1. WRONG. They are talking about the difference of simply doing a bad job and ignoring the warning signs, Vs the conspiracy claims of them intentionally ignoring the warnings knowing very well what is going to happen with the intent of using it to their advantage. Hence criminal.
They even call it a conspiracy, sorry. And Let it happen On purpose is not the only CT claim. This was a film looking into conspiracy theories, not just MIHOP and LIHOP, thats why they talked about the incompetence conspiracy at all. This is a conspiracy that is claimed on this forum by many people to be nonsence as well but is pushed by the very film you defend.
2. WRONG. The initiation of the collapse being pancaking was backed away and was never an argument by NIST, it was FEMA who made a quick on the spot guess of the cause. The building most indeed pancaked just as the drawing showed. They ALSO showed what caused the collapse to initiate. Everything in it was completely accurate despite your bogus claim here.
How was I wrong? I said the graphic was inaccurate, and it is. I said NIST backed away from pancaking theory, perhaps "backing away" wasnt the right term to use for what I meant which was that NIST said pancaking theory wasnt correct. Of course its not
totally inaccurate, but people were asking for factual errors so I figured I'd pick on that. Wikipedia puts it like this: "
... Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate. The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in."
3. Most of the people you mention have no relevance on the issue and are simply people you chose because of their names. And many of them have indeed already appeared in other such documentaries. They can't include everyone and your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part. This isn't critical thinking, this is childish nonsense on your part.
Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to include "everyone", but not only did they not include any of the people I listed, not only did they not even mention them but in the case of the people like the Jersey Girls implied they even even exist.
4. Once again, it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.
Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to bring up "everything".
No matter what they chose to cover, your argument could always be made.
Then why am I only focused on Conspiracy Files as being so bad? Why did I say the history channels documentary was a lot better? Why did I say that the program that disagrees with Alex Jones' on Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberg Group and the NWO was fair and balanced? I would go further and say it was a great documentary. Theres a way to reasonably conduct a documentary into this while not misrepresenting people, but I guess you wouldnt know being such a veteran of strawmen burning yourself.
Thus it not being possible to make a fair and balanced documentary based on your absolutely absurd standards.
Just wanting a little fairness and not a misrepresentations of people is apparently "absolutely absurd" standards.
They chose the ones they felt were most popular. Had they covered the issues which you feel they should have, then they would have shown the same things. They would have shown the holes in those conspiracy claims as well. But they only have so much time.
I already responded to that, so for the nth time, if they cut out all the spin and misrepresentative sections and perhaps not so needlessly focusing on Frank Spotniz' for so long telling us CTs are basically a religion for crazies, before of course telling us that there actually there
was a conspiracy theory themselves, they might actually have had time to include just a little more content into the piece.
5. There was not a single shred of truth to the story what so ever. The people that run the company even state the warning had nothing to do with the WTC what so ever and they can't even conclude it was a warning at all. It just happened to coincide on the same day. The whole Jewish thing is only about the company being Israeli. This is the most bogus conspiracy claim out there and you call pointing that out "spin". YOU are a con artist for sure. You should be ashamed of yourself.
According to Haaratz and The Washington post Odigo really did receive warnings via instant messenger before the attacks. According to those news reports they thought it was important enough for their employees to notify their management, who contacted Israeli security services, who then contacted the FBI. Thats the truth around the myth. So my point Jonny, if you'd have cared enough to actually listen to it is that there
was this true story in the story Conspiracy Files talked about but they ignored even pointing that out in favour of suggesting
all of it was a myth its
all anti-semetic nonsence and
generally that this is what CT really think and it really hurts the victims families.
6. Because he was the basis of a big conspiracy theory about 9/11. HELLO?? He covered the part about why conspiracy theories like this get started. His segment was probably one of the most important parts.
I know why they brought him on Jonny, and I didnt say he shouldnt have been brought on, its that they focused on him for so long that is why Im suggesting if they had cut some of his section out along with the misrepresentations they indulged in they could have included more content. Yes he was a product of a CT but after a while he's just expressing his opinion.
7. WRONG AGAIN. They in no way do that at all. One of the biggest conspiracies is that flight 93 landed. They address that by talking to one of the women on the flight that was mistaken for 93 and it shows how some of these theories get started. Another extremely important segment. Your libel on this segment is completely baseless and absurd.
How is it
my libel? They made out that Dylan is denying Delta 1982 even existed and that the woman didnt even take the flight.
8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) argument that somehow bringing up older conspiracy theories somehow validates current ones. Another argument that shows you are just a small con in the woo movement.
If government lies are not relevant why did they have a montage of examples of government lies? Im saying there are much more relevant examples than what they used.
9. NO. The point of the segment is to show that just because there were mistakes made and things were ignored, that it doesn't mean they were intentional. The fact that you could see this any other was is astounding.
What way round are you claiming that I am seeing it? They said exactly what i said they said. They didnt even just say it was a coverup, they said it was a conspiracy where people involved intentionally mislead.
10. Most of the victims of 9/11 are most certainly hurt by these absurd conspiracy theories. bringing up 3 that aren't doesn't change that. Just like pretending the Jersey Girls represent the victims is outright wrong. This segment addresses those misconceptions about the victims thinking there is a conspiracy or to dispell claims such as the "jews" being in on it etc.
Many are hurt, I never denied that and they had a right to say that and I would have had no problem with it if they had, but to pretend the Jersey Girls dont exist by simply ignoring their existence is not giving a fair and balanced picture. That is what the film claimed to be, a fair and objective investigation to give people a balanced picture of the issues. And that is what this film was claimed to be by the people in this thread which caused me to start arguing.
11. Because it didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 conspiracies. To bring up the issue to the few idiots whot think part of the plot was to secretly let a handful of people die over a long period of time would have been a waste of everyone's time.
Strawman again. I didnt say it had anything to do with a larger plot.
I wonder if I should just continue to reply to your nonsence even just to point out how you're arguing against positions Im not taking.
Ed. As to your little appendix of disclaimers. I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.
You're just like the worst of the people you attack, you're unreasonable, irrational and unable to accept when you're wrong so have to resport to personal attacks and strawmen.
