Proposition to close the 9/11 subforum

[Brainster]

So how about it, truthers? You provide us with 1 (one) piece of evidence that proofs 9/11 was an inside job and we'll ask the JREF that this subforum be closed.

This sounds to me more like a proposal to keep the subforum open forever.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Leave it open!

I just like to laugh at the Truthers for being themselves without no expierence or education in world physics.

The Truthers in this subforum are our own source of comedy. They do relieve tension & bring ease to our minds that we know that what they claim, say or think is totally rubbish. And they bring laughter to the subforum because when they erupt in a temper tantrum it's like talking to a child, more or less.

 

[Oystein]

...the illustrious debunkers continue to post here, even though they know the truth...

...the truth which is - what?

That Larry Silverstone made out like a bandit? You never supported that libellous claim with any evidence and sourced numbers.

As long as guys like you go around flinging, libel, slander and mud at fellow people, this subforum ought to stay open.

 

[Thunder]

It's probably not much different from why the illustrious debunkers continue to post here, even though they know the truth

so, not only do we work for the NWO, but we actually KNOW that 9-11 was an Inside Job, and are just pretending to believe otherwise?

that's a great way of disregarding the ideas and thoughts of those who disagree with you.

"eh....they are lying. they deep-down know we are right."

its posts like this that lead people to have very little respect for Truthers.

 

[RedIbis]

so, not only do we work for the NWO, but we actually KNOW that 9-11 was an Inside Job, and are just pretending to believe otherwise?

that's a great way of disregarding the ideas and thoughts of those who disagree with you.

"eh....they are lying. they deep-down know we are right."

its posts like this that lead people to have very little respect for Truthers.

You totally misread what I wrote.

 

[RedIbis]

Talking about foregone conclusions, I heard that Larry Silverstein made out like a god damn bandit when the WTC complex was destroyed!

Right, Red? Keep on truthing brother!

No, wrong. He made out like a bandit when he received much more compensation than he invested and refuses to contribute his own money to the rebuilding, seeking instead public and private funds.

This has been laid out for you ad nauseum. If you want to continue this discussion bump one of the many threads on the topic and stop derailing this one.

 

[fourtoe]

Isn't the fact that Israel is still in existence proof that 911 was an inside job?

How you gonna act, duh'bunkers?!

 

[The Big Dog]

No, wrong. He made out like a bandit when he received much more compensation than he invested and refuses to contribute his own money to the rebuilding, seeking instead public and private funds.

This has been laid out for you ad nauseum. If you want to continue this discussion bump one of the many threads on the topic and stop derailing this one.

Oh mercy, that bold line was a freaking HOOT!!!!

Well, Red, if it has been "laid out for you ad nauseum" maybe we SHOULD close the freaking sub-forum!

hee hee, off to bumbity bump the thread! Se ya there Red! In the meantime, KEEP ON TRUTHERING!!!

/Done and done Red! YEAH BABY, we gonna get some answers NOW!

 

[Thunder]

Isn't the fact that Israel is still in existence proof that 911 was an inside job?

How you gonna act, duh'bunkers?!

 

[Thunder]

Lets say we lose the 9-11 section.

what happens to all future 9-11 topics?

will they just go into the general CT section...or will 9-11 CTs no longer be a valid topic of discussion?

 

[T.A.M.]

1. Red, you can mock and misrepresent Mark's leaving this forum all you want. Those of us who were here when he decided to leave know why he left, and it has nothing to do with "abandoning ship". Just the opposite, in his mind all of the CTs in the 9/11 area had been debunked, and therefore he so no further purpose in posting here. If it makes you feel more comfortable believing some other delusion where he gave up out of defeat, well, that of course is your prerogative.

2. If the subforum was closed, I would imagine we could transfer over the "General Discussion" thread, and any other threads would be treated just like new "JFK" or "Moon Hoax" threads.

Lets face it, this forum, for the most part, has lived out its usefulness as a place for civil or productive discussion. As others have said (and some bragged of), it is now a place to mock others.

TAM

 

[Bell]

Lets say we lose the 9-11 section.

what happens to all future 9-11 topics?

will they just go into the general CT section...or will 9-11 CTs no longer be a valid topic of discussion?

How credible do you think closing this sub forum is (in regards to my OP)?

 

[RedIbis]

1. Red, you can mock and misrepresent Mark's leaving this forum all you want. Those of us who were here when he decided to leave know why he left, and it has nothing to do with "abandoning ship". Just the opposite, in his mind all of the CTs in the 9/11 area had been debunked, and therefore he so no further purpose in posting here. If it makes you feel more comfortable believing some other delusion where he gave up out of defeat, well, that of course is your prerogative.

It's ridiculous to the extreme to think that all discussion of arguably the most complex single day in American history is finished.

If Gravy stopped posting here for personal reasons, that's his business and I'd never begrudge him it, but if it's as you say that he believed everything had been "debunked" then this is the type of pseudo-intellectual hubris that killed this subforum in the first place.

 

[Thunder]

but if it's as you say that he believed everything had been "debunked" then this is the type of pseudo-intellectual hubris that killed this subforum in the first place.

then, why are YOU here?

 

[Bell]

It's ridiculous to the extreme to think that all discussion of arguably the most complex single day in American history is finished.

If Gravy stopped posting here for personal reasons, that's his business and I'd never begrudge him it, but if it's as you say that he believed everything had been "debunked" then this is the type of pseudo-intellectual hubris that killed this subforum in the first place.

So you have proof?

 

[Edx]

I realise this isn't the point of the OP but I hope the JREF never closes this subforum

 

[TexasJack]

It's ridiculous to the extreme to think that all discussion of arguably the most complex single day in American history is finished.

If Gravy stopped posting here for personal reasons, that's his business and I'd never begrudge him it, but if it's as you say that he believed everything had been "debunked" then this is the type of pseudo-intellectual hubris that killed this subforum in the first place.

If this doesn't meet your standards, go find a better one...where would go, Loose Change?

 

[JohnG]

I propose we open a new subforum to house all the threads related to discussions about closing down the 9/11 subforum.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, wrong. He made out like a bandit when he received much more compensation than he invested and refuses to contribute his own money to the rebuilding, seeking instead public and private funds.

This has been laid out for you ad nauseum.

No, it's been asserted ad nauseam. Post a profit-and-loss account with justification for the numbers, and you might have something worthy of the term 'laid out'. At the moment all you're doing is mudslinging, along with every other truther. The sad thing is, if you were prepared to do anything more constructive, we wouldn't need this forum; we'd be discussing it in History.

Dave

 

[Magenta]

I think the answer is to ignore them. They are here to chat, provoke or annoy, but not for honest debate. Ignoring them will deprive them of the only thing they really want, attention. Without it, they will move on. Responding under the excuse of concern for lurkers is just that, an excuse to...chat, provoke or annoy.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Also, it seems apropos to link to this thread by Gravy from 2008:

Some observations and statistics about this subforum

[...] Before starting a thread or post, ask yourself, "What is my goal here? Am I more likely to be helping extinguish this conspiracy theory or will I be prolonging it by adding fuel? Do I have something essential to add to this discussion? Is it necessary to give this truther attention? Am I enabling the negative behavior of an ineducable person? Am I asking questions that have already been answered or that I know won't be answered?"


Message from the Department of Redundancy Department: use the great resources at your disposal

Why take the time to make the same argument to a truther for the hundredth time if the issue has been dealt with effectively and that discussion/paper/video is readily available? You've done your homework. In fact – and please don't forget this – you've done their homework also. The least they can do is read it. It's still 2006 for the truth movement here. Let's make it 2008.