ATS Was set up by Debunkers = The Greatest conspiracy of all time !!!

reply to post by Desolo


Even if ATS was set up by debunkers, and I am not saying that is has been set up by debunkers, ATS is a forum for user generated content so surly even if they were debunkers it would not matter so longs as the members developing the content were not interested in debunking.

I didn’t really see any evidence in your thread that ATS has been set up by debunkers it just sounded to me like you got annoyed for losing a few points and having the odd post removed.

Desolo, ATS is just like real life.....

if you wont the trueth to get out
you dont just post it in one place.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Why do I need to enlighten you as to your own views? Do you or do you not believe the official story? The answer to that question is the only proof I need. I'm not about to start going through every mod post, I am just saying that it seems that many of the mods here (not all) tend to support the official theory of 9/11 and other bogus nonsense that only an imbecile could believe. Since I give the mods credit for being intelligent, I have to assume their position on such topics to be of a fishy origin, that's all. I could be wrong, it's rare, but it happens.

I am reminded of how John Updike, I believe it was, called Graham Greene a "problematical believer" in regards to his Christian beliefs...meaning, of course, that Updike could not figure out how such an intelligent person as Greene could possibly believe in the fairly tale of Christianity. Likewise, I find the mods to be "problematical believers" when it comes to the official story of 9/11, etc. I forsook Noam Chomsky over his opposition to 9/11 conspiracy theories, as well as wikileaks, and I remain steadfast in my belief that anyone who asserts that two airliners brought down 3 buildings is a paid deceiver.

And to reply to phishyblankwaters without unneeded one-line extra posts, I never said certain topics weren't allowed, I just said most of the mods tend to push similar opinions on said subjects and others.

Originally posted by chancemusky
So you're mad that some people are jerks, and then decide to call us all jerks in return? You just seem angry that people here debunk a lot of what you post. sorry you feel that way

If you took offence then it's because you're probably one of the people he was referring to. I took no offence by this thread. I agree exactly with what was said.
This site is just a sea of negativity. If you are an intelligent person you do not need to call names or put people down. Instead you win an argument with evidence. People get way too emotional here and it takes away from any debate.

The main guy's handle on ats is Skeptic Overlord ffs! Starting from that premise, do you expect open mindness from the top down? Ats is on an obvious decline. I've gone back to lurking as the infiltrator bots have gotten stronger every day.

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
Do you or do you not believe the official story?

With regard to "9/11" I've never once indicated that I believed the "official story." And I don't.

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
The main guy's handle on ats is Skeptic Overlord.

Are you really unable to consider that being a "conspiracy theorist" requires a significant about of skepticism?

Skeptic
–noun
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

Being a skeptic is the essence of being a conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
Do you or do you not believe the official story?

With regard to "9/11" I've never once indicated that I believed the "official story." And I don't.

Huh. I was sure I had read otherwise in the past. My mistake and apologies then. It happens. But I stand by my comments as they relate to anyone who does believe the OS, that goes exponentially for anyone that is a part of websites like this.

reply to post by Desolo


I feel the same way completely, and you said:

its as if to post on ATS you must have an A Level or higher in English

Ive always been terible at english, as in putting my thoughts into words and grammer and sh_t, but to me that doesnt matter I still consider myself pretty intelligent.

Here is how you do it.

Turn the debunk back around. Debunk the falsehoods if you see it.

If you are showing something that is apparently true, and someone tries to derail it, than since the truth is on your side than you can easily debunk the criticisms.

At least 50% or so of those who think they are debunkers actually aren't. They are believers in the government official story. See how it turns around so fast?

If the government lies to the people, than the TRUE skeptic is the person calling them into question and seeking the full real story.

Use the same tactics but turn it all around and use them for good.

The dark side lies all the time, they will fail and mess things up (and they always do), and everyone will see them exposed for what they really are.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
The main guy's handle on ats is Skeptic Overlord.

Are you really unable to consider that being a "conspiracy theorist" requires a significant about of skepticism?

Skeptic
–noun
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

Being a skeptic is the essence of being a conspiracy theorist.

Exactly SO.

We are skeptical of what the "Authority" on TV tells us every night.

We are skeptical of the salesmen that want to rip us off all the time.

Skepticism is just a tool like a gun, and can be used for good or evil. It's up to the wielder of the tool to decide.

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
But I stand by my comments as they relate to anyone who does believe the OS, that goes exponentially for anyone that is a part of websites like this.

Your statements appear to be of the typical inflexible "9/11 Truther" mindset that dictates a reflexive "you believe the official story" statement toward anyone who doesn't accept specific conspiracies associated with "9/11 Truth."

You understand it's possible, for example, to believe the buildings were not demolished through the use of explosives, yet still deny major aspects (or all) of the "official story?"

And, you (hopefully) do understand that a significant majority of "conspiracy theorists" who have been speculating on government malfeasance since before 9/11 see "9/11 Truth" as a potential conspiracy as well... correct?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
But I stand by my comments as they relate to anyone who does believe the OS, that goes exponentially for anyone that is a part of websites like this.

Your statements appear to be of the typical inflexible "9/11 Truther" mindset that dictates a reflexive "you believe the official story" statement toward anyone who doesn't accept specific conspiracies associated with "9/11 Truth."

You understand it's possible, for example, to believe the buildings were not demolished through the use of explosives, yet still deny major aspects (or all) of the "official story?"

And, you (hopefully) do understand that a significant majority of "conspiracy theorists" who have been speculating on government malfeasance since before 9/11 see "9/11 Truth" as a potential conspiracy as well... correct?

Inflexible? Hardly. After studying 9/11 for years, I have come to the conclusion that it is more or less impossible to discern the truth of what happened that day. I am well aware of all theories surrounding the attacks, and am convinced that the only thing we can REALLY KNOW about 9/11 is that the government is lying and their story is for the most part nonsense. Which, for all intents and purposes, is the discussion here.

As far as I am concerned, people can believe what they want about that day, but if they push the official story then they are stupid or being paid. It could very well be that pieces of the OS are true, and it would not be the first time truth and lies were mixed for the purposes of deception. Exactly how the towers were brought down is far less relevant (when discussing the merits of conspiracy theory vs. official story) than the simple fact that it could not have been caused by airliners.

If not believing the government story from start to finish means I am a "typical inflexible 9/11 truther" as you put it, then so be it. But I never pushed any specific theories so I feel that your accusations of inflexibility are a bit misguided.

reply to post by HenryPatrick

You exhibited stance, combined with your comments about ATS and its staff, came across as very similar (if not identical) to the horde of angry 9/11 Truthers who claim "ATS" supports the official story, just because we have content that debunks or eviscerates many of the "theories" springing forth from the madness "9/11 Truth" has become.

And an important 9/11-related conspiracy may have nothing to do with the events of the day. People seem to forget the rampant (national and state-level) government corruption (inspired by organized crime) at the time the towers were built. It's inconceivable to think that none of it happened during the tower's construction, and in fact, we can be certain substandard flame retardants, poor steel, and weak concrete were used, then covered up by "inspections" ever since. Had the proper materials been used, the towers likely would not have fallen.

Example of a real conspiracy, backed by known government corruption, that few have ever considered.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So, basically you support the official story: that terrorists hijacked airplanes, crashed them into towers and this cause the towers to fall. You can claim that you don't by qualifying that the collapse was due to an incompetence coverrup, but you pretty much support the OS.

And sure, what you suggest is possible, but what is possible is not the same as what is likely. I fail to understand how your theory accounts for building 7, and I think that many others who look at the scenario you have presented feel the same. I have encountered your theory before, but never gave it much credence because it does not account for all the facts. And unless a proposal can account for all (or at least most of the major) facts then it fails to be (at least to my mind) an acceptable theory. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree here. But one thing I do agree with you about is that the world of 9/11 conspiracy is rife with ridiculous theories and claims by charlatans who refuse to acknowledge debunked information. And I would think a lot less of ATS if much of it wasn't debunked here.

reply to post by HenryPatrick


Just by pure observation, I'm pretty sure you are accusing ATS staff members/owners of being 9/11 O/S believing Zionist" shills, correct? Way to bunch everyone in the a category that fits *your* agenda here on ATS. If anyone has an opinion about 9/11 or doesn't buy into your theories of an evil "Zionist" empire to rule the planet that doesn't fit your belief structure then you'll go ahead and place a label on them and try to tell us they a part of that evil master plan?? You're trying to sift through the 9/11 O/S believing people and accuse them of being "Zionists", and THAT is what is wrong with some super paranoid people who come to this website.

Take someone like me for example.. I don't believe most of the 9/11 O/S at all. There are a lot of questionable things about that day ie. building 7. I don't however, have ANY reason to believe it was some evil "Zionist" agenda coming from Israel. In fact, when I start hearing the word "Zionist" being thrown around, I usually decide to ignore the post because it gets thrown around WAY too much. "Don't agree with me? You must be a an evil paid "Zionist" shill."

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by HenryPatrick

 

Just by pure observation, I'm pretty sure you are accusing ATS staff members/owners of being 9/11 O/S believing Zionist" shills, correct? Way to bunch everyone in the a category that fits *your* agenda here on ATS. If anyone has an opinion about 9/11 or doesn't buy into your theories of an evil "Zionist" empire to rule the planet that doesn't fit your belief structure then you'll go ahead and place a label on them and try to tell us they a part of that evil master plan?? You're trying to sift through the 9/11 O/S believing people and accuse them of being "Zionists", and THAT is what is wrong with some super paranoid people who come to this website.

Take someone like me for example.. I don't believe most of the 9/11 O/S at all. There are a lot of questionable things about that day ie. building 7. I don't however, have ANY reason to believe it was some evil "Zionist" agenda coming from Israel. In fact, when I start hearing the word "Zionist" being thrown around, I usually decide to ignore the post because it gets thrown around WAY too much. "Don't agree with me? You must be a an evil paid "Zionist" shill."

edit on 25-6-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Nice reply on behalf of whoever sent you. However, I never made any correlation between Zionists and 9/11. I mentioned them in the same sentence as examples of the mod bias I was speaking of, but I was speaking about different issues and only in your mind did you lump them together to formulate what appears to be an argument. Nor did I ever mention And since your premise is flawed from the very beginning, I don't even need to dismantle the rest of your thoughts. Next!

P.S...I stand by my statement that anybody pushing the official story is either stupid or has questionable motives, which was really my only assertion, regardless of how many people try to put words in my mouth.

reply to post by HenryPatrick

Nice reply on behalf of whoever sent you.

Your paranoia is showing.



Regardless of whether you were trying to correlate the events of 9/11 to "Zionist shills", it's clear what your thought process here is. Anyone who disagrees with you is a paid dis-info agent, right? So does this apply only to the 9/11 topic, or does it also apply to other topics like the whole Mossad is an evil regime that runs the world topic? Basically people disagree with you, and you can't handle it so you just call them stupid or paid shills.

If you have been reading some of the responses in this thread, you would realize that people disagreeing is all a part of good discussion.

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
So, basically you support the official story: that terrorists hijacked airplanes, crashed them into towers and this cause the towers to fall. You can claim that you don't by qualifying that the collapse was due to an incompetence coverrup, but you pretty much support the OS.

-----groan-----

So then, you are indeed one of "those" people who infer that just because someone doesn't subscribe to some of the mad theories born of "9/11 Truth," then that someone must support the official story.

A rather tired stance.


Edit to add...

Nice reply on behalf of whoever sent you.

Knee-jerk confirmed.

Click here for more information.