Not really listening to others and not really engaging with "new" others, who may or may not be "honestly" trying to find out what is going on, banning people, "swarming onto them" with hate filled posts, makes it sound like this "CF group of minds" is highly polarised, intolerant, narrow minded and extremist. Dissidents and heretics beware!
Why do you take an Internet forum personally? In fact, how can
you? It's not a person. It's impersonal. It's digital 1's and 0's. It's information in a kind of "purely" artificial form. It's fabricated from computers. You couldn't be "nice" if you wanted to. It just translates into fakeness and an unwillingness to speak about matters on a forum concerned with science - and what is possible and what is not.
There is no reason to engage with users who behave as though they are not honestly trying to find out what's going on. And I resent that you put honestly in quotes. Honesty is important here. It's more important than being a cushion for your sensitivities or sense of politeness or whatever you call dodging the point. Why do you make yourself out to be a "dissident" or a "heretic" when all you really are is someone who doesn't care about the truth? And someone who actively posts disinformation on forums concerned with truth?
Sorry, that's an assumption on my part. Perhaps you only target this forum in particular?
I get that you want to say that nothing is "real" (when it is found elsewhere than what you show here on CF)
Actually, we don't even subscribe to the content created here. That is the difference, actually, between following (as you are doing) and thinking for yourself, which is what we are trying to encourage people to do.
Now you may say there is a paradox in trying to get everyone to think for themselves, and to believe nothing that they don't sense for themselves, but I think it's a paradox I am comfortable with. At least I am much more comfortable with it than I am with people like you coming on here saying they care about the truth and then making up things that aren't true -- about this forum and its users -- especially trying to give us the character of a cult.
Case in point, much of what we link to is to stuff outside this forum. But I am not being vague about the stuff from you I dislike. I am specifically referring to the Aaron Russo video and the videos by Alex Jones that are highly suspicious to me. Why is that so offensive to you? Why do you rush to the suspicious character of Aaron Russo's defenses? Why are you so quick to ignore our accusation that he may not be entirely real and so quick to endorse his tiny simulated existence online? Perhaps he is more real than not, but your response to the possibility that he isn't, is telling. You are defensive of things you know no more about than anyone else on the Internet! It's amazing! And sad.
but of course many people think that a lot of what you show here is also not real.
Meaning ... what? Isn't that the very point of our forum that we emphasize over and over? To research
for yourself - to not
trust anything posted anywhere on the Internet? So your point doesn't make sense.
Some of it may be real and some of it may be lies. Like "Rat poison" some of it might be "good food" but then the "poison" percentage mixed in with the good food is designed to do the damage.
Which is why we always, always
encourage everyone to research everything
for themselves. But does that give you the right to protest our doubt? No, it does not. Doubt is a human right - beyond a human right - a biological function that keeps us healthy. Doubt is what everyone exercises on a daily basis without even trying. Don't attack that and claim you're defending it. It doesn't come across as "nice" here. It comes across as shillery.
"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Churchill
You treat that quote as if you believed in Churchill's methods. Have I not explained that we don't welcome a climate for half-truths and pseudo-science? We only want what can be as close to empirically proven as possible.
We are in a war.
Are "we" at war? Am I at war? I don't know. I don't think so. Why do you say so? Because that's basically Alex Jones' fucking mantra for life?
The brainless sheeple are the real problem, not the Nick Rockefellers. But you CF people do not really try to engage the sheeple or try to change their minds politely, calmly and rationally.
So because you have no idea how individual users here "engage the sheeple" outside of this forum, you defend the Rockefellers? Interesting. Nick Rockefeller just isn't a problem in your book? The people he exploits, dupes and treats like dirt are the bigger problem? Fascinating perspective. I wonder how those you insultingly refer to as "the sheeple" feel about that.
You CF extremists instead talk utter bullshit about how WTC1&2 could ONLY have been destroyed by bottom up demolition
Which CF extremists are you talking about? Only Heiwa insists that top down is impossible, and even then, he was not always insisting that "bottom up" is the exclusive method. How does he feel now? Instead of isolating him and asking him, you claim everyone is groupmind. How odd. What's utter bullshit is that you are making this mistake as such a newbie here. What we (and I can only speak for some here) discuss is the general difficulty in not knowing how they did it, not in saying we absolutely know how.
Furthermore, bottom up demolition is just one alternative to top down, and demolition
isn't even on the table in some peoples' books. The fact that you later contradict this straw-man proposition by saying there must have been some "secret weapon" used tells me all I need to know about your double-thinking hypocritical stance:
1. You say we are not allowed to doubt
2. You mistake (on purpose?) our doubt in the official conspiracy theory for a blind belief in a single possibility - and tell us we are wrong for collectively thinking something that is not collectively thought. In fact, it was one (or two? maybe three?) user(s) here that individually expressed the possibility that top-down demolition is unlikely.
3. You posit that there could have been a secret weapon and imply that we are trying to cover it up. On the contrary, if there was a secret weapon used, we want proof and not the productions of Alex Jones or Judy Wood or another character that denies the evidence of vast video fakery.
behind a smokescreen
The method by which the facts were hidden is confusing and probably more diverse than mere fake video evidence. Who here is claiming that it could ONLY have happened behind a smokescreen? Nobody. So who are you calling a bullshitter and who are you calling "you CF extremists"? You sound like an Alex Jones follower alright. You demonize people the way he does - with lies and distortions. My hunch was a little too close to home, perhaps? You can't even get your facts straight about what we are exploring on the forum and whose stance is what.
You take some speculations and extrapolate them into blind beliefs, the opposite of what happens on this forum.
You demonize a collective belief we don't even have.
You introduce your own possibility that is open to doubt, because it's supported by shitty evidence and led by morons such as Alex Jones and his ilk.
You claim the myriad different users from different backgrounds and from so many different parts of the world are part of an extremist cult? For posting on the same forum together? For wanting posts to remain scientific? On topic? What? You claim this is extremism. Interesting. Perhaps it's just called not being lazy. I'd hate to see the kind of forum you would run if you were afraid to ban disruptors.
when you obviously have no evidence at all for that theory
Also false. We have about as much evidence as anyone has for any theory about 9/11, which is to say: very little evidence for a smoke screen. But not "no evidence" and since your point is already moot - there is some evidence of 9/11 events, but not much - your statement here makes very little sense.
since you have dismissed all of the video evidence as fraudulent.
Some discriminating users claim they haven't seen a single non-fraudulent video. I don't think most people deny that there is the possibility some legitimate video exists. But then why hasn't it surfaced in the 11 years since 9/11? Because all the video that has surfaced is, in fact, fraud. It is computer generated, it is fabricated, doctored - MADE UP! FAKED! And nobody has proven otherwise. In fact, once a video is shown to be (what can only be deliberately
) made fraudulent, there isn't much more to say about it except that it is an animated lie. So why do you keep insisting we should look further at a lie and consider some truth in it? What is your purpose in directing our attention, and repeatedly, to those who mix truth and fiction so liberally?
be the point except to distract us from the incredible truths found? There is
truth. It can
be left untainted. You don't seem to believe in such a thing.
That is internally incoherent theorising, that just makes CF look insane.
The wobbly wind-up. Aha.
So the points you just made - the straw man you just depicted, of a bunch of "extremists" unwilling to believe in your speculations and blindly beholden to a belief none of us actually has -- this is what you call "incoherent theorising"? Hm, couldn't help but agree there, "Andrew". Good thing we don't write things up the way you do. Your contributions (and the kind like it) are the very things that are insane. Thankfully, we have the power to ban them, which is going into effect right now.
Yes, so the video record may be fraudulent, possibly to hide some strange visual WMD effects, evidence of things that are still military secrets.
And the pitch! Whizz! Wow! So all this ...
Confronting the Evidence, In Plane Site, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, A&E for truth, Pilots for Truth, CIT, Loose Change, Painful Deceptions etc. etc. have all worked coherently to wake the sheeple up.
... is to promote Nico Haupt, Judy Wood "energy beam from the [non-existant] ISS" theory? Or - forgive me - I was doing a bit of strawman there myself. I guess you got me in the mood. So you're promoting strange visual Weapons of Mass Destruction? You're promoting CIT and A&E gatekeepers? Wow!
How does something like Loose Change "work coherently" ("coherently"? You're not being coherent here) to "wake the sheeple" if you're still trying to get people to follow liars, tools and guru-types like yourself, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and the bunch of seemingly fake actors and sims marching across YouTube? And how can you even turn, in a matter of two posts, from an intellectual supporter of the truth into another name-calling attempt to discredit it and skew it, just like that parade of hucksters?
It is all too clear why you came on here in time with peacebabynow
to spread your pseudo-truthish pop celebrity garbage and rob people's precious time with links away from CluesForum. I am going to go delete the Alex Jones shit you posted, because if people really are responding to it in the way you claim, they can certainly do so on the rest of the Internet
, where that confusion-factory dominates.
That is quite enough out of you. Bad pitch, man. Or ... whatever you were.