'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia

[Dillinger4]

I think if you look over the thread, you'll notice that I've stated quite a few times that I don't have a firm view of the matter, and that that's because there seem to be a lot of contradictory sources out there.

Really, all I stated was that watching videos on youtube led me from a position of assuming that planes hit the towers, but a general agnosticism about who was responsible, to a position of wondering if in fact planes hit the towers.. and that I think it's worth looking at quite a few youtube videos.

I'm definitely more uncertain now about what happened, and I haven't seen any reason for the kind of certainty that you and the editor have.

As I don't have any knowledge of what happened, it's not possible for me to accept the sources that agree with me and reject those that don't, I just look at them all, and wonder about it.

Where did I make a claim to certainty?

You have simply labeled me as having views opposed to your own.

 

[Demosthenes]

You are making a claim to not having a claim to know anything.

Thanks for your contribution. You really added a lot to the whole debate there.

Well, I think he did. What do you think the debate is about?

 

[Demosthenes]

Where did I make a claim to certainty?

You have simply labeled me as having views opposed to your own.

Well, if you're not certain what happened, - why exactly do you object to other people speculating, and how do you think it's possible to rule various possible sources and theories out, without having looked at the sources. ?

And why have you said that I'm insane, when I also have not claimed certainty?. ?

 

[Dillinger4]

It's better to realise the whole thread is based on ignorance and misinformation, otherwise we might be taking ourselves a little too seriously.

Do you know who dreamt up the 9/11 attack?

This thread is not based on ignorance and misinformation.

It is that you cannot use youtube videos as sources of evidence for anything without treating them rigorously, because they are anecdotal, counterfactual and un-falisifiable.

What this thread displays is that a lot of people are willing to believe stories told by people, evidence that contradicts itself and can never be proved one way or the other.

You may as well say you believe in fairies. The same evidence exists. There are people who will tell you they have seen them. You will never be able to prove it one way or the other.

 

[Demosthenes]

This thread is not based on ignorance and misinformation.

It is that you cannot use youtube videos as sources of evidence for anything without treating them rigorously, because they are anecdotal, counterfactual and un-falisifiable.

What this thread displays is that a lot of people are willing to believe stories told by people, evidence that contradicts itself and can never be proved one way or the other.

You may as well say you believe in fairies. The same evidence exists. There are people who will tell you they have seen them. You will never be able to prove it one way or the other.

But the news reports are beyond question?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The reason the images look "odd" is that they are on youtube.

You see, to store movies as a serries of snapshots without any losses would require about 300GB for a standard definition DVD movie. You've no idea how much for a HD movie. Even a tiny little clip like that one would take tens to hundreds of megabytes to store uncompressed.

There are tricks you can play to stop you losing any information while compressing movies, but they're not enough to get the films down to manageable sizes, as such there are lossy formats, like mp3s for video, that capture the important bits of the images. The edges, the things moving fast, the things that are different from the last frame.

Every time you switch an image from one format to another it will reprocess the image, attempting to save all the important bits and throw away the less important. This results in something called artifacting, where the algorythms generate something from random noise, because it can't tell the diferrence.

In this case we've got a fast moving object, out of focus, captured using (generally) low end hardware. That won't generate a great source image in the first place. Then it's been stored as a movie, a good deal of data lost and the image manipulated at least once. Then it's probably been broadcast via tv and captured, again manipulated at least once, or just uploaded to youtube, which uses a really low fidelity codec. You expect too much from it.

There's one reason you shouldn't use youtube, it degrades the quality of image too far.

 

[Dillinger4]

The reason the images look "odd" is that they are on youtube.

You see, to store movies as a serries of snapshots without any losses would require about 300GB for a standard definition DVD movie. You've no idea how much for a HD movie. Even a tiny little clip like that one would take tens to hundreds of megabytes to store uncompressed.

There are tricks you can play to stop you losing any information while compressing movies, but they're not enough to get the films down to manageable sizes, as such there are lossy formats, like mp3s for video, that capture the important bits of the images. The edges, the things moving fast, the things that are different from the last frame.

Every time you switch an image from one format to another it will reprocess the image, attempting to save all the important bits and throw away the less important. This results in something called artifacting, where the algorythms generate something from random noise, because it can't tell the diferrence.

In this case we've got a fast moving object, out of focus, captured using (generally) low end hardware. That won't generate a great source image in the first place. Then it's been stored as a movie, a good deal of data lost and the image manipulated at least once. Then it's probably been broadcast via tv and captured, again manipulated at least once, or just uploaded to youtube, which uses a really low fidelity codec. You expect too much from it.

There's one reason you shouldn't use youtube, it degrades the quality of image too far.

Yes, there is one reason. Another is that anybody can doctor any of the images they post, and because it is such low quality, you could never reasonably tell, one way or another.

 

[Dillinger4]

But the news reports are beyond question?

Who said anything about news reports?

Are you just lumping me with people who disagree with you again?

I am not making any claims. You are.

 

[Demosthenes]

The reason the images look "odd" is that they are on youtube.

You see, to store movies as a serries of snapshots without any losses would require about 300GB for a standard definition DVD movie. You've no idea how much for a HD movie. Even a tiny little clip like that one would take tens to hundreds of megabytes to store uncompressed.

There are tricks you can play to stop you losing any information while compressing movies, but they're not enough to get the films down to manageable sizes, as such there are lossy formats, like mp3s for video, that capture the important bits of the images. The edges, the things moving fast, the things that are different from the last frame.

Every time you switch an image from one format to another it will reprocess the image, attempting to save all the important bits and throw away the less important. This results in something called artifacting, where the algorythms generate something from random noise, because it can't tell the diferrence.

In this case we've got a fast moving object, out of focus, captured using (generally) low end hardware. That won't generate a great source image in the first place. Then it's been stored as a movie, a good deal of data lost and the image manipulated at least once. Then it's probably been broadcast via tv and captured, again manipulated at least once, or just uploaded to youtube, which uses a really low fidelity codec. You expect too much from it.

There's one reason you shouldn't use youtube, it degrades the quality of image too far.

Well, maybe you're right, but, in fact, as an experiment, I watched a non 911 video of a plane crashing into a wall, and it looked a whole lot more realistic than that second plane impact on the link you posted.

 

[jonH]

This thread is not based on ignorance and misinformation.

It is that you cannot use youtube videos as sources of evidence for anything without treating them rigorously, because they are anecdotal, counterfactual and un-falisifiable.

What this thread displays is that a lot of people are willing to believe stories told by people, evidence that contradicts itself and can never be proved one way or the other.

You may as well say you believe in fairies. The same evidence exists. There are people who will tell you they have seen them. You will never be able to prove it one way or the other.

But fairies aren't responsible for the carnage the US is inflicting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some people are angry about what has happened and will try to find the truth. Questions like, who thought up 9/11? deserve to be answered. The governments control most media, Youtube might not be to your taste but it certainly plays a role in spreading peoples ideas, even if they're not always orthodox

 

[Dillinger4]

Well, maybe you're right, but, in fact, as an experiment, I watched a non 911 video of a plane crashing into a wall, and it looked a whole lot more realistic than that second plane impact on the link you posted.

You are a real scientist now. You know what plane impacts and everything look like.

Because you watched a video. Anybody can watch a video and make any claim in anyway they like. It doesn't make your opinion correct.

 

[Dillinger4]

But fairies aren't responsible for the carnage the US is inflicting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some people are angry about what has happened and will try to find the truth. Questions like, who thought up 9/11? deserve to be answered. The governments control most media, Youtube might not be to your taste but it certainly plays a role in spreading peoples ideas, even if they're not always orthodox

Youtube is owned by Google, a major corporation.

Why are they not in on this?

Those videos could easily be planted by Google operatives, as a black ops to confuse people. How do you know?

 

[Demosthenes]

Who said anything about news reports?

Are you just lumping me with people who disagree with you again?

I am not making any claims. You are.

Er, you did, -- see below. (post 73)

I have no idea.

You wont be getting your information off youtube though.

You would have selection of vidoes from news agencies or whatever.

You can't trust sources posted up anonymously on the internet. You don't know if they could have been edited.

 

[jonH]

Youtube is owned by Google, a major corporation.

Why are they not in on this?

Those videos could easily be planted by Google operatives, as a black ops to confuse people. How do you know?

I don't know, but logic tells me it was in some Americans interests for 9/11 to happen and one of these people might easily have hatched the whole plot, they would obviously have had to have been very powerful. I don't buy the War on Terror. No apologies

 

[Dillinger4]

I don't know, but logic tells me it was in some Americans interests for 9/11 to happen and one of these people might easily have hatched the whole plot, they would obviously have had to have been very powerful. I don't buy the War on Terror. No apologies

Your logic tells you that?

 

[jonH]

Your logic tells you that?

what do you think happened?

 

[Demosthenes]

One of the things I find quite funny from watching a few of the films, is it turns out that some of the people who don't believe the official version, totally disapprove of a bunch of other people who don't believe the official version, but have a different theory from them, and often end up thinking that they're working for the government, to muddy the waters, posting up fake conspiracy theories, fake doctored videos etc.

I don't know if this makes things less confusing or more confusing..

 

[Dillinger4]

Er, you did, -- see below. (post 73)

I would defiantly place it above videos posted anonymously on the internet. Which almost all come from news agencies in the first place.

I would take a selection from all news agencies, yes.

 

[Dillinger4]

One of the things I find quite funny from watching a few of the films, is it turns out that some of the people who don't believe the official version, totally disapprove of a bunch of other people who don't believe the other version, and often end up thinking that they're working for the government, to muddy the waters, posting up fake conspiracy theories, fake doctored videos etc.

I don't know if this makes things less confusing or more confusing..

It makes it more confusing, for you.

 

[Dillinger4]

what do you think happened?

I am not the one making claims to 'what happened'.

 

[Demosthenes]

I am not the one making claims to 'what happened'.

Of course not.

 

[Dillinger4]

According to both your logics, neither of you can actually believe ANYTHING. So why do both of you make claims to claim one explanation over another?

 

[jonH]

I am not the one making claims to 'what happened'.

or didn't happen??

 

[Dillinger4]

or didn't happen??

So 9/11 didn't happen now?

 

[jonH]

I claim the US government is sick and does not represent the needs of our times, I don't believe a word they say. Remember the lies of the past.

 

[Dillinger4]

Of course not.

Its ok Demosthenes. You have already painted me as somebody who disagrees with you may as well put me on ignore.

Is it wrong to question your sources? Is that so awful? You clearly at not treating them very critically yourself, and it sounds like you don't want anybody else to do this either.

 

[Dillinger4]

I claim the US government is sick and does not represent the needs of our times, I don't believe a word they say. Remember the lies of the past.

Yeh? I don't particularly disagree.

But still.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, maybe you're right, but, in fact, as an experiment, I watched a non 911 video of a plane crashing into a wall, and it looked a whole lot more realistic than that second plane impact on the link you posted.

Which one? The high speed test where they strapped it to a rocket sled and used a specialist high speed, top of the line camera capable of millisecond or faster capture speeds to capture it? (link?)

It's a very cool video, i had a still from it as my desktop for a long while. That camera has next to nothing in common with the cheap crap that most people carry and only a tiny bit more in common with a portable news camera.

 

[Demosthenes]

According to both your logics, neither of you can actually believe ANYTHING. So why do both of you make claims to claim one explanation over another?

No I do believe quite a few things..

I believe a number of different explanations may be true, but that only one of them is, and that I don't know which, - and also I believe that the question of how the towers came to fall down is a different question from who planned the attack, and finding out the answer to the one doesn't necessarily mean finding out the answer to the other. But also that if the news reports were faked then that seems to suggest that the US government was involved.

And I believe that there are videos on youtube that are relevant to the first question, - and that there are a number of them, that show towers exploding but no plane impacts, and that they look more real to me than the same shots with plane impacts, and that this judgement of mine may be wrong, - and that maybe the impression of the plane sinking into the tower like a knife into butter and the fourway explosion is actually exactly how it should look.

And I think that people who haven't watched quite a few non news agency videos aren't in a position to comment on the value of the non-news sources.

 

[jonH]

So 9/11 didn't happen now?

No you claim you have no opinion as to what happened, I'm asking you if you have an opinion about what didn't happen?
Did the US government or its agencies have anything to do with the planning of 9/11 ?