Some people believe the official story and no amount of facts, logical analysis, or theories based on solid facts can persuade them. Usually I find people stick to this story out of faith in institutions. They have faith in the institutions that they have trusted all their lives. They get offended when someone suggests that their faith is unfounded and that they should question these institutions. They say, "there must be some other explanation to account for these anomalies."

The biggest part of the official story that I have seen people cling to is the idea that jet impacts and fires brought down two massive skyscrapers at nearly free fall speed. These towers suddenly, unexplainably, and without warning collapsed after standing for between one and two hours after being hit.

The next biggest part of the official story that people cling to is the idea that large jetliners hit the towers. The technical difficulty and near impossibility of piloting an airliner into one of the twin towers on the first attempt has been well documented. The speed of the craft alone (as measured by five independent institutions) should rule out jetliner impacts. I'm astounded at the excuses and the rationalizations that people use to doggedly stick to this part of the government's story. Added to these unavoidable anomalies, is the conclusive evidence of modified and manipulated video of the second plane flying into the building. People scream, "The news media would never do that to us. We can trust the news media. They couldn't have been part of this. They are too incompetent. They would have talked by now.... etc."

Given this hesitation to question the government's story, an article was written which uses some simple, common sense arguments to explain the WTC no-plane theory:

http://revolutioncalling.wordpress.com/abo...-to-wtc-on-911/

After reading this article, go to Still Diggin's blog at http://911logic.blogspot.com/ and look at his competent and thorough analysis of the WTC second strike videos and see for yourself the clear and obvious use of video layering.

I'm sure you read the rules and know the stance here on no planes hitting the WTC. This is your warning. If it happens again the next action will be a suspension.

The rules seem a bit bizarre considering that people here complain that the USA is becoming a police state. Why restrict speech so much here? Even that evil JREF forum does not restrict speech unless is it harassment, libel, violent, criminal, obscene, or spam. Can't LC rise above the JREF forum? Thanks.

Lark

Yes it does.

It is already way above based upon my experience.

I was posting based on the published JREF froum rules. Who and when has JREF restricted speech on their forum that did not break the rules? Has JREF pulled a post or banned someone merely for expressing a view that the moderators did not agree with? Have any examples? Thanks.

Lark

Not as bizarre as no planes hit the WTC. Don't like the rules?? Feel free to post somewhere else. No one is forcing you to post here.

Yeah you are right. I really can not think of anything more bizarre than the theory that planes did not hit the WTC. I do not like the rules here, or how they are enforced. I know I am free to post elsewhere and I regularly do so. I will continue to post here until I feel like not doing it.

So why are there restrictions on what topics can be posted here? It seems a bit oppressive considering the stated purpose is to enlighten others on government oppression.

I post on various gun, skeptic and educational forums. The only other board I post on that has silly restrictions is the sub guns forum. The owner there dislikes the owner of the silencer tests forum. :)

Lark