"Old ATS" and 9/11?

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


dont know why but i cant get that link to work.

gutted.

on another note this has got me thinking....

I know there is the wiki-page, but that seems to have been well vandalized i think a little (the criticism section is the largest) but has anyone ever gone of and created a "history of ATS" kind of thing?

EDIT:

Just noticed that you fixed the link.

Can i just say that....



We need this back!! or at the very least start a petition to force the site owners to have this as a avatar.

Also do you have any other stuff from that period or around 9/11 specifically.

The internet archive wayback machine shows a whole forum for ''World Trade Center/Pentagon Attack".

9-23-2001 internet archive wayback machine

Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot
Posted By SimonGray on Sunday 14th April, 2002 @ 00:59 (Read: 337) Printable Version

zion writes: -- War Against Terrorism Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.

She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."

In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments.

"The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questions the president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason."

In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair elections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."

She suggested that the administration was serving the interests of a Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which employs a number of high-ranking former government officials from both parties. Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father -- is an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has enriched Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military contractor partly owned by the firm.

Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"

During her five terms in office, McKinney has often given voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East. She defied the State Department to investigate assertions that international sanctions are brutalizing innocent Iraqis.

With her comments concerning Sept. 11, McKinney, 47, seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially -- or entirely -- to blame for last year's attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people.

"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."

None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her allegations, but a few said they are familiar with the theories.

"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), who quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely held view" among lawmakers.

Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's penchant for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is simply trying to impress her constituents.

"She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he said, "and she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility in her statements."

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said the Georgia Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate with her political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP challengers.

"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said. "People always want to hear a political conspiracy theory."

Posted By SimonGray on Sunday 3rd March, 2002 @ 18:32 (Read: 736) Printable Version

Clive writes: -- War Against Terrorism Were America’s leaders negligent in defending the country after the first attack on Sept. 11?

Serious questions have been raised about the response of this nation’s leaders to the first attack on the Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, all from the public record.

Why did the military fail to scramble planes over Wash ington when the second explosion at the World Trade Center made it obvious that that a terrorist attack was under way?
Why are there so many conflicting “official explanations” of the failure? At 9:06 a.m. on that fateful day, New York police broad cast that “this was a terrorist attack—notify the Pentagon,” the New York Daily News reported.”

Were America’s leaders negligent in defending the country after the first attack on Sept. 11?

Serious questions have been raised about the response of this nation’s leaders to the first attack on the Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, all from the public record.

Why did the military fail to scramble planes over Wash ington when the second explosion at the World Trade Center made it obvious that that a terrorist attack was under way?
Why are there so many conflicting “official explanations” of the failure? At 9:06 a.m. on that fateful day, New York police broad cast that “this was a terrorist attack—notify the Pentagon,” the New York Daily News reported.”

American Forces Press Service quoted a Navy officer inside the Pentagon:

“We were watching the World Trade Center on television. When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, ‘the World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We’re sitting in a close second.’ ”

Nearly an hour after the New York attack, terrorists crashed their plane into the Pentagon as military planes that were supposed to protect D.C. idled at Andrews Air Force Base—10 miles from the nation’s capital.

Despite the warning from New York, Newsday quoted Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, a Pentagon spokes man:

“The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday’s event anyone would have expected anything like that here.”

How could the Pentagon be “not aware?” The London Sunday Telegraph reported on Sept. 14: “Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert—Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war—and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington, D.C.”

Many in the mainstream media reported that Andrews has no fighter planes or role in protecting Wash ington but The San Diego Union-Tribune got it right on Sept. 12: “Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes. . . . But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon.”

NBC Nightly News reported on Sept. 11: “It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the D.C. National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a—a protective cover over Washington.” While the mainstream media mostly ignored the fact that Andrews Air Force Base is supposed to protect Washington,

USA Today gave conflicting reports on Sept. 17: “Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One . . . had no fighters assigned to it.” And in a later edition: “The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force base . . . but those planes were not on alert and not deployed.”

Posted By SimonGray on Tuesday 11th June, 2002 @ 20:08 (Read: 431) Printable Version

levitationjunkie writes: -- War Against Terrorism WASHINGTON – A veteran FBI agent Thursday charged that corruption inside the bureau derailed investigations that could have averted the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11. His lawyers said the FBI had evidence that the World Trade Center was a possible terrorist target.

WASHINGTON – A veteran FBI agent Thursday charged that corruption inside the bureau derailed investigations that could have averted the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11. His lawyers said the FBI had evidence that the World Trade Center was a possible terrorist target.
In a memo written 91 days before Sept. 11, Special Agent Robert G. Wright Jr. warned that Americans would die as a result of the FBI's failure to investigate terrorists living in this country.

Wright went public at a press conference even though FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered him to stay in Chicago and threatened him with criminal prosecution if he spoke publicly about the agency's wrongdoing.

"The FBI is not protecting the American people," declared Wright at a conference sponsored by his attorneys at the public interest law firm Judicial Watch.


Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman termed Mueller’s comments Wednesday, that open criticism of him and other top FBI brass was welcome, were nothing more than "politically convenient statements."

'They Got Caught'

"They said that because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar," declared Klayman, referring to a memo written by FBI legal counsel Coleen Rowley. She alleged in a memo that the FBI could have prevented the 9-11 attacks and that Mueller, though new to the job, has covered up for senior FBI officials.

Klayman said Mueller’s reorganization plan announced this week was nothing more than "icing over a stale cake."

Wright produced a sworn statement relating to an FBI agent who refused to record a telephone conversation during the meeting with a suspect in an FBI criminal investigation related to terrorism.

Muslim Agent 'Does Not Record Another Muslim'!

The agent in question is quoted in two sworn statements, one by Wright and the other by retired agent Barry Carmody, as refusing to record the conversation because "a Muslim does not record another Muslim."

Carmody’s statement said that refusal "may have negatively impacted the conduct of the FBI’s investigation. I informed FBI headquarters twice about this incident in 1998 and again in 2000, but I am aware of no disciplinary action being taken against him in this matter."

Wright, whose whistle-blowing was first reported by NewsMax.com over two months ago, urged the Bush administration and Congress to "consider removing terrorism investigative matters from the hands of the FBI. For reasons of consistency, reliability and national security, these responsibilities should be assigned to a new federal anti-terrorism agency."

The assets of the Drug Enforcement Agency could be used to fund an anti-terrorism agency, he said. "Simply switch the terrorism responsibilities of the FBI with the nation’s illegal drug responsibilities.

FBI's Gross Incompetence

"Knowing what I know," Wright continued, "I can confidently say that until the investigative responsibilities for terrorism are transferred from the FBI, I will not feel safe."

The agent, stationed in Chicago and now demoted to "meaningless paper-pushing" work, according to Klayman, charged the FBI "cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad."

Even worse, he said, there is "virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing in the United States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against the American interests, coupled with the loss of American lives, will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves."

By phone from his law office in Chicago, Wright’s lead attorney, David Schippers, who represented the House Judiciary Committee in its impeachment of Bill Clinton, chided the FBI for dropping the ball in dealing with domestic and international radical Islamic "charities" that were laundering money on American soil through U.S. financial institutions and other channels.

Stopping Muslim Terrorism Isn't P.C.

Had the bureau not been cowed by "political correctness," Schippers said, the money for much terrorist activity "would have been cut off."

In his opening statement, Judicial Watch’s Klayman said the FBI had threatened Wright with his job if he were to go ahead and tell his story either in media statements or in a book he has been writing.

When Wright attempted to travel to Washington on his own time during the week after Sept. 11, to meet with members of Congress about the FBI’s incompetence and dereliction of duty regarding terrorism, his attorneys were threatened by the Justice Department, which oversees the bureau.

Klayman says Attorney General John Ashcroft should be required to answer for that interference. Moreover, the FBI informed Wright that he could not travel outside the Chicago division without the express permission of the bureau.

The Judicial Watch counsel said the FBI did have intelligence about terrorist activity planned against the World Trade Center and "other monuments."

Wright listed several major failures of the FBI. They include

lack of high-quality managers and modern computer technology;
failure to modernize investigative objectives to deal with the new terrorist threat;
too many investigative violations;
incompetent managers not held accountable for their mistakes;
an internal affairs unit that was "bias[ed] and unfair" to whistle-blowers and others;
criminal conflicts that have "contributed to the preventable deaths of American citizens";
FBI duplication of the investigative jurisdictions of other federal law enforcement agencies such as the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
"I love America, and likewise I love the FBI, particularly its purpose and mission," Wright told reporters at the National Press Club. "However, the mission has been seriously jeopardized to the point where American lives have been needlessly lost."

At the news conference, in answer to questions from NewsMax.com, Klayman said he hoped Congress would use its subpoena powers to require Wright and responsible officials to testify.

He also told NewsMax that if the FBI tries to drive Wright out of the bureau by isolating him and passing him up for promotions, "he will be a rich man" because Judicial Watch would take necessary legal action to see that the powers that be do not get away with this familiar bureaucratic tactic of retaliation.

Here we go, 8 months in:

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
Posted By SimonGray on Monday 6th May, 2002 @ 18:37 (Read: 4343) Printable Version

Xerox writes: -- War Against Terrorism By Jerry Russell, Ph.D., 5-1-2

(The Author Has A Master's Degree In 'Engineering' From Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon)

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC

By Jerry Russell, Ph.D., 5-1-2

(The Author Has A Master's Degree In 'Engineering' From Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon)

Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.

Airplane strikes 'do not' destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II 'did not' harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to 'survive' a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.

"Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire".

How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example. A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.

An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.

The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.

As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.

The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.

It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.

Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

This proves controlled demolition.

continued:

We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.

A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.

But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.

Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.

If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.

If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.

How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition.

There was more "magic" at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the TeeVee.

The events of 9/11, summarized. Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments.

Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher. A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country.

The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students.

At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have quickly been foiled for two reasons. First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers.

Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to match them.

For these reasons, the Arab hijackers' mission should have been an ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport security measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely been a problem for many years now.

But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were used, who was operating them?

The World Trade Center towers are 'designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for about an hour'. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers.

If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has not been explained.

While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour) George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the US military did not respond to the first three attacks. A fourth flight was also "hijacked" that day, but it was apparently struck down by some sort of missile or bomb before crashing in Pennsylvania.

Continued:

Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this campaign has continued to the present day. Our traditional American form of government, unfortunately, may not survive -- the Patriot Act appears poised to supersede the Bill of Rights.

Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. A little bit of logic will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events. It is equally unlikely that the Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet instead the US government is gathering up support for war against Middle Eastern nations, a tragic response to the enigmatic events of that day.

Looks pretty much like what we see today..

I recall 2003 being about the year ATS started more so discussing
9/11 based subject matter. That was one of the aspects which drew me here.

It wasn't popular to discuss it then, as much as it is now. And none of the polarity of sides was as evident like now either. People really didn't know much about the other theories, much like Kennedy.

Text
Deleted Member


Deleted
Of course the American government did it. Bin Laden is the scapegoat. We are moving closer towards the NWO.
Total Posts: N/A | Joined N/A | Posted on: 9:45 pm on Sep. 19, 2001 | IP

Maybe this is what happened to all of the members who had the balls to speak their mind back then.

I got this post from one of the way back threads, Sept 19 2001.
Pretty scary... but if it weren't for these bold few who paved the way, the rest of us would still be braying into the wind...

Bahaaa,, Bahaaa...

Thank you deleted user, for delivering us from the heard. May you rest in peace. And whoever you were, may you not get tired of rolling over in your grave...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


This is a great thread because I never realized no one was talking about false flags back in the days of 2001, 2002, 2003-ish, well except for a handful of conspiracy thinkers like Alex Jones & Bill Cooper. I guess 9/11 discussions begun after the "Loose change" movie, the revelation of the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods?

Fast forward to today and every tragedy that occurs immediate false flag theories are put together from all corners of the internet, some good, some awful, and everything in between.

False flag awareness has come a long way and can be found mention on MSM outlets from Rush Limbaugh, to Ron Paul, to Jesse Ventura, to Ben Swan and more.

It was a Google search of 9/11 that caused me to sign up to ATS back in 2006. My very first thread is about 9/11. I believed the official story 100% until the fall of 2006. I spend way less time on it than I did back then, thinking about it is just really sad now.

Conspiracies did not receive the sort of religious, fanatical following like they do now. A conspiracy did not form part of a person's worldview to be defended angrily like we experience today.

As a result it was much easier to incorporate new information, regardless where it lead. Discussions were often much more civil.

whyamIhere
The Conspiracies about 911 did not happen right away.

It was pretty raw for quite some time.

However, I wasn't around either.

I can read old threads all day long. 👍

Your point being????

12m8keall2c
the 'oldest example' of 'early ATS' that I know of:

wayback machine link
Jan of '99

edit on 1/5/2014 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed link

Something like that I remember. Some really cheesy high contrast pages like pitch black and bright green with crimson tossed into the mix, or something or other.

Read everything there was on it and came around every once in awhile.

Right before 9.11 there was some really cool stuff. And during. After that the whole subject became popular en mass, and eventually blew up.

What's funny is back then "insider" threads would pop up, or "I heard from a guy who knew a guy who's sister was this guy _____." and because it was the only content on the internet like that, you'd read the entire thing… (oh wow should I be reading this?)

Now those threads are daily occurrences and blasted on a dozen blogs and reposted via BIN et al.

Here is from September 23rd 2001:

ADVISOR
I recall 2003 being about the year ATS started more so discussing
9/11 based subject matter. That was one of the aspects which drew me here.

It wasn't popular to discuss it then, as much as it is now. And none of the polarity of sides was as evident like now either. People really didn't know much about the other theories, much like Kennedy.

I remember things being much more relaxed, and really good info came out from decent sources. Reputable leaks, etc. Then you had hologram airplanes, laser beams, explosive cats, etc. All of a sudden if you debate something you are either called a shill or you're working for someone.

But the information drip, was much better. Even though the quirky nonsense still existed.

John Titor was probably the best draw to the forums. Even though it was what it was, it brought a lot of people into different topics of discussion.

It seems like in the long run, 9.11 just brought the old right vs. left polarity to a place that used to just let words and opinions bounce off.

That and a few elections…

reply to post by Leonidas


Right.
If people would just dial it back a couple notches, civility of debate versus offensive blathering would more likely occur.

I always welcome different opinions even if opposed, how else can one see new perspectives.

Read this earlier and thought of trying the wayback machine. I get directed to ATS today, which is not at all what is posted above. I know I've used it before to check out old ATS, just for the hell of it a while back, and got pages that look like the above, but no luck today.Hmmm, weird.

Anyway, good thread. Some good stuff so far.

The 9/11 conspiracy movement started in December 2003 when British publishing mongol Pearson (Penguin) books began signing ghost writers for a disinformation campaign aimed at the American Republican party and the Bush administration . As the worlds largest publishing conglomerate they saturated the media on both sides of the Atlantic. It all began as a ploy to discredit President Bush whom the Pearson board of directors hated with a passion although the reason for this intent dislike has never been identified. French writer Meyssan was one of the first signed and the somewhat shrewd-and also very clever-advertising ploy to only print the works in languages other than English. This master stroke will go down in history as one of the best world wide advertising ploys ever.

The reaction of the release in every other market except America caused interest in America to soar to levels unknown in the publishing business. I have always wondered if marketers at Pearson had some kind of inside knowledge that told them the best way to sell books in America is to derive them of the very books they intended to sell. It really matters none as it worked brilliantly.

That is how it all started.