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

a reply to: sg1642

i see it like this: ATS (or any discussion platform) is like a fire where the elixir of ideas can be distilled into, if not truth, at least a rational belief and understanding.

At one point the world of conspiracy was a wide wonder to me. Now...i've seen just about all there is to see. But i have to remember that there are those coming behind me, who haven't seen it all yet, and who still see the wide wonder I once saw.

Nonetheless, whether its a circular argument or not...the 9/11 forum is part of that fire that distills the ideas and arguments for people. That is actually a pretty valuable thing, in my opinion. And Im not a frequent participant in that particular forum.

originally posted by: worlds_away
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.)

That's exactly my point. If someone did do it to gain something or for some hidden agenda, then they have had their way. The damage has been done and we went past the point of return a long time ago.

a reply to: FlySolo

I appreciate all the concern but lets be real here? Please? If someone is being paid to come to ATS to distract the audience from anyone with valuable information regarding the biggest crime in N. America, THAT member should be flat out banned. It's intellectually dishonest to avoid acknowledgment that this even exists.

I agree on that!

So how does one know if someone is a paid operator?

Perhaps if a member has a long standing on ATS for many years and never joins in on any other topic but only 911 and claims a thousands time that the OS is true and repeatedly post nonsense and using well known bias OS websites ( 911 Myths) as there facts every day, and are on the 911 threads 24/7. And always rejects everything outside the OS

There is such a member on the 911 threads who claims authority over all 911 content. I feel the Moderators are not aware of this and should look into to this. The fact is, this one member has caused a lot of problems in the 911 threads.

We cannot say for a absolute fact that a paid shill cannot become an ATS member. There has been a lot of research done about paid keyboard operators infiltrating social websites to deliberately derail important political topics and events and 911 topics are no exception.

a reply to: FlySolo

Here's a link to the terms and conditions:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe you can find the part that says paid posters can't be here, or that posters have to post on more than one topic.

As long as they stay within the T&C, they can post here. I don't know how to make that more clear.

As for staff decisions, they are made based on those same T&Cs.

a reply to: FlySolo

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.

Fly I supersize most of all with your thoughts but you can't call any of
that proof. What if this poster you refer to is just extremely prolific?
What if he's just on his own personal patriotic mission? You might just
confuse the two.

originally posted by: Informer1958
The fact is, this one member has caused a lot of problems in the 911 threads.

Caused problems how?
By disagreeing with posters, and pointing out the errors in their arguments!

a reply to: Informer1958

Do you have his pay stubs? If not, you've nothing even remotely close to proof. ...and yes, I know exactly who you are talking about.

His sole crime, if crime it is, is daring to disagree with a whole host of people.

Come to think on it... Even if you did have his pay stubs, he'd still be welcome so long as he follows the rules here.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: FlySolo
Why are we not allowed to say the word shill? Or call someone a shill?

Because it's name calling, and all too often a lazy insult tossed at someone that does't believe a particular conspiracy theory.

I need to respond to this again. It has nothing to do with someone who doesn't want to tow the line. If someone doesn't believe me, I won't immediately call them a shill. In fact, I don't believe I ever actually said shill. However, if I believe someone is paid to just sit there and contradict me with just absolute rubbish, and I suddenly get an inkling that this person isn't who they claim to be, I want to hit them with my awareness. I'm not going to play games with someone who clearly wants to distract others who may be interested in what I have to say. These are tactics Skeptic and whoever uses them for this purpose needs to be called out. That's my stance.

a reply to: sg1642

I believe the truth will out. I don't know exactly what that is, but I'm betting it's not "mainstream" yet.

And maybe it won't, but there is lots of time left.

What are the thoughts on dedicated section moderators?

a reply to: randyvs

na naa man. I admit when I'm wrong but when I smell a rat I know it. I'm 100% on this. Never been so sure about a member in my life

Has anyone thought to just ask an explanation of why he posts in there only? I have noticed it myself from a few posters to be honest but there may be a perfect reason for it other than being paid to. Perhaps it's something he or she feels strongly about?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Ok, commander in chief. We got it.

My last message to 9/11 (Buried) thread ...

With all due respect:

9/11 was an inside job!

Good-day, bill !

originally posted by: worlds_away
a reply to: sg1642

I believe the truth will out. I don't know exactly what that is, but I'm betting it's not "mainstream" yet.

And maybe it won't, but there is lots of time left.

We are still arguing JFK to this day. If there is a truth to come out I don't see it happening in any of our life times buddy.

a reply to: Vector99

Sorry, meant to respond earlier.

Already got 'em. They're the ones in straight jackets drooling on the floor. Or the really angry ones.

...and no, I'm not one of 'em.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Integrity man. Bill? Integrity!! You want to enforce PC over calling out members yet ignore spys in your own website. Its not right man it just aint right. These guys do a lot of damage muddying the waters.

a reply to: Informer1958

It appears the discussion here is pretty clear, yet you don't seem to get it?

I recall you causing problems by ignoring and completely dismissing facts I presented to you too...

To be honest I don't think you're interested in discussion, rather just confirming your own beliefs...

Just my observations.

a reply to: FlySolo

Any poster that stays within the T&Cs is welcome. Why is that so hard to get? They stay within the rules, they can post. They don't, they eventually aren't welcome anymore.

One of those rules involves name calling. Really simple, call people names, the post is removed. Debate the topic, not the poster. Really simple.

originally posted by: FlySolo
These guys do a lot of damage muddying the waters.

So as they have a different opinion, they are "muddying the waters"?