First Annual ATS Invitational (unofficial)

I don’t know about you, but I am sick of the current state of affairs on the 9/11 conspiracies forum. This forum has become infested with ridiculous claims, bad evidence, and downright shady tactics. That goes for both sides.

Instead of seeking the truth, it seems as though everybody has made up their minds one way or another and only seeks to interpret facts to fit their preconceived notions. The reeking of unobfuscated bias is overwhelming.

Relevant information is ignored and awful claims are repeated continuously, despite the fact that they can’t hold any water. What if you had the opportunity to do something about it?

What I propose is an honest, scholarly debate about 9/11. Every statement must be verifiable and true. Every claim being made must be supported by reputable sources. Everything stated must be fact, reality, and certainty. Ever effort must be made to ensure genuineness, precision, exactness, and legitimacy.

Site such as infowars and 911myths are NOT acceptable! Both sites are incredibly biased and use overblown rhetoric and hyperbole. However, if a site like 911myths posts info on an unbiased engineering study, conducted under laboratory conditions, that shows genuine proof that normal fire conditions can result in a progressive and unstoppable collapse like seen on 911, by all means you can cite the original study, just skip the 911myths middleman.

Evidence to be presented must focus on; engineering studies, historical incidents, intelligence information, military tactics and standard operating procedures, technological capabilities, official mistakes and/or lies, and etc.

Personal attacks, shady misdirection, or attempts to derail the said debate will not be tolerated.

This thread IS NOT the debate thread. This thread is intended only to address the prospects of such a said debate.

I will be the team leader of the “9/11 truth” team, which will also include three other members. The stance of ‘9/11 truth’ is that we don’t know all of the facts, we have been lied to, and 9/11 deserves an honest, independent investigation. Topics covered include advanced knowledge, LIHOP, MIHOP, and etc.

The “Official Story Supporters” (or whatever name they choose) will have their own team of 4 people. The OSS’rs stance will be essentially that the official story laid out in the days after 9/11 is entirely, or almost entirely, factual. Osama carried out 9/11 with absolutely no help or prior knowledge from the US govt. The US govt made every attempt possible to stop the attacks and there was nothing else they could have done.

The debate will have three main phases, each lasting about one week. The first phase is where each side lays out evidence to support their argument. This stage is intended to put information on the record. Anything not entered into the record during the first phase will not be admissible in later phases. Each side is to only present evidence supporting their theories and are not to attack the other side’s arguments. All statements made must be supported by reputable sources.

General Topics for phase 1;

9/11 truth:
Present evidence for; foreknowledge, complicity, insider involvement, air defense capabilities prior to 9/11, insider motives, 9/11 war games, etc.

Official Story Supporters:
Present evidence for; the feasibility of official story, historical precedents and/or engineering studies that conclusively demonstrate the validity of the WTC ‘collapse’ scenario, evidence implication osama bin laden, PRE-9/11 sources that prove that there was no standard operating procedure for defending US airspace from foreign air forces and domestic flights that have been hijacked, proof that the air defenses could not be reasonably expected to defend the air space with which they were tasked with defending like they did thousands of times in the past, etc.

The second phase will allow each side to challenge the others evidence, and to rebut the challenges being made against their own arguments. Once again, all statements made must be supported by reputable sources. Statements that amount to nothing more than “nuh-uh” or “because I said so!” just don’t cut it!

The third phase will allow each side to present a conclusive summary of their position and evidence to support it. At the end of the debate, independent moderators (to be determined) will weigh the evidence and declare a winner based upon claims made and the validity of evidence used to support said claims. Or perhaps the winner will be determined by a vote that is open to all members.

This idea is still open to suggestions.

[edit on 6/12/2007 by kinglizard]

Anybody that may be interested in participating in such a debate, please declare your interests here and/or send me a U2U so that we can start organizing.

Hopefully we can pull this together and get started in another month or two?

I would love to participate in a debate like this. As long as we can maintain an orderly, fair and open debate.

Also that people post documents proving any background they may have in things like.

1. Aviation
2. Law-enforcemnet
3. Construction or structural analysis.
4. Access to government research

Originally posted by sp00n1
Hopefully we can pull this together and get started in another month or two?

I think this sounds like an excellent idea. Although, I wouldn't force the other side to what their conclusions are. Some people think the official story is true except for flight 93. I'd say we should let the other side get a team together and form their own platform. Just a suggestion but I think this is a great idea.

Edit: Also, I think any member should be able to contribute to the team of people as long as their evidence, proof whatever holds up.

[edit on 4/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also that people post documents proving any background they may have in things like.

1. Aviation
2. Law-enforcemnet
3. Construction or structural analysis.
4. Access to government research

Good idea. That way, we know everyone is legit. I have my transcripts scanned at work. I have posted them before, but I can post them again.

But I don't think the 9/11 Forum can handle it (it would be hard to confine to the participants only). Continue discussing this amongst yourselves, and I'm going to run this up the the "Three Amigo Flagpole" and see what they think. My gut feeling is this would have to be conducted in the Head 2 Head Debate Forum; we haven't done teams yet... But it doesn't mean we can't.

Thanks Mirthful Me. I think Spoon has a good idea going.

Hopefully, we can get some people from the other side in here to discuss. Damacles? I think he's already involved in a debate now, but if we are talking months away, then he might be available.

Originally posted by Griff
Good idea. That way, we know everyone is legit. I have my transcripts scanned at work. I have posted them before, but I can post them again.

I have my transcipts from the military and from the National Crypotlogic School. Also have my certificate from the Federal Law-Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)

I am a Data Analyst for the government and have access to government research.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Griff
Good idea. That way, we know everyone is legit. I have my transcripts scanned at work. I have posted them before, but I can post them again.

I have my transcipts from the military and from the National Crypotlogic School. Also have my certificate from the Federal Law-Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)

I am a Data Analyst for the government and have access to government research.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'm sorry, first thing: This is all fine and good, and johnlear's an expert pilot etc, but that doesn't save his opinions from wrongness. I for onehave no credentials, but can tell you a good source from a bad in general and use common sense - I like Spoon's original thought better - no matter the expertise of participants, it's about what they bring to the table. post resumes til you'r blue in the face, it should be the arguments you use and the evidence you present that should matter.

Second: Yeah I'd like to be involved. I'd have to support the non-official stories in general without too much taking an exact stand, since I don't know what actually happened.

Third: I'm not sure what constitutes a reputable source - it's true reputation can be as corrupting as anything - upholding the official line, y'know. But yeah, as close to primary source as possible - as close to the actual facts, actual evidence, etc as possible. Photos, blueprints, direct quotes, etc, not second-hand miconstrued hearsay. I think this one will lead to much debate, setting an agreeable criteria will be hard. As will enforcement.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I'm sorry, first thing: This is all fine and good, and johnlear's an expert pilot etc, but that doesn't save his opinions from wrongness.

Yes you are correct but that is why i try to use several of both government and professional research sites to have the resorces to make sure the informaiton is as correct as i can get.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I'm sorry, first thing: This is all fine and good, and johnlear's an expert pilot etc, but that doesn't save his opinions from wrongness. I for onehave no credentials, but can tell you a good source from a bad in general and use common sense - I like Spoon's original thought better - no matter the expertise of participants, it's about what they bring to the table. post resumes til you'r blue in the face, it should be the arguments you use and the evidence you present that should matter.

Yeah, you're right.

Second: Yeah I'd like to be involved. I'd have to support the non-official stories in general without too much taking an exact stand, since I don't know what actually happened.

That's why I mentioned different people with different views on the same side.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Griff
Good idea. That way, we know everyone is legit. I have my transcripts scanned at work. I have posted them before, but I can post them again.

I have my transcipts from the military and from the National Crypotlogic School. Also have my certificate from the Federal Law-Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)

I am a Data Analyst for the government and have access to government research.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'm sorry, first thing: This is all fine and good, and johnlear's an expert pilot etc, but that doesn't save his opinions from wrongness. I for onehave no credentials, but can tell you a good source from a bad in general and use common sense - I like Spoon's original thought better - no matter the expertise of participants, it's about what they bring to the table. post resumes til you'r blue in the face, it should be the arguments you use and the evidence you present that should matter.

Second: Yeah I'd like to be involved. I'd have to support the non-official stories in general without too much taking an exact stand, since I don't know what actually happened.

Third: I'm not sure what constitutes a reputable source - it's true reputation can be as corrupting as anything - upholding the official line, y'know. But yeah, as close to primary source as possible - as close to the actual facts, actual evidence, etc as possible. Photos, blueprints, direct quotes, etc, not second-hand miconstrued hearsay. I think this one will lead to much debate, setting an agreeable criteria will be hard. As will enforcement.

What he said.

I agree with your sentiments, sp00n1. Talk of H bombs etc.. is absolutely ridiculous. Most of lower Manhatten would be dust, never mind a single tower of the WTC, and not forgetting the radiation, either.

That kind of talk is definitely detracting from the serious discussion (e.g. killtown and the CVR etc.., CL with the Pentagon, nick7261 with the Flight 93 crash site - yeah - I'm keeping notes ).

I've no credentials that I can show without revealing my identity. I'm not formally qualified in aviation, but I have a very strong aviation background, and can help out with that side of things, aircraft ops etc.. and know several aircraft very well (including sim time in Level D sims for both the 757-200 and 737-400). I have numerous other AOMs for other commercial airliners that I have read and know throughly, as well as other info I have gained over the years. I've studied aerodynamics (both formally and for fun), studied advanced flight physics (including supersonic and hypersonic aircraft and the effects upon the flight surfaces etc).

I'm formally qualified in network engineering and telecoms of various types.

I have formally studied physics (astro- and quantum mechanics) and mechanical engineering enough to know bad info from good, but not enough to critique a particular aspect of 9/11 directly, such as reconstruction of the WTC collapse (as was discussed in another thread) as I'm not a structural engineer.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I havent seen any posts from the other side showing any interest in taking up this challenge...

Why's everybody being so quiet?

I think this is a great opportunity to sort out the facts, cut through the wild assumptions, and finally begin to develop a clearer understanding of where things stand.

I think we need to think about what a debate is. As I understand it, it's to argue two cases and have a judge deem one the winer. ? This is what we've all been trying to do for years, and a flat-out debate will come out as a microcosm of that.

But it would help limit BS and side-tracks greatly.

Maybe we could work on ironing out points to where we can come to agreements across the divide - as vague as they have to be; "we all agree that IF X is true then Y is true," "we could not agree that X was true based on ___," etc...

Dear sp00n1:

You’re on a quest for something that’s already been done right here on ATS — 9-11 has been discussed and dissected meticulously. The main answers to 9-11 events are — albeit spread out over many threads — readily available to everyone.

It may be you want too much. It seems you are looking for the ‘gospel truth’ presented in an easy-to-read fashion by ‘credential-laden’ acclaimed figures, preferably nobel laureates. But you are overlooking a crucial fact — a person’s 9-11 perspective has practically nothing to do with education or experience and everything to do with attitude and agenda. A garbage collector can have more insights about 9-11 than a high-falutin’ scientist. E. g. look at the folks at MIT — they push the pancake collapse theory.

No, 9-11 can and should be openly discussed by EVERYONE. And that’s been done here at ATS quite well already. The elite-club-debate-approach is wrong and won’t generate nearly the same amount or quality of responses.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Well, spread out amongst the forum is fine, but what I think we need is a way to pull it together.

We need a list of what we generally accept as wrong about the official 9/11 story, then pull together the research that has already been done that addresses that particular issue, and put them together.

Until someone starts building what is in effect a case file with "problem - explanation", all the debate in the world (we're pretty close to that!) will be for nothing. It will drop into the abyss that is the forum archive never to see the light of day again.

I think the idea is a great one, and as I suggested a couple of months ago, what it really needs is a master list pinning in the forum to credible research on the various aspects of 9/11, and leave the trash to drop off the forums pages.

I had created a list (and not an exhaustive one by any means) that simply read "WTC1 collapse" etc.. It does not require sub-dividing into parts beyond that, as the research should cover that on its own.

The problem is that there is a lot of spin on both sides. Apparently the official story supporters are too scared to debate without using those cheap tactics. Does that count as a forfeit?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
The elite-club-debate-approach is wrong and won’t generate nearly the same amount or quality of responses.

You're right that it won't generate the same amount of responses. Other than that, I disagree with you whole-heartedly.

I think a streamlined and ultra-controlled debate of 9/11 would become the CROWN JEWEL of ATS for a long time.

Keep pushing it, sp0on1.

You have voted sp00n1 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I don’t know how it could be incorporated…or even if I can explain it well here…but I would also like to see each side present a UNIVERSAL THEORY of that day, in terms of KNOWLEDGE and INTENT, that supports their version of the story.

For example…taking from a recent discussion that ULTIMA and I have had…if you say that it doesn’t make sense that the “hijackers” were stopped by airport security, then allowed to board a plane…you should need to explain WHO controlled the incident (e.g., CIA, FBI, noone), if anyone, and who ordered them to act.

If this discussion is going to have depth, then I think it’s important to avoid simply constructing another pile of “how did this happen”s controlled by mysterious shadow THEYs.

Just my two cents.

Again, great idea.

We need a moderated forum whereby any unsubstantiated trash is deleted. End of.

9/11 IMO is too serious to have people just making up theories, debating them, but at no time producing any hard facts that relate to the day at all, or back up their claims.

Anyone any tips on setting up an anonymous blog?

Something i was thinking too is we need to start a research site. A site that people could add sites and resources they have or find that show evidence or reports. These resources would contain actual evidnece, facts, or reports that have been or can be proven correct by more the 1 source.


[edit on 17-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]