The 9/11 Conspiracies Forum is a Mess. And it’s The Fault of Many Members

a reply to: eriktheawful

Yes, I agree with that, name-calling shouldn't be allowed. One thing I do take issue with is that the OP presents it as entirely the fault of "truthers", however, when both sides are likely equally guilty. The OS wasn't even meant to be (a main part of) the discussion. It was supposed to be the alternative theories, and could have been used to remove a lot of the white noise out there. (Like that hologram-whatsit theory.) Parts of the OS could be incorporated, certainly, (I believe two planes really did hit the WTC buildings. That's correct, I accept that.) but I still think that isn't what I saw happen. It was OS vs. Non-OS, just like everywhere else.

9/11 made ATS.

And now you're talking about shutting it down?

I can't help but note the sad irony of it all...

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

If a post is off topic then report it, but saying a thread was created and only people of a certain view can participate then that really isn't what ATS is about.

Threads for just Christians or just believers in evolution or just people who agree with you are not what people come to ATS for.

If it was I wouldn't be a member.

There are plenty of sites that filter out dissenting views for that sort of thing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If the planes crashed into a skyscraper and knocked them down? Yes, that's significantly related to 9/11. It wasn't just "a building on fire", it was a large tower with a fire that started on the lower floors. Posts like "WTC 7 supposedly got taken down by fire damage, so I wonder if we'll see it happen here, too." or "They're evacuating everyone. Wait for the building to collapse, totally going to happen."
Yes, they're somewhat sarcastic, but I would not call them off-topic.
However, as I said, we may have different viewpoints. My apologies if that is the case.

If it's just a plain crash somewhere in the ocean? Of course not.

I remember years ago from the outside looking in that these forums held a high degree of integrity. I've been around these forums for years prior to being a member. The 9/11 branch of the forums is what drew me in to register and have an open minded conversation with intellectuals (so I thought).

I know everything's been discussed, analyzed, investigated and answered, but I still enjoy the personal feeling of reaching conclusions with others via this forum myself. I hope you guys can figure out a way to keep it open, if not there's still plenty of topics to discuss and engage in, so no worries!

*SNIP*

-DuR

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The staff doesn't act alone, except for obvious violations. Any time you see a post removed, or a thread closed it occurs after a staff discussion, and a consensus is reached. So those posts removed in that thread mean that a group of the staff looked at them and agreed that they were off topic.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So you're saying a threat titled "So, God created the Universe. What do you think His motives were?" should be full of people saying "Christianity is fake, God doesn't exist." and so forth?
"What Evolutionary Traits made Humans Superior?" should be full of "God made them as they are."?

If the purpose of the thread was just to repeatedly echo chamber something, I'd agree, but its explicit purpose was the discussion and consideration of alternative theories, under the assumption that the OS is at least partially incorrect. It was for the discussion for every theory BUT the OS, to weed out the weak and ridiculous ones.

The thread still allowed for dissenting opinion.

originally posted by: worlds_away
Is it possible to accept the entire official story and propose/investigate 9/11 theories?
I'm not trying to be smart.. I'm wondering what you think. Which major aspects, if not?

Contemplate this thought experiment...

Item One: The New York Times ran several stories investigating the firms involved in constructing the World Trade center in the late 1960's, and followed up in 1971. They're available on microfiche at the main branch of the New York Public Library. All the construction firms had ties to organized crime, and the NYC building inspector's office was rampant with corruption. Corners were cut, including lower-quality fire-protection, among many other things, during construction. So in some dark corners of near-forgotten knowledge; the buildings are known not as strong as they should be.

Item Two: The attacks happened pretty much as seen and generally described by "The Official Story." However, the inspiration and motivation for the attacks originated via covert means within one or more clandestine services of the US. This is plausible as Osama Bin Laden has been in the same location (a hospital in Switzerland) as known covert operatives in 1998. The goal was for a terrorist attack on the US, on a target that has known weaknesses.

Item Three: In order to ensure that tracks are not just covered, but completely ignored, the covert operatives initiated a series of intense disinformation campaigns to create so many conflicting and improbable conspiracy theories, that they very idea of 9/11 Conspiracies would be laughed at by the general public at large.


Everything in those three items describes numerous deep and troubling conspiracies, while also generally accepting the surface narrative of the "Official Story."

Just my 2 cents, but I spend much of my time in the vitriolic political forums and if the 9/11 forums are worse, then they should probably have an NC-17 rating, or a warning before entering.

:/

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Then you still do not understand how ATS works:

ALL OPINIONS ARE WELCOME IN A THREAD.

No one get's to dictate who can or can not post in a thread.

A person posts something that you think is off topic: Alert it. Then you are done.

WE deal with it after that point. We discuss it. We then decided whether or not to take any action. If we do, we do, if we don't we don't. And that's it.

Gatekeeping is NOT allowed here on ATS.

If you make a thread about basket weaving, and someone posts tips about changing the oil in a car, alert the post. Most likely we will agree that it's off topic in that case.

There is a building on fire. It's breaking news. People want to see up dates on it in that thread.....not a debate on comparing it to the twin towers. People want to debate that: create another thread for it. That's where that discussion should happen. Not in a thread that is giving updates on a breaking event.

Members are not allowed to dictate what can or can not be posted in their threads. That's the rules, and the rules everyone here agreed to when they registered.

originally posted by: NthOther
9/11 made ATS.

And now you're talking about shutting it down?

I can't help but note the sad irony of it all...

This is at least mostly true I think. But do you keep worn out
underwear around because you have a sense of loyalty to them?
I don't, especially if they keep getting me in trouble!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Then it seems that in several cases, the staff's ideas as to what constitutes "off-topic" differ to mine. That is unfortunate, I'll probably end up having a few posts of my own removed because of that.

Actually, do you remove all "off-topic" posts, or just once the thread starts to drift significantly?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
One thing I do take issue with is that the OP presents it as entirely the fault of "truthers"

Not correct. I said it started with those within the "Truth Movement." I was there when it happened. Not online, in person. The early history of this forum is rampant with examples.

Today, however, it's all "sides."

The OS wasn't even meant to be (a main part of) the discussion.

As has been mentioned, authors of threads cannot claim sole ownership over what is allowed in a thread.

This is a sensitive (therefore emotional) topic for many with some participants too polarised in their views after all this time to give consideration to alternative suggestions. For that reason, I rarely participate in the discussions these days but I do read the posts because I feel I'll be seeing anything that's a game-changer here on ATS first and, for that reason, it would be a loss to have the discussion here stifled over the behaviour of some posters.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

We Are Not Talking About Differing Opinion!

We are talking about behaviour of all sides.

BEHAVIOUR.

Quit name calling? You're golden.

Stop posting to antagonize your "opponant"? You're golden.

If your only recourse in a debate/discourse is to begin to call those who disagree with you names...well, you've lost the contest.

...and before you ask... "your" "you" "you've" are general term meant to apply to all of "you".

All the staff is asking is that you practice a lot more decorum as a group.

Supposedly you're all here to get at whatever truth is left in this issue, aren't you? Or are you here just to fan the embers of past anger?

Frankly, from my view of it, it's the latter for all too many of you on all sides of the issue. ...and now, you're reaping what you've collectively sown. Too bad.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Then it seems that in several cases, the staff's ideas as to what constitutes "off-topic" differ to mine.

Here's an example:

Within a 9/11 thread ridiculing those who believe the "Official Story," posts from those who support the official 9/11 story would be on-topic.

But within that same thread, an unrelated joke/comment/jibe about a newscaster used for source material within the thread would be off-topic.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
None of the OSers were 'on topic' though.

See, there you go right there.

Why do you have to call members, "OSers"? What's the point in such labels? It's intellectually lazy, and often the result of a pathetic knee-jerk just because someone does't believe your version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

That's the kind of crap that needs to stop.

Hey Skeptic. Legit question here. Why are we not allowed to say the word shill? Or call someone a shill? What's the meaning of it? Does it mean someone who is paid to post? These are labels because that's what people are. Truthers and Official Story believers. Along with people who are actually paid to post. I don't get it. I really don't. There is one particular member here who since 2005 has made thousands of posts on one topic. Not a single thread. Clearly, someone like that has an agenda and it makes me think ATS protects them.

I really would appreciate a response because I'm a grown adult and so are you. I'm a truther, therefore I label myself as one and I couldn't care less if someone calls me by my label. Even twoofer wouldn't bug me so why the nanny state? We're all adults. Sure, name calling I can see as being below the belt but let's call a spade a spade.

So back to the shill thing. Why is that considered a no no? They exist so?

Thanks in advance

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Not correct. I said it started with those within the "Truth Movement." I was there when it happened. Not online, in person. The early history of this forum is rampant with examples.

Today, however, it's all "sides."

Oh, I just meant that all the quotes in the OP were of "truthers" attacking "OSers", otherwise I don't have a problem.

As has been mentioned, authors of threads cannot claim sole ownership over what is allowed in a thread.

Then, and correct me if I am wrong, I cannot make a topic to be discussed under assumption of some fact or other.

E.g. a topic on "The Evolution of Arthropods" can have people simply saying Evolution isn't correct to begin with?

I understand why things are as they are, I simply feel like in some cases it is stifling more focused discussion.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Believe it or not, however you can go and check for confirmation people have created threads very close to the examples you made.

In those instances people showed up with dissenting views. Some replied with comments much like what you posted as well.

The thread still allowed for dissenting opinion.

Which ones? You see that would be a problem.

If you post a thread on ATS it is for the members. You don't get to decide who is a member.