Seeing as how you do not plan to read the thread, you are not qualified to judge whether or not they would learn anything there. If you change your mind and decide to read it after all, then any judgements you make from then on would have some validity.
"Rosebud" is much more apt. Thank you. Or are you suggesting I am a sled?
OK Hokulele - a brief trip into the real world.
A great number of people, including myself, know beyond all shadow of a doubt that what happened on 911 was organised and planned by elements of the US Govt in collaboration with other Western security services. The information supporting this conclusion is overwhelming. The whole thing reads like a book with a couple of pages missing. Much of the evidence is established fact, yet all of it will be challenged here by 'skeptics' who claim that everything in the official story is true, despite the proven falsehoods it contains.
Now when I come here to post, and am immediately referred to old threads, where all this has been 'debunked' - well maybe unlike some, I'm in the fortunate position to know full well that this will not be the case, and that any reference to such a thread is a wild goose chase that costs nothing to said poster, while I spend hours reading false information. I would suggest the primary reason for this is that the defence of the official story, which is indefensible, is not something they are keen to attempt anew, and so a simple tactic is to divert people into the depths of old threads where this has been attempted before. Maybe there are a few well rehearsed sock puppet discussions where a lame '911 truther' pretends to question the offical story in an easy soft ball manner, throwing out stock 'straw man' claims which are then safely shot down - all ending in the surprise surprise conclusion - "gee, I wuz wrong".
I'm not here to argue the in's and out's of 911 with anonymous people who cannot be reasoned with for any number of obvious reasons.
We will have to agree to disagree - something, if you notice, that they have no real response to. I will be called all manner of things for maintaining my own independant conclusions on the matter. Yet this is supposed to be the philosophy that a skeptic should adhere to - independant critical thinking. All I see here is nothing of the sort, all I see here are appeals to authority, and preaching of official dogma.
You seem like a reasonable poster and I apologise for my initial gruff response, but this is the reasoning behind it. I may be a new poster here, but I am not new to discussing this on internet forums and I am well aware of the tactics used to prevent any such discussion.
At the heart of it, you may be interested to know - the number one priority of all this, is the prevention of consensus. If the illegitimate powers that be were aware of a forum where the majority of posters were aware of this and calmly discussing it, and even dare I say, moving towards the question of "What can we do about it?" - then the attack dogs will be sent in to create the impression of dissent.
I'm not saying that this is always the case, and that all supporters of the official story are government shills, or working for some of the PR company's that the Whitehouse/Pentagon is using to promote the official story and the 'war on terror' - but they are out there, and I would imagine that there are just a few here and there, acting as leaders in the effort, providing talking points for amateur imitators. There are plenty of people who know the truth of 911 but will still leap to the defence of the official story for a myriad of social and political reasons.
And incidentally, you may have missed this, but the recent revelation of the BBC video reporting the collapse of WTC7 provided an excellent insight into this process, as I think it came out of the blue and there was no prepared response seeded across the internet shill community. They were indeed caught with their pants down and finally got the spanking they deserve. The result being that nobody could get their story straight and the whole process broke down for at least a day, as lifelong New York residents frantically claimed 'Thats not Building 7!" or "Daylight Savings - it was 6 oclock"
Poorly prepared excuses at best with the lifespan of a mayfly.
It was an hilarious process to watch as it unmasked several shills on forums that I post on - and this was remarked upon not just by me. Some people were genuinely shocked that the simple fact that it
was WTC7 behind the reporter as she described its collapse could
not be conceded to by otherwise sane and rational people.
It took a while for them to get the story straight and things have settled down now to the only thing that can be at all defended and weakly at that, that everyone knew it was going to collapse and the BBC just reported it early by mistake. If you believe that, well I've got a bridge to sell you.
Another tactic you may notice, is to take any post of considerable length such as this, and break it down into about 15 components, challenging each and every thing I say, thus creating several hours of research and effort to correct on my part. This too is something I am well familiar with, have participated in before to my extreme satisfaction and have no intention of repeating on this forum. If you disagree with what I say, then that is because
you agree to disagree, an option also open to myself.
Fascist. Fascism. My bad.
