No... that's a different member, who was actually, unfortunately banned for some improper behavior about a year after that original post. My name on the site is "SkepticOverlord".
So these people in shadows pulling invisible strings to make the puppet men dance, who are they?
Now you're either just being silly, or trying to poke sticks at the latest caged rate. The line at the top of your forum contains: "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a
friendly and lively way".
Does it make more sense to think that everything is under control,
Hrm... it seemed like a lot of people thought it made sense to believe the administration's original reasons for invading Iraq. As it turns out, there were plans to focus on Iraq before 9/11 and the rationale sold to the UN and US people was certainly not under control. If something as important and far-reach as that was manipulated for the benefit of the "military industrial complex", what else is? How deep does it go? When did it start? What else is being manipulated? These reactions to falsehoods from our government are born of skepticism.
If "Reagan did negotiate with Iran" is a conspiracy theory we might as well call anyone remotely interested in US foreign policy a CT.
Not quite. He negotiated with Iranian terrorists who were holding American's hostage, and the nature of the negotiations were not focused on their release. Before the confirming data came out, people who chased this story were considered "conspiracy theorists", until the data was confirmed.
If you can name one individual on who you have evidence on, who would it be? And if you can, why are you here instead of taking them to court?
*I* don't have any, for as I said, my focus is much more as an enabler of conspiracy theorists, taking a back seat to many who are more diligent than I am.
This is what seperates the fake conspriacies to the real ones, like the WaterGate. Watergate bought the government to it's knees and cleaned itself up. It involved real arrests and the resignation of Nixion. You know why? Because they had real evidence that could've be used in the court of law.
Yes, but
before Woodward and Bernstein put the nails in the coffin, they were considered "conspiracy theorists" and took a great deal of heat for being so. I'm by no means attempting to compare any contemporary posters on ATS to these excellent journalists, only show how perception changes as the facts bear out.
DO you believe that an airliner hit each of the twin towers on September 11, 2001, after and as a result of which impact and the resulting fires, the buildings fell down? Or do you think something else brought the buildings down?
Yes, certainly I believe so... I was there in the city... my sons volunteered at ground zero... I regularly helped out at relief centers... I spoke with people in the recovery effort... I know people who lost close friends and loved ones... I consoled one such person that morning.
But while I'm certain two passenger aircraft impacted the buildings and the resulting kinetic energy caused a great deal of structural damage, I also feel there is compelling information related to some degree of "assistance" that ensured total structural failure.
would you PLEASE tell me what in the h3ll is "wrong" with the way the buildings fell that makes you think they were not brought down by airplanes/fire
The two three that continue to stand out in my mind, specific to the collapse are:
1) The "squibs" at the sky-lobby level preceding the collapse by several floors... there are lots of explanations for these anomalies, but if you've ever been in the sky lobbies, the air-pressure explanation doesn't make sense... especially as the collapse is happening above.
2) The speed of the collapse... while not as fast as free fall, it's not much slower either.
3) The multi-source reports of explosions in the basement levels moments before the collapse started. At first I dismissed these, but the more I looked into it, the more it adds to a disturbing data set.
And a further point... I was in a pool league with several construction workers who were clearing out the debris. Even then, with little or no online "conspiracy theory" madness, these "regular Joes" were amazed at how there was no attempt to preserve that they felt was important evidence... even if it was to simply understand what failed and how. (I didn't pester them with conspiracy theories, after all we were drinking beers and shooting pool).
I was under the impression that ATS was declining in activity. Doesn't appear to be any where near as active s when I used to post there.
Actually, January was a record-breaking month for us... over 1.4 million unique visitors, and so far February might break that.
We had quite a run with information on the UFO at O'Hare.
Sources, please!
