Did you know a 3rd WTC Tower Fell on 9/11/2001 ?

[tonschk]

Did you know a 3rd WTC Tower Fell on 9/11/2001 ?, This reinforced steel frame World Trade Center building was NOT hit by a plane, and were just some random fires inside, and in the afternoon mysteriously fell very fast in just about six (6) SECONDS, very very identical to a usual controlled demolition implosion, yet the united states government LIE to us telling this building fell in just six (6) seconds because of some random fires inside

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VBz2n0aUHNE

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Schroeder]

Here we go again....:cool:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Wow, your late to this part of the conspiracy - where have you been for the last decade. Without even looking at the link I guess it says thermite must have been used, blah blah, people were told not to go to work in that building.

[tonschk]

Growing amount of architects and engineers expose the crimes of the united states government

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[WernherVonTrapp]

Did you know a 3rd WTC Tower Fell on 9/11/2001 ?

Actually, there were 7 WTC buildings. All were destroyed, not just a 3rd building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/fig_1_1.jpg

[kranz]

people were told not to go to work in that building.

sorry but you got it wrong, Tony.
non-Jews were told to go and Jews were told not to go.

posts <Jet fuel?That's_a_good_one.jpg>

[Feuer Frei!]

In before Tribesman.

[Oberon]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Ultimate+facepalm_1d1110_4387841.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

*inbeforethe'truthers'*

[Subnuts]

The Truth is a lie.

[August]

WC Fields called it. There's a sucker born every minute.

[kranz]

I've read a book (the title & authors are mentioned in What are you reading now thread) and the reasons why the towers collapsed are explained pretty decently there, even for laymen.
But I dunno tbh :) There is 1% of truth in every lie so...

[razark]

Sooo...

9/11/2001:
Morning- Two towers of the World Trade Center are hit by airplanes, the Pentagon is also, one plane crashes in a field. No one knows how many more planes there might be.
Later- The two WTC towers collapse, with resulting death, destruction, fear, and panic. The entire south end of New York is in chaos.
Afternoon- WTC 7 is burning, and the owner decides to destroy it for the insurance money.
That same afternoon- The owner manages to contact a demolition company to come in and set charges in a building that is actively on fire, amidst the wreckage of the twin towers. Not only does the owner get a demolition company to come in and do this, he manages to get them to do it within a time span of a couple hours.
Later that afternoon- Secret demolition ninjas manage to sneak past everyone in the area, set up the demolition, and get out without being seen.

My gods, you're right. That is a much more reasonable explanation than fire and debris damage.

[Betonov]

WC Fields called it. There's a sucker born every minute.

I thought that was P.T. Barnum :hmmm:

[donna52522]

7 were destroyed, but mostly because they were so damaged when the two big
ones went down, they were total write offs.

Nothing new.

[u crank]

Of course the question that begs for an answer is why.

Why?:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, Tonschk, we know. We know because you have brought it up before. The last time you did I asked you to actually show some evidence, rather than "reverse evidence" of the "they can't deny this" type. Is there any actual evidence at all that shows this happened they way you (and they) claim? Do you have anything at all?

Here is a question for you personally: If the point was to make it look like Muslim Extremists did this just to give Bush and friends an excuse for war, why did they do such a bad job of it? Did they think Building 7 wouldn't get noticed? Why bother to destroy a building that had no connection at all?

Every time you bring this up, you never actually have anything to say yourself. You link to what other people say, assuming they know more than anybody else. When I called you on this before you started PMing me with more links. When I challenged you to say something original you sent me more links. When I asked if you had any original thoughts at all you sent me still more links.

So here's my challenge again: Are you actually capable of discussing this in your own words? Do you have any original thoughts at all? In all the time you've been playing this game you haven't actually said anything. Just links. It's time to show whether you are capable of a real discussion.

[August]

I thought that was P.T. Barnum :hmmm:


Actually I think you are correct. :oops:

[MH]

http://dudelol.com/img/best-conspiracy-i039ve-seen.jpg

[Betonov]

The real question that comes to my mind, would the warmongers need to stage such an attack to have a reason to go to war :hmmm:

Afganistan had more than enough terroist training camps and bin Laden was a thorn in the western world long enough to get enough public support just by hyping it on the media.

[Tribesman]

I blame the Mexicans, or maybe the Italians.
Yep, it is Italians, Pisa was dry run at the towers:yep:

[Betonov]

I blame the Mexicans, or maybe the Italians.
Yep, it is Italians, Pisa was dry run at the towers:yep:

Gasp !!!!

Italy is only 30km from where I live :o
And we also have a WTC

[Tribesman]

Italy is only 30km from where I live :o
And we also have a WTC
You are lucky it ain't Kansas Toto, they have a WBC.

[Betonov]

You are lucky it ain't Kansas Toto, they have a WBC.

But we do have the WFC

[Red October1984]

I blame the Mexicans, or maybe the Italians.
Yep, it is Italians, Pisa was dry run at the towers:yep:

Mexican illegals DO cause a bunch of problems....

I don't like the Mexicans TBH...they have some good food...but it needs to stay in Mexico. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

And that type of racism needs to stay somewhere else.

[mapuc]

Been thinking. Throughout the last 5 years we have been witness to a lot of secret paper being revealed to us.

Funny that no one of these paper had anything to do with false flag operation regarding 9/11 and WTC

The reason?? There ain't no such secret paper....there isn't anything regarding false flag WTC.

When will people understand that

Yes there may be a few question that need some answers..

Markus

[razark]

There ain't no such secret paper.... When will people understand that
When? Never.

How many conspiracy theories are out there, and have you ever seen a single one end?

[Red October1984]

And that type of racism needs to stay somewhere else.

I have nothing against them as a race. That's not what I was trying to say...I should have said that I don't like Mexican Illegals. I messed up there.

It's what they're doing that I don't like...

Drug Wars and Illegal Immigration. It's bad no matter who you are. It wouldn't make a difference if the Canadians were doing it...I would still have the same opinion.

The fact that the Illegals have come across the border and have even killed US citizens and we do what seems like nothing to prevent it...all talk and no action...it just makes me mad. I don't like that they're coming illegally to the US.


I know this probably isnt the place to be saying this so I'll stop. :oops:

[Sailor Steve]

I know this probably isnt the place to be saying this so I'll stop. :oops:
Perfect timing. :sunny:

[mapuc]

When? Never.

How many conspiracy theories are out there, and have you ever seen a single one end?

You're right..Never

I love these conspiracy and I use to listen to an American radio show to "be in touch" with the conspiracy and what's new on that front.

I'll give you some examples on how conspiracy begins

From the same radio show a person that's invited to the show or some phoning in to the studio, tell us the listener something interesting or he/she thinks it could be interesting for us.

Before I continue their story, I want you to remember some of the sci-fi movies you may have seen the last ten years.

1 Person 1: US Navy and the Chinese are in a joint operation against some alien vessel in the Japanese sea(You know which movie)
2. Person 2. NASA want reveale their discovery, but they have found very old building under the ice on Antarctica(guess the movie)

It's seems that there are people that thinks those Sci-fi is the given truth.

Markus

[frau kaleun]

Wait... just... a minute...

https://uluola.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Okay, I are ready for dis thread now!

[Nippelspanner]

Wait... just... a minute...

https://uluola.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Okay, I are ready for dis thread now!

Uhh, those beautiful eyes of yours!

[Red October1984]

Uhh, those beautiful eyes of yours!

I'm a sucker for nice eyes... :smug:

[Jimbuna]

Perfect timing. :sunny:

Rgr that :yep:

[Red October1984]

Rgr that :yep:

JIM'S BACK! :woot:

[Sailor Steve]

Aye, so he is. :rock: :sunny:

[Cybermat47]

I remember seeing some stupid website blaming 9/11 on Adolf Hitler, 'king of the Jews'.


Some people :doh:

[Red October1984]

Some people :doh:

Sadly, yes.... Some People...

But hey. If they want to believe it, let them believe.

It's all part of the learning experience. :O:

[Dowly]

Did you know a 3rd WTC Tower Fell on 9/11/2001 ?

Yes.

This reinforced steel frame World Trade Center building was NOT hit by a plane,No, it wasnt.

and were just some random fires inside,Quite a bit of smoke for "some random fires".

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg


and in the afternoon mysteriously fell very fast in just about six (6) SECONDS,It took 5.4 seconds for the 18 upper floors to collapse out of view (according to NIST). The total time would be longer than that.
Also note that most of what we see collapsing is just an empty shell,
the innards started to collapse with the east penthouse, several seconds
before the facade went down. Video evidence clearly shows that.

"NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the
portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video
analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than
the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the
building had descended solely under free fall conditions."

Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Video of the east penthouse collapsing inside the building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w

Note the sky visible in the corner after the penthouse collapses. Also,
windows breaking is clearly visible as the penthouse goes in.

very very identical to a usual controlled demolition implosion,Except for the.. you know.. explosions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VBz2n0aUHNE1) 9/11 Commission Report didnt mention WTC7.
- The aim of the report was to find out why and how
the terrorist attacks happened. WTC7 wasnt a target, but collateral damage. That's why WTC7 and the other buildings that were destroyed on 9/11
werent mentioned.

2) Silverstein's "pull it".
- This of course refers to Chief Daniel Nigro's decision to pull the firefighters
out of the area. It would seem Silverstein wants to make it look like he was
part of the decision making, but it was Chief Nigro who made the decision
without consulting or informing anyone.

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the
mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my
responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop
all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was
given, WTC 7 collapsed."

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

http://www.ae911truth.org/Richard Gage (the head of ae911truth) hasnt been able to show any evidence to back his claims. He shifts the burden of proof to those
who believe the official story, and if something cannot be explained so that
he is satisfied it's automatically inside job.

Richard Gage vs. Chris Mohr debate (2½ hours):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-AaS5MOkBM

AE911Truth Blueprint For Truth Respectful Rebuttal by Chris Mohr (3h46m):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKdi27dtycU

[tonschk]

http://s13.postimg.org/61lemglef/r_Kp_Mc.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[Sailor Steve]

So you pop back in again just to post a picture which says nothing new and proves nothing.

Once again - do you actually have anything to say? Are you capable of saying anything, or do you just quote what others say? Have you ever had an original thought?

People who actually know how to express themselves are wondering.

[HundertzehnGustav]

or are reading books like: "do not feed the trolls"? :)

[Feuer Frei!]

or are reading books like: "do not feed the trolls"? :)

More like people are reading: DO feed the trolls.

42 posts in this thread :hmmm:
How many of them have addressed what OP has in mind, i haven't counted.

[Sailor Steve]

or are reading books like: "do not feed the trolls"? :)
You have your entertainment, I have mine. I figure if I challenge him enough he might actually realize that he is nothing, an empty shell spouting the rhetoric of others, never offering anything for himself.

Of course trolls never do listen or learn. Can't lock him up, because there are no rules against being a troll, so in the meantime I'm having fun.

[Tribesman]

Why the hostility to Troofers?
Its a welcome change from posts about FEMA death camps.
What would be nice is if some Birthers make a reappearance as that's always good for a laugh.

[Oberon]

Why the hostility to Troofers?
Its a welcome change from posts about FEMA death camps.
What would be nice is if some Birthers make a reappearance as that's always good for a laugh.

That's true, and we haven't had any of the 'lizard-people' round here yet...been quite disappointing really.

[Tribesman]

Lizard people?
Well lets get mr. beware the reptilians and do a different hidden 9:11 story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivGJcRhN_UA

[Hottentot]

do you actually have anything to say? Are you capable of saying anything, or do you just quote what others say? Have you ever had an original thought?

It's OK, Steve, you can just ask if he is an undergraduate. :O:

[Jimbuna]

You have your entertainment, I have mine. I figure if I challenge him enough he might actually realize that he is nothing, an empty shell spouting the rhetoric of others, never offering anything for himself.

Of course trolls never do listen or learn. Can't lock him up, because there are no rules against being a troll, so in the meantime I'm having fun.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5074/trollsprayxj41.jpg

[tonschk]

The enormous crimes of the Bush administration are well-documented, including the launching of an aggressive war on the basis of lies; the torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and a host of secret sites around the globe, and the use of illegal wiretapping against US citizens and other flagrant violations of democratic rights. There is no shortage of statutes under which George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and others could be prosecuted.
The Democrats in Congress were accomplices to the criminality, and now the Obama administration, with minor adjustments, intends to continue these criminal policies. In addition to dispatching more troops to an expanding neo-colonial criminal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US criminal government has recently intervened in several court cases involving torture and illegal wiretapping, defending the previous administration’s actions and invoking “state secrets privilege” to argue that the cases should not even be heard.

[Wolferz]

PIE!
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/pie_in_face_2.jpg

[mapuc]

I have learned one thing and that's there are almost so many conspiracy regarding 9/11 than there are habitants in the state of New York
(OK maybe I have exaggerate a little bit)

What I also have learned is that you shall respect others believes-NOT joint them in their conspiracy crusade. Just some kind of respect.

For many month ago I wrote on Truthers wall

"I'm not into this conspiracy stuff. I do however respect your believes and I do support your demand for a second inquiry....BUT if this inquiry show the same as the first inquiry-would you then believe that there ain't no conspiracy and shut this page down or..."

Got some response on that, can't remember every word in those.

The main story is that we should respect each others believes.
The secon main story is, there ain't no conspiracy regarding 9/11

Markus

[Platapus]

As others have written, it is amazing that at the exact same time, the United States government is

1. Inept at running anything efficiently
2. Unable to coordinate activity efficiently
3. Staffed with lazy people who can't get a job in the commercial world
4. Staffed with evil people each one of which is bent on destroying the constitution
5. Staffed with blind loyalty sheep with no morals of their own who mindlessly carry out orders like automatons.

and

6. is capable of planning, organizing, staffing, implementing, and covering up massive conspiracies involving thousands of people and dozens of government offices at the federal and state level.

All at the same time?

[Runnybabbit]

@tonschk:

"The enormous (enormous in relation or scale to what exactly?) crimes (perceived, believed, dreamed, insert preferred missing word here..) of the Bush administration are well-documented (by authorative persons, or simply conspiracy theorists I wonder?)".

To echo other comments on this thread already made, evidence please, or I cannot begin to believe, and by that I mean, documented, proven evidence.. not just theories please.

I think Platapus makes a good point by looking at how inefficient and poorly performing the US Government actually is. Unless, of course, this US is set in in the John McClane universe and not the actual real one..

This actually reminds me of Scientology, as Ron L Hubbard (The science-fiction writer who wrote Battlefield Earth) commented before his death, on people who followed his religion from the story, "People actually believe in something I invented for a fictional story (or a similar phrase, I cannot remember the exact quote). I suspect the guilty party in this, and conspiracy theorist arguments, is simply fanciful imagination.

Got to say though, it certainly is entertaining!:cool:

[Platapus]

There was this guy named Ockham and he needed a shave....:D

[Sailor Steve]

The enormous crimes of the Bush administration are well-documented
Not really. The accusations are well documented. Let's take a look at them.

including the launching of an aggressive war on the basis of lies
Possibly. The problem is, whose lies? Did Bush and Cheney actively lie so they could get the war they wanted, or did they make the mistake of believing the intel they were given? You need to remember the number of different people who also believed the WMD story, and also remember that Saddam himself was bragging about his WMDs not all that long ago. Whether he had time or not is irrelevant to the question of why it was believed he did.

the torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and a host of secret sites around the globe
The abuse is well documented. The administration's involvement is not. The people who conducted the abuse were punished. Did they recieve orders from higher up? You can believe it if you want, but that is not documented at all.

and the use of illegal wiretapping against US citizens and other flagrant violations of democratic rights.
All legally santioned by an act of Congress. I am one of many who believe the Patriot Act to be morally reprehensible and Unconstitutional, but they passed it and we have to prove they were wrong. Like it or not, calling it illegal doesn't make it so.

There is no shortage of statutes under which George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and others could be prosecuted
Actually there is a great shortage of statutes, or it would have been done. Your precious truthers make claim after claim, yet they can't show any of them to be worth anyone's while.

The Democrats in Congress were accomplices to the criminality, and now the Obama administration, with minor adjustments, intends to continue these criminal policies. In addition to dispatching more troops to an expanding neo-colonial criminal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
The war might be wrong, it might be immoral, and it might be criminal in your belief, but can you show exactly what laws have been broken?

the US criminal government has recently intervened in several court cases involving torture and illegal wiretapping, defending the previous administration’s actions and invoking “state secrets privilege” to argue that the cases should not even be heard.
Your use of the word "intervened" makes it sound like the government overturned a court decision, something it cannot do. What has really happened is that court cases have been brought against the government, and they are attempting to invoke priveledges to keep from answering. As long as the trials are ongoing, your claims are silly.

Now to the real point: Rather than defend your trolling about US involvement in 9/11, you try to divert the argument by making more accusations. You still haven't answered any of the questions concerning your original post. This forces me to ask again - do you have anything real at all? Are you capable of presenting facts and making a real argument, or are you going to continue to parrot what others say?

[Oberon]

Can't lock him up, because there are no rules against being a troll

But wouldn't this come under:

We also have the right to ban users who contribute to poisoning the well. Just as a radio talk host has the right to decide which callers he airs and a newspaper editor decides which letters he prints and which he throws away, the moderators in the Radio Room forums have final say on rants and spews they decide should be cut.

[Sailor Steve]

That's true, and a forum moderator could lock this thread and brig the boy for trolling, but I wouldn't want to see that happen, at least not if he decides he really can construct an argument. If he decides to just make post after post filled with nothing but links, well, we'll see.

[Tribesman]

The enormous crimes of the Bush administration are well-documented, including the launching of an aggressive war on the basis of lies..........

Even if everything you wrote in that post is 100% true what has it got to do with the price of cheese?
Do you have anything that supports you Troofer "theory" about 9/11 that can not be instantly demolished as complete nonsense?

[Catfish]

1. Powell's 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5RZ6ukbNc

2. Bush's speech on war against Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WejYdT3Lof8


I think it is interesting to see that again. How soon doo people forget, or don't they want to know the truth ?

But those posts north of here really made me laugh like "Did Powell really lie ?"
Maybe he just did not know better, but then i ask you who were his advisors ?
Did they lie to him, were they incompetent or did they have an agenda ?
What do you think is the most probable scenario ?

It seems people just do not want to know.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Jimbuna]

But wouldn't this come under:

We also have the right to ban users who contribute to poisoning the well. Just as a radio talk host has the right to decide which callers he airs and a newspaper editor decides which letters he prints and which he throws away, the moderators in the Radio Room forums have final say on rants and spews they decide should be cut.

Correct and I admit I had previously revisited the FAG & Rules section.

That's true, and a forum moderator could lock this thread and brig the boy for trolling, but I wouldn't want to see that happen, at least not if he decides he really can construct an argument. If he decides to just make post after post filled with nothing but links, well, we'll see.

Agreed....I'm happy to let the thread continue and observe for any future developments because tbh it is kind of entertaining to some folk.

[mapuc]

That's true, and a forum moderator could lock this thread and brig the boy for trolling, but I wouldn't want to see that happen, at least not if he decides he really can construct an argument. If he decides to just make post after post filled with nothing but links, well, we'll see.


Steve you have to think as them to understand them

You have on several occasion asked for proof-
In his or their head these links they have posted here or else were are the truth in their eye.

You can ask for proof until judgment day and the only thing you will get are those types of article that he has posted in GT.

Markus

[Spiced_Rum]

launching of an aggressive war

Are there other kinds of war? Passive aggressive. Defensive. Friendly. Or just a war. Both sides will say that their war is Just or justified.:06:

[Oberon]

That's true, and a forum moderator could lock this thread and brig the boy for trolling, but I wouldn't want to see that happen, at least not if he decides he really can construct an argument. If he decides to just make post after post filled with nothing but links, well, we'll see.

Honestly, I think that locking this thread would be the best outcome. After all, aside from ridicule, what more have we to add to this conversations. As mapuc says, tonschk will post what he believes to be the truth and will not deviate from it, and we will continue to pick apart this 'truth' with equal parts patience and ridicule.

Simply put, we have been down this path so many times, with so many different topics, that surely a stand has to be made somewhere?

[Sailor Steve]

It seems people just do not want to know.
So, do you believe the US government destroyed the World Trade Center? That is what this thread is about.

[Catfish]

^ The government ? No, I don't think so.

[Tribesman]

^ The government ? No, I don't think so.
Was it Aliens maybe?

[Jimbuna]

Honestly, I think that locking this thread would be the best outcome. After all, aside from ridicule, what more have we to add to this conversations. As mapuc says, tonschk will post what he believes to be the truth and will not deviate from it, and we will continue to pick apart this 'truth' with equal parts patience and ridicule.

Simply put, we have been down this path so many times, with so many different topics, that surely a stand has to be made somewhere?

Locking so early and without anyone seriously causing havoc, insult or flaming could well be deemed as a form of censorship and Neal does believe in individuals being given the opportunity to express themselves provided no serious rule breaches are made.

I prefer to stick to my comment in #62 but Neal may decide otherwise at a later date.

[mapuc]

Was it Aliens maybe?

Was about to post a link to one of the thread here in GT

this one while quouting Catfish

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205286

But you came first

Markus

[Platapus]

including the launching of an aggressive war.

Like all conspiracy theories, there is always a grain of truth. Whether the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was an aggressive war or not, depends on what the definition of aggression is.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) does define aggression.


Article I

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.


The key is the phrase "inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations". The United Nations, does authorize military action in specific circumstances governed by articles 39 through 49 of the United Nations charter. But there are rules to follow.



It was the United States' position that the Invasion of Iraq was in furtherance of existing UNSC resolutions.



The problem is Article 46 which states, in its entirety:



Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


The United States when implementing the Invasion of Iraq did not go through the United Nations Security Council Military Staff Committee.



An argument could then be made that the Invasion of Iraq was "inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations" and therefore qualified as an act of aggression.


However, the United States (and other countries) have a habit of selectively following the UN rules when it is convenient and ignoring them when inconvenient.



This is why, as an analyst, I have to shake my head ruefully when I read about the United States admonishing some other country for not following UN resolutions. :nope:


There are pots and kettles in the world of foreign policy.

[Oberon]

Locking so early and without anyone seriously causing havoc, insult or flaming could well be deemed as a form of censorship and Neal does believe in individuals being given the opportunity to express themselves provided no serious rule breaches are made.

I prefer to stick to my comment in #62 but Neal may decide otherwise at a later date.

I can see where you're coming from, but there are some threads that, intended or not, are there purely to provoke heated argument. Drive by trolling I believe it was once referred to, and the longer these threads are left open, the more heated the debate and insults get until there's a major falling out. Take for example the thread in regards to creationists and the T-Rex, that was, from the start, designed to target creationists and stir up anger over a matter that has been debated before with equally heated results.
I don't think that it's likely that any such heated arguements will occur here since there are a minority of 9/11 'truthers' on the forum, so the weight of the non-'truthers' will suppress any fire that begins, but on something like religion or politics, it's a tinderbox and it flares up quickly.
I'm not criticising in any way, I know that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place as a moderator, and that the ultimate decision comes from Neal so you have to defer to him, but I can't be the only one thinking this way, surely?

[Jimbuna]

I can see where you're coming from, but there are some threads that, intended or not, are there purely to provoke heated argument. Drive by trolling I believe it was once referred to, and the longer these threads are left open, the more heated the debate and insults get until there's a major falling out. Take for example the thread in regards to creationists and the T-Rex, that was, from the start, designed to target creationists and stir up anger over a matter that has been debated before with equally heated results.
I don't think that it's likely that any such heated arguements will occur here since there are a minority of 9/11 'truthers' on the forum, so the weight of the non-'truthers' will suppress any fire that begins, but on something like religion or politics, it's a tinderbox and it flares up quickly.
I'm not criticising in any way, I know that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place as a moderator, and that the ultimate decision comes from Neal so you have to defer to him, but I can't be the only one thinking this way, surely?

I take your points (especially the rock and a hard place) and duly recognise your not criticising.

I try to be equitable to everyone in our community but I must remain mindful of the many different dynamics involved in forums and remain confident that you, like me have seen some disgraceful behaviour in a variety of forums over the years....thankfully not on SubSim.

If a serious breach of the rules is identified then action, without deferring to Neal first is always an option to all the moderators....admittedly Neal can overrule if he sees fit but that is seldom the case.

Overall I consider GT here to be quite civilised but I'll not tempt fate any further and await the dropping of the atomic bomb in the next day or so :):03:

[Sailor Steve]

Take for example the thread in regards to creationists and the T-Rex, that was, from the start, designed to target creationists and stir up anger over a matter that has been debated before with equally heated results.
The problem there is, what do you do? Lock the thread immediately? If so, does that mean the Original Poster should be considered a troll? If the thread is worth locking, should he also be brigged outright? Considered for a keelhauling?

Or lock the thread but leave the OP alone on the assumption he just saw something he thought was funny and didn't think about the consequences?

When does it reach the point where some subjects become absolutely forbidden? It has been suggested in the past that GT be closed altogether. One of the objections was that then people would bring their nonsense to other forums. The two counters to that were that people already troll those forums anyway, and if anyone brings up anything not related to that forum they would be immediately squashed. Of course the problem there is that GT is the biggest forum Subsim has, and if it were shut down a large part of the membership would be gone.

I don't know the answers to any of those questions, and the last I heard neither does anybody else, including Neal. So it gets played by ear a lot, and everybody has a different opinion on it, including me. It's never easy.

[Catfish]

Was it Aliens maybe?

Hmm .. no i don't think they were aliens, not even illegal ones :O:

[Oberon]

The problem there is, what do you do? Lock the thread immediately? If so, does that mean the Original Poster should be considered a troll? If the thread is worth locking, should he also be brigged outright? Considered for a keelhauling?

Or lock the thread but leave the OP alone on the assumption he just saw something he thought was funny and didn't think about the consequences?

When does it reach the point where some subjects become absolutely forbidden? It has been suggested in the past that GT be closed altogether. One of the objections was that then people would bring their nonsense to other forums. The two counters to that were that people already troll those forums anyway, and if anyone brings up anything not related to that forum they would be immediately squashed. Of course the problem there is that GT is the biggest forum Subsim has, and if it were shut down a large part of the membership would be gone.

I don't know the answers to any of those questions, and the last I heard neither does anybody else, including Neal. So it gets played by ear a lot, and everybody has a different opinion on it, including me. It's never easy.

That is the Catch-22. I'd suggest a council of people to judge whether a topic is aimed for trolling but that would probably just slow down the response time and give a chance for the fire to kindle.
It's tricky, that's why I don't like to bring these things up because I know that you guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I guess that the only thing to do for people who don't like how GT has become is just not to go to GT. :haha:

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, my thought is why, when a thread like this appears, give in to the baiting and even post in it at all?
I know it's easier said than done because some folks can't help themselves and take the bait. Regardless of what's thrown at them.
It's like they have an obligation to address a thread like this in the hope that they can disprove or prove what the OP is posting.

Mission accomplished i say by the OP, with 75 posts in this count so far.

It will give the trolls fresh hope indeed.

Whether you address the OP's original claims, or merely post in it to spam OT stuff, it's all the same.
It bumps the thread to the top, giving it exposure.

New people arrive, post in it, and so it goes on.

If no-one posted in something like this, the thread would disappear very very fast off the first page and into oblivion.

My 1.0001 cents' worth.

[Tribesman]

If no-one posted in something like this, the thread would disappear very very fast off the first page and into oblivion.

I agree, I think people who post in this topic and keep it alive have a lot to answer for.

[Sailor Steve]

That is the Catch-22. I'd suggest a council of people to judge whether a topic is aimed for trolling but that would probably just slow down the response time and give a chance for the fire to kindle.
There is such a council. They're called 'Moderators', and it has been discussed. :sunny:

I guess that the only thing to do for people who don't like how GT has become is just not to go to GT. :haha:
I've said many times before that GT hasn't "become" anything. It's always been like this, and anyone who says otherwise has a selective memory.

Well, my thought is why, when a thread like this appears, give in to the baiting and even post in it at all?
Some people don't know it's baiting. Some (including me) don't care. In this case I consider it to be reverse baiting. I'm not arguing with him, I'm just asking him to show that he has anything at all. Yes, I've also suggested ignoring people as a solution, but there are different kinds of trolls. Some post nonsense and can't see they're doing it. Some post nonsense deliberately just to see what will happen Some are very good at baiting others and get away with it fairly consistently. The hard part is deciphering which is which. I know that this one will always say exactly the same thing, over and over again, and never change his tune by even one note. I would gladly let him go, but as I've said I'm having fun. Does that make me a troll as well? I don't know.

It will give the trolls fresh hope indeed.
The real trolls - the ones who pick a fight and then when they have no real argument try to change the tune entirely, finally turning to personal attacks, reveal themselves fairly quickly - get banned for life, then come back with a new name and try again. And get banned again. This guy isn't one of them.

If no-one posted in something like this, the thread would disappear very very fast off the first page and into oblivion.
Very true, but it also raises the obvious question: If you know your arguments won't be heard or make any difference, why are you posting here?

[Sailor Steve]

I agree, I think people who post in this topic and keep it alive have a lot to answer for.
Subtle. Seriously, so subtle I had to read it three times before I got it.

[Tribesman]

Subtle. Seriously, so subtle I had to read it three times before I got it.
Should I make another post to repeat the point more clearly?

[Sailor Steve]

No. That said, if I had gotten it the first time I might not have been so long-winded.

[Feuer Frei!]

Please understand i'm not attacking you with the replies, Steve. Read it with an open mind.
I respect you and certainly wouldn't want you to think that i don't like you.


Some people don't know it's baiting. Well, i think the topic would send out a clear message that the thread has been created for exactly that reason. Us more 'intelligent' folks would see it a mile away and steer clear from responding. Or sitting back and watching the entertainment.
However, i think it's also important to realize when to lock a thread or not post in it purely for the entertainment value.
I understand it's a double-edged sword. Do you lock it immediately you smell troll? Do you send out a message to the forum members that there is absolutely no freedom of speech and that as soon as you post something, undeniably and unintentionally wanting to troll but to perhaps just invite mature and sensible discussion, that the thread will get locked and people get disgruntled and won't post anymore? I think that's not right either.
But when it's a clear case of trolling and deliberately inviting the reactions of forum members with rather tasteless material, and 9\11 is tasteless, in the way it was raised in this thread, then someone needs to take a hard line and either lock it or advise from the word go, ie. second or 3rd post that to invite further discussions, if you want to call it that, in this thread, will not be a positive thing. Some (including me) don't care. I understand that, i don't care either. However other members may. And to let this go on, if you were, is that productive? Good and healthy for the forum folks? I'm not arguing with him, I'm just asking him to show that he has anything at all. Of course he doesn't have anything other than linked pictures to conspiracy sites or copy-pasta'd regurgitated material, for want of a better word, with absolutely nothing new to add. If you can infact add anything at all to something like this, which hasn't been theorized many many times before.
That's what trolls do. Regurgitate copied material, amongst other things. Yes, I've also suggested ignoring people as a solution, but there are different kinds of trolls. Some post nonsense and can't see they're doing it. Some post nonsense deliberately just to see what will happen Some are very good at baiting others and get away with it fairly consistently. All understandable. However in combating that, perhaps the 'guidelines' need to be re-written, which includes sensitive material being used to open up threads in a manner which could only suggest trolling is at work.
The way in which a topic is created gives a big insight into what is to follow, what its motive is and sure, let it go for a page and see where it ends up. Then act.
The hard part is deciphering which is which. Perhaps, but as i said above, you get to see very quickly what the motive of a thread having been posted is. What is the purpose of the creation of said thread? Is it to rile feathers? Is it to spout conspiracy theories left right and centre, all the while achieveing absolutely nothing towards the GT section and to the wider forum members? Is it to deliberately insite arguements? Is it to innocently spout as-yet unproven theories of an event or occurrance which is sensitive to a lot of people and may not insite arguements or further trolling in said thread?
I think once again it goes back to re-defining the 'guidelines' and posting a clear picture of what is acceptabe subject material and what is not.
The crux of it all is, as you think, is how a person uses subject material to make a point. How a person raises a subject matter in the forums. How to distinguish a poster who has clear intentions to insite arguements and disagreements purely for their own entertainment. Or a distinguishing a poster who posts, also, like the proven or obvious troll, sensitive subject matter, but making mature, calculated and above all, diplomatic and educated contributions in creating a thread. I think the two could and would and should be fairly easily distinguishable.
I know that this one will always say exactly the same thing, over and over again, and never change his tune by even one note. Well, if that's a well-known fact, then why cater to that repeated, tired old posting of his then? I would gladly let him go, but as I've said I'm having fun. Indeed, and there is nothing wrong with you having fun. I certainly don't have an issue with you having fun Steve. However, the wider community needs to be taken into consideration. Are we having fun? Sure, it's entertaining, sitting back and seeing if the OP comes up with anything ground-breaking, new or unheard of before. Or changes his tact mid-way through his thread and actually realises what garbage he or she is posting and disapperas into the deep halls of trolldom, whence he came from. And with that, let the wider community get on with posting more constructive discussion points. The GT section is just that. General Topics. I totally get that. It contains all sorts of topic matters, ranging from humour, politics, religion, non-fiction, fiction, real-life experiences, current affairs, garbage, troll material, ah heck, all sorts of stuff.
And modewrating this part of Subsim would not be an enviable task. I take that onboard. I really do.
But that's not the issue here. Whether it's an enviable task or not.
The issue here is whether to constructively and clinically shut down an obvious troll post or not.
Does that make me a troll as well? I don't know.I don't think it does.
Nor does it make me a troll by posting here, either in reply to you or further back, when i posted in answer to some of Oberons' suggestions or queries and your own in how to possibly deal with trolls.
Addressing mature and decent discussion points in a troll thread doesn't make one a troll.
However, posting similar garbage as the OP, continuing his relentless drive in attempting to disrupt a lively but in general very good General Thread section...well. (not you)

but it also raises the obvious question: If you know your arguments won't be heard or make any difference, why are you posting here?Who says that my arguments won't be heard? Or ring a sound somewhere here with mods? Or Neal?
I never assumed before posting my previous comment in relation to how to deal with forum trolls should be used a would-be end-all guide for this forum.
I posted it purely with my opinion, in the hope that others would read it and perhaps make sense of it and possibly refrain from feeding the troll any further.

Continuously feeding the troll with rebuttals, educated or not, spammed or not, will not fix it.

Posting a sensible remark, grounded and mature (or so i believe) and not addressing any of his 'subject matter', may help.

My motif was clear, sincere and innocent.

[Sailor Steve]

Please understand i'm not attacking you with the replies, Steve. Read it with an open mind.
After reading it I can honestly say that you needn't worry about that.

I understand it's a double-edged sword. Do you lock it immediately you smell troll?
Not a problem for me, as I'm not a moderator on this forum and thus can't lock threads here. I could have brigged him right away, but that raises exactly the same problems you addressed with the idea of locking the thread.

That's what trolls do. Regurgitate copied material, amongst other things. All understandable. However in combating that, perhaps the 'guidelines' need to be re-written, which includes sensitive material being used to open up threads in a manner which could only suggest trolling is at work.
There is only one person who can rewrite guidelines, and that is the man who wrote them in the first place. We take our cues from him, and he likes to use a light touch. If you think things should change, he's the one you need to talk to.

I think once again it goes back to re-defining the 'guidelines' and posting a clear picture of what is acceptabe subject material and what is not.
We have guidelines we use. If you want them changed you need to PM Neal Stevens.

The crux of it all is, as you think, is how a person uses subject material to make a point. How a person raises a subject matter in the forums. How to distinguish a poster who has clear intentions to insite arguements and disagreements purely for their own entertainment. Or a distinguishing a poster who posts, also, like the proven or obvious troll, sensitive subject matter, but making mature, calculated and above all, diplomatic and educated contributions in creating a thread. I think the two could and would and should be fairly easily distinguishable.
That's a fair point, but unless the obvious troll has been permanently banned he has as much right to post as anyone else. If we think he's gone too far then he'll know it. Just locking the thread is nice, but if he's broken the rules he also needs to be infracted. Is what he said worthy of infraction? Trust me, I thought about it very carefully before I posted.

However, the wider community needs to be taken into consideration...And with that, let the wider community get on with posting more constructive discussion points.
Is anyone stopping that from happening? Is anyone forcing people to respond to this thread, or any other? Is anyone forcing people to read this thread? If you put the troll on ignore you won't have to read his posts. I'm not dismissing your argument or suggesting you do anything in particular. I'm just adding other options to the mix.

The issue here is whether to constructively and clinically shut down an obvious troll post or not.
But the same problem arises: If he's an obvious troll, why not just get rid of him forever? The answer may seem easy to you, but then where do you draw that line? You can't ban him if he hasn't done anything worth banning for. You can only brig him if he crosses certain lines. We've already discussed one of the guidelines for which he might be brigged. If we don't brig him right off the bat, when do we brig him? If he hasn't been brigged, why should the thread be locked? It's easy to take a hard line. I should know, I sometimes take way too hard a line. It's easy to say what you think should be done. It's not always that easy to do it, and to do it in such a way that you still have a forum people want to come to.

Who says that my arguments won't be heard? Or ring a sound somewhere here with mods? Or Neal?
That wasn't my point. My point was better said in this case by Tribesman. If posting in a thread adds to the mayhem, how is saying that it does any different from any other post? You're still adding to the mayhem, posting in a thread to complain about everybody else posting in the thread.

Continuously feeding the troll with rebuttals, educated or not, spammed or not, will not fix it.

Posting a sensible remark, grounded and mature (or so i believe) and not addressing any of his 'subject matter', may help.
Possibly. On the other hand the ultimate troll thread ever was the 'Subsim Zombies' thread, and the only reason that thread wasn't nominated for 'Thread Of The Year' was that we can't give a "best of" award to a troll so bad he's been keelhauled several times under several different names.

So what you think is obvious is not so much to some others. All we can do is wait and see how it goes.

[Sailor Steve]

On reflection I suppose one possible solution is to lock the thread, leaving the comment "I'm sorry. You're welcome to post here, but not about that."

[Catfish]

Can someone imagine that there are real people with real doubts, and that even if some do not want to hear about those doubts at all anymore, it might not be 'trolling' ?
Is a thread about the NSA, GCHQ, Julian Assange and Mr Snowden also 'trolling' just because a lot of people do not want to hear about it.

To label inconvenient views "trolling" is certainly is a good method to shut up unwanted opinions.
But why all this anticipatory obedience ?
:hmm2:

[Hottentot]

Can someone imagine that there are real people with real doubts, and that even if some do not want to hear about those doubts at all anymore, it might not be 'trolling' ?
Is a thread about the NSA, GCHQ, Julian Assange and Mr Snowden also 'trolling' just because a lot of people do not want to hear about it.

To label inconvenient views "trolling" is certainly is a good method to shut up unwanted opinions.
But why all this anticipatory obedience ?
:hmm2:

Prove me that Santa Claus didn't murder John F. Kennedy. There is lots of evidence saying Santa Claus did it. Have you ever considered that Santa is just a different way to spell Satan? Or why there was so much red on the scene? Prove me Santa didn't do it.

That's why.

[Catfish]

Huh ?
What exactly do you deny ?

[MH]

Huh ?
What exactly do you deny ?

That is exactly the problem here.:haha:

[mapuc]

Please do NOT mock a person just because he or she believes in some kind of conspiracy.

Did you know that about 80-90 % of the earth habitant believe in a certain conspiracy!?

When you know what kind of conspiracy it is, you may not approve it or even be mad, but when considering to what and how conspiracy occur, this conspiracy is nothing more that just conspiracy

Markus

[Catfish]

Conspiracy theories .. aliens.. well.

I do not think Powell presenting 'evidence' for WMDs in Iraq, and that he and others lied about that, is a 'conspiracy theory' ?
I do not think that this is even open for discussion, there are public videos about his and others' speeches. Only question is why he did that. Incompetence, bad advisors or what ?

Wikileaks, and Snowden - so what leaked out is also not true ? The videos, the documents - this all is a conspiracy theory alright.
The fact that Manning is being tried in a court martial makes the truth of what leaked out a bit more believable, don't you think so.

And the world is speaking about what harm this leaking caused, no one talks about the contents, so it is all fair and right.
Ok indeed nothing to see here, move on.

[Sailor Steve]

Can someone imagine that there are real people with real doubts, and that even if some do not want to hear about those doubts at all anymore, it might not be 'trolling' ?
Certainly, and if they present actual evidence and discuss it honestly then it's debating, not trolling. When, on the other hand, a person has a long reputation of doing nothing but posting links and refusing to actually discuss the subject, then it's probably safe to call it 'trolling'.

Is a thread about the NSA, GCHQ, Julian Assange and Mr Snowden also 'trolling' just because a lot of people do not want to hear about it.
It is if the person posting it doesn't talk about it at all, but posts link after link to what other people say without ever saying anything himself.

To label inconvenient views "trolling" is certainly is a good method to shut up unwanted opinions.
That's true. On the other hand, to ignore real trolling is sheer folly. Well, ignoring it altogether is probably the better idea, but to not call it what it is? In this case it really is trolling.

[mapuc]

As I have said before, in their head it is the truth.

You and we have asked for some proof and he have posted some link, that for us is nothing but another proof of conspiracy, but in his head is the truth.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Sometimes the problem lies in what is inside some peoples heads :)

[Fish]

Did you know a 3rd WTC Tower Fell on 9/11/2001 ?,

http://ideologicallyimpure.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/facepalm_picard_riker.jpg

[Hottentot]

Huh ?
What exactly do you deny ?

I'm denying the blind lambs being right. Prove me wrong.