New Users Should Review Site Rules

We have received a number of new users in the past few days. New users are encouraged to visit the site, review our site's posts throughout the last 2 years, and get a feel for the site. Likewise, users are encouraged to review the stated rules of this site as well.

It is apparent that someone has sent out word that this site is the '#1 debating forum' for 9/11 theories. This is flatly untrue. This is a community site for people to stay on top of 9/11 related news, it is not a website devoted to endless arguments and bitter rivalries. To some degree we all here have to agree to look past our differences and work together for a greater cause. This site is NOT a 'debate forum'. In fact it is NOT a 'forum' at all. It is a NEWS website, which ALLOWS users to post blog entries related to 9/11 related news and information.

It is also apparent that some of these new users are intent on proving that this site is somehow 'covering up' whatever their pet subject may be. This point is solidly refuted time and time again by simply reviewing the history of this site and the blog entries which have been posted here. Users who may be moderated, have a blog entry removed, etc. are encountering this moderation because of a violation of our stated rules.

View the general rules here: Rules
Read about what is generally considered misuse of our user blogs section here: Misuse of User Blogs and Commenting Abilities

We welcome all new users regardless of their views, but we will not tolerate the abuse and misuse of this site's user blogs abilities.

Blog entries which have caused account blocks will be listed below. If these users wish to come back to the site at some point in the future with some sort of respect for this site then they are welcome to contact us.


User 1:

It is now 2 days since my explanation of CRASH PHYSICS and why that means that no airplanes could have hit the towers has been up at 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3869#comment
The people trying to control the knowledge within the truth movement have called my post "spam", and THE ONLY EYEWITNESS TO A PLANE (in fact he says he saw both) HITTING THE TOWERS WHO IS WILLING TO TESTIFY, JOHN ALBANESE, is the person in front of the moves to get "no-planers" excluded from the debate and blocked from this site.
Does that seem strange to you?
NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTRADICT MY ANALYSIS OF CRASH PHYSICS, on 911blogger, the no. 1 debating forum (allegedly!).
That's the one Alex Jones and all the professors use, isn't it?
So until I get a refutation, I'd say that it's a case of:
CASE PROVED- THERE WERE NO PLANES THAT HIT THE TRADE TOWERS.
And to the people calling posts spam:
It is patently obvious to any fool that ANY REPLY TO CRASH PHYSICS OR THIS ARTICLE THAT DOES NOT DISCUSS PHYSICS CAN ONLY BE SPAM.

Rules violated:

  • Blog entries may not be used for the sole purpose of attacking or confronting individuals
  • Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread
  • Users who are found to post only with the intention of attacking other users, will be temporarily (or permanently) banned.

User 2:

No Planers are not worth responding to.

911blogger bias has been made clear.

Please, everyone, make sure you DO NOT RESPOND!

Its the new thing.

Rules violated:

  • Blog entries may not be used for the sole purpose of attacking or confronting individuals
  • Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread
  • Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
  • Users who are found to post only with the intention of attacking other users, will be temporarily (or permanently) banned.