First Annual ATS Invitational (unofficial)

A group consensus would be great, but i dont know that the level of coupling you suggest is necessary.

I think that the fact that "The Movement" agrees the official story is crap is consensus enough! Look at the founding of this country, a bunch of people all agreed that english rule sucked, but they all disagreed about how to go about setting up our own country. However, they implemented conflict resolution techniques such as collaboration and compromise, and it worked out fairly well....

Now if only we could stick to that document thing-a-magig that they wrote up, what was is again?!?!

Originally posted by sp00n1
I think that the fact that "The Movement" agrees the official story is crap is consensus enough!

But it's not, because tthe movement is still divided, and without the "Skeptics" it won't get much passed the debate stage.

My point is that maybe half of the people out there that have knowledge of 911 are in the "Skeptics" camp. You can bet that most of them enjoy the fact that issues like the highly debatable ones I mentioned exist, and many even like to help keep the attention on them whether they realize it or not. The fact is those issues are highly debatable (one of my arguments is that they are by design), and will remain so (think JFK, nothing ever happened).

There are 2 political parties for 'good' reasons, but when you peel way the emotional wedge issues (that shouldn't even be part of "politics", The People should vote for those issues state to state) there's little distinction. But the 2 parties remain dominant, debates carry on endlessly, and nothing ever changes. The emotional wedge issues distract those people from seeing change, just like the controversial 911 'wedge issues' keep everyone divided (even within the "truth" movement) and it allows millions to focus on the controversy instead of having to face the actionable consensus issues (most people think they have good reason to resist whatever sort of revolution).

Look at the founding of this country, a bunch of people all agreed that english rule sucked, but they all disagreed about how to go about setting up our own country. However, they implemented conflict resolution techniques such as collaboration and compromise, and it worked out fairly well....

Most of what you're talking about was the after the fact deliberations. Most say only a minority supported the initial rebellion. In that case it was basiaclly rebels decalring war on the 'foreign' force. This won't work here today. Plus, rebellion isn't ideal, if anythign the establishment wants whatever to happen like that. it's revolution they fear, and it's no surprise that the American Rebellion of 1776 is titled the "American Revolution". It's important that people visualize rebellion when considering revolution. It's all about the language!

I'm not saying to simply forget the controversial subject and move on. Some of them, if true, and "proven", are serious lynchpins. But first I propose people try to focus on the actionable consensus issues instead of droolign of no-hijcker disinfo theories and flight 93's etc.

Originally posted by sp00n1
A group consensus would be great, but i dont know that the level of coupling you suggest is necessary.

Thats why i wanted to come up with a page for research sites for certain areas of 911.

Also it would be nice if we could hold a live open forum in a site or a actual public forum at different places.

There's supposed to be a reference thread, but the links are all shot and none has responded to ym inquiry a while ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm not saying to simply forget the controversial subject and move on. Some of them, if true, and "proven", are serious lynchpins. But first I propose people try to focus on the actionable consensus issues instead of droolign of no-hijcker disinfo theories and flight 93's etc.

Thats why i want to strictly enforce the "Every statement must be verifiable and true" angle of the debate.

I think the reason why nothing happened on JFK is because of the media control, not because people disagree over stupid details. It took until oliver stone before people really began looking into it. In 1992 (or something) there was a poll conducted by ABC (or some news agency) that say something like 82% of americans thought that the CIA killed JFK.

These days we have the internet, and "JFK" style 911 movies are starting to go mainstream. The problem is not that people dont believe, its that those that do believe it have been conditioned to accept it.

Although i do agree with a lot of what you are saying. The problem is that we need a real investigation before we can start to know what happened. In all this time the trail has gone cold. I dont think we will ever have all the answers.

So, how do we get people interested in taking action? How do we get them to question the ignored forewarnings and lack of air defense response? How do we get them to look at the 911 wargames? How do we get them to consider that maybe the government did play a role? What prevents them from considering the possibility that our government (that raped indians and enslaved blacks as well as overthrew numerous democratic governments and replaced them with despotic rulers that had good relations with the US LIKE IRAN) might not always be right?

And once we get them to ask those questions, how do we get them to demand action?

Griff kinda pointed me over to this thread. Looks like it could be fun. I will see what I can do to contribute. I doubt I have the energy to be a main participant, maybe part of the pit crew.


Just as an aside, part of the reason you haven't got the response you sought is probably due to not enough people knowing about it in the first place. I would have never found it other than Griff mentioning it. I will flag it though to help.

If we could get a nice debate going with out the usual mudslinging (which I like to throw on occassion as well) it would be fun.

Good luck on this.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by pavil]

Originally posted by sp00n1
Thats why i want to strictly enforce the "Every statement must be verifiable and true" angle of the debate.

Roger that. But, for those who dare to speculate, be sure to not use absolutist terms for things which aren't absolute. Otherwise you sound like a "kook".
For example:
"There's no way fires could have knocked down the towers."

That's in absolutist form, with a nonabsolutist worthy assertion.

Another recent example is the Larry Silverstein comment, and infowars promoting the John kerry comment in absolutist form.

I thought about starting a specific thread about this (the absolutism angle, not that example specifically) earlier today. I still might. For those who aren't keen with logical fallacies, this angle is your best bet to avoid engaging in logical fallacies.
However, when you absolutely know you're able to speak absolutely, push it to the limit.

The problem is that we need a real investigation before we can start to know what happened.

Precisely! And that's why i'm such an advocate for keeping the absolute issues in the center staage, as the controversial issues feed the pseudoskeptics and it keeps them from uniting with the "CT'ers" on this most basic initiative(less).

I dont think we will ever have all the answers.

Try to avoid pessimistic comments. A primary role of "Morale Operations" subversive "enemy propagandists" is to sow pessimism and loss of hope in whatever cause. So in effect, if you yourself engage in that you function as an enemy propagandist. Let the OSS (CIA) be your example for how not to subvert your own efforts:
[Rea d Here, Official Declassified OSS Documents]

And once we get them to ask those questions, how do we get them to demand action?

Propagation of Actionable Censensus.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I dont think im being pessimistic, im trying to be realistic. We need to set real goals, otherwise we spin our tires going nowhere. I think, in a way, that is kind of what you are saying too.

And i absolutely agree we should avoid absolutist comments. Infowars is bad at that, thats why i noted them as one of the non-acceptable 'sources'.

So what exactly do you believe we should try to form a consensus on? You need to set a target before you can aim at it. What are the real absolutes on this issue?

Originally posted by pavil
Griff kinda pointed me over to this thread. Looks like it could be fun. I will see what I can do to contribute. I doubt I have the energy to be a main participant, maybe part of the pit crew.


Just as an aside, part of the reason you haven't got the response you sought is probably due to not enough people knowing about it in the first place. I would have never found it other than Griff mentioning it. I will flag it though to help.

If we could get a nice debate going with out the usual mudslinging (which I like to throw on occassion as well) it would be fun.

Good luck on this.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by pavil]

If you guys want to U2U some of the more prominent OCT's, by all means go ahead. I had considered it but i dont know who to invite.

I know there are a variety to choose from, but id rather debate with the ones that bring something of value to the debate, instead of the debunkers that rely on the shady tactics that i am trying to eliminate.

Yo I decided to hook up a more detailed thread:

Absolutism Terminology: Dont sound like an idiot
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Spoon and IIB - you both give me hope. Steady mental courage plus reason is indeed a powerful combo - there are sparks flying here, a throbbing electric hum...

I think it's a verifiable fact that we will never have all the answers, tho depends on what is your list of questions. This is not pessimistic, just realistic. To say we'll never have any answer, truth is unattainable, may be defeatist. Depends on motive.

I also want to clarify, since I've dropped some heavy pessimism bombs in spots, I do this because
1) I think it's true that our chances of really significantly getting 9/11 Truth to "win" or whatever really are slimgiven structural and psychological and even neurological impediments.
2) I still think it's worth doing when done right, and pushing awareness wider and deeper - it's not a matter of win or lose, it's a degree of success between the two.
3) I rain on parades. It's what I do. It tests parades, helps them preapare for the hurricanes to come.

So please don't take my cynicism/pessimism as defeatism of the suspicious variety.
I'm still ready to roll...

We are going to win! We already have won! The only way to win is to die knowing the truth! The truth is that we have been lied to.

Now, maybe we dont know all of the specifics. We def dont have all the answers...

It would be great to convert as many other people as possible, and to get justice for the people that died, and to take real steps to ensure that this never happens again... but as far as i am concerned that is really secondary.

The only way to lose is if you never even try.

I agree - if this is to stand up, we have to test it first.

I've just posted in the Nuke thread and some interesting responses are coming back, but nothing concrete at all. I think that is why they are avoiding tis thread.

Well, if no-one objects, here is a list of everything I can think of to do with 9/11 that isn't right:

* WTC 1 and 2 collapse - causes/why
* WTC 7 collapse - causes/why
* Flight 11 - where from/to/history
* Flight 175 - where from/to/history
* Flight 77 - where from/to/history
* Flight 93 - where from/to/history/ua statement/flight plan change
* DAL1989 - where from/to/history/why considered hijack despite being normal?
* Pentagon - causes/why

(when I say history, I mean where it flew, what happened to it in flight etc).

* NEWS REPORTS. What got covered on the day, what disappeared afterwards, and other oddities with the stories in general.

Can we isolate a particular day that all stories changed or things got buried in vast numbers????

[edit on 24-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Yo I decided to hook up a more detailed thread:

Absolutism Terminology: Dont sound like an idiot
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a proven fact that all people who want to cover up for the official story are trained to weed out our precious absolutism. Our sledgehammer certainty-language is the ONLY way the truth about the murdereers in power will EVER succeed. All those people who question it are therefore agents. PERIOD.

You mean like that?

It's funny you should use that example as it was implied that I'm a "reverse disinfo" agent for linking that post into a red herring takeover:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 27-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I'm new here at ATS, and just read through this thread. Sounds like a great idea. I'm still not sure about 9/11, even after all these years. I must represent the vast majority of people in the real world. We smell fish, but the fog's too thick too see any water.

I wish you luck on this, and hope it makes it to the end. I would really enjoy following such a debate.

I will flag this as my small contribution to the hope that we may all learn more about that evil day.

Best of luck.

Just to clarify, this is all we know about 9/11;

4 planes crashed
3 buildings collapsed
the pentagon was damaged.



We dont know who did it. We dont know why. Both sides of this debate are guilty of absolutism.

There is no proof for the official story. There is no good evidence either.

There is evidence to support the conspiracy theory, but that is most definitely not proof. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, but people have been convicted and executed based upon less.

The fact that we dont know what happened is plenty of reason to have a real investigation. Hardcore official story supporters need to realize that their theory is still just a theory. And the same can be said for the CT's.

Planes crashed? Do we know that?

For the first time in history, NO official crash reports (FBI or NIST) were written up for commercial passenger jet plane ‘crashes’ above United States of America soil. For NONE of the four of them.

And that’s an ABSOLUTE fact.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Here is a question I actually Demand an answer to.. Its been a long long time waiting for this answer.. I started a thread on it. If we find why all these cars burned up all over the place. We can find more understanding of how the towers fell. It all ties into 1 thing...

Question about cars, I want an answer. No more messing around.

This is a nice starting point because NOBODY can give me a clean straight no b/s answer to this question.

BTW if u have one i would love to hear it.