Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 23
100
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

And it comes in waves until a MOD bans them, then magically somehow new persons pick up the flag and hold it for that side and march forward posting, have you ever noticed that in the 9/11 forums, it really does make you wonder. Since they have different posting styles I don't think it's people going around the ban either. But there always seems to be at least 1/2 dozen at any given time, I am including both sides for this.


Yah, kinda tag team like. I have noticed that too, Blue Jay. Hum... maybe it is some debate class who uses this forum to practice their presentation and since most debate classes usually require you to debate both sides, they just trade off when they get banned?




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Those that peddle the "cgi/tv fakery theory", "no planes at the WTC theory", "DEW/Energy Weapons theory", are not part of the 9/11 truth movement, and should not be considered "truthers" of any kind.

Jim Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (one of the first such factions), has been pushing those very concepts right here on ATS.

His thread: Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]. More on his website here.

He's all over the map on some of the more extreme theories,



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Jim Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (one of the first such factions), has been pushing those very concepts right here on ATS.

I'm well aware of that. Jim Fetzer was not the only founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Fetzer founded S911T with Steven Jones. When Fetzer wouldn't let go of his ridiculous "theories", they decided to part ways and Dr. Jones (and others) founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Jim Fetzer, his work, and his "faction" are not supported anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement. Just as Judy Wood's and Simon Shack's "work" is not supported anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement.

It's funny that Fetzer's thread is in the HOAX bin along with the tv fakery/no planer threads, but yet there are still those that try to link them to the 9/11 truth movement, despite them and their "work" not being supported anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement.

It's the continuous, concerted effort to make 9/11 truthers look like "nutjobs" and "loonies" when we're associated with such ridiculous theories that are proven disinformation and hoaxes.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
One could argue that those that push conspiracy theories are the real paid shills, being paid by Muslims to deflect people attacking the radical Muslims who actually caused 9/11.

They try and blame the USA's government etc, trying to divert attacks from the arab terrorists instead of blaming the 19 muslims who hijacked the planes on 9/11.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
If people have a genuine opinion that there were no planes, I don't see why they should not be allowed to discuss their ideas without having the post moved to a board that suggests they are liars and are of lower intelligence than anybody else on this board.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that half (or more) of the posts I see on the front page when I come to ATS sound absolutely ridiculous, yet they necessarily moved to a hoax board or moderator branded stupidity.

It's quite obvious the site owner has a problem with the "no plane" theory, (as do i). BUT, people have a right to believe what they want to believe, and you sir, (and I say this with the utmost respect for your providing of ATS to the world) should not dismiss ideas or brand them as total b.s. by moving them to a board that suggests they are hoaxs, lies, or otherwise.

A conspiracy by definition runs against the grain of the "official story" and there is no "total proof" to provide!

edit on 5-9-2011 by hombero because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 
I've been warned too many times about things that to me me are asinine. I cannot understand why people who obviously don't want any further investigation are protected. Have I been petty? Of course. But, watching this group of debunkers do nothing but attempt to derail every single topic related to 9/11 makes me mad as hell. Just the mere fact that they are here every day posting in their condescending manner makes me question your position on this.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
I've been warned too many times about things that to me me are asinine.

I've looked at your removed posts, and all are warranted.



I cannot understand why people who obviously don't want any further investigation are protected.

No specific opinion is ever being protected... merely that of an environment where participants can anticipate a civil debate.



But, watching this group of debunkers do nothing but attempt to derail every single topic related to 9/11 makes me mad as hell.

Why?

Firstly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Secondly, "debunking" one particular 9/11 conspiracy theory is not automatic evidence that someone supports the "official story" or is against additional investigation.

Thirdly, if we desire to be ethical conspiracy theorists with a strong desire to see our conspiracies proven to be fact, we need debunkers to put our theories to the test so that we may reject what fails and focus on what works.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hombero
If people have a genuine opinion that there were no planes, I don't see why they should not be allowed to discuss their ideas without having the post moved to a board that suggests they are liars and are of lower intelligence than anybody else on this board.

Proven hoaxes go to the HOAX forum, and this is a proven hoax. Those who believe such ridiculousness have been fooled by the "conspiracy fakery" group begun by the Web Fairy, furthered by the likes of Nico Haupt and killtown, and brought to a new level of nonsense by September Clues.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Jim Fetzer, his work, and his "faction" are not supported anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement.

Where can we get a roadmap as to who is and who is not part of the "Truth Movement," when they claim to be part of the "Truth Movement."

Are "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" part of the group? If so, then they need to reevaluate John Lear's involvement.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





That is where you are incorrect, they ARE part of the "truth" movement. You do not get to say what conspiracy theories you accept in the "truth" movement, they are all part of that movement. Who gets to decide that conspiracy theories like explosives being used, or thermite is ok to be part of the truth movement, but equally silly conspiracy tyeories like mini nukes are not?


Of course YOU want them to be part of the "truth movement" because they give you your ammo to warrant calling the rest of us "wackos."

Now I am going to use a very high level of restraint and leave it at that.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by dillweed
I've been warned too many times about things that to me me are asinine.

I've looked at your removed posts, and all are warranted.



I cannot understand why people who obviously don't want any further investigation are protected.

No specific opinion is ever being protected... merely that of an environment where participants can anticipate a civil debate.



But, watching this group of debunkers do nothing but attempt to derail every single topic related to 9/11 makes me mad as hell.

Why?

Firstly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Secondly, "debunking" one particular 9/11 conspiracy theory is not automatic evidence that someone supports the "official story" or is against additional investigation.

Thirdly, if we desire to be ethical conspiracy theorists with a strong desire to see our conspiracies proven to be fact, we need debunkers to put our theories to the test so that we may reject what fails and focus on what works.


while i agree with you, there still is the slippery slope of non progress when the same OSers come in and say the same exact thing every single time....next thing you know the thread is tainted and not even worth reading any longer.......I see both sides of the coin, i even understand that the business of releasing information is almost perpetual and non stop, because of the new people who are joining the ranks and are going through the different levels of learning that we all went through...so, it seems redundant, often, and that's fine, but, when you have the same people that are stuck in the same gear over and over and over again, it makes it rough.....i guess we need to learn how to just dismiss their foolishness with silence, but, the new people to a thread will always fall victim to these rascals...........an endless cycle.....



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
there still is the slippery slope of non progress when the same OSers come in and say the same exact thing every single time...

Perhaps if you stopped the derogatory implications by calling people "OSers" we'd see some type of trend toward civility.
edit on 5-9-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I agree most wholeheartedly with the actions taken to preserve civility and decorum within the 9/11 threads. I've only received one warning on ATS (and it was rightfully applied to me by Skeptic Overlord) and it was for using the very type of "insult" that they are trying to keep out of the forum. I completely support the actions of ATS in trying to maintain some sort of civility in this thread.

I'd also like to point out that the "debunkers" around 9/11 aren't just those that believe the OS. The "truthers" are trying to Debunk the OS just as much as those in the OS camp try to debunk the "truthers" viewpoints; therefore we are all Debunkers in some form and shouldn't try to use that label as an insult thusly.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
The "truthers" are trying to Debunk the OS just as much as those in the OS camp try to debunk the "truthers" viewpoints; therefore we are all Debunkers in some form and shouldn't try to use that label as an insult thusly.

There shouldn't be any labels at all.

Somewhere between the full "Official Story" and the most extreme idea put forth by "Truthers" the actual truth lies. And it's going to contain aspect of both the "official story" and "conspiracy theories."



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 





I've been warned too many times about things that to me me are asinine. I cannot understand why people who obviously don't want any further investigation are protected. Have I been petty? Of course. But, watching this group of debunkers do nothing but attempt to derail every single topic related to 9/11 makes me mad as hell. Just the mere fact that they are here every day posting in their condescending manner makes me question your position on this.


Hi, dillweed.....

I completely concur, and although I voiced the same concerns that you have, I also can see how this is would be a very hard situation to mediate in a manner that allows freedom of speech, yet that doesn't result in the threads degenerating to the level of some of the other forum websites such as GLP. (Sorry for mentioning it by name, but they are a good example).

This is the ONLY conspiracy website I visit, and it's for the simple reason that a lot of abusive behavior is not tolerated. But I have to admit, the 9/11 forums test my tolerance level, and sometimes it's hard to behave....lol



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





Perhaps if you stopped the derogatory implications by calling people "OSers" we'd see some type of trend toward civility.


??????? What about "Truthers?" Even YOU use that one.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





One could argue that those that push conspiracy theories are the real paid shills, being paid by Muslims to deflect people attacking the radical Muslims who actually caused 9/11.


Yeah, "one" could argue that........


My guess is they probably don't argue that because there are so many holes in the government's story that it gives the conspiracy theories validity.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





Perhaps if you stopped the derogatory implications by calling people "OSers" we'd see some type of trend toward civility.


??????? What about "Truthers?" Even YOU use that one.



here's a case in point....




quote by SkepticOverloard

There shouldn't be any labels at all. Somewhere between the full "Official Story" and the most extreme idea put forth by "Truthers" the actual truth lies. And it's going to contain aspect of both the "official story" and "conspiracy theories."


how are we supposed to identify someone who believes in the official story and someone who doesn't if we have no labels? it makes as much since as supermarkets taking all the labels off their products so that each manufacturer's brand gets a fair shake. labels are here for a reason....to discern differences that relate to animate or inanimate objects......i don't mind being called a truther, it fits quite well......we have to remember also, that as much positive as there is in the world, there is exactly the same amount of negative, each is just distributed differently.....we have to take the good with the bad.....
edit on 5-9-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Perhaps if you stopped the derogatory implications by calling people "OSers" we'd see some type of trend toward civility.


What is derogatory about that? It just means official story supporter. What are we supposed to call them?
I don't use it as a derogatory term.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It just means official story supporter.

All too often "OSer" has been used as a derogatory label applied to people who simply disagree with a conspiracy being discussed.

For example: Just because someone doesn't believe bombs were used in the WTC is no indication they support the official story.
edit on 5-9-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join