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.

 

ATS 9/11 History.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
At this point the debate about the events of 9/11 interests me much more than the actual questions surrounding 9/11. One person thinking one way, another thinking another way and why....much more intriguing than the continually rehashed conspiracy theories.

One item is the fact that there is an abundance of so-called "debunkers" on ATS. Really, if you go back to earlier threads on the 9-11 issue things were much more readily shot down than they are now. Certain issues that people continually talk about were given just mere hand waves by many respected members of ATS at one time or another.

Take for example this thread from early 2004: 911 facts even Alex Jones doesn't discuss...

Of note is this fantastic quote by SkepticOverlord himself:


Should we let mistruths go unchallenged?
Should we allow anyone to push forth erroneous theories?
Should ATS become like all other conspiracy sites where any crazy idea is embraced?

The search for truth is not a process of speculation, it's a process of separating fact from fiction.


This is what the 9/11 debate here consisted of for a very long time. People making claims and the senior members lambasting them.

For all of the people that scream about censorship and what-not, Above Top Secret has become a much friendlier place to 9/11 theories over the last few years. If you go through the very old 9-11 threads you find that many theories that are widely held by many here now were quite readily "debunked" at one time.

Another great early thread is this one: Unexplained 9-11 Explosions at WTC Complex

If you take a look at these two threads........9/11 Conspiracy Theories were more hardily trashed four or five years ago than they are now. Whether that's a function of people being less welcoming of them at the time; more accepting of them at this time; or just simply due to the fact we've become inundated with them is what I'd like to ascertain...with the help of the ATS 9/11 Debate Community. This is the most important "conspiracy" issue of the last three or four generations. Is it on the right track?

ATS has become an archive on the Alternatives of Contemporary History During the Post-9/11 Era. We should rediscover the origins of the 9-11 Conspiracy in my opinion.




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Interesting post, but I'm not exactly clear what your thesis is, other than that the 911 board at ATS has had fewer debunkers over time, and that you hint that this seems not to be such a good thing, perhaps.

Actually the posts here reflect 911 itself over time; most people have come to terms and accepted some version of events--facts being sorely and intentionally lacking--and have moved on. The core who remain are mostly, for lack of a better term, "truthers" who are dedicated to exploring, understanding and exposing the true sequence of events that day and from that, drawing conclusions about the actual perpetrators of the crime.

Over time, the discussion has become more complex and technical, as a greater knowledge of the actual construction of the WTC towers has been debated and advanced. And this point is key, because it requires more than a layman's grasp of physics, statics, construction--and demolition. In a word, it requires knowledge, even expertise, and above all logical, critical thinking.

These discussions are not easy to simply jump into, or often to comprehend, if the ATS member does not have the technical knowledge and critical facilities mentioned above. As a result, you see a wide divergence of views and of posts--from the simplistic and the far-out to the minutely technical and the theoretical. And, unfortunately, as the debate moves forward, it becomes less comprehensible to a greater number of people.

I was a dedicated member on the 911 board for over a year, concentrating on these technical issues, until I reached an understanding as to the mechanics of the WTC collapses--the "how it happened" that satisfied the observed destruction of the towers, the physical evidence and the various anomalies.

Since then, I rarely post, but do follow the discussions to see if anything new has come to light; unfortunately, little has--so I lurk. But I'm extremely grateful to ATS and the dedicated members here who have advanced the debate and brought real, important findings to light. Members such as Griff, bsbray11, damocles, labtop, and others have made major contributions to our understanding of the events. Likewise, perceptive "debunkers" sort the wheat from the chaff and are also valuable contributors.

Personally, I reached a satisfying synthesis of all these contributions--satisfying intellectually, but otherwise profoundly disturbing--and though I have not made my peace with 911 I do believe I understand the how, but I will never understand the souls of the perpetrators.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I signed up around the time when all that was beginning to change. I saw worse than just hand-waving, I saw deliberately misleading rebuttals posted that took people off on tangents in the totally wrong direction than where they should have been looking, and this came so consistently from one member in particular that I was forced to believe it was completely intentional (not SO, of course). Someone would post about WTC7's acceleration and instantly we would be talking about the completely backwards idea of free-fall "time," all thanks to this certain someone. When this is coming from someone who knows the difference, and you know they know the difference, and this kind of stuff goes on for months, what would you think?

That rant aside, I agree that there's a lot of good material archived on these forums. It's just scattered everywhere and hard to find anything specific most of the time.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Ever hear of the old saying " Dont try to teach a pig to sing. It annoys
the pig and wastes you time" Problem is that applied to the "truthers"
it typifies their behaviour. Pointing out obvious errors in fact and logic
get you nowhere as most of them refuse to listen! They are so invested
in proving their own little paranoid fantasty that have no room for anything
which contradicts it. At this point many of the debunkers leave in
frustration. Witness how time and again no matter how many times try
to knock down some of the more absurd "theories" keep coming back -
proves saying by PT Barnum "that there is a sucker born every minute..."



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Though dismissive, thedman makes a valid, if one-sided, point: positions have hardened. There is little undecided middle-ground anymore on 911, and it will take a revelation or a truly impartial investigation to unsettle that. I'm not holding my breath though.

The op's title sort of sums it up--911 is slipping into history.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by gottago]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
9/11 is to political conspiraces what Roswell is to UFOlogy

The further away from the event, the wilder the claims will get, and the less actual factual information will be ascertained, while the stories and claims get wilder and wilder....

And in the end you will end up with a Chinese whispers campaign (there is one already and its growing) and there will be very little substance to any of the claims.

And I think that's the way that ATS 9/11 History will progress.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
We have been Divided. We are just waiting to be Conquered.

I have never really taken the time to really invovle myself in the ATS 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mainly because I am convinced that 50% of all theories have been introduced into circulation by the people responsible for 9/11.

By inserting all these theories into the conciousness of every card carrying, tinfoil hat wearing member of the "Truth Movement" via the internet. The waters get muddied. Just enough facts are given to make the story possible (albeit difficult to execute). All of a sudden you have people claiming allegience to one particular theory and wasting valuable time and resources trying to debunk opposing theories rather than banding together and looking at all the facts.

I hope that makes sense.

CT



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
For all of the people that scream about censorship and what-not, Above Top Secret has become a much friendlier place to 9/11 theories over the last few years. If you go through the very old 9-11 threads you find that many theories that are widely held by many here now were quite readily "debunked" at one time.


There is a growing and impossibly long list of reasons to find fault with the various tactics and theories associated with "9/11 Truth," but I'm not going to focus on that aspect of your post. You eluded to an evolutionary process on ATS, and that is very much true.

In addition to looking back into the old pages of forums, you can also look back to old weeks on ATS by starting to look at the activity for this week and clicking back to say... the week of May 16th, 2004 where post activity is a shadow of what it is currently. Back then, a good portion of our content was indeed generated by staff and/or senior members as our site struggled to emerge form puberty to adulthood.

Over time, through trial-and-error, mistakes, and the occasional flash of brilliance, we learned to adopt an agnostic editorial attitude that encourages our members to "work things out." As a result, senior staffers are much less involved in major discussions. Our stance along those lines is made very clear on the home page of our corporate site:

"Believe In The Crowd"

The user is no longer "in charge." One-to-one communications between brands and consumers is obsolete. The crowd has taken over with a new collective intellect that surpasses any one expert. The dominance of the digital crowd is upon us.

We believe in the crowd. We support the free expression of ideas, information, hopes, and conjecture as vital building blocks toward a historic degree of collaborative knowledge.

We support the crowd. We believe in the self-determination of the crowd and its ability to know how to express and recognize issues, ideas, and knowledge of vital importance to society.

We know the culture of the digital crowd is one of collaboration driven by the ethics of sharing.

We enable the crowd to collaborate and share. We are above petty attacks, disputes, "flames," and personality focus. We aspire to higher standards of conduct. We anticipate excellence of each other. We are the crowd. We are The Above Network.



And with that in mind, it's up to you now isn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join