Contemplate
- Thread starter WiseOldDude
- Start date
Quit posting this garbage here, many of us with our heads screwed on straight are sick and tired of the conspiracy theories.
Well I can't watch the whole thing right now but based on the first 5 minutes it was a string of raw publicaly available information.
Good luck debunking it.
Good luck debunking it.
Agreed, that IS a bad thing...but this is not a case of that. The video is bunk because the video is bunk. I dislike Bush, sometimes I feel like DISbelieving everything he says just out of principle. But I also have a working brain and I have many analytical skills and an engineering background...and that brain and those skills tell me that these "alternate theories" are a big pile of steaming bullshit.
These videos have been debunked more times than I'd care to count, this particular video was debunked on here a while ago. I posted several rather long replies to the points made in the video, actually. Not that anyone listened...because these videos are the intelligent design of the 9/11 attacks. Something happens, and a group of people don't like the conclusion for one reason or another. So they attack the common conclusion from the standpoint of "something different must be true". No matter what else they do, they have already lost. You can't find the truth by approaching an issue that way. None of these videos come at the events of 9/11 from the angle of "let's figure out what happened", they all look at it as "let's figure out what REALLY happened". That's an important difference, they already have most of their conclusion, all that remains is to warp the facts to support it.
This ideology is usually glaringly obvious, once the divorce from reality is final, ANYTHING that supports your conclusion is great evidence, while anything that doesn't support it is ignored. That's why these alternative theory videos always, ALWAYS include interviews with some schmoe off the street saying "it sounded like a missle" or "it looked like a bomb going off". There are thousands of pieces of evidence they could examine, instead they use interviews with someone who has probably never heard a missle, or seen a bomb go off inside a building, and wouldn't know a military airplane from the Goodyear blimp. Why? Because it supports their theory.
The second, and even more obvious, characteristic of people trying to find the truth they want to find is that their alternative theories are almost always devoid of a better explanation. They spend a lot of time casting doubt on the official story, but never really explain what REALLY did happen. Again, a lot like the intelligent design folks. They spend all their effort attacking evolution, yet their own theory is pretty much a bunch of hand waving. Same thing here...our brilliant filmmaker brings up a number of points that sound, at best, a little bit fishy, and then just leaves us hanging. Probably because any alternative explanation would do no better at explaining those things. If we could go back in time, I'm sure we'd be able to see why things happened the way they did. But all we're offered now is claims that the official story doesn't explain certain things, but no other story does either. It's not like there are competing theories, with the alternative theory being a better explanation for what happened. We really have one theory with some missing pieces, and we're supposed to conclude that those missing pieces clearly mean the whole theory is bunk...what REALLY happened seems to fall by the wayside.
It's not about debunking the information, it's about debunking the conclusions. A picture of light poles knocked down (one of the pieces of information in the video) is not a conclusion you can debunk, it's a fact. HOW they got knocked down and what that means about the attack on the Pentagon, THAT is a conclusion. And the conclusion reached by the video is that it's not immediatly obvious to the creator how the poles could have been knocked over the way they were, therefore an airliner didn't really hit the Pentagon. The conclusions almost debunk themselves.
Well I personally concentrate on the raw information and compare it to the official statement, or lack thereof, and make up my own mind.
I have seen the picture of the poles once a long time ago. Quite frankly without someone actually investigating the evidence there's no way to know what happend. Usually you can't fully draw a conclusion from a picture or video but you can draw a theory.
Often times its a question of lack of understanding of what you see. What I see in a picture and what a professional sees is quite different. So I may question why the plane that hit the Pentagon leave no usual wreckage associated with crashed airliners (seats, luggage etc) but a professional may come up with an explaination for that. Hard to argue against something like that.
Just like the idea of the WTC pancaking and falling on its own weight. Sounds plausable but there are probably just as many professionals out there who would say its nonsense as those who say its so. Which is true?
I think often times we are left to fend for ourselves. A lot of people give up or give in, on either side, and draw conclusions based on what experts say.
There is no way around this catch 22.
As far as this video goes it is stupid to show some person saying it sounded like this or that and use it as a primary example of evidence to backup a conclusion. I take it for what it is. The person heard a sound that sounded like something they could relate to. Probably from a movie. You break it down and this means something going fast with a wushing sound and then a big bang. Well to me that could be an airplane but that doesn't help me tell size, weight, speed etc. Things you would get from on site evidence.
So my last question is was it investigated and to what level? Or did the government pull the same trick as the people who made this video?
While there are many parts based on news articles and video footage, the filmmakers do engage in some tricks to get the viewer thinking in ways the filmmaker wants them to think.
Yeah I'm not a fan of any video doing that but the last time I seen any video released by any news media that was unbiased was about 2 or 3 years ago from some independant. Saw that one linked from Democracy Now I think. It's been a while.
It is also too bad that this is done because it undermines the real questions that such information poses and overshadows it sometimes completely.
It's sad you believe every little conspiracy theory that comes out regardless if it's supported by facts or not.
I've been saying this all night long...do you have an proof to make me believe it's not the truth? No, then come back when you do, and if you can't find any then don't come back at all.
George Bush is a proven habitual liar, there is nothing this man says that should be considered as anything but a lie.
There's a few things that begs to ask questions. You are however suggesting that it's not ok to question.
Then of course people jump to conclusions and start labling people. How about you try reading what I wrote first.
Thx
The one compelling part of this docu, assuming it is true, is the test the pentagon conducted where they flew a 757 into the Pentagon building, and then a pilot that participated in that exercise retired, and then it was his plane that ended up hitting the pentagon... THAT is bothersome.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter