|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: The 9-11 video you must see |
 |
|
It's called "The Great Conspiracy". It's written/produced by media critic Barry Zwicker. You won't find a more thoughtfully presented 9-11 video, and I've seen most of them.
I defy any 9-11 conspiracy deniers (or for that matter, any people who believe all conspiracies are nutty) to watch this video in it's entirety.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
You took the time to read what I put up so I will take a look at it.
I still have what it takes to take down any 9-11 conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: Re: The 9-11 video you must see |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
It's called "The Great Conspiracy". It's written/produced by media critic Barry Zwicker. You won't find a more thoughtfully presented 9-11 video, and I've seen most of them.
I defy any 9-11 conspiracy deniers (or for that matter, any people who believe all conspiracies are nutty) to watch this video in it's entirety.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 |
It's a pretty long video. Could you summarize the three most compelling points made in the video? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: Re: The 9-11 video you must see |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
It's called "The Great Conspiracy". It's written/produced by media critic Barry Zwicker. You won't find a more thoughtfully presented 9-11 video, and I've seen most of them.
I defy any 9-11 conspiracy deniers (or for that matter, any people who believe all conspiracies are nutty) to watch this video in it's entirety.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 |
It's a pretty long video. Could you summarize the three most compelling points made in the video? |
It starts off slow, but builds. Try watching the first 15 minutes and you should be hooked. It's quite verbal, almost like a newspaper commentary, but very well articulated, with one very good expert that he interviews live. I'm pretty tired right now, so having trouble racking my brain for the specific details. Things I've heard before, some I haven't. He spends some time on the 9/11 commision, Bush, neocons, FAA, etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: Re: The 9-11 video you must see |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
It starts off slow, but builds. Try watching the first 15 minutes and you should be hooked. It's quite verbal, almost like a newspaper commentary, but very well articulated, with one very good expert that he interviews live. I'm pretty tired right now, so having trouble racking my brain for the specific details. Things I've heard before, some I haven't. He spends some time on the 9/11 commision, Bush, neocons, FAA, etc |
I watched the first five minutes and jumped through the next 30. Sounds like the standard false flag spiel.
I searched for his views on the controlled demolition theory, but couldn't find anything. Eliminating the controlled demolition theory and focusing on the false flag operation does present some problems. While it's difficult to believe that everyone involved has remained complicit, it's impossible to prove the negative, i.e. that they weren't involved in a conspiracy.
The question is, how do we separate inefficiency and incompetence from conspiracy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: The 9-11 video you must see |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
It starts off slow, but builds. Try watching the first 15 minutes and you should be hooked. It's quite verbal, almost like a newspaper commentary, but very well articulated, with one very good expert that he interviews live. I'm pretty tired right now, so having trouble racking my brain for the specific details. Things I've heard before, some I haven't. He spends some time on the 9/11 commision, Bush, neocons, FAA, etc |
I watched the first five minutes and jumped through the next 30. Sounds like the standard false flag spiel.
I searched for his views on the controlled demolition theory, but couldn't find anything. Eliminating the controlled demolition theory and focusing on the false flag operation does present some problems. While it's difficult to believe that everyone involved has remained complicit, it's impossible to prove the negative, i.e. that they weren't involved in a conspiracy.
The question is, how do we separate inefficiency and incompetence from conspiracy? |
On these points, he points out that we are to believe that the FAA managed to land thousands of planes out of schedule that day, an unprecedented task, but were buffoons when it came to doing procedures that were, standard operating procedure.
We are left to wonder why it took the president 411 days to begin the 9/11 commission, and why it was orginally given 16x less money than the Challenger inquiry. We are also left to wonder why the commission repeatedly claimed to be stymied by the administration. Why would they be so uncooperative, unless they had something to hide?
If you believe in coincedences, than Sept.11, 2001 was a great day for you. On the one day in modern history that America was attacked by foreign enemies on the continental U.S., simultaneous F-16 training exercises were going on, which allowed 3 planes to crash into buildings, including the most heavily protected building in the world, the Pentagon, headquarters to the U.S. military apparatus. We are also to believe that a passenger jetliner or missile was able to be spotted from 50 miles out (Mr. Vice President, it's 50 miles out/40 miles out/30 miles out/20 miles out/Mr. Vice President it's 10 miles out, does the order still stand? "Of course it still stands, did you hear me change the order!") was able to go unshot at through the nations capital and crash unimpeded into the Pentagon. This is no different than a passenger airliner/missile managing to slam into the White House in broad-daylight, except that the Pentagon is more heavily protected.
We are also supposed to forget that the U.S. has continually run covert and false flag operations in the last 50+years, yet in the case of 9-11, it is called tomfoolery to suggest that the "sacred" U.S. government/military complex could commit murder against 3,000 of it's own citizens. It is precisely this logic that allowed those responsible to do it and get away with it, without being challenged by the popular press.
We are also to believe that the neocons, who wanted desperately to move into Afghanistan and Iraq for oil interests, and who had less than a decade earlier written a paper stating that what was needed to rally the American public to a war against terrorists without borders, had a this sacred cow conveniently dropped into their laps during "their" president's first presidency, allowing them to release the Patriot Act in ONE MONTH, but not to launch a commission for 15 MONTHS.
We are also to believe that 3 of the most strongly built skyscrapers in the world fell, unprecedentedly, while 1 was not even hit by a plane.
We are to believe that the Trade Centers were sold off only a couple months prior to 9/11, and that the billions in profits made from Insurance were just a coincedence.
We are to believe that a nation with with the best journalistic traditions, couldn't see the glaring oversights and falshoods in the 9/11 commission report, or to vocally criticize it's partisanship and conflicts of interest.
We are to believe Bush's muddled account of how he saw the first and second planes hit the buildings, when no such video evidence was available of the first attack.
We are to believe that U.S. intelligence didn't have proper warnings of attacks, or that they didn't know what to do with the information, or that they couldn't predict that a plane could be flown into a building.
Do you believe all these things could and did happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener is not only an anti-American bigot, he's now shown he's a fruitcake, too. While the two don't necessarily go together, they often do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener is not only an anti-American bigot, he's now shown he's a fruitcake, too. While the two don't necessarily go together, they often do. |
The most brainless quote of the month from Ya-ta, and that's with a lot of competition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener is not only an anti-American bigot, he's now shown he's a fruitcake, too. While the two don't necessarily go together, they often do. |
| Quote: |
| We are also supposed to forget that the U.S. has continually run covert and false flag operations in the last 50+years, yet in the case of 9-11, it is called tomfoolery to suggest that the "sacred" U.S. government/military complex could commit murder against 3,000 of it's own citizens. It is precisely this logic that allowed those responsible to do it and get away with it, without being challenged by the popular press. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener is not only an anti-American bigot, he's now shown he's a fruitcake, too. While the two don't necessarily go together, they often do. |
While I find it hard to believe in any '9-11 conspiracy,' I really don't see why someone who does is necessarily a 'fruitcake.' That's a very blithe dismissal. The OP is asking some interesting questions. Do you have the answers, Ya-ta? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Could you summarize the three most compelling points...? |
And, OP: could you also cite the evidence the filmmakers rely on when asserting these three claims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Could you summarize the three most compelling points...? |
And, OP: could you also cite the evidence the filmmakers rely on when asserting these three claims? |
jeez, are you to busy to watch the video? Just watch it, and see what you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Could you summarize the three most compelling points...? |
And, OP: could you also cite the evidence the filmmakers rely on when asserting these three claims? |
jeez, are you to busy to watch the video? Just watch it, and see what you think. |
So, you find this video compelling but you can't simply summarize the top three points?
Gopher, you work in academia. Do researchers just dump an hour of reading on people's desks and go "hey, I got compelling research, just read it"? "What's it about?" "Ummm, history. Just read it." "Could you summarize it for me?" "No, just read it." Doesn't really happen, right?
It's my impression if one wants to advance a compelling, argued case, one regularly makes a brief summary. This is why very long papers have things at the top called an abstract that, umm, summarizes the major points and the evidence for those points.
And further, I might watch the video and the points I find compelling are not the points YOU find compelling. It would seem to save everyone a lot of time, if you just get to the point. List the top points this video makes and what evidence do you believe is out there to support it.
| Quote: |
| You won't find a more thoughtfully presented 9-11 video, and I've seen most of them. |
What are the top "thoughtful" points? When you write a book report, do you simply say "I like this book." Seems to me you don't force the teacher to read the book. This isn't even university level stuff.
| Quote: |
| I defy any 9-11 conspiracy deniers (or for that matter, any people who believe all conspiracies are nutty) to watch this video in it's entirety. |
I defy 9-11 troobies to watch 8 hours of "the best of Canadian Curling bloopers". What is the point in this challenge?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:55 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No. I read the abstract and I skim the sources and bibliography when deciding whether I want to spend any time at all reading anything. (And so does everybody else I know.)
Indeed, the phrase that I have heard (and in turn said to my own students) again and again: get to the point.
OP: please get to the point. Succinctly summarize thesis and evidence, if you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: The 9-11 video you must see |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
It starts off slow, but builds. Try watching the first 15 minutes and you should be hooked. It's quite verbal, almost like a newspaper commentary, but very well articulated, with one very good expert that he interviews live. I'm pretty tired right now, so having trouble racking my brain for the specific details. Things I've heard before, some I haven't. He spends some time on the 9/11 commision, Bush, neocons, FAA, etc |
I watched the first five minutes and jumped through the next 30. Sounds like the standard false flag spiel.
I searched for his views on the controlled demolition theory, but couldn't find anything. Eliminating the controlled demolition theory and focusing on the false flag operation does present some problems. While it's difficult to believe that everyone involved has remained complicit, it's impossible to prove the negative, i.e. that they weren't involved in a conspiracy.
The question is, how do we separate inefficiency and incompetence from conspiracy? |
On these points, he points out that we are to believe that the FAA managed to land thousands of planes out of schedule that day, an unprecedented task, but were buffoons when it came to doing procedures that were, standard operating procedure.
We are left to wonder why it took the president 411 days to begin the 9/11 commission, and why it was orginally given 16x less money than the Challenger inquiry. We are also left to wonder why the commission repeatedly claimed to be stymied by the administration. Why would they be so uncooperative, unless they had something to hide?
If you believe in coincedences, than Sept.11, 2001 was a great day for you. On the one day in modern history that America was attacked by foreign enemies on the continental U.S., simultaneous F-16 training exercises were going on, which allowed 3 planes to crash into buildings, including the most heavily protected building in the world, the Pentagon, headquarters to the U.S. military apparatus. We are also to believe that a passenger jetliner or missile was able to be spotted from 50 miles out (Mr. Vice President, it's 50 miles out/40 miles out/30 miles out/20 miles out/Mr. Vice President it's 10 miles out, does the order still stand? "Of course it still stands, did you hear me change the order!") was able to go unshot at through the nations capital and crash unimpeded into the Pentagon. This is no different than a passenger airliner/missile managing to slam into the White House in broad-daylight, except that the Pentagon is more heavily protected.
We are also supposed to forget that the U.S. has continually run covert and false flag operations in the last 50+years, yet in the case of 9-11, it is called tomfoolery to suggest that the "sacred" U.S. government/military complex could commit murder against 3,000 of it's own citizens. It is precisely this logic that allowed those responsible to do it and get away with it, without being challenged by the popular press.
We are also to believe that the neocons, who wanted desperately to move into Afghanistan and Iraq for oil interests, and who had less than a decade earlier written a paper stating that what was needed to rally the American public to a war against terrorists without borders, had a this sacred cow conveniently dropped into their laps during "their" president's first presidency, allowing them to release the Patriot Act in ONE MONTH, but not to launch a commission for 15 MONTHS.
We are also to believe that 3 of the most strongly built skyscrapers in the world fell, unprecedentedly, while 1 was not even hit by a plane.
We are to believe that the Trade Centers were sold off only a couple months prior to 9/11, and that the billions in profits made from Insurance were just a coincedence.
We are to believe that a nation with with the best journalistic traditions, couldn't see the glaring oversights and falshoods in the 9/11 commission report, or to vocally criticize it's partisanship and conflicts of interest.
We are to believe Bush's muddled account of how he saw the first and second planes hit the buildings, when no such video evidence was available of the first attack.
We are to believe that U.S. intelligence didn't have proper warnings of attacks, or that they didn't know what to do with the information, or that they couldn't predict that a plane could be flown into a building.
Do you believe all these things could and did happen? |
I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
