It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific American Jumps On 911 Denial Wagon, ATS mentioned

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are truly ridiculous!

Something specific you find ridiculous or is that a gross generalization? The only thing ridiculous is the story we are being handed by FEMA and the 911 commission's findings.




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Not that I expected anything, but not so much as a *whoops* in response.

But hey, what do expect from someone on AOL?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
You are correct SportyMB...as far as I can tell the official position of ATS is very skeptical of 9/11 conspiracy theories.



Since when is there an "official position" of ATS on any subject matter other than the terms and conditions of site usage???

What evidence anywhere has brought you to believe in an "official position of ATS"?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I am deeply disappointed. I at first assumed that the article would surely quote the brilliant arguement presented by catherder in THE MOST VIEWED THREAD ON ATS: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But no, they didn't do their homework and they probably have no idea about that tremendous and popular example of denying ignorance. They just grabbed an exceedingly weak quote with no context from some lone sucker, misattributed it, and ran with it.

The quote doesn't even seem to make any sense! Why take a grossly oversimplified quote like that without providining further example of the conspiracy theorist's views? And it's not like the name ATS means anything to the average American. We're huge but we're not THAT huge are we? I can only see two possibilities- A. this is from a very weak journalist. B. It was over-editted for length and ended up containing this misattributed "thought-fragment" as a result.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by djohnsto77
You are correct SportyMB...as far as I can tell the official position of ATS is very skeptical of 9/11 conspiracy theories.



Since when is there an "official position" of ATS on any subject matter other than the terms and conditions of site usage???

What evidence anywhere has brought you to believe in an "official position of ATS"?


I think djohnsto77 was being facetious, Mask........



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Old saying goes bad press is good press. Many on ATS think Deny Ignorance means believing the official government story is totally ignorant. I’ve read both arguments I have my own opinion of what happened. To sum up mine it’s simple who gains the most from the terrorist attacks? The people who make military hardware and have a vested interest in the oil industry that’s who. Who has a rather large vested interest in both of these industries the entire Bush administration does.
Would you trust your children’s future on the word of one man? Well you are and that man is George W. Bush, and guess what he is a man, not the saviour and a very corrupt one at that. Funny how finding no weapons of mass destruction wasn’t enough, now this memo isn’t enough! Torture wasn’t enough, links to Kenny boy lay isn’t enough he still isn’t in jail. His ignoring of scientific data pertaining to global warming also isn’t enough. People don’t want to believe that Bush either let 9/11 happen or had a hand in it actually happening because they can’t except that the person in charge of their very future could be that corrupt! Well guess what he is and he doesn’t give a dam about you or this country. It’s about entitlement and power. Here and now is the only thing that matters to the corrupt because there is no future anyway loot all you can while you can that's the new American way.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Ok I sent the good Dr. an email explaining the mistake. And I actually got a reply. Here it is;

thanks for the correction and elaboration, which i appreciate.

Michael shermer


I think that this is proof that with a well thought out email calmly explaining the situation we can reach a concensus without problems. Personally I'm glad that Dr. Shermer was so polite about the correction, most people in his position would dispute even the hardest facts, or call you a liberal conspiracy nutjob.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Since when is there an "official position" of ATS on any subject matter other than the terms and conditions of site usage???

What evidence anywhere has brought you to believe in an "official position of ATS"?



As already stated this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... posted by the "AboveTopSecret.com" username.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Your link refers to an article by member Catherder that provides evidence about American Airlines Flight 77 and not a missile causing partial destruction of the Pentagon.

It represents no more official a position of ATS towards coherent theories of events that occured in the greatest national security failure in US history, than my post here.

The most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all is that 19 hijackers conspired to take four commuter aircraft and crash them into landmark buildings, that the government and intelligence services knew nothing of it, that the hijackers achieved it with boxcutters and a little flight school training, and that those negligent and/or complicit in the matter should go unpunished.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The official position of ATS on 9/11 could be "skeptical" in that ATS is the sum of its membership and the members have all expressed skepticism in one way or another regarding the tragedy.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The official position of ATS on 9/11 could be "skeptical" in that ATS is the sum of its membership and the members have all expressed skepticism in one way or another regarding the tragedy.




This may be so, but dj's point was clearly that ATS officially presents skepticism about conspiracy theories that are alternative to the government propaganda on the 9/11 issue.

That may be a real position of conflict for ATS given its stated mission.

The case used as a small example - that of whether a plane or a missile crashed into the Pentagon - was supported by some excellent research. I also recall the site's Admin having a relative who gave a specific eyewitness account.

But that's a microcosm of the events that occured on that day in history, and to say that the research on this aspect reflects an official position of ATS towards "silly conspiracy theories" is overstating the case considerably.

I am officially skeptical of any action taken by the Bush administration in relation to 9/11 or promoting a "war on terror" as being in the national interests of the U.S. And I don't expect ATS to have an official position on that.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

The most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all is that 19 hijackers conspired to take four commuter aircraft and crash them into landmark buildings, that the government and intelligence services knew nothing of it, that the hijackers achieved it with boxcutters and a little flight school training, and that those negligent and/or complicit in the matter should go unpunished.


I prefer to call it a "Fairy Tale" - sort of like a Santa Claus story for gullible adults!




Mod Edit: Code fix in quoted material only.

[edit on 7-8-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
As already stated this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... posted by the "AboveTopSecret.com" username.


Cool, I'm now AboveTopSecret.com -- I guess now would be a good time to mention the user fees I'll be charging all of you?


Featured articles are posted by "AboveTopSecret.com" so responses to those articles do not generate "points" for the author (in the case of the link you've provided the author was me). Featured articles get a large chunk of points up front: I assume that's so there is "proof of ownership of publishing rights" should the article take on a life of it's own and the original author try to come back on ATS to get some sort of compensation. While that particular thread has generated over 80 pages of replies, I've received nothing for any of them (in case anyone was curious).

But... back to me being ATS and the user fees you'll all have to start paying me!


And regarding the incorrect credit in SciAm, I can say from my experience in marketing websites (I've been involved in a few big dot coms) that the mere mentioning of the domain name in a magazine is worth around $5000 in print advertising. If the doctor is kind enough to post a correction in a later edition and would again mention the domain name while doing so, that would be another free $5000 worth of advertising.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
While I think I see your sense of humor shining here, I feel it important that you fully understand the "licensing/ownership" agreement between ATS and it's registered members.

In plain English...

You have ALL of the RIGHTS to your original work that any author anywhere else would have.

The only "difference" here is you are sharing those rights with AboveTopSecret.com, L.L.C.

We have NON Exclusive rights to use any member's original work any way we think it benefits the site.

YOU have NON Exclusive rights to use your original work any way you want.

We DO NOT own your work exclusively, nor have we taken ANY rights to your work away from you.

By agreeing to the TAC, you agree to share the rights to your work with us.

This is the case even in the event of you making money off of your work. You owe us NOTHING if you get paid for something you wrote.

Same for us, if we make money off of your work (ad revenues that pay for the site, etc...) we owe you nothing.

Hope this helps clear this up for everyone.

Springer
Partner
AboveTopSecret.com, L.L.C.



[edit on 8-7-2005 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
whew...i'm glad that's over with...along with pop mechs ground breaking article 'debunking' 911, we now have another truely groundbreaking article that also 'debunks' 911.
like a child that got caught with its hand in the cookie jar..when you ask the child if it did it it..the child will lie to your face and say ..'no'

the govt wouldn't .... manipulate a story .....would they? nah..
the govt wouldn't.... 'stretch the known facts' to get their way.....would they? nah... right...?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
He let his own pride get in the way of reporting an ubias article..Obviously before he even wrote that article he had his mind made up...

Talk about a closed mind...

His article was as full of holes as the government's....
Just ask guliani if he was told to leave his bldg, and ask larry silverstein if he would like to take back what he said about demolishing those buildings that day to recieve 7 billion dollars worth of insurance on those bldg's that he took out a few months before the hijackers (agents) blew the buildings up...


dh

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Instead of shock horror responses to establishment media depositions of an alleged, though not generally-held viewpoint, perhaps ATS should for once be proud of being pointed up for being a dissonant view, even by those non-conspiracy 911 believers
This is an alternative conspiracy site, supposedly
We ought generally to take pride in being dissed by Scientific American and PM
The fact of people wanting to sue is indicative of how far ATS is in danger of being sequestered into the status quo
We do not need approval of the main media, for the most of people wanting to post here are right, and in opposition to the nightmare fairy tales that are continually spun out, as a result of which thousands upon thousands of people are killed, mutilated or have their lives destroyed
They entry of ugly punk fiction writers on Sci Am is merely indicative of the progress and arising of the true skeptics
These bastards are turning nasty as their true crimes and horrendous continual genocidal activities are being found out. These are criminals with the minds of monsters and some jerk article in Scientific American should make not the slightest difference to anyone here



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Short, sweet and to the point. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are truly ridiculous!


I fully concur with you there DJ; however, I did send the good DR an E-mail:

Dear Dr. Shermer;

I agree with your article in "Scientific American" concerning the mother of all conspiracy theories related to 9/11. I even agree that the Above Top Secret discussion forum carries within it several discussion threads supporting the ridiculuous proposition that terrorists did not cause the twin towers disasters. However, I do not believe it would have detracted from your article to have qualified your comment about ATS. Not all ATS members are kooks, wierdos and idiots--as your article indirectly implies. We certainly have our fair share of such, but please, don't paint us all with the same overly broad brush.

Please come visit the site again. Perhaps even participate in one or more of the discussion threads that may perk your interest(s). Some of them are thoughtful and quite relevant to events happening around the world. Thank you.


dh

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
As at they're losing. This is a general awakening. We will not hold the likes of Scientific American in awe any more

prisonplanet.com...

Mabe ATS should belong here

[edit on 7-8-2005 by dh]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by dh]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Nice post dh that was good reading.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join