First Annual ATS Invitational (unofficial)

As Seen On TV…

Planes crashed? Do we know that?

You keep forgetting about the hundreds of thousands of people in NYC at the time. YES, planes crashed at the WTC!

The Pentagon is 95% certain that a 757 crashed there.

Flight 93 is IMO 95% certain it DIDN'T crash. There was more wreckage from the Shuttle Columbia, and that got scattered over 4 states!!! Where is there ANY evidence of Flight 93, ANYWHERE, other than a United Airlines report that Flight 93 landed safely at Cleveland??

[edit on 27-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Hey guys,

If you like the idea in the OP, the 'structured debate,' then i think you will also like this thread;

ATS - Red Herring District

I think we can all agree that something needs to be done about this trolling.

Originally posted by Griff
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.

thanks griff, but no, for a number of reasons.

the two biggest are that theres no way in hell im posting any of my personal data online. if what i post about a particular subject (most typically explosivse) doesnt bear scrutiny then im a hack, if it does then does it matter if im who i claim i am? i mean if me being 'vetted" was that important have one of the amigos u2u me ill give them my ph number and they can ask me anything they want. cuz then if my personal data was misused id have the owner of a site to go after.

secondly, i already did the debate thing. it was limited to whether or not explosives were used in the wtc collapse and can be found here

so even if i was in on this id limit my contributions to what i know, demolitions. if anyone from either side of any debate has questions they can u2u me and ill answer them honestly regardless of if it conflicts with my own opinions or not, and it will be verifiable. or at least ill point them in the right direction.

so thanks for thinkin of me. hope this venture is successfull should you all move on with it. but ill take a pass.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The Pentagon is 95% certain that a 757 crashed there.

Flight 93 is IMO 95% certain it DIDN'T crash. There was more wreckage from the Shuttle Columbia, and that got scattered over 4 states!!! Where is there ANY evidence of Flight 93, ANYWHERE, other than a United Airlines report that Flight 93 landed safely at Cleveland??

[edit on 27-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Actullay the Pentagon is unknown since we do not have any vidoes, photos or official reports of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

As for flight 93 it did not land at Cleveland, that was flight 1989. Flight 93 and 1989 were confused by ATC.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Actullay the Pentagon is unknown since we do not have any vidoes, photos or official reports of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

We don't?

Actually, Dams... You DO NOT have to post any personal information. Somebody suggested it may be a good idea to post credentials in order to establish credibility, but that is not necessary.

However, if you claim to be a professor of metallurgy and an expert on high rise steel skyscrapers, and you claim the opinion that either this or that, that will be considered a highly questionable statement if you can't back it up with hard credentials.

I do not think these types of statements will really be either necessary or beneficial. In your case, i dont think you need to be an explosives expert to say that explosives are loud and they make lots of very distinctive noise, but if you want to throw in some credentials it wouldnt hurt.

Lots of people of both sides of the debate like to claim all sorts of expert knowledge, and i think most of us can see right through the ones that are lying. This is not to suggest they are all lying, just most of them.

In my case, i am an engineer. I work with computers and electronics, a far cry from skyrise buildings. As part of my majors, i had to take core engineering reqs and multidisciplinary electives such as statics, dynamics, strengths of materials, and materials science. Some of these actually apply to computer engineering; matsci is important in understanding 'semiconductor doping' and the thermal/electrical properties of various metals.

I do not and will not post opinions about skyscraper engineering. If i want to state something about material properties or static loads, i will cite it with a reputable source.

I do not have a professional engineering license because i have never really needed it. I work in areas such as 'embedded control' designing things like microwave oven computers, television remote control circuits, vending machines controllers, cell phones, and operating systems for things like iPods.

There is some concern with safety in regards to electrocution, so somebody somewhere along the line needs to sign off on it. That is not me.


[edit on 4/30/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Actullay the Pentagon is unknown since we do not have any vidoes, photos or official reports of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

We don't?

No, unless you have a videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'm all for it. Count me in please!

Ok, I guess that I will be part of this to the best of my ability which is somewhat time limited on various days.
A couple of things though:
1)Being an ex-airport worker, I am not going to post any of those credentials on this site. I would be happy to meet with a Mod at some public location and let them review them, but it is really not worth the security risks involved to post them on the web. First off the type of identification which a airline person can show, not only shows who they worked for but can also be photoshopped and used for less then honorable reasons. I would hope that no one who has this kind of documentation would be so silly as to post copies of them on the web any sooner then they would post a copy of their Social Security Card or Drivers License. Besides this, posting identification does not really go very far in showing that the person behind the keyboard actually belongs to the documentation they posted. Most aviation folks can spot on another by lingo, and inside knowledge, and that should be sufficient.

2) We have 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 different 911 threads going on all at one time on this site, and one that is like 5 million pages long now. All the good information in that thread is so buried that someone does not have a snowballs chance in hell of digging it back up. This was one of the reasons I quit posting on the 911 subject for a long time. I got really tired of spending an hour of my life explaining where the “wings and tail went” to have someone come back three pages later with “yeah, but what happened to the wings and the tail”. If I ever went back and compiled all my posts on what happened to the wings and the tail, I am sure it would fill a book. So with this in mind I suggest we approach this form a different angle. I am not sure how well this will work and it might need some tweaking, but here goes.

I suggest that we compile a list of all the main points, topics, and questions. We make a single thread which acts like an index with a single corresponding discussion thread attached to each individual topic. Then allow the Admin here to take the best valid points from those discussion threads and put them into a sort of summery under that topic in the index thread. This index thread should be locked to all but the admin here, and it might help keep the derail posts down to keep the discussion thread locked to only people that have registered for this discussion. It might also be helpful to have a fair/balanced person in each discussion thread who sums up the finer points every so many pages and keeps the discussion on track. So if we are discussing what happened to the “wings on the pentagon 757” we don’t end up talking about engines, tails, or what the hijackers had for breakfast. Hopefully following this type of format we can finally get the key points down to where they can not be argued anymore and a conclusion on each topic can be reached without someone taking us back to page one, or derailing the topic for several pages then taking us back to page one.

As an example (and this is only an example, lets not start arguing the content of what I write here):

What happened to the wings of AA Flight 77:
Wings of aircraft contain the fuel tanks which house 70% of the fuel used by the aircraft, it is also the fuel which is burned first leaving the tanks which the highest amount of explosive vapor on an aircraft. When the leading edge of the aircraft wing came in contact with the building pilings behind the fascia of the Pentagon structure the fuel tanks would have been pierced and fuel and fuel vapor exposed to the heat of friction from the leading edge impact……blah,blah,blah…….Blahdy,blah……
Wings of Flight 77 Discussion

Wing damage to the Pentagon building from AA flight 77:
Blah, Blah, Blah…
Blah, Blah, Blah….

Wing Damage to Pentagon Discussion

Now not everyone here is going to be able, or have experience to discuss all the different aspects of each thread obviously, so we could limit each discussion to specific people or not. I personally don’t know a lot about what brought down the Twin Towers, or anything about Demolition, for example, so I would not really post in those topics, but maybe would make a good person to sum up what they posted in there.

Anyway that is my take on how this should be done so it actually gets somewhere.
Do with it as you will.


[edit on 5/2/2007 by defcon5]

Dude! I can't speak for Spoon, but I think no meeting at the mall parking lot would be needed. I'm for posting no creds unless you wanna show off personaly. I have none to post BTW I just can do research and I think right. Generally.

As for time, or what we're doing, which suddenly (thx) seems more worthwhile, its still nebullous and tentative. Or at least I'm confused and hazy on the format and whatnot, what levels of evidence we're covering, how we're teaming up, etc. It's just cool to have you willing to contribute whatever to whatever that if someone can figure out for me could be real cool.

Originally posted by defcon5

2) We have 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 different 911 threads going on all at one time on this site, and one that is like 5 million pages long now. All the good information in that thread is so buried that someone does not have a snowballs chance in hell of digging it back up. This was one of the reasons I quit posting on the 911 subject for a long time. I got really tired of spending an hour of my life explaining where the “wings and tail went” to have someone come back three pages later with “yeah, but what happened to the wings and the tail”. If I ever went back and compiled all my posts on what happened to the wings and the tail, I am sure it would fill a book. So with this in mind I suggest we approach this form a different angle.

If I'm not mistaken that's roughly the idea. Sort out stuff that can be sorted out and move on for God's sake.

I am not sure how well this will work and it might need some tweaking, but here goes.

I suggest that we compile a list of all the main points, topics, and questions. We make a single thread which acts like an index with a single corresponding discussion thread attached to each individual topic. Then allow the Admin here to take the best valid points from those discussion threads and put them into a sort of summery under that topic in the index thread. [...edit to save space...]

I dig - sounds ambitious, perhaps new forum material - but it wouldn't have to be open for ever, just until we sort out what we can and agree to disagree with style on the point where that's all we cn do. Format is someone else's call, I'm just down fo whatever unless it becomes uber stupid at which point I'll do what I have to.

As an example (and this is only an example, lets not start arguing the content of what I write here):

What happened to the wings of AA Flight 77:
Wings of aircraft contain the fuel tanks which house 70% of the fuel used by the aircraft, it is also the fuel which is burned first leaving the tanks which the highest amount of explosive vapor on an aircraft. When the leading edge of the aircraft wing came in contact with the building pilings behind the fascia of the Pentagon structure the fuel tanks would have been pierced and fuel and fuel vapor exposed to the heat of friction from the leading edge impact……blah,blah,blah…….Blahdy,blah……
Wings of Flight 77 Discussion

Wing damage to the Pentagon building from AA flight 77:
Blah, Blah, Blah…
Blah, Blah, Blah….

Wing Damage to Pentagon Discussion

I dig! This is an area where you or I could really get stuff done if we had to actually answer eachother's Qs instead of dancing around. Would I be on the Truther's or debunker's side there? We'll have to see...

Now not everyone here is going to be able, or have experience to discuss all the different aspects of each thread obviously, so we could limit each discussion to specific people or not. I personally don’t know a lot about what brought down the Twin Towers, or anything about Demolition, for example, so I would not really post in those topics, but maybe would make a good person to sum up what they posted in there.

Oddly also not my thing.

Also, how can we discuss more abstract issues like who benefitted? I think these issues need to be discussed. And historical precedents - Northwoods: evidence of what? That kind of stuff. Clear up some BS, come to as many agreements as possible.

[edit on 5/2/2007 by defcon5]

oops I need to get to sleep

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

It’s all good Caustic, and thanks.
I just don’t want to see another bunch of useless, never gets anywhere, 911 threads. I think that the problem up to this point is that there are just too many interrelated details which come up in these threads which then lose valid points brought up by posters earlier on. To make matters worse in the mainline 911 threads we get folks who just pop in to ask a question because they don’t want to take the time to read 50+ pages for the answer and they derail things. Just happened in one of the threads a few minutes ago, though I don’t think it will end up being a big derailing from what is currently being discussed. Also what the person posted is not really off topic, because the topic is much to broad. However, it was gotten down to a specific set of questions and now we are off on another topic. With this type of stuff occurring we never get anywhere, we just dogfight around in little circles endlessly.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Also, how can we discuss more abstract issues like who benefitted? I think these issues need to be discussed. And historical precedents - Northwoods: evidence of what? That kind of stuff. Clear up some BS, come to as many agreements as possible.

You would make these separate topics as well. If you really get down to it, it will become a nice pyramid kind of thing, for example:

Flight 77:
1)Wings
2)tail
3)engines
4)Damage
5)debris
6)flight path
7)NTSB Data
8)so on, and so on…

Flight 93
1)debris
2)shot down or not
4)so on…

Twin towers:
1)Acoustic anomalies
2)Fire vs. steel
3)so on….

Paper trial:
1)Bush and Bin landen
2)Operation Northwoods
3)so on…

And that is the point, we break this all down into specific topics and add new topics when need be, but each thread has to stay on topic. So lets say we are discussing the wings and it gets down to where we need to discuss engine mounting bolts, we can make a new subtopic thread specifically for that topic. Once it’s concluded we can lock it then proceed on the original thread with the original topic.

You DO NOT need to post any credentials. If you would like to do it to establish credibility, by all means go ahead. It is absolutely not required. If you are an expert in your field and you know what you are talking about, you should not have any trouble citing your statements to reputable sources. Therefore it is absolutely not necessary to post any personal information or other credentials.

I think I figured out how to make your idea work. I decided to try to figure out Global Warming once and for all, and started 2 seperate threads for each side to attempt to present their best supporting evidence to attempt to scrutinize the data in a spin / rhetoric / opinion / red-herring free environment to then be able to synthecize the truth. I think this could work over here in the 9/11 Dept., and perhaps some others. Here there would probably have to be fous pairs on specific topics until the bigger "is the proof of a 9/11 conspiracy" could be tackled from the synthesis from the results of the foundational threads.

Tell me what you think.
Is there Proof that Man iS causing "Global Warming"?
Is there Proof that Man isn't causing "Global Warming"?

The idea is to not even sumbit data that would show the opposite, instead that data would go in the respective side to be assessed.

Too address the old question of why you do not have more Official Story backers (OCT) coming out is 1) This is a conspiracy site. Therefore you will have more CT minded people visiting. Those members that truely are paid individuals would not risk their cover being blown by participation in anything this confined. 2)Mark Roberts is a fairly good debunker, but he has no special knowledge. He is/was a tour guide with a good memory that pokes hole in some of the utter BS that the Truth Movement embraced as well as obnoxious tactics. Yes he forced Dylan Avery to admit to several errors in Loose Change.

Me, I select my battles. Some ideas are easy to shoot down by taking an open question stance. For example the landed elsewhere idea. Where is the plane? and Where are the people? Easy questions that can't be answered because they don't know.

Overall, the idea is a good one to finally clear the air on several points. But anyone that can answer the tough questions of what did Bush know and when are going to be subjective answers at best. Take the famous when I saw that first plane crash into the towers my first thought was what a horrible pilot. Translated from Bush-speak could mean that when he was first informed of a plane hitting WTC2, he thought it was pilot error. The exact quote is a sticking point. But only Bush knows what he meant when he said it. Thus anything stated by either side would be subjective.

Ultimately what happens if one side wins and one side loses? Do we then just point at the debate whenever a question is asked? I submited information about the physical properties of T3 Aluminum in the remaining TV Fakery thread. (page 14, i think) so now instead of saying thin aluminum (those that took in the info) now say high tensile strength but brittle aluminum and plastic instead of thin aluminum and repeat their talking points. It became word substitution instead of considering the true similarities of the metals. Had I the capacity I would make and post a video of a Louisville Slugger vs a shield made of T3 and one made of an aluminum stop sign and a steel stop sign as a demo of how strong it really is. Of course after that the question would be why didn't the plane fly right through and keep on going to Cuba or somewhere while everyone on board laughed.

Not to say that I would expect that reaction in the segregated debate, but I am sure (without naming names) some of the 9/11 thread regulars would ask that question.

After almost 6 years, the 9/11 debate is about where JFK was in 1967. Stalled. 20-40 years from now, we might have something like Stone's JFK to stir up the public opinion. But frankly, I think we will have deeper subjects and other tragedies that hold our focus. As quite a few feel that we are truely one big event away from pandemonium anyways. And our individual concerns will be evasion and survival. Fortunately ATS has a nice area for that as well.

A lot of thought and hard work has went into this debate, all over the board. It seems a shame that this should be lost, for either 'side'.

I have not been in this slug fest, maybe on the fringe, but not in it. I for one would greatly enjoy a distilled accounting of the two sides.

Would it be possible for each side to draw up a white paper on this? Each group knows who is part of the core participants. Each side could make a statement on the 'talking' points of the major areas of disagreement, then exchange papers, and show rebuttals for each point. each side could site whatever source material that bolstered their points, as long as it was reliable. Each side could conclude with a statement of their overall concept of what happened just before and on 9/11.

Then simply file the work as a reference on the matter, to be available here at ATS. Both sides would be equally represented in this way. This would be better than letting all this go to waste. I am sure that there are many who would view such documentation of both sides as a treasure. And many that came late to this matter, would have research material to understand any future debating.

Some of what I have presented here would have to be tweaked, but I hope that at the least, something good can be saved from this. And all without winners or losers, just very intelligent people stating their case for the world to see.

[Edit by NGC-spelling and punctuation, and I still missed some I bet.]

[edit on 12-6-2007 by NGC2736]

Originally posted by Ahabstar
After almost 6 years, the 9/11 debate is about where JFK was in 1967. Stalled. 20-40 years from now, we might have something like Stone's JFK to stir up the public opinion.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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]

Anyways, I imagine anyone can take on my approach if they'd like. Feel free to take my introductary quote from those links, and modify them how you want. Make sure you're very clear and specific about it being a hardlined series for direct data assessment, very specific about it not being some opinion zone to gather data to be able to make matter of fact 'opinions'.



[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Here's a thought... Pretty sure it's been suggested, but a cooperatively-managed new forum where we set strict controls for member access - all welcome but irrelevant sidetracking posts will be instantly deleted, bring facts to the table or sit down, and let the facts be peer reviewed, questioned, thrashed, etc. We vote. A fact is established. And enforced. Repeated fallacies, issuing "facts" contrary to those so established will result in post-banning from that forum. Frequent and binding votes by certain and balanced core members on who wins a specific debate will be held, all opinions and reasons seen up front in the forum for all to reference. Appeals can be made via some mechanism to be ascertained. Swift but fair judgment, all normal rules of propriety apply.
A grand, representatice Democratic 9/11 experiment - screw questions, we want answers. According to some, debunker types, it'll all fizzle down to nothing in short order and have to # down for lack of anything to say. I'd like to prove that wrong.
And we have to go to all levels - motive, historical precedent, circumstantial evidence, etc. Not just the Screw Loose Change turf of tearing down straw men, and establish as firm an opinion as possible on all relevant facts and factors. Okay, ummm...

I'll let someone else take over. Nicotine crash...
It could be a model, or a failed experiment. But it would get some stuff done. I go smoke.

Post that in Board Business & Questions. I actually started writing something like it last night but decided to try to let the 2 threads work out. Didn't take too long for opinions to start flying and diverting from opposite sides. This concept in general could do some good for any polarized issue.