It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Skeptic Overview 3: 9/11 - We shouldn't "want" conspiracy theories.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:41 PM

PODcast: Skeptic Overview 3: 9/11 - We shouldn't "want" conspiracy theories.

On the 4th anniversary of 9/11, and with some events in the discussion fora, a thought came to mind I didn't necessarily like. This 3rd Skeptic Overview is a special edition rant, with some small pieces of board business tossed in for good measure.

length: 12:56
file: atspodcast_141.mp3
size: 4549k
feed: ats
status: live (at time of posting)

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:05 PM
Great rant. Well said and very true.

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:08 PM

We shouldn't WANT these at all........Well said.

I am curious....Because of Valhall's thread, how many NEW members have that brought?

Also, btw, Ed may not necessarily be the first or only government official to register on ATS....He's just the first to openly disclose his identity.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by loam]

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:58 AM
i agree, well said.

i've been visiting ats for years, but just joined a few days ago.

i feel like some of the the stuff i've read here in the past and thought of as 'high weirdness', is starting to be more feasible. with that said, it's good to know that there's still a healthy dose of skeptical enthusiasm here.

on the podcast itself IMHO i would lose the reverb. i found it a bit of an intrusive embellishment, as you've got a good enough voice. maybe look at 'normalising' the file or using some kind of software compression/limiter. sorry, couldn't help myself, i used to work in radio..

anyway great work(s)
onwards and upwards

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:51 AM
I have the feeling that some pressure has been exerted upon this board to consider "conspiracy theories," as being the issue. While I sympathize in some respects to Skeptic upon his reassertion of "objectivity," if you will, there are far too many things on 911 that are all but provable in an objective court of law to step back and submit.

Looking at the video data on 911 for example, leaves a person with no choice but to carefully consider all other issues regarding controlled demolition. There very whitewash of a report in Congress is troubling, so I agree that on the one hand we should not wish things were true. But on the other hand with more clear evidence than many court cases assemble to convict people, I have to agree that I wish these things were not true, because they are not theories anymore. The extent of the conspiracy is in the open from mainstream media, if one reviews the tenor of statements public officials have already made, and with a comparison of other confirmed facts.

Take PNAC documents calling for a "a new Pearl Harbor," and calling such things as if they would be random, "helpful." It is not a fair stretch to look at the balance sheet of things, the cui bono coming through with motives, things occupying massive spending and giganto mania in government.

I disagree with the tenor from some of your statements, but I do not disagree with your notion we should wish these things were not true. Of course we should wish these things were not true, but not go through some shallow debunking enterprise which can too often be exposed were it not "Roswell case closed time." The government stamp does not make it so, but it does far too often in the minds of people. Just because some fact is unpleasant does not make it "swamp gas," in the case of UFOs for example.

We have a government in the United States that claims openly "we make reality," as if it makes the sun shine. What it says is that its lies and departure from sound observation are the reality. Katrina makes this all to poignant.

Facts have for far too long festered in a public wellpit of deliberate media incomptence. The problem we face is incompetence by design, followed by an even more incompetent dictatorship style. At the same time a few people are making big money here by malingering at their "ah shucks folks," logic. People know a con job from government when they see it, as the saying goes "I am from Missouri, I have to be shown." I am skeptical of the Skeptic here because I have been shown.

If anything I am not entirely sure what you are getting at but I suppose this big board does have its "pressures."

[edit on 13-9-2005 by SkipShipman]

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:51 AM
You seem to have misunderstood.

There are no "pressures" other than the self-imposed ethics of ownership to find ways to help this community do a better job at discovering which conspiracies are true, and which are not.

All too often, we've seen a celebratory tone when attributes of popular conspiracy mythology appear to be proven true, or confirmed. This state-of-mind (if you will) leads many casual conspiracy theorists to a predisposition on potential conspiracy rumors and topics... there is a strong desire to see confirmation, even to the point of "giddy anticipation" in some cases.

This tone is wrong.

There is a fine, but distinct line between logical analysis and "debunking". Hopefully, we can maintain our balance on the logic side of the line so that if the truth is presented, it can be recognized. If you believe in your heart of hearts the sky is purple, you won't be open to the reality that it's blue.

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:22 AM
Once again I agree, however I am still not clear on the color of the sky. It may well be purple these days in some places due to solar activity. That has nothing to do with beliefs.

I remember chatting with John Lear and trying to assist him in posting some things, but when something I suggested did not work, I posited that he should ask an administrator. I am not sure if he has posted anything much after his entered section here some time ago. Administrators and others here can be more helpful in answering questions related to the board.

We are in a terrain of activity through information where government too often places red herrings, things provable to be false. But covering issues many people well research and check fully their documents. Consider the Dan Rather episode for example, where clearly a straw man in the pile of papers was placed in the OJ Simpson category, "a glove that does not fit." What is appalling is that the media acquitted the issue and kept its mouth shut afterwards. The issue already was covered with airtight documents earlier, but "refuted," with phony documents. I am speaking of the Bush National Guard episode prior to the 2004 "election," if you will a clearly rude business.

I take little joy in what I know from reading the newspapers; I don't need conspiracy theories to know that what government is doing is pretext to more powers that actually in the final analysis render it powerless. Funding for all the wrong things, becoming an attack dog, rather than a rescue dog, is the most compelling case here and it is out in the open. How much of Katrina assistance is going into "security," rather than actual assistance? People should not have to come to a board such as this, with a "conspiracy theory," to want answers to such questions. Far too often the internet is the only refuge. For example consider when that hype about chipping people suggests it is good. Approval from major media without debate suggests we are in trouble. But such things are clearly not good, and about as helpful to regular people as an Auswitch tattoo.

If there is a celebratory tone, it is relevant when justice serves to remove bad actors. Even then such demeanor is not good in the courtroom. The "conspiracy tone," is wrong, when it diminishes good justice.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by SkipShipman]

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:23 PM
You are right OS when saying we should fear that any of these conspiracy theories are true. But you didn’t say why. We should fear them because if we are being lied to, or manipulated into supporting government policy, that means for us Americans that this is no longer a government for the people and by the people. That it is actually is a form of population control that allows those in control to become more rich and powerful. And in my opinion, that is exactly what has been going on for quite some time.

Although I don’t think that 9/11 was directly planned and executed by the government or a secret group within the government, I believe it was due to 30 years of government foreign policy in the Persian Gulf Region that lead to the tragedy. It was because of a clash of civilizations, and when either side feels threatened, bad things happen like war and terrorism. I believe this will continue because our leaders understand this, but still insist on pressing their own agenda on other countries and here at home. Even if there wasn’t a conspiracy behind 9/11, we should still be afraid of the direction this country is going.

Some of the theories that fly around may be ridiculous, but one thing is for sure. This site lets those in power know that someone is always watching. What I see happening on ATS, is more than just posting about conspiracies. I think it is also that people are coming here to be vigilant. They come hear to keep an eye on the government. People like Valhal raise questions, and possibly even cause real change to happen because of it.

That was a great rant, and thanks to you and all the staff for this site. You’re not only the ATS tech guy, but you’re also the conscience of ATS.

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:22 AM

But... but... I like conspiracy theories!

It's interesting to observe the reactions to SkepticOverlord promoting -- of all things -- skepticism.

There's a mentality that is very common in the “conspiracy community” that no matter how outlandish a theory is, it must be given a “fair hearing” as long as it somehow reinforces some sort of preexisting prejudices.

Typically these prejudices are “anti-government”, “anti-establishment” or, to be blunt, bona fide paranoia.

At odds with this mentality is the approach of the skeptic. Skeptics often share the same prejudices that “conspiracy nuts” have.

The primary difference between them is the skeptic's commitment to not allowing those prejudices to induce them to believe lies simply because they are seductive -- or worse, blind them to the truth on those rare occasions when it appears.

I know some members may see SO's “editorial position” as controversial, but I don't.

He's not calling for homogeneity of opinion, simply the application of common sense in an environment not known for it.

And let's face it: without that, “Deny Ignorance” is just a slogan.


log in