|
9/11 Documentary - WATCH it in here (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by juzfugen
Take any major world event in rescent history, now over analyze it and you can make a conspiracy out of it. |
Accidental history is when you slip down a flight of stairs.
Conspiratorial history is when you're pushed down the flight of stairs.
There is a difference. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
for those that dont want to watch the whole thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29
EDIT:
Obviously done by smart college students out of their dorm room. While they lack experience making documentaries and Avery's scratchy nerd voice is painful to listen to, the evidence collected is very compelling and even born skeptics for displays of evidence through such mediums should watch it. (*cough* occrider *cough*)
|
Umm what st_andrew said? Look I've put forth the time and effort to try to debunk pages and pages of arguments with nothing other than the power of google 50 times over. Why don't you comprehensively debunk those 150 pages and then we'll talk? :conf: |
|
|
| juzfugen |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Accidental history is when you slip down a flight of stairs.
Conspiratorial history is when you're pushed down the flight of stairs.
There is a difference. |
doesnt matter a conspiracy theorists will say XX made me fall by ... |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Umm what st_andrew said? Look I've put forth the time and effort to try to debunk pages and pages of arguments with nothing other than the power of google 50 times over. Why don't you comprehensively debunk those 150 pages and then we'll talk? :conf: |
I looked over that and most of it isn't exactly "debunking" so much as a single author commenting on the transcript of the video. That also accounts for the length of the document, which includes quotes, pictures and new experts from the author. But not as if the number of pages could be used as any indication of credibility.
Actually I skipped forward to some of the main points the video made and the author of the document provides very little to no counter-evidence. Questions raised by the video are not answered. Debunking means "to remove the false sentiments from". That document did no such thing.
One of the highlights the video has got attention for is the 'cell-phone theory', mostly because this is new material. I will note the author of the document points out that the main study used to support the claims in the video was done in London, Ontario using regular cell phones and the calls from the hijacked plains were supposedly made with the airplane's installed GTE airphones.
No everything in such a video like this shouldn't be immediately accepted to be true. Yes most of the claims and arguments made are very thin and not based on much direct factual evidence. Even so that is not cause to completely dismiss the fact. It raises important questions of that day which have gone unanswered and as citizens we deserve to be told the truth.
This administration has done nothing but stone wall and give excuses. They have done nothing to show they can be trusted and everything to show they can't be. If theres nothing to hide then there shouldn't be any problem. There should be another independent investigation with all available resources and cooperation given to that investigation. But as we have already seen, people in washington don't like investigations. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by juzfugen
doesnt matter a conspiracy theorists will say XX made me fall by ... |
Let me remind people that you only offer opinion and not fact.
Firefighters were told to evacuate because of "secondary devices". I am sure that responding NYPD and FDNY ESU and HAZMAT first responders knew what they were dealing with initially. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
I looked over that and most of it isn't exactly "debunking" so much as a single author commenting on the transcript of the video. That also accounts for the length of the document, which includes quotes, pictures and new experts from the author.
|
So what did the documentary make a compelling, factual case for that the author failed to address in any meaningful way whatsoever?
| quote: |
But not as if the number of pages could be used as any indication of credibility.
|
Haha this I agree with. If the number of pages (or minutes in a documentary) were any indication of credibility the site owner of "whatreallyhappened.com" would be the Herodotus of the 21st century. Which begs the question ... what specifically is not credible?
| quote: |
Actually I skipped forward to some of the main points the video made and the author of the document provides very little to no counter-evidence. Questions raised by the video are not answered. Debunking means "to remove the false sentiments from". That document did no such thing.
|
Like what? You're being extremely vague ... let's get very specific.
| quote: |
One of the highlights the video has got attention for is the 'cell-phone theory', mostly because this is new material. I will note the author of the document points out that the main study used to support the claims in the video was done in London, Ontario using regular cell phones and the calls from the hijacked plains were supposedly made with the airplane's installed GTE airphones.
|
Great now we're getting to something meaty. So what's the null hypothesis you're making and what is the evidence to support your claims? Please humor me because I don't have time to watch the video so I don't know what the argument you're referencing in particular is.
| quote: |
No everything in such a video like this shouldn't be immediately accepted to be true. Yes most of the claims and arguments made are very thin and not based on much direct factual evidence. Even so that is not cause to completely dismiss the fact. It raises important questions of that day which have gone unanswered and as citizens we deserve to be told the truth.
|
So most of it is crap but despite the fact that the author's integrity is ruined we should entrust our beliefs to some of the stuff he is proclaiming? Have you done any fact checking to acertain the veracity of his claims? Again what specifically?
| quote: |
This administration has done nothing but stone wall and give excuses. They have done nothing to show they can be trusted and everything to show they can't be. If theres nothing to hide then there shouldn't be any problem. There should be another independent investigation with all available resources and cooperation given to that investigation. But as we have already seen, people in washington don't like investigations. |
Straw man. This is irrelevant to the discussion of the veracity of the documentary. |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
:rolleyes: @ conspiracies
It's good to be skeptical, but this video was pretty ridiculous at points.
But not as ridiculous as Nicolas Cage in World Trade Center.
I read through threads like this and it's just the same regurgitation I’m used to seeing in PDD. Donny and Tiesto14 wave their penises around at the very thought that any of these conspiracy theories have a shred of truth. And then people like Trancer-X turn their nose up (like a gay-man turning his nose up at 10$ Payless Shoes) to people who DON’T buy into the theories.
I don’t know why I post in here. And I get the feeling people are either too willing to believe conspiracy theories, or they just automatically consider them false. Where’s the skepticism? Can’t you be skeptical of your government, but at the same time be skeptical of videos like “Loose Change.” Can’t you have informed opinions? What’s wrong with admitting that someone might have a good point?
Just a thought-- but then again, no one cares about my opinion. |
|
|
| juzfugen |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Let me remind people that you only offer opinion and not fact.
Firefighters were told to evacuate because of "secondary devices". I am sure that responding NYPD and FDNY ESU and HAZMAT first responders knew what they were dealing with initially. |
Thats debatable, there is no FACTUAL evidence that suggest that, hence the reason its a conspiracy, something that can not be proven by facts |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by juzfugen
Thats debatable, there is no FACTUAL evidence that suggest that, hence the reason its a conspiracy, something that can not be proven by facts |
So you're saying FDNY and NYPD don't know their jobs? Why would anyone in those agencies ever order an evacuation needlessly?
Fact: An evacuation order was given.
There is no conspiracy.
You have yet to offer anything against it but ad hominem attacks.
There was a conspiracy theory that Saddam had nukes. You don't see anyone calling GW a conspiracy theorist.
Guess what, that theory was proven false.
It is convienient for people to use the label "conspiracy theory" when they offer no proof other than their perceived intellect as brandished through their keyboard. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| FACT: The buildings were evacuated because they had been hit by airplanes and were on fire! |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
FACT: The buildings were evacuated because they had been hit by airplanes and were on fire! |
Let me rephrase that for those just tuning in:
FACT: NYPD and FDNY were told to evacuate because of a bomb.
in addition:
FACT: People were told to stay in the other building that had yet to be struck.
(9:00 a.m.): WTC South Tower Announcement: OK to Return to Offices
A public announcement is broadcast inside the WTC Tower Two (the South Tower, which has yet to be hit), saying that the building is secure and people can return to their offices. [New York Times, 9/11/2002] Such announcements continue until a few minutes before the building is hit, and “may [lead] to the deaths of hundreds of people.” No one knows exactly what is said (though many later recall the phrase “the building is secure”), or who gives the authority to say it. [USA Today, 9/2/2002] Additionally, security agents inside the building repeat similar messages to individuals in the tower. For instance, one survivor recounts hearing, “Our building is secure. You can go back to your floor. If you’re a little winded, you can get a drink of water or coffee in the cafeteria.” [New York Times, 9/13/2001] Another survivor recalls an escaping crowd actually running over a man with a bullhorn encouraging them to return to their desks. [Newsday, 9/12/2001] Businessman Steve Miller recalls hearing a voice say over the building’s loudspeaker something similar to: “There’s a fire in Tower One. Tower Two in unaffected. If you want to leave, you can leave. If you want to return to your office, it’s okay.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001] British visitor Mike Shillaker recalls, “As we got to around floor 50, a message came over the [loudspeaker], telling us that there was an isolated fire in Tower One, and we did not need to evacuate Tower Two. Again, thank god we continued down, others didn’t.” [BBC, 9/1/2002] Despite messages to the contrary, about two-thirds of the tower’s occupants evacuate during the 17 minutes between the attacks. [USA Today, 12/20/2001]
Complete 9/11 Timeline |
|
|
|
|
