21-09-2013, 04:43 PM
David Guyatt Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:An open question to all. If, as I believe this Forum has decided, we don't long 'suffer' those who support [for whatever reason - benign naivete or non-benign motives] the official version of the WC - i.e. the official version of who shot and how JFK died; then why do we long suffer those who [for whatever reasons] support or appear to most on this Forum to support the official version of the events of 9-11-01? Must we wait another 38 years for that to be so here? It is an open question, and one I think needs some explication and discussion. Where one draws the 'line' will always be somewhat subjective, and the prerogative of the owners; but I hope we Plebs have some 'moral' sway. :tampfeet::
It has always been the case - and always will be - that those trolls that we have identified have enjoyed only a short stay here as members.
The thing is Pete, that we need to always endeavour to share a degree of balance and reasonableness in what we do and how we present ourselves. We don't burn at the stake those who dare to have heretical and differing views, or who utterly disagree with us either. How could we? We are, by definition of our presence here, a community that are ourselves heretical and different to our very cores.
The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.
As you know, I could't care less about the JFK folder. For me it's too much ado altogether. I just can't get enthused about the subject. I know I'm in a minority. I'm much the same with 911. Having said all that, like most others here, I disagree with Jeffrey's position on 911. But I can live with him banging on about it. I don't get eristical about it.
Viva la difference I say. How turgid and boring this place would be, if we all agreed all the time. You'd become deaf in a very short time, listening to the swing doors banging shut together as everyone made their rapid exit.
And yes, god will strike me down for saying so, but even I sometimes favour the official view on certain matters. ::
Video analysis showed that the space shuttle Challenger had leaks from its rocket boosters that were in contact with the large external fuel tank and it was clear and logical that this caused the fuel tank to explode. Video analysis showed that the space shuttle Columbia had foam insulation break off of the external fuel tank at 500 mph and impact the heat shield tiles under the wing. Testing then showed this would seriously impair the tiles and cause catastrophic problems on re-entry.
Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.