• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it now time to remove the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum from JREF?

SkepticOfLies said:
I'm fairly new here so this sub-forum hasn't nearly run it's course as far as I'm concerned (obviously), but like anything else I suppose, the regulars will get bored. Either way, I'm hoping it doesn't get removed.
Click to expand...
As you allude to, coming here for the first time can be interesting. How long it takes you to get bored of talking here depends on the personalities you meet and how much patience you have with people. As for me, even though I'm no where near as active both for IRL and being bored of talking about the same things I still browse through here fairly frequently.

THe engineering topics that come up are perhaps the most valuable discussions I've come across in here.
 
As this thread shows, we still have new beedunkers arriving, plenty of truthers to debate, and plenty of oldtimers with a wealth of knowledge.

First and foremost, this is a discussion forum. People come here to discuss 9/11 truth. The search function isn't brilliant, so it helps if we have the ability to respond to people's questions and comments, rather than assume they can find the answers themselves.

Discussion is fun!
 
I would have removed it on 9/12 - the entire subject bores me.

Since many seem to enjoy this, however, why not leave it in place for a few more years and then archive it.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
A better way to put it would be libel actually which is a written statement damaging to a party's reputation that is false, misleading, or baseless. Unfortunately speaking in a civil tone doesn't mitigate the damaging effects that such statements can have. If you took that kind of accusation to a courtroom the judge can either throw out the case or penalize the plaintiff making the accusations; it can be that serious sometimes.
Click to expand...

I'm sure LS is really suffering from my comments and that I'll be summoned to court any day now.
 
Well, in the end, truthers will probably say that Britney Spears is actually a plant meant to distract people from the "solid evidence that proves that 911 was an inside job" and then try and use that as an attacking point (as well as calling you a disinfo shill), just like they do with everything else CT-related. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
MrSkunkwork100 said:
Well, in the end, truthers will probably say that Britney Spears is actually a plant meant to distract people from the "solid evidence that proves that 911 was an inside job" and then try and use that as an attacking point (as well as calling you a disinfo shill), just like they do with everything else CT-related. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, MrSkunkwork100!
 
cantonear1968 said:
I don't know if this warrants a separate thread or not. I thought about posting this in Ryan Mackey's "Lost in Space" thread, but just didn't feel it was the proper subject for that OP. I'll let the mods and others decide if it is worth yet another thread on 9/11.

A month and half ago I took a break from posting about this subject. However, that didn't mean I gave up looking in on both JREF and youtube comments. For 2 weeks I followed what was going on until I hit a point that I realized it wasn't really letting go. So I decided to try a little social experiment: what relevance does 9/11 Conspiracy have in the real world? I decided to go a whole month without visiting any blog sites on this subject and count how many times the subject of 9/11 conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy, came up (I came to this idea about 30 days into Mackey's 60 day countdown, and felt that would be a suitable time frame to conduct this experiment. Thus the connection to his thread).

However, I needed something as a control to compete against 9/11 Conspiracy theories. Something to compare the results with in the "real world". I needed something that would be comparable and a fair representation of something that would be reported in the "real world". So what I came up with was.....

Britney Spears!

I figured she was a close representation of the level of exposure as the truth movement: most people consider her bat-**** crazy, her career peaked around 2006 and she's desperately trying to hold on to whatever relevancy she had!

So the competition is how many times I hear a story about Britney Spears versus 9/11 Conspiracy. And the results are .......

11-1 Britney!

(the only reference to 9/11 Conspiracy I came across was the avatar of a person blogging on the Anthony Weiner story on CNN.com of the cut columns with the firefighter in the foreground that I am sure everyone is familiar with. Everyone, that is, that is familiar with this subject. I leave it up to the reader to decide if this really counts, because if you are not familiar with this subject, it would mean nothing to you.)

That was it. Nothing about nanothermite. Nothing about free fall. Nothing about "stand down". 9/11 Conspiracy does not exist outside of select blogger sites on the internet. People are not "waking up". The "truth" is not exploding. It exists only within a small circle of what RKOwens has so accurately described as "angry young men". And, as I have (facetiously) scientifically proven, a very small circle it is!

So looking at Ryan's "Lost In Space" thread, I see there is nothing new to report on coming from the truth movement. There is no new evidence that has not already been addressed ad nauseum and put to bed. Oh sure, tomorrow there will be some sort of new anomaly brought forth about the time frame revolving around when NEADS responded on 9/11. Or another cockpit door found "opened" for the whole flight. Or another phone call from the planes that "just doesn't seem right".

But there will be nothing that fits into a full fledged narrative of an "inside job" scenario that even comes close to explaining 9/11 other than the simplest explanation: hijackers, planes, fire!

The 9/11 truth movement is not simply dead, it is non-existent! It never was. There was a sizable group of people who signed on as truthers, but that, more than anything, was anti-Bush sentiments spilling out as "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB".
(sure that's a completely unsubstantiated statement that is only substantiated by the complete lack of truther interest since Bush left office!). So I support what was once brought up here that JREF no longer needs an entire sub topic thread on 9/11. There is nothing that cannot be handled in the "Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread" under the "Conspiracy Theories" topic. I and Britney Spears have proven this!

This will be the last thread on 9/11 I actually start.
Click to expand...

Funny... I was just yesterday anticipating the demise of the jref 9/11 subforum. I don't really mind as long as the site stays open as a resouce for all sides. THere is too much detail here to lose.
 
While I don't think the 9/11 forum should be closed, I think that there could be some kind of content control to stop the unnecessary proliferation of threads. Maybe not the radical suggestion of a few sticky threads and the rest being closed, but an enforcement of a few basic (and entirely reasonable) standards.

For example, a single thread for YouTube (and other) videos would be in order. Enforcing a zero-tolerance approach on starting threads with a link to a YouTube video would reduce the number of noob/troll threads, and could be done without causing a massive moderator overload. It can be simply explained by the probable emergence of a mega-thread dedicated to discussing Truther YouTube videos, and perhaps a notice/sticky.

The rationale is rather simple: YouTube (etc) videos are not an argument, they are at best a rather poor form of evidence, more often they're just propaganda. There is an obvious proliferation of Truther YouTube videos, to the point where they are no longer unique or deserving of their own spotlight.


Examples

Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel
Truther protesters at ground zero 9-11-11
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 mins
Evidence of World Trade Center Demolitions - Experts Interviewed Long Version

Argumentum ad YouTubium has been bandied around as a term often enough that I think it would be in order for something to be done about it. We already have rules against spamming and reproducing walls-of-text from other sites, there is already social disapproval of starting threads with mere links ('read this!'), and there is definitely social disapproval of starting threads with YouTube videos ('watch this!').


The only other suggestion is to create parallel threads for discussions of 9/11 in the media, which would hoover up the following threads on the front page:
New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11
Woman Fighter Jet Pilot - "We'd be ramming the aircraft" (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 )
9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip

but would require discipline on the part of non-truthers to create an environment where it became accepted that you post your story about a newspaper article or TV show in the media thread, or else it gets reported and moved.

That would still leave Truthers and sane people perfectly entitled to start threads on whatever they feel like, as long as it doesn't involve a YouTube video, newspaper article or TV show.

Which would ironically leave LGR free to start most of his troll threads - given that I had long experience working out what to do with LGR and other trolls of his ilk on another forum, I hope he will appreciate the latitude that I am suggesting.

The best way to see change to the forum is to lead by example - if there are common threads for certain themes or types of media which are ongoing, then attempts to start separate threads can be legitimately reported and mergers requested, without this overburdening the mods.
 
Nick Terry said:
While I don't think the 9/11 forum should be closed, I think that there could be some kind of content control to stop the unnecessary proliferation of threads. Maybe not the radical suggestion of a few sticky threads and the rest being closed, but an enforcement of a few basic (and entirely reasonable) standards.

For example, a single thread for YouTube (and other) videos would be in order. Enforcing a zero-tolerance approach on starting threads with a link to a YouTube video would reduce the number of noob/troll threads, and could be done without causing a massive moderator overload. It can be simply explained by the probable emergence of a mega-thread dedicated to discussing Truther YouTube videos, and perhaps a notice/sticky.

The rationale is rather simple: YouTube (etc) videos are not an argument, they are at best a rather poor form of evidence, more often they're just propaganda. There is an obvious proliferation of Truther YouTube videos, to the point where they are no longer unique or deserving of their own spotlight.


Examples

Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel
Truther protesters at ground zero 9-11-11
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 mins
Evidence of World Trade Center Demolitions - Experts Interviewed Long Version

Argumentum ad YouTubium has been bandied around as a term often enough that I think it would be in order for something to be done about it. We already have rules against spamming and reproducing walls-of-text from other sites, there is already social disapproval of starting threads with mere links ('read this!'), and there is definitely social disapproval of starting threads with YouTube videos ('watch this!').


The only other suggestion is to create parallel threads for discussions of 9/11 in the media, which would hoover up the following threads on the front page:
New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg]
Woman Fighter Jet Pilot - "We'd be ramming the aircraft" [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg] ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif[/qimg] 1 2 3 )
9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg]

but would require discipline on the part of non-truthers to create an environment where it became accepted that you post your story about a newspaper article or TV show in the media thread, or else it gets reported and moved.

That would still leave Truthers and sane people perfectly entitled to start threads on whatever they feel like, as long as it doesn't involve a YouTube video, newspaper article or TV show.

Which would ironically leave LGR free to start most of his troll threads - given that I had long experience working out what to do with LGR and other trolls of his ilk on another forum, I hope he will appreciate the latitude that I am suggesting.

The best way to see change to the forum is to lead by example - if there are common threads for certain themes or types of media which are ongoing, then attempts to start separate threads can be legitimately reported and mergers requested, without this overburdening the mods.
Click to expand...
I agree. It really is time to reduce the chatter. There have been some notably good threads but the proliferation of spamming youtube with next to no comment is incredibly tiresome bearing in mind each new thread has been debunked dozens of times in dozens of old threads some going back 8 years or so.

The 9/11 subforum, I feel, ought to be reduced to a couple of threads and new ones restricted because all of the new threads opened by truthers have already been addressed. There shouldn't be a stop on all new threads but I think it should be upto truthers and indeed debunkers to give a valid case for the starting of a new thread.
 
No, keep it. the subforum is still active enough. There are more threads updated today in the 9/11 section than on the main conspiracy page. I know it's not always that way, but there is still interest among JREF readers.

Besides, since the 9/11 bores many of the JREF readers, keeping it in its own subsection prevents the 9//11 stuff from distracting from the other tinfoil fun...
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
While I don't think the 9/11 forum should be closed, I think that there could be some kind of content control to stop the unnecessary proliferation of threads. Maybe not the radical suggestion of a few sticky threads and the rest being closed, but an enforcement of a few basic (and entirely reasonable) standards.

For example, a single thread for YouTube (and other) videos would be in order. Enforcing a zero-tolerance approach on starting threads with a link to a YouTube video would reduce the number of noob/troll threads, and could be done without causing a massive moderator overload. It can be simply explained by the probable emergence of a mega-thread dedicated to discussing Truther YouTube videos, and perhaps a notice/sticky.

The rationale is rather simple: YouTube (etc) videos are not an argument, they are at best a rather poor form of evidence, more often they're just propaganda. There is an obvious proliferation of Truther YouTube videos, to the point where they are no longer unique or deserving of their own spotlight.


Examples

Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel
Truther protesters at ground zero 9-11-11
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 mins
Evidence of World Trade Center Demolitions - Experts Interviewed Long Version

Argumentum ad YouTubium has been bandied around as a term often enough that I think it would be in order for something to be done about it. We already have rules against spamming and reproducing walls-of-text from other sites, there is already social disapproval of starting threads with mere links ('read this!'), and there is definitely social disapproval of starting threads with YouTube videos ('watch this!').


The only other suggestion is to create parallel threads for discussions of 9/11 in the media, which would hoover up the following threads on the front page:
New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg]
Woman Fighter Jet Pilot - "We'd be ramming the aircraft" [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg] ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif[/qimg] 1 2 3 )
9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg]

but would require discipline on the part of non-truthers to create an environment where it became accepted that you post your story about a newspaper article or TV show in the media thread, or else it gets reported and moved.

That would still leave Truthers and sane people perfectly entitled to start threads on whatever they feel like, as long as it doesn't involve a YouTube video, newspaper article or TV show.

Which would ironically leave LGR free to start most of his troll threads - given that I had long experience working out what to do with LGR and other trolls of his ilk on another forum, I hope he will appreciate the latitude that I am suggesting.

The best way to see change to the forum is to lead by example - if there are common threads for certain themes or types of media which are ongoing, then attempts to start separate threads can be legitimately reported and mergers requested, without this overburdening the mods.
Click to expand...

I think we should make Dr Terry a moderator. He just loves opening and closing branches, moving them around and coming up with all kinds of ideas to improve fora.
 
little grey rabbit said:
I think we should make Dr Terry a moderator. He just loves opening and closing branches, moving them around and coming up with all kinds of ideas to improve fora.
Click to expand...

whereas your life's mission is to wreck them, right? I must confess that these days, I greatly enjoy watching you start a thread in the 9/11 forum here and receive 30+ replies, almost all of which tell you to eff off.

Strange as it may seem to you, your troll threads aren't really the problem round here. It's the true-believer loons who spam the same rubbish over and over. At least you put a micron of effort into thinking up new ways to offend people.
 
Please keep this sub-forum open! I know I'm new around here, but this sub-forum is why I found the JREF in the first place, and seems like the one place where sanity rules on the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom