9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[Contract Killer 24]

I usually agree with Penn and Teller, and I do agree with this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I[/ame]

What do you guys think? Please watch the video first, don't just yap.

[MindSpring 73]

It was those damn Uzbeckistanians

[Neur0 34]

I recommend watching Loose Change.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

[Guest Fohacidal]

I recommend watching Loose Change.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

First 5 minutes all I heard was

- Staging terrorist attacks

- Practicing plane landings

- A picture with no correlation to 9/11 yet had the crosshairs over the side of one of the WTC towers

- UAV cruising at commercial jet speed

Iv heard enough and I already know what its implying, thats but Ill pass

[Contract Killer 24]

I recommend watching Loose Change.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you even watch my video?

[Neur0 34]

Did you even watch my video?

Lol, whoops. Must have posted a video contrary to the viewpoints of yours. And Foh, if you're not going to watch it, don't bother disowning it. There's nothing to imply from the first five minutes. I, myself, am not one for conspiracy theories, but it is interesting and informative given the fact that I'm a skeptic and collect evidence before I make a final judgment. Your statement sounds a bit cynical.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Lol, whoops. Must have posted a video contrary to the viewpoints of yours. And Foh, if you're not going to watch it, don't bother disowning it. There's nothing to imply from the first five minutes. I, myself, am not one for conspiracy theories, but it is interesting and informative given the fact that I'm a skeptic and collect evidence before I make a final judgment. Your statement sounds a bit cynical.

Its not cynical, its skeptical. The movie is throwing tons of random facts, tidbits and pictures with a forced commentary on top of it all, not allowing for ones own quick judgement of it. You then pull all of this stuff together with the biased glue that is the commentary of Loose Change and you make rash and unintelligent judgements about something you dont know anything about.

[Contract Killer 24]

If you watch my video, you will know how conspiracy videos and skeptics work.

[Neur0 34]

Its not cynical, its skeptical. The movie is throwing tons of random facts, tidbits and pictures with a forced commentary on top of it all, not allowing for ones own quick judgement of it. You then pull all of this stuff together with the biased glue that is the commentary of Loose Change and you make rash and unintelligent judgements about something you dont know anything about.

It may very well be biased. But that's what you have to be aware of. Despite it's bias, it provides some provocative food for thought, and to say you can understand it all via the first five minutes is sort of foolish in the sense what you said is in fact cynical.

Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

Skepticism: A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

The video does indeed, appeal to the emotions of its audiences and attempts to lure them in via images, random facts, and such. But to declassify the entire video as something to not even at least take note of is, as I said before, is nothing more than the idea of a cynic.

What's ironic is that you mention bias. By not understanding both sides, you're automatically biased in the sense that you cannot make an educated judgment without hearing what all the people have to say.

But not leaning either way. I, nor anyone else, have the knowledge to say with 100% certainty that it was a conspiracy or it wasn't. We're basing our opinions off the evidence we collect. And I'm willing to collect any and all evidence when it comes to formulating my own opinion.

[Nifer 1]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MELaLQLLMYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MELaLQLLMYg[/ame]

Explains all

Sorry if i hijacked the thread

[Hyperwhoar 0]

I believe most of it was Bush, yes, because he now has a reason to invade Iraq for their oil.

I do NOT believe under ANY circumstances that a plane hit the Pentagon. It's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

It was a missile.

I know alot on this topic because I was addicted to watching these theory's, so I will post more tomorrow, I'm going to bed.

[Contract Killer 24]

I believe most of it was Bush, yes, because he now has a reason to invade Iraq for their oil.

I do NOT believe under ANY circumstances that a plane hit the Pentagon. It's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

It was a missile.

I know alot on this topic because I was addicted to watching these theory's, so I will post more tomorrow, I'm going to bed.

Tell me how it was impossible. These conspiracy theories are an insult to the firefighters and people who lost their lives, or lost a friends/family's life.

If you watch my video all your theories will be dismissed.

Cospiracy theoriests put pieces of information together in an alternate way, combined with some paranoia, yes we should be skeptical of our government, but we shouldn't make bullshit up.

[Neur0 34]

Tell me how it was impossible. These conspiracy theories are an insult to the firefighters and people who lost their lives, or lost a friends/family's life.

If you watch my video all your theories will be dismissed.

Cospiracy theoriests put pieces of information together in an alternate way, combined with some paranoia, yes we should be skeptical of our government, but we shouldn't make bullshit up.

To act as if you have firsthand knowledge of what happened there at the WTC the day of the attacks or at the Pentagon the same day is just about as foolish as saying conspiracy theorists fabricate their claims. No one knows for sure, and as far as it goes, no one will ever know for sure.

[Guest Fohacidal]

It may very well be biased. But that's what you have to be aware of. Despite it's bias, it provides some provocative food for thought, and to say you can understand it all via the first five minutes is sort of foolish in the sense what you said is in fact cynical.

Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

Skepticism: A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

The video does indeed, appeal to the emotions of its audiences and attempts to lure them in via images, random facts, and such. But to declassify the entire video as something to not even at least take note of is, as I said before, is nothing more than the idea of a cynic.

What's ironic is that you mention bias. By not understanding both sides, you're automatically biased in the sense that you cannot make an educated judgment without hearing what all the people have to say.

But not leaning either way. I, nor anyone else, have the knowledge to say with 100% certainty that it was a conspiracy or it wasn't. We're basing our opinions off the evidence we collect. And I'm willing to collect any and all evidence when it comes to formulating my own opinion.

Your a lot smarter then I thought wooksauce!

Either way, you knowingly posted this video with the past experience of having watched it. With that said you know how biased a video like this is and how ultimately its purpose is not just existing as food for thought, but as an (hour long?) process of continually grinding down the viewers opinion without any contradicting views. Essentially the video formulates an opinion and doesnt allow anyone to choose an an objective manner.

I happen to be a person who sticks to my ideals and become very adamant about defending them. So yes it was somewhat an emotionally based move to brush off the video. But what you have to understand is, usually movies are presented in the same form as a book. Introduction, rising action, climax, falling and conclusion. In the case of documentaries (such as this) the section parallel to the intro provides a basic glimpse of what is to be seen an expected and then later elaborated on. My judgement on the entire documentary doesnt have to come just because I sat through an extra 45 minutes of trivial "bullshit". Of course again Im probably subjectively dismissing the rest of the video by using that word but if you expect someone to all of a sudden stop and question themselves because of one video you have a strange view about the people around you.

However, I am all for being convinced otherwise as long as EVIDENCE is brought to me in a way where I can make my own judgment about it, and not have someone else do it. Im not perfect and no human is, in fact we might all draw completely different conclusions from the exact same peice of evidence presented to us. But the fact of the matter is your on borderline hypocrisy when you post a video like this and preach against my cynicism.

Then again who really cares bro, its just a vid, you know whamsayin?

Sorry about the gay cd cover, was to lazy to post BROS 4 LIFE on to something neat D:

[Contract Killer 24]

How did I act as if I had first hand knowledge? I never once said or acted as I did, sorry if your precieved it that way.

[Neur0 34]

Your a lot smarter then I thought wooksauce!

Either way, you knowingly posted this video with the past experience of having watched it. With that said you know how biased a video like this is and how ultimately its purpose is not just existing as food for thought, but as an (hour long?) process of continually grinding down the viewers opinion without any contradicting views. Essentially the video formulates an opinion and doesnt allow anyone to choose an an objective manner.

I happen to be a person who sticks to my ideals and become very adamant about defending them. So yes it was somewhat an emotionally based move to brush off the video. But what you have to understand is, usually movies are presented in the same form as a book. Introduction, rising action, climax, falling and conclusion. In the case of documentaries (such as this) the section parallel to the intro provides a basic glimpse of what is to be seen an expected and then later elaborated on. My judgement on the entire documentary doesnt have to come just because I sat through an extra 45 minutes of trivial "bullshit". Of course again Im probably subjectively dismissing the rest of the video by using that word but if you expect someone to all of a sudden stop and question themselves because of one video you have a strange view about the people around you.

However, I am all for being convinced otherwise as long as EVIDENCE is brought to me in a way where I can make my own judgment about it, and not have someone else do it. Im not perfect and no human is, in fact we might all draw completely different conclusions from the exact same peice of evidence presented to us. But the fact of the matter is your on borderline hypocrisy when you post a video like this and preach against my cynicism.

Then again who really cares bro, its just a vid, you know whamsayin?

Sorry about the gay cd cover, was to lazy to post BROS 4 LIFE on to something neat D:

Unfortunately, the video was not made with the intentions of appealing to both conspiracy-theorists and non-conspiracy-theorists. As such, if you feel the need to equivocate the net balance of "conspiratorial critical mass", by all means, watch a video claiming that Bush and the government are innocent on all accounts and I'm sure you'll be content. What you have to understand is that not every movie provides both viewpoints. As such, it's important to make sure you realize that bias before you watch. If you don't, you'll fall into the same loophole you just did.

As an example, if I were to watch a movie about the innocence of Bush. I'd obviously have some agreements with it given that I had no prior knowledge of what actually happened (or could have happened) the day of 9/11 (or maybe I have a little and am just a bit hazy on my overall belief). Having myself as "adamant" as you, I'd be assertive about dismissing others' claims that he's much too naive to have done something of such preposterous proportions (not only him). I'd also go on to credit my belief as the one true belief barring my ability to fully comprehend other people's views.

Likewise, to dismiss something as "bullshit" is indeed very cynical and foolish. Likewise, it's also a bit foolish to say that such a video and other videos don't have some sort of impact on what you think, especially if you haven't seen the full array of details. Had you actually sat through the entire movie as opposed to watching a trailer-sized, movie theater preview, you would, without a doubt, question some things or possibly have some doubts. At the very least, you'd attempt to validate those claims to see if they even hold true, or, in other words, "think" about them as being possible. Only a foolish man dismisses something before he even makes light of it.

From what I can tell, it's as if you were flipping the channel, saw something "stupid" in your eyes, and kept on flipping till hit you the Fox News Channel.

I've seen plenty of videos in both support of Bush and of the conspiracy theories, and to tell you the truth, I'm still not 100% sure. I may never be, but that's something I'm willing to accept as a skeptic, for a cynic does nothing but deny other attempts at what could possibly hold light to a problem, and that's exactly what you've done. But then again, maybe you're "adamant," not a cynic.

[Neur0 34]

How did I act as if I had first hand knowledge? I never once said or acted as I did, sorry if your precieved it that way.

It was more or less directed at Penn & Teller, but it's also the fact that you blindly take what they have to say into 100% truth, because if you (like Foh) had watched other videos, it might have an impact on you as well.

Something else needs to be added here, but my brain is fried.

[Guest Fohacidal]

I've seen plenty of videos in both support of Bush and of the conspiracy theories, and to tell you the truth, I'm still not 100% sure. I may never be, but that's something I'm willing to accept as a skeptic, for a cynic does nothing but deny other attempts at what could possibly hold light to a problem, and that's exactly what you've done. But then again, maybe you're "adamant," not a cynic.

Id love for you to point out in all of my posts (unedited) where I blatantly deny unbiased evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. However you seem to be walking down your own path again, you pinged me for a conservative yes, but to add in the Fox News bit means you also assume I am an ignorant "sheeple", call me crazy but I believe your being quite cynical to, at least just about me. You seem to dismiss everything I say simply because I drew judgment over a movie and that you happen to be right just because you appear to be willing to accept views from all sides which I KNOW is not true, nobody can fully accept all the truth from both sides, its what makes humans unique.

[Neur0 34]

Id love for you to point out in all of my posts (unedited) where I blatantly deny unbiased evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. However you seem to be walking down your own path again, you pinged me for a conservative yes, but to add in the Fox News bit means you also assume I am an ignorant "sheeple", call me crazy but I believe your being quite cynical to, at least just about me. You seem to dismiss everything I say simply because I drew judgment over a movie and that you happen to be right just because you appear to be willing to accept views from all sides which I KNOW is not true, nobody can fully accept all the truth from both sides, its what makes humans unique.

I never said I was right, I made a hypothesis and formulated a theory based on scrutiny. As such, I could be completely wrong about such theories and your beliefs altogether. I'm not attacking you personally, and not mainly because you're Republican. There's nothing wrong with being a Republican, and if anything there's just as many things wrong with being a Democrat. It's important to note, however, that it's the PEOPLE behind the party (Gore, or Bush or anyone) who are at fault for creating a brand name not worth selling. As such, I have my formulated opinions on Republicans and Democrats based on evidence I've collected and scrutinized. But who's to say that the evidence I've been given hasn't been biased in one fashion or another? I'm not attacking you based on the fact that you're solely a Republican and since I'm on the other side, I must hate you. You're making a false assumption, stating that because I dismiss what you say, I must be cynical. In actuality, I'm a skeptic in the sense that I don't attack you because I believe I'm always right, but I attack you based on evidence I've collected throughout my individual political research.

Listen carefully: Being a skeptic does not mean you have to ACCEPT the truth from both sides, it just means you have to admit it as possible evidence (whether you believe in it or not), especially in a case such as 9/11 where the truth (from both sides) can't hold light to a vivid movie with subtitles.

Likewise, the Fox News Channel bit, they practice nothing more than Charlatanism (in my opinion), for it's been told that they are the main source of propaganda for the government, and as such, they are biased when in fact a news channel should NOT be biased. But then again, it's indeed hard to find writers these days who are capable of writing in an unbiased fashion, so in a sense, I guess it's understandable that there are multiple news channels, given that claims of bias are inevitable when only one news channel becomes available.

But then again, that is how I feel.

[Guest Fohacidal]

I never said I was right, I made a hypothesis and formulated a theory based on scrutiny. As such, I could be completely wrong about such theories and your beliefs altogether. I'm not attacking you personally, and not mainly because you're Republican. There's nothing wrong with being a Republican, and if anything there's just as many things wrong with being a Democrat. It's important to note, however, that it's the PEOPLE behind the party (Gore, or Bush or anyone) who are at fault for creating a brand name not worth selling. As such, I have my formulated opinions on Republicans and Democrats based on evidence I've collected and scrutinized. But who's to say that the evidence I've been given hasn't been biased in one fashion or another? I'm not attacking you based on the fact that you're solely a Republican and since I'm on the other side, I must hate you. You're making a false assumption, stating that because I dismiss what you say, I must be cynical. In actuality, I'm a skeptic in the sense that I don't attack you because I believe I'm always right, but I attack you based on evidence I've collected throughout my individual political research.

Listen carefully: Being a skeptic does not mean you have to ACCEPT the truth from both sides, it just means you have to admit it as possible evidence (whether you believe in it or not), especially in a case such as 9/11 where the truth (from both sides) can't hold light to a vivid movie with subtitles.

Likewise, the Fox News Channel bit, they practice nothing more than Charlatanism (in my opinion), for it's been told that they are the main source of propaganda for the government, and as such, they are biased when in fact a news channel should NOT be biased. But then again, it's indeed hard to find writers these days who are capable of writing in an unbiased fashion, so in a sense, I guess it's understandable that there are multiple news channels, given that claims of bias are inevitable when only one news channel becomes available.

But then again, that is how I feel.

I understand what your saying but you have to remember, whos to say that throughout my life Iv based my entire way of thinking on evidence I have also collected, stop assuming Im not educated and remember what your preaching, to recognize all the valid points on both sides, even if you teeter in the middle and I lean towards the right, (and hypercore falls off of the left )

On the subject, Fox News is a joke and I dont associate my views with them...

In many ways we are all both cynics and skeptics, some more one than the other, so really you cant ever call yourself one, maybe on a specific subject, but as a whole, as a person, you cannot.

Also, I know your not attacking me, just was part of me making my point. D:

[Contract Killer 24]

It was more or less directed at Penn & Teller, but it's also the fact that you blindly take what they have to say into 100% truth, because if you (like Foh) had watched other videos, it might have an impact on you as well.

Something else needs to be added here, but my brain is fried.

No I don't I don't agree with everything they always say, trust me. And yes, I have seen enough "Conspiracy Theories of 9/11 videos" We even watched one in Industrial tech about how it had to have been by a airplane crash, explosives or a missle could not have done that damage.

[Neur0 34]

I understand what your saying but you have to remember, whos to say that throughout my life Iv based my entire way of thinking on evidence I have also collected, stop assuming Im not educated and remember what your preaching, to recognize all the valid points on both sides, even if you teeter in the middle and I lean towards the right, (and hypercore falls off of the left )

On the subject, Fox News is a joke and I dont associate my views with them...

In many ways we are all both cynics and skeptics, some more one than the other, so really you cant ever call yourself one, maybe on a specific subject, but as a whole, as a person, you cannot.

Also, I know your not attacking me, just was part of me making my point. D:

Having taken a course in skepticism and logic, I'm much more tolerant when it comes to understanding other people's feelings, beliefs, and origins. You were no different. Not once did I assume you weren't educated, for if you weren't, you'd have not been able to respond as quickly and effectively as you did to my posts. Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, you're trying to claim here that you haven't based your thinking on evidence you've collected. In which case, you relinquish your argument. But I'm almost positive that's not what you meant.

What we must learn to do is be skeptical of arguments such as these and realize both of us had completely (or almost completely on both sides) effective, logical, and substantiated arguments. As such, I salute you for having such a wonderful, mature, and gentleman's-like dialogue with a fellow friend, for I've learned a lot and as I'm sure, you have as well.

Likewise, one last note. Skepticism is more a way of thinking, not how you voice your opinions. So, yes I'm a skeptic. You are as well. We all are, but like you said: some more than others.

As for Hypercore, I have yet to have such a dialogue with him since I fear it would involve nothing more than his sophisticated use of verbal derogatory name-calling, given that's his only method of defense. That and the idea that he is always right. In a sense, he's what I consider a cynic.

[Guest Fohacidal]

You know something I see a lot of conspiracy theorists pass over is the fact a commercial jet flying at the speeds it was has a HUGE amount of momentum, and to crash into a building would severely weaken its infrastructure even if it was "supposedly built to withstand a plane"

[Guest Fohacidal]

Having taken a course in skepticism and logic, I'm much more tolerant when it comes to understanding other people's feelings, beliefs, and origins. You were no different. Not once did I assume you weren't educated, for if you weren't, you'd have not been able to respond as quickly and effectively as you did to my posts. Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, you're trying to claim here that you haven't based your thinking on evidence you've collected. In which case, you relinquish your argument. But I'm almost positive that's not what you meant.

What we must learn to do is be skeptical of arguments such as these and realize both of us had completely (or almost completely on both sides) effective, logical, and substantiated arguments. As such, I salute you for having such a wonderful, mature, and gentleman's-like dialogue with a fellow friend, for I've learned a lot and as I'm sure, you have as well.

Likewise, one last note. Skepticism is more a way of thinking, not how you voice your opinions. So, yes I'm a skeptic. You are as well. We all are, but like you said: some more than others.

As for Hypercore, I have yet to have such a dialogue with him since I fear it would involve nothing more than his sophisticated use of verbal derogatory name-calling, given that's his only method of defense. That and the idea that he is always right. In a sense, he's what I consider a cynic.

A course in skepticism and logic you say? The sounds really intriguing...

Well good sir I must shake your hand then and call the end of this argument, I can say as well I have come out of this discussion a much richer person (not shaken, that would make me a hypocrite )

Well back to playing video games brah!

PS. Ya you were mistaken, dont know if it was a grammatical or syntactical mistake of mine but I meant to say I based my view through the same empirical process as you went through.

[Clay 24]

I just watched all of Loose Change, I believe every word of it. There's way too much information to be ignored.