Good luck to everyone and happy hunting!!
The ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative, page 1
privacy
Topic started on 11-1-2006 @ 11:42 AM by SkepticOverlord
The original Pentagon 911: CatHearder's analysis under critical scrutiny.
thread that gave birth to this idea has devolved into a combination usage rights debate and min-version of the original
9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon thread.
As we continue to see with this highly controversial topic, discussion of the myriad of possibilities related to this subset of the 9/11 conspiracy theories quickly evolves into a wild mess of diverging ideas, comments, topics, and off-track meanderings. While much of this is well-intended, it ends up confusing the discussion and burying important ideas.
In an effort to regain some degree of productive discussion on these issues, we're beginning the "9/11/ Fine Focus" initiative in a new special-purpose "Fine Focus" forum. We're looking for at least 20 well-versed members to volunteer to dig deeply into these sub-topics form the 9/11 Pentagon debate:
Topic One: "The extent of the Pentagon damage seems less than would be expected."
Topic Two: "Could an airline have created the hole in ring C, if not, what did?"
Topic Three: "Did the flight path require extraordinary piloting skills, beyond the scope of the aleged pilots?"
Topic Four: "The perfectly clean lawn, which when combined with the altitude of approach and impact, is extremely unlikely to be untouched."
Topic Five: "Is the 757 debate deliberate in an effort to burry more important issues, and if so, by whom and what are they?"
The goal is the approach these five topics with a strong but balanced critical examination of both "sides" of the debate: 757 or no-757. We'll demand a tight control of topical discussion within each thread that represents these topics. In the end, we hope that one or two critical conclusions are achieved that end up inspiring completely new avenues of collaborative discussion of these events.
If you're interested in participating, please send a U2U to both myself and Springer (use "SkepticOverlord, Springer" in the "to:" field to send your message to both of us) with your intended angle of research/analysis, and links to related threads in which you've participated on ATS previously.
Now... let's get on with it!
As we continue to see with this highly controversial topic, discussion of the myriad of possibilities related to this subset of the 9/11 conspiracy theories quickly evolves into a wild mess of diverging ideas, comments, topics, and off-track meanderings. While much of this is well-intended, it ends up confusing the discussion and burying important ideas.
In an effort to regain some degree of productive discussion on these issues, we're beginning the "9/11/ Fine Focus" initiative in a new special-purpose "Fine Focus" forum. We're looking for at least 20 well-versed members to volunteer to dig deeply into these sub-topics form the 9/11 Pentagon debate:
Topic One: "The extent of the Pentagon damage seems less than would be expected."
Topic Two: "Could an airline have created the hole in ring C, if not, what did?"
Topic Three: "Did the flight path require extraordinary piloting skills, beyond the scope of the aleged pilots?"
Topic Four: "The perfectly clean lawn, which when combined with the altitude of approach and impact, is extremely unlikely to be untouched."
Topic Five: "Is the 757 debate deliberate in an effort to burry more important issues, and if so, by whom and what are they?"
The goal is the approach these five topics with a strong but balanced critical examination of both "sides" of the debate: 757 or no-757. We'll demand a tight control of topical discussion within each thread that represents these topics. In the end, we hope that one or two critical conclusions are achieved that end up inspiring completely new avenues of collaborative discussion of these events.
If you're interested in participating, please send a U2U to both myself and Springer (use "SkepticOverlord, Springer" in the "to:" field to send your message to both of us) with your intended angle of research/analysis, and links to related threads in which you've participated on ATS previously.
Now... let's get on with it!
