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

a reply to: seagull

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.

That's the way it should be. In fact ATS should start paying us all!
But that's the thing you see. If someone wants to pay me for posting on this site?
No one should have anything to say about it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.

Absolutely.

At the end of the day the towers don't have to have been demolished under control, a missile doesn't have to have hit the pentagon and the aircraft didn't have to have been swapped or whatever to make it a conspiracy. Either way people conspired. It was a conspiracy regardless.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I get it. But calling someone a paid poster or shill is not name calling! Since when?

a reply to: hellobruce

difference of opinion is not muddying the waters. Getting a paycheque to cover lies is muddying the waters.

I have not posted to any (that I can recall) threads in the 9-11 forum, but I have read a number of them. I concur, many of them seem to go the same way degenerating into name calling and off-topic distractions. (probably why I haven't posted too). I am skeptical of the official story, parts of it anyway, but not all of it. And, I agree it is nearly impossible to post something agreeing with part of the official story but taking exception to some aspect without having the discussion degenerate into a great big pissing match. However....

I am big on balance in a discussion, I like to see all points of view. I don't believe one can come to any sort of an objective conclusion unless one sees all sides. That said, I'd like to play the devil's advocate for a moment on this thread. I mean no disrespect, but merely wish to offer somewhat of an opposing viewpoint to the OP and some of the subsequent threads.

I agree with the principle of the OP and many of the subsequent posts, but could it be possible there are people who are intentionally weighing in on threads for the sole purpose of derailing coherent discussion? Could there be an agenda here? Not one sponsored by ATS, but rather a group of members who realize it is easy to inflame discussions on an anonymous internet forum and completely derail discussions to the point of nonsense and bickering(?) The ire of the site administration (moderators, et. al) is clearly directed at troublemakers and understandably so, but could these troublemakers actually be causing trouble by design? Could they be trying to derail meaningful debate...for a reason?

I realize the difficulty of a moderator's job (having moderated other forums), especially on a site the size of ATS. I by no means want to make things more difficult, but maybe there's more than just flagging a post with name calling. Perhaps there is some value in looking at not just an offending post, but the metrics of some of the posters who constantly engage in this behavior. From my limited vantage point it does seem like there are some trends (and frankly it's not limited to just the 9-11 forum either, but the 9-11 forum seems closer to the proverbial flame).

I don't know, I enjoy ATS, but maybe I have a thicker skin than some. I do however get frustrated by the seemingly immature bickering though I mostly ignore it. When it completely sidetracks a discussion into noise it is indeed very frustrating.

My comments are hopefully constructive...for whatever it's worth.

a reply to: FlySolo

It's going after the poster, not debating the topic. If you go after the poster it gets removed. Stick to the topic at hand, which is not another member, ever.

originally posted by: FlySolo
Getting a paycheque to cover lies is muddying the waters.

1/ how do you know they are getting a paycheck?
2/ disagreeing is not lying.

Isn't the motto here 'deny ignorance'?

Because if people are saying it's perfectly fine for someone to come here and promote ignorance for financial gain as long as he sticks to the terms and conditions then that is wrong.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know (and agree), but couldn't it be that the personal attacks are intentional and designed to evoke just that, anger and distraction?

a reply to: sg1642

And how do you prove someone is getting paid? You'd have to be able to prove conclusively, beyond a doubt. Not think, not common sense, hard proof. How are you going to get that?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And personal attacks are against the T&C and will be removed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Then all you're doing is exacerbating circular bull# by allowing people to sign up while working for an agency to create disinfo. It's disinfo and you're complicit about it. Then allow these disinfo guys to go unchecked while reprimanding those who see them for who they are and call them on it. And what's the slogan again? Deny ignorance? Don't you guys understand the dichotomous situation you create by allowing rif raff who are disingenuous to basically hide behind your own system to create fairness?

originally posted by: sg1642
Isn't the motto here 'deny ignorance'?

Because if people are saying it's perfectly fine for someone to come here and promote ignorance for financial gain as long as he sticks to the terms and conditions then that is wrong.

Yes! You beat me to it but yes!

a reply to: FlySolo

And how do you prove someone is getting paid? You'd have to be able to prove conclusively, beyond a doubt. Not think, not common sense, hard proof. How are you going to get that?

Saying "common sense" doesn't cut it. You have to prove that they're paid posters.

I've seen the videos and read the reports, pro and con. And have never posted a thought about the matter.

But I will say I think I understand why people distrust the government.

Anyone with a small knowledge of recent history knows how Hitler's propoganda machine lead to a false-flag operation, and eventually to the 'final solution' and World War II, the greatest war ever known.


That and other events have people, justifiably weary of government, wondering if it will happen again. Normal people may have questions and doubts, but parinoid people let it consume their lives. They end up so consumed with fear and parinoia, real or not, they let it ruin their lives.

All the debating and name calling hasn't changed anything.

This will probably be the only comment I'll ever make about the subject.

Live life, and love. It's happening now.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

And how do you prove someone is getting paid?

I'm not saying you can obviously. What I am saying is (and this is hypothetically) poster x admits that he does indeed come here and spread discontent or post for financial gain, is poster x then blocked even if he is within the Ts and Cs?

I'm not trying to argue with you here or anything like that but can you see where people are coming from with this one?

a reply to: Zaphod58

just ask them and do your due diligence? Damn, do you really want this place infested with paid posters? There goes credibility

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FlySolo
Getting a paycheque to cover lies is muddying the waters.

1/ how do you know they are getting a paycheck?
2/ disagreeing is not lying.

Do you consider yourself an intelligent guy?

a reply to: FlySolo

What due diligence? We have an email address that can be made up, and that's it. What exactly are we supposed to check to find out?

originally posted by: FlySolo
It's disinfo and you're complicit about it. Then allow these disinfo guys to go unchecked while reprimanding those who see them for who they are and call them on it.

So it is disinfo because they do not agree with you....