Jesus Wept: The TV is so Tedious

metronome

Rationale from Shives regarding the 911 truth movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItoGVLj ... freload=10

chris_bass

metronome wrote:

Rationale from Shives regarding the 911 truth movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItoGVLj ... freload=10

His last point sums it up best!

Truthers, what f***ing good are you?

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Why would someone break ranks when everything they say would be classed as a conspiracy theory?

Get real. People involved in a real conspiracy would very likely would have considerably better evidence of said conspiracy than a Youtube clip with an arrow on it. Particularly if they are going to break ranks and blow the whistle.

What evidence would be acceptable for you to say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Why would you think there is only one "YouTube clip with an arrow on it" when there is far more evidence than that?

Maybe its because some documentaries are just plain stupid and it puts people off the real facts. Ones like "space beams took down the towers" and so on, or the "bulge" under the fuselage, all done to muddy the facts.

Look at it this way... let's say someone puts a record on a jukebox, its "Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face" and some guy jumps up out of his seat claiming because this song is crap, all songs are crap. This is what is happening with 911 documentaries. To cover all the factual ones up, they bring out newer ones that introduce absurd theories into it.

When the BBC showed its 9/11 Conspiracy Files programme (a total farce) they made certain to include the "911 skeptics blame Jews" angle into it, just because a few WRONG idiots claimed it was all done by Jews. So the BBC is quite happy to put in absurd theories as long as it puts you off looking into anything. All the rest of the time we are supposed to think they are being professional and impartial, what a crock! They either are, or they aren't. Adding stuff in like "If you think 911 was a setup you're anti-Semitic" is just really weak, really obvious its there to make you not look into it (because you're meant to feel all anti-Semitic if you do) and I would expect a bit more effort from the BBC than that.

BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files programme was also a farce because there were more than twice as many proponents of the offal story as there were the "conspiracy theory" side of it. Impartial my ass.

People's biggest weakness is their lack of discernment. Most people say "If you think 911 was an inside job next you'll be telling me..." WHAT? WHY??? Why will I be telling you something completely unrelated next? Where does that even come from lol. "If you think UFO's are real you must also think the moon is made of cheese" etc. Right. But are we talking about a guy that has seen a UFO himself, or not?

If people investigating these things weren't dying left right and center, I might be able to think differently about it. Danny Jowenko is about the most obvious one they killed. What sort of a message do you think this sends out to all the other demolition experts looking into WTC7? The message it sends is... don't start investigating 911 or you'll get killed.

What's most saddening about Jowenko's death is he didn't fully understand who he was up against and just wanted justice like anyone else. He was caught out by the journalist that first showed him the WTC7 footage, but when I say "caught out" that's why we got his unbiased opinion in the first place, he didn't know the video clip he was watching was a building falling on 911, he was only told this after maintaining over and over again it is a controlled demolition and an expert one at that.

After that he was told it is a clip from 911 and he couldn't believe it. He was a guy that stood by his initial comments and died because of it. A lot of people investigating stuff know they might get killed anytime, but this guy didn't and that's what makes his case all the more tragic.

Stevo_666

Manc, you're the one claiming it's a conspiracy, so you provide the evidence...several versions of the same news footage is hardly strong evidence. I have already pointed out why it proves nothing.

And please answer my previous questions:
1. Why would anyone want to demolish WTC7?
2. If there is a valid rason, why the need to fly planes into a different pair of buildings?

Also, do you really think that all the evidence gathered about the hijacking of the various flights on that day was part of this cover up?

As to the point you keep making about thinking for ourselves - we do. Which is why most of us on here weigh up the evidence on events like this and don't get suckered into believing superficially attractive conspiracy theories :roll: There is a reason why you're on your own on this thread...

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

Manc, you're the one claiming it's a conspiracy, so you provide the evidence...several versions of the same news footage is hardly strong evidence. I have already pointed out why it proves nothing.

"Blueprint for 9/11 Truth" is a good place to start because it put out by architects and engineers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vb7o-OOe20

Stevo 666 wrote:

And please answer my previous questions:
1. Why would anyone want to demolish WTC7?

Just six week before the attacks, the WTC complex was insured by its new owner and when the attacks happened, he got billions of dollars back on it. He even managed to claim for two "separate" terrorist attacks and got double the amount a lot of people thought he would get.

Also, the repair bill (because of asbestos mainly) was something like $200M, so it was easier to just demolish it. Now normally a building that is to be demolished would be evacuated, but pulling it down with thousands of people inside paved the way for even more money to be made from it, with the invasion of Iraq. At the time even people like me thought "Damn right, someone has to pay for 9/11". Little did we know back then Iraq had about as much to do with 9/11 as the Tooth Fairy does with Christmas and I ain't talking the conspiracy theory, I mean back then people thought Saddam Hussein might have something to do with it so let's go decimate Iraq and kill 1.5 Million of his innocent people, its OK we can just say it is "liberating" them.

Stevo 666 wrote:

2. If there is a valid rason, why the need to fly planes into a different pair of buildings?

Not sure what you mean by a different pair? The twin towers were the biggest skyscrapers in New York and a symbol of the US being free and successful. The day it happened I thought WW3 was kicking off, no one didn't.

Its hard to think of anything worse they could have done in terms of influencing people's opinions on getting them to hate Muslims.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also, do you really think that all the evidence gathered about the hijacking of the various flights on that day was part of this cover up?

I don't think any proof has ever been shown that those 19 Arabs boarded those planes.

Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, yet we invaded Iraq. One of the 19 Arab "terrorists" was in an embassy somewhere and he rang up some news channel to ask why am I being plastered all over the news with these 18 other guys?! He was in some foreign embassy at the time of the attacks.

Then there's the paper passport that we are supposed to believe survived a fireball, when nothing else on that person did. There it was just magically resting in a New York street. Later on the FBI said that passport was a "rumour that might be true". That's funny because they were absolutely defiant about it at the time.

Stevo 666 wrote:

As to the point you keep making about thinking for ourselves - we do. Which is why most of us on here weigh up the evidence on events like this and don't get suckered into believing superficially attractive conspiracy theories :roll: There is a reason why you're on your own on this thread...

People don't watch any documentaries to weigh any evidence up, they most probably just don't have the time but they sure don't weigh up anything, they only believe whatever the news tells them for the most part. Even if people did have the time they are then put off by it being "unfashionable" to think differently.

This is the wrong thread for this and we should debate in the proper one although the TV did play a huge role in the 9/11 deception. viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=13020528

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

Just six week before the attacks, the WTC complex was insured by its new owner and when the attacks happened, he got billions of dollars back on it. He even managed to claim for two "separate" terrorist attacks and got double the amount a lot of people thought he would get.

Also, the repair bill (because of asbestos mainly) was something like $200M, so it was easier to just demolish it. Now normally a building that is to be demolished would be evacuated, but pulling it down with thousands of people inside paved the way for even more money to be made from it

Not sure what you mean by a different pair? The twin towers were the biggest skyscrapers in New York and a symbol of the US being free and successful. The day it happened I thought WW3 was kicking off, no one didn't.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So a few points:
- Basically you think it's a big insurance scam.
- Most buildings are insured: normally this insurance cover is renewed on an annual basis if as you claim the renewal occurred a few weeks prior to the event is not highly unlikely or unusual. However see link below.
- If the owner (Larry Silverstein) wanted to make money from a scam fair enough but why demolish them in a way that killed thousands? He was a businessman not a mass murderer. He could have done it on a Sunday.

Here's a decent reasoned debunking of some of this conspiracy crap, including the insurance claim, which turns out to be the worst scam ever because he had under-insured it and not completed the paperwork: it also covers why WTC7 collapsed, which is by far the most plausible explanation.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories

My point about a 'different pair of buildings' was that you said WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. The two places hit WTC 1 and WTC 2 (the twin towers). i.e, a different pair of of buildings from the one that was allegedly demolished deliberately.

But the most ridiculous bit of your theory is how anyone wanting perpetrate insurance fraud could persuade accomplices to fly planes into the twin towers to accomplish it. I can understand how religious fanatics who sincerely believe they will earn their place in heaven or wherever might go on a suicide mission, but an insurance scam? (Or even a way of the US government getting some excuse to bomb Afghanistan etc). And several accomplices bought into the idea?? So the conversation in the cockpit of the hijacked jets might have gone something like this:
Henchman 1: "Larry's plan is great isn't it!"
Henchman 2: "Yeah, like all we have to do is fly this plane into that tower ahead, he claims on the insurance and we get $10m each. We'll be set up for life!"
Henchman 1: "Hang on a minute...."

Your theory doesn't just fail the common sense test, it is laughable.

slowmart

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

I would have thought that you might be sympathetic to someone who is a bit gullible

peat

Anyway, tele....

Yes, it is, on the whole, crap.

On Demand is the future, which is already here. There really is no excuse for channel hopping looking for something to watch anymore, there is still alot of quality programming about, it's just buried under a mountain of bilge that clutters up the EPG (For the olds - That's the electronic version of the Radio Times)

TV still has it's place though, there will always be the need for live sports broadcasting for example. But, more and more, this will move to online subscription services too.

Props for the RATM reference earlier on too. Spot on.

chris_bass

Did anyone see the Louis Theroux thing on sunday? haven't watched it yet and wondered if it was any god, I usually quite like his stuff.

stu-bim

I'm half with Manc in that I believe almost every conspiracy or weird crap is true, 911, JF Kennedy, Roswell, Uri Geller

But the other half is I just don't care because

1) it is either non relevant to me,
2) I can't change it, or
3) especially in the case of Uri Geller, who gives a toss, as if he can only just about bend a spoon then f*** magic

Manc33

You can't like Louis Theroux... a lot of his stuff is just depraved. Trash TV. I don't see any point watching the sort of stuff he covers. That "Vice" channel on YouTube is better.

"Cannibal Warlords of Liberia" that's what you want.

metronome

I watch most of Vice's videos - mostly F@£$ That's Delicious. I used to pick up their magazine about 15 years ago but it got a bit too hip for its own good. Their YT channels do put out some decent content and you can't fault their investigative journalism. On the other hand they occasionally release drivel like Scooter Gangs Of The UK. Maybe this is hip and ironic. Unsure.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

You can't like Louis Theroux

I quite like his style, it reminds me of the penguin from Wallace and Grommit, looks all swet and nice and before you know it he has stolen your mechanical trousers and used you as part of an elaborate robbery.

Manc33

Theroux does have a knack of making people look completely stupid, I can agree with that, its just the material he covers I don't like.

There was this one I saw of his from a long time ago... I better not say it here, but it was off the fricken' wall.

chris_bass

Well I quite like him! Each to their own I suppose!

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

Theroux does have a knack of making people look completely stupid, I can agree with that, its just the material he covers I don't like.

There was this one I saw of his from a long time ago... I better not say it here, but it was off the fricken' wall.

There was one where he stopped a woman in America to ask directions.
Her response - I wouldn't know what's out there. I only turn left and drive into town. (Paraphrased from memory).

She had never turned right outside her front door! :shock:

Manc33

PBlakeney wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Theroux does have a knack of making people look completely stupid, I can agree with that, its just the material he covers I don't like.

There was this one I saw of his from a long time ago... I better not say it here, but it was off the fricken' wall.

There was one where he stopped a woman in America to ask directions.
Her response - I wouldn't know what's out there. I only turn left and drive into town. (Paraphrased from memory).

She had never turned right outside her front door! :shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtyGY_o0Vx8

Contains swearing, don't ban me. :oops:

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Theroux does have a knack of making people look completely stupid, I can agree with that, its just the material he covers I don't like.

There was this one I saw of his from a long time ago... I better not say it here, but it was off the fricken' wall.

There was one where he stopped a woman in America to ask directions.
Her response - I wouldn't know what's out there. I only turn left and drive into town. (Paraphrased from memory).

She had never turned right outside her front door! :shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtyGY_o0Vx8

Contains swearing, don't ban me. :oops:

when do you sleep?!