 |
reply posted on 14-1-2006 @ 02:24 AM by bsbray11
|
 Originally posted by HowardRoark
Archon, I have no intention of stifling debate, however, I have noticed a large number of "newbies" that have registered and have zeroed in on that
particular thread lately. I suspect that is is in related to the other issues that have come up lately related to that thread.
I don't think that you appreciate the fact that the greatest strength of ATS is the wide variety of opinions and viewpoints that are represented
here. Unlike other boards where dissenters are actively discouraged or banned just because of their ideas, the only thing that will get you banned
here is to flout the TOS (usually through openly abusive posts). This is what makes ATS the fantasitc board that it is today
So what's up with the second paragraph? Btw emphasis mine.
You respond to an accusation of suggesting unfair actions by going over the very points brought against you as if we are the ones that are neglecting
those ideas (not to mention some laughably cliché, eh... compliments.. regarding the site in general). Doesn't seem to make sense, eh? I
didn't even catch that the first time I read it. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-1-2006 @ 07:45 AM by Majic
|
Kissing The Mirror
Originally posted by Archon
I'm outta here. I never came here to kiss anyones ass.
Nor apparently to contribute anything useful to the discussion.  
Wherever you may go, I hope you may be inspired to offer more wisdom than what you have offered
here. Should that eventually become a less burdensome expectation, then I look forward to your return.
Meanwhile, if anyone is willing to actually discuss the "fine focus" initiative instead of launch into infantile assaults on the membership, it will
be a welcome change of pace.
Finding out more about the initiative is, after all, why I'm following this thread in the first place. 
P.S. Although anyone who prefers instead to talk about me is welcome to flame away where it is
appropriate to do so. My inestimable ego wouldn't have it any other way.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2006 @ 03:52 PM by waffleprime
|
hi. I checked my box, and decided to post here. I've pondered this subject quite abit myself. more so, I think about what I was doing during the day
this happend. and how I felt, all in all...the reaction of people towards this...though beneign was frightening, everyone from 10 year old children to
90 year old woman were trying make sense of the subject as ats does daily I was quite adamant about a conspiracy until, I came to ats, now I'm in the
middle. but, this is a very interesting subject...my input here for now will be this flash movie thats been passed on the net for the last few
years..so here it is
www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...
[edit on 14-1-2006 by waffleprime]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2006 @ 04:59 PM by SkepticOverlord
|
People... this is in Boad Questions & Business...
Please refrain from discussing the issues of 9/11 in this thread. There are other much more appropriate threads for that.
Keep this thread focused on the initiative to create five well-focused threads on specific attributes of the 9/11 Pentagon attack.
I'll be getting back to everyone's u2u's by Monday, and will kick things off with a special podcast.
Also, if we have two members (or two equal teams) that would like to engage in a Podcast Debate on this subject, please send me a U2U. That would be
an interesting companion to this effort.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2006 @ 05:13 PM by waffleprime
|
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
People... this is in Boad Questions & Business...
Please refrain from discussing the issues of 9/11 in this thread. There are other much more appropriate threads for that.
Keep this thread focused on the initiative to create five well-focused threads on specific attributes of the 9/11 Pentagon attack.
I'll be getting back to everyone's u2u's by Monday, and will kick things off with a special podcast.
Also, if we have two members (or two equal teams) that would like to engage in a Podcast Debate on this subject, please send me a U2U. That would be
an interesting companion to this effort.
ah thank you for clearing that up for me. that movie sums up the pentagon stuff really well I think. but, I think there needs to be another
half. In my opinion 2 sides of the pentagon plane issure should be the ats thread about how a plane did hit the pentagon and the other half disclaming
the debuffs of the situation. for #2 atleast
[edit on 14-1-2006 by waffleprime]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2006 @ 05:21 PM by SkepticOverlord
|
Originally posted by Majic
If a member is “brand-spankin' new” and joined specifically to participate, however, I imagine the staff might be willing to consider external
references in lieu of ATS experience, although I don't speak for them and they may have good reasons not to do so.
Yes, that is the case.
Also, we have and will continue to extend invitations to people outside ATS who have created compelling 9/11 material. If you know of someone who
falls into this category you think we may have missed, please let me know.
It's our goal to work hard to make this a truly objective examination of all available evidence in a collaborative and productive way.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2006 @ 06:35 PM by bsbray11
|
Weeeee
Originally posted by SkepticalOverlord
It's our goal to work hard to make this a truly objective examination of all available evidence in a collaborative and productive way.
I appreciate that, but old habits die hard for all of us, man.
Originally posted by SkepticalOverlord
These "AboveTopSecret.com COINTELPRO" rumors tend to center around…CatHerder's analysis of the 757 at the Pentagon…
Because that one post debunks a popular conspiracy theory…
From COINTELPRO? No!.
Emphasis mine. That post is mostly based on the debris found there anyway, which is really what's called circumstantial evidence and thus not
objectively indicative that a 757 actually impacted the Pentagon. Your post would suggest that circumstantial evidence can stand to "debunk"
something in the same way that objective, "hard" evidence is usually used. I realize you may not have meant anything by this, but that's why I say
old habits die hard, and I realize one of your loved ones was at the scene that day.
Now I'm not completely sure a 757 did or did not hit the Pentagon or whatever, but I really want to believe that this thing is going to be totally
fair and that's going to be very hard to achieve and maintain, even for the best of us. And of course it'll do some good to keep in mind
that, ultimately, the 9/11 conspiracy is most certainly not dependent upon something other than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. As others have pointed
out, why would it be so hard to believe that the government couldn't just drive a 757 into the building?
Just trying to keep a little perspective on a thing or two. And hopefully we'll get to the WTC later. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2006 @ 06:39 PM by SkepticOverlord
|
Originally posted by bsbray11
Now I'm not completely sure a 757 did or did not hit the Pentagon or whatever, but I really want to believe that this thing is going to be totally
fair and that's going to be very hard to achieve and maintain
I agree. But like everything else on ATS, it will be out in the wide open. The only difference between this and any other thread is the effort
to keep the topic "finely focused", and engage a balance number of participants from the "sides" of the debate.
If all goes well, we will.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2006 @ 07:14 PM by bsbray11
|
Is there going to be any unbiased "tallying" (for lack of a better word) of objective information?
What I mean by this, is that it's often the case that completely unscientific thinking will pass as scientific when it really shouldn't, and we need
some sort of system in place that will determine and keep track of what is right, wrong, etc., sort of like a Myth Busters.
If someone is making a point in reference to physics or etc., it would REALLY help objectivity if the specific point can be varified by someone with,
again, as little bias as humanly possibly, as correct, impossible/implausible, or indeterminate, and then sources are cited explaining
why, again, objectively. To get this system rolling by the time this rolls over for the WTC will be especially beneficial. We need to know
exactly what is scientifically possible/plausible and what is not to get anywhere.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2006 @ 07:25 PM by SkepticOverlord
|
Part of that will be covered by simply selecting members with an established credibility of being a strong conspiracist or researcher. We've seen a
fine sample of excellent material support both a non-757 and pro-757 basis... but yes, we've also seen some crap on both "sides".
However, for this event, much of the "physics" can be rather subjective when all we have to go on is the available online material... and some of
that may be flawed. So I can assure you the "minds will be open," but there will be a higher standard required for these threads than normal ATS
threads.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2006 @ 08:34 PM by Merc_the_Perp
|
There is more than those 5 areas to discuss.
How about the the taxi cab that was moved?
How about Reagan National Airport evacuated minutes before the "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon", while nothing else, INCLUDING THE PENTAGON didn't.
I've addressed a good portion of those 5 areas with my first post on your Catherder thread.
[edit on 15-1-2006 by Merc_the_Perp]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2006 @ 09:10 PM by SkepticOverlord
|
We can expand if all goes well. We gave members some time to work on a list, these were the items that rose to the top... as well as being those
readily researched online.
If you'd like to author an analysis of those items, we're wide open to featuring/promoting anything that is well presented.
Also: ATS Conspiracy Masters: we're developing an "open source" publishing means of
sorts for conspiracy theory authors.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-2-2006 @ 04:38 PM by MrDog
|
Originally posted by ultralo1
Skeptic overlord,
Sign me up for the 757 Did hit the pentigon team. I dont have 20 post so I could not U2U. I am fairly new and I usually dont have much to
offer in the discussions but on this one I do. 1, two eyewitness accounts one from inside the pentigon and one is a medic who responded after seeing
the explosion. 2, Common sense Aluminum versus concrete I know which one will win. 3, those incredible piloting manuvers, Ever seen a car chase where
the bad guy gets away? He has never had traing to drive like that He is not a professional so how can they do that, Simple What does he have to lose?
Also how many people have been taught what you cannot do. Example dont rev the engine above the red line it will blow up, well not really but it does
dammage the engine every time you do it and the posibility of the engine blowing up is increased. Get my point? I can give other examples if need be.
And another thing about flying close to the ground at high speeds, There is an air effect that creates a cushion of stable air under the plane. The
Russians exploited this effect and greated a stubb wing aircraft that flew 20- 50 feet off of the surface and was the size of an air liner. You have
to fight with the air craft to get it to go down threw the cushion of air and get close to the ground when you are at speed.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by ultralo1]
Gil Grissom once said on CSI people sometimes lie but the physical evidence doesn't.
Look at the pictures of the pentagon before the roof collapsed and look at the size of the hole in the building and the lack of debris on the lawn.
Take a look at the 5 stills the military released which show a thin trail of smoke then an explosion(No 757 in sight) and that the time/date was
incorrect.
To your bad guy theory. It could be possible but look at the supposed flight path of the flight and then see if it's possible even for a trained
pilot.
[edit on 1-2-2006 by MrDog]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 04:26 PM by raptureman
|
Originally posted by ultralo1
Skeptic overlord,
Sign me up for the 757 Did hit the pentigon team. I dont have 20 post so I could not U2U. I am fairly new and I usually dont have much to
offer in the discussions but on this one I do. 1, two eyewitness accounts one from inside the pentigon and one is a medic who responded after seeing
the explosion. 2, Common sense Aluminum versus concrete I know which one will win. 3, those incredible piloting manuvers, Ever seen a car chase where
the bad guy gets away? He has never had traing to drive like that He is not a professional so how can they do that, Simple What does he have to lose?
Also how many people have been taught what you cannot do. Example dont rev the engine above the red line it will blow up, well not really but it does
dammage the engine every time you do it and the posibility of the engine blowing up is increased. Get my point? I can give other examples if need be.
And another thing about flying close to the ground at high speeds, There is an air effect that creates a cushion of stable air under the plane. The
Russians exploited this effect and greated a stubb wing aircraft that flew 20- 50 feet off of the surface and was the size of an air liner. You have
to fight with the air craft to get it to go down threw the cushion of air and get close to the ground when you are at speed. Thankfully it never made
it to production. I will Give links latter.So Can I please Please Please be part of the team OH Great and All Knowing OZ, I mean Skeptic Overlord.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by ultralo1]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 04:32 PM by The_Time_is_now
|
Dude, I think this project is over, I think that you missed the Boat. This was some 7 months ago. So, I dont think that you will have any luck.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 04:35 PM by raptureman
|
Originally posted by ultralo1 hey it is not of a matter of what will win titanium and harden steel the engin are made of and all that
aluminum just don't disapears. besides there should been atleast three hole instead of only one of 16 feet. the engines are 9 feet on there owen
then the body of the plain. I think you need to rethink your thoughts.
Skeptic overlord,
Sign me up for the 757 Did hit the pentigon team. I dont have 20 post so I could not U2U. I am fairly new and I usually dont have much to
offer in the discussions but on this one I do. 1, two eyewitness accounts one from inside the pentigon and one is a medic who responded after seeing
the explosion. 2, Common sense Aluminum versus concrete I know which one will win. 3, those incredible piloting manuvers, Ever seen a car chase where
the bad guy gets away? He has never had traing to drive like that He is not a professional so how can they do that, Simple What does he have to lose?
Also how many people have been taught what you cannot do. Example dont rev the engine above the red line it will blow up, well not really but it does
dammage the engine every time you do it and the posibility of the engine blowing up is increased. Get my point? I can give other examples if need be.
And another thing about flying close to the ground at high speeds, There is an air effect that creates a cushion of stable air under the plane. The
Russians exploited this effect and greated a stubb wing aircraft that flew 20- 50 feet off of the surface and was the size of an air liner. You have
to fight with the air craft to get it to go down threw the cushion of air and get close to the ground when you are at speed. Thankfully it never made
it to production. I will Give links latter.So Can I please Please Please be part of the team OH Great and All Knowing OZ, I mean Skeptic Overlord.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by ultralo1] Text
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 09:42 PM by mrkurns
|
Why, when I click on the OP link to the CatHearder thread, does it say 'Access is restricted.'
This was a really great thread and I'd like to be able to view it again.
Any suggestions?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
