I also applaud this effort as a frequent victim of such attacks.
However on the same vein as behindthescenes I too have some questions about something specific:
personality attacks directed toward........those who have been in the mainstream news as reported witnesses the events on 9/11/2001.
[...]
....or tell their first-hand 9/11 stories, then do so with facts and reasoned analysis. Simply stating they're a member of a "sect,".....or
any other simplistic "guilt by association" statement will result in a "9/11 Madness" warning.
[...]
All of this makes perfect sense to me in the context of ATS members but to include mainstream media published witness accounts
which are evidence
that needs to be scrutinized seems unwarranted.
For example.....In my thread about alleged Pentagon witness
Stephen McGraw I bring up
the relevant point about his association with the Opus Dei secret society and even quote him direct about this.
Granted there is no proof that his association with this group is directly related to his experience with 9/11 but considering the fact that this
group is heavily mired in conspiracy, political intrigue, controversy, and espionage it is certainly a relevant point to bring up in the context of
the 9/11 conspiracy discussion.
It would be a shame if the new rules would not allow this type of information to be discussed because there is a lot more where that came from as far
as Pentagon witnesses go.
For instance:
Another highly publicized and often mentioned alleged witness to the event was former chief speechwriter and senior policy adviser for Bush; Michael
Gerson.
Gerson is also a senior fellow with the
Council of Foreign Relations.
Clearly there could never be proof that his connection to this "sect" has anything to do with 9/11 but given the controversy and suspicion
surrounding this former secret society amongst conspiracy theorists it would seem to be unwarranted to not allow this personal detail to be
discussed.
Or how about Gary Bauer?
He is another high profile alleged witness but was also a member of the neo-conservative ideological think tank "Project for a New American Century"
and a signer of their document "Rebuilding America's Defenses".
There is no direct proof that the PNAC was directly involved in 9/11 but it is sure a shame if it is forbidden to discuss this personal detail about
this mainstream media published alleged witness under the new rules.
My final example is taxicab driver Lloyd England.
During our personal interview with him he was wearing a belt buckle that said "
blue knights". We asked him
about it and he proudly said he is an "honorary member" and that it is a motorcycle fraternity for
law enforcement.
We also found out how his wife is a retired clerk of the FBI.
Although there is no proof that either of these personal details have any connection to his experience with 9/11 it would be a shame if we were not
allowed to report this information on ATS any longer even though we found it out via our independent personal on site investigation.
I could actually go on and on as there are many suspicious details and connections associated with numerous mainstream media published alleged
witnesses.
To think that we can not scrutinize this type of information any longer here even if it is sourced, presented in a civil manner, and within context of
the 9/11 conspiracy seems more than a bit heavy handed.
As soon as details about
evidence such as witnesses are restricted in the discussion the rules start impeding on a lot more than decorum.
) Perhaps now when this type of
'activity' rears its head in other forums I can point to this thread as a 'friendly reminder" that we would not like to see this happen across the
board. 
