Originally Posted by Red Phoenix  lack of proof is no proof by itself, and ambiguous details are not the same as credible facts.
i know this is a flashy catchy subject, and that no one likes to take himself for sheep or cattle, but conspiracy theories for their own sake ain't worth diddly squat.
one can uncover any patched-up conspiracy by good scientific detective work THAT INVOLVES NOT ONLY HIM BUT A BIG COMMUNITY of professionals also.
one does not uncover a conspiracy by resorting to more outlandish stories of conspiracies based on flaky conjectures and uncorroborated assumptions.
and this is what this is, the 9/11 conspiracy, right next to aliens on mars the desert planet and USSR troops still present on a secret moon base somewhere up there...
we can mix fiction all we want with reality but it ain't gonna change nothing.
i'm not saying that there was no conspiracy behind 9/11, period, i'm saying that many things indicate that there wasn't one, so if anyone feels like he/she figured something new out, like the earth is round and not flat all over again, then, be my guest and try to prove it if u can.
that lacking, don't expect others to easily follow suit.
so the question with 9/11 isn't whether the buildings were rigged to implode by themselves, it's whether the US administration did enough to prevent it, that's it.
if there is a cover up, a conspiracy somewhere, it would have to be here in this aspect of whether the government and all security agencies did enough to prevent and protect. they might be using a blatant false covert up for their ***** ups, to divert attention, such as accusing Iraq of Saddam for being behind this, but since the americans didn't have anything stick onto Sadam's regime from this accusation, clearly, they were most probably (99.99%) covering their mess up by diverting the social sway into political directions and lying.
so let's not get over carried with ourselves here into extremes.
the scientific method of work is the best method there is, but it takes time and dedication and is not 100% percent guaranteed, but it's still way better than urban myth and speculations.
as a fail proof measure, the scientific method also implements a retrospective approach to fix any mistakes it does, something that it alone adopts contrary to all other metaphysical and religious and Eti approaches to understanding things. no one is willing to accept that he/she might have erred more than current day applicants of the scientific method. so no one can get all righteous on their work..
the latest 9/11 movie Zeitgeist made many interesting claims but proved nothing ultimately, at best it left things on faith. it used bumpy jumpy logic to connect unrelated events and bombarded the viewer with so much "info" that it was intentionally striving to affect his pathos and not his logos. this is cheap brainwashing at its worse. the same "documentary" that is forewarning the viewers of the perils of social brainwashing is attempting to brainwash them itself.
unbelievable…
as for the credibility of their work, it's zilch.
first of all, no one takes responsibility for this "utube creation", a typical escape scenario for anyone who creates trash media. then, it uses unlicensed and unreferenced materials in its "presentation", that is a very very bad sign.
then, it takes liberties in interpreting history as it pleases in my aspects and whole heartedly starts connecting dots that ain't there. When it starts "criticizing" religions it insults reasonable atheists more than it insults the faithfuls with its messed and up weak punch points.
and last but not least, it lists in the end a list of "references" which are all controversial and barely scientific in their method and yet thinks that we are credulous enough to accept these fantasy books as "references". Many of them are even taken out of context. especially the end line they used from carl sagan the renowned scientist. that is unbelievable! that would make him turn in his grave.
and all that and we haven't tackled the gist of the matter of their documentary yet.
i'll just stick to the 9/11 part yet since it is the most relevant here and the big buzz according to zeitgeist and all conspiracy theories.
first off, two big planes crashed onto two big buildings, if someone likes to claim that that was a cg effect, then plz go check out the number of witnesses from all around NY city and all the video footage, let's then weigh the odds between the probability that is was all staged somehow or rather that is was real.
next, they say that the hijacking pilots didn't know how to fly that well.. well, apparently the hijackers aren't monkeys either, flying a plane, or rather crashing it into a big fat building doesn't take a god of flight to achieve, landing and taking off do. so it's not "impossible" for them to fly those planes, just look at the planes ppl.. apparently they did do that and i really don't think that it was their normal captain that was flying his passengers into oblivion.
next, we hear some engineers saying that the twin towers where designed to withstand the impact of planes, indeed on paper they were, and indeed they did withstand the impact, the building didn't withstand the prolonged accumulated after effects of the impact. so quoting one engineer in an out of context fashion proves absolutely nothing about the claim, it only proves that there is bad intentions behind this in order to protect and stitch together a weak claim against better counter arguments.
then we hear that the buildings were rigged to implode, now who is his right mind can believe this ? they were rigged to implode, big fat building like that with thousands and thousands of workers and no one noticed the rigging ??? jesus.
now we hear that the way the building fell looked too uncanny, preplanned style ! we get a few "specialist" witnesses to say they did fall like that, well, how about the other thousands and thousands of specialists that think otherwise ? that it was perfectly possible if the physical conditions are met for the buildings to collapse in the fashion their did.
then we hear the mix up of the tv stories about the names of the hijackers, well, there was a mix up, because 1) all hell had broken loose in NY, 2) US is not god, 3) Tv medias report things too fast 4) some in the administration would definitely prefer to stick the accusation on this and that person rather than on that and this person there for they are biased and racist. it's all political bad habits. they finally claim that the mix up issue isn't resolved yet and that six of the "hijackers" are still alive and never were on the plane. a mix up is a mix up, the mix up was resolved, go check out all the names mentioned and see where the mix up occurred, time flows chronologically, check out who reported the error and how it was later disproved instead of assuming that there is a large scale cover up at play here. that very claim that the supposed hijackers are still alive is hilarious, anyone who knows half an ounce of how intelligence services work would tell u that if these ppl were to be framed for that crime that none of them would be drawing breath still. they would be liquidated. what kind of a conspiracy theory is that where the government frames ppl it can not contain. and who flew the planes? robots ? air force pilots ? what about the cell phone calls ?? jesus, this is too much to take.
and yet again we hear about the lack of debris, what lack of debris ? we lebanese out of all ppl should know how certain images are selected, not manipulated just selected, to reflect what we want the viewer to see. depending on the angle of the image shot, depending on the scene, a street square can look like it has 1 million protesters or 10 thousand, a scene can look like a burned forest with no discernible debris or a burned forest with discernible debris, and knowing the uncontrolled conditions of the crash one wouldn't be surprised if their was no debris left. it is even possible that the plane was shot down indeed by a air force jet fighters to stop it in its track as it trekked forth towards washington, that's perfectly normal, the air force would shoot down a dangerous confirmed bogey like that even if civilian, the air force might even cover it up , but's that k, that's normal, if that happened what do u expect them to say ?
that acted rationally on the last minute call and they might have did the deed, that doesn't mean that there was a predetermined will to frame that last plane !
next we hear about the temperature of steel/iron and they show us a pic of a steel support frame that was "cut appropriately with explosives", well, i'm no expert, but about that pic who is to tell me that that steel frame wasn't cut later, after the aftermath, as the rescue team started sifting through the debris ? that is if even it was "cut" to start with.
then we hear about steel melting, now, how can we get to the conclusion that ONLY a certain type of explosive can create these conditions ? there might be other factors, they might have given an explanation for it already, they might be still working on it, but what is darn sure is that the lack of answer in this department does not automatically mean that the supposed conspiracy claim is right with its nifty details ? not by a long shot, this is where the scientific method of work kicks in and separate the positive constructive critic from the paranoid and emotional one.
the same applies for tower7, the investigation was inconclusive. inconclusive means that they don't know exactly what happened, it could be a number of reasons, THE MOST FAR FETCHED one being that the building was rigged. it is a possibility, but by far the weakest one. fire and fallen debris are way more likely to be the cause after it.
next we are told about the jewish/american rich guy that sold his shares and/or bought insurance.
well, it could be fluke luck, & it could be that his secret service links forewarned him about a possible terror attack, they could have known about this possibility or loophole in the security system of the united states, but it sure as heck doesn't necessarily mean that they set it but by any standards. being forewarned of impeding dangers is commonplace for the intelligencia, as is withholding information also. there are no buddies in this competitive field but that does not necessarily make one party the culprit.
next we hear testimonies about two sounds of explosions being heard, again out of context, well, for starters, how the heck can we know for sure what they are talking about if it is out of context? perhaps the second quick sound to follow was a echoed blast wave. we must know the conditions of the terrain and situation b4 we judge, it's not everyday that we have a big explosion taking place in a populated high rise building with witnesses all over the place from top to bottom. the second "explosion" could very likely be no explosion at all, but rather some sort of echoed blast wave, it might even be an real explosion that has to do with some other part of the towers blowing up after the initial impact but it does not indicate, yet again, that there was necessarily foul play at hand.
and the list goes on and goes, it's an endless list of speculations based on more speculations and all of that based on non comprehensive shallow barely scientific work of "investigation". Zeitgeist and its ilk doesn't want us to open our minds, it wants us to open our legs for it.
but conspiracy theories bombard us continuously with "information interspersed with disinformation" to dull our mind and senses. we become overloaded with all this data and then we decide, all by our pretty little selves, to become the judge/jury and executioner of a serious case as we eat our popcorn and sip in our favorite fuzzy soda drink over a midnight session with our friends talking about female breasts and watching the latest action flick starring Rambo on some great fun movie channel.
so plz ppl, let us not confuse the movies we see on tv with reality, let us not confuse our aspirations and habits for concrete tools and facts of the trade of others.
let us always remain critical in our thought and judgment but not claim to be critical just for the sake of feeling good about ourselves, telling ourselves what we want to hear, and not doing our hard homework. this is hiding nothing else.
i said it b4 , i say it again, the question of 9/11 is not a question about a conspiracy that planed to blow up the twin towers with civilian planes. the question is how much irresponsible and greedy between themselves where the security agencies and policy makers as to not avoid this debacle. i'm also confident that some of them even wished for an accident like that to happen, but it doesn't mean they did it either.
and finally as for Bush not wanting to talk to the investigation team alone and without Dick Cheney by his side, there is no over evil super intelligent reason for him to try to avoid the normal proceeding, there is a more mundane answer. Bush is an idiot protected president and he wanted his vice president to do most of the talking so that they won't (him nd cheney) take the blame for their deficiencies in protecting the homeland.
everybody knows that GW bush is un-loquacious retard, everybody knows this sad truth even the idiots that voted for him to start with. so let us not make a big deal out of small trivial details, UNTIL THINGS ARE PROVEN OTHERWISE. and while we're at it let us not take the concept of "proof" all that lightly if we want to convince others, let alone get somewhere constructive with our criticism.
all this bring us back to the scientific method of critical thought.
there are many books and works on the subject, i think pascal or descarte might have written a couple of them, i for one didn't read them , but i did read many of the great works of Carl Sagan, he would explain the importance and intricacies of these matter deliciously.
i would recommend his critical and last anti-delusions books named "The Demon Haunted World". i whole heartedly advise it instead of putting too much stock and investment in cheap conspiracy theory thrills. |