CougarBob
Hermes
Where is Everybody???
Posts: 997
|
Post by CougarBob on Jun 15, 2008 3:42:22 GMT -11
Here is the debunk by the History Channel of Loose Change and other 9-11 conspiracy theories. It is in several parts. It is fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 15, 2008 4:09:03 GMT -11
Thank you for sharing those!
|
|
|
Post by hoobsmom on Jun 15, 2008 5:56:20 GMT -11
OH BOB, Thank you so much I have been looking for that for a while. Woo hoo.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 15, 2008 6:01:43 GMT -11
Cougar BOB to the rescue!
|
|
CougarBob
Hermes
Where is Everybody???
Posts: 997
|
Post by CougarBob on Jun 15, 2008 6:09:29 GMT -11
I just watched all nine parts. It seems to be the whole program and does such an excellent job of debunking. Hooray for Popular Mechanics and the History Channel. Oops and Youtube, of course.
|
|
Pinkberry
Artemis
I've looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful
Posts: 312
|
Post by Pinkberry on Jun 15, 2008 7:02:00 GMT -11
Ill definately be watching them when I have some free time.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 19, 2008 8:40:38 GMT -11
I just revived this documentary. Very good material.
A couple of facts that really stuck out for me too was....
In the first place, the author of loose change had not claimed that his work was factual. In fact, he claims that it was a piece of fictional work that he created in the theme of appearing as factual. Sort of like how the Blair Witch Project was done. It had also been edited and re-edited a few times with help from friends. I think as time when on, those who could not easily determine that it was a creative mind doing a fictional project took it as gospel truth and started advocating it as the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With this going on, I think the author himself eventually started to believe his own work was truth.
Another fact was seeing the people who programs like loose change have twisted their words or other things around in order to fit their own conspiracy theories rather than what the actual person had intended to say or do. Most seem shocked and appalled that they have been misused in this kind of propaganda and I like how the documentary interviews the horses mouth instead of the behind in order to get the the bottom of these things.
As for building 7 that many try to claim is the product of controlled demolition, it seems to me that they are either unaware of, or willfully ignore the fact that when the north tower came down, it scooped out a big hole in the side of building 7, as well as the design of building 7 itself is a very poor design to withstand catastrophic events such as this.
|
|
CougarBob
Hermes
Where is Everybody???
Posts: 997
|
Post by CougarBob on Jun 20, 2008 2:02:37 GMT -11
I just revived this documentary. Very good material.
A couple of facts that really stuck out for me too was....
In the first place, the author of loose change had not claimed that his work was factual. In fact, he claims that it was a piece of fictional work that he created in the theme of appearing as factual. Sort of like how the Blair Witch Project was done. It had also been edited and re-edited a few times with help from friends. I think as time when on, those who could not easily determine that it was a creative mind doing a fictional project took it as gospel truth and started advocating it as the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With this going on, I think the author himself eventually started to believe his own work was truth.
Another fact was seeing the people who programs like loose change have twisted their words or other things around in order to fit their own conspiracy theories rather than what the actual person had intended to say or do. Most seem shocked and appalled that they have been misused in this kind of propaganda and I like how the documentary interviews the horses mouth instead of the behind in order to get the the bottom of these things.
As for building 7 that many try to claim is the product of controlled demolition, it seems to me that they are either unaware of, or willfully ignore the fact that when the north tower came down, it scooped out a big hole in the side of building 7, as well as the design of building 7 itself is a very poor design to withstand catastrophic events such as this. Great report, Spooky. The thing about Loose Change that jumps out the most for me is that they keep changing their story as their claims get debunked. They don't even mention the cell phone calls from United 93 anymore, since the cell phone companies have said that cell phones back when this happened could operate up to 50,000 feet. The plane's altitude varied from 30,000 to the mid 40,000. Plus, except for two calls, they were all made using the phones in the backs of the seats. Those phones were definitely made to operate at that altitude.
And, no bodies at the crash site? They found lots and lots of human remains at the crash site, in pieces. Remember, this plane was going near the speed of sound and accelerating when it hit the ground. We are used to seeing crashes where the plane was going slow and trying to land, or had just taken off. Remember the Jet Blue crash in Florida when their cargo caught on fire. That plane also went nearly straight down. There was a hole in the swamp and almost everything was buried.
I like how the film goes step by step, taking each conspiracy theory, examining it closely, then showing the facts.
|
|
|
Post by krystalmoore1986 on Jun 20, 2008 7:24:32 GMT -11
|
|
|
Post by hoobsmom on Jun 20, 2008 7:52:15 GMT -11
Thanks Krys. I already watched it but Sam hasnt. This will give him no reason not to sit down and watch it straight through.
I still was left with a couple unanswered question. But the debunk took away any doubts I had. I think with tragedies this large there will always be some answered questions.
|
|
|
Post by krystalmoore1986 on Jun 20, 2008 7:56:55 GMT -11
well I am halfway through the third part and I am totally opened minded to what this movie has to say but so far they seem to just be saying over and over, that this isnt true or that isnt true. They havent told me why something isnt true. I am at the part where they claim that the towers were knocked down and fell at free fall speed, and the debunk for that was a guy who is in building and demolition stating "That is not true. It's simply not true." How is that debunked? On to the next claim? I don't think so. I want them to show me another building colllapsing naturally at free fall speed. Show me how it isn't true. I want proof.
|
|
|
Post by krystalmoore1986 on Jun 20, 2008 8:01:16 GMT -11
okay the debunk of the next part I can buy, at least they gave me the explanation that the fire proofing was blasted off the steel. Maybe this movie will get better now, they seem to be starting a better debunk with this part at least. Like I said I am opened minded but "Because I said so" is not an acceptable answer to why something isnt true.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 20, 2008 11:41:33 GMT -11
well I am halfway through the third part and I am totally opened minded to what this movie has to say but so far they seem to just be saying over and over, that this isnt true or that isnt true. They havent told me why something isnt true. I am at the part where they claim that the towers were knocked down and fell at free fall speed, and the debunk for that was a guy who is in building and demolition stating "That is not true. It's simply not true." How is that debunked? On to the next claim? I don't think so. I want them to show me another building colllapsing naturally at free fall speed. Show me how it isn't true. I want proof. Actually by half way through I saw explanations there that were not merely 'because I said so". As for showing another building collapsing, normally buildings collapse because of people demolishing them. Do you want them to demolish another building to show how these buildings were not demolished by a demolition group? What way do you want them to show this in a demonstration? They explained why and how buildings can fall in that way without dynamite being necessary. Outside of that, I suppose they would need another plane to smash into the side of a building to show it live for such kind of proof. I trust their expertise over a group who claimed their piece was a work of fiction in the first place. How about asking the conspiracy theorists for this level of proof so that they can demonstrate that the only way a building could possible ever fall the way these do, is only by a demolishing? This is when conspiracy theorists get pretty silent since not one of them who makes this claim has ever proven their conspiracy theory to be true by a live demonstration that would rule out any other reason for a building to fall like this. Remember, it's not up to the official report to prove itself true against conspiracy theory claims , but rather it is up to the conspiracy theorist to prove their theory true, and rule out without a doubt what an official report says. Something that they haven't done. This documentary gives explanations as to why the conspiracy theories are doubtful. If their explanation stands as practical, then that certainly puts a dent into a conspiracy theory enough to not accept the theory.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 20, 2008 11:43:03 GMT -11
okay the debunk of the next part I can buy, at least they gave me the explanation that the fire proofing was blasted off the steel. Maybe this movie will get better now, they seem to be starting a better debunk with this part at least. Like I said I am opened minded but "Because I said so" is not an acceptable answer to why something isnt true. I am glad that they got to interview people who's actions or words got distorted and perverted by conspiracy theorists. Only they have a right to say why they did what they did or said what they said during those days. Not some theorist who would wish to bend and twist their word to fit their own purpose.
|
|
|
Post by krystalmoore1986 on Jun 20, 2008 12:58:47 GMT -11
I said halfway through part three, not halfway through the movie
No I would just like some reasons why the buildings collapsed at free fall speed. They said that part was debunked and moved on, but I didnt see them adress that part at all. They showed me how the planes could make the building collapse, but not why or how they collapsed at free fall speed.
I trust neither party. I leave it up to both parties to defend their positions.
I would love to, dont know any of their numbers.
I disagree. Everyone can believe what they want to believe. If I think guilty until proven innocent, that's my right as a free thinking american.
That is true, in some cases, but whether or not it makes someone actually doubt is subjective to each person and their situation and beliefs. Some are more easily swayed than others.
Maybe to you. I believe whatever I believe because of my own personal reasons. I feel no need to make others believe what I do. I also choose to stick to what I believe until proven otherwise, beyond a doubt. I don't have to not believe in something, just because it's possible that it isn't true. How well would it go over if I walked up to the front of a church congregation and said, It is somewhat possible that god isn't real, so until YOU prove to ME that he is, none of you can believe in him or practice your religion.
|
|