It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 forum and the 911 pound Gorilla

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

It would still contain personal stuff, as after all there are undoubtedly members of either sides of the discussions who would proclaim that the moderators had selected a better debater for one side or the other - and it's not as if we* could simply let the debaters decide which side of the debate they wanted to uphold because that would kinda throw a spanner in your idea of "Un-biased representation".

Face it, this can only be settled by specifically discussing the reasons why so many conspiracy theories have sprung up out of nowhere, or by specifically discussing conspiracy theories that contradict the official story.

In either one, opponents of the camp would have to sit it out, because any contradiction they could have would be pointless to make considering the context of the topic.

Naturally it would be quite difficult to make a jazzy thread title with such specific content, but inevitably it is the only way to ensure that discussion on the events of 9/11 would be un-marred by cases of uncivilised opposition.

I do get the feeling you might be trying a bit too hard too hard to make everything perfect here, skyfloating.

*By we, i do infact mean, You.

edit; *notes repetition, and leaves it out of self-humour*

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:51 AM
Well its just an idea you know. No sweat.

My motivation for suggesting the idea is because 9/11 has always been an emotional ride for its participants. One approach not tried yet is the official Courtroom approach.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Heh, you're the moderator - ultimately my opinion means squat if you intend to go ahead with it.

By all means, Progress is Progress, i do infact think that it's incredibly worthy that you're putting effort into clearing this up, but i think that this might be one of the things that we'll be mulling over for a good few more decades.

Kinda like JFK, in a way.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

The world is going to mule over it for decades. But ATS wants relief. Even if we find out the conspiracy is dark and deep it will be a sort of relief...then at least we know what we´re dealing with.

I dont know. Lets look at other ideas that pop up on this thread.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Perhaps in that case it would be best to start by simply compiling all the information avaliable about the American Establishment, the Al Qaeda Network, the CIA, the Flights themselves, the Individuals involved (Blair, Bush, Osama, etc), the evidence left behind by the wreckages (lol), and take into account ALL the variables, and put every single fact we can find into one single thread.

If this has already been done, then that's half the battle i believe.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

There is a way of conducting this investigation, via the FSME's

Cuhail would lead the section regarding the War on Terrorism and how 9/11 might or might of influenced it.

GAOTU789 will deal with the general conspiracies linking to pre-9/11.

infinite, myself, shall locate and evaluate the New World Order and its believed involvement in the events that day. Comes to a conclusion whether or not it was a global conspiracy.

JackatMtn could look at the current events surrounding 9/11, potential conspiracies and scepitcal theories.

junglejake might be able to investigate any possible religious prophecy surrounding 9/11.

The staff could then select members to go into each group to help the FSME's with the mother of all ATS investigations.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by infinite]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by infinite


(the Mods in question will chime in here for sure).

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:22 AM
An important and timely thread.

First, the 9/11 Gorilla project is not dead, just stalled a bit as those tasked with initial planning (myself included), have encountered conflicts of timing.

Next, I'm going to take a rare departure from my (and ATS management's) policy of editorial agnosticism, and say a few things that may offend large segments of people who come to ATS to discuss 9/11 issues. I apologize if what I'm about to say ruffles your sensibilities, but if we're going to hope to wrestle this topic back into productive territory, these are important issues to consider.

The number one problem with discovering "9/11 Truth" is "9/11 Truthers."

--- and ---

"9/11 Truthers" are not "conspiracy theorists."

The vast majority of people who populate the ranks of "9/11 Truth" are activists who would otherwise be preoccupied with protests against the World Bank and anarchy-inspired issues. These people are anti-establishment, anti-capitalism, anti-media, and become passionately angry with those who would dare question them or disagree with their position.

When you consider the "activist mentality," their primary concern is inciting a reaction and getting attention. As a result, there is a diminished (if any) concern for accuracy or accountability, as the primary goal is acceptance of their anti-establishment position... regardless of how it is obtained. They would rather fill their ranks with 100 spittle-spewing red-faced people in black t-shirts shouting on the corner than 100 intelligent contemplative researchers delivering articulate examinations of facts.

Activists (9/11 Truthers) are more concerned with who is paying attention to them.

Conspiracy theorists are more concerned with who is paying attention.

The unfortunate result is that what should be contemplative research into provable facts has been polluted and irreparably corrupted by an activist mentality. The ramifications are:

1) Credibility Destruction: the "attention at all costs" mentality has poisoned the issues with a myriad of exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

2) Loss of Civility: the "shouting on the street corner" tactic of activism has turned nearly all online and offline discussion of 9/11 issues into a no-win situation.

3) The 10-Foot Poll: the biggest issue is the overwhelmingly negative perception of "9/11 conspiracy theories" fostered by the "truth movement." As a result, we have mainstream media people saying what amounts to, "I'm not touching that topic with a 10-foot poll."

The biggest question we now face is this: Is there any hope of turning the tide?

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by infinite

That idea, in and of itself, is a good one. Just be sure, should this come to fruition, that you have a well balanced team. Personally, I've absolutely no interest in hearing a rehash of the "gubmint did it" theories with nothing to counterbalance it.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Calm, well balanced investigations are the only way to salvage the "truth movement". Go where the investigation takes you, not where you may want it to go. All too often, as you are aware, certainly moreso than myself, "truthers" are far too busy screaming about government wrong doing to be bothered actually doing any real investigations into whether or not they actually did any wrong...

Just my two and a half cents worth...

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

It would be interesting to see if it would work, however, this would be the largest investigation/research project ever carried out on ATS. Would be nice to know what the other FSME's thought

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:08 AM
Most of you (dare I say all of you) are very respectable level-headed thinkers here, so I hesitate to add my two-cents. As you can see from the points thingy I am new and still learning my way around some of the regulars around here.

I found myself VERY interested in the 9-11 issue from many perspectives (not all about the 'whodunit' or 'why' aspect). But I quickly found that if I were to attempt to explore one or other aspect of the issue - people who otherwise seemed quite rational would become almost rabidly antagonistic towards you.

I was as if you had no place there unless you had already 'picked a side'. This is not my analytical style so I was forced to refrain from even reading the thread; lest I be compelled to respond to someone and become their scratching post - (pun?)

I like to only say that as a new member here - I hope you can determine some way to overcome this quandary. I want to discuss and ask questions of those who have obviously made an effort to come to an understanding (be it conspiratorial or otherwise) about this event. I have suggestions, but perhaps the only one I am confident in putting forth - since I know you all have way more experience to bring to the table - is this:

Since a consensus on how to compartmentalize or facilitate constructive debate on 9-11 is the issue. Perhaps a thread to discuss the 'framework' is in order. There really is no need to be draconian or militantly regimented in controlling the flow of ideas, but perhaps creating a new segmented approach to the issue begins with agreeing on what those segments should be and how the decision should be made to interweave them without derailing either.

At any rate - I wish you success on this, for selfish reasons. I want to explore the topic creatively - which is hard to do when people are so peeved at each other they equate their disagreements with insults.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:18 PM
I love this courtroom idea.
I think it would be great to have each issue of 9/11 argued by the experts of their specific issue.
You could pick 9 independent judges (Supreme Court style)
After each side presented their evidence then the Court would discuss and then vote. Each judge could then write an opinion explaining why they decided the way they did.

The only people allowed to post would be the experts assigned to argue that specific issue. You could also wait until all sides presented before opening the judical review thread, or of course just request the judges refrain from posting until told to do so. I would discourage the idea of allowing judges to ask questions because that could muck things up.

I also would like to be considered for one of these judge spots.
I'm new of course but if you look at my 9/11 postings you can see the frustration I have in both the Truthers and the Debunkers. I just want the truth. I also am a 2L in law school and would really get a kick out of participating in this.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

well, this has actually been done on a small scale. whatukno and i debated one aspect of 911 last spring in a H2H debate.

im proud of the work we did there if for no other reason that i think our conduct and attitude towards each other in that debate SHOULD stand as an example overall. i left that debate with more respect from him and just an overall good feeling about it because of the respect and civility he demonstrated in the debate. it was nice to discuss the topic with someone who didnt even once take a pot shot at me personally.

also it was something i could link to in other threads because we both put a lot of good research into it so it became a reference tool for me when i needed to illustrate a point and didnt feel like retyping all the math lol.

for those interested its here

(biggie, if you have any demo questions thats a good place to start, once you read that fire off any questions you have via u2u if you like. again, my opinions aside, i do my best to provide facts about demo, not opinions)

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:34 PM
I suppose this is going to end up in a debate between a select few. I can't say I'm encouraged. Oh well. It will no doubt make a good show - and I'm sure there will be much to be learned. But I suspect I'll wait until it's over before I start reading since it doesn't involve participation.

(by the way - how does this differ from a mediated 'chat room'?) (other than popularity how does a member decide who's the expert?) In what way does this represent an ATS community affair?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Maxmars]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

im not sure how anything would work sitewide, but the debate i linked to was last spring so its long been completed. getting involved was simple, i posted i was interested in a debate, listed topics id be interested in debating and whatukno offered to debate explosives on 911 with me.

we debated and chissler had a panel of anonymous judges to determine the "winner". now does this mean i proved there were no demo charges used on 911? of course not, it just meant that i presented the better case in this instance.

so, im not entirely sure how such a thng would work on a larger scale but in my opinion, if everyone with an opinion on 911 would just relax and conduct themselves like wuk and i did our discussions in the 911 forums (and all the rest for that matter) would prove to be more productive and would encourage more members to participate.

but thats just my opinion and shouldnt be construed as anything more than that

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Damocles

please forgive me if it seemed I was against your idea, it really sounds good and it obviously worked out well (judging from your experience). I just wish I could suggest a mechanism that would allow for people to speak up and participate without having to do so by proxy. But if there's one thing I can see about this crowd - no matter what they decide - it will be worthwhile.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:16 PM
Here is the problem: Those of us who know that the official story is hogwash fully comprehend the massive amount of proof that proves beyond a doubt that it was an inside job. It seems insulting to the intelligence to read the replies and nonsense that the official story people spew forth. The most far out and outlandish reason are accepted by them as if they were established facts. Odds mean nothing, liklihood is a word they do not use. Lack of evidence is seen as no issue at all!!

So naturally tempers flare. It seems that only two reasons could explain anyone believing the official lie: Chronic and deep seated denial, or some partisan purpose that supports the perps actions. No one could actually believe that a jet liner impacted the Pentagon; why, there are not enough parts there for a Cessna!! What kind of detective says:" Hey, no need to investigate, I know what happened: The perps told me!!"

That is precisely what we are facing here. People who are uneducated about the evidence...thats easy, as soon as they get educated they are on our side...or, people who know the evidence but cannot, or will not, accept reality for other reasons.Some get paid by intel agencies to debunk long as silly excuses can muddy the water for those who know little of the facts they win the game long term. Doubt placed, even dishonestly, is effective as hell, and they know it.

How many ' inexplicable anomalies ' does it take to make someone stop and ponder? A hundred? A thousand? There are more than that with these events but as the media is controlled and complicit the average Joe has no idea...believe it or not, most people do not participate in sites like ATS and learn what we know..most are content to work and play and sleep.

But those who know what is truth are not very amused by outrageous answer to critical questions, and that is all I have ever seen come from their camp. The facts are in; no plant at the Pentagon. First word from the first reporter: No sign of a plane anywhere here. Last word is still the same.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

No offense intended, but I didn't think we were going to get into this sort of discussion here because we kind of want to talk about the discussion not the subject of the discussion. I anticipate someone coming back at you and describing from their perspective what they think of the other side of the coin - then ' off we go ' another foray into describing everything but the discussion.

Please forgive me if I seem a bit pedantic, (is that the right word?). I just want to explore how a discussion of such high volatility can be carried out without the customary declarations about 'each other'? Or am I missing the point? This could be the case, I guess.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Maxmars]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM
ooops - double post

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Maxmars]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in