The ATS Issues Thread

G'day

Is there a BBcode for a pig?

For instance, I just wrote in a post that a well known scam artist & hoaxer had his "snout in the UFO trough" (I was referring to that appalling Sean David Morton who's just been busted by the feds....see the "Breaking News" forum).

I would like to have been able to add a little BBcode of a snorting pig or something similar.

Is there a code for that?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


No ATS pig smileys but how about these?

reply to post by Chadwickus


G'day Chadwickus you ripped SOB!

I remember that bizzarre giant dancing pig.....geez.....what was that all about?

Anyway, how do I copy those moving GIF's out of your post & into an image?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


easiest way is to press the quote button on that post and copy the code.

reply to post by Chadwickus


So here's to Morton.....



And here's to Escamilla!



Thanks mate

I was wondering if the Mod's or admin still do rememberthe query I posted in this post. Is there any chance someone might want to pay attention to this query?

Reposting my post here again:

This post is about mikesingh's thread The CIA/MOSSAD, AMAN/DIA did 9/11! [BASED ON KNOWN HOAXES which was moved to HOAX section. Yesterday I happen to go over the thread and analysed the reasons why the thread was moved to HOAX section. I am presenting my analysis here hoping the Mod's/ Admin's can reviews the thread again whether it was correctly judged as being a HOAX or not.

Here is my conclusion. Before that let me tell everyone I only went till page 8 as it was then the thread was moved to hoax bin so the evidence should have been posted in previous pages. I only noted rebuttals where source was given to back up their rebuttals as it should be in my opinion.

Mikesinghs claims: I have numbered each claim mentioned in OP.

Claim 1.* Who leased the WTC only seven weeks before 9/11? - Silverstein was personal friends with media baron Rupert Murdoch, former Israeli President, Ariel Sharon, as well as Benjamin Netanyahu.

Claim 2.* Who Was Leased The Retail Area Beneath The WTC? - Frank Lowy = A member of the Golani Brigade, he fought in the Israeli war of independence. Lowy steered clear of the WTC on 9/11.

Claim 3.* Who Ran Security At All Three Airports Of The “Alleged” Hijackings? = The Security company, ICTS International / Huntsleigh USA (wholly owned subsidiary) was in charge of security ops at these airports. These were owned by Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon. Both Israeli Jews. It has a mix of security experts and Israeli intelligence.

Claim 4. *Who had the contract to run security at the WTC? = Kroll Associates owned by Jules Kroll who is Jewish. Kroll was run by Jerome Hauer also Jewish whose mother is an honorary president of the Daughters of Zion movement that is one of the central Zionist organizations involved in the creation and maintenance of the State of Israel.

Claim 5. * Were Jews Forewarned Of The Attacks? - Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo, admitted that two of its employees received instant messages warning of an impeding attack 2 hours prior to the first plane hitting.

Claim 6.* out of the 4000 Israeli Jews believed to work in the trade towers, only ONE died that day.

Claim 7.* Israeli ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Forewarned. - ZIM, an Israeli company, vacated its office (10,000 square feet) in the North WTC tower a few days before 9/11, breaking its lease, losing $50,000 in the process. (Michael Dick, who was investigating Israeli spying before and after 9/11 and looking into the suspicious move, was removed from his duties by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Michael Chertoff.

Claim 8.* The Dancing Israelis. Five Israelis, were caught in multiple places filming, and cheering the attacks. These men admitted being mossad agents. Their names were Sivan & Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Schmuel, Oded Ellner, & Omer Marmari. CIA agent Robert Baer confirmed their cameras were set up BEFORE the first plane struck!

Claim 9.* Who Could Possibly Remote Control Planes Into The Towers? - Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation – remote airplane control technology. He is an Orthodox Jew. The SPC Corporation provided the flight termination system and command transmitter system, the technology that allows planes to be remote controlled should the pilots be incapacitated or the plane hijacked. So what else does the SPC Corp do?

Claim 10. * Who Quickly Shipped Off The WTC Metal Overseas? Alan D. Ratner’s Metals Management and the SIMS group. Ratner is Jewish. Over 50,000 tons of crime scene evidence steel to a Chinese company at $120 per ton; Ratner had obtained them for $70 per ton.

Claim 11. * Who Conducted The 9/11 Investigations? - Alvin K. Hellerstein Michael B. Mukasey Michael Chertoff Kenneth Feinberg Benjamin Chertoff Stephen Cauffman

Claim 12. * Who Wrote The Fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report? - Philip Zelikow (Jewish Dual Citizen of Israel).

Claim 13. * Former Italian PM says Mossad did 9/11.

Claim 14. * Why did 9/11 happen? = Netanyahu says 9/11 was “good” for Israel! The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

=============xx=============xx==========xx========
Rebuttals: of
Claim 6:
By Crauker in this post - allow me to debunk the nonsense of the one dead jew theory www.snopes.com...
Conclusion - Accurately debunked and proved claim 6 as hoax.
=============xx=============xx==========xx========
Claim 5:
in this post Crauker offers this source - www.911myths.com... - It does not say accurately whether the workers received message about location of attack as WTC or not. They use the word

"Still, the message did predict the attack, right? "Maybe" not."

and cite their source as www.rense.com... which says "Source Not Specified"
Conclusion - They may or may not have been notified about WTC but they did receive a msg. 2 hrs prior. Not debunked.
=============xx=============xx==========xx========
Claim 8:
Post by dman offers this source www.911myths.com... against Setting up the camera BEFORE 9/11 - The source posts a eyewitness account which says

"MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie."

Conclusion: The source does not claim verified proof that the camera was setup before or not, thus the camera may or may not have been planted before. Not debunked.

The above 3 are the only sourced rebuttals offered against mikesingh's 14 claims posted in the OP.
Final Conclusion: Out of 14 claims 1 debunked. Remaining 13 NOT debunked. The thread was moved to hoax section because 1 claim (Claim 6) was rebutted is my guess.

=============================================

The below rebuttals were offered against mikesingh even though they were not said in OP thus couldn't be taken into account as thread being hoax.

Unrelated OP claim1
rebuttal by wheedwhackerhttp: post regarding FAA tapes which was not cited in OP but in later post by mikesingh. wheedwhacker agrees the tapes were destroyed but states they were printed on transcript citing this source www.gwu.edu...
Conclusion - It does not tell us why the tapes were destroyed which was the original point of mike singh but since this was not cited in OP we can discount both the claims and rebuttal.

Unrelated OP claim2 rebuttal by Swampfox46_1999 in this post . This user shows rebuttal source under mikesingh's name "no passenger manifests " which mikesingh did not said at all in any of his posts on the thread.
Conclusion: Rebuttal discredited as was not claimed by mikesingh.
=============================================

As we can see out of 14 claims only 1 claim was proven as Hoax, so is it enough to move the entire thread into Hoax section? Perhaps I am mistaken in my analysis, if so I hope my mistake can be corrected.

reply to post by December_Rain


the staff discussion on that thread took place when the thread was initially posted and the end result was that it should be moved to the hoax forum with an admin note regarding the reasoning. As the reason stated is still valid, the staff sees no need to move the thread out of the hoax forum. As the note states, the research is based on some known hoaxes. It doesn't say all points are based on hoaxes, just some.

reply to post by Crakeur


Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate your input in making it clear. The instructions left on the thread stated on known "Hoaxes" which implied to me there was more than 1 hoax the reason I raised this query. But it's clear to me now that the thread was moved into Hoax section because 1 claimed was proven as Hoax and yes I agree the claim was found as Hoax. Thank you once again .

[edit on 7-3-2010 by December_Rain]

G'day

I just posted this in the current thread about establishing alterntive websites......It occured to me I should also post it here.

_____________________________________

I can state for a fact that ATS members establish alternative websites & then chat you up to recruit you to their alternative site.

It happened to me very recently.

The member is still on ATS on a daily basis.

I think it's very bad form.

Attention Mods:

I sent you an alert about this previously & I received no response, so let me know if you want more details.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I did not know this thread exists for this sole purpose, now that I know, it shall be saved...

Below is the link to the locked post in question and a copy of my post that was deleted...


Dr. Dino Locked Up For 10 Years


And here was my post within that thread...

Originally posted by Jugg
The almighty architect (The IRS) has finally punished this douchebag.

That should make him stfu.

WOW! ATS YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!

A little over a week ago the owner of ATS said these words:

I'm Pissed!! (political trolls and hacks)

If you post on ATS as a political fool engaging in gratuitous ideological insults, you will find no favor or sympathy from our staff.

and then later skepticoverlord said...(*)

I'm Pissed!! (political trolls and hacks)

"For the majority of our members who care, please keep us informed of these idiot parrots of ideological canned insults that pollute our web site.

Now I want everyone to realize those words quoted above were posted in bold as posted above.... Those words are from the OWNER of this website... And here at the beginning of this post, at the very top of this thread, that can only be locked by ATS Personal... everyone can see this thread starts with a gratuitous ideological insult... AND ATS SUPPORTS THIS!!!

And then, and then… ATS walks around saying , "you will find no favor or sympathy from our staff"... What complete nonsense... ATS has proven they do in FACT favor and sympathize with gratuitous ideological insults if they go against their own personal belief systems. One needs to look no further then this post... ATS LOCKED THIS POST DOWN! And then the staff here at ATS gets to walk around holier then thou when you ARE the ROOT CAUSE!!!

This locked down post in light of the OWNERS post, that is linked above, is an embarrassment.

As someone who is part of this community I demand that ATS explain their position when it comes to this type of nonsense! IT’S one thing to allow someone to get way with saying something like that.... It quite another to lock a thread down that proves ATS wants you to use
gratuitous ideological insults This posts demands ATS condones it completely… And while this locked down thread exists… they then get to walk around condemning others for the very thing they are teaching their members, that gratuitous ideological insult... will be rewarded!.

How can ATS explain this hypocrisy? Because its your site and you make the rules? If there is a person whose message you don't like, and some calls him a “douche bag” you then lock that message down for the whole world to read the moment they some into this thread? Yet you say you don’t condone the very thing you are condoning, rewarding, and celebrating… How can this be defended???


--Charles Marcello


(*) added from another post in response to a fellow ATS member.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by littlebunny]

reply to post by littlebunny


Hi littlebunny,

Firstly a sincere thank you posting the issue here within this thread, rather than the thread provided by your link.
Helps to keep any threads clearer of any possible Off-Topic stuff, and also allows any issues to be addressed more openly so anyone reading (more people would be likely to read this thread as opposed to the other one linked) can see what any *rationale* might be.

Just from my perspective on it (given I was the Mod who Off-Topiced your replies within it):


- The OP in question was posted on 'posted on 21-1-2007 @ 12:14 PM, over 3 years ago.
Absolutely an insult is still an insult, however, just from my own perspective something posted over 3 years ago might otherwise slide. However, I have gone back and editted those two foul words from the OP.


- I haven't *warned* the OP as such though. Why? Well, again, that OP was over 3 years old. Also, the poster, Jugg, hasn't been back to ATS since 'Last Visit: August 11, 2008 '. If they were still a current active Member then perhaps some further action may have been warranted.


- Why wasn't it editted out to begin with? Even if it was over 3 years ago?
I have checked through the Complaint Logs in relation to that Member - and show no Complaints have been sent to staff in relation to that post of theirs.

We were therefore not made aware of it via the Complaint/Alerts feature. It is possible - given the size of this site and the sheer volume of threads/posts that get made, that Staff may actually have not even seen the thread in question. Hence I guess one of the benefits of Members being able to Alert staff to such threads...it allows us to be more aware of whatever issues there may be and thus able to address them.


- The thread itself was effectively buried under 3 months worth of other threads (reply prior to yours was posted on 22-12-2009 @ 05:18 AM), so really, it only popped up on Staff *radar* again when you replied to it and bumped it back up out of the mists of time...and in doing so garnered complaints from Member/s alerting the content of your reply as being Off-Topic.



Hope that in some way helps provide some answer to your question. If not, please let me/Staff know.


Cheers,
ALIEN

reply to post by alien


alien, I thank you... I understood the date issue, and I'm happy to see you saw the other issue. Removing those "offensive" words is all anyone could ask for...


--Charles Marcello

reply to post by whatukno


Could it be possible to show some examples so that this would show ATS members that are about to post one or yet prevent it from happening??
just a sugestion NSG52

reply to post by NorthStargal52


Easy enough. Just check out the Terms and Conditions prior to posting, and you'll be gold.

OK, I'm going to keep this in general terms since I know that you all don't like to get into the specifics on this subject. I logged on today and saw that I had a u2u (not all that uncommon), but this one was from a member who informed me that someone on my 'friends' list had been banned. Of course, curiosity being what it is in humans, I went to the banned members profile, and went through their posts for the last week to see what could have caused the banning. What has me curious is that there is not one 'Off Topic Post' removal, not one 'Extreme T & C Violation' removal, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that this member did anything to warrant banning... So my question is, how is this possible???

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


It is standard practice that staff do not discuss banned members.

reply to post by masqua


I realize that, and accept that, and can see the good reasons and logic behind it, but I was asking a broad question about banning in general. How is it possible for someone to be banned and there be no evidence of T & C violations to back up said banning.

I have not, nor will not bring up the specific member that caused my curiousity on the subject.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


The "evidence" supporting a ban won't always be visible to the public. Bans are 100% of the time a result of infractions, generally repeatedly, of the Terms and Conditions.

Your answer is in here.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


There are numerous ways that one can be banned without it showing on the board. Abusive u2u's. U2u's are covered by the T&C as well. Also stalking other members will get you banned. If you check the T&C you will see that there are many ways that a member can break the T&C without it showing on the board.

This is a good example of how some members are. They portray themselves well on the board but behind the scenes they think because of their popularity that they can do what they wish. Wrong. I don't know who you're talking about but we've gone through this too many times to count.

reply to post by yeahright

reply to post by intrepid


Thank you both for your replies. It was helpful. I hadn't thought about u2u's, but I am aware that the T & C apply there as well. Thanks for the 'enlightenment'...