Not me! I just don't have this clout:SmokingGunII wrote:
Who's going to tell him?
simonshack wrote:Not me! I just don't have this clout:SmokingGunII wrote:
Who's going to tell him?
Well it is good that your "considering" the information being given for free from this site. I tell you straight from the start In my opinion "AE911Truth, the CIT, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth." Seem to be some what useless for 9/11. They don't offer any real proof of what happened. They have no real proof of what really happened. All truthers do is talk about boring ol building 7 and the twin towers and how they speculate there were explosives in the buildings... They need 1200 engineers to work that out??CuriousGeorge wrote:CuriousGeorge
911NewsCentral.com has discovered your website.
We already publish information from AE911Truth, the CIT, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
We will now begin considering your information as well.
THE HUG-ME CLONES...http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2214948
Hug me! It makes me so much realer!
You MUST ask yourself this simple question: Why are so many photos of "9/11 victims" so blatantly photoshopped?
If you don't ask yourself that question, I won't apologize for saying that you are in total denial. Not a good thing to be in.
Oh well, perhaps you just discovered this research today and wonder what it is all about.
In that case, please check out this page of the September Clues website: http://septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.htm
I searched our forum and I found something like a debate over Jean Charles de Menezes (the sim-electrician who was supposedly shot by the police after 7/7) dating back to 2009. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=74355#p74355Muscovite wrote:A lot of times I'm left in the dust, yet to be won over: is this, for example, a digital composite or did there in fact exist a Jean Charles de Menezes? No sooner have suggestions been offered, a photo presented, an observation made, than the main moderators are high-fiving and backslapping, tying it all into a macro-thesis that sometimes seems too easily arrived at, too eagerly grabbed. Credulity like this, I suggest, is even more unforgivable at this end of the spectrum than at the other end, where the bovine Daily Mail reader sits spluttering over his cornflakes in complacent oblivion.
You've over-simplified what we do. EVERY new member, BEFORE he posts, is required to familiarize himself with the SeptemberClues video, the Vicsim Report, and the basic conclusions/structure of the forum.Muscovite wrote:So. I've noticed that the mildest of scepticism or apparently innocent questioning is often greeted by chief moderators/ contributors with knee-jerk rebukes and/or accusations of shilling.