Okay, I'm about ready to declare victory...

[RandFan]

So in short asking questions is wrong because some anti-semites also ask questions. erm yes that makes sense...

If that were my argument then I would agree. It's not. You are saying that the simple act of asking questions is somehow significant. Here's a hint, it's not and you agree with me.

The jersey girls gave 400 questions to the 911 commission. Most weren't addressed. Do you deny these widows the right to ask questions?

Oh hell no, let them ask all the questions they want. In the end they are just questions just like all of the other questions from all of the other conspiracy theories. They don't prove anything.

 

[CptColumbo]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

That would also fit "the Jamie Kennedy Experiment," "Viva La Bam," Borat, Jackass (both the movie and TV series), "Candid Camera," and most Game Shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film

 

[Docker]

If that were my argument then I would agree. It's not. You are saying that the simple act of asking questions is somehow significant. Here's a hint, it's not and you agree with me.

Oh hell no, let them ask all the questions they want. In the end they are just questions just like all of the other questions from all of the other conspiracy theories. They don't prove anything.

Well the commission should have at least tried to answer them. Agreed?

 

[Dazed]

Nothing's enough when you've already made up your mind.

 

[Loss Leader]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional
2) It documented your visits to ground zero
3) It had narrative
4) It had interviews
5) It was on video and distributed

I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

I guess in the sense that it answered the question, "Here are some people I filmed at Ground Zero," it's kind of a documentary.

In the sense of being an unbiased presentation of fact allowing the viewer to draw her own conclusions, it fails miserably. Which is the real definition? Well, neither. According to this source, there really is no good single definition of a documentary film. From the journalistic endeavors of PBS all the way to Real World/Road Rules Challenge IV, they all fit under that same documentary umbrella.

Abby and her ex-boyfriend (I think) created a video political essay. Since they never claimed to have done anything more, I think it's a little unfair to demand journalistic accuracy from them. It's like complaining that the X-Ray is backwards in the opening credits of Scrubs. They never claimed to be showing us th x-ray the right way.

 

[Dazed]

Averaging 235 posts a day.. This is some new breed of supertroll.

 

[Pardalis]

Averaging 235 posts a day.. This is some new breed of supertroll.

 

[Calcas]

Docker, I NOTICED YOUR SIG.

Is it true the NIST report is 10,000 pages. Because I think not...

And, how much have you read of it...?

 

[Docker]

Docker, I NOTICED YOUR SIG.

Is it true the NIST report is 10,000 pages. Because I think not...

And, how much have you read of it...?

"
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a total of 43 draft reports documenting the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. These reports include the draft summary report on the Investigation of the WTC Towers, 8 project reports, and 34 supporting technical topic reports. Fifteen reports, including three project reports, were released on April 5, 2005.
These reports are being issued in draft form with a six-week period for public comment. Public comments will be accepted during the period commencing June 23rd and ending at 5 p.m. EDT on August 4th.
The public is welcome to comment on any of the 43 draft reports issued by NIST, totaling about 10,000 pages. NIST especially encourages public comment on the approximately 200-page draft summary report, which contains the principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. NIST will consider all comments received from the public on the 43 draft reports before they are issued in final form."



Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm

 

[Docker]

Averaging 235 posts a day.. This is some new breed of supertroll.

I'm actually a team of 4 people working shifts apparently.

 

[RandFan]

Well the commission should have at least tried to answer them. Agreed?

I have no idea. I'm not the commission, I don't know what they knew and I don't know what there reasons were.

This throwing mud against the wall in the hopes that some will stick isn't proof of anything.

 

[Belz...]

Aw, Docker's been banned ?

We always lose the fun ones.

 

[Belz...]

No it wasn't. I don't really think I was responsible for 9/11.

WHAT ?

And here I thought it was one of your most impressive accomplishments.

Ah! The dissapointment.

 

[kookbreaker]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

Does that mean this is a documentary?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, now that we are done with that passing moment of stupid we can get back to discussions of value.

Going back to Mackey's point of this thread; I think one possible way of seperating the wheat from the chaff would be to start any discussion with a CTist that brings something to the table, especially if they reference an outside source, is to ask directly whether they feel that they have sufficient understanding of the topic, and referenced materials, to defend it when it is placed under scrutiny. So many of the CTists that come here are just regurgitating what others have said/written without understanding it. If they do not understand it, and therefore can not defend it, it is not worth discussing with them.

The JAQing needs to stop. Especially the open ended questions. T'ai Chi, although continuing to do so, isn't "allowed" to get away with it elsewhere on the forums. CTists shouldn't be "allowed" to get away with it here. Respond to open ended questions with questions that force the CTist to make a claim. Then, make them defend that claim.

Yes/No questions are our friend. They help to clarify what the CTist is claiming and they focus the topic on to an issue that can be resolved.

Topic jumping. Doing our best to ignore attempts to change topics, within the context of a given thread, and help keep the thread focused on the OP and subsequent related claims.

Thread gulling. Force them to pick one topic, or a set of tightly related topics to discuss; don't let them get away with spewing xteen different topics and then picking and choosing which to defend.

My US$0.02

 

[Horatius]

Going back to Mackey's point of this thread; I think one possible way of seperating the wheat from the chaff would be to start any discussion with a CTist that brings something to the table, especially if they reference an outside source, is to ask directly whether they feel that they have sufficient understanding of the topic, and referenced materials, to defend it when it is placed under scrutiny. So many of the CTists that come here are just regurgitating what others have said/written without understanding it. If they do not understand it, and therefore can not defend it, it is not worth discussing with them.

Part of the problem is most of them seem to think they do understand the issues. In fact, they often claim to understand them better than any of us.

I think we should demand a clear statement of their beliefs on the topic, so we at least know where they're coming from. Without that, they can just bounce back and forth, saying "I never said I believed that! It's just an interesting question" sorts of things. If they're not willing to give some sort of list of what they consider to be the truth, we should just ignore them.

Perhaps we need a standard questionaire we can cut-n-paste as the first response in any thread, which we can then refer back to if they try to waffle. We can also use it to track any changes of heart they have, so we know if we're getting anywhere.

I've seen someone post a "form" here like that, but it's clearly written in a sarcastic manner. I understand why that's so, but I think we need a neutrally-worded version, so they don't get all defensive right out of the gate.

 

[T.A.M.]

R. Mackey:

I can see the thread is leaning considerably (though not as much as WTC7 was).

My opinion, is that the two people I would consider the most knowledgable on the issues, from the CT side, would be David Griffin, and Jim Hoffman. A close runner up, though he mainly stays on the LIHOP side of things, is Paul Thompson.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey:

I can see the thread is leaning considerably (though not as much as WTC7 was).

My opinion, is that the two people I would consider the most knowledgable on the issues, from the CT side, would be David Griffin, and Jim Hoffman. A close runner up, though he mainly stays on the LIHOP side of things, is Paul Thompson.

TAM

Good answers, and thanks. I'm quite familiar with David Ray Griffin and Hoffman, but I will investigate Paul Thompson.

Of course, LIHOP basically boils down to "he said-she said" and unsourced statements, so certain variants of it are inherently unproveable. Perfect for the conspiracy set.

 

[gumboot]

Good answers, and thanks. I'm quite familiar with David Ray Griffin and Hoffman, but I will investigate Paul Thompson.

Of course, LIHOP basically boils down to "he said-she said" and unsourced statements, so certain variants of it are inherently unproveable. Perfect for the conspiracy set.

Paul Thompson did the "Complete 9/11 Timeline"

Though on the surface it seems to be an impressive piece of work, frankly after having read it, I find it to be fairly weak. Subjects I'm fairly savvy with (such as NORAD) are full of false statements and errors.

And the entire thing is riddled with innuendo. Comments like "There's no collaborating source for this rumour, and nothing came of it, but if it is true, it suggests...."

Frankly, I think the most interesting thing it demonstrates is just how bad the media is at getting basic facts right (for example he cites NORAD's "Operation Northern Vigilance" as an exercise, because multiple news articles did, even though the name itself clearly informs anyone with a brain that it's not an exercise at all.

I can't judge the vast majority of its content because it's historic US politics and economics related stuff (the first entry is 1979) which bores me stupid. But the stuff I *do* know a bit about seems very lacklustre. Hence I had to laugh when the CTers paraded him as their secret weapon in that "Press For Truth" doco.

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

R. Mackey:

I can see the thread is leaning considerably (though not as much as WTC7 was).

My opinion, is that the two people I would consider the most knowledgable on the issues, from the CT side, would be David Griffin, and Jim Hoffman. A close runner up, though he mainly stays on the LIHOP side of things, is Paul Thompson.

TAM

Is Hoffman's other work as thorough as his concrete dust analysis?