The 9/11 Conspiracies Forum is a Mess. And it’s The Fault of Many Members

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
None of the OSers were 'on topic' though.

See, there you go right there.

Why do you have to call members, "OSers"? What's the point in such labels? It's intellectually lazy, and often the result of a pathetic knee-jerk just because someone does't believe your version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

That's the kind of crap that needs to stop.

I have seen a zillion people use the terms 'OSer' and 'Truther.'

I had no idea one was insulting but the other was not.

Thanks for educating me on that.

I just figured out OSer stands for Official Story-er, haha that is pretty funny. Sorry. Are any of the sources used to prove 9/11 was an inside job also under attack from trolls on their sites?

originally posted by: AESTRODON
i am a truther myself, and one of the first things you must learn - there will be attacks, those who believe the official astory typically use personal attacks, are cynical, smug, and sarcastic and condescending about everything.

I'm one of the first "Truthers," meeting with others at St. Mark's church not long after the attacks, and before it was decided to call it the "Truth Movement."

And I hate what the "Truth Movement" has become -- and I was there when the acid started... and that's when I stopped.

Our near-15 year experience with 9/11 conspiracy theories here on ATS has taught us that the attacks, cynicism, smugness, sarcasm, and condescension most certainly began with the "Truth Movement." I stand by that statement.

a reply to: AnonnieMuss

I had no idea one was insulting but the other was not.

It's all about context. Saying that all Truthers do X or all OSers do X is disingenuous and insults your own intelligence.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: AnonnieMuss

I had no idea one was insulting but the other was not.

It's all about context. Saying that all Truthers do X or all OSers do X is disingenuous and insults your own intelligence.

Typically, I would agree. But that particular thread was for those who question the official story (Truther) discussions though.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I have to ask? Is the OS of 911 spamming allowed on ATS?

Is the spamming of conspiracy theories allowed?

Just asking because I see quite a lot of it in the 911 threads.

The subject has been covered for the last fourteen years extensively and I agree, every angle has been explored, possibility disected, every opinion has been rendered. Perhaps rather than shut it down, maybe it is time to simply make it a READ ONLY forum rather than get rid of it altogether. That way at least the information will still be around for others to research and study for years to come. Because lets be real here, there is ALOT of information in that forum, very valuable inputs as well.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I have to ask? Is the OS of 911 spamming allowed on ATS?

Spamming? We haven't seen spamming.

The irritating thing in this maddening massive topic of 9/11 Conspiracies is that it's possible to accept major aspects of the "Official Story" and still propose/investigate 9/11 conspiracy theories.

The biggest being the very real possibility that the majority of "9/11 conspiracy theories" were created by government operators to ensure the real conspiracies were never investigated. Information on "The Frenchman," who literally started it all before the Web Fairy, has been purged from the Internet. There was solid information that he was working at a PR firm connected to US clandestine agencies. The majority of "no plane", "TV fakery", "missile at the pentagon", and "bombs in the WTC" began with his videos.

originally posted by: Informer1958
And I know when to walk away.

Smart.

This topic is too important to discuss/debate on this type of forum.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: AnonnieMuss

I had no idea one was insulting but the other was not.

It's all about context. Saying that all Truthers do X or all OSers do X is disingenuous and insults your own intelligence.

Typically, I would agree. But that particular thread was for those who question the official story (Truther) discussions though.

Creating threads on ATS means it is open to all members. There are no instances of threads here where the OP can dictate which opinions are shared.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
Typically, I would agree. But that particular thread was for those who question the official story (Truther) discussions though.

I have to echo this. While I personally also got somewhat inflamed and had a post removed, the particular thread I believe was one of the major players in this incident was specifically created for discussion of 9/11 under the assumption that the OS was false, a useful thing considering how often it is pointed out that there is no "unified theory" outside of the OS. Such a thread would allow that to be worked towards. Such a thread was REPEATEDLY dragged off-topic and very quickly devolved into an argument about whether the OS was correct or not, and the OP was accused of gatekeeping. Now, I am sorry if I misunderstood something about the way topics on this forum work, but considering the way 9/11-related posts were removed from the Dubai Hotel Fire Incident topic for being "off topic" when they are tangentially (and depending on your perspective, actually quite closely) related, then surely posts that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the intention of a thread are likewise uncalled for.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, open to all members, but if a thread is created specifically for discussing the non-OS theory alternatives, then the OS theory shouldn't be repeatedly brought up as the "correct one." It could have been useful, but devolved into what we now see. "OSers" pointing out flaws and imperfections in whatever theories were brought up in the sense of constructive criticism is fine. But that is not what these eyes saw occur. It was just dragged off topic. Repeatedly. It ended up as OS-vs-NonOS, just like all the others.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Informer1958
I have to ask? Is the OS of 911 spamming allowed on ATS?

Spamming? We haven't seen spamming.

The irritating thing in this maddening massive topic of 9/11 Conspiracies is that it's possible to accept major aspects of the "Official Story" and still propose/investigate 9/11 conspiracy theories.

The biggest being the very real possibility that the majority of "9/11 conspiracy theories" were created by government operators to ensure the real conspiracies were never investigated. Information on "The Frenchman," who literally started it all before the Web Fairy, has been purged from the Internet. There was solid information that he was working at a PR firm connected to US clandestine agencies. The majority of "no plane", "TV fakery", "missile at the pentagon", and "bombs in the WTC" began with his videos.

But is it possible to accept the entire official story and propose/investigate 9/11 theories?

I'm not trying to be smart.. I'm wondering what you think.

I very much agree with the last part of your post.

originally posted by: Grimpachi


Creating threads on ATS means it is open to all members. There are no instances of threads here where the OP can dictate which opinions are shared.

Quoting for truth.

Once a thread is created it's open to any member to reply to, as long as that reply is related to the topic at hand. ATS is a discussion forum, which means you're going to get people replying with things you might not like.

a reply to: Swills

I doubt anyone will learn their lesson though,

Oh, I don't know about all that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And 9/11 isn't related to the Dubai Tower Fires? I take it then, that discussing a separate oil spill within the context of another oil spill would also be off-topic?

The issue isn't the opinion of people, the issue is what actually occurred. It was supposed to be Non-OS Vs. Non-OS, not OS Vs. Non-OS as it ended up as.

Maybe we simply have different ideas as to what formulates "off-topic."

Most of the issues we had were not people presenting their theories, ideas, or discussing the "why" they felt such and such theory was right and why they felt the OS is wrong (or the other way around).

The main issue was all the Off Topic postings.

Here's an example, look at the following two statements:

"I disagree that the jet fuel could have possibly caused the support beams to buckle because------"

or

"You always post the same crap, because you (insert Shill, Disinfo Agent, OS Drone, Truthers, etc here) always do this!"

Which one do you think is on topic, and which on is off topic?

Calling anyone a Shill or Disinfo Agent is completely against the TCs anywhere on ATS. Period. Not just the 9/11 forums.

We've always ask for each of you to simply discuss the topic. Not Each Other. And calling each other names, is not discussing the topic.

Calling peopel "LIARS!" is not acceptable behavior. It's not what we call civil, and it's improper decorum to use when debating.

There were many posts in the threads where I did see good debate. Heated debate, but many of you were posting about the topic. You disagree a lot, and I disagree with some of the things you say.

BUT

You all were at least keeping in mostly civil. We don't have an issue with those posts or threads.

Showing up in the thread to call each other names, attack each others character IS something we have an issue with.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

If a thread is about a building fire, and it gets dragged into a 9/11 thread, then yes, that's off topic. That's like saying a thread about a plane crash is related to 9/11 because planes crashed that day.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Our near-15 year experience with 9/11 conspiracy theories here on ATS has taught us that the attacks, cynicism, smugness, sarcasm, and condescension most certainly began with the "Truth Movement." I stand by that statement.

I am sure you are correct.

I am aware that the Truth movement was hijacked many years ago by different disinformation campaign movements.

I and many of us are not part of this group, we do not endorse the many disinformation concerning 911.

I stand behind mostly the science, and as shocking as some of it is, a few OS supporters that I am discussing the topic with, not only ignore the science but only ridicule it. I have yet to see much of this science debunked by anyone on ATS.

I also noticed many times only by a very few that defend the OS that all these credible scientist who put their names on these technical papers and risked everything to get some truth out are all demonize and called lairs, snake oil salesmen, conman, and so on, and none of this can be further from the truth.

Yet I have not read in any of the 911 threads that their science has not been debunked here on ATS. It is almost like a war is going on about 911. It seem there are only two sides fighting this war, the OS side or the rest of us which has been labeled repeatedly the "conspiracy theories" side. And yes, it is used in a negative connotation.

If anything I like to think of myself as a none believer.

Now I don't want you to think I am wining, I also agree that some of the debates concerning the OS are valid and I support some of it.

a reply to: hellobruce

this is exactly what we're talking about.

Why did you feel it necessary to post tit for tat, like that?

Just what exactly did it accomplish? Nothing.

Knock it off. It accomplishes nothing save raise the ire of people.