Asimov Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 This makes some very serious charges regarding George Bush and 9/11. I'm not entirely sure what to think regarding this. http://novakeo.com/?p=262 It's a 2-parter, and about an hour long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Interesting. I've said too much already....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Popular Mechanics , a publication that probably has nothing to do with the evil Bush administration, explains some of this. The responses are not as sensational as the claims in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Popular Mechanics , a publication that probably has nothing to do with the evil Bush administration, explains some of this. The responses are not as sensational as the claims in the movie. Interesting! I love this stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I remember when it was the *conservatives* who had all the good conspiracy theories........Clinton and Bush, Sr. running drugs out of a small airstrip in Mena, Arkansas, Clinton killing off enemies left and right (like Vince Foster), etc., etc. Ah, those were the days.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I watched both parts, some of it was interesting and worth considering but I thought they made waaay too many assertions that were really just their opinion (i.e. if a plane hit at this angle, that would happen). Also, just like any other video "evidence", videos can be tampered with. Is their hypothesis possible? Sure. Is it probable? I doubt it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The guy's lying throughout the entire movie. Capitalizing on fear, how very American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I remember when it was the *conservatives* who had all the good conspiracy theories........Clinton and Bush, Sr. running drugs out of a small airstrip in Mena, Arkansas, Clinton killing off enemies left and right (like Vince Foster), etc., etc. Ah, those were the days.... Ain't that the truth. Times were simple back then- Clinton and them damn Liberals were evil! Good, honest, well-meaning, gun-totin', True Patriots were bein'g oppressed! As soon as we got rid of Billary, all would be right with the world and we'd start gettin' $hit done! Seriously... I really get nostalgic for my right-wing-conspiracy days... back when things were simple and I KNEW I was right... <sigh> It just seems kinda stupid now. Have you noticed the Lefty conspiracy theories the past couple years? They sound an awful like Righty conspiracy theories ten years ago. Who'd've thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Conspiracy theories are shit. The governemnt too incompetent to pull anything like this off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Conspiracy theories are shit. The governemnt too incompetent to pull anything like this off. Actually, the Government already has the general populus so diluted & fearful that they can be pretty bold in many of their less reputable actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chohan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Popular Mechanics , a publication that probably has nothing to do with the evil Bush administration, explains some of this. I don't know if I'd go that far. The senior editor behind that article is none other than Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, Head of DHS. So basically I see it as Hearst Corporation paying Cousin Benny to write an piece supporting the "official" government version of the very attack which was the justification for the creation of the DHS which his cousin heads. Funny that. Nevermind the fact that we are presently bitching over the port security under the pending deal with the U.A.E company but we seem to have no problem with an Israeli Citizen (dual citizenship), Michael Chertoff being the head of Homeland Security. cheers, cho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Ain't that the truth. Times were simple back then- Clinton and them damn Liberals were evil! Good, honest, well-meaning, gun-totin', True Patriots were bein'g oppressed! As soon as we got rid of Billary, all would be right with the world and we'd start gettin' $hit done! darn tootin'! It just seems kinda stupid now. Have you noticed the Lefty conspiracy theories the past couple years? They sound an awful like Righty conspiracy theories ten years ago. Who'd've thought? Yes, I have noticed it a lot! It started with the Bush/Gore election debacle. But it enabled me to develop a theory about conspiracies and what causes people to buy into them. The real shift began occurring in 1994, when Congress shifted into Republican hands, but really accellerated with Bush' election. Before that the Democrats were in power and Republicans felt frustrated and helpless since they couldn't seem to overturn the juggernaut. This is fertile ground for conspiracies because it's easier to believe that some evil, powerful cartel is preventing your views from gaining wider acceptance than it is to believe that the majority just doesn't share your viewpoint! After 2000 the Democrats leapt to the conspiracy bandwagon for much the same reasons. I knew the transformation was complete when I started hearing liberals making references to the "conservative media" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 There is a lot of generalizing in this film, and that's enough for me to dismiss its credibility. Sorry, but every 9/11 conspiracy video I've ever seen has employed the same tactic. Instead of simply reporting the facts, they have to go the extra mile of jumping to wild conclusions and overgeneralizing. First of all, the video starts with the usual "footage" of the planes entering the buildings. (Actually, it's not footage, because footage implies film. You don't say "footage" when referring to video on a tape or disc.) Anyway, the implication is that there's an explosion before the planes in the building. Now, I've seen those videos at least a hundred times, and the resolution on those videos is just too poor to make an objective conclusion. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify which frame the plane is actually entering the building. Sorry, but I'm not going to allow my imagination to fill in the gaps. I don't see what they want me to see. Second, this guy is comparing the World Trade Center towers to other buildings, as though what's true for one building is also true of another. The construction of the World Trade Center is much lighter than most high rises built beforehand, and the movie very briefly glosses over that. Not only is he comparing other high rise fires to the WTC, but he's also suggesting that the hole in the Pentagon should be similar to that of the WTC. FALSE!!!!! WRONG!!!! IDIOT!!!! And finally, like every 9/11 conspiracy theory, this guy gets a major woody by interviewing ppeople who compare the collapse to a demolition. This guy goes for volume. He wants as many people as he can find that will say "It was just like a demolition". He hangs half of the case on these anecdotes. But has it ever occurred to anyone that the only experience that most people have with building collapses is demolition, and thus it would be a natural thing to compare it to? Question: What does a non-demolition collapse look like? Well, the natural assumption would be that the collapse would look "less controlled", which to say that it wouldn't just fall straight down. That's the assumption that videos like this work from, but they never bother demonstrating this. Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone that when the south tower fell, it actually buckled to one side. Now speaking as someone whose never seen a non-demolition collapse prior to 9/11, I would say that buckling is something that is atypical of a tower that is being demolished. The natural response would be to say that the side of the building was weakened by the impact... OH SNAP! Isn't that precisely what is thought to have brought the building down in the first place? So why are we forced to assume that explosives were involved if the plane was all that was needed to significantly weaken the building's structural integrity? The whole presentation is very reminiscant of "In Plane Site", another dubious video, from which this latest work obvious borrows. And like its predecessor, "Loose Change" has also been criticized from within the "truth movement" (link) as being amateurish or possibly a right-wing fraud, constructed so as to be easily refutable and to make the other "truth seekers" look bad by association. That's right. They actually accuse the presentation of being a Republican charade, deliberately marketed as an anti-Bush production that is easy to debunk, thus making the conspiracy nitwits look like idiots. That isn't the first time I've seen that implication in print, either. While I agree that the producers of "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change" are deceitful, I do not believe that they "work for the enemy", as it were. For one thing, those of us who've encountered creationists know that a person's deceitfulness does not imply that the person is a mole. After all, Kent Hovind is extremely deceitful, and yet none of us were be silly enough as to accuse him of being an evolutionist plant, although such an insinuation has been jokingly made in the past. Like Hovind, vonKleist and his ilk are deceitful because they're grasping at straws, and they don't want to admit that they're wrong. To those conspiracy theorists who oppose "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change", I will give these people credit that, despite believing that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, they at least know enough to debunk the pod and missle theories, and they're at least smart enough to admit that it could only have been a commercial airline that hit the Pentagon. However, the mole "theory" is just pure paranoia, which makes it every bit as laughable as movies like "Loose Change". Look, I don't like defending the government any more than you do, but this video is bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts