loose Change 9:11 [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Dunleavy

05-10-2006, 02:12 AM

well i'm going to post this after several search's to make sure i wasn't German. real sorry if i'am on senstive issue

i just watched it for the first time, it's a movie, about 1:15 long, and it's about a 9-11 conspiracy.

if you have the time and want to check it out, the best place to go to is google, go to their video section and type in loose change 2 and make sure you click an english version or click the link

link...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change+2

i should say there is a bit a fluff in the opening, if you want to get right to the heart of it i recommend the 12:45 mark where he begins to go through the days events with a computer sim of the AmericanAirlines flight in Va headed to pentagon

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 03:42 AM

It's pure crap.

Hurst2112

05-10-2006, 05:29 AM

very heavy shit. I have separated myself from the conspiracy theories until I watched this movie.

Still a skeptic but my eyebrows are tired from venturing north many times.

Hurst2112

05-10-2006, 05:30 AM

It's pure crap.

love the close-mindedness of people. really, I do.

GoSeahawks

05-10-2006, 09:23 AM

This is going to get ugly. This topic was brought up on another forum I visit and it didn't end well. I'll just say that it is a very interesting documentary and there are some things that raise eyebrows.

1. The huge amount of put options placed on the airlines the days right before 911.
2. The Firefighters calls from inside the buidling saying there were bombs going off.
3. WTC #7 and it's collapse.
4. The whole section on the Pentagon.
5. The pilot who retired from the Pentagon and took a job at American Airlines.

Too conpiracy theory (ish)
1. There's a part where they use a quote of some guy saying that it's impossible for the buildings to have come down the way they did because of fire. The next sentence which isn't highlited asks what made the buidlings come down and the answer was, "Think jet fuel."
2. The voice recreation section seemed too out there, but you never know.

All in all I tend to think the government knew we were going to be attacked and did nothing about it. I'm not going to go as far as to say the gvt was behind the attacks and not Bin Ladden. I know some people will dismiss this film as propaganda and some won't even watch it. I suggest giving it a try and at least look at some of the evidence before you comment.

DanGarion

05-10-2006, 09:24 AM

love the close-mindedness of people. really, I do.
Read the Popular Mechanics issue that they debunk all the conspiracies.

sachmo71

05-10-2006, 09:25 AM

This video has to be one of the biggest fishing trips since crop circles.

GoSeahawks

05-10-2006, 09:26 AM

Read the Popular Mechanics issue that they debunk all the conspiracies.
I would like to read it. Which issue?

mckerney

05-10-2006, 09:28 AM

1. The huge amount of put options placed on the airlines the days right before 911.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

GoSeahawks

05-10-2006, 09:30 AM

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
Well, theres one that I can cross off my list.

mckerney

05-10-2006, 09:30 AM

I would like to read it. Which issue?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Toddzilla

05-10-2006, 09:31 AM

I work with someone who's brother's wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon - You tell him it was something else that hit the Pentagon and I'll just hold you down while he kicks your ass.

mckerney

05-10-2006, 09:33 AM

Well, theres one that I can cross off my list.

Yeah, though it's shocking with all their research they'd miss that info. :rolleyes:

dacman

05-10-2006, 09:52 AM

My ex-boss was killed on 9/11 in the Pentagon, so I'll happily participate in any conspiracy nut ass-kicking.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2006, 09:59 AM

I work with someone who's brother's wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon - You tell him it was something else that hit the Pentagon and I'll just hold you down while he kicks your ass.

My cousin was working for Rumsfeld himself at the time and had gone back into the parking lot with another guy to get something from his car when the plane hit. He saw it. The idea that something else hit the Pentagon is ludicrous.

What's the saying: "Never attribute to malice what can be easily attributed to incompetence" - sums up 9/11 perfectly, IMO. Various intelligence agencies had most, if not all, of the evidence they needed to warn against this and either a) never put it all together or b) did, and had it ignored. We'll probably only find out the real answer to that in 50 years or more.

Passacaglia

05-10-2006, 10:13 AM

fantastic flying froggies

05-10-2006, 10:17 AM

You weren't sure if you were German?

Yeah, that confused me as well until I realized he meant Jermaine, as in Jermaine Jackson... :)

http://www.emjey.com/english/news/archives/images/Jermaine%20Jackson.jpg

Hurst2112

05-10-2006, 10:35 AM

I work with someone who's brother's wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon - You tell him it was something else that hit the Pentagon and I'll just hold you down while he kicks your ass.

Oh ease off...

First of all, this was 2 hours of entertainment for somebody (myself) who doesn't have any opinion about 9/11 aside from what I saw in the news. What is wrong with A)Creating a movie...a piece of 'art'. and B)Bringing up questions that allow people like myself to exercise their brain.

I'm not dipping into the kool-aid, I'm just saying that the shit was thought provoking. I read the pop mech. article as well. That didn't cover ALL conspiracies as somebody mentioned but I did take what they read and added it to my perception of the movie.

It would be stupid to say that if you believe in Michael Moore's broad image of dumb, blood-hungry soldiers in "Ferenheit 911", I will kick your ass because I had a Marine friend that died in Iraq.

st.cronin

05-10-2006, 10:38 AM

All in all I tend to think the government knew we were going to be attacked and did nothing about it. I'm not going to go as far as to say the gvt was behind the attacks and not Bin Ladden.

Do you also believe the moon landing was staged?

QuikSand

05-10-2006, 10:48 AM

Do you also believe the moon landing was staged?

Not until someone makes a snappy internet video to "prove" it to me.

Toddzilla

05-10-2006, 11:02 AM

Do you also believe the moon landing was staged?Hey, I'm related to Gus Grissom*, so if you're disparaging astronausts, I'm gonna have to kick your ass, too!

*it's true. My great-grandmother on my mom's side is Gus Grissom's aunt. I don't know what that makes Gus and me, other than "not much".

TroyF

05-10-2006, 11:10 AM

I think we've talked about this one before somewhere.

It's garbage. It has been from the start. The amount of people necessary for this is unbelievable. Now, we are sitting 5 years after the event. Not one person in that conspiracy has surfaced. Not one has been upset about his cut and spoken out.

And of course nobody in building 7 would have noticed people working all throuhout the building for weeks before it was pulled.

Insanity at its finest.

BrianD

05-10-2006, 11:18 AM

Toddzilla

05-10-2006, 11:22 AM

The stupidass guy in that ridiculous video actually said, "There was no evidence whatsoever of any debris from the plane that hit the pentagon."

Denial at its absolute worst.

Glengoyne

05-10-2006, 11:24 AM

Hey, I'm related to Gus Grissom*, so if you're disparaging astronausts, I'm gonna have to kick your ass, too!

*it's true. My great-grandmother on my mom's side is Gus Grissom's aunt. I don't know what that makes Gus and me, other than "not much".

I loved the deal where Buzz Aldrin(I think it was Buzz) punched that reporter interviewing him about the moon landing hoax. Aldrin thought he was in for a serious interview, and then the guy started right in with something like "So what did you actually do while you supposed to be off visiting the moon?". Classic.

flounder

05-10-2006, 11:28 AM

I wonder what it is about conspiracy theories that hold such appeal for people? It seems like so many major events contain their own conspiracy theory alternative and there are plenty of people that want to believe them. Do people want the world to be more exciting than it really is, or are they just prone to argue with everything they can? Can you really expect a conspiracy containing so many people to last any length of time without somebody talking?

I think it's a defense mechanism. No one wants to believe that we live in a world where 19 random losers can do that much damage. Conspiracy theories are a way to make sense of something that ultimately makes no sense.

Maple Leafs

05-10-2006, 11:35 AM

I think it's a defense mechanism. No one wants to believe that we live in a world where 19 random losers can do that much damage. Conspiracy theories are a way to make sense of something that ultimately makes no sense.
That can't be it. Most people need some sort of defense mechanism to deal with things like 9/11, but they don't turn to conspiracy theories.

I really think the sort of people who get invested in this sort of thing just feel a really deep-seated need to be part of something, to be "in" on some sort of secret. They probably enjoy the attention they heap on each other, and feel like their life has some deeper purpose. If they have to lie to themselves to make it happen, so be it.

They probably didn't get enough hugs as children.

CraigSca

05-10-2006, 12:08 PM

Oh ease off...

First of all, this was 2 hours of entertainment for somebody (myself) who doesn't have any opinion about 9/11 aside from what I saw in the news. What is wrong with A)Creating a movie...a piece of 'art'.

Because it's not being portrayed as art. It's being portrayed as fact.

B)Bringing up questions that allow people like myself to exercise their brain.

Because it's meant to incite disillusion and disaffection based on absolute garbage. Your time could have been better spent exercising your brain learning about real history.

Bee

05-10-2006, 12:09 PM

Because it's meant to incite disillusion and disaffection based on absolute garbage. Your time could have been better spent exercising your brain learning about real history.
or viewing porn.

Karlifornia

05-10-2006, 12:15 PM

I don't know what's funnier, the people who believe the conspiracy theories, or the people that get all offended by the people who believe them.

Arctus

05-10-2006, 12:52 PM

I started to type up a long response, but realized that its not worth my time.

I ran the Pentagon's Roads, Grounds and Security Program from its inception shortly after 9/11 until the mission was complete in 2005.

This "documentary" is a piece of garbage.

BrianD

05-10-2006, 01:06 PM

I don't know what's funnier, the people who believe the conspiracy theories, or the people that get all offended by the people who believe them.

I don't think anyone is offended by people who believe conspiracies, it is just a general disbelief at the impressive amount of gullability.

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 01:19 PM

I don't think anyone is offended by people who believe conspiracies, it is just a general disbelief at the impressive amount of gullability.
I dont agree with this video, but god damn some of you guys are acting like total pricks over this. I understand people lost loved ones, but questioning the cause of the events and having their own beliefs is their own right. And, like i said, i dont agree with this video, but its not exactly like our government has never lied to us about something before...just saying, why dont you guys back off because no matter what moral ground you think your standing on your just acting like a bunch of assholes for berating people for questioning the current social facts...throughout history people have been berated for that, and usually those people ended up being the right ones. Again, i dont agree with the video, but i really dont agree with the way some of you are acting about it and the people discussing it.

KWhit

05-10-2006, 01:39 PM

I dont agree with this video, but god damn some of you guys are acting like total pricks over this. I understand people lost loved ones, but questioning the cause of the events and having their own beliefs is their own right. And, like i said, i dont agree with this video, but its not exactly like our government has never lied to us about something before...just saying, why dont you guys back off because no matter what moral ground you think your standing on your just acting like a bunch of assholes for berating people for questioning the current social facts...throughout history people have been berated for that, and usually those people ended up being the right ones. Again, i dont agree with the video, but i really dont agree with the way some of you are acting about it and the people discussing it.

Can we get a moderator in here to deal with this troll?

Oh wait.....

:rolleyes:

John Galt

05-10-2006, 01:41 PM

I used to believe that the U.S. government was run by grey aliens who were leading a secret war against the blue aliens from another galaxy. But then I met a Leprechaun and he told me that was all a of bunch of crap.

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 01:43 PM

Can we get a moderator in here to deal with this troll?

Oh wait.....

:rolleyes:
Ya, because telling people to not ridicule someone for entertaining free speech and thinking for themselves, thats trolling...the people actually berating them, im sure there just being american...ya, you sure know when you see a troll :rolleyes:

BrianD

05-10-2006, 01:43 PM

I dont agree with this video, but god damn some of you guys are acting like total pricks over this. I understand people lost loved ones, but questioning the cause of the events and having their own beliefs is their own right. And, like i said, i dont agree with this video, but its not exactly like our government has never lied to us about something before...just saying, why dont you guys back off because no matter what moral ground you think your standing on your just acting like a bunch of assholes for berating people for questioning the current social facts...throughout history people have been berated for that, and usually those people ended up being the right ones. Again, i dont agree with the video, but i really dont agree with the way some of you are acting about it and the people discussing it.

And if you had read all two of my posts in this thread you'd know that I was speaking of conspiracy theory nuts in general.

Lighten up Francis.

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 01:45 PM

And if you had read all two of my posts in this thread you'd know that I was speaking of conspiracy theory nuts in general.

Lighten up Francis.
I prob. should, i agree with that fact. I might have mis-quoted you, but i know for a fact others in this thread have done that. If i mis-understood your comment, i apologize.

KWhit

05-10-2006, 01:46 PM

Ya, because telling people to not ridicule someone for entertaining free speech and thinking for themselves, thats trolling...the people actually berating them, im sure there just being american...ya, you sure know when you see a troll :rolleyes:

Calling people pricks and assholes is generally frowned upon behavior from moderators, but YMMV.

BrianD

05-10-2006, 01:49 PM

I prob. should, i agree with that fact. I might have mis-quoted you, but i know for a fact others in this thread have done that. If i mis-understood your comment, i apologize.

No worries. I understood your point, I just didn't think I deserved to be the target. :)

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 01:49 PM

Calling people pricks and assholes is generally frowned upon behavior from moderators, but YMMV.
Id agree with that statement, but i dont agree it was trolling which is what you accused me of. I wont argue your second point one bit though.

Maple Leafs

05-10-2006, 01:49 PM

Ya, because telling people to not ridicule someone for entertaining free speech and thinking for themselves, thats trolling...
Watching a badly-made Internet movie and accepting it as fact, despite overwhelming volumes of evidence to the contrary, is thinking for youself?

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 01:51 PM

Watching a badly-made Internet movie and accepting it as fact, despite overwhelming volumes of evidence to the contrary, is thinking your youself?
I havent seen anyone accept it as fact...people who i saw entertain the ideas, like goseahawks and hurst, didnt accept it as fact. They listened to the facts, entertained the possibility, and after made up in their own minds what the truth was. I didnt see anyone blindly agreeing with the video, but i did see quite a few blindly dis-agreeing. I would say the former is far more free-thinking then the latter

KWhit

05-10-2006, 01:53 PM

Id agree with that statement, but i dont agree it was trolling which is what you accused me of. I wont argue your second point one bit though.

Yeah, but "Can we get a moderator in here to deal with this person who is calling people pricks and assholes?" doesn't flow as well.

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 01:58 PM

Yeah, but "Can we get a moderator in here to deal with this person who is calling people pricks and assholes?" doesn't flow as well.
Flow isnt the issue, but ill be more tactful when defending against people doing the exact same thing you think i did. Apparently you dont mind them using different words like stupidass instead of asshole, so ill just use a thesaurus next time.

KWhit

05-10-2006, 02:03 PM

Sigh. Never mind.

You just don't get it.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2006, 02:04 PM

I dont agree with this video, but god damn some of you guys are acting like total pricks over this. I understand people lost loved ones, but questioning the cause of the events and having their own beliefs is their own right. And, like i said, i dont agree with this video, but its not exactly like our government has never lied to us about something before...just saying, why dont you guys back off because no matter what moral ground you think your standing on your just acting like a bunch of assholes for berating people for questioning the current social facts...throughout history people have been berated for that, and usually those people ended up being the right ones. Again, i dont agree with the video, but i really dont agree with the way some of you are acting about it and the people discussing it.

I'd advise you against reading any of Bubba Wheels' threads, then.

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 02:05 PM

I'd advise you against reading any of Bubba Wheels' threads, then.
So far i havent, ill make a point to avoid them now. I already have enough people who dont like me as is, no need to agitate more

chinaski

05-10-2006, 02:06 PM

The movie does raise some very legitimate questions, imo. I find it very odd that 4 of the 6 black boxes were never recovered. First time in aviation history a land based crash has never returned a black box (WTCs and Pentagon). The 757 hitting the pentagon stuff is also pretty perplexing. I plane that size only leaves a hole, with no other damage to building? It has two 6 ton engines strapped to each wing, yet there is no engine impact damage to the Pentagon? also, how does a plane penetrate every ring of the the pentagon, leaving the same size exit hole as the entry hole, yet theres no sign of the plane? The fuel combustion cannot evaporate a plane like that, it would take a constant fuel supply to feed the fire to even remotely become hot enough - especially to evaporate 6 tons of titanium alloy (the engines). Why is there no wreckage from flight 93? no tail, wing, nothing? Look at all other plane wrecks of that nature, theres wreckage everywhere. The WTC 7 building collapsing is also very odd. A fire in the basement and external damage brought down a 46 story building, thats designed to withstand that very thing?

The trump card in my mind is this: It would take hundreds of people too pull off what is being asserted. I dont think you could ever trust that many human beings with that kind of knowledge.

DanGarion

05-10-2006, 02:10 PM

My ex-boss was killed on 9/11 in the Pentagon, so I'll happily participate in any conspiracy nut ass-kicking.
No one I know was killed, but I'd be more then happy to do some ass kicking as well for the idiots that don't believe it happened.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2006, 02:14 PM

I didnt see anyone blindly agreeing with the video, but i did see quite a few blindly dis-agreeing. I would say the former is far more free-thinking then the latter

First of all, that's some horrific logical sentence construction there. Who's "the former"? The people you didn't see?

Secondly, "far more free-thinking"? Get a grip - it's a conspiracy movie. A conspiracy movie which contains many propositions that have been roundly debunked by, you know, actual facts. There's a word for people who think it has a fair amount of merit, and that word is "gullible".

chinaski

05-10-2006, 02:15 PM

I just wanted to clarify before someone jumps on me - I dont believe the conspircay theories, hopefully I was clear on that in my post. The questions posed were just ones that stood out to me - they are odd enough to make me go "whaaa?".

flere-imsaho

05-10-2006, 02:17 PM

So far i havent, ill make a point to avoid them now. I already have enough people who dont like me as is, no need to agitate more

That's unfortunate, as you'll be missing out on the writings of a man who clearly believes very firmly in some things.

DanGarion

05-10-2006, 02:21 PM

The movie does raise some very legitimate questions, imo. I find it very odd that 4 of the 6 black boxes were never recovered. First time in aviation history a land based crash has never returned a black box (WTCs and Pentagon). The 757 hitting the pentagon stuff is also pretty perplexing. I plane that size only leaves a hole, with no other damage to building? It has two 6 ton engines strapped to each wing, yet there is no engine impact damage to the Pentagon? also, how does a plane penetrate every ring of the the pentagon, leaving the same size exit hole as the entry hole, yet theres no sign of the plane? The fuel combustion cannot evaporate a plane like that, it would take a constant fuel supply to feed the fire to even remotely become hot enough - especially to evaporate 6 tons of titanium alloy (the engines). Why is there no wreckage from flight 93? no tail, wing, nothing? Look at all other plane wrecks of that nature, theres wreckage everywhere. The WTC 7 building collapsing is also very odd. A fire in the basement and external damage brought down a 46 story building, thats designed to withstand that very thing?

The trump card in my mind is this: It would take hundreds of people too pull off what is being asserted. I dont think you could ever trust that many human beings with that kind of knowledge.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 02:22 PM

First of all, that's some horrific logical sentence construction there. Who's "the former"? The people you didn't see?

Secondly, "far more free-thinking"? Get a grip - it's a conspiracy movie. A conspiracy movie which contains many propositions that have been roundly debunked by, you know, actual facts. There's a word for people who think it has a fair amount of merit, and that word is "gullible".
The former were people discussing the actualy contents, the latter being the people just berating the thought of a different idea. Horrible sentence structure, yes.

I cant relate it to much, other then the people i know who read the da vinci code and were intrigued by its story. Enough of a story that at least 3-4 DVDs and countless TV specials have been made to analyze the validity of the book, by from all intents and purposes was solely made to be entertaining and sell books. I never think questioning the social norm is a bad thing, becuase as gullible as you may be, questioning the social norms of the past has led to most of the new social norms we have today. Gravity, our position in the universe, the shape of the earth...i just always support any debate that provokes thought, no matter which side im on.

Personally, i dont buy this particular theory, as i know people who died and lived and what they have told me leads me to believe the story we know is true...but i still think they have the right to discuss their ideas with out being verbally assualted, directly or indirectly, regardless of what the topic is. And i realize it sounds hypocritical, as i did that to exactly that to those slamming the video, so i realize i am a victim of my own sermon here...just commenting :)

molson

05-10-2006, 02:23 PM

The stupidist part of these conspiracy theories are the people who seem to think they they can "punch holes" in what happened because they're SO sure they know exactly how a skycraper or the Pentagon is suppossed to act when hit by plane. And it's not at all based on science, it's based on random, undeducated, ignorant, "observations".

It's offensive, and its certainly not "closed-minded" to dismiss crap like this video. There's a minimum threshold of credibility that has to be reached before these kind of things can be taken seriously.

chinaski

05-10-2006, 02:24 PM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

ah thanks, i didnt know this was online.

Drake

05-10-2006, 02:29 PM

I really was moved by The Da Vinci Code, though.

molson

05-10-2006, 02:30 PM

I never think questioning the social norm is a bad thing, becuase as gullible as you may be, questioning the social norms of the past has led to most of the new social norms we have today.

True, but this isn't about questioning a social norm. The issue here is the lack of credibility of this video, and these theories, not the fact that people are unwilling to consider an alternative explanation.

I guess there's room for disagreement as to what's credibile. But we're not obligated to sit down and seriously consider the wacky theories of every crackpot that comes around.

If a former high-ranking government offical comes out and claims there was a "conspiracy", I'll listen to him with an open mind. If government documents hinting to such a thing surface, I'd read them. If there's REAL, CREDIBLE science, that disputes the events, I'd take a look. But none of that's here. This is politically-motivated, and it's crap, and offensive.

Karlifornia

05-10-2006, 02:34 PM

True, but this isn't about questioning a social norm. The issue here is the lack of credibility of this video, and these theories, not the fact that people are unwilling to consider an alternative explanation.

I guess there's room for disagreement as to what's credibile. But we're not obligated to sit down and seriously consider the wacky theories of every crackpot that comes around.

If a former high-ranking government offical comes out and claims there was a "conspiracy", I'll listen to him with an open mind. If government documents hinting to such a thing surface, I'd read them. If there's REAL, CREDIBLE science, that disputes the events, I'd take a look. But none of that's here. This is politically-motivated, and it's crap, and offensive.

I understand that it's crap, and it is politically motivated, but I don't see the part where it's offensive.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2006, 02:34 PM

The Popular Mechanics debunk article is really, really good.

It does raise some serious questions, though (more so that the movie it debunks). Like how poorly U.S. air defense was equipped to deal with such a threat, including the fact that NORAD's link of radar sites doesn't include the United States. And that it took so long to get F-14s or F-16s anywhere near the affected areas/planes.

I certainly hope some of that has since been addressed.

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 02:34 PM

If there's REAL, CREDIBLE science, that disputes the events, I'd take a look. But none of that's here. This is politically-motivated, and it's crap, and offensive.
I agree it all comes down to credibility i guess. If you find it such, then so be it. I dotn agree its credible either. The only thing i can say are people like galileo and da vinci were considered crackpots in their days as well, and now we view them as geniuses. I dont think this guy will ever be like that, but im just saying rarely is a genious thought of as such during his own lifetime. Most of the supposedly smartest people in history were thought to be crazy or heretics during their lives, and only post mortem did their works or ideas become respected.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2006, 02:37 PM

Maple Leafs

05-10-2006, 02:38 PM

The stupidist part of these conspiracy theories are the people who seem to think they they can "punch holes" in what happened because they're SO sure they know exactly how a skycraper or the Pentagon is suppossed to act when hit by plane. And it's not at all based on science, it's based on random, undeducated, ignorant, "observations".
Not only that, but these folks apparently believe that a shadowy government conspiracy, involving (presumably) hundreds if not thousands of people and probably years of planning, would somehow make such obvious errors that some schmoe with a blog could figure the whole thing out.

"Oops, we made the hole in the Pentagon too small and forgot to leave any crash wreckage! D'oh!"

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 02:40 PM

Not only that, but these folks apparently believe that a shadowy government conspiracy, involving (presumably) hundreds if not thousands of people and probably years of planning, would somehow make such obvious errors that some schmoe with a blog could figure the whole thing out.

"Oops, we made the hole in the Pentagon too small and forgot to leave any crash wreckage! D'oh!"
LOL, that quote you did was hilarious :D

Blade6119

05-10-2006, 02:42 PM

Sorry, there's a difference, Blade6119. Galileo, for instance, made his arguments on the basis of scientific evidence, and against commonly-held beliefs.

This movie makes its arguments based on theories and beliefs, and against actual, gathered, evidence.

It's not a fair comparison.
Ill concede that point...about all i can say to that is access...the government restricted access to all of the crash sites and the evidence, so it would be hard for a person who did disagree to gather any even if they wanted to. They would have to deal with the government, and if you believe these theories you dont trust the government....fun little quandry there, huh?

molson

05-10-2006, 02:43 PM

I understand that it's crap, and it is politically motivated, but I don't see the part where it's offensive.

Maybe hurtful is a better word than offensive - the fact that people are questioning the very existence of an event that personally effected so many people. It's the same basic idea as the denying the existence of the Holocaust (though I'm not comparing the two at all).

Toddzilla

05-10-2006, 03:12 PM

So far i havent, ill make a point to avoid them now. I already have enough people who dont like me as is, no need to agitate moreColor me SHOCKED.

digamma

05-10-2006, 03:20 PM

*it's true. My great-grandmother on my mom's side is Gus Grissom's aunt. I don't know what that makes Gus and me, other than "not much".

I think that makes him your first cousin, twice removed.

Carry on.

Drake

05-10-2006, 04:15 PM

I've always wondered how that twice removed thing worked.

TroyF

05-10-2006, 04:22 PM

Ill concede that point...about all i can say to that is access...the government restricted access to all of the crash sites and the evidence, so it would be hard for a person who did disagree to gather any even if they wanted to. They would have to deal with the government, and if you believe these theories you dont trust the government....fun little quandry there, huh?

Not really. The government may have the crash sites roped off (as well as they should have), but at the end of the day the crackpot. . . errr. . . documentary maker has to prove his points.

It's not that hard to disagree here. Much of the evidence isn't even on the sites themselves. Take building 7 for example. it'd have taken weeks to prepare that building for "pulling."

There would have had to have been a ton of people in and out of that building working on things and running lines. So, do the people who worked in the building remember seeing any of that? Was there a ridiculous number of people in the building after hours? Did janatorial crews get called off?

I mean, this building isn't exactly in a tropical jungle 200,000 miles from the next closes person. This is on the edge of one of the bigges cities in the world.

You want to investigate? Do some investigating. Find someone who helped with the setup of this plan. Find people who saw unusual things taking place. You comparing these guys with Gallileo. Is that supposed to be a joke?

John Galt

05-10-2006, 04:30 PM

Not really. The government may have the crash sites roped off (as well as they should have), but at the end of the day the crackpot. . . errr. . . documentary maker has to prove his points.

It's not that hard to disagree here. Much of the evidence isn't even on the sites themselves. Take building 7 for example. it'd have taken weeks to prepare that building for "pulling."

There would have had to have been a ton of people in and out of that building working on things and running lines. So, do the people who worked in the building remember seeing any of that? Was there a ridiculous number of people in the building after hours? Did janatorial crews get called off?

I mean, this building isn't exactly in a tropical jungle 200,000 miles from the next closes person. This is on the edge of one of the bigges cities in the world.

You want to investigate? Do some investigating. Find someone who helped with the setup of this plan. Find people who saw unusual things taking place. You comparing these guys with Gallileo. Is that supposed to be a joke?

Not to encourage the troll . . . I mean moderator, but in NYC I think you find the opposite problem. People see so many people doing random things that most don't notice. You could have had 100's of people working 24 hours a day on a project and most of the building occupants could have never raised an eyebrow. My old (soon to be new again) office building regularly had people coming and going at all hours. We would have random work being done on the building and no one would have cared.

Now, building maintenance and janitorial service may care a little more than I did, but I doubt it. Most of the service employees are contracted among many buildings and constantly rotated (for security reasons). The security at a building would certainly notice the comings and goings, but as long as they had proper access, they wouldn't ask any questions.

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theory and I'm not trying to give you are a hard time, but I really think NYC is one of the few places where you can do weird shit in broad daylight and no one thinks to ask what you are doing.

bob

05-10-2006, 04:30 PM

Random 9/11 question - does anyone know a way to get the uncut coverage from any of the networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, Foxnews, etc) from that day?

molson

05-10-2006, 04:31 PM

Random 9/11 question - does anyone know a way to get the uncut coverage from any of the networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, Foxnews, etc) from that day?

I've seen it on Ebay.

st.cronin

05-10-2006, 04:40 PM

Not to encourage the troll . . . I mean moderator, but in NYC I think you find the opposite problem. People see so many people doing random things that most don't notice. You could have had 100's of people working 24 hours a day on a project and most of the building occupants could have never raised an eyebrow. My old (soon to be new again) office building regularly had people coming and going at all hours. We would have random work being done on the building and no one would have cared.

Now, building maintenance and janitorial service may care a little more than I did, but I doubt it. Most of the service employees are contracted among many buildings and constantly rotated (for security reasons). The security at a building would certainly notice the comings and goings, but as long as they had proper access, they wouldn't ask any questions.

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theory and I'm not trying to give you are a hard time, but I really think NYC is one of the few places where you can do weird shit in broad daylight and no one thinks to ask what you are doing.

I don't think that's exactly true. When I was working in NYC, I had to show ID to security people at the building I worked every day, and if I were visiting my brother (who worked in the WTC) I had to sign in. You may have a point, but my experience was quite different.

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 04:50 PM

John Galt

05-10-2006, 04:51 PM

I don't think that's exactly true. When I was working in NYC, I had to show ID to security people at the building I worked every day, and if I were visiting my brother (who worked in the WTC) I had to sign in. You may have a point, but my experience was quite different.

I don't think that is inconsistent with what I said. At most buildings, you either have an automatic pass (which you will get if you regularly work there) or you have to sign in. Either way, if you have a valid pass, no one stops you or asks questions. And once you are there, no one bothers you. 9/11 changed things only slightly, IMO, and it is still easy to walk into almost any office building in NYC and do what you want without anyone caring.

Easy Mac

05-10-2006, 04:58 PM

I think it's one thing to rationally discuss something "conspiracy-minded" that is plausable and has at the very least some evidence to back it up (such as the Roswell crash). Sure, there's some really wild theories about it, but at it's base there's something there.

It's something else entirely to discuss, and hense lend credence to a completely crackpot theory. It's a slap in the face to those who died on that day.

I think the fact that people died makes it any less a reason to take a conspiracized look at it. The only reason Roswell seems plausible is that 60 years has intervened. The "alien" argument was no more likely when it happened than a government conspiracy is now for 9/11.

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 05:03 PM

I think the fact that people died makes it any less a reason to take a conspiracized look at it. The only reason Roswell seems plausible is that 60 years has intervened. The "alien" argument was no more likely when it happened than a government conspiracy is now for 9/11.

Actually, the day after the crash, the military in the area put out a press release that stated it was a UFO. The government's initial release, then retraction, is why people are still talking about Roswell today.

As for this "movie", if it's your cup of tea, go ahead and watch it -- you're just feeding the nonsense it's pushing.

Arctus

05-10-2006, 05:10 PM

The movie does raise some very legitimate questions, imo. I find it very odd that 4 of the 6 black boxes were never recovered. First time in aviation history a land based crash has never returned a black box (WTCs and Pentagon). The 757 hitting the pentagon stuff is also pretty perplexing. I plane that size only leaves a hole, with no other damage to building? It has two 6 ton engines strapped to each wing, yet there is no engine impact damage to the Pentagon? also, how does a plane penetrate every ring of the the pentagon, leaving the same size exit hole as the entry hole, yet theres no sign of the plane? The fuel combustion cannot evaporate a plane like that, it would take a constant fuel supply to feed the fire to even remotely become hot enough - especially to evaporate 6 tons of titanium alloy (the engines). Why is there no wreckage from flight 93? no tail, wing, nothing? Look at all other plane wrecks of that nature, theres wreckage everywhere. The WTC 7 building collapsing is also very odd. A fire in the basement and external damage brought down a 46 story building, thats designed to withstand that very thing?

The trump card in my mind is this: It would take hundreds of people too pull off what is being asserted. I dont think you could ever trust that many human beings with that kind of knowledge.

These are reasonable questions to ask.

Regarding the Pentagon Building damage; keep in mind that the Pentagon is a hardened structure. There's just no way those wings are going to penetrate the exterior wall. The popular mechanics article that is linked earlier in this thread does a really good job of addressing this.

The plane did not penetrate every ring of the Pentagon. Rings E, D, and C were fully compromised. B ring was partially penetrated. The reconstruction efforts did include demolition all of the way out to A ring, which was heavily damaged (fire, water, smoke, HVAC, etc.) although the plane did not penetrate it.

I'm not knowedgable enough to offer any answers relating to the questions raised regarding combustion / vaporization of the plane.

TroyF

05-10-2006, 05:21 PM

Not to encourage the troll . . . I mean moderator, but in NYC I think you find the opposite problem. People see so many people doing random things that most don't notice. You could have had 100's of people working 24 hours a day on a project and most of the building occupants could have never raised an eyebrow. My old (soon to be new again) office building regularly had people coming and going at all hours. We would have random work being done on the building and no one would have cared.

Now, building maintenance and janitorial service may care a little more than I did, but I doubt it. Most of the service employees are contracted among many buildings and constantly rotated (for security reasons). The security at a building would certainly notice the comings and goings, but as long as they had proper access, they wouldn't ask any questions.

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theory and I'm not trying to give you are a hard time, but I really think NYC is one of the few places where you can do weird shit in broad daylight and no one thinks to ask what you are doing.

I agree with that to a point, but I'd almost think someone would have picked something up even by accident. This thing would have taken a ton of people doing things for a long time.

I mean nobody would have even thought afterward about a strange occurance they'd have seen and taken for granted at the time? I find it hard to believe. But then, I think the government could screw up a one car funeral. I find it hard to believe this would happen somehow.

Dunleavy

05-10-2006, 05:51 PM

You weren't sure if you were German? slang for posting something already posted

i thought it was interesting, i thought it was worth a thought, so i posted it for you to see and everyone can have their own opinions

for me the movie is just theory and circumstantial evidence, there were things in the movie i didn't even believe at the time, there are things that were later debunked, but there are still some points made in the movie that remain controversial in my mind. but maybe that just cause i'm a little bais against the Bush White House, they're either incompetent or crooks

Desnudo

05-10-2006, 07:23 PM

This rock keeps tigers away.

MizzouRah

05-10-2006, 10:00 PM

The movie does raise some very legitimate questions, imo. I find it very odd that 4 of the 6 black boxes were never recovered. First time in aviation history a land based crash has never returned a black box (WTCs and Pentagon). The 757 hitting the pentagon stuff is also pretty perplexing. I plane that size only leaves a hole, with no other damage to building? It has two 6 ton engines strapped to each wing, yet there is no engine impact damage to the Pentagon? also, how does a plane penetrate every ring of the the pentagon, leaving the same size exit hole as the entry hole, yet theres no sign of the plane? The fuel combustion cannot evaporate a plane like that, it would take a constant fuel supply to feed the fire to even remotely become hot enough - especially to evaporate 6 tons of titanium alloy (the engines). Why is there no wreckage from flight 93? no tail, wing, nothing? Look at all other plane wrecks of that nature, theres wreckage everywhere. The WTC 7 building collapsing is also very odd. A fire in the basement and external damage brought down a 46 story building, thats designed to withstand that very thing?

The trump card in my mind is this: It would take hundreds of people too pull off what is being asserted. I dont think you could ever trust that many human beings with that kind of knowledge.

I agree on both parts, which is really a contradiction.

Some things far fetched and some things quite interesting in that video.. which is about what I expected.

Maple Leafs

05-10-2006, 10:02 PM

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theory and I'm not trying to give you are a hard time, but I really think NYC is one of the few places where you can do weird shit in broad daylight and no one thinks to ask what you are doing.
Point taken, but there's a difference between "nobody asks what you're doing at the time" and "nobody even think to mention it in the days and years following a terrorist attack which destroys the building".

MizzouRah

05-10-2006, 10:13 PM

Maybe hurtful is a better word than offensive - the fact that people are questioning the very existence of an event that personally effected so many people. It's the same basic idea as the denying the existence of the Holocaust (though I'm not comparing the two at all).

Offensive? Hurtful? What else pisses you off? :rolleyes:

sterlingice

05-10-2006, 10:34 PM

This rock keeps tigers away.

"Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock"

SI

PilotMan

05-10-2006, 11:28 PM

The movie does raise some very legitimate questions, imo. I find it very odd that 4 of the 6 black boxes were never recovered. First time in aviation history a land based crash has never returned a black box (WTCs and Pentagon).

I challenge you to find a a crash anywhere where there was this type of impact made. You are talking about the force of a 200,000 lb airplane traveling at a speed of at least 400 MPH. That is a force equivalent to a
4000lb pickup traveling into a wall at over 20,000 MPH. The pure kinetic energy is unbelievable. When you factor in the damage from the fire from the fuel you would be lucky to find anything left at all. The typical plane crash is at much slower speeds and usually doesn't have to deal with an impact of anything near that magnitude.

The 757 hitting the pentagon stuff is also pretty perplexing. I plane that size only leaves a hole, with no other damage to building? It has two 6 ton engines strapped to each wing, yet there is no engine impact damage to the Pentagon? also, how does a plane penetrate every ring of the the pentagon, leaving the same size exit hole as the entry hole, yet theres no sign of the plane? The fuel combustion cannot evaporate a plane like that, it would take a constant fuel supply to feed the fire to even remotely become hot enough - especially to evaporate 6 tons of titanium alloy (the engines).

There is a documentary about this. I can't remember which station it was, but it was well reported. It goes back to the engineering design of the pentagon as well as the era that it was built in. I want to be able to explain it, however this program does a much better job. It covers exactly what happens from the moment the plane hits the building as well as a second by second blow of where it goes and what happens to the structure of the aircraft as it travels through the building.

Why is there no wreckage from flight 93? no tail, wing, nothing? Look at all other plane wrecks of that nature, theres wreckage everywhere.

Most other crashes the pilot is still trying to fly the airplane. In this instance the plane crashed in a near vertical, nose down position. The plane was also likely traveling at a very high rate of speed. Nose down from 15000 ft at least is enough to crush every bit of aluminum on that airplane. That plane still had plenty of fuel as well, so it is likely that there was a pretty good fireball after the crash.

The WTC 7 building collapsing is also very odd. A fire in the basement and external damage brought down a 46 story building, thats designed to withstand that very thing?

From what I understand, the concussive blow from the collapse of the WTC did significant structural damage. As well as a fire fueled by jet fuel that is burning unchecked. A fire hot enough to melt metal and weaken the structure. There is a documentary about this on one of the learning channels, A&E or something like that.

The trump card in my mind is this: It would take hundreds of people too pull off what is being asserted. I dont think you could ever trust that many human beings with that kind of knowledge.

Keep this thought.

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 01:04 AM

Because it's not being portrayed as art. It's being portrayed as fact.

Because it's meant to incite disillusion and disaffection based on absolute garbage. Your time could have been better spent exercising your brain learning about real history.

I am not going to waste my time arguing my beliefs or rights to think what I wish, or your rights to think what you wish. I will simply defend myself on your 2 points.

A)It IS art. Art is simply a perception of something. You can't tell me that what I view as art is NOT art. That's unreal. We can agree to disagree.

B)You have NO IDEA what it is meant to do. You can only assume. If I walk away from it with questions, then perhaps it was successful. Qustioning things in life is a great ability. 'Wonder' is such a gift to have. Don't tell me that wondering about something is wrong. That is so 1940s Eastern Block.

Your time could have been better spent understanding my point of view rather than telling me what I should and shouldn't do. Again, we can agree to disagree. I don't hate you for your views. Don't look down upon me for my decisions to keep an open mind about issues.

sachmo71

05-11-2006, 07:55 AM

slang for posting something already posted

i thought it was interesting, i thought it was worth a thought, so i posted it for you to see and everyone can have their own opinions

for me the movie is just theory and circumstantial evidence, there were things in the movie i didn't even believe at the time, there are things that were later debunked, but there are still some points made in the movie that remain controversial in my mind. but maybe that just cause i'm a little bais against the Bush White House, they're either incompetent or crooks

assuming that you read the popular mechanics article or any number of other articles by people who know what they are talking about debunking this zaniness, what controversy remains? note that we are still talking about the incident, not government incompetence.

btw...since 9/11, every conspiracy theory involving our government that I even half believed has gone out of the window. our government is not efficient enough to pull of hiding what next weeks special in the Capitol Cafe is, let alone assassinate a president.

sachmo71

05-11-2006, 07:58 AM

I am not going to waste my time arguing my beliefs or rights to think what I wish, or your rights to think what you wish. I will simply defend myself on your 2 points.

A)It IS art. Art is simply a perception of something. You can't tell me that what I view as art is NOT art. That's unreal. We can agree to disagree.

B)You have NO IDEA what it is meant to do. You can only assume. If I walk away from it with questions, then perhaps it was successful. Qustioning things in life is a great ability. 'Wonder' is such a gift to have. Don't tell me that wondering about something is wrong. That is so 1940s Eastern Block.

Your time could have been better spent understanding my point of view rather than telling me what I should and shouldn't do. Again, we can agree to disagree. I don't hate you for your views. Don't look down upon me for my decisions to keep an open mind about issues.

I like the existential argument. if we all take this approach, we'll never be wrong!

Arctus

05-11-2006, 08:20 AM

I am not going to waste my time arguing my beliefs or rights to think what I wish, or your rights to think what you wish. I will simply defend myself on your 2 points.

A)It IS art. Art is simply a perception of something. You can't tell me that what I view as art is NOT art. That's unreal. We can agree to disagree.

B)You have NO IDEA what it is meant to do. You can only assume. If I walk away from it with questions, then perhaps it was successful. Qustioning things in life is a great ability. 'Wonder' is such a gift to have. Don't tell me that wondering about something is wrong. That is so 1940s Eastern Block.

Your time could have been better spent understanding my point of view rather than telling me what I should and shouldn't do. Again, we can agree to disagree. I don't hate you for your views. Don't look down upon me for my decisions to keep an open mind about issues.

I fully respect your right to keep an open mind on this issue, as well as others such as the existance of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. ;)

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 02:22 PM

I like the existential argument. if we all take this approach, we'll never be wrong!

It's not necessarily a matter of being right or wrong. It appears that you missed my point.

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 02:23 PM

I fully respect your right to keep an open mind on this issue, as well as others such as the existance of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. ;)

I fully respect your ability to post like a cockass.

I'm suprised you didn't throw Jesus in the list as well. ;)

dawgfan

05-11-2006, 02:25 PM

Don't concern yourself about being right or wrong man. It appears that you missed my point.
I'm not sure that he did. It's all fine and dandy for you to consider this "documentary" as art - that's your call.

It's also perfectly reasonable for others to view this "documentary" as not only dead-wrong, but dangerous, in that it plays like an expose for the truth when in fact it's a load of bullshit. And in propogating this bullshit, they are pushing people away from the truth.

CamEdwards

05-11-2006, 02:56 PM

cockass?

John Galt

05-11-2006, 02:58 PM

cockass?

asshat?

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 03:20 PM

I'm not sure that he did. It's all fine and dandy for you to consider this "documentary" as art - that's your call.

It's also perfectly reasonable for others to view this "documentary" as not only dead-wrong, but dangerous, in that it plays like an expose for the truth when in fact it's a load of bullshit.

Rock n roll was considered dangerous at one point too.

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 03:21 PM

cockass?

Those who don't listen to Tenacious D are condemned to a life of being 'not cool'.

\m/

dawgfan

05-11-2006, 03:37 PM

Rock n roll was considered dangerous at one point too.
Sure, but it's still a horrible comparison.

Tell me, is there anything about the presentation of this "documentary" that suggests it shouldn't be taken at face value, that it is somehow a commentary on the ridiculousness of most consiracy theories? Is it done in any kind of way that would make you equate it to something like "This Is Spinal Tap" or "Wonder Showzen"?

The truth of the world is hard enough to come by these days without ridiculous and factually incorrect pieces of garbage like this masquerading as a documentary to clutter up the place.

TroyF

05-11-2006, 03:39 PM

Rock n roll was considered dangerous at one point too.

OK, Hurst, so where do we draw the line? I understand as a country, there is no line to be drawn. People have the freedom of speech and can say whatever the hell they want. I'm not debating that.

But at what point is it cross the line into poor taste? Is there ever a point where something is made or said that causes you to say "wow, that was out of line?"

And do I have to respect EVERY crackpots opinion on a subject? Or by dismissing something like this am I being closed minded? (I don't care about your answer here, because if not believing Americans were behind the terror attacks for insurance money is closed minded, my mind will stay shut)

mckerney

05-11-2006, 03:41 PM

Tell me, is there anything about the presentation of this "documentary" that suggests it shouldn't be taken at face value, that it is somehow a commentary on the ridiculousness of most consiracy theories?

I think it's when they say IT IS EVERYONE'S duty TO VIEW THIS FILM! on thier website.

dawgfan

05-11-2006, 03:43 PM

I think it's when they say IT IS EVERYONE'S duty TO VIEW THIS FILM! on thier website.
I'd buy that if it said IT IS EVERYONE'S doodie TO VIEW THIS FILM!

Heh-heh, I said "doodie"...

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 04:00 PM

OK, Hurst, so where do we draw the line? I understand as a country, there is no line to be drawn. People have the freedom of speech and can say whatever the hell they want. I'm not debating that.

But at what point is it cross the line into poor taste? Is there ever a point where something is made or said that causes you to say "wow, that was out of line?"

And do I have to respect EVERY crackpots opinion on a subject? Or by dismissing something like this am I being closed minded? (I don't care about your answer here, because if not believing Americans were behind the terror attacks for insurance money is closed minded, my mind will stay shut)

Wow, my participation in this thread has grown into a large waste of time.

My initial stance was that I had watched the video and was suprised to hear some of this stuff. I thought it was a film that did a good job of doing that to me.

I then defended myself and the film by saying it was art, and I was not going to be labled an idiot for being inquisitive about some of the things said in the movie.

I get no hardon by debating political things. This was simply an attempt to defend my beliefs about a rather non-harmful piece of entertainment.

At the end of the day, I see myself being more educated by knowing more about the ENTIRE 9/11 situation than I did before the movie. I was also entertained by the movie.

There seem to be people here that try to lure guys like me into some big ethics debate. I will lose any debate, all the time. Things like that are boring to me. I skip every POL thread here because of this. All I was doing was saying there was nothing wrong with making a film like this and enjoying a film like this.

Maple Leafs

05-11-2006, 04:06 PM

Rock n roll was considered dangerous at one point too.
This may be one of my all-time favorite FOFC posts.

dawgfan

05-11-2006, 04:49 PM

My initial stance was that I had watched the video and was suprised to hear some of this stuff. I thought it was a film that did a good job of doing that to me.

I then defended myself and the film by saying it was art, and I was not going to be labled an idiot for being inquisitive about some of the things said in the movie.
It is up to the observer to determine what constitutes art in their own eyes. That said, I highly doubt the intent of the filmmakers was to create art; it seems extremely likely they were motivated to expose the "truth" as they saw it.

About the only value I can see in that film is if it causes someone to investigate the claims made in that film and realize that said claims are horseshit.

At the end of the day, I see myself being more educated by knowing more about the ENTIRE 9/11 situation than I did before the movie. I was also entertained by the movie.
Again, if watching this movie motivated you to find out more about their claims and discover how ridiculous they are, then yes you are more educated. Otherwise you were exposed to something that led you further away from truth. Personally, unless something that is couched in the form of a documentary is presented in such a way to suggest it's satire or a commentary on the documentary form itself, I find it to be harmful in that it's damaging the legitimacy of documentaries as a medium.

There seem to be people here that try to lure guys like me into some big ethics debate. I will lose any debate, all the time. Things like that are boring to me. I skip every POL thread here because of this. All I was doing was saying there was nothing wrong with making a film like this and enjoying a film like this.
That's the thing though with discussions - not everyone agrees. As I've pointed out, I do think there's something wrong with making a film like this unless it is consciously making a commentary on documentaries or conspiracy theories and that intent is something that can be discerned by how it is presented to the viewer.

TroyF

05-11-2006, 05:39 PM

Wow, my participation in this thread has grown into a large waste of time.

My initial stance was that I had watched the video and was suprised to hear some of this stuff. I thought it was a film that did a good job of doing that to me.

I then defended myself and the film by saying it was art, and I was not going to be labled an idiot for being inquisitive about some of the things said in the movie.

I get no hardon by debating political things. This was simply an attempt to defend my beliefs about a rather non-harmful piece of entertainment.

At the end of the day, I see myself being more educated by knowing more about the ENTIRE 9/11 situation than I did before the movie. I was also entertained by the movie.

There seem to be people here that try to lure guys like me into some big ethics debate. I will lose any debate, all the time. Things like that are boring to me. I skip every POL thread here because of this. All I was doing was saying there was nothing wrong with making a film like this and enjoying a film like this.

You'll just have to take my word on this, I wasn't trying to lure you into anything. I was asking a serious question. Is there such a thing as going to far?

You say that it's art and therefore acceptable. I was only asking if you would find anything acceptable or if you had a line. I'm genuinely curious as to the answer. What interests me even more above is the "I will lose any debate, all the time"

I wasn't asking you a debate question. I was simply asking you what your personal take was. I think there are a lot of things wrong with making a film like that and even more wrong in enjoying it, but that never came up in my post.

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 06:16 PM

What interests me even more above is the "I will lose any debate, all the time"

I don't have a passion for debating things of a somewhat political nature. I will defend my views on religion and of course music. When it comes to something such as politics, I would lose a debate because I have very little interest in it.

There is a 'too far' point, even for me. This movie wasn't it.

I think there are a lot of things wrong with making a film like that and even more wrong in enjoying it, but that never came up in my post.

It didn't come up in your post. I did explain my reasons for appreciating what the person was trying to convey.

WVUFAN

05-11-2006, 06:22 PM

I don't have a passion for debating things of a somewhat political nature. I will defend my views on religion and of course music. When it comes to something such as politics, I would lose a debate because I have very little interest in it.

My only question is that if what you say is true and you don't like to debate politics or items of a political nature, why start a post like this at all? You must have known it would get a reaction. It seems foolish for someone to start a politically-charged thread and then state he didn't want to talk about it.

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 06:32 PM

My only question is that if what you say is true and you don't like to debate politics or items of a political nature, why start a post like this at all? You must have known it would get a reaction. It seems foolish for someone to start a politically-charged thread and then state he didn't want to talk about it.

WTF?!

Hey Super Genius, you posted BEFORE I DID.
I didn't start any post about this. I posted that I thought the movie was interesting. I was told I was wrong for liking a movie like this, told that I would get my ass handed to me if I said that to somebody's whoever...stood up for my thoughts that I posted time and time again.

And I have not debated at all in this thread. I have stated my opinion, defended myself and my opinion. Called a couple people out and listened.

Move to the back of the line son.

WVUFAN

05-11-2006, 06:34 PM

WTF?!

Hey Super Genius, you posted BEFORE I DID.
I didn't start any post about this. I posted that I thought the movie was interesting. I was told I was wrong for liking a movie like this, told that I would get my ass handed to me if I said that to somebody's whoever...stood up for my thoughts that I posted time and time again.

And I have not debated at all in this thread. I have stated my opinion, defended myself and my opinion. Called a couple people out and listened.

Move to the back of the line son.

My apologies. For whatever reason, I thought you were the starter of this thread. Foot in mouth -- my apologies.

MizzouRah

05-11-2006, 07:36 PM

Grid Iron

05-11-2006, 08:12 PM

Interesting flick. Here are my thoughts:

1. The documentation during the intro, if real, makes the argument that one or more people high in the government knew of the attack and did nothing to stop it so as achieve a catalyst for a world-wide military campaign somewhat plausible. After everyhing that's happened with Iraq, I certainly wouldn't put it past our government to do something like that.

2. Do I believe our government knew about the attacks? Not sure. I don't thing there is clear and convincing evidence, but it certainly is interesting.

3. The rest of the movie was bs. Our government did not plan the attacks, or execute the attacks. The guy's analysis of the jet impact at the Pentagon sounded like those moon-landing conspiracy theorists when he pointed out alleged "inconsistencies" in the crash site photos but has absolutely no credentials in airline accident reconstruction, which I imagine is not something they teach in high school. ;)

It's too bad he didn't just stop after the intro was over. Would have been more convincing. The rest made me just think he's either 1) a kook; or 2) just having fun and isn't really serious.

Drake

05-11-2006, 09:09 PM

sabotai

05-11-2006, 09:15 PM

Logan

05-11-2006, 09:18 PM

How can an opinion be wrong?

When people present their opinions as fact?

Drake

05-11-2006, 09:23 PM

Even in a country that prides itself on freedom of expression, people shouldn't be allowed to express opinions that are patently wrong or deeply offensive to certain segments of the population.

Just like those newspapers that published the caricatures of Mohammed.

How can an opinion be wrong?

Right, right. What I meant to say was:

Even in a country that prides itself on freedom of expression, people shouldn't be allowed to express beliefs that are patently wrong or deeply offensive to certain segments of the population.

Just like those newspapers [that believed in freedom of expression above all else] that published the caricatures of Mohammed.

Drake

05-11-2006, 09:27 PM

(EDIT: Yeah, yeah, I know what you meant. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people use the word "belief" and "opinion" interchangeably...)

You were right to correct me. I was sloppy.

WVUFAN

05-11-2006, 09:36 PM

Right, right. What I meant to say was:

Even in a country that prides itself on freedom of expression, people shouldn't be allowed to express beliefs that are patently wrong or deeply offensive to certain segments of the population.

Just like those newspapers [that believed in freedom of expression above all else] that published the caricatures of Mohammed.

Our Freedoms are designed expressly for just those kind of people, though. It's not designed for beliefs everyone subscribes to, it's for those ones you, and most rational people hate.

Drake

05-11-2006, 09:56 PM

Blade6119

05-11-2006, 10:02 PM

Nothing wrong with any of your posts.
they would be if he was a mod ;)

WVUFAN

05-11-2006, 10:10 PM

You're right!

What I really meant to say was:

XXXX In a country that prides itself on freedom of expression, people should be allowed to express beliefs that are patently wrong or deeply offensive to certain segments of the population.

Just like those silly Muslims [who believed in the dignity of their religion above all else] who were offended by the caricatures of Mohammed.

The whole Muslim/Mohammed thing has been discussed over and over, so I'll leave it alone. Suffice to say I don't agree with you that I should curtail what I read or say because someone's religion disagrees with it. Much like if I watch or read something that alarms my Christian sensability, I stop reading or watching it. Personal responsibility is one thing -- censorship for the benefit of ANY group or class is entirely different.

But to respond to what you say directly -- I still disagree, although I understand where you're coming from. The problem I have is that once you being the slippery slope of saying "XXX is offensive to XXX population", you're leaving the door open for more censorship. Most things, no matter how benign, is offensive to someone, somewhere.

Hurst2112

05-11-2006, 10:15 PM

they would be if he was a mod ;)

Yeah I'm not a member of the 'octagon of authority' or whatever they wish to call it. Hey, isn't TroyF? Maybe that's why he got outta my face so quickly.

;) :D

Blade6119

05-11-2006, 10:17 PM

Yeah I'm not a member of the 'octagon of authority' or whatever they wish to call it. Hey, isn't TroyF? Maybe that's why he got outta my face so quickly.

;) :D
not exactly what i meant, but who knows

Drake

05-11-2006, 10:19 PM

The whole Muslim/Mohammed thing has been discussed over and over, so I'll leave it alone. Suffice to say I don't agree with you that I should curtail what I read or say because someone's religion disagrees with it. Much like if I watch or read something that alarms my Christian sensability, I stop reading or watching it. Personal responsibility is one thing -- censorship for the benefit of ANY group or class is entirely different.

But to respond to what you say directly -- I still disagree, although I understand where you're coming from. The problem I have is that once you being the slippery slope of saying "XXX is offensive to XXX population", you're leaving the door open for more censorship. Most things, no matter how benign, is offensive to someone, somewhere.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at from the very beginning. As soon as we start saying that someone shouldn't say something (or shouldn't make a movie) because we think it's wrong, or that they're wrong or whatever, things start to get confusing pretty quickly. Everybody likes the idea of censoring stupid people.

The problem comes in who decides what's stupid and what isn't.