9/11 The Conspiracy Files
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
- Status
But he wont watch it, wll he.
Says it's a stitch up.
Says it's a stitch up.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
ska invita
back on the other side
taping this - looking forward to seeing a good case against the conspiracies - fact is there are many conspiracy points that I havent seen addressed satisfactorily. I have a feeling im going to be dissapointed.
Shows like this tend to be judged as to which side of the fence you sit on before hand. I watched a big interview with some other anti-conspiracy group (see past 9/11 threads) and was hoping for some complete clear up - it never came.
I'm still open minded and impartial on the whole issue - there arent many people like me left - I think everyone has made up their mind already - judging purely on evidence that I have seen the anti-conspiracy case is so far far from conclusive on all points - perhaps the BBC can make it...
Shows like this tend to be judged as to which side of the fence you sit on before hand. I watched a big interview with some other anti-conspiracy group (see past 9/11 threads) and was hoping for some complete clear up - it never came.
I'm still open minded and impartial on the whole issue - there arent many people like me left - I think everyone has made up their mind already - judging purely on evidence that I have seen the anti-conspiracy case is so far far from conclusive on all points - perhaps the BBC can make it...
I didn't see the programme, but your post highlights to me the main problem and why I have little time for conspiracy theorists.niksativa said:
This is real life, there are never going to be answers that clear everything up. Just because there are loose ends, it DOES NOT mean that there is a conspiracy.
That was pretty interesting. During 2003, when 9/11 was still fresh as a recent event, I spent a while on the world politics section of urban debating with the various conspiracy enthusiasts about the whole thing. Back then the thing that always got me about conspiracy peeps was the way in which their conspiracy never needed to stand up to anything like the same scrutiny as the official line.
If you managed to disprove one point they would immediatly try and shunt you in another direction. Consequently it did come across as a faith-based belief system rather than a committment to establishing truth. The conspiracy was already assumed and it was just a question of trying as many different pieces of the puzzle until it looked right.
When I used to get frustrated with the circular nature of the debate and the hydra-like qualities of the conspiracy I often found myself wondering why people invested so much time and energy into the whole enterprise of believing the conspiracy. With a remarkable absence of self-awareness I used to think that maybe the conspiracy nuts got off on thinking that they were privy to the some special truths which they were duty bound to bring to light. In a way I assumed they liked being part of a self-perceived elite which was that bit more switched on than the rest of the population.
But I thought that hollywood screenwriter at the end was probably far closer to the mark when he said that by debunking a conspiracy you are tearing off people's safety blankets and offering them nothing in exchange. If that is the case, then all his stuff on narrativity is extremely worrying. Why can't people accept the narrative of a terror attack (or is the answer blindingly obvious)?
If you managed to disprove one point they would immediatly try and shunt you in another direction. Consequently it did come across as a faith-based belief system rather than a committment to establishing truth. The conspiracy was already assumed and it was just a question of trying as many different pieces of the puzzle until it looked right.
When I used to get frustrated with the circular nature of the debate and the hydra-like qualities of the conspiracy I often found myself wondering why people invested so much time and energy into the whole enterprise of believing the conspiracy. With a remarkable absence of self-awareness I used to think that maybe the conspiracy nuts got off on thinking that they were privy to the some special truths which they were duty bound to bring to light. In a way I assumed they liked being part of a self-perceived elite which was that bit more switched on than the rest of the population.
But I thought that hollywood screenwriter at the end was probably far closer to the mark when he said that by debunking a conspiracy you are tearing off people's safety blankets and offering them nothing in exchange. If that is the case, then all his stuff on narrativity is extremely worrying. Why can't people accept the narrative of a terror attack (or is the answer blindingly obvious)?
editor
hiraethified
Absolutely. The funny thing is that conspiracy theorists are quite happy for their version of events to come laden with bucketloads of great flapping loose ends but if they find something that looks like a teensy-weensy minor discrepancy in the 'official version', then the overwhelming body of evidence, expert analysis and peer reviewed research can then be completely ignored in preference to some truly bonkers yarns (e.g. holographic planes, invisible explosives, missile-firing passenger jets etc etc).Maltin said:
dogmatique
merde alors
I love the way that they (the loons) just completely ignore evidence they don't like. No debris at the United 93 site? How about passports, personal items, the black box, parts of engines... etc etc etc.
Of course it was all planted!
Oh, and the dick who compiled "Loose Change"?
"Well, the people at Popular Mechanics are just experts on tractors. They should stick to what they know."
What? Those ignorant fucks with mechanical / construction engineering degrees should bow to some college drop out with a laptop? Purlease.
Nice plasma you've got from sales though, eh?
A nice analogy would be the creationists who decry fossils as gods way of fucking with us to test our faith. (c) Bill Hicks.
Of course it was all planted!
Oh, and the dick who compiled "Loose Change"?
"Well, the people at Popular Mechanics are just experts on tractors. They should stick to what they know."
What? Those ignorant fucks with mechanical / construction engineering degrees should bow to some college drop out with a laptop? Purlease.
Nice plasma you've got from sales though, eh?
A nice analogy would be the creationists who decry fossils as gods way of fucking with us to test our faith. (c) Bill Hicks.
Augie March
blahem
Brilliant documentary.
First of all, I have to say I loved the coroner who attended the scene of the United 93 crash and got his quote taken out of context by the Loose Change boys. His shrugging of the shoulders and acceptance of being mis-interpreted by these idiots I feel sums up all of us logical, fact-using folk in arguement with the theorists.
There is literally nothing we can say or do to change these people's minds. All the evidence in the world remains meaningless, null and void in the eyes of a conspiracist. They have their own logic-defying, common sense lacking, version of events that fit in with their own narrative.
The slightly un-nerving, wide-eyed, professor (Jim Setzer was it?) of conspiracy theory kind of summed up the whole blinkered view of these people. He'd already set in stone his own narritve. Everything that confirmed his belief was a fact, no room for error whatsoever. Everything that didn't confirm his version, was lies. Simple. And there is no way you can argue with someone like that. He's right, everyone else is wrong.
The theories will always continue, growing over the internet and fuelled by the imagination of the theorists peddling them. And there will always be people to listen, ever-wanting a fantasy explanation to un-imaginable events of tragedy. A Hollywood, un-realistic, filmic explanation to something that is too horrifying that it couldn't possibly be conducted by ordinary, angry, disturbed human beings.
As the woman on board the supposed United 93 plane (another wonderful factual claim brought to you by those Loose Change boys) that landed in Cleveland, they're all just: "Whispering down an alleyway".
First of all, I have to say I loved the coroner who attended the scene of the United 93 crash and got his quote taken out of context by the Loose Change boys. His shrugging of the shoulders and acceptance of being mis-interpreted by these idiots I feel sums up all of us logical, fact-using folk in arguement with the theorists.
There is literally nothing we can say or do to change these people's minds. All the evidence in the world remains meaningless, null and void in the eyes of a conspiracist. They have their own logic-defying, common sense lacking, version of events that fit in with their own narrative.
The slightly un-nerving, wide-eyed, professor (Jim Setzer was it?) of conspiracy theory kind of summed up the whole blinkered view of these people. He'd already set in stone his own narritve. Everything that confirmed his belief was a fact, no room for error whatsoever. Everything that didn't confirm his version, was lies. Simple. And there is no way you can argue with someone like that. He's right, everyone else is wrong.
The theories will always continue, growing over the internet and fuelled by the imagination of the theorists peddling them. And there will always be people to listen, ever-wanting a fantasy explanation to un-imaginable events of tragedy. A Hollywood, un-realistic, filmic explanation to something that is too horrifying that it couldn't possibly be conducted by ordinary, angry, disturbed human beings.
As the woman on board the supposed United 93 plane (another wonderful factual claim brought to you by those Loose Change boys) that landed in Cleveland, they're all just: "Whispering down an alleyway".
Diamond said:
Because Hollywood has taught people to expect - n ay demand - a certain kind of narrative.
Act 1: introduce one white hat, one black hat. Must be precisely two protagonists.
Act 2: just the right amount of complexity in the working-out of the conflict.
Act 3: closure. White hat shoots black hat.
The problem with the actualité - that 19 lads with pocket knives dunnit - is that it doesn't have just the right amount of complexity for a Hollywood narrative.
From day 1, lots of people had a problem with the idea of something that was clearly going to (be made to) change the world being so simple. On 12 September I was in the office of A Major Weekly Newsmagazine. Lots of people going on about how complicated it must have been to pull off. "Nah," I said: "it was inherently less complicated than a street party. I mean a big bank job. Not that I've done either." And it was. Fewer variables, fewer players: just 19 lads, and a few dozen crew.
So the conspiraloons have to invent lots of complexity to achieve satisfying "narrativity".
And of course to rewrite the whole story so that they are protagonists - the white hats against the government/lizard black hats.
In their dreams.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
He was in on it too!laptop said:
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
For those interested, the 9/11 cultwatch take on this show can be found at http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2007/02/a_curates_egg_f.html
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
Would have been so much funnier if they'd concentrated on the really nuts stuff about orbital death rays and holographic planes. Didn't really go into all that much depth, although there's only so much you can do in an hour.
ska invita
back on the other side
-going to watch this tommorow - there is of course one central conspiracy element that no doubt hasnt been disproven by this show, and that was that the event was pre-known by the administration and deliberately not acted upon (allowed to happen).
It would be hard to prove either way - the little evidence hangs on Bush's reaction at the school and having claimed to have seen the first crash on tv. Oh, and there was that changing of the law days earlier to give Cheney power not to shoot down the planes etc.,
Also the way thesecret services sprung into action after the crashes immediately idenitifying everyone involved and finding that car with all the hot evidence in it, that bombers pasport surviving the crash etc., that was all pretty dodgey.
Was this addressed in the BBC doc? - I guess I should just watch it..
It would be hard to prove either way - the little evidence hangs on Bush's reaction at the school and having claimed to have seen the first crash on tv. Oh, and there was that changing of the law days earlier to give Cheney power not to shoot down the planes etc.,
Also the way thesecret services sprung into action after the crashes immediately idenitifying everyone involved and finding that car with all the hot evidence in it, that bombers pasport surviving the crash etc., that was all pretty dodgey.
Was this addressed in the BBC doc? - I guess I should just watch it..
Tom A
Goat among sheep
But then it's all a pile of lies desgined to discredit the conspiraloons and whatnot. Don't listen to them, fuck da system, maaaaaaaaaan!editor said:
Anyway, according to Indymedia there were two versions of this program, a censored and uncensored one, not that either of them will appease the "true beleivers"
editor
hiraethified
If he was 'in on it' surely he would have ensured that his subsequent reaction to the unfolding crisis would have been masterful, reassuring, authoritative and statesman-like rather than the floundering, useless, responsibility-shirking 'rabbit caught in the headlamps' we saw?niksativa said:
andy2002
To the Bat-poles!
I've never believed 9/11 was an "inside job" for one very simple reason. To do it right would take a level of competence that Bush and his band of neocon morons simply don't possess. I doubt most of them are able to wipe their own arses without reference to an instruction booklet.
The documentary was excellent, although I'm still interested in taking a look at Loose Change.
The documentary was excellent, although I'm still interested in taking a look at Loose Change.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
That programme was a clever bit of propaganda, that neatly side stepped the real questions.
Just look at the conformitons screaming for more.
Just look at the conformitons screaming for more.
pinkychukkles
Feed Your Head
Liked it, all those who were into a conspiracy came across as slightly crazy whereas the other folk came across as rather ordinary.
One thing I do think is plausible, is that United 93 could've been shot down, although the evidence doesn't support it; and then they just spun it that the hijackers crashed the plane after the passengers attempted to take back control. By that time, they (meaning the USG) would've got their shit together and probably wouldn't have taken any chances with other hijacked aircraft in the sky.
Quality irony at that point.Loose Change director said:
One thing I do think is plausible, is that United 93 could've been shot down, although the evidence doesn't support it; and then they just spun it that the hijackers crashed the plane after the passengers attempted to take back control. By that time, they (meaning the USG) would've got their shit together and probably wouldn't have taken any chances with other hijacked aircraft in the sky.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Of course the conspiraloons will claim that BBC research isn't as good as their "truthseeking" horseshit, I have yet to see the programme but will be doing so tonight, and I'll be taking notes from the conspiraloon sites as to the reactions as a pointer to start my research for the documentary I intend to make.
DrRingDing said:
You've got to love those independent, free-thinking conspiracy fans haven't you? It's the way that they borrow their insults from a select number of websites, so eager to call their opponents 'sheeple' or 'confirmitons.' They're so adorably predictable.
editor
hiraethified
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to share with us what the "real questions" are, or is this going to prove to be another of your 9/11 sound bites promptly followed by ad hominems?andy2002 said:
Oh, and 'propaganda'? So are the BBC in on it too? At this rate I'm going to be one of the very few people on the planet not in on it.
- Status
Similar threads
