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.

 

Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

page: 2
100
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I just want to let you know that I am one of those people who completely avoid posting in the 9/11 forum, in fact I don't think that I have ever made even a single post in there due to this 9/11 Madness that is being addressed.

I hope that someday I will feel like I can post in the 9/11 forum and we can all come together and be one big voice and lead the way to the ultimate goal which is to awake people to the truth and turn the tides around.

Thank You S.O. and the MODS for all of the hard work that you are doing.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by housegroove23
I just want to let you know that I am one of those people who completely avoid posting in the 9/11 forum, in fact I don't think that I have ever made even a single post in there due to this 9/11 Madness that is being addressed.



I very rarely, I mean very rarely, ever post on the 9/11 forum. They could close it and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


sorry wasnt trying to start an argument---------i just wont look anymore at threads brought up about an inside job on 9-11-------------come to think of it---------there is so much on the plate here at ats that i just am not able to find the time to look at everything there is---------i'm only human--------and a slow poke besides------------i really appreciate the work you guys do to make this site fun as well as an education.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by behindthescenes
1. How will you differentiate "personal attacks" versus legit conspiracy chat regarding members and non-members alike?

Any post that contains commentary that focuses on a person's capabilities or credibility would apply.


By this, I'm assuming that you would warn somebody who, say, attempts to discredit a person on the basis that they're a terrible speller? I've seen this a few times.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I just realized that I could theoretically be warned three times and banned for bringing up these examples.

I request that you give me a pass as a means to clarify the new rules and if discussion of the details I brought up about these witnesses is in fact forbidden I will certainly refrain from posting this information within discussion.

I am just trying to clarify so I don't break the rules.

As I said there is a lot more information like this that could be discussed.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by behindthescenes
 


You mean something similar to this?


Originally posted by Haroki
PS - you ever pass your Math 241 class?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I'm still staying as far away from the 9/11 forums as possible. I don't need any more proof, and no one is changing my opinion and vice-versa.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.

If you're unable scrutinize such people without focusing on their unrelated personal experiences or associations, then please don't do it on ATS. Focus on their relation to the specific issues, not their persons. Doing so will simply perpetuate a "personal attack" atmosphere, and the line is drawn.

If you think a person's unrelated experience is critical to the 9/11-related position you're presenting, you're just going to need to work harder to collect an appropriate level connectivity and relevance. In the end, your research should be stronger for it.



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.

Our hand has been forced to be heavy. If you read the above, you'll realize that such scrutiny is not completely restricted, you just need to work harder.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
By this, I'm assuming that you would warn somebody who, say, attempts to discredit a person on the basis that they're a terrible speller? I've seen this a few times.

Yes. We WILL be that strict in the 9/11 forum.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


So to be clear....

All of the examples I provided are forbidden to be discussed?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
All of the examples I provided are forbidden to be discussed?

In their current form, yes.

With more research and connectivity as to why the associations are important, and how they would influence the person's actions specific to the points you're making -- with no conclusions that involve insults or off-handed assumptions of criminal activity -- they should be fine.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Fantastic News!!!

I tend to make only brief appearances there because of the noise... and my work in other forums draws a ummm certain percentage of detractors...

There are times its hard not to want to return 'punches" so I tend to walk away... (yup had a couple warnings
) 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.

Thanks and keep up the great work

Happy Holidays



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
All of the examples I provided are forbidden to be discussed?

In their current form, yes.

With more research and connectivity as to why the associations are important, and how they would influence the person's actions specific to the points you're making -- with no conclusions that involve insults or off-handed assumptions of criminal activity -- they should be fine.


Ok.

I'm not trying to be difficult here just trying to nail this down.

In their "current form" I used no insults or off-handed assumptions of criminal activity.

The relevance of these witnesses' involvement with Opus Dei, CFR, PNAC, or association of a cab driver with the FBI or a law enforcement fraternity is rather self explanatory in the context of a 9/11 conspiracy and I fail to see how it would be possible to demonstrate exactly "how they would influence" individuals. However the notion that these powerful "sects" heavily associated with the Washington elite could not influence a person's involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So is your point that I am only allowed to bring up these types of connections if I launch into a dissertation about the dubious or questionable history of these organizations?

Secret societies are not usual fodder for 9/11 truth research but when high profile witnesses are directly involved in them these details are certainly quite notable. Literally proving anything in regards to secret societies or intelligence agencies is virtually impossible but clearly they are a legitimate part of virtually ANY conspiracy discussion.

You see the point in bringing this information up isn't because it directly proves anything but rather because they are dubious or suspicious details that speak loudly as to the types of individuals that were cited as witnesses to the event.

Since this is the 9/11 conspiracy forum, it should be clear that we can not assume the innocence of high profile witnesses who have been heavily cited by the suspect in support of the official story so to specifically have these individuals "protected" against scrutiny of this type built into the rules of this forum seems like a direct contradiction to the entire point of having a "9/11 conspiracy" forum to begin with.

I understand that an official story supporter was offended by the fact that I brought up McGraw's association with Opus Dei but that particular individual is likely offended by the very notion that 9/11 was an inside job so this is to be expected.

For those of us who understand that it WAS an inside job we find these details important......not contraband.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
This is great news it will keep trolls away, will make the discourse more civil. Since the MOD's are great on these forums we have nothing to worry about. But those that keep attacking others will just be gone.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Since this is the 9/11 conspiracy forum, it should be clear that we can not assume the innocence of high profile witnesses who have been heavily cited by the suspect in support of the official story so to specifically have these individuals "protected" against scrutiny of this type built into the rules of this forum seems like a direct contradiction to the entire point of having a "9/11 conspiracy" forum to begin with.


I agree wholeheartedly.

Especially when we have posts like this today (after the new rules were in affect):


Originally posted by gen.disaray
but i was unfortuneate enough to see that bad , puss filled boil called " Loose Change " and i had to listen to that winny little dylan avery go on for 30minutes about every fire in the world never made a building collaspe.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet, I still see no warn for this member.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by behindthescenes
By this, I'm assuming that you would warn somebody who, say, attempts to discredit a person on the basis that they're a terrible speller? I've seen this a few times.

Yes. We WILL be that strict in the 9/11 forum.


GOOD!


As I have said before, when someone has to take such pathetic shots while in the midst of the debate, they have long lost the "battle".

I wish this rule would expand to ALL of the forums here. By that, I mean warning anyone that tries to use a misspelling as a means of "counter attack".


Of course,

iF teh pst n qwestyun luux leyek this? spelng cud legiitametle bee uzd 2 envaludat teh posterz argumint.


SimyusDay





Jasn



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That post by gen.disaray is a perfect example what we have to deal with and the double standards. Personally I don't get it. IF the rules work both ways then it makes sense.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I, for one, am happy to see that there is a moderator on a forum such as this.

There are many components, and many insights that can be brought into the discussion.

There is the 'airplane' component...there is the 'explosive' component...there is the 'inside job' component...oops, there is also the 'hologram' component, which ties into the 'airplane' component, which ties into the 'explosive' component......they all tie together, and somehow, the discussion gets heated, and the original point can get lost. BUT, that is because this is a controversial subject, and many have differing views, and viewpoints.

This is a topic that demands civil discourse...so I am wholly in favor of a strong overview, if you will, to keep the conversation from fragmenting into chaos.

Just my opinion....



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I'm very thankful for the steps ATS has taken regarding the 9/11 forum.I almost moved on to another site because of the sand kicking here.



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join