'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia

[Dillinger4]

Just like his tutor i guess.

But i notice you say he is trying to prove something, which according to your previously posted comments was all that was needed to be the subject of research.

I teach people doing their masters. My work is academic.

Now, what is this elusive degree you're doing?

See Above.

I don't see why its relevant.

And I feel seriously worried for your 'students' if you are teaching them the kind of bullshit you display here.

 

[fela fan]

Its a social science.

Can you enlighten me now? I want the scales lifted from my eyes.

It's like trying to pull out a molar. At least we're into the clues now.

Any chance of the actual name?

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes i have, at post-graduate level only. Hence one or two questions i've been posing dillinger.

And you have just repeated dillinger's claims about youtube and the topic not being academic enough.

I find that difficult to just blindly accept in the absence of any rules dillinger could enlighten me upon, and i still can't find out what the degree is.

You could never, ever use YouTube as a primary source, and I would imagine that using it as a secondary source for evidence would be frowned upon by any halfway decent academic - tertiary evidence only.

The topic, attempting to prove that the USG bought down the towers, is a LEGAL question, not an academic one; you'd never be able to complete it in 10,000 words.

You claim to have done a post-grad dissertation - on what, toilet paper? Even a compare/contrast or purely critical paper would require more rigour than this.

 

[Dillinger4]

The key point IMO is evidence. A YouTube video would be perfectly acceptable if it cited actual evidence, rather than the assumption and supposition that usually prevails. The format of the media is of no concern, only the content.

So. How would a video of the WTC7 collapsing be evidence of the US being complicit in 9/11?

I am curious, because I am amazed that somebody would be able to prove this in their undergraduate dissertation.

 

[Dillinger4]

It's like trying to pull out a molar. At least we're into the clues now.

Any chance of the actual name?

Politics.

Now that I have told you, I want full justification for why this matters. Because I know you cannot provide this, and are stalling, wasting time on trivialities because you cannot actually argue anything worthwhile.

 

[Dillinger4]

Also - Where did you graduate from Fela?

I demand an answer. In what subject? From what university?

I will leave this thread for a while so you can answer all my posts.

 

[Corax]

So. How would a video of the WTC7 collapsing be evidence of the US being complicit in 9/11?

I am curious, because I am amazed that somebody would be able to prove this in their undergraduate dissertation.

Well, say they cited scientific research on the nature of building collapse when structural integrity was compromised in different ways (eg missile, demolition, and aircraft impact), and compared that with video footage of the WTC, forensics at Ground Zero etc.

I don't think the WTC was brought down by CIA ewoks or anything, I'm just saying that just because the video is on YouTube doesn't invalidate it. Some University professors are uploading their lectures to the web; they don't suddenly become 'non-academic' just because they've hit the net.

 

[Dillinger4]

Well, say they cited scientific research on the nature of building collapse when structural integrity was compromised in different ways (eg missile, demolition, and aircraft impact), and compared that with video footage of the WTC, forensics at Ground Zero etc.

I don't think the WTC was brought down by CIA ewoks or anything, I'm just saying that just because the video is on YouTube doesn't invalidate it. Some University professors are uploading their lectures to the web; they don't suddenly become 'non-academic' just because they've hit the net.

It doesn't prove it either.

This person does not have a background in structural engineering. Even if he did, he would not need a video of it off youtube. He would use schematics information about structural integrity etc.

Also, even then it would not be suitable for undergraduate research, which is limited at best.

And yes, it does become non academic in many cases. You cannot use wikipedia as a source for anything other than initial research to direct you to articles that have been peer reviewed, for example.

PS Fela, I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[jæd]

I don't think the WTC was brought down by CIA ewoks or anything, I'm just saying that just because the video is on YouTube doesn't invalidate it. Some University professors are uploading their lectures to the web; they don't suddenly become 'non-academic' just because they've hit the net.

Of course it's not invalidated. Just that if you are basing your premises on something that's on YouTube you need to determine the reputation of that video. With material published in academic journals that's easy, but any muppet can upload stuff to YouTube.

 

[Corax]

It doesn't prove it either.

This person does not have a background in structural engineering. Even if he did, he would not need a video of it off youtube. He would use schematics information about structural integrity etc.

Also, even then it would not be suitable for undergraduate research, which is limited at best.

And yes, it does become non academic in many cases. You cannot use wikipedia as a source for anything other than initial research to direct you to articles that have been peer reviewed, for example.

PS Fela, I am still waiting for an answer.

Read what I've posted, not what you've already decided I'm saying.

 

[Corax]

Of course it's not invalidated. Just that if you are basing your premises on something that's on YouTube you need to determine the reputation of that video. With material published in academic journals that's easy, but any muppet can upload stuff to YouTube.

Precisely.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I know I know.

But he has consistently not read my posts and got it wrong.

Seriously, this is a great example of why not to bother. What are you going to achieve? Nothing, apart from raising your blood pressure.

 

[Dillinger4]

Read what I've posted, not what you've already decided I'm saying.

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.

 

[Dillinger4]

Precisely.

Apologies if I have misinterpreted you.

 

[Dillinger4]

Seriously, this is a great example of why not to bother. What are you going to achieve? Nothing, apart from raising your blood pressure.

I wasn't going to bother, but I am now interested in Fela Fan's claim he has submitted a postgraduate dissertation, and teaches in an academic environment.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[Dillinger4]

Don't say I didn't warn you.

He will probably be on ignore soon enough

 

[Demosthenes]

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.

Isn't the point that in the world of a conspiracy theorist, a selection of videos from news agencies is unreliable evidence precisely because it's a selection from news agencies.
So the model would be that because of the nature of the way news is produced, - they all get hold of the same video, and it's doctored or something.

Whereas what you think is that the proper videos are the ones from the news agencies, and the one on youtube is slightly doctored. I heard it had an explosion shown coming out of the building just before the plane hit.

I reckon you could be right that his "research" will be a load of bollocks. But, it could be done well, if there was some serious attempt to track down where the sources came from, interview the people who filmed them, find out how many hands they went through before being shown.

It's just not a thing to get worked up about. If he's getting funding for it, that's so mad you have to say -hats off to him, - and if he's not, then he's probably just wasting his own time and money.

 

[Demosthenes]

I just watched a few of these.

It's amazing, the plane just slices into the building like a knife into butter. The tower doesn't rock at all, it just explodes four ways, as if the plane was inside the building when it blew up.

And in some of them, you can't even see the plane, it just seems to explode in all directions.

I didn't find any tracking the course of the flights across the new york skies, - just these images focussed on the tower, with a plane suddenly sliding across the screen and into the tower.

 

[Jambooboo]

Generally speaking I'm not sure you need to 'prove' something in a social sciences essay/dissertation - as opposed to a science based degree whereby you will be testing a hypothesis and looking for pretty much 100% unambiguous conclusions.

However I don't think taking a clearly partisan approach to any subject matter from the very offset when researching a dissertation is appropriate, as you will ignore any evidence that casts doubts on the validity of the 'agenda' which you're trying to support.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well I've just watched a few on youtube - there's loads of them. Never had a look before.

But I couldn't find a single one where it looked like a genuine plane crash, - though I did see ones that appeared to be the original CNN broadcast.

Generally there were quite a lot of planes that you could wonder if they were just transfers going across a screen. There were quite a lot of shots of simultaneous explosions coming out of all four sides of the building, - no plane in sight. And there was one with a plane that seemed to be a real plane, coming in horizontally from the left, - but this one seemed to sink right into the building. rather than exploding on impact.

Annoying that I couldn't find any convincing footage of what really happened

 

[editor]

Annoying that I couldn't find any convincing footage of what really happened

So all the eye witnesses, cameramen and people in the building imagined it, yes?

"Transfers going across the screen". What a prize fuckwit.

 

[nosos]

So I have just finished a dissertation tutorial, on Methodology for my dissertation. This involved me working in a group with other people, so we went round discussing our research topics.

One guy starts telling me how he is writing his Dissertation on the 9/11 Truth movement, and starts telling me that there is a conspiracy, they pulled down tower seven, etc etc. I have heard it all before from here.

It escalates, with me losing my temper and calling him a fucking nutjob, in front of the rest of the class, quite aggressively. Only because he was talking complete and utter shit.

I don't understand how he can possibly carry out research on a subject that is not even based on fact.

This person obviously has a dissertation tutor. And he has met his dissertation tutor, who must have agreed that this is a subject that needs further research. I am just glad that he can only fail on this particular subject.

I just don't understand at all. I probably shouldn't even post this thread, as it will only end up summoning more nut jobs. But I find this so incomprehensible.

Its one thing making things up on the internet. But there are patently no facts for him to base anything on, which I pointed out to him.

I'm actually thinking of doing my dissertation on the 9/11 truth movement

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, what madness has seized all these people to doctor film, and stick it on youtube. I mean there's just loads of it. I'd have to say, on the face of it, it looks very like a conspiracy of conspiraloons to create the unfair impression that there aren't any convincing videos of the planes hitting the towers.

 

[Dillinger4]

I'm actually thinking of doing my dissertation on the 9/11 truth movement

I am not against it. I am just against the loonery displayed by this individual.

What are you thinking of doing in particular?

 

[Demosthenes]

How about, - a flock of geese, a herd of cows, - and a conspiracy of conspiraloons, - as the collective noun? Or would an emergency of conspiraloons be better?

 

[Corax]

I was lying earlier. It was Ewoks.

 

[Dillinger4]

nm

 

[Demosthenes]

So all the eye witnesses, cameramen and people in the building imagined it, yes?

"Transfers going across the screen". What a prize fuckwit.

See, the ones that look like transfers, - if they do, well they could have been created by the conspiraloons, so as to create the false impression of fake footage.

 

[BlackSpecs]

How about, - a flock of geese, a herd of cows, - and a conspiracy of conspiraloons, - as the collective noun? Or would an emergency of conspiraloons be better?

it's an army of frogs , a murder of crows , a hover of trouts , a charm of humming-birds and my favourite : an unkindness of ravens !!!

take your pick