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

a reply to: FlySolo

That may, or may not, be the case. I'm fairly sure there are. So? As long as they follow a few simple rules, they're as welcome as you are.

How does calling them names help your cause?

a reply to: AnonnieMuss

Please feel free to notice the LOG OUT button in the upper right tool bar if you can;t handle or deal with honest discussion.

Thanks...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: FlySolo

See? You do get it.

You are here to discuss an issue, correct? Doesn't really matter the issue.

Would you rather discuss it in a manner which will lead, maybe, to some answers? Or would you rather it devolve into name calling which leads only to hurt feelings, and future animosity?

Seems a simple choice to me. "Shill", or terms just like it, lead only to the latter, and do nothing towards the former.

Look, if someone actually is a Shill, then calling them one shouldn't be offensive to them. I'm telling you, you guys have a paid poster in the 911 forums and just because he's a "member" it gives him all the cover of darkness he needs. Meanwhile, ATS will ban someone for making multiple accounts. I still don't understand.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

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."

This sort of hits the nail on the head for me. I used to be convinced of there being more to the story with regards to the collapse of the buildings etc. Ironically a lot of what got me thinking that way was read on this forum. Now I believe the opposite and that too is a lot to do with this forum. I do still think in the dark and murky waters of government and intelligence there is an untold story that is just as shocking however.

You have countless first responders dead and dying because of health problems that they developed that day. That right there is a crime in my opinion. You have the most sophisticated air defence network in the world paralysed to the point where it can't deal with passenger airliners let alone foreign military aircraft. That's a worrying thought.

You have foreign intelligence ALL over the hijackers long before the attacks. Why isn't that debated? It's thrown around as proof that the towers were blown up (I have done so myself in the past) but nobody asks asks If foreign intelligence members knew enough about the attackers that they were literally living across the street from them then why wasn't something done to stop them?

People are so busy arguing about how the towers fell these days that they don't stop and think why? because it could have been stopped.

I'll admit I'm late to the party, and I didn't read the comments beyond the first page...

I would agree with the OP that decorum should return, but this thread is one-sided. It only appears to address the bad behavior of anti-OS posters. Which is nonsense imo. Yes, 'truthers' break the rules here, but I have seen countless OS supporters doing the same thing.

The OP only provides 'truther' comments, which makes the OP seem extremely biased IMO. So what's the deal? Is this a consppiracy site or not? I became a memeber here thinking it was...I'm having my doubts lately. My God, just look at how some of the more out of the box threads have become here lately. Constant insults by 'debunkers' and such. More emphasis needs to be put on that crap. Why are we all here anyway? To discuss mainstream bs?

a reply to: seagull

it's not calling them names. I don't see where suddenly calling someone out using a slang word is offensive?

shill
noun
1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
verb
1.
act or work as a shill.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Grim can you help me out?

I don't know what gatekeeping is and I'm
on a need to know.

a reply to: randyvs

It's when you start a thread and say only certain people can post in it. Or ask people to stop posting in the thread for whatever reason, etc.

When you try to control the thread, it's gatekeeping.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Grimpachi

And yet a thread can't drift from Building Fire discussion to 9/11 discussion, and the similarities to the particular fire in question?
I guess it happened a bit quickly, but the point stands.

At what level of thread drift does it become unacceptable? It's arbitrary.
I guess we'll just have to trust the mods.

Generally, when I find myself in a thread where someone has taken the conversation far of into another realm.

I ignore them. Then I continue the conversation with those who are on topic.

That seems to work fairly well for me.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlySolo

How exactly do you plan to prove a member is paid?

This isn't my first rodeo and I'm not stupid. And neither are the rest of you. Common sense.

a reply to: FlySolo

Common sense isn't proof. I asked how you were going to prove it. And again, as long as they remain in the T&Cs they are allowed here.

a reply to: randyvs

Zap pretty much explained it, but it can also be where other views are excluded from the conversation.

An example would be like how some youtube comment sections will filter out dissenting views.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I knew it was going to be something that was right in my face.
One of these days I'll learn to put two and two together.
And thanks again.

How about having dedicated section mods?

A thread about a contentious forum can't even find common ground.

I'd "lol" if it weren't so ironic.

a reply to: Grimpachi

An example would be like how some youtube comment sections will filter out dissenting views.

I've seen that quite often now that you mention it.
Thank you my good man.

Do people not realise that this behavior is pushing people away from the truth?

When I first came to ATS more than 6 years ago, I wasn't a supporter of the O.S. but I also lacked knowledge about evidence against the O.S. that I am now aware of. You see I really had been living under a rock without t.v. and lived in a very rural area without internet access when the events of 9/11 occurred.

I came to ATS with an open mind, but when I requested more evidence and mentioned I was on the fence about certain things, having not seen at the time most of the videos I have now seen, I received scathing U2U's.

Instead of people realising I just lacked certain knowledge and was not requesting information due to disregarding their evidence, but out of a genuine desire to learn. Those U2U's I received in my early days nearly destroyed any curiosity I had. Nearly kept me from doing more research into it, because my lack of knowledge automatically made me a shill. Is this really what people want?

Ultimately does it make a difference either way? If the 9/11 forum was closed would it make much difference? It's just people going round and round in circles.

The only things now that would change and sway opinions on that tragic day would be the release of some new evidence that is irrefutable. That cannot be argued with. That's the only thing. And I doubt that such a thing even exists.

a reply to: sg1642

I agree. I believe it doesn't matter what happened on 9/11 so much as what happened in the years after. And I'm still trying to figure that out.

My views on 9/11 have changed over time, with help from the forum. I'm still fascinated by it. I would be sad to see the forum closed.

(I don't mean what happened on 9/11 doesn't matter. To the people directly affected it matters a lot. Heck, I feel directly affected and I don't even live in the states. I couldn't imagine being there, or having family affected by it.)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlySolo

Common sense isn't proof. I asked how you were going to prove it. And again, as long as they remain in the T&Cs they are allowed here.

Frustrating man. I like coming here because my personality is too strong for everyday small talk with regular people. ATS is the only place I can rip into facts and triumphantly dig into issues which are otherwise too controversial. Then you say common sense isn't proof. Well, how many times does ATS staff make an objective decision without "proof" and only 'common sense' ? I would bet everyday.

When someone has thousands of posts...wait...3606 posts all on the same subject repeating the same rhetoric over and over again for 10 years straight without producing a single authored thread, it's quite self-evident they're a paid poster.