Suggested: Single topic discussion process

meglome

It think it would be a very interesting exercise to try this. We'll need the Mods help here as we're all likely to get out of hand eventually otherwise, and I include myself in that.

So if we discuss one topic at a time and look in depth at it before moving to another. I think it will be a useful task and I'd hope it would show there is less evidence for a CT here than some people think. This is only my 'sceptics' opinion and I'm really interested for any of the CT's out there to show me the opposite.

I'd like to start this with the text from 911myths.com site as I think it covers my views closely enough.

911myths.com wrote:

What do you think happened on September 11th? Do you completely accept the official version? If not, why don’t you present your doubts on the site?

I think the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, and involved the 19 named hijackers.
Could Flight 93 have been shot down? I can’t rule out that completely -- let’s say it has a 10% probability for me -- but I’m far from convinced.

Could the attacks have been assisted “on the day”? The stand-down evidence looks weak to me. I don’t believe it was necessary, or even possible to plant bombs in the WTC.

Could the attacks have been assisted in advance by people within the US? I’m neutral on this. There was plenty of information flying around, so we have two alternatives: a) they didn’t put the pieces together in time, or b) they knew but did nothing about it. I currently see insufficient evidence to form an opinion either way.

So why not mention this on the site? Well, now I have, but there’s really nothing here to justify making it into a topic. As I just said about being selective, ideally I’d like the topics here to a) include some information you don’t often read anywhere else, and b) make a point that’s significant, stands at least a chance of changing someone’s mind. Yet another page on “Rice said we couldn’t imagine this kind of attack but look, they could” really doesn’t cut it, either way.

What suggestions do you have for a topic you'd like to start on? What other ground rules should we have?

[Mods feel free to edit]

6th

So this is discussing a process by which to discuss some topics? Ok I'm fine with that but the thread title doesnt reflect that so much as the OP suggests it - it looks like a 911 thread based on the title.

I'll amend the title and let me know if its ok.

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

I'd like to start this with the text from 911myths.com site as I think it covers my views closely enough.

That text contains seven seperate questions. The first of them alone is sufficiently vague to apply to the entire 911 mega-thread from way back. After all, every single 911 conspiracy discussion is an in-depth look at the explanations (and flaws therein) of what happened on september 11, 2001.

I like the idea of having some threads which are "strict on-topic". I would suggest, however, that they need a truly narrow focus. Otherwise, one ends up with mega-threads again...

It would also be tough from a moderation point of view. Where do you draw the line in terms of getting off-topic? If someone says that to discuss point A (on-topic) we must also look at point B (off-topic) as the two are inextricably bound...is that a license to then "add" scope? Is something off-topic.

Its an interesting idea that could be worth trying out...but I think we'd need quite a bit of work on establishing ground-rules.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

That text contains seven seperate questions. The first of them alone is sufficiently vague to apply to the entire 911 mega-thread from way back. After all, every single 911 conspiracy discussion is an in-depth look at the explanations (and flaws therein) of what happened on september 11, 2001.

Sure which is why I'm very interested in hearing what people have to say. I was just setting out my own views on 911 so that would be clear from the start.

bonkey wrote: »

T
I like the idea of having some threads which are "strict on-topic". I would suggest, however, that they need a truly narrow focus. Otherwise, one ends up with mega-threads again...

I agree, which is another reason why I used text from 911myths.com as that's what he does on his site.

bonkey wrote: »

It would also be tough from a moderation point of view. Where do you draw the line in terms of getting off-topic? If someone says that to discuss point A (on-topic) we must also look at point B (off-topic) as the two are inextricably bound...is that a license to then "add" scope? Is something off-topic.

Its an interesting idea that could be worth trying out...but I think we'd need quite a bit of work on establishing ground-rules.

The ground rules would be very important and would need to be set out clearly. I'm probably not the best person for that but I'm very happy to fully get behind the idea. As a man with a very scientific approach I would suggest that you Bonkey would be the man for starting the guidelines list.

bonkey

Its amazing how quickly topics wander off-topic...

I've split 15 (!) posts to a seperate topic, cause none of them were really on-topic.

Thread is here.

Any further posts on this thread should only be about discussing meglome's suggestion, rather than 911, what a conspiracy theory is, or any other vaguely related idea that takes your fancy.

bonkey

On that note, its instructive to note that this thread managed a signal-to-noise ratio of 1:3.

It clearly defined what it wanted to discuss. By the 2nd post, the title was amended to match that.

Even still, we had literally 3 in every 4 posts having little-to-nothing to do with the original, narrowly-focussed topic.

This is one of the challenges that such threads would have...the amount of work it could potentially generate. I split off the posts here, but I don't think that would be practical in such threads on an ongoing basis.

Meglome...I'll mull over the idea, and come back with some suggestions. The other mods may do similarly...or we may even talk to each other Any further input on-thread is more than welcome from anyone.

jonbravo

6th is right, its all about the OP of the conspiracy ....its that simple ,the conspiracy should end with a question on where the poster wants to go, with regard the discussion.

Mahatma coat

I dunno bout this tho, by their nature CT's are overarching, take the example of 911 the original Megamerge thread was a huge and unwieldy but very little of the discussion was actually Off topic regards 911, now some people will disagree and say that stuff about Zionists and media manipulation are not part of the thread etc

but realisticly we cant limit CT discussions to single points at the exclusion of all else as a lot of us view these things in an overarching context.

what I would be in favour of is the process that is in place at the moment where if something which requires a more indepth look pops up in a thread the Poster or one of the mods have the option of starting a new thread for that topic.

but this should be done on an ad hoc basis as opposed to having hard and fast RULES imposed as these will be 'enforced' by other posters (on both sides) as a method of weaseling out of difficult questions or putting another user on the spot for personal gratification

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I dunno bout this tho, by their nature CT's are overarching, take the example of 911 the original Megamerge thread was a huge and unwieldy but very little of the discussion was actually Off topic regards 911, now some people will disagree and say that stuff about Zionists and media manipulation are not part of the thread etc

but realisticly we cant limit CT discussions to single points at the exclusion of all else as a lot of us view these things in an overarching context.

what I would be in favour of is the process that is in place at the moment where if something which requires a more indepth look pops up in a thread the Poster or one of the mods have the option of starting a new thread for that topic.

but this should be done on an ad hoc basis as opposed to having hard and fast RULES imposed as these will be 'enforced' by other posters (on both sides) as a method of weaseling out of difficult questions or putting another user on the spot for personal gratification

If we stick to very specific things we might actually achieve something. Sure start a new thread for a new topic, as long as that stays focussed too. I'd accuse the CT sites of using splatter tactics, so much muck is thrown that we could never get to the bottom for it. Now I'm happy to be proved wrong on this but let's do it with the fine detail.

Mahatma coat

aqh but thakin that route generally leads to gettin bogged down on tiny and obscure points aththe expense of the big picture.

your 'scatter gun approach' is my 'overarching review'

a CT cannot be narrowed down to one tiny point in isolation, but points in isolation can lead to an understanding of a CT

what was that thing bonkey said about A leading to B and B coming from A being different concepts

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

aqh but thakin that route generally leads to gettin bogged down on tiny and obscure points aththe expense of the big picture.

But this is the crux of the whole issue. If the bigger picture is as you believe it is then the finer details should be too. The big picture is made up of all these fine details, at least it should be for anyone who really wants to prove it one way or the other. Obviously some details cannot be proved either way so I personally will remain neutral on them. But if the fine details don't show what you believe then is the big picture what you believe it is either? And the same goes for me.

jonbravo

meglome wrote: »

But this is the crux of the whole issue. If the bigger picture is as you believe it is then the finer details should be too. The big picture is made up of all these fine details, at least it should be for anyone who really wants to prove it one way or the other. Obviously some details cannot be proved either way so I personally will remain neutral on them. But if the fine details don't show what you believe then is the big picture what you believe it is either? And the same goes for me.

i think the blue writing below comes close to what your thinking and the way,which conspiracys should be wrote...
if someone wants to believe something i.e God,911 CT,whatever,,,who are we to say fool,nor should they be questioned about what they believe[unless its the the question asked in the OP other wise its off topic], when we dont have answer's only opinions.
But the person that started the thread should question the reader about the topic at hand...most of the time the person which starts the thread, gets off topic first...i find this to be the case,in the aftermath i find it hard to continue on topic,then we are both wrong i know.

bonkey

Mahatma Coat wrote:

aqh but thakin that route generally leads to gettin bogged down on tiny and obscure points aththe expense of the big picture.

No-one (I hope) is suggesting that all topics be handled this way.

Meglome is, if I understand correctly, asking that people have the option to somehow indicate that they want a thread to remain "tightly" on-topic.

your 'scatter gun approach' is my 'overarching review'

In the thread that I split off from this, I started trying to drill into a number of points that a poster had made in response to a set of targetted questions. The response was, effectively, a post of new questions, all about completely different topics. It may be that the poster in question wants to talk about "The Big Picture", but both meglome and I (in that thread) wanted to look at the detail of those 8 questions.

Meglome's suggestion is, as I understand it, a way that threads can be started where whataboutery is effectively forbidden...where we stay on-topic. Its not everyone's cup of tea, which is why its not for every post.

I am skeptical (to be honest) if we will find many/any points which both sides are interested in drilling into in this way, but I still think its an idea worth persuing.

a CT cannot be narrowed down to one tiny point in isolation, but points in isolation can lead to an understanding of a CT

Here's the thing though...I do not recall ever seeing a single "understanding of the CT" post regarding 911. There are those who are convinced there is a conspiracy, unquestionably. However, I have never once seen a clear, concise statement of what they believe the CT is, and what it is not....what they believe actually happened, and who was behind it.

Just once, I'd love to see a "Big Picture" person put their Big Picture down in writing...saying that they believe (for example) that the planes were hijacked, but by the time they flew into the buildings, the hijackers weren't aboard. Because they planes were always controlled by the government's agents, they reject the notion that one was shot down and covered up by the same people. The planes did hit the buildings as suggested, so they reject the various "no planes" theories. The towers may have been damaged enough by the planes, but there was additional explosives used to ensure they fell, so that the collapse of WTC 7 had a cover story. WTC 7 had been secretly prepped for demolition in advance, but wasn't the primary aim of the day...just a bonus. And the whole thing was done so that we could invade Afghanistan, to then invade Iraq, to then create enough national debt to break the economy sufficiently so that Social Security would have to be abandoned.

Noone that I can recall has ever offered their big picture....merely insisted that we look at some nebulous one.

It is the lack of hte big picture we're supposed to be looking at, as much as anything else, which leads to the endless "whataboutery". We start discussing A, and someone asks "but what about B". We look at that, and someone else asks "but what about C". Go on long enough (as the 911 thread showed) and sooner or later, someone will ask "but what about A" as though we had never mentioned it before. We get nowhere, because there is no direction.

There is no overarching story. If there was it would also benefit us to look at individual points. If someone insists the story requires the use of explosives, and can't explain how explosives were used....they need to revise the story, or admit that they just "feel" that explosives were used, even though they see problems with that...and so on and so forth, until someone asks why the basis on which the official accounts were rejected (problems matching fact to explanation) doesn't apply to the Big Picture (problems matching fact to explanation).

what was that thing bonkey said about A leading to B and B coming from A being different concepts

I said that B coming from A is not the same as A always leading to B.

e.g. It only snows on cold days. This doesn't mean that if the day is cold it must snow.