9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip with Andrew Maxwell

lolo62

did anyone see this?

i thought it was interesting that they decided to get a group of youngsters together instead of people like jordan maxwell etc...

Daithi 1

Was a joke, a sham.

I dont wonder why NONE of the multitude of anti conspitatorial programs dont mention Larry Silverstein or the FACT that the BBC stated building 7 collapsed PRIOR to it's collapse.

I dont wonder why, to prove thermate doesnt cut steel, they poured a pile of thermate on a hotizontal steel beam and set it alight. While we know that thermate needs to be packed tightly/encased to the beam to have full effect.

For starters.

Charlie Veitch is an idiot. I just posted this on his facebook page in rage of his turning on day 1 !!!!!!

"Cant believe you caved on day 1 Charlie lol, youre one donkey. Thremate needs to be packed/enclosed to cut the steel, not poured on top of it lmfao. That said, the U.S gov could easily disprove the CT's by releasing the 80+ pentagon videos to prove it was a plane that hit it. Therefore, we must conclude they revel in the discombopulation of the masses. So the conspiracy continues. 1 question remains..... Why am I talking to a donkey ? "

And Maxwell is a FnCKTARD !!!!!

ratedR

Yeah say this, slightly annoyed.

I wouldn't call myself a conspiracy theorist, but a few things from that day do seem a bit suss.

Maxwell surprised me too. I always thought he came across as a bit anti-establisment, not willing to believe all he was told. But it kinda seemed for this doc, he believed whatever the BBC told him to for €€€ .

My main gripe was that Building 7 wasn't once mentioned. Oh and the phone calls from the plane. They went off on a weird tangent with them and voice faking, rather then address the fact that your phone does just not work when up that high !

Daithi 1

Yup, 9/11 is small fry from my prespecive. I have thought for a long while that it's pretty much a psy-ops job, no matter who is responsible.
They will play the blame game for as long as it takes.
I dont think the 10 year anniversary plague of anti CT shows will reduce the CT's at all, but enflame it.
Point being, I dont mind giving up my belief that it was, somehow, an inside job. (they probably just let it happen) but (there could well have been explosive material used). It's small potatoes, very small. But this show was redick !! Charlie chamakazied himself lol.... At least wait for some decent evedience man, just to make it look genuine :pac:

Obelisk

I've not seen it yet!

ratedR

ratedR wrote: »

Yeah say this, slightly annoyed.

I wouldn't call myself a conspiracy theorist, but a few things from that day do seem a bit suss.

Maxwell surprised me too. I always thought he came across as a bit anti-establisment, not willing to believe all he was told. But it kinda seemed for this doc, he believed whatever the BBC told him to for €€€ .

My main gripe was that Building 7 wasn't once mentioned. Oh and the phone calls from the plane. They went off on a weird tangent with them and voice faking, rather then address the fact that your phone does just not work when up that high !

You make a point about him believing all he's told...
But can you honestly say that not what you are doing with the above statement?
Have you personally actually gone out and tested this by yourself and can show through your own individual research that it is true?

Darlughda

Well, if there is any group of people in this world who even pretend that the lame Andrew Maxwell is even remotely amusing, that indeed is a conspiracy worth investigating.

ratedR

King Mob wrote: »

You make a point about him believing all he's told...
But can you honestly say that not what you are doing with the above statement?
Have you personally actually gone out and tested this by yourself and can show through your own individual research that it is true?

Yeah I've tried it.

I've kept my phone on on flghts between Ireland and the Uk.
I've turned my phone on on flights to Canada and to Australia.

Once you're at a certain height, nothing.

So na na

ratedR

ratedR wrote: »

Yeah I've tried it.

I've kept my phone on on flghts between Ireland and the Uk.
I've turned my phone on on flights to Canada and to Australia.

Once you're at a certain height, nothing.

So na na

Ah well if you say that you did it twice, it must be true.

Thank you for showing the maturity and thoroughness of the conspiracy believers.

ratedR

King Mob wrote: »

Ah well if you say that you did it twice, it must be true.

Thank you for showing the maturity and thoroughness of the conspiracy believers.

Yeah absolutely, course it's true. Shur I did it :rolleyes:

Read the first line in my first post. I don't claim to be a conspiracy theorist.

One or 2 things, for me, seem a little off. And that's one of them.
Mobile phone signals work on masts dont they. And their not all that high. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Unless they were flying low enough to get signal. Who knows ? I really don't feel that strongly about it to go start a campaign or anything.

And shur you asked about my own individual research. Then mocked me when I said I had. Why didn't you just cut to the chase and call me a c**t in the first post ?

clever_name

ratedR wrote: »

Yeah I've tried it.

I've kept my phone on on flghts between Ireland and the Uk.
I've turned my phone on on flights to Canada and to Australia.

Once you're at a certain height, nothing.

So na na

Would you consider that its not the height causing the lack of signal but the location? If you are over an ocean it might be harder to get reception.

I have been on flights to central Europe and have heard texts being recieved - followed shortly by someone desperately searching for the phone they though was switched off.

marty1985

What's the conspiracy, that they couldn't make calls from the plane? Don't they have phones you can use on planes, that just require you to swipe a credit card? Obviously I must be missing something.

ratedR

ratedR wrote: »

One or 2 things, for me, seem a little off. And that's one of them.

So assuming your "research" holds and it's impossible for phones to work on a plane, why exactly did They fake the phone calls?
Does that not seem a little off?

ratedR wrote: »

Mobile phone signals work on masts dont they.

Yes. And you expect them to be in the middle of the ocean?
Cause you realise that the 9/11 planes were mostly over land?

ratedR wrote: »

And their not all that high. It just doesn't make sense to me.

And their signal stops suddenly above them?

At what point does the signal stop above the mast?

ratedR wrote: »

Unless they were flying low enough to get signal. Who knows ? I really don't feel that strongly about it to go start a campaign or anything.

So they couldn't have been flying lower than trans-oceanic flights over land with a higher density of masts compared to the middle of the ocean?
I think I see the flaw in your research...

ratedR wrote: »

And shur you asked about my own individual research. Then mocked me when I said I had. Why didn't you just cut to the chase and call me a c**t in the first post ?

Well considering your research consists of you testing something twice in non-comparable circumstances...
But in reality your simply just spreading what you've been told to believe by conspiracy theorists.
Kinda like you accuse the Ed Byrne of ..

I kinda think that's a little hypocritical...

clever_name

ratedR wrote: »

One or 2 things, for me, seem a little off. And that's one of them.
Mobile phone signals work on masts dont they. And their not all that high. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Unless they were flying low enough to get signal. Who knows ? I really don't feel that strongly about it to go start a campaign or anything.

Mobile phones are not really phones afaik, technically they are two way radios so I dont think they are limited to lower heights. radio signals dont stop at any height, they just get weaker as they move away from the source.

Things may have been different in 2001, I have no idea.

marty1985

marty1985 wrote: »

What's the conspiracy, that they couldn't make calls from the plane? Don't they have phones you can use on planes, that just require you to swipe a credit card? Obviously I must be missing something.

Well on 9/11 there were logged calls from both phones like those and from mobiles.

In reality sometimes planes fly low and near enough to masts to pick up signals. The chances of this increase as you get nearer and lower to a heavily populated area, say like Washington or New York.

The claim that it is impossible is a common canard spread by truther sites which generally include research of the quality and calibre displayed by ratedR's

bernardo mac

Of course American security was seriously inept and the arms' industry made massive profits and CT's and lots of other headers love and thrive financially on publicity but that's modern society and if there's a chance of a buck to be made someone will cash in despite the gravity or tragic nature of the event

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Have you personally actually gone out and tested this by yourself and can show through your own individual research that it is true?

HAVE YOU ? BECAUSE YOU ARGUE WITH SUCH SPIRIT AND CONFIDENCE, LIKE YOU HAVE GONE OUT INTO THE WILD AND DONE ALL THE THERMITE TESTS YOURSELF.

IF NOT, WHY WOULD YOU PUT THAT QUESTION TO ANOTHER FORUM MEMBER ?

ABOVE IS SAID LOUDLY WITH A SCOTTISH ACCENT

ratedR

I dunno Daithi, they have me. I better pull back that CV I sent to Mythbusters

I liked the way clever_name replied. He had a bit of knowledge about phones, and put it across in a friendly, civil way.

King Mob, I never used the term fake either. I never suggested they faked the calls. You're putting words in my mouth man ! I just dont know. Phone calls over land. Fair enough. I didnt think of that, maybe that will work. Be civil though dude, stop constantly quoting me and trying to make me look foolish to try make yourself look big.

cuppa

Thought your post was quite foolish , don't think mob had to try. I saw most of the show, an the ct guys were typical types that believe in YouTube over actually hearing ot from the horses mouth .

Daithi 1

lay off the cuppa's, cuppa :pac:

Killer Pigeon

Yeah, but at least the programme was telling the truth. Conspiracy theorists don't seem to like the truth ... and the blatantly obvious. Putting a comedian in the mix to rip the piss out of them was a nice idea.

Di0genes

ratedR wrote: »

Yeah I've tried it.

I've kept my phone on on flghts between Ireland and the Uk.
I've turned my phone on on flights to Canada and to Australia.

Once you're at a certain height, nothing.

So na na

Of course you're forgetting that the major of the calls were made on airphones.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Have you personally actually gone out and tested this by yourself and can show through your own individual research that it is true?

He says he did and yet you find it necessary to ridicule him

quote King mob

Ah well if you say that you did it twice, it must be true.

Thank you for showing the maturity and thoroughness of the conspiracy believers.

Very mature KM ... very mature

Bistoman

I dont know who was/Is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But what igot from that show was that Nothing absolutely Nothing was going to convince that gang that they " Might" be wrong. What was the point of them going? The Indian looking guy and the blond girl had their minds made up long before they even got on the plane. I'm not saying that their view is the wrong view, But is a little bit of open mindedness too much to expect?
The one thing the show proved to Me was that You cant change the mind of a zealot.

weisses

ratedR wrote: »

King Mob, I never used the term fake either. I never suggested they faked the calls. You're putting words in my mouth man ! I just dont know. Phone calls over land. Fair enough. I didnt think of that, maybe that will work. Be civil though dude, stop constantly quoting me and trying to make me look foolish to try make yourself look big.

Thats the way he tries to get to everyone who doesn't agree with him ...

And then being P*** off with CT believers ... the Irony :rolleyes:

Penn

Drop the bitching, guys. Discuss the topic at hand

weisses

Barrington wrote: »

Drop the bitching, guys. Discuss the topic at hand

I am just trying to point out a trend in the way King Mob is steering certain discussions


If that is bitching my apologies .. I'll try to be less direct and more OT

lolo62

whatever about the thermite i thought the woman describing the phonecall from the plane was bizarre...didnt she say something along the lines of ''i could hear men jumping over the seats to get to the cockpit'' or something to that effect..

clever_name

lolo62 wrote: »

whatever about the thermite i thought the woman describing the phonecall from the plane was bizarre...didnt she say something along the lines of ''i could hear men jumping over the seats to get to the cockpit'' or something to that effect..

No, she said her son was the kind of person who would do that.

lolo62

clever_name wrote: »

No, she said her son was the kind of person who would do that.

she also said something along the lines of what i stated

lolo62

ok i stand corrected...she was talking about a voice recording not a call...she said she could hear, on the recording, a group of 4-7 men charging forward

its up on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpQzU74X9rE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Bistoman

lolo62 wrote: »

ok i stand corrected...she was talking about a voice recording not a call...she said she could hear, on the recording, a group of 4-7 men charging forward

its up on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpQzU74X9rE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

She says She " Could Just Visualize" Not that She heard.

lolo62

Bistoman wrote: »

She says She " Could Just Visualize" Not that She heard.

this is what she said...''what i could HEAR was a group of about 4/5/6/7 men charging forward'' then she went on to say 'i can just visualize' her son leaping over the seats

Daithi 1

This from one of the girls on the show:





9/11 Roadtrip - My Perspective


by Emily Louise Church on Friday, September 9, 2011 at 3:27am

Hello, my name is Emily Church and I am a mute.

Well, according to the masters of propaganda at the BBC/Renegade Productions.

This summer I participated in a BBC hit-piece on 9/11, entitled 'Conspiracy Roadtrip'. The premise is simple, five non-believers of the official story journey across the east coast of the USA in search of the truth. On the way we meet 'experts' and victims of the attacks, guided by "comedian" Andrew Maxwell who believes the 9/11 comission report was the be all and end all of the 9/11 story.

The show aired a few hours ago and I felt compelled to write my version of what happened on that 8 day roadtrip, to give you the perspective you were not shown by BBC 3.

Firstly, I must tip my hat to them, they did a wonderful editing job. Anyone that has ever had a conversation with me or knows me personally will be very much aware of my opinions re: 9/11, and how outspoken I am about them. However, on this show I appear to be pretty much silent the entire way through.

I wasn't.

Throughout my time on the show I asked question after question, I asked every single person we met whether they believed the official story to be true and the vast majority of them said no. Ask yourselves this question, why has the footage of us meeting Tom Owen, a voice analyst who worked on the Osama Bin Laden 'confession' tapes, been cut completely? There is a simple answer, because he told us not to believe the official report. Why? Because we aren't in the 'need-to-know' category, his words, not mine. Throughout our entire meeting with Tom Owen it was pretty much clear that the director of the show wasn't happy with his take, like most of our meetings with 'experts' she would try and steer the conversation in a direction that would better fit her hit piece.

I'd also like to ask why footage of Ben Sliney saying that someone needs to be held accountable for 9/11 was cut? Surely that's something that the TV license paying public should be able to see? But no, it didn't fit their requirements for the perfect hit piece.

On the journey I was one of the most vocal contributors, consistently asking questions and receiving no answers whatsoever. I wonder why? Is it completely out of this world to assume that the answers to my questions might have made the truth about 9/11 a little too clear to the viewer? Is it a ridiculous conspiracy theory to assume that the reason the BBC turned me into a mute was to create a biased hit-piece?As with most 9/11 'conspiracy' documentaries, they focused on mostly debunkable theories such as no plane hit the Pentagon and fake phone calls. In other words, **** that pushes us further away from real truth and accountability. They also did a great job at making it seem like I believed most of these theories. I'll freely admit that before I went on the show I was a '9/11 was an inside job' sort of girl. Hell, I even have a t-shirt from infowars.com. Yes that's right, I knowingly gave money to Alex Jones.

Before I went on the show I had an epiphany of sorts. I realised that all evidence points to a plane hitting a Pentagon, that maybe the twin towers and Building 7 weren't a controlled demolition and maybe Dick Cheney and co hadn't plotted the whole thing with fake hijackers. Now I don't know what is true and what isn't, I am not 100% convinced about controlled demolition but it is a distinct possibility. I just decided to focus on the other, less spoken about side of 9/11. The fact that with multiple warnings, the US failed to prevent an attack on their own shores. The fact that so many people have been gagged from talking about 9/11 and revealing information they might know. The fact that the 9/11 commission report, by it's own ADMISSION was set up to fail. These are just a few of the facts that I brought up on the show. Were they shown?No.

I made it very clear, before I went to the US, that I thought these theories can sometimes be harmful to our chances of ever getting a new investigation into 9/11. I asked repeatedly to speak to some sort of government representative, someone who I could ask my questions to. And despite being told I would get to speak to someone, alas that time never came.

So tonight I watched the show and saw no effort on the BBC's part to differentiate myself from these theories, in fact, they made it look like these theories were actually my own. As you will see if you watch the show, they told me to ask about airport security, yet they cut out clips of me asking why the hijackers weren't prevented from entering the country. I asked why, with all of the foreknowledge that the US had, were precautions not taken to protect the innocent American people that tragically lost their lives. I didn't get an answer.

In ten years, not one person has been held accountable for the events of 9/11, when it is now so evident that the attacks could of been prevented. Hell, even Ben Sliney said that the attacks could've been prevented. Why are we so comfortable with letting people get away with this? And why, after ten years, are people that dare to question the official story still painted as conspiracy theorists? Hasn't it been proven, time and time again, that elements of the US administration covered up their criminal involvement in 9/11?

Interestingly, the whole show seemed to be centered around Charlotte, trying to portray her as something she isn't. The editing was truly phenomonal, here we have a typical conspiracy theorist, unwilling to listen to anyone else's point of view and adamant that she is right. That's not how it was. They also included an argument that me and Charlotte had and took it completely out of context, they failed to include the fact that we made up shortly afterwards, with me apologising to her. It made me quite angry to see vicious comments about her, considering the fact that she is a friend of mine and one of the people I have stayed in most contact with after the show. Yes, I may disagree with her on some points, but that is the great thing about being able to formulate our own opinions. Me and Charlotte are united on the fact that 9/11 desperately needs a new investigation. Please don't fall for the BBC's clever editing trick, she is not a bad person and the show misrepresented her entirely.

The same goes for Rodney, the other person I have stayed in contact with since being in the US. Again, we may not agree on everything and we have our differences, but in my experience with him he is a rational and down to earth person. Maybe we should all remember that this was a well-crafted hit piece, the editing was designed to generate ill-feeling towards Rodney and Charlotte, the most head-strong people on the show (along with myself, obviously).

And here we reach Andrew Maxwell, the Irish comedian who consistently ridiculed us and walked away in the middle of debates. See, the BBC don't want you to know that he complained throughout the entire shoot, laughed about us behind our backs and on more than one occassion said that he wished he'd never signed on to do the show. He's not a bad person, he was there trying to make some money, we were there trying to get some truth. It's as simple as that.

Personally, I'm pretty disgusted at the documentary and I think participating in the show will always be one of my biggest regrets. But at the same time, I feel pretty lucky that I got to meet the people I did and ask the questions that I did, even though they weren't included in the show. It saddens me that I look like a dumb student who doesn't know a thing about 9/11 and it angers me that I barely have a voice in the entire 60 minutes that the show runs for.

Overall the experience was an interesting one, but one I wouldn't do again. Imagine intense heat, stuck on a bus all day with cameras shoved in your face, 12 hour filming days, early mornings and emotional break downs. It was intense to say the least.

There are a lot more grievances I have with the show but that's something I will write about another day. Now, it's time to get some sleep and try to find hope in the fact that I know what happened on the 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip, I know what I said and I know the answers I got.

Daithi 1

They busted wide open thos crazy conspiracies with lego, eggs and water balloons :pac:

The tower made from lego is when Charlie turned lmfao. He tilted the top of it and you could see a lightbulb come on... "no i get it!!" :pac:

They threw water balloons on the floor and dude said..

"see how the water splashes ? thats what happened flight 93" lol

You couldnt make this stuff up.


:pac::pac::D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Penn

Two posts removed. If you wish to join the discussion, do so in a respectful way. Please read the forum charter for more helpful tips and advice.

Bistoman

Barrington wrote: »

Two posts removed. If you wish to join the discussion, do so in a respectful way. Please read the forum charter for more helpful tips and advice.

Not trying to be Piggy about it, But are You suggesting that You must be a true believer in conspiracy theories to post Here?
and there was Me thinking that having a valid point of view gives You a right to post.
Enjoy playing in Your own little world then, Because everyone will agree with You.

Penn

Bistoman wrote: »

Not trying to be Piggy about it, But are You suggesting that You must be a true believer in conspiracy theories to post Here?
and there was Me thinking that having a valid point of view gives You a right to post.
Enjoy playing in Your own little world then, Because everyone will agree with You.

Not at all. We have many posters here who don't believe in conspiracy theories. The forum is about 9/11 and conspiracies about 9/11. Both sides are needed otherwise there would be no real discussion.

However, comments like

And to Emily Louise Church - maybe your parts were cut so the Beeb don't come across as a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing lunatics by including your completely ludicrous and overly fantastical opinions on such an Internationally touchy subject?

Maybe look at yourself first and think of the reason WHY YOU are so sceptical.

are not acceptable. I only deleted your post because you quoted and responded to it.

Bistoman

Barrington wrote: »

are not acceptable. I only deleted your post because you quoted and responded to it.[/B]

I removed that part of the quote before I posted it,because I saw it as a little harsh.

Penn

Bistoman wrote: »

I removed that part of the quote before I posted it,because I saw it as a little harsh.

Sorry, I just rechecked there and you're right. Apologies. I was a little quick off the mark there.

But yeah, this forum is for everyone. Feel free to agree or disagree with anyone.

Daithi 1

Bistoman wrote: »

I removed that part of the quote before I posted it,because I saw it as a little harsh.

I'm glad Emily Louise Church wasnt here to witness your vicious attack

Daithi 1

Barrington wrote: »

Sorry, I just rechecked there and you're right. Apologies. I was a little quick off the mark there.

But yeah, this forum is for everyone. Feel free to agree or disagree with anyone.

Sept mods :pac:

Obelisk

lol...

Here is the full thing from the 'tube;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bO-z5SYfE

Looks like BOLLOCKS already in the opening :mad:

Penn

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sept mods :pac:

Darn tootin'

Now back on topic please folks

Leslie91

I watched it. Was Emily the loudmouth?.

There was 2 lads and 3 women. Of the 3 women there was a black girl who flew the plane, a girl who appeared to cry in the company of Bingham's mum and another. Was this 3rd girl Emily?. (sorry was not interested in their names)

I dunno how she thinks she was portrayed as a mute. Quite the opposite in fact, my impression was she was a loudmouth who would not be swayed 1 bit no matter what. She has her opinion and she was sticking to it end of.

In terms of the conspiracies.

Imho a plane defo crashed into the Pentagon, it wasn't a missile. The impact of the jets with their fuel etc brought the towers down, there was no demolition.

2 things I would agree on/like to hear more about are (1) that the US authorities knew something big was in planning and seemingly did F all about it and (2) building 7 collapse, WTF happened there?.

cyrusdvirus

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Was a joke, a sham.

I dont wonder why NONE of the multitude of anti conspitatorial programs dont mention Larry Silverstein or the FACT that the BBC stated building 7 collapsed PRIOR to it's collapse.

I dont wonder why, to prove thermate doesnt cut steel, they poured a pile of thermate on a hotizontal steel beam and set it alight. While we know that thermate needs to be packed tightly/encased to the beam to have full effect.

For starters.

Charlie Veitch is an idiot. I just posted this on his facebook page in rage of his turning on day 1 !!!!!!

"Cant believe you caved on day 1 Charlie lol, youre one donkey. Thremate needs to be packed/enclosed to cut the steel, not poured on top of it lmfao. That said, the U.S gov could easily disprove the CT's by releasing the 80+ pentagon videos to prove it was a plane that hit it. Therefore, we must conclude they revel in the discombopulation of the masses. So the conspiracy continues. 1 question remains..... Why am I talking to a donkey ? "

And Maxwell is a FnCKTARD !!!!!

You posted an abusive message on some randomers facebook page, and you think that's a good thing.

Did you ever stop to wonder why all CTers are marginalised??

And there's nothing like a bit of revisionist history from Emily Church now is there....

The company i work for were involved in a once off tv programme a while ago.. before it was aired we were shown a copy of the broadcast, i can only assume that Ms Church and her cohorts were also given the same courtesy.

And when her super secret "We know the Truth about 9-11 and the rest of the planet (who believe their own eyes and evidence) are idiots" meeting gave her a wrist slap last night she wrote up that drivel.

Bistoman

Obelisk wrote: »

lol...

Here is the full thing from the 'tube;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bO-z5SYfE

Looks like BOLLOCKS already in the opening :mad:

It worth watching, Gives a good insight into people who just refuse to believe anything that is contrary to what they already believe. It also quite funny watching how frustrated Maxwell gets.
I said before that I dont know ware the truth lies about 9/11, But I find myself being pushed more towards the accepted theory ( That is that Bin Ladan did it) every time I see or hear a Zealot like these, Refusing to accept the slightest chance that they Just "might" be wrong.

Dublin_Gunner

Barrington wrote: »

Two posts removed. If you wish to join the discussion, do so in a respectful way. Please read the forum charter for more helpful tips and advice.

Great, a moderator that allows one point of view to be posted.

So I can't have an opinion?

The term 'tin foil hat' is a well known and used term, and is not derogatory in any fashion, but merely used to describe an individual who is more likely to believe a conspiracy, than the more basic 'truth'.

I've noticed the people that describe a non-sceptic [Andrew Maxwell] as a fúcktard don't get their posts removed.

Propaganda and censoring at its best, Boards style.

Barrington = no credibility.

**edit

Oh, and of course you remove my ENTIRE post, completely taking my own opinion away from the thread. Could you not have just edited the bits you said you had a problem with??

But then of course you'd have an opinion posted that discredits CT's beliefs with the simplest, most likely theory of all...

Penn

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Great, a moderator that allows one point of view to be posted.

So I can't have an opinion?

The term 'tin foil hat' is a well known and used term, and is not derogatory in any fashion, but merely used to describe an individual who is more likely to believe a conspiracy, than the more basic 'truth'.

Check out other threads on the forum. Check out the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 thread where I've spent the last few pages disagreeing with the conspiracy theory. Check out other people who disagree with most of the theories posted. Both sides of the debate are welcome here. Comments like 'tin foil hat' isn't. We have a wide range of posters who believe in many different topics to varying degrees. Tin foil hat doesn't mean someone who is more likely to believe in a conspiracy, it means a crazy person, and it is disrespectful to the posters here.

Like I said, feel free to disagree with anyone's opinions here. I welcome it. It stimulates debate and discussion which is what a forum should be about. But show the people on the other side of the debate some respect.

Any more discussion on this is to be done via PM and not on thread, or I'll have to grab my trusty tin foil banhammer.

Here's the relevant parts of the forum charter too:

It is almost inevitable that you will see large amounts of the users here falling into two main camps, either in general, or on specific issues. On any issue there are those who support the Conspiracy Theory, and those who do not (referred to as "the skeptics", commonly). Whether you fall into one of those groups, or are more of a "fence-sitter", you're welcome here as long as you treat everyone else with respect.

If you're here to discuss why you believe differently to others... Great.

Don't make the natives restless. This is a catch-all rule for general trolling, bitching and similar. Posting in a manner purely to get a reaction from someone will not be tolerated. If a moderator feels that said poster is doing this intentionally or is the cause of the mess, then that poster can and will be infracted and/or banned.

Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here. Posts which are insulting to those who believe conspiracies / the mainstream, for example, may be considered to be insulting to other posters, and as such will not be tolerated.

Obelisk

Well I just watched it. What an anti-climax! That programme was an insult to my intelligence and I feel sorry for the type of people its designed to appeal to! Also, maxwell is a ****.

Bistoman

Obelisk wrote: »

Well I just watched it. What an anti-climax! That programme was an insult to my intelligence and I feel sorry for the type of people its designed to appeal to

Why? Did You expect a definitive answer to the 9/11 attacks on a late night BBC3 doc?

Obelisk wrote: »

! Also, maxwell is a ****.

Also Why? He doesn't believe the CT's he tells You that. And nothing was done to suggest that the CT's ware true.