|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Ivan Drago Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:45 am
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120903.htmlReason: Hit and Run REPORTER: We want to get some ideas, your comments, on 9/11 being an inside job because since your last movie, which gave us a lot of information... MOORE: Right, right, right. REPORTER: ... we now are in possession of all other kinds of facts and evidence. MOORE: Right. REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job. MOORE: Right. REPORTER: So we want to get your comments on that. MOORE: Well, I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years, and since Fahrenheit 9/11, that they heard these explosions, that they believe there is much more to the story then we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth. They haven't even told us half the truth. And so I support, and I hope, you know, if there's a new administration or somebody could open up a new investigation of this before we get too far away from it, to find out the whole truth. Let me just give you one thing that has—I've asked for for a long time. I've filmed before, down at the Pentagon, before 9/11. There's got to be at least 100 video cameras ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come we haven't seen the straight—I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video, I want to see 100 videos that exist of this. Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released. REPORTER: The idea that the hole is about 8 feet wide... MOORE: See, I'm not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked. REPORTER: So you have a lot of unanswered questions. MOORE: Oh, and I intend in my own way to find some answers. So, thank you for whatever you're doing. And there you have it. For anyone who was on the fence about Moore's credibility when it came to logic and reason, this could possibly be the final nail in the coffin. But if it isn't, let me know why. Please... Please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:20 am
He's right, you know. You just can't aim planes that accurately. That's why we land our planes on large square pieces of tarmac instead of on long, straight runways.
WAITAMINUTE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Ivan Drago Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:10 am
Lykus He's right, you know. You just can't aim planes that accurately. That's why we land our planes on large square pieces of tarmac instead of on long, straight runways. WAITAMINUTE! The runways are obviously holograms. Anyway, I always used to take Moore movies with one or two grains of salt. But after hearing this, I'm going to have to watch Sicko with one of these --  When it rains, it pours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:39 am
I dunno, I lost all respect for him after the hand wringing on "Bowling for Columbine". Just because he can't think of a reason that America is more violent than magical Canada land doesn't mean there isn't one. It's not like Canada was settled by mostly English farmers and America was settled by more herdsmen who were used to protecting their very easy-to-steal property with violence. Oh wait. It must be a conspiracy like the holographic airports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Ivan Drago Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:00 am
HEY! I thought Bowling for Columbine was a very moving, well made film! evil
... until I actually started to read about the information used and the incredible amount of editing tricks used in the process of making it (the guns are not given out in the bank, contrary to what is shown at the beginning, etc... and I do mean etc.)
It's one thing to not agree with someone, it's another to not be able to trust them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:02 pm
Well he does have the point that I have only seen one angle of footage of the plane hitting. If the Government wanted him to shut the hell up they would just release the other footage of the planes hitting the pentagon.
Plus his movie is just going to tell everybody what they should already know. If you are poor in America and don't have insurance, you're ******** screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:41 pm
Am I just missing the point on how he is batshit crazy for thinking that 9/11 was an inside job?
Yeah, I guess I'm weird for this guild for believing in this conspiracy theory, but there are a lot of unanswered questions.
And the bit with the video of the pentagon hit, it's like 3 seconds (or less) long. Hardly any video at all. It just shows an explosion.
Oh and the plane that alleged hit the pentagon would have had to make a 330 degree turn at a very high velocity. That alone would have caused it to go into a stall in the air.
I may not agree with Mr. Moore on how he comes across and I believe he is his own worst enemy, but he does bring up a valid point in saying that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:32 pm
I'm not saying that there aren't unanswered questions.
But I am saying that assuming a fabricated answer is as good as a genuine one, when there is no evidence to disprove the fabricated theory, does not really tell us anything.
One could just as irrefutably say that gremlins did it. Until there is evidence discovered, putting an answer there just because it sounds right isn't good logic - it's intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Ivan Drago Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:51 pm
The 3 key ways conspiracy theorist function- 1) Fact manipulation: A common point CTs bring up is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel. This is true. But in the process they insinuate the official story says that the steel melted. This is not true. The heat significantly lowered the steel's load-bearing capacity and severely warped the steel. 2) Fact exaggeration: This is a double-sided tactic used both to discredit people and support their own theories by taking unrelated events and exaggerating their effects. 3) Flat-out lying: You can see this one without even realizing it, especially if they come across as genuine. This has been done in a humorous way by a web-comedy group called "Fatal Farm" to amazing success through their fake YouTube show "Infinite Solutions." How to Recharge BatteriesHow to Speed Your Mail DeliveryHow to Sign Up for GoogleTV BetaHow to Clean Up Your iTunes LibraryNow, those videos above may seem totally real to the laymen, but they are complete bullshit. They use complicated language and scientific sounding terms to trick people into believing them. The Google TV hoax had hundreds of thousands of YouTube watchers fooled. Now imagine the above but with something where the majority of people are complete laymen. I don't know any people who experienced anything on 9/11 from a rational point of view. So it's quite easy to trick people into believing complete B.S. when it comes to 9/11 if you present yourself as genuine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:20 pm
Actually, there are 4 keys-
4) The "we are just asking questions" firewall: This is a way of removing all accountability from CTs. From the most baseless theories to the half-truth theories, if one is proven wrong, just say "I was just asking questions!" and you will be off the hook. This way, you can just be a complete mind-dump and not have to do any sort of research or construct any sort of logical, alternative theory and have to worry about your reputation if it's wrong (which is so common, I can't believe I forgot to add it in.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Ivan Drago Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:33 pm
I don't really have a response only that it was awfully easy for the Bush Administration to strip away our rights after the attacks of 9/11.
And all under the guise of "We're protecting you". It's like that quote from Juvenal "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Translated as "But shall guard the guards?" or "But who watches the watchmen?"
It just stinks of ulterior motives. And until some earth-shattering revelation happens, I will continue to have my doubts about this whole mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:46 pm
Being skeptical about the whole afair is one thing, but just because the Bush administration took advantage of it, does not imply they had any part in causing it. It could just as easily be a bunch of opportunistic politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:36 am
Yeah, people tend to forget that politicians will seize any chance to further their agenda, what ever it may be. All they need is an excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:25 pm
I hate speaking to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I have a friend who believes 9/11 was a government job, as was Pearl Harbor, and that the first moon landing was faked (my astronomy professor put that notion mostly to rest, however). Whenever he brings up "Building don't fall that way!", I want to jack him one in the face. Regardless, I don't think people have much claim to state how a skyscraper collapses when the vast majority of Americans have most likely never seen something like this happen. Then, of course, there's Loose Change. What a crock. And for how satirical his site is, Maddox, author of the Best Page in the Universe, raises excellent (and well-spoken) points about a great many things, Loose Change included: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
