if craig ranke had not found those associations, the witnesses would seem 'independent'.

now, relevant information will be squelched because some people are being rude.

i never liked it when ONE KID would act up and then the teacher would make the whole class do detention. it is injustice at it's 'finest'.

911 is the biggest thing since JFK, and it is the single most blatant example of how the media/government/banker cabal controls the 'truth' that the CHATTLE believe.

if we want to stop being 'chattle', we need to buck the increasingly heavy yoke of the controllers. if these uber-rich 'humans' that have us ALL under their thumb are allowed to stop us from even discussing their most heinous crimes, then they have already won, and we may as well just prepare ourselves to LOVE bootlicking and having much, much less than the 2% of the population that OWNS us all.

the 911 forum is the key reason i'm here, now. it started with sacred gematria, but i see that's too far fetched for most, so now, the single most important topic to me is the release of the truth of the MEDIA/GOVERNMENT/BANKER cover-up of 911.

if ATS closes that forum, ATS is no longer "denying ignorance', and is in fact encouraging it.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
if ATS closes that forum, ATS is no longer "denying ignorance', and is in fact encouraging it.

There are no plans or even slight speculation about closing the 9/11 forum.

It will remain open, but we demand civility.