Is our ANONYMITY an impediment to our cause?

Originally posted by fulcanelli
Christopher,

Having read the thread you included a link for in your last post I see that in that thread, like in many others (an increasingly here on ATS), many mentions were made of the possibility that within ATS are groups of individuals who may be working collusively to derail genuine discussion of issues for a number of reasons, and as you rightly mentioned in that thread, the recently mentioned outfit Netvocates is but one of many possible sources for this kind of subversion.

I believe that it is fruitless ultimately to point the finger, as many here seem to do all too often, and accuse other members of being "Counter-Intelligence" or "Disinformation" agents since this merely serves, again, the purposes of such persons (whether the accusation is true or not) by derailing the discussion and leading it off topic.

I've learned that the disinfos have limits that are very narrow. They only conduct one kind of discussion and when the discussion leaves that area, they have nothing to say. They have specific training. When you find a poster that is against facts and evidence with no facts or evidence to support their position, but also can discuss reasonably out of that "specific are", you are dealing with someone that is either disturbed or artificially swayed to a position that cannot be reasoned and they do not know it.

Originally posted by fulcanelliThe mere fact that there is ample historical precedent for operations like this and the current obvious importance to elements within governments (and other implicated parties) of micromanaging the info-fallout from psy-ops such as (IMHO) 9/11 and 7/7 makes the infiltration of such subversives into communities like ATS almost a certainty (which rises in probability in logarithmic proportion to the accuracy of the information here presented against them) - I cannot prove this, but it is my opinion that it is highly likely, and that we should all therefore assume the worst but act upon it by making their subversion a far less easy prospect rather than name-calling and petty recriminations.

And your issue of identity goes a long way towards making the subversion a less "easy prospect". Another would be to ask that participants in 9-11 discussion state their reasons for participating, justify the position they are going to take or taking and if they do not, identify their failure for all to see as a occupation of an unwholesome purpose derogatory to the groups purpose. I would go so far as to say that each person wishing to take part in 9-11 discussion start a thread about WHY they are involved, wherein the others have opportunity to question the involvement for the purposes stated.

Originally posted by fulcanelliI too would genuinely be interested in what any of our respected mods (or anyone else here with the relevant expertise and experience with forums such as ATS) here would have to say in evaluation of your proposed "poll to post" function, as I feel that the content of discussion here is far too important to be allowed to continue with these vulnerabilities to subversion, and that TRANSPARENCY between members and the successful implementation of a system such as yours could potentially be the answers to this problem as well as imparting us as a movement with the other various benefits we have described.

That would be great if mods would take the purpose of all this discussion as seriously as we do. That would assume that the board owners have sentiments similar to ours and ask that mods operate with sincerity to this purpose of protecting our futures by creating a more informed and functional democracy.. I feel that the perception is that we are a herd of cats and there is no point in trying direct us in any way beyond housekeeping or maintaining an orderly appearance. Or, ....... just exploit the situation as much as possible while maintaining a quasi civilized demeanor or functional image. Perhaps the commitment to transparency between members is the first step.

Originally posted by Christophera

I've learned that the disinfos have limits that are very narrow. They only conduct one kind of discussion and when the discussion leaves that area, they have nothing to say. They have specific training. When you find a poster that is against facts and evidence with no facts or evidence to support their position, but also can discuss reasonably out of that "specific are", you are dealing with someone that is either disturbed or artificially swayed to a position that cannot be reasoned and they do not know it.

Hear hear.

My own crash course in the realities of dealing with these types came upon posting my very first thread on this forum (Fun and games with UK's Big Brother in the 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracies section). Although most of the respondents clearly had the requisite intelligence and impartiality to accept the half-joking tone and comic license used in the original post there and responded to the actual arguments and suggestions of the original post there, certain others did their damnedest repeatedly to use circular and rather impotent arguments to steer discussion away from the topics at hand. Despie their efforts, a lively discussion ensued after they had been variously despatched by my (somewhat laborious) demonstration of the baselessness of their arguments in heated "debate".

Being a complete newbie to contributing to forums upto that point I became, I am afraid to say, emotionally engaged by their attacks, and repeatedly and at length justified my position and the views I had expressed to the point where I truly despaired at keeping the genuine discussion alive. The sheer SPECIOUS and INFANTILE nature of some of the detractions made against me (including aspersions cast upon my family, my financial status, my love of my current home in the UK, etc) were of a nature that made me wonder at the true motivations of people that are so capable of doublethink that they can suppress even so basic a response as humour when their conditioned paradigm is challenged.

If any rational discussion can be so subverted by persons who are given the ability to do so primarily by their cover of anonymity, I for one believe that the eradication of this ability (never mind all the other benefits that we have both here postulated would be won) alone is cause enough to abandon our anonymity. Rational and carefully reasoned discussion, debate, and serious activism would then, I believe, have a far more optimal environment in which to flourish, to the benefit of all.

Originally posted by fulcanelli
If any rational discussion can be so subverted by persons who are given the ability to do so primarily by their cover of anonymity, I for one believe that the eradication of this ability (never mind all the other benefits that we have both here postulated would be won) alone is cause enough to abandon our anonymity. Rational and carefully reasoned discussion, debate, and serious activism would then, I believe, have a far more optimal environment in which to flourish, to the benefit of all.

I see you have been through the gauntlett of bb abuse. We could say that there are gatekeepers left at bb's to intercept certain perspectives and do everything they can to subvert the posters efforts to effectively inform the public.

I started arguing 9-11 on courttv.com in 2002. Knowing that preaching to the choir is not as productive as other groups.

That was before there were many organized groups. I was banned after about 10 months, but they had to set me up to do it. They really wanted to get rid of me.

Have you noticed the improvised discussions on subjects of no consequence that are used to take up space and dilute meaningful discussion? It appears that the strategy has moved massively that way and that now there are like, 5 to 1 nonsense quasi conspiritorially aligned, never actually stating position; type posts that are dominating.

Originally posted by Christophera

Have you noticed the improvised discussions on subjects of no consequence that are used to take up space and dilute meaningful discussion? It appears that the strategy has moved massively that way and that now there are like, 5 to 1 nonsense quasi conspiritorially aligned, never actually stating position; type posts that are dominating.

I have definitely noticed that not only are well intentioned discussions unreasonably diverted (whether this is deliberate or unconscious) but that there appear to be many posts in my view that needlessly argue the specifics of infinitesimal details of events like 9/11 - often, as you say, with no express statement made defining the author's actual POSITION on the information posted and its implications.

Other posts seem by their titles alone all but designed to provoke a flood of emotionally charged replies from people with a particular view without actually presenting justification beyond vague and predictable railings against "conspiracy theorists", endless debate over varying definitions of "evidence", and the all too easy substitution of "arguments" (often with no real substance) for "proofs" by people who appear not to know the difference between the two.

As I say - whether such posts are deliberate attempts to muddy the waters, or simply are the manifestations of unconscious dogmatism being challenged, I believe to be irrelevant (such conjectures again waste our time and energy and play directly into the hands of those who perhaps DO have agendas to deliberately obfuscate things here at ATS) at this critical stage of affairs when compared to the necessity to eradicate this phenomenon.

It is clear at least to me, from the context, the precedent, the overwhelming reasons for and the available information on the activities of companies like Netvocates and other parties, that organised efforts such as we have described are inevitable and should therefore be generally assumed to be taking place. All we have to decide as a community is whether we spend our efforts forever fencing in circles with such types or limiting the damage they can do by finding ways to strengthen our own position such that it is as unassailable from such undesirables as it can possibly be.

Originally posted by fulcanelli
As I say - whether such posts are deliberate attempts to muddy the waters, or simply are the manifestations of unconscious dogmatism being challenged, I believe to be irrelevant (such conjectures again waste our time and energy and play directly into the hands of those who perhaps DO have agendas to deliberately obfuscate things here at ATS) at this critical stage of affairs when compared to the necessity to eradicate this phenomenon

True, but pointing at the fire by firefigthers precedes putting it out, generally. And in some ways the activity, if exposed, can lend credence to the value of the information targeted for attempted dismissal. Another aspect favoring your perspective is that exposing disinfo on 9-11 is perhaps twice as harrowing as 9-11 itself. However, since the disinfo is culturally embedded (if web culture could pass for such), it is an activity that can be directly observed, even triggered predictably for people to observe. I've done it fairly effectively here,

Q. Why So Important There Was No Concrete Core?
forum.physorg.com...

Originally posted by fulcanelliIt is clear at least to me, from the context, the precedent, the overwhelming reasons for and the available information on the activities of companies like Netvocates and other parties, that organised efforts such as we have described are inevitable and should therefore be generally assumed to be taking place. All we have to decide as a community is whether we spend our efforts forever fencing in circles with such types or limiting the damage they can do by finding ways to strengthen our own position such that it is as unassailable from such undesirables as it can possibly be.

Yes, so true.

whether we spend our efforts forever fencing in circles with such types or limiting the damage they can do by finding ways to strengthen our own position

Fully supporting the open identity is a very good start, but people tend to be fearful until they see a rush to take the risk by others, so ....... to inspire that is probably an effective action. Unity of perception is a very important aspect, probably the biggest reason for the disinfo is to prevent it.

Since mods will not act to curtail the usurpation of a board by fake users with a covert, hidden agenda, the development of the "Poll to Post" may be the best and only solution. So effort to see curtailment may amount to gathering support for that.

Originally posted by Christophera
Another aspect favoring your perspective is that exposing disinfo on 9-11 is perhaps twice as harrowing as 9-11 itself.

Unity of perception is a very important aspect, probably the biggest reason for the disinfo is to prevent it.

If only more here thought this way!

Its interesting that you should mention your theory of the concrete core structures and the ability of concrete to fracture and shatter instantaneously - having spent the last several months being engaged in other matters I've put my 9/11 research on the back burner, but I just posted some of my own opinions on another thread here concerning building 7 (in response to the rather inflammatory title as much as to the argument), which I believe your theory could have a bearing on:

www.abovetopsecret.com... (post id: 2308820)

On a side note that thread, if I might mention in passing, also has one or two "contributors" who I feel argue baselless and specious points with a suspiciously high level of intelligence exhibited in the delivery of the arguments, hence my personal monster of righteous indignation breaking its leash at their attempts

To be truthful I have as yet only skimmed through the text on the link you provided (it's 2:25AM and I'm on ATS again - this is not good for my neurochemical balances!) but I will do so in the morning and respond with my comments.
I have been upto this moment tentatively accepting of the view that the cores were steel structures given the information I have seen (I will have a quick flick back through my 9/11 info to find the information and sources that led me to that tomorrow when I read your paper in full, for I do not make such assumptions lightly), but would be interesting to see how your ideas impact upon this.

Thanks for the info and the fresh perspective, and I look forward to discussing this further tomorrow.

G'night all




[edit on 29-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

Originally posted by fulcanelli

Originally posted by Christophera
Another aspect favoring your perspective is that exposing disinfo on 9-11 is perhaps twice as harrowing as 9-11 itself.

Unity of perception is a very important aspect, probably the biggest reason for the disinfo is to prevent it.

If only more here thought this way!

Its interesting that you should mention your theory of the concrete core structures and the ability of concrete to fracture and shatter instantaneously - having spent the last several months being engaged in other matters I've put my 9/11 research on the back burner, but I just posted some of my own opinions on another thread here concerning building 7 (in response to the rather inflammatory title as much as to the argument), which I believe your theory could have a bearing on:

www.abovetopsecret.com... (post id: 2308820)

On a side note that thread, if I might mention in passing, also has one or two "contributors" who I feel argue baselless and specious points with a suspiciously high level of intelligence exhibited in the delivery of the arguments, hence my personal monster of righteous indignation breaking its leash at their attempts

To be truthful I have as yet only skimmed through the text on the link you provided (it's 2:25AM and I'm on ATS again - this is not good for my neurochemical balances!) but I will do so in the morning and respond with my comments.
I have been upto this moment tentatively accepting of the view that the cores were steel structures given the information I have seen (I will have a quick flick back through my 9/11 info to find the information and sources that led me to that tomorrow when I read your paper in full, for I do not make such assumptions lightly), but would be interesting to see how your ideas impact upon this.

Thanks for the info and the fresh perspective, and I look forward to discussing this further tomorrow.

G'night all

See,

concretecore.741.com...

for the core evidence. Raw evidence of demo images are absolute evidence, free of all deception from government. Items from history are also there.

I'm disturbed, I had posted a very relevant thread having analysis of unity that was related directly to 9-11, and a mod moved it, now I cannot find it. Ironic.

ON EDIT:

I found it.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

It is a cultural thing as described, already happening to a degree, but the 9-11 truth movement can give a strong inspiration to it and gain it from the movement.


[edit on 29-6-2006 by Christophera]

Hey Christopher,

I've read through that article on the concrete core, and on having a bit of a dig for further info it has helped me gain a better idea of the exact configuration of the steel and the concrete in the building. This has actually bolstered my own arguments on the thread I mentioned and has made sense of much of the phenomenology of the event previously a little obscure to me. My thanks for leading me to it

Your post on the importance of unity I found to be eloquently expressed and insightful

And I LOVE the declarator! Genius! Like waving a red flag at a bull where I'm concerned - I'll have to have a go at finding that damn elusive out door (I've been looking for that bugger all my life!)



[edit on 1-7-2006 by fulcanelli]