------FORUM GUIDELINES------

Interesting info there Skeptic.

Whether there is a single "credible source... with confirmed evidence" of aliens, chemtrails or paranormal activities, amongst the other big topics discussed here, is a matter of debate. I'm sure you weren't suggesting that as a reason to shut down a topic.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly agree with Nathan's post above.
The official story is an argument by force already soundly defeated in the eyes of almost all who've taken trouble to test it. Some of it is not even controversial, though largely ignored by the media, (financial trading on foreknowledge, anthrax attacks from US labs pretending to come from Middle East, Bush's counter terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke stating that top officials knowingly withheld key information on the alleged hijackers from the White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defence Departments, etc.)

Circumstantial and concrete evidence of a massive coverup is overwhelming. Alternative theories are inevitably, diverse, speculative, incomplete and sometimes daft, but challenging and probing official data is arguably more worthwhile than trying to fill in the missing pieces. To that extent, I think the topic has been as fruitful as any on ATS.

I wasn't aware the 9/11 forum was any more raucous than other politically charged topics, but I appreciate the desire to keep it civil and cogent. As others have mentioned, this forum in particular is plagued by a form of tactical disruption which takes the form of repeated short 'misleading' interjections. Apart from a perception that they're designed to subvert and derail, I don't see much point in speculating about motives. Because they don't contravene T&Cs, they're probably moderator-proof.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
Interesting info there Skeptic.

Whether there is a single "credible source... with confirmed evidence" of aliens, chemtrails or paranormal activities, amongst the other big topics discussed here, is a matter of debate. I'm sure you weren't suggesting that as a reason to shut down a topic.

I think you misunderstood the context. The reason that no credible source -- one that will be believed -- has investigated phenomena and/or contradictions to the official narrative is because of the highly toxic nature of the subject online. The toxic nature that we see in action here in the 9/11 Conspiracy forum.

I don't want to cast any stones, and upset anyone, but...

One idea I had on how to deal with posters who seem to have too much of an agenda, as-if they were compensated shills or otherwise troublemakers, ATS should have have a user rating system for that.

If members were flagging accounts that were obvious troll accounts....like the Pro-Russians, as one example, this would be any easy way to identify these accounts to ATSers before they get dragged into arguments....etc. As flaggs are accrued, mods can get an alert and review the account. Very efficient.

I seems like a good idea to me. I just wanted to make sure it got passed along. ftr- I come to ATS to learn, not to argue.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I don't want to cast any stones, and upset anyone, but...

One idea I had on how to deal with posters who seem to have too much of an agenda, as-if they were compensated shills or otherwise troublemakers,

How exactly do you determine "too much of a agenda"?
Is having a agenda against the T&C's?

The Not-So-Hidden Agenda

a reply to: FlyingFox

There is no need for a special system, because troublemakers identify themselves with their own words, publicly, for everyone to see. They are the ones who devote themselves to attacking other members instead of offering cogent arguments.

They sometimes make themselves even easier to spot by using such terms as "shills" and other labels in the mistaken belief that name-calling somehow makes their dubious claims more credible.

As the first post in this thread makes crystal clear, it is a fast track toward ex-membership. While that is particularly true in the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, it's also true everywhere on ATS, and has been for a very long time.

If you see this sort of behavior and would like to see it stop, please let us know and we'll be happy to take it from there.

Don't worry, it's always obvious enough where the problem lies.

a reply to: ParasuvO
a reply to: ParasuvO


Interesting perspective.


Very assumptive though imho.

You have the freedom to choose as you wish, others do to. To assume their thoughts are the product of brainwashing while yours are pure enlightenment and *all that matters, is a bad way to fly. You dress yourself in the morning based on your personal tastes and what you feel comfortable wearing. Others choose to wear something different. This makes them lesser than?

Should we all start name calling based on observable behavior instead of finding respectful common ground.

The question for many isn't whether there are Government stooges online, we know there are, but rather what does it say about the individual who verbally lashes out and acts totally contrary to what a mature discussion should be?

Expressing frustration towards those of varying paradigms is one thing, acting like a verbal bully is so first Grade and quite another.

Assumptive patterns imho, demonstrates another form of brainwashing by oneself.

A prisoner in ones own mind guarded by ones own failure to accept the fact that others are simply wired differently and have just as viable of opinions, experiences and beliefs that at times run contrary to your own.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
For instance, on the topic of collapsing buildings, I can look at them and see no collapse is ever happening, but a totally obliterating vaporizing exploding building.

The twin towers do look like they are exploding outwards rather than a natural collapse. Jesse Ventura who was trained in demolition for the US navy said this a few times on radio several times that the only explanation of concrete being ‘pulverized into dust’ is through use of explosives. This is the view of many experts who have looked at information other than the official narrative.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Yet engineers and other professionals can look at the same pictures and see the catastrophic failure of the building as a result of a plane crashing into it and unchecked fires.

Yet thousands of professional architects and engineers who have studied this in depth and have their own official website do not accept this conclusion. This also has to be noted as well.

originally posted by: wildb
I did not say no one could get into the lobby, I said the lobby was already destroyed. Before the first plane hit..

Which has been noted by many experts who are alarmed by this. And yet you present eye witness evidence. People who were actually there. There is also film of this by french filmakers that aired on BBC television just months after 9/11 that I cannot find anywhere.

originally posted by: hellobruce
what he saw was just some elevators hitting the ground floor after the plane hit.

What gives you the authority to dismiss an eye witness account and tell us what he saw?

This simply dismissal is why we are not having a proper honest open debate about 9/11. I admire your total dedication in presenting the official narrative to members here. But sometimes being too dedicated can lead people to be blindsided by a particular view and become ignorant of relevant information.

The guy said he thinks a bomb went off in the lobby before the plane hit, other witnesses say the same thing. That means there was some type of sound replicating that of a bomb that went off BEFORE the planes hit. This eye witness testimony is paramount and can be used in a court of law. Yet your "opinion" of what he actually saw would not be used because you were not there and you do not know what he saw.

(following on from above)

hellobruce

What gives you the authority to dismiss an eye witness account and tell us what he saw?

This simple dismissal is why we are not having a proper and honest open debate about 9/11. I admire your total dedication in presenting the official narrative to members here. But sometimes being too dedicated can lead people to be blindsided by a particular view and become ignorant of relevant information.

The guy said he thinks a bomb went off in the lobby before the plane hit, other witnesses say the same thing. That means there was some type of sound replicating that of a bomb that went off BEFORE the planes hit. This eye witness testimony is paramount and can be used in a court of law. Yet your "opinion" of what he actually saw would not be used because you were not there and you do not know what he saw.