I'm not really very eager to post about such controversial subjects as
conspiracy theories because they tend to only spawn flamewars which are
not constructive. However, I decided to make an exception with this.

  There exists a video called "Loose Change" which presents arguments
pro the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Normally I wouldn't care about such
things, but the thing is that in this video in particular the author
has actually succeeded in making a pretty convincing "documentary" by
skillfully using carefully-selected half-truths, partial quotations,
misleading evidence and, in some cases, purely false information (but
presented in a rather convincing way). The end result can be very
convincing to someone who doesn't know better.

  The problem with these kinds of arguments is that any sane person who
does not believe in the conspiracy theory, if they are presented them,
will have hard time counter-argumenting them because they have been so
skillfully created. If you haven't made extensive research on the subject
it will be almost impossible for you to present factual counter-arguments.

  I have actually been in this kind of situation myself, precisely with
the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Personally I think the conspiracy theory is BS
and has nothing of truth in it, but when I was first confronted with the
"evidence" I just didn't know what to say because I simply didn't know
what was it all about. It's rather depressing not being able to present
any factual counter-argumentation to such theories and "evidence" simply
because you don't know the facts.

  The vast majority of the "evidence" presented by the Loose Change
"documentary" has a pretty simple and logical explanation, which makes
a whole lot more sense than what the explanation the conspiracy theorists
present for that "evidence". It's just that if you haven't done any
research on the subject you simply can't know this simple explanation.

  Someone has made a "commented" edit of the Loose Change "documentary",
debunking point by point (using textual remarks) all the "evidence" given
in the video. It's very long (3 hours), but I thought it was so interesting
that I watched it in its entirety in one go.

  I think anyone who believes that the 9/11 conspiracy theory has nothing
of truth in it should watch this video. I think it's good to know what
the conspiracy theorists are claiming, and what are the real explanations
for those things. Most of the explanations are simple and easy to
understand, and make very much sense.

  Also anyone who is douting what to believe should watch it too. Maybe
it will give you the right perspective on this whole thing.

  And for those who are convinced that there's a conspiracy, I suppose
it doesn't matter if you watch it or not. You won't believe the debunking
in any case, so you could probably save 3 hours of your time. (And in case
anyone here is such a person, then please, pretty please, don't start a
flamewar.)

  The beginning of the video is a bit confusing (mainly because it's at
first a bit difficult to differentiate between the original video and the
added textual commentary), but it gets clearer soon after that. Just keep
watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=Screw+Loose+Change&total=67&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Thankfully, the only people who have approached me with that look of 'I
know something and I must share it' have been the easily lead types who
believe there is a conspiracy simply because someone else spent the time
creating a movie about it. The conversation went about like this.

Him: You have to see this video! *link*
I waste 10 minutes doing something else, then realize that he really
wanted me to watch it.

Me:that's interesting, but wrong in so many places.
Him:but...but...explosives had to be there.

I get a wonderful idea involving hollywood movies.

Me:What's an airplane's skin made of?
Him:Uh...aluminum maybe?
Me:And the building was made of, what, cheese?
Him:No, steel and iron.
Me:And what do iron and aluminum do when combined?
Him:I dunno.
wait another few minutes.
Him:well, what's it do?
Me: google aluminum iron oxide
Him:Wow!

He did come back a week later after realizing that it was a thermal
reaction and not an explosion like in the movies. Other distractions had
to be invented then. I havn't talked to him in a while, I'm hopeful that
he at least came to his own conclusions instead of just repeating quotes
from a movie.

Post a reply to this message

On the subject of conspiracy theories/anti-theories, my dad sent me a 
link to www.junkscience.com, which basically trashes all the 'popular' 
media-hysterics stuff, i.e. globabl warming etc.  Only problem is it 
tries to do so in exactly the same way the mass media presents things.

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070419.html for instance:

It debunks statistical evidence by going into pretending to explain how 
statistics work then quoting exactly one number that backs up their 
claim, saying that it's statistically insignificant without providing 
contextual data that *shows* it's statistically insignificant...and so,
proves that DDT is perfectly harmless to humans, after all.  What WERE 
people thinking all these years?

And so on.

Not that the knee-jerk reactions of politicians/corporations to 
environmentalists' complaints to placate them are necessarily the right 
thing to do, if at all, but a knee-jerk reaction to show the knee-jerk 
reaction is wrong doesn't actually show that the original claim is 
itself bogus.

Using different aspects of 'Science', of which presumably the target 
audience doesn't know the details, to posit an argument *against* a 
different analysis of the same data...like Warp said, "It's rather 
depressing not being able to present any factual counter-argumentation 
to such theories and "evidence" simply because you don't know the 
facts."  Which is precisely upon what these arguments depend.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Ooh, here's another good example of 'the media' not presenting the whole 
story, skewing what people think of something:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,504423,00.html

has a quote markedly absent in most of the other 'wa ha, humans are 
smarter than apes', namely "Human children are not overall more 
intelligent than other primates," concluded the lead researcher, Esther 
Herrmann of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology 
in Leipzig, "but instead have specialized skills of social cognition. 
They learn in a way that chimpanzees don't learn."

then there's this gem, a comment by another scientist in the same field:

http://news.google.com/nwshp?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oe=UTF-8&channel=s&tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1120425672&hl=en&btclp=1&scoring=r

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Ooh, here's another good example of 'the media' not presenting the whole 
> story, skewing what people think of something:
> 
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,504423,00.html
> 
> has a quote markedly absent in most of the other 'wa ha, humans are 
> smarter than apes', namely "Human children are not overall more 
> intelligent than other primates," concluded the lead researcher, Esther 
> Herrmann of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology 
> in Leipzig, "but instead have specialized skills of social cognition. 
> They learn in a way that chimpanzees don't learn."
> 
> then there's this gem, a comment by another scientist in the same field:
> 
>
http://news.google.com/nwshp?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oe=UTF-8&channel=s&tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1120425672&hl=en&btclp=1&scoring=r

> 
> 


Human Supremecist Party Line:  "We *must* be vastly superior to the 
apes--we're toolmakers!  Oh, sure, an ape will select a rock to use as a 
nutcracker, or strip the leaves off a stick to make a termite fishing 
tool, but *we* make tools just all the time!"

I'd be inclined to guess that the percentage of people who have actually 
made a tool is probably higher here than in some other places, though 
this may depend on whether you consider a computer program to be a tool 
(and I don't count "using the good butcher knife to open a can of 
evaporated milk because you can't find the magnetic church key that's 
stuck to the side of the fridge" as toolmaking).  But, anyway, I got to 
thinking about this a few years back on a camping trip.

When it was time to set up the tent, I looked around and found a nice 
rock to use to hammer in the stakes.  Later, after the campfire was 
built, I stripped the leaves off a couple of long, thin sticks to make 
weenie-cookers...

Well, it just made me think, that's all.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

http://xkcd.com/258/
-- 
 From a certain point onward there is no longer any turning back.
That is the point that must be reached.
Franz Kafka

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Ooh, here's another good example of 'the media' not presenting the whole 
> story, skewing what people think of something:
> 
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,504423,00.html
> 
> has a quote markedly absent in most of the other 'wa ha, humans are 
> smarter than apes', namely "Human children are not overall more 
> intelligent than other primates," concluded the lead researcher, Esther 
> Herrmann of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology 
> in Leipzig, "but instead have specialized skills of social cognition. 
> They learn in a way that chimpanzees don't learn."

It's been known since the sixties that human children and chimpanzee 
children are developmentally neck-and-neck, with the chimps having the 
lead in some areas.

Until they turn three.

At age three, the chimp stops developing mentally.  The human's just 
getting started.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:35:50 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   I think anyone who believes that the 9/11 conspiracy theory has
>   nothing
> of truth in it should watch this video.

Any good conspiracy theory is going to have enough truth in it to be 
convincing.

Post a reply to this message

Late response here. I only just looked at this link because people at work
started talking about the conspiracy theories.

I don't like the link. I was hoping I could send it to some people, but I
would be embarrassed to. Watching this video feels like reading an internet
forum thread. The grammar is completely wrong in places, for starters, so it
doesn't appear intelligent. There's a lot of sarcasm which is unnecessary
and unprofessional. The commentary sometimes seems out of place or
irrelevant or is unclear about its point. In some places it fails to give
any more evidence for its counter arguments than the original video does. I
almost find it harder to believe than the original video, and I feel more
exasperation towards the creator of the commentary than the creator of the
original narrative. The word "prove" is way overused.

I really like the part (about 28 minutes in) where it says "Yes, Wittenburg
is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY
aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. He is the
minority." So, what's the point here? That the people they're taking their
evidence from believe what they're saying? Is this man supposed to be
discredited because the person who wrote the commentary thinks he's "stupid
or insane?" Or because he's the minority? That's really bad logic. Worse, in
fact, than the logic the conspirists are using.

There are some good parts, but too much of it is condescending.

Anyway, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories in the slightest. I'm not
trying to make a case in favor of Loose Change. I just wish that this video
did a better job of making its argument.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

My point with posting the video was that one should know what the
conspiracy theorists are saying and what's the true explanation for
those things.

  If you don't know what they are saying and someone confronts you
with those arguments, you may well be left silent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message