|
DarklyDreaming posted:I feel like Jim Carrey was nowhere in conspiracy theories* and then last week Knowledge Fight did a profile on someone who thinks Biden is secretly him in old-age makeup. What gives? Oh yeah, I remember Weird Al talking about that when he went on Alex Jones. That and his secret love affair with Trevor Noah.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:likewise, in 2001, there is not constant recording of public spaces as became ubiquitous later (partially because of 9/11). even at this time the best you'd often get is security reusing the same vhs tape until it is completely fuzzed out. why would there be a film record of people boarding planes? There is footage of Atta going through security. It has been released and there is literally a still of it on the wiki page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:There is footage of Atta going through security. It has been released and there is literally a still of it on the wiki page. huh, timestamped and everything i was just shooting from the hip assuming the poster was repeating nonsense. i guess technically there's no footage of atta boarding the plane so we can still retreat a bit into questionland i think my assumption still holds true, in the early 2000s we were still on the cusp of ubiquitous recording of public spaces because the infrastructure necessary was still a bit too expensive and cumbersome
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:I feel like Jim Carrey was nowhere in conspiracy theories* and then last week Knowledge Fight did a profile on someone who thinks Biden is secretly him in old-age makeup. What gives? Project Camelot tends to be on the real cutting edge of conspiracy thought. I'd assume it's sadly as simple as someone trying to think of who could impersonate Biden and latching onto Jim Carrey from his SNL impersonation. Which is a shame because Dana Carvey is right there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:huh, timestamped and everything Oh no, your answer was still satisfactory. I just think its revealing how many of the theories are based in pure lack of info, not even disinfo, but like literally not knowing there WAS footage of the hijackers going to the gate at least. The planes not being shot down too. They didn't even know of a hijacking at all until 9 minutes before the first plane struck. Didn't get anything airborne until the second was on its final approach. This is all well attested public info. I am more than willing to entertain theories about foreknowledge and Saudi involvement and such, but the suggestion of the planes being anything but planes is where I draw the line. We have literal phone calls from the moment of hijacking to impact from the plane. And a guy on my street definitely went from a happy middle aged man to a piece of thighbone the family got in the mail a year later. wisconsingreg fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Sep 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
What the Saudis would have gained from 9/11? Did they considered Iraq an enemy and knew before hand that Bush administration would use the strike as a pretext for war? Or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 09:05
|
|
|
Completely apropos, sorry, but the clamour over the 9/11 anniversary has come and gone so nowhere else really to say this. I watched the 2006 movie United 93 today and it’s truly uncomfortable watching. It made me feel emotional now, twenty years on, and I can only imagine how it was received coming out only five years after the attacks. Very intense viewing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:Completely apropos, sorry, but the clamour over the 9/11 anniversary has come and gone so nowhere else really to say this. I watched the 2006 movie United 93 today and it’s truly uncomfortable watching. It made me feel emotional now, twenty years on, and I can only imagine how it was received coming out only five years after the attacks. Very intense viewing. It's hard for me to fathom the experience of being ripped from normal life to suddenly having to come to terms with your inescapable death. It must have required some immense courage and resolution to fight the hijackers and at least be a hero in death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:Completely apropos, sorry, but the clamour over the 9/11 anniversary has come and gone so nowhere else really to say this. I watched the 2006 movie United 93 today and it’s truly uncomfortable watching. It made me feel emotional now, twenty years on, and I can only imagine how it was received coming out only five years after the attacks. Very intense viewing. I feel like 20 years on the horror of it strikes differently. It's like "did that really happen, what the gently caress"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:It's hard for me to fathom the experience of being ripped from normal life to suddenly having to come to terms with your inescapable death. It must have required some immense courage and resolution to fight the hijackers and at least be a hero in death. After 9/11 all bets are off and the advice was to take whatever action you think is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
I admit I haven't kept up with developments these past 20 years, but I feel like part of why there may have been so many conspiracies also is that even more than just the racism - although that was a huge part of it - is the fact that, like, the plan loving sucked. If I was some authority figure in al-Qaeda and my underlings came to me with the 9/11 plan, I'd loving laugh them out of my office/cave/tent/secret-fortress. It was an absurdly stupid plan that basically relied on a mixture of luck and America loving up hard. al-Qaeda didn't win the 'battle' of 9/11 so much as America lost it. And it's easier and more comforting to believe in a sinister conspiracy of evil masterminds than it is to accept that you were beaten by idiots. See also: part of I suspect why there's the whole myth of the Nazis as efficient badasses and Hitler as an evil genius. It's more comforting to think the world was nearly conquered by a bunch of supervillains than to realize it was nearly conquered by a bunch of insane idiots who couldn't do the most basic tasks properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Presto posted:I used to have to take annual training about counterintelligence and terrorism, and before 9/11 the advice if you were on a hijacked flight was to stay calm and obey the instructions of the hijackers, because they probably just wanted money or were making some political statement. Yeah. I remember it was even brough up, using planes as missiles, in some Counter terrorism articles, but it always referred to stuffing a cessna with bombs and flying it into something. No one thought it was possible you could get 5 people together to kill themselves, much less 19.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I admit I haven't kept up with developments these past 20 years, but I feel like part of why there may have been so many conspiracies also is that even more than just the racism - although that was a huge part of it - is the fact that, like, the plan loving sucked. The above post explains why it wasn't a stupid plan: there was a golden age of hijackings for a while, where you'd just sit on a runway in Cuba or Libya, and be ok. No one realized how serious the situation was until it was too late. Shooting the planes down would have been an absolute last resort option. And of course Flight 98 got wind of what was going on and retook the plane, because box cutters seem a lot less scary facing down certain death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The above post explains why it wasn't a stupid plan: there was a golden age of hijackings for a while, where you'd just sit on a runway in Cuba or Libya, and be ok. No one realized how serious the situation was until it was too late. Shooting the planes down would have been an absolute last resort option. And of course Flight 98 got wind of what was going on and retook the plane, because box cutters seem a lot less scary facing down certain death. A flight 175 attendant even called home and told them she would be going on vacation for a while, maybe to Cuba. They totally would not have been able to take the planes post 9/11. wisconsingreg fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Has an actual air Marshall stopped a hijacking of a flight, yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:Has an actual air Marshall stopped a hijacking of a flight, yet? no, but its hard to say because hijackings are pretty rare air marshalls mostly just subdue people who get too drunk and freak out midflight RoboChrist 9000 posted:See also: part of I suspect why there's the whole myth of the Nazis as efficient badasses and Hitler as an evil genius. It's more comforting to think the world was nearly conquered by a bunch of supervillains than to realize it was nearly conquered by a bunch of insane idiots who couldn't do the most basic tasks properly. imo this is more because of nazi lost causerism from wheraboos who idolize the nazi war machine because it's more socially acceptable to talk about wunderwaffen and precise german efficiency than it is to talk about how you agreed with hitler's views on mass murder it does make a better story to imagine that the nazi state wasn't already falling apart because of the extreme quagmire which was the nazi invasion of russia Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
This video done recently by well there's your problem covers the 9/11 attack on the pentagon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZAupDVEZEA Basically the damage was minimized because the plane struck a several-days-from-completion bomb-proof side of the Pentagon. There was literally kevlar in the outer walls and everything. Naturally this series of coincidences spawned a ton of conspiracies about how it was actually a missile meant to take out some specific thing in a hyper-elaborate false flag attack Pharohman777 fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
I love conspiracy poo poo but the thing about 9/11 has always been that Loose Change or whatever is just too god damned complicated. One wouldn't have to go to 1/4 of all that loving trouble to achieve a similar response or ultimate outcome - and the coordination between the thousands of people it would take to pull it off is completely impossible. The only real thing worth looking at to me is the big pass we gave to the Saudis, which didn't make sense to me at the time but makes perfect sense now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 15:02
|
|
|
The other, related issue with events like 9/11 and trying to figure out who "did" them is there are many fine gradations of where culpability is and what that means, so without definitive smoking guns you usually just end up arguing past people who have a different headcanon of implied events than you do. It's maddening but also still probably worthwhile to work through on some level. In a sense, yes, there's no arguing the US government did 9/11 even with the evidence base of the most patriotic neocons, but it requires a different mental model of how politics and society works to understand it that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
But seriously, how did those passports survive the crash? That seems very implausible. Of course, someone dropping a passport somewhere doesn't mean that the rest of the conspiracies are true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Big Dick Cheney posted:But seriously, how did those passports survive the crash? That seems very implausible. Of course, someone dropping a passport somewhere doesn't mean that the rest of the conspiracies are true. It's called debris
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Passport gets ejected from wreckage somehow, simply flies off unharmed. Not too implausible if other larger pieces of wreckage shielded it from the explosions and fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Big Dick Cheney posted:But seriously, how did those passports survive the crash? That seems very implausible. Of course, someone dropping a passport somewhere doesn't mean that the rest of the conspiracies are true. lots of poo poo got ejected from the crash. pieces of bodies did too. most of the passports didn't survive. just because something seems implausible doesn't mean it is impossible, and implausible things are not de facto evidence of a conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
2 planes and 3 towers, that math doesn't add up to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Big Dick Cheney posted:But seriously, how did those passports survive the crash? That seems very implausible. Of course, someone dropping a passport somewhere doesn't mean that the rest of the conspiracies are true. Only one really miraculously survived. One was collected from missed baggage that wasn't on the plane. two were in luggage where the luggage compartment generally fell and didn't end up in the fire, some of the passports were retrieved digitally, some were identified from pieces. It's only Satam al-Suqami's passport that cartoonishly flew out of the plane and had someone find it on the ground. They mostly all survived very normal ways and one being sort of silly seeming got people the idea they all did that. (where like 12 passports doing that seems really implausible, just one doesn't, most did not survive in such unlikely ways)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
There's a lot of weird debris in explosions like that. Some things get pasted but some things just... land. When that malaysian airliner got shot down over Ukraine I remember seeing a debris field with an intact Harry Potter book just sitting there on top of the wreckage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Yeah. Books and passports take an insane speed to break and have a low terminal velocity. The only real risk was fire. A good portion of the plane went "through and through" so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not shocking one could survive, but when people talk about it they often imply the survival was far more wacky than it was. Only one really did the super crazy fly out of the guy's pocket and and neatly for evidence on the street, the majority of them were recovered in very normal sounding ways, like taking copies, finding damaged parts, it being in luggage or left at the airport.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Was anything stopping the photographer who found it from placing it in the most dramatic area for a shot?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:2 planes and 3 towers, that math doesn't add up to me You'll never believe what the periodic table says about jet fuel and steel beams...
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:You'll never believe what the periodic table says about jet fuel and steel beams... Username and post combo here, gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
I've seen various 9/11 conspiracy stuff over the years and some of it can be quite compelling, but the thing that always gets me is the pieces don't fit together. No one can ever collect all of the individually extremely weird poo poo surrounding it and piece it into a coherent framework that explains why it fits as part of a conspiracy. This trueanon episode was interesting because all of the individual items sound pretty damning, but no one takes the next step to ask why it was done that way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_NHUShkl_E. Like, the manoeuvre the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon seems insane for a guy who was allegedly such a terrible pilot that his flight school was trying to have his certification revoked, but what does that mean? Was someone else, an expert pilot actually in the plane? If so where is any evidence to support that? One part I did find interesting was the WTC 7 stuff, this does appear to be a reasonably rigorous investigation that shows fire was not the cause of the collapse, rather it was the simultaneous failure of all of the structural columns for some unknown reason: https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7. Is that study legit? And if so, what would explain its conclusions? The thing that nags at me is that if 9/11 did happen as stated, Bush and co are the absolute luckiest fuckers of all time. They had put a reasonable degree of effort into planning a policy agenda that they knew would only work in the event of an almost unprecedented black swan like 9/11, and it loving happened not even a year into his first term. But I guess that's the kind of insane coincidence that defines how our world is shaped, which is the reality conspiracy theories try to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:The thing that nags at me is that if 9/11 did happen as stated, Bush and co are the absolute luckiest fuckers of all time. They had put a reasonable degree of effort into planning a policy agenda that they knew would only work in the event of an almost unprecedented black swan like 9/11, and it loving happened not even a year into his first term. But I guess that's the kind of insane coincidence that defines how our world is shaped, which is the reality conspiracy theories try to avoid. What do you find compelling about this? What agenda?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I've seen various 9/11 conspiracy stuff over the years and some of it can be quite compelling, but the thing that always gets me is the pieces don't fit together. No one can ever collect all of the individually extremely weird poo poo surrounding it and piece it into a coherent framework that explains why it fits as part of a conspiracy. This trueanon episode was interesting because all of the individual items sound pretty damning, but no one takes the next step to ask why it was done that way this is how conspiracy theories function. they only need to seed your doubt with little fragments that smell like proof, and you can be relied on to supply the context. the theory doesn't need to be a coherent whole, you'll do that work yourself. no two theories match because they're all subjective and crowdsourced, and the most compelling fake bits of proof will rise to the top ("jet fuel cant melt steel beams") where the more absurd fake bits of proof will be discarded ("the planes were really holograms projected over missiles") you can see an example of this regarding the WTC 7 Ouroboros posted:One part I did find interesting was the WTC 7 stuff, this does appear to be a reasonably rigorous investigation that shows fire was not the cause of the collapse, rather it was the simultaneous failure of all of the structural columns for some unknown reason: https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7. Is that study legit? And if so, what would explain its conclusions? the study is from an engineering department at an engineering school at an american university, authored by three engineers. it was also paid for by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the main source of 'academic' 9/11 conspiracy theories, and their conclusion is: quote:The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses. Together, they show that fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse. quote:Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior. if you reject the idea that fires did it, then... who knows? but it wasn't fires, because we take it as a given that jet fuel cannot melt steel beams this directly contradicts the NIST report on WTC 7, which was an investigation conducted by dozens of engineers on behalf of the federal government and states conclusively that fire initiated the collapse, and not some unknown non-fire medium present in the building which was damaged and also on fire. seems like fire was very likely the immediate cause of the collapse! but if you reject this out of hand and substitute some mysterious "simultaneous universal collapse" of the structural members then that sounds a whole lot like "controlled demolition" without me actually saying those words, and i don't actually have to do any work to prove controlled demolition - i just reject the most sensible conclusion and let you fill in the blanks anyway, here's the NIST report https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/11/nist-releases-final-wtc-7-investigation-report
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What do you find compelling about this? What agenda? To establish a more aggressively maintained imperial frontier in the middle east / central asia to protect the petrodollar, further privatise the military and feed the MIC, expand executive power with through the unitary executive theory, basically give a raison d'etre to the idea of a global capitalist hegemon in the post cold war era (and of course both Iraq and Iran were considered unfinished business for Bush in particular). The start of the podcast I linked goes into it in a decent amount of detail, but there is a particularly eyebrow-raising quote from PNAC (project for a new american century, an influential neocon think tank) that essentially states that their goals would require something along the lines of "a new pearl harbour" to secure public consent in the short term. I mean there are also publicly available memos from Rumsfeld pretty much the day of the attacks indicating he was looking for angles to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Now don't get me wrong, none of this constitutes evidence really, but it certainly does establish potential motive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:this is how conspiracy theories function. they only need to seed your doubt with little fragments that smell like proof, and you can be relied on to supply the context. the theory doesn't need to be a coherent whole, you'll do that work yourself. no two theories match because they're all subjective and crowdsourced, and the most compelling fake bits of proof will rise to the top ("jet fuel cant melt steel beams") where the more absurd fake bits of proof will be discarded ("the planes were really holograms projected over missiles") I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave? Hulsey is literally the only one who believes this and his study has been outright rejected by everyone else. This is literally "One study says something I agree with so they must be right!" fallacy of conspiracy theories. And again: Fire doesn't HAVE to cause the collapse. Fire just needs to weaken the steel enough to collapse and most structural fires, fueled by everything around them, get significantly hot enough to weaken steel past its malleable point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:To establish a more aggressively maintained imperial frontier in the middle east / central asia to protect the petrodollar, further privatise the military and feed the MIC, expand executive power with through the unitary executive theory, basically give a raison d'etre to the idea of a global capitalist hegemon in the post cold war era (and of course both Iraq and Iran were considered unfinished business for Bush in particular). The start of the podcast I linked goes into it in a decent amount of detail, but there is a particularly eyebrow-raising quote from PNAC (project for a new american century, an influential neocon think tank) that essentially states that their goals would require something along the lines of "a new pearl harbour" to secure public consent in the short term. I mean there are also publicly available memos from Rumsfeld pretty much the day of the attacks indicating he was looking for angles to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Now don't get me wrong, none of this constitutes evidence really, but it certainly does establish potential motive. None of those things were new or needed a "black swan" event. They are long term goals of the GOP that existed prior to the Bush admin. They were already in process. Ouroboros posted:I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave? How do you know that's what they have done, given your lack of background? Because it fits with what you want them to have done?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:None of those things were new or needed a "black swan" event. They are long term goals of the GOP that existed prior to the Bush admin. They were already in process. Of course they were, that was my point? To say that Bush's administration could have done what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11, I don't see how. Not anywhere near as easily and quickly as they did. Jaxyon posted:How do you know that's what they have done, given your lack of background? I don't know, I thought it was pretty clear that was why I was asking in the first place? I don't know why you're being so hostile, like I said I'm not a 9/11 truther myself. I did however watch the entire presentation of that study, which to me with my non-background in the relevant fields, seemed to be a perfectly reasonable and well researched rebuttal of an earlier study. If someone could do something similar with this one, or simply point out any flaws in its own methodology or characterisation of the NIST study, then I would happily accept that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:37
|
|