Time for a new 9/11 forum?

[paulthompson]

The pi911 forums appeared to have reached a demise (is it still alive? I can't tell. It certainly isn't very welcoming: https://www.pi911.com:19638/webhost/rollout/site ).

This 9/11 forum here is filled with resolute supporters of Bush's official theory. For such people or those who like to argue with such people, there always is this forum. I'd like to see a 9/11 forum for those who have already reached the conclusion that the official story is wrong and don't want to waste their time arguing that with the very vocal few.

As some of you may know, I've been putting together a 9/11 Timeline. I'm thinking of starting a new 9/11 forum for it, and maybe linking the forum with some other 9/11 websites. The only problem is, we would need someone to moderate it and make sure it runs smoothly. Is anyone here interested?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. I think disagreeing with the official theory is now illegal

according to Patriot II. Of course we can't be sure, since the details of the legislation are secret, but just to be on the safe side, it's probably best to keep remarks to 9-11 confined to "evildoers who hate freedom."

[punpirate]

2. My first guess is that...

it likely would be contentious and attractive to the wilder-eyed conspiracy theorists. There's been so little forthcoming of substance from the current commission investigating that speculation would be the order of the day.

Moderation of such a forum might be helped by splitting the forum into a few discussion groups with clearly defined guidance for each--perhaps, one devoted to what is known about the physical evidence, one to the timeline of events, maybe one wide-open where the flame wars can be contained without them spreading to every discussion in other discussion groups, maybe one for the political implications of the investigation and another for sharing investigative resources.

Doing that would require more moderators, but, after all, several are needed anyway--no one person could maintain some order 24/7.

Flesh it out a bit, and get back to me--I might have time to help out with moderation. My job went away yesterday, and I'm taking some time off for the near future.

Cheers.

[paulthompson]

13. forum divisions

Yes,
Ideally there would be a number of subsections. There are some topics that constantly cause huge debate. Mysteries of the Flight 77 crash is one, mysteries of the WTC collapses another. Personally neither of those topics fascinate me like they do for some others, but it would seem logical to have a subforum on each, instead of having these debates sprawl everywhere.

I'm open to organizational ideas - I think pi911 had way too many subforums, and many of them were never used.

I hope the forums could be more than just "wide eyed ravings" - the advantage of a moderated group is that people don't just have to rehash the same points over and over again. They can actually be productive and move into new areas. I saw it happen sometimes at pi911 and hope it can happen again.

[graphixtech]

3. a (moderated) discussion board

sounds like a promising idea.

[gandalf]

4. Interested in such a forum: yes

in moderating: no, sorry, no time and no experience.

What about the global free press forum?

[paulthompson]

12. GFP?

Unfortunately not a lot of people seem to know about that. I see their 9/11 section has a very small number of posts so far. But it would be good to hook up with them and join forces somehow. I'll ask Nico about that.

[RH]

5. When and where

did anybody here ever resolve to support Bush's official theory?

In this vicinity that assertion is as incredibly ignorant as it is offensively insulting.

I'd thought you were old enough to know better.

:spank:

[Robb]

6. No kidding.

Disagree with one aspect of someone's theory, and get labeled a supporter of Bush's version. Screw that; go, have fun. Good luck.

(Edited to add): ...And the horse you rode in on. :thumbsdown:

[DulceDecorum]

7. Two who need not apply

As you can well see,
there are those who DO
and those who do not
welcome the idea of a forum where RESEARCHERS can post freely.

I am absolutely certain that such a board will be welcomed by OUR community and yes we will need mods with hobnailed boots.
Oh WOW, a DU spin-off!!!
Count me in.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. "where RESEARCHERS can post freely..."

...without having their attention focused on all those pesky facts and evidence.

Parting is such sweet sorrow...

[DulceDecorum]

21. Mush

abbreviated to Mh.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Well, that just makes all kinds of sense.

Thanks for playing. :*

[LARED]

9. Posting freely ....

Mods with hobnailed boots?

Interesting idea.

Just out of curiosity have you ever been prevented from posting any of your "research" at DU?

[DulceDecorum]

10. Two more

who need not apply.

[paulthompson]

11. disruptors

"Disagree with one aspect of someone's theory, and get labeled a supporter of Bush's version."

I never said that. But it is a fact that DU is contastly being invaded by freeper type disruptors, and people are constantly being kicked out of DU. DU is a moderated forum. This new one would be as well. How to keep a free flow of ideas going while also keeping out the nattering nabobs of negativity that can bog discussions down is a tough issue, and I'm open to suggestions.

[RH]

14. One man's disruptor

is another man's hero.

One man's nattering nabob is another man's free flow of ideas.

It is difficult because you simply cannot have it both ways.

I was kicked off 911pi but I've not yet been kicked from here.

Genuinely unmoderated lists already exist. If you want to dice with the 9/11 hard core go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup

Personally, I am sick of it all and a lot more besides. What a poor sport it is and what a meagre entertainment to see so much again that I'd already seen a year or two back, and all too often ridden with unrepaired errors, but regurgitated as if to be some sort of fantastic new insight.

I suggest to take a break. Stand back for a while. Life goes on, for a while at least. The 9/11 hysteria is small beer as compared to the 260 million killed during the Second World War and very possibly a much smaller trifle than that as compared to the Planet's impending environmental and economic crisis, the result of a whole century of live now pay later indulgence on the part of a small percentage of but one the incumbent species.

[paulthompson]

15. break?

Sounds like you need to take a break. I already did for the past few months. It was good; I recommend it.

I'm not going to stop my work on 9/11 because I feel we are at a very pivotal moment in history, and 9/11 is the main pivot. We as informed citizens can play a large role in these important events because the mainstream media has failed to inform the populace and it's largely up to the internet to fill that void.

The end goal is of course what all of us at DU can hopefully agree on: getting Bush out of office before he does more damage. I believe what popularity and legitimacy Bush has rests of the myths and lies of 9/11, and the more those myths and lies can be torn down, the faster he will fall.

[RH]

16. Fair enough and good luck to you.

But please beware not to get lost in it.

Without wishing to be ungrateful, being at a very pivotal moment in history is not so much my thing. Was that not more the sort of thing that Churchill and Hitler went in for?

Nature already abhored a vacuum, it was never going to wait for anybody in particlar to fill it and to think that Bush is a cause of anything is childish. Bush is but an ugly symptom of a chronic disease.

[demodewd]

32. re: nattering nabob

If that's your take...then why are you posting here? Something must be piqueing your interest.

[Robb]

18. Paul,

There is no denying the work you've done on all this, and it gives you (as I see it) huuuuge leeway on saying stuff that I might otherwise get ticked off about. Your street cred is very high, and your obsessive-compulsive streak rivals my own. I'm saying I generally like you. :)

But, but "nattering nabobs of negativity"? I know you're smart enough to quoting Agnew with irony, but still.... the implication you started with is that anyone with a little skepticism is a "resolute supporter of Bush's official theory", and frankly "revising and expanding your remarks" to imply the same group are "freeper type disruptors" doesn't do any better for me.

You want to preach to the choir, that's fine. Believe me, I know how much more satisfying it can be. But if you want to help in the larger field, you've got to get through every, and I mean every possible counter-argument.

Either way, believe me when I say today that I truly and sincerely wish you luck.

[Abe Linkman]

19. The problem is what kind of skepticism you are talking about.

If your skepticism is based on a belief that the Official Story Version may well be correct; then why in the world would you come to a discussion on what REALLY happened? Paul is NOT talking about a forum for O. Story supporters to come on and detract others by arguing over minor details...in an attempt to raise doubts about the UNDERLYING basis for the entire forum...which is, I believe, that the O. Story Version is
nothing more than a cover story, and not the truth.

If you want to try and undermine the basic notion that the O. Story is bunch of Bullshift, then go to forum where the question of what happened is an open question. There, it's expected that supporters of O. Story and supporters of the O. Story Is BS will be using all kinds of rhetorical devices to "convince" others of their point of view.

There is a need for a forum wherein disruptors are simply not permitted to post disruptive messages.
disrupt

[Robb]

20. Minor details shoot down theories

...and well they should.

If a "minor detail" kills a theory, then it's not "minor". I simply resent the implication that questioning everything is somehow disruptive. This is how theories are fleshed out, and if a very small fact disagrees with your thesis, you have to revise or abandon your thesis. Believe me, I know. I find it invaluable.

Theories that survive scrutiny outgrow the tinfoil hat community and take shape in mainstream thought. This is a good thing. If you've got answers to all the questions people throw at you about your theory, you do better at the ultimate goal: arriving at the truth.

It's not disruptive; it's a necessary foil. I welcome it, and I've found those who don't tend to be closed-minded or lazy -- two attributes, I should add, I've not seen before in Paul.

[Abe Linkman]

23. You're talking about something different than the proposition.

You're suggesting that even though the idea Paul is talking about is a forum for people who do NOT accept the Official Legend; it should still be open to people who SUPPORT the Official Legend & they should be able to disrupt the discourse by arguing over minor details which ARE NOT in issue. The proposed forum is NOT one for people who DO NOT ALREADY ACCEPT that the Gov't Version is BULLSHIFT.

Why isn't DU a proper forum for people who want to argue about the validity of one side of the argument or the other? DU, it seems to me, is exactly what you are looking for. All Mr. Thompson is talking about, is a forum for people who do NOT wish to continually have to get mired down in arguing over something that is already settled.

[paulthompson]

24. disruptors

It's hard for me to define what I'm really looking for here. It's not an ideological litmus test - I was being lazy putting it that way. Rather, it's an attitude and methodology (or lack of any of the latter).

If anyone wants to argue the facts with facts, I welcome that. Sparring with those of a diffent opinion is often a great way to hone one's position, realize where one is wrong, and so on.

But frankly, it's rare when I see that kind of discussion. More often you get the "go back to your X-Files and UFOs and black helicopters" type disparagement. You get people who are very vocal, but never actually back up their statements with links or specific facts. You get just plain negativity. A lot of personal vindictiveness. For instance, yesterday someone just plain encouraged me to stop researching, saying finding the truth about 9/11 is hopeless.

There are a lot of people who I think are intellectually opposed to the very idea of something like LIHOP, don't want to look at the facts, and just want the whole thing to go away. There has been more than one discussion at the General Forums by people suggesting all 9/11 skeptic threads should be banned altogether.

All of that is the kind of thing I would want to see banned at the new forum, because that energy doesn't add to any debate, it just brings everything down.

So, yes to the well argued foils, no to the nattering nabobs.

And I should point out that it cuts both ways - I don't want people who throw out a lot of wild, consipratorial statements without any back up. Debators needs to be reasoned, respectful of others, and willing to back up their points with evidence.

[Robb]

26. Now that I can get behind.

Although I would argue there are fewer of those types of disparaging remarks than you think, I agree it would be nice to be without them. Unfortunately, the borderline of those types are just who we want to reach. I'd hate to shut them all out, because some do "convert".

I'll be interested to hear how things go. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my X-Files and UFOs and black helicopters. ;)

[RH]

31. I converted.

I used to believe in most of the conspiracy theories.

It was then the sheer ignorance, the persistent carelessness, the affected sensationlism and the bigoted irrationality of the "No Boeing Brigade" that made me look again at the bigger picture.

Which is not to mention the sheer boredom of it all and the lesson taught by being on the wrong end of personal abuse, that and the shallow style of the propagandist hype. Is that how they would seriously hope to be able to persuade people?

Again and again I suspect that it was deliberately intended to be counter productive. Or are they really so stupid?

[RH]

28. Who are you kidding?

Mistaken attitudes are indeed what makes it all so hopeless, but since when did that fault sit only with one side of any argument?

You talk about respecting facts while "who I think" gives gives the game away. Make no mistake "who I think" means "according to my own personal prejudice in order to maintain my own sense of self esteem."

I used to make the same mistake. I used to think that if there was no immediately apparent correction to a published assertion of fact then it must be true. Then when I looked far enough into some of the details I realised that on the contrary a great deal of what was being said was most definitely not true.

Objectivity? I went out of my own way last year to attempt to correct a few missapprehensions if only in the hope that some may think more carefully before shooting their silly mouths off, and what do you think was the net result of that?

Linkman's posts are a classic example of the worst kind of deliberate discouragement. Do you think that his heckling is some kind of advertisement for objectivity? Do so at your own risk. Any correction offered is either ignored completely, dodged as irrelevent, or just as often a contributor is subjected to hail of completely unsubstantiated "paid disinformation agent" abuse.

Disparagement comes in the face of willfull ignorance. It is rarely returned for genuine respect. When people are all too obviously not listening, not respecting or not comprehending, it is then a fool's errand to waste any further time on them. Others simply do not have a lifetime to spare as if to repair others' delusions for no consideration. Please respect the fact and please beware of the corrollary. A vicious cycle quickly ensues. When all too obviously people are simply not listening those in a position to know better from their own experience do not then bother to cast their pearls before swine and so it goes on, ad infinitum.

Take a piece of your own advice. Look at the facts. What actual effect has an abundance of the "No Boeing" propaganda had in terms of any actual further publication of evidence? Which of the eye witnesses ever bothered to contribute personally? Steve Riskus did at first and he could hardly thus have been expected to be more helpful. He published his photos pro bono. And where is he now? The novelty of beating one's head against a brick wall wears off soon enough. Sensible people do not respond so kindly to bad faith.

There may occassionally be some value in using the internet to raise questions that would not otherwise stand a chance but should one then seriously expect to be using it to "settle" criminal issues?

"settle"?

Seriously?

:eyes:

Part of the problem or a part of the solution? If you seriously think it possible to make a better job of running the FBI or the CIA, apply for the job. Get real.

[demodewd]

33. perhaps

Perhaps we should have a collective pact to ignore all the "disruptors" and agree not to respond to their posts.

[LARED]

34. Why

do you need a collective pack to remove whom you deem a disruptor? What will you do? Have a vote on who gets ignored and who doesn't? How will the 'collective' decide who gets to vote on 'disruptors'?

If you want to act on your right to not listen just click the ignore button . It works wonderfully.

[bobbieinok]

17. interest in forum - no interest /experience in moderating

Please post the site when it's up.

Thanks for all your work.

[graphixtech]

25. this thread,

serves as a perfect example of why there is a need for a moderated discussion board. I am impressed with Paul's reasoning and proposition to create an avenue for moderated discussion.

(Breaking News! another reason to visit KC soon)
Ellen Mariani and her lawyer have agreed to visit and speak in Kansas City on February 22. Several events are being planned for February 22, by 9-11 Visibility Project-Kansas City.
Come and listen to a 9-11 widow's firsthand knowledge that the corporate media does not want you to know about (but several other media sources will be covering this event).


"Mariani said no amount of money from the federal government would persuade her to back off from her legal fight. "I would eat dirt before Feinberg got me into the fund," Mariani said. "I am a person who wants to know what happened," said the 65-year-old grandmother, who is living off monthly Social Security checks. "Money is great, but not when it comes to a loved one being murdered."
http://www.septembereleventh.org/ellenmariani.php


http://www.septembereleventh.org/

[RH]

30. is already moderated.

The facilty also includes an ignore button.

What more do you want?

:shrug:

[Dancing_Dave]

38. Kansas City, here I come!

It's a few hours drive for me, but I'll go for that!

Thanks for letting me know.:)

[laruemtt]

27. yes, interested.

[RH]

29. This discussion board

is already moderated.

:eyes:

To be more helpful would you care perhaps to explain exactly how to distinguish between moderation and censorship?

[nomatrix]

35. Paul, I agree

there are quite a few facts that have not been explored. There are also some who spend a great deal of time by continually posting that all the facts have been presented. Whenever I find something reported that is contrary to the version presented by the media, I generally check in here hoping to find a link, or that it was debunked, whatever. Your timeline helps to put it in perspective.

For those who spend the time here, let me ask you, were you watching TV when it was happening. I mean from the start. What were you watching? How long did you watch and could you possibly shut it off? Have you ever (really) met someone who could?

Can you explain how the Commander in Chief who's job it is to protect us, knowing (any) of the intel that had come in previously, chose to sit there with the children?

Were you watching C-Span? Did you see the evacuation of Congress? Did you here the comments to the C-Span reporters by the Congress people? (Remember this was after Cheney was taken downstairs in the WH, after the Pentagon was hit) Did you hear how shocked they were that they were left uninformed, sitting ducks in session, and not evacuated? This, just before the jet crashed in PA.

Then the Hart Building, (only Democrats) has the Anthrax attack. Prior to that there were more vocal Dems. in the Senate. Did you know what laws were in place in case of the death of Congress as a whole?
(Hint, the President picks them)

Why have so many of Bush appointees and spokespeople left?
Some of these questions don't have solid answers, just thinking out loud.

[RH]

36. I watched it all live on TV

but my wife, my son, and most of the poeple I know were not so lucky.

They had jobs to do.

[nomatrix]

37. 20 million work at home

or as you put it "had jobs to do." (Those where the stats in 2002 according to the Kansas City Star.)

[Dancing_Dave]

39. Check out the 9/11 forum at Global Research

It's the best I know of:
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=b7ca79a392b1fcc0ec0196f7b01965e3
:toast: