ATS Was set up by Debunkers = The Greatest conspiracy of all time !!!

Catch a mod lying and post removed...I feel my theories have been vindicated. What a joke.


*Permanently Exits Thread*

And here folks, is fine specimen, in its natural habitat, that represents everything that has gone wrong with "9/11 Truth."

These species have evolved a state of mind that is indistinguishable from the worst kind of religious zealotry and racial intolerance. Anyone not expressing ideas compatible with their own is the immediate target of scorn and ridicule. Those who opt to step into the habitat of the "truthers" and exchange words need to do so with caution, as any statement may be twisted into that which was not intended, resulting in insults, unfounded accusations, and lies so as to instill a sense of self-worth in the specimen.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

And here folks, is fine specimen, in its natural habitat, that represents everything that has gone wrong with "9/11 Truth."

These species have evolved a state of mind that is indistinguishable from the worst kind of religious zealotry and racial intolerance. Anyone not expressing ideas compatible with their own is the immediate target of scorn and ridicule.

That is the problem I have with the 9/11 truth movement, it appears to have transformed from a movement of truth into a movement of religion. Telling a truther 9/11 was not a false flag is like trying to tell a priest that God does not exist.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Telling a truther 9/11 was not a false flag is like trying to tell a priest that God does not exist.

It doesn't even have to go that far.

Trying to explain to a "9/11 Truther" the implausibility of "conspiracies" involving hundreds of people and that there may be alternate conspiratorial explanations for many aspects of the events leading up to, and including the attacks is akin pointing out inaccuracies/contradictions in the bible to a Christian.

The totality of the "official story" has many holes and many more omissions. However, the totality of madness that has emanated from "9/11 Truth," and the abundance of holes and lies makes the official story "appear" credible by comparison. Conspiracy theorists who apply skeptical critical thought to such matters, often wonder why (rhetorical question) it has evolved so.

It's because people rely on others to form their opinions.

What more can I say?

We are all guilty of it to some degree or another, even I am I catch myself doing it everyday.

If people were motivated to spend the time and effort using critical thinking skills, we wouldn't have 'belief systems' and religions and all the other organizations or institutions that exist. There would be no need for them.

In a world rich in education saves tons of work hours by avoiding all of these needless problems and obstacles. We would probably be far more prosperous in all respects.

A simple example of how we could work towards fixing major issues is by teaching others how to separate speculation from knowledge. Once people can see the difference between valid speculation and actually knowing something as a fact, we wouldn't have 90% of these debates in the first place.

reply to post by Desolo


You are not going to hell?
Do you have any proof ?

Guarded and humorless, ATS has all the charm of a Military Installation reaching out to the GP.
The name abovetopsecret is a military clearance. I think ATS also has access to many of the secrets that went down along with building 7. NSA, CIA, FBI and that lot. Truthers are a bother and squashed frequently enough, I see a pattern. Covering your arse?

Say what you want - This is what makes it one of the most interesting sites on the web.
ATS has a mother-lode of Military Specialists and Law Enforcement, apparently either active or retired. Lots of these are fascinating mega-man hero types with great fields of knowledge outside the norm, survival, weaponry, WW3 (?), information with top secret above top secret and perhaps cosmic clearance. Many sit quietly until something strikes them. A few always have something to say.

In the short time I have enjoyed my membership I appreciate and respect these men's ideas, thoughts and contributions where ever I see them. Many speak from a position of knowledge and experience with the war weary expertise of a veteran.
I learn things from a perspective I would not get otherwise because these are secretive men, trained not to chatter endlessly in public forums. Most of their responses are brief, pointed and meaningful.

IMO (along with some nerdy, tireless GOP political implants) ATS is staffed and frequented by these higher ups for a sort of a information gathering sport and as a means to observe and to be on the look out for new ideas and inventions that might have military applications.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

This is what makes ATS cutting edge and way ahead of the curve.
These are men (and women) who would recognize a new discovery, invention or national threat even if it is in obscure or technical presentation.

Oddly enough I find the occasional spiritual, feminine, climate sensitive, religious, or vegetarian moderators show up to throw a monkey wrench in my HE-MAN MILITARY SPECIAL -OPS theory. Still though pacifist, gay and environmental friendly mods replies and threads stick out like sore thumbs. I figure these people must be "plants" to make the website appear overall more "civilian" and less "armed services."

Even many posters, members and contributors of ATS are knowledgeable. I have found people who I can tell are experts, immersed in their subject be it the bible, rocket propulsion, meteorology, CGI or any number of other areas. They are always interesting to read.

It crossed my mind ATS might be those agencies, that help to reel in and confiscate UFO footage that might be an embarrassment to the government. Same government that says they are not real and not being investigated. Maybe a first alert to some of these sighting and reports and videos. HAARP, the dark side of the moon, and a hollow inner earth are also subjects quickly ridiculed so of course, I think they must be covering something up with regard to all of those too.
Nothing stays "real, genuine or absolute" for long around here. I notice after a certain amount of vital and animated discussion almost everything is debunked or lost to the back pages. Maybe we are a fickle audience?

A few UFO videos and threads are mysteriously pulled..."obvious hoaxes" they say, but I always wonder ...Was that some real footage that had to be yanked from the public domain?
At least I can say I saw it here first.
To me it only adds to the intrigue of the website and adds to the credibility of the ideas thrown around for discussion.

Peace to all.

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
"ATS Was set up by Debunkers"

Good, if there weren't debunkers we'd all still be living in the Dark Ages.

Debunkers never contribute anything, only their motivation to prove untrue, anything lying outside their own personal beliefs.

Skeptics on the other hand are needed. There's actually a different between a debunker and a skeptic.. A skeptic is willing to not let his own personal beliefs get in the way of finding the truth.

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
Debunking is a vital part of gaining knowledge, otherwise every ludicrous claim would be considered fact.

Yea, people are sheep and would believe Santa Claus if we didn't have debunkers to prove it untrue..

Like most truthers or conspirisists, i want to know the actual truth. somethings are "DEBATABLE". People who flip pictures around and come up with the normal "inside the box" explanations are not partaking in a debate. Those skeptics (who are just debunkers) will, even though you provide them with evidence, will never budge on anything, they say they are "skeptics" which tends to mean no matter what you say or present them with will happily sit upon the fence and remain a skeptic.

i like people who say something is debatable because they will engage with you and the discussion. a skeptic will say something like, "yeah i see where your coming from but im still not convinced", a debunker will provide a mass of hollow evidence to why they think your chatting sh*t, they will attack your grammar, call you a crackpot or no matter what evidence you provide, just revert to banging in lots of smileys and mock you. Rarely have i indulged in a debate on ATS, where someone has said, i didnt believe this until i saw this...article, picture or piece of evidence.

You must have been looking to join a "club". The nature of this type of site is opposite of like minded people.

I think ATS also has access to many of the secrets that went down along with building 7. NSA, CIA, FBI and that lot.

If only we did!

I have to say that after being on staff for many years, I'm certainly not privy to any such info that we, as a site possess. Instead, ATS' knowledge is only as deep as that of the membership.

As you pointed out, there are many members here who have backgrounds that provide a lot of information on these subjects. Along with that though, comes more facts and professional opinions that can poke holes in deeply held beliefs.

In all these years, I've never seen anything that indicates ATS being set up for anything more than providing a place to discuss these topics openly (conspiracy theories). Most of the staff differ on what they believe and don't believe, so there is no such thing as a consensus opinion...

Oddly enough, just a look at the ATS site's featured articles should show you just how much the site DOES put forth the conspiracy angle on many issues. Would an organization set up to debunk have such articles? I doubt it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Telling a truther 9/11 was not a false flag is like trying to tell a priest that God does not exist.

It doesn't even have to go that far.

Trying to explain to a "9/11 Truther" the implausibility of "conspiracies" involving hundreds of people and that there may be alternate conspiratorial explanations for many aspects of the events leading up to, and including the attacks is akin pointing out inaccuracies/contradictions in the bible to a Christian.

The manhattan project involved 140000+ people for approx 10 years and the secret was well kept until warfare detonation. Would a 9/11 false flag involve so many? Don't think the govt can and has kept, successfully, secrets from the citizenry? My point is, you cant accuse people of being closed minded when being radically obtuse yourself. Furthermore, siding with the establishment in such a blind way does scream cointel.

Things that make you go hum...

edit on 12-7-2011 by Snoopy1978 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
The manhattan project involved 140000+ people for approx 10 years and the secret was well kept until warfare detonation.

140,000 people? It was more like a few hundred, and just a handful of years. Additionally, it was a weapons project during a time of war where the participants had a "patriotic" incentive for secrecy... very different type of secret.

Would a 9/11 false flag involve so many?

Given some of the theories presented by factions of "9/11 Truth," certainly thousands. And if so, it was not a war-time weapons project, but (according to "9/11 Truth") a conspiracy of mass murder. The incentive for secrecy, and ability to enforce such incentives, for such a large number of potential participants is difficult to comprehend.

Furthermore, siding with the establishment in such a blind way does scream cointel.

No one is "siding" with anyone.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Actually it was allot more than a few hundred people over a few years, it started in 1939 and involved a good hundred pull thousand people with a massive budget. It is considered the biggest compartmentalised black project in history (well at least the biggest we know about)

just saying....

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
It is considered the biggest compartmentalised black project in history

But only a few hundred actually knew the intended endgame result.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yup I’ll agree with that, like I said it was highly compartmentalised and therefore it is reasonable to assume only a few hundred knew what they were building and even fewer knew the target.

The Manhattan Project is revered by 9/11 conspiracy theorists because they like to point at it jump up and down like an excited child and scream “compartmentalisation works, just look at the Manhattan project”. And with this they unwisely assume that they have debunked the criticism that for the 9/11 conspiracies to work hundreds of thousands of people would a have to had knowledge of it. The problem is that the conspiracy theorists “9/11 false flag” is drastically different to other real life black projects such as the Manhattan Project or the Oxcart and Aquatone projects in that they involved the development of technology that was deemed vital to national security at the time.

If you spend just a fraction of a seconding thinking critically about the compartmentalisation of the “9/11 false flag” then it quickly becomes apparent that it would not have worked, too many people would know the end game or realise their involvement. First you have to have the teams of controlled demolition guys in the know, who as soon as the buildings come tumbling down are all going to come out screaming murder because they installed demolitions in the building. Then you also have to the hundreds of officials who are going to be onside and the police and fire services who are going to cover up the evidence and stick to the official story. We also have the people on the panes, if they were hijacked then you have to get guys who are going to act as “Manchurian candidates” or find 4 planes full of people to crash remotely, along the way the airlines have to be involved. The list goes on and on, they also have to create a terrorist group were none of the members will speak out, you have fake the families of the hijackers and some of the victims. In addition to all of this you have the guys who are going to be in the know the politicians, businessmen, intelligence officials and the planners the ones issuing the orders and the people who have the orders handed to them who with hindsight are going to speak out.

The list of problems with the idea the reason a conspiracy as massive as 9/11 has remained mostly covered up with nobody speaking out is because of “compartmentalisation” is just pathetic. It is a convenience for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists to say “compartmentalisation” because it briefly gets around one of the critiques of their theories. Much in the same way they protest that Al’Qa’ida is a CIA front again it gets the around a stumbling block in their conspiracies, bringing the one size fits all conspiracy of the NWO also helps with other stumbling blocks. I disapprove of these theories, I see them as lazy and promoting ignorance by no means to i believe any of that rubbish they have fed to us in the official story but the conspiracy theories are doing no better. In the absence of a alternative narrative to that now infamous day in September 11 2001, the official story will have to do until the conspiracy movement get’s its act together.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Much in the same way they protest that Al’Qa’ida is a CIA front again it gets the around a stumbling block in their conspiracies, bringing the one size fits all conspiracy of the NWO also helps with other stumbling blocks.

That's not so far off the mark, at least in so far as bin Laden, who was at least former CIA asset, may have directed the operations at the behest of his handlers -if- he always was a CIA asset. It's at least a more plausible conspiracy, not out-of-step with the kinds of things that happened with Iran/Contra.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You see there is actually very little evidence to assume that Bin Laden was a former CIA asset other than the fact he was active in Afghanistan at the same time as operation cyclone was in full swing. Under operation cyclone up to one hundred thousand Mujahedeen were trained or supported, mostly through the Pakistanis but also by the British and to an even lesser extent the CIA SAD units. During the 1980’s Bin Laden was a small time logistics and financer, if he did get training under operation cyclone he was one of thousands of other fighters. He did not have a need however for financial assistance, most of the assistance the CIA provided under operation cyclone was financial, and he could fund himself and indeed did so in setting up the network of stopover homes in Pakistan.

One also has remember the ideology of Bin Laden, he despised western intervention in the affairs of Islamic states, for him the soviets were just as deplorable as the Americas. This is evident in the early 1990’s after Saudi Arabia accepted America protection form Saddam over his “army of Mujahedeen”, a move which solidified his hatred of the house of Saud, the Americans and Saddam. If I ever get round to it I might take the time to create a thread attempting to debunk this myth that Bin Laden was a CIA asset, I understand where it comes form but for me I just can’t believe such a thing.

Regardless, even if one was to assume that he was indeed a former CIA asset during the 1980’s, it would not have gone on after 1980. For that to be true then we would also have to accept that the entire body of Al’Qa’ida was CIA run and that all attacks between 1996 and 2001 were at the behest of the CIA that would include the attack on the USS Cole and Embassy bombings. Further to this it would involve accepting that the entire body of Al’Qa’ida at its core was a CIA front of some description and that is just not workable. It also assumes that some shadowy figure planed all of this right through form the invasion of Afghanistan right through to 9/11 as part of some grand sinister plan. For me the entire conspiracy just does not work, I think in regards to 9/11 the conspiracy movement have to go back to the drawing board and come up with some real original and plausible alternatives rather than just variations of the same theory over and over again.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
You see there is actually very little evidence to assume that Bin Laden was a former CIA asset other than the fact he was active in Afghanistan at the same time as operation cyclone was in full swing.

I saw the (1988?) 60 Minutes episode on Bin Laden where a darkened-face CIA agent discussed Bin Laden's involvement since before the Mujahideen was an official resistance, which was supported by interviews with Bin Laden himself. This is one of the (many) 60 Minutes episodes from the era no longer available.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I have not seen that video, I do not doubt its existence however I have had a quick look on the internet and I have not found it. Without seeing the video I cannot comment further on the validity of that video and alter my option or challenge your opinion based on it. If you have seen evidence that leads you to hold the believe that Bin Laden was a CIA asset, then fair enough, but as I have not seen that evidence and seen evidence that contradicts such a belief I cannot comment further on it.

It is a shame that these videos are no longer available.