butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Who else...
'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
nosos said:
Yes?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
nm
Honestly, I mean what I say, when I say, -I really don't think I know what happened.
I've generally thought that planes went into the towers. I've entertained other ideas. I thought the footage I saw at the time showed planes going into the towers. I didn't see anything wrong with it then.
Watching a whole bunch of different videos today on youtube, I started to wonder if in fact I could have been hoaxed. I haven't found anything on youtube that convinced me that I haven't been. What I did find is that if the official version is true, then there's a huge number of people out there dedicated to faking videos and reinforcing a sophisticated conspiraloon hoax that the official version isn't true. And I wonder why? And I think, is it any more rational to believe in a conspiracy of conspiraloons than it is to believe in a conspiracy of governments and news agencies. ?
I still don't have a clear view on the subject.
I still think it's quite likely that it's not possible to prove what happened one way or another.
I've generally thought that planes went into the towers. I've entertained other ideas. I thought the footage I saw at the time showed planes going into the towers. I didn't see anything wrong with it then.
Watching a whole bunch of different videos today on youtube, I started to wonder if in fact I could have been hoaxed. I haven't found anything on youtube that convinced me that I haven't been. What I did find is that if the official version is true, then there's a huge number of people out there dedicated to faking videos and reinforcing a sophisticated conspiraloon hoax that the official version isn't true. And I wonder why? And I think, is it any more rational to believe in a conspiracy of conspiraloons than it is to believe in a conspiracy of governments and news agencies. ?
I still don't have a clear view on the subject.
I still think it's quite likely that it's not possible to prove what happened one way or another.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Demosthenes said:
You should talk to nosos.
yeah, well, I kind of agree with.
Epistemologically that seems pretty much obvious.
So really all you can do, is look at any available sources you can find, and maybe form your own judgement, .
Epistemologically that seems pretty much obvious.
So really all you can do, is look at any available sources you can find, and maybe form your own judgement, .
Demosthenes said:
Well. that's not entirely true, - you could go on the trail of the passengers who died in the flights, and actually track down people who knew them, and networks of friends, and - if they existed, then I'm fairly sure, before long, it would become obvious they existed, - and that would pretty much prove that there's a load of conspiralunacy and fakery on youtube.
But I can't do that myself, - so I'm still left in a position of uncertainty.
There's tons of debunking videos though. I just watched a couple of them.
Didn't see any planes, still saw explosions that come out high from all sides of the building simultaneously, as if from the inside.
This is a good debunker. (labelled as a debunking video - how the wtc7 collapsed)
This one actually says it's true that no plane hit wtc 7. And that's from a debunker. - I think they're saying that it was other stuff that hit the second building from the first building.
Didn't see any planes, still saw explosions that come out high from all sides of the building simultaneously, as if from the inside.
This is a good debunker. (labelled as a debunking video - how the wtc7 collapsed)
This one actually says it's true that no plane hit wtc 7. And that's from a debunker. - I think they're saying that it was other stuff that hit the second building from the first building.
Dillinger4 said:
Eerie. What you predicted yesterday has come true
Anyway, Dillinger, I wouldn't sweat it too much. If, as you suggest, his proposal is untenable in a rigorous academic environment, he will be hoisted by his own petard. I have to say that I'm not entirely surprised by his choice of sources; right into the third year of my course some students were still using Wikipedia, despite being told countless times not to.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
jbob said:Eerie. What you predicted yesterday has come true
Anyway, Dillinger, I wouldn't sweat it too much. If, as you suggest, his proposal is untenable in a rigorous academic environment, he will be hoisted by his own petard. I have to say that I'm not entirely surprised by his choice of sources; right into the third year of my course some students were still using Wikipedia, despite being told countless times not to.
I know! Who'd have thunk it?
I am not that bothered really. He will get told eventually, or fail. Either way, its not really my problem.
I just felt a little insulted is all.
editor
hiraethified
So until such a time that you find some YouTube footage that matches your personal standards of realism, you feel that's enough to cast doubts on the entire story and suggest thousands of people are all lying, yes?Demosthenes said:
So, what is your expertise in analysing explosions and crashes by lo-res video footage alone?
Or maybe you looked it up in a comic book?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
There's never been any dispute about this.Demosthenes said:
I understand the physics and math (well, y'know, in outline) of the building collapses. Well, y'know, when Ockham's done his work.
Would you believe Popular Mechanics might be a good source for explications?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
i use wikipedia for a general overview of the subject but i would never seriously cite it in my essays. and i always look at the links at the bottom to find out more.
i don't know what happened on 9-11, there are some serious questions about it but i think that using youtube as an academic source and refusing to consider any opposing evidence is a fucking joke and not at all what the study of politics is supposed to be about. if someone did that in my seminars i would be FUCKING pissed off given the amount of work i put into it.
i don't know what happened on 9-11, there are some serious questions about it but i think that using youtube as an academic source and refusing to consider any opposing evidence is a fucking joke and not at all what the study of politics is supposed to be about. if someone did that in my seminars i would be FUCKING pissed off given the amount of work i put into it.
Badger Kitten
oof
It is only right that this thread should be in theory, philosophy and history.
Though I disagree with the 'history' part .'Lunacy' would be better
Though I disagree with the 'history' part .'Lunacy' would be better
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
youtube and wikipedia are not academic sources. anyone can write anything.
i have a few mates that get not just a little bit but ALL their info from wikipedia and it pisses me off a wee bit even though they're my mate because they go on about how shit they find their course but they're not even attempting to engage with the subject matter
anyway ... carry on ...
i have a few mates that get not just a little bit but ALL their info from wikipedia and it pisses me off a wee bit even though they're my mate because they go on about how shit they find their course but they're not even attempting to engage with the subject matter
anyway ... carry on ...
kyser_soze said:
Now i see the word 'primary' comes in, changes things somewhat.
"Would be frowned upon?" Nice use of the passive there, ignoring the need to state exactly who would do the frowning.
I assume that is the topic, it's not been that clear from dillinger who can't even bring himself to name the degree.
And i did not claim to have done any dissertation. I just noted in answer to you that i had done so. You might also like to know that i assign and mark post-graduate papers too. I think i know a wee bit about this.
Dillinger4 said:
Guess what dillinger, learn some manners and i might answer you. Start shouting and yelling and getting aggressive like you did to this chap in your class, and you can stew in your own petulant kingdom.
You demand do you??! How funny.
As for why i asked what degree you were doing, it does actually matter. The boundaries on what is acceptable, both in content and style and rigour vary according to the degree subject and/or field. And furthermore, for you to state categorically that something must be proven when undertaking a dissertation is simply wrong, mainly because in many fields of life this is impossible. It's more than possible that your ranting has obscured for you the difference between proof and objectivity.
Now, politics you say. That is your degree? What did anyone ever 'prove' in politics??
Anyhow, based on your anger and aggressiveness, and 'you must be wrong' and 'i demand answers' (to irrelevant questions), YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT DEGREE MAN.
Dillinger4 said:
Ah, now we're getting to the crux of it, you were insulted. Or, more accurate to say, you allowed yourself to feel insulted.
And when dillinger gets a little insulted, he goes off on one, yelling and screaming at a classmate in his uni degree in front of everybody, displaying a beautiful piece of academic objectivity. He then comes to urban and posts up how angry he is saying how aggressive he was. He then sticks fingers in his ears saying nothing a poster can say will be right, that he is in fact right, that he demands answers, and the so on.
I hope you keep your volatile emotions and extreme subjectivity and your 'i know it already' philosophy well out of your own dissertation. I mean, how would your terribly fragile ego and sense of extreme self-importance deal with the body blow of you failing yours with this classmate of yours passing his...?
You could do the really academic thing as a result of my piece, and simply put me on ignore as you suggested you might. That way you can avoid hearing stuff you don't want to hear. Makes the world an easier place...
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
fela fan said:
Because I now have the impression that you are a liar. You have no comprehension of how Academic study works.
Now you can only focus on the trivialities in my posts, because you cant actually understand what I have said. You can't see the bigger picture, never mind create an argument for it.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
If you lie about having 'academic' credentials and so forth, then how could anybody possible believe anything you say about a larger subject?
Also, you have missed the point of my posts, once again.
I did not scream at anyone. I called him a nutjob out of frustration, finally, after trying to explain to him why his research model is flawed. It has nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
But now you are making ad hominem attacks against my person, labeling me as 'volatile' with 'extreme self importance' and with a 'fragile ego', that I have 'yelled and screamed' at people' because I am 'angry and aggressive', that I can 'stew in my own petulant kingdom', and on and on.
For somebody who presents himself as a non judgmental chilled person, you are not very pleasant.
If you don't want to read my posts, just read this bit below in bold.
My problem is nothing to do with 9/11. It is to do with research methods.
Also, you have missed the point of my posts, once again.
I did not scream at anyone. I called him a nutjob out of frustration, finally, after trying to explain to him why his research model is flawed. It has nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
But now you are making ad hominem attacks against my person, labeling me as 'volatile' with 'extreme self importance' and with a 'fragile ego', that I have 'yelled and screamed' at people' because I am 'angry and aggressive', that I can 'stew in my own petulant kingdom', and on and on.
For somebody who presents himself as a non judgmental chilled person, you are not very pleasant.
If you don't want to read my posts, just read this bit below in bold.
My problem is nothing to do with 9/11. It is to do with research methods.
Similar threads
- Locked
