| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| This forum | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 26 2009, 01:33 PM (1,762 Views) | |
| mik | Apr 26 2009, 01:33 PM Post #1 |
|
This post is not unrelated to thread "Attention Admins And Members" in the lounge, but I am not allowed to post there... Moderators are banning or restricting users for the most feeble of reasons. All one needs do, is be skeptical of something/anything, and you are not going to last long. It stiffles debate, it prevents theories and ideas being tested, and it makes the site very dull. The only purpose of this forum seems to be for members to slap each other on the back, and endorse ideas and theories regardless of their true merit. Dissenting voices are removed. If that's what you want, then that's what you got, but I think it's killing this site. |
 |
 
|
| BoneZ | Apr 26 2009, 04:23 PM Post #2 |
|
The "Skeptics" section is for those that want to debate and/or don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The only one's that are getting banned are the one's breaking the forum rules. Perhaps people should start paying attention more to the forum rules before they post. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 26 2009, 04:57 PM Post #3 |
|
I really think your wrong mik. If it wasn't for the diligence of the moderators, this forum would have died long ago. Honest disagreement is more than welcome here. When members are reasonable and sincere in their effort to make a constructive contribution in this private forum, everyone benefits. When members join, and display little attempt at validating their beliefs with legitimate research, they are showing a disrespect for all the people who have contributed time and effort to creating well-researched posts for this 9/11 knowledgebase. Like it or not, these forums are part of a 9/11 knowledgebase. With no governship, the threads can get quickly diluted by spam. I don't know about you, but I get bored really quickly if I see post after post of thoughtless text. The JREF Conspiracy Forum has some great, very educational 9/11 threads, but any thoughtful posts deliberately get buried under abusive spam, more victims of groupthink. So mik it's very simple avoiding the wrath of the moderators. Decide to be an adult and not a child. MM |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Apr 28 2009, 11:29 AM Post #4 |
|
The reality is that this is war. There is no reason for "debate". We already have hard scientific proof that 9/11 was a psychological black operation of deception by the evidence in Manhattan, Arlington, and Shanksville. If you already understand this you can help us fight this war with activism, not debate. If you don't understand this then you're lucky they let you post here at all. |
|
|
| mik | Apr 28 2009, 01:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Ok, it is a war. The truth movement's weapon is information, and promoting understanding of the event. It is therefore highly counter productive for sites like this to stiffle debate. Criag, I would rephrase your statement as "there is hard scientific evidence that 9/11 was a psychological black operation". However, I do not think you have hard evidence that Lloyd England is lying, to publicly accuse him is improper. Your theory has merit and is interesting, but contrary to your view, I think debate is vital to iron out the creases, and frankly, get more perspective. If people here just endorse any theory that is pro inside job, then the truth gets obscured. This does not promote understanding. The loosechange forum should/could be the front line for debate and understanding, not a closed shop. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Apr 28 2009, 03:04 PM Post #6 |
|
You are free to create your own with your own rules here - http://s1.zetaboards.com/zb/register/ Be sure to let us know how that works out for you.  |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 28 2009, 03:54 PM Post #7 |
|
Also, by entering into a debate, members/moderators own debating skills can develop. It is easy to be sarcastic, dismissive. It is easy to restrict and ban. It is difficult to be challenged. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Apr 28 2009, 04:55 PM Post #8 |
|
You aren't getting it. This forum does not exist for debate and it isn't their responsibility to provide an environment for an endless argument over any single piece of evidence. Productive discussion and research is encouraged, but semantic circles and opinionated personal attacks against information that exposes the operation are not tolerated. Yes it is biased. That's how it SHOULD be given the issue and given the serious psychological handicap that we have as we go against the entire mainstream media and the world-wide propaganda machine of the military-industrial-complex. You can disagree with things all you want but if you really and truly believe that 9/11 was an inside job you will focus on activism and use the information that you personally deem the strongest in order to do so if you want to contribute productively. Your opinion on Lloyde England has been noted and your personal attack on me in doing so was dealt with appropriately. Perhaps you should make a list here in the "skeptics" forum of all the things that you think skeptics should focus on during this information war in order to expose the operation. I look forward to seeing your productive contribution to this positive effort. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Apr 28 2009, 08:02 PM Post #9 |
Patriotic American
|
We have been debating and researching 9-11 here on this forum for years. We don't need your trolling and baiting and strawman methods. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 29 2009, 11:49 AM Post #10 |
|
Really? "Those who choose to support the official story can post here to debate the issue with those who question the official story." |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Apr 29 2009, 02:39 PM Post #11 |
|
Exactly....which is why it's perfectly justified that mik was forced to keep his pointless arguments limited to this sub-forum. This "skeptics" sub-forum exists as a means to keep the endless pointless debate contained because that is not the reason for the LCF in general. Please try to keep up and pay attention. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 29 2009, 07:01 PM Post #12 |
|
You just stated this forum doesn't exist for debate. Make your mind up: is this forum (I'm referring to the Skeptics forum) a place for people to debate or not? If you don't want to debate the issues you've raised in your videos, why do you post in this part of the forum? Is this part of the forum just a bear-trap for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the conspiracy theories? I don't think it was created for that purpose, but I may be wrong. I thought it was a place for discussion of ideas and theories by CTs and non-CTs. It's an unfortunate fact that opinions are so polarised that arguments can become heated. That doesn't mean that debate should be silenced. Sadly it seems that's what's happened. All I've experienced from some members on this forum are insults, personal attacks, threats, demeaning comments, accusations, insinuations. All for not subscribing to conspiracy theories on a forum created for skeptics. I believe the vernacular in your country is "go figure". I don't think the mods are responsible for this, at least in my own experience. They've been very fair with me. But a forum thrives on the contributions of its members. And from where I'm sat, it seems that if a member doesn't buy the "party line", the vultures start circling. There's a phrase that I and others use when debate reaches a dead-end: it's called "agree to disagree". I get the feeling that some members aren't happy for that to happen. Which is a shame. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 30 2009, 06:33 AM Post #13 |
|
Bolding is mine. "...when debate reaches a dead end" Debate? Like your last reply to David C. in the longest thread in the Loose Change Forum.
What I've observed from you, HeadLikeARock, is attention seeking, and the desire to always have the last word. MM |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 30 2009, 12:43 PM Post #14 |
|
DavidC has made it his personal goal in life to make me out to be a liar and a disinformationist paid, presumably, by the CIA or some other shady US organisation. That is despite my best efforts at discussing the evidence itself. He brooks no sympathy from me, despite previous olive branches that have been unceremoniously swept aside. That kind of constant attack is designed to either grind you down, or elicit an emotional reaction. Hey ho, he succeeded.
Heaven spare me from amateur psychologists.... |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 01:48 PM Post #15 |
|
This thread was started after my restriction to this forum following a diagreement with Craig Ranke CIT on the thread http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/900869/3/#new. I disagreed with Craig's theory, and disapproved of his treatment of an elderly man, Lloyd England.Likewise. What I find curious, is that nobody has lept to the defence of Craig's Lloyd England theory, or his treatment of the man. It is as though people don't disagree with me on either point, but rather my crime was to criticise Craig Ranke CIT. Perhaps Craig is a made man in the truth movement :-) Edit: Actually noeffects did stick up for Craig, but fell short of agreeing with this theory. I wonder if anyone thinks Craig had enough evidence to publicly accuse Llyod of lying and involvement? Edited by mik, Apr 30 2009, 01:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Apr 30 2009, 04:27 PM Post #16 |
|
Wonder no more. There are plenty of people who do. The plane was on the north side of the gas station. Is there something you are missing? This alone is evidence of Lloyd's lie and involvement. |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 04:47 PM Post #17 |
|
Plenty? The silent majority perhaps. That there are credible witnesses who put the plane on the north side is not in question, this I am not missing. Whether or not there are credible witnesses that put the plane on the south side I don't know, this is missing or omitted. I think you missed the meaning of the question which was, I wonder if anyone thinks Craig had enough evidence to publicly accuse Llyod of lying and involvement? If you Aldo Marquis CIT, think Craig Ranke CIT had enough evidence to publicly accuse Llyod of lying and involvement, why not say so explicitly. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 04:55 PM Post #18 |
|
It is a fairly simple binary puzzle - either England is telling the truth or he isn't. The problem is that his tale is not only physically impossible but also uncorroborated even though it supposedly took place on a busy highway. Meanwhile multiple corroborating witnesses place the plane in a different position north of the Citgo station. So it is pretty clear England isn't telling the truth, ergo he is lying. Do you have another view of events that you want to share with us? |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 05:01 PM Post #19 |
|
tuatara, I have many views which I would be happy to discuss, however, on this thread I am discussing Lloyd England. Again, I think it highly improper for Craig Ranke CIT to publicly acuse this man of lying and involvement. I note that neither you nor Aldo Marquis CIT have endorsed this public acusation. The videos linked from this site which acuse Lloyd England should be removed, it is a disgrace. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 05:18 PM Post #20 |
|
I am discussing Lloyd England, if you had read what I wrote you would realise that. I also said I thought he was lying yet apparently you say I haven't endorsed Craig's accusation, what do you want, my signature in blood? Involvement is inferred with the accusation of lying. Now answer one of my questions. Do you think he is lying? If you answer yes why is it a disgrace to accuse him of it? If you answer no, what reasons do you have to doubt his mendacity? |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 05:29 PM Post #21 |
|
tuatara, your questions are answered in my discussion with Craig Ranke CIT here http://s1.zetaboards.com/...orums/topic/900869/3/#new The question was I wonder if anyone thinks Craig had enough evidence to publicly accuse Llyod of lying and involvement? You have made no reference to this public accusation, do you endorse the public accusation of Lloyd England? The videos linked from this site which acuse Lloyd England should be removed, it is a disgrace. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 05:47 PM Post #22 |
|
Well the link is abbreviated and I am not about to wade through an old thread - do me a favour and answer the very simple YES/NO question here please. I have no problem with a public accusation, Craig has gathered more than enough evidence in my opinion. Now answer my question. |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 06:03 PM Post #23 |
|
Noted. I'll quote myself from the thread "He was up on the bridge" in the pentagon page, the last sentence got me banished to the skeptics page ;-)
I'll add that Lloyd is an old man, who doesn't seem too bright, trying to recall events from some years earlier, and he's doing a bad job of it, so what? The idea that this man is "in on it" is absurd. Lloyd is a human being, and people should be very careful about throwing public accusations around. This site should not link videos which acuse Lloyd England, it is a disgrace. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Apr 30 2009, 06:04 PM Post #24 |
|
We have. The evidence speaks for itself. Silent majority my foot. Stop charading as a truther and admit your bias as a pseudo skeptic. If the plane was on the north side, Lloyd England lied. |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 06:12 PM Post #25 |
|
Aldo Marquis CIT, are there no south side witnesses? The northside witnesses are credible, they imply that a plane did not hit the lamp posts. Does that tell you what happened to the lamp posts?
Edited by mik, Apr 30 2009, 06:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
2:32 PM Nov 23
