9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by AgentSmith No not really, I'm just curious how you think - I was hoping you could either verify or deny my theories. It's interesting to see what the underlying psycology is of people in general, and what motivates them to write/say what they do. You make an interesting study piece, but if you don't want to co-operate with my research then that's fine - you don't have to be so jumpy! [edit on 24-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

no. i think that was an ad hominem attack and should cost you points. is there protocol on how i should report you to the mods?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Didn't I tell you? We are shizophrenic, so don't throw my other personality at me. So, you are saying that all the members here that my be reading your "postings" are not worthy of the respect of showing decent grammar, punctuation and spelling

C'mon man this board is not exactly the bastion of 'proper' grammer and spealing now is it? Do you call out every grammer mistake from every member? I don't think so. It seems to me that that is reserved for members who might actually have something to say that might, OMG, actualy convince other people that the official story is a lie. Seems to me this site is becoming a conspiricy de-bunking site instead of a conspiricy discusion site. Why don't you just adminstrate instead of antaganize? [edit on 24/1/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Dude, I am an administrator, but even with the admin panel that I have to misuse, I can't even give me a warn!

As far as an ad hominy grits attack, I don't think I did that. As far as answering your question, my other personalities told me to keep it simple, which is why I gave you the short answer of, no. Short enough - again?

that was a reply to agent smith. so what rule is it breaking to post the debunk?

Which is: 9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies » 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon » Not anything else, not the various members or staff, and certainly not ad hominem, hominy, or any other grain type... Thanks.

There are terms and conditions that govern that. It is clearly written that you do not start threads in reference to other threads. There, Mr. Demanding. Is that good enough? Yes, you may report me to the complaint section. There is a button on your page called Gripes, Complaints. Whack the crap outta that one and bitch away! You can make it a little quicker by sending an u2u straight to either Skeptic Overlord or Simon Gray, two of the three owners of the board. The other owner is a tad busy right now, what with surgery tomorrow and all. I am simply a back-up administrator, but the primary one has just come out of his own surgery. ANOK. Thank you for your input. We are glad to see that your sense of humor is out to lunch, keeping this other guy's sense of humor company.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

Originally posted by AgentSmith No not really, I'm just curious how you think - I was hoping you could either verify or deny my theories. It's interesting to see what the underlying psycology is of people in general, and what motivates them to write/say what they do. You make an interesting study piece, but if you don't want to co-operate with my research then that's fine - you don't have to be so jumpy! [edit on 24-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

no. i think that was an ad hominem attack and should cost you points. is there protocol on how i should report you to the mods?

Well some of them are in the room anyway but if you wish to complain about me then do this: * Click on the Gripe/Idea button on the top menu * Type in 'Complaint about AgentSmith' for the subject * Type your complaint * Hit Send/Submit or whatever it is Hope that helps! [edit on 24-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle i can't believe this thread hasn't been deleted yet. it has been THOROUGHLY debunked. i have a question for the mods because i don't want to overstep any of the numerous rules. can we start another thread with the content from the debunk to this thread if we don't link the "external source"?

forget about the mods. just be spock-like, and you won't get in 'trouble'. keep it simple, stick to the main points, and don't get distracted by personal attacks, don't make personal attacks(unless you include yourself in an attack on the human condition, nudge, nudge), and don't think you need to answer distractive arguments. seperate the wheat from the chaffe without 'dulling your blade'. edited to remove a cascade of syrupy compliments to thomas crowne. [edit on 24-1-2006 by billybob]

Ok, guys, I gotta go to bed. It's been a joy hanging out with you all. You are wonderful, really. Try the veal, it's great. Peace and shift keys out.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne There are terms and conditions that govern that. It is clearly written that you do not start threads in reference to other threads. There, Mr. Demanding. Is that good enough? Yes, you may report me to the complaint section. There is a button on your page called Gripes, Complaints. Whack the crap outta that one and bitch away! You can make it a little quicker by sending an u2u straight to either Skeptic Overlord or Simon Gray, two of the three owners of the board. The other owner is a tad busy right now, what with surgery tomorrow and all. I am simply a back-up administrator, but the primary one has just come out of his own surgery.

i meant agentsmith not you. and i was actually being ironic anyway. well that is a stupid rule. this thread has been debunked to all hell and it is an utter slap in the face of truth that this site could let it still exist and not allow the posting of the debunk.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne You may ask nothing until you learn where the shift key is.

Roflmao

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle i can't believe this thread hasn't been deleted yet. it has been THOROUGHLY debunked. i have a question for the mods because i don't want to overstep any of the numerous rules. can we start another thread with the content from the debunk to this thread if we don't link the "external source"?

So where do you get that this thread has been THOROUGHLY debunked from? There may be a few errors in the initial post, but that changes very little. Boy another new member as of January 19, 2006… One with an obvious agenda to remove this thread… So why is it so important that this thread be silenced? You would almost think that you have an investment in the opposing theory… I have news for you, even IF this thread had been debunked, which it has not, they still would not remove it. You can look all through this site and find threads that have for a FACT been thoroughly debunked, and they are still there. If I were you I would get warm and fuzzy with this thread because I think there is a 99.999% chance its not going anywhere… Of course I am not a mod nor owner, but from the time I have spent here, I would be HIGHLY shocked if it were to happen…

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle i meant agentsmith not you. and i was actually being ironic anyway. well that is a stupid rule. this thread has been debunked to all hell and it is an utter slap in the face of truth that this site could let it still exist and not allow the posting of the debunk.

the idea is that 'they' don't censor 'us', and 'we ' don't censor 'them'. truth is up to the reader.

if the rules do not allow a thread to debunk this thread (WHICH IS CLEARLY A DECPTIVE HACKJOB) to be posted then they clearly ARE censoring what is said. since of course this is the most popular thread in ATS history, if the goal here was truly a free exchange of ideas, they should have no problem with the debunk being posted. even if they have to bend the "rules" to allow it.

Originally posted by defcon5 So where do you get that this thread has been THOROUGHLY debunked from? There may be a few errors in the initial post, but that changes very little. Boy another new member as of January 19, 2006… One with an obvious agenda to remove this thread… So why is it so important that this thread be silenced? You would almost think that you have an investment in the opposing theory… I have news for you, even IF this thread had been debunked, which it has not, they still would not remove it. You can look all through this site and find threads that have for a FACT been thoroughly debunked, and they are still there. If I were you I would get warm and fuzzy with this thread because I think there is a 99.999% chance its not going anywhere… Of course I am not a mod nor owner, but from the time I have spent here, I would be HIGHLY shocked if it were to happen…

yeah i'd be shocked too. especially since this site owes it's popularity to this thread. obviously they have a strooooooong interest in keeping the debunk the hell out of here. if you have not left your bubble of this site long enough to read the debunk that is not my fault. but yes....it has been THOROUGHLY debunked. the LEAST they could do is allow it to be posted.

Why don't you discuss it in the thread like everyone else has had to the last few years? Do you expect them to make some new rules now you're here your majesty? Nothing is stopping you making your own thread with your own original work in it attempting to debunk the CH thread. You will notice that this thread started with CH's own, original work - and as such one would expect the same in return. Just make sure when quoting external and internal sources you use the correct tags, don't over quote and credit them accordingly, also follow the general rules and you should be OK. [edit on 24-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Good morning! I have to weigh in on this a little, and it is more in the line of the concept of debunking. Debunking is a word we have all used, especially me, but are we ever really sure something is debunked? Back in "the Day", people would have been downright offended had it been suggested that Pearl Harbor was allowed to be attacked for political reasons, and the same goes for the Maine. It was until a good while later that information surfaced that let us know that this is exactly what happened. When I was an MP, I learned something about people. You take 10 people and have them witness an event and you will have 10 versions of the event that are different than each other. Out of the 10, you are likely to not even have one that is true to the event. This is certainly true when talking about something that occurs quickly and unexpectedly. The point is, not even eye-witnesses are to be trusted in this particular incident. Another thing I learned is that things don't happen as one might expect them to. This is one thing that always has to be remembered at traffic accidents. It is amazing how things in motion move, and how objects affect one another. What one might think is the only logical explanation might be the one explanation that is farthest from the truth. I guess if I had to wrap this overly-lengthy rant up in a sentence, I guess I'd have to suggest that it is unwise to argue from a difinitive standpoint when discussing topics such as this one. Especially when there is always the chance that sinister forces were behind it. Darn, that was two sentences. Sorry.

no agent smith. i was told i cannot post a thread that is a direct reply to another thread. this OP of this thread is very detailed, long, involved, and EXTREMELY deceptive. not only in content but in presentation/phrasing/wording, virtually everything about it. joe quinn's debunk is thorough, accurate, and very detailed. it deserves it's own thread. there is no legitimate reason that we shouldn't be able to post a thread for it other than it outright blows the lid off of this site's most popular thread so obviously that is not in the best interest of the admins of this site. however; bending the rules to allow this debunk to be posted as it's own thread would be in the best interest of truth and open discussion.

why should joe quinn have to post it? people post and discuss articles authored by others all the time. that is the point of this site is it not? this article is particularly relevant since it is a direct response to the most popular thread on this site. all i am asking is to be able to make a thread with it. the behind the scene politics involved with you & Jadczyk should be a non-issue in this regard.

he focuses on "disinformation" because that is exatly what catherders post is! he fully exposes the deceptive nature of it which renders catherders post moot. yet this deception continues to do serious damage to the truth movement and quite honestly i attribute this to your relentless marketing of it. so.....can i post a thread with a snippet and a link while we attempt to contact joe quinn and come to a more substantial agreement about posting the whole thing?

i don't know about all the search engine tricks etc but i DO know that this thread pops up in virtually every search about the pentagon you can make. fair enough though. i'll try contacting them.

hmph. well it's quite unfortunate because as stated, and shown beautifully in detail by joe quinn, this post is PURE unadulturated deception. we've got enough deception about 9/11 coming out of the mouths of mainstream media and this administration. catherders post has been particularly damaging to the movement because it comes from a "conspiracy" site.