Originally posted by whaaa
Is banning enough? Won't killtown just come back under another alias.


What we need is a cyber "burning at the stake" kinda action!!

Having knowledge of the better discussion board software out there, the ban process is much more thorough than the guy being able to change his name and log back on. Is it impossible for him to get back in on a new account? No. Difficult? Not THAT difficult, for the more savvy technically. Time consuming? Yes it can be.

And there is always the point that his new user will be a n00b and treated as the same, which would bother this type of personality much more than it would most of us. Or, he identifies himself to try and reattach his previous notoriety(which he wants OH SO BADLY), in which case he is quickly banned again.

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
relevant / excellent / professional

These are things we all want this website to be, as they ENCOURAGE discussion and awareness, in a relatively palatable atmosphere.

This guy,and the type of hardheaded, philibustering blowhards he seems to attract to his side, have no useful purpose on a site that aims to be the adjectives you used so well before. I for one agree with this decision 100%, so long as it doesn't lead to an increase in bans/tightening of restrictions/etc for the rest of us(One person's mistake should not lead to punishment for the group). Come to think of it.... *Photoshops a Bush head on SO's avatar*....

ZOMG!!

:p

I must have missed something somewhere (I don't follow all the forums out there). I thought KT had some good points on Flight 93, but as for the fakery etc.. - I don't believe a word of it. Planted evidence? Plausible.

If the ATS guys felt a need to ban him, I guess he deserved it.

So let me get this straight because im a little ignorant about the hologram thingy.

Holograms definetly do not exist, is this a fact? Seems like ive seen them somewhere before, not in person but on the computer or tv, not sure.

O yeah little confused about the SO and Sarah Cohen connection? Just curious.


[edit on 14-6-2007 by earth2]

Interesting ... I am just worried if all of you are apart of the "PLAN" I mean they would have to have more than one moderator .. Wouldn't they ???? Maybe alittle paranoid of the government ??

Ever since they admitted to HIJACKING the internet if you will ... Kinda speculative to me ... But anyways ... They are doing more things than just that have any of you looked at BlackWateruse.com ??

If not I recommend definately going and having a look ... It has more jobs than just mercenary things ... It has lots to do with Networking and Comuter Analysyts ... and so on and so forth ..

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
But why, how, and WHO was monitoring his postings on other sites as well as this one ?? Seems like a lot of work for an ATS mod to do on his/her own.

It's not like ATS went to them, they came HERE. It's happened more than once. Someone wants to take a whack at the best and it become clear pretty quickly.

Originally posted by Sarah Cohen

Holograms do not exist and they cannot plant evidence. No one has every been able to produce a hologram, except in Star Wars movies.

No offense mate, but you GOTTA be kidding.

6,7 years ago I was playing a hologram-based video game at my local arcade. Not only was it not IMPOSSIBLE then, it wasn't even classified anymore. And yeah, you could pass your hand right through the image.

And no, I dont believe any of that stuff with the holograms in Shanksville. Baloney, to me.

Just saying holograms are no longer any big deal to produce. The equipment is actually getting much much cheaper in fact.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Alex Krycek]

Holograms exist, but not on 9/11. People are suggesting that holograms were used to fool the world, but that just isn't the case.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I immediately thought the same, hi! I believe that killtown was banned for his "bad form" more than his views. If this new "yeller" continues in such a tone, her (his?) future here is probably bleak.
Here, of all places, is where you should "Speak softly and carry a big stick". The "stick" being good, hard evidence.
I hope we all chill out and discuss again instead of yelling and screaming.

Reading twice and commenting once.
Cuhail

Originally posted by Cuhail
I hope we all chill out and discuss again instead of yelling and screaming.

Indeed. And even this too may pass.

Several formerly banned members have returned to add productive comments to ATS.

Many may not realize that some people involved in the CIT group and the Pentacon forum here on ATS were once banned in a way at least as volatile as this one. But, instead of moaning about it, they got to work, went into the field, collected some interesting research, and now we're playing our part in helping them promote their work.

Hopefully, after some cooling off, a similarly productive series of events happens here as well.

Wow, wow, wow! I can hardly think of anything to say besides that...Since my last post there have been some pretty interesting admissions. Now it seems a member tracked killtowns internet habits and then posted their theory and the mods took up the cause.

Now on some level, this seems to make sense. It would be a good thing if you were able to discover that someone was trying to slant reality and expose them. Unfortunately, that's a highly subjective rule to try to enforce.

Without sounding hostile, because that is not my purpose, (I would very much like to believe that this was done for a logical reason and to help, not hinder) but since the forum is called 911 conspiracies, doesn't it make sense that the people who would post here the most are the one's that believe that there is a 911 cover-up? Why are people who believe in the official story posting on a 911 conspiracy forum? And why do they get upset when people don't buy the official story? Isn't that expected on a forum such as this? And isn't it also expected that some will have theories that don't hold a basis in fact? (Which I do not believe was the case with killtown for the most part.) Instead I see a response that seems to suggest that questioning the official story is somehow un-american.

My take: In the fight versus 911 truth and those that believe the "official story" the point goes to the official story for the art of silencing those you disagree with.

No more from me on the subject.....

Originally posted by truthalive
And isn't it also expected that some will have theories that don't hold a basis in fact? (Which I do not believe was the case with killtown for the most part.) Instead I see a response that seems to suggest that questioning the official story is somehow un-american.

My take: In the fight versus 911 truth and those that believe the "official story" the point goes to the official story for the art of silencing those you disagree with.

Are you saying that this is what is going on here at ATS?

With all do respect. How does offsite time matter to ATS. I read your reasons and see where you're coming from, and ultimately respect your decisions. Nevertheless, it seems counter to what ATS has been built to represent. If someone is rude they get warned. If they get warned more and more they lose posting rights, then they get banned. Was this protocol followed with killtown? Personally, I do not have any recollection of Killtown, other than seeing him attached to ATS through a google search I did.

I guess my point is this, we have protocols, we have a star system, we members of ATS like to build up a respect level within the peremeters of your T&Cs. If you're going to just ban members that create negative respect here, and judge them for offsite actions, why even have a system set up to build up your acclaim? There has to be an opposite to "Denying Ingnorance."

Just my thoughts, again, with all do respect.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

I guess my point is this, we have protocols, we have a star system, we members of ATS like to build up a respect level within the peremeters of your T&Cs. If you're going to just ban members that create negative respect here, and judge them for offsite actions, why even have a system set up to build up your acclaim? There has to be an opposite to "Denying Ingnorance."

Just my thoughts, again, with all do respect.

AAC

Imagine me busting into a forum screaming, yelling, biting, and calling people names because we have a disagreement, no doubt they call in guards to kick me out. Now you would understand why they did this to the member.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If someone is rude they get warned. If they get warned more and more they lose posting rights, then they get banned. Was this protocol followed with killtown?
AAC

Wow! I was under the belief that Killtown was at least warned for rude behaviour before being banned. Now I am curious if he was banned just because of his beliefs in 911. Interesting.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by truthalive
And isn't it also expected that some will have theories that don't hold a basis in fact? (Which I do not believe was the case with killtown for the most part.) Instead I see a response that seems to suggest that questioning the official story is somehow un-american.

My take: In the fight versus 911 truth and those that believe the "official story" the point goes to the official story for the art of silencing those you disagree with.

Are you saying that this is what is going on here at ATS?

In general, no. Obviously there are plenty of posters that challenge the 911 official story and are not banned.

What I meant when I said that in this round the 911 official story believers had won, is that it appears that they were the one's most upset by his postings and most determined to discredit him. (For the record, I have no opinion of him, good or bad.)

Okay, now that I've explained myself I'm going to leave this subject because I don't want to sound hostile. That is not my intent. I just think it's important to always ask questions.

BTW, if I turn out to be wrong and he was justly banned, I will happily admit it.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Now you would understand why they did this to the member.

I was asking if the proper protocol was followed. If not, why have protocols? Calm down. It seems you were more than pleased with this decision.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation


I was asking if the proper protocol was followed. If not, why have protocols? Calm down. It seems you were more than pleased with this decision.

AAC

Ouch you got me there.