What's your theory about 9/11?

[aggle-rithm]

So do not waste your time attacking people who are coming with new theories, you need them !

Interpreting insignificant details as something significant is not new. We've seen it many times.

Claiming that a recent event was somehow foretold decades earlier is not new, either.

Finally, pointing out the mistakes in a person's argument is not attacking them. It's attacking their flawed ideas. If they had any intellectual integrity, they would be able to separate their own sense of self-worth from their ideas.

Sorry you couldn't hang around longer to learn more.

 

[Hans Peper]

Sounds good.
I think we need different people at work. People like me need people like you.

I work with synthetic intuition. To other people it looks like the work of a fool. As I saw the "raining letters" in the "my town" scene, I thought it was a god place for Kubrick to hide a text and I looked at the sequence in single pictures and found "MY TOWN".

I think it was Beachnut who said it is "MY TOAN", but there is no evidence for an A. It could be the rest of an A or the rest of an W. Remember, that the letters are already damaged because of the war.
And he said, that the form of the WTC are slabs in the video. Inkorrect. A video is a chain of pictures, the buildings are scrolling an changing the form from slabs to quadratic towers. It is an 2 dimensional world on the screen. The meaning that it is 3 dimensional is only an illusion of our brain.
..

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yesterday I whatched the videos of 911 and I saw the faces of the people in the streets. It was a hit directly into their heart.

I too found the events of that day touching and emotional which is why I wish you to understand that the very next thing you say is incredibly distasteful:

The man who wrote the screenplay was a specialist.

You have reduced the suffering, fear, tragedy and loss, the sorrow, the meaning and the very memory of all those people you claim to have hit you in the heart to a screenplay.

You have done this based on your opinion of a film.

Further more you are accussing a man, with out any evidence, motive, or coherent reason, for the events that caused such heart felt pain in so many people. I don't care if you think it was staged, or if it was a genuine plot planned in advance, neither are accusations somebody should have to bare with out evidence.

If you feel there is a genuine reason to make the accussation I can only ask you, once again, for valid objective evidence.

So do not waste your time attacking people

As far as I can tell you have not been attacked. Your theory has been attacked. It seems some posts were moved to AAH, fair enough if you found them uncivil. You will note some of your own posts have been treated as such. Perhaps you should be asking if your own posts might be read as confrontational as well?

who are coming with new theories,

Little you have posted is new. As I already pointed out your "methodology" has been used before with equally meaningless results.

you need them !

For what purpose? Your suggestions (and I refuse to call them Theories as they fail to meet any of the requirements of a theory) offer no evidence, no way they can be objectively varified, and do not identify anybody who played any part in the affair. They fulfill no need I can identify. Please explain why we need them?

What about the last 12 years, did you found something ?

Other than those responsible, their motivation, method, and the network they were members of?

I am afraid you didn't.

There are plenty of threads here where you can feel free to post new evidence that you think discredits the current evidence-base. Feel free to join them. I would suggest that your opinions of films will not qualify in the eyes of most sceptics.

By the way you have yet to identify how any of your exercises in Confirmation Bias might be distinguished from coincidental background imagry. How are the works of Kubric anymore meaningful than any other image that contains a rectangular shape, is set in New York, etc?

For example, why is your opinion Kubric was involved because of these images any more valid than the joke analysis of Star Wars? Or Tron? Or The Kitten Kong episode of the Goodies? Or Ghostbusters?

I keep asking, I keep pointing out that your "rules" can be applied to any random film, but you just wont offer a single reason to assume your "theory" is anything more than base chance.

How can your theory be applied to a predictive model? How can it be used to predict where your next clue will be found? How can the method distinguish between intended and unintended images? What if you have not identified a guilty party because you have yet to explain how to eliminate background noice?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I work with synthetic intuition. To other people it looks like the work of a fool.

No. It looks like a theory that relies entirely on the subjective and can not be supported by any meaningful evidence. H

As I saw the "raining letters" in the "my town" scene, I thought it was a god place for Kubrick to hide a text and I looked at the sequence in single pictures and found "MY TOWN".

So you wanted there to be a message and read the scene in a way that would make it a message.

You did not consider any more likely meaning of the message.
You did not consider the other "soldier texts" visible in the film.
You offer no means to varify that the point of the film was any more or less likely.

You offer an opinion. This is not work. This is not analysis. This is not method.

I think it was Beachnut who said it is "MY TOAN", but there is no evidence for an A. It could be the rest of an A or the rest of an W.

And yet your opinion is, for reasons yet to be explained, superior, and able to decipher the meaning of the message?

And he said, that the form of the WTC are slabs in the video. Inkorrect. A video is a chain of pictures, the buildings are scrolling an changing the form from slabs to quadratic towers.

Nope, it is slabs being filmed from different angles. The physical shape does not change.

It is an 2 dimensional world on the screen. The meaning that it is 3 dimensional is only an illusion of our brain.

But the objects being filmed were physical. Reasonable analysis of their shape, size and construction are possible from the footage.

By the way, your last statement makes it less likely your particular interpretation is correct. If you admit that optical illusions and misinterpretation are possible, then by any reasonable standard you have to admit your own subjective opinions are equally flawed.

 

[Hans Peper]

Please Mr. from Kent,

nobody can give the evidence, that I am wrong.
Only Kubrick can say it. But he is dead.


I have never said, that I am right.

 

[Hans Peper]

Do you really think that all objects in a video are 3 dimensional ?

A painting is a 2 dimensional surface, with many surfaces in different colours.

The first level is, that you will say that red surface is an apple. Why that ? Is every red round surface an apple ? Surly not.

The second level is, that you maybe say this is the apple from Jim Jones, becaus you will maybe say that this painting shows the garden of Jim Jones and this must be his apple. And so on...

Our brain changes coulored surfaces into 3 dimensional things. Could you trust your brain ? Only the painter can say his intentions to that painting.

I try to find the intention of the painter or moviemaker in this case. This is iconology.

Yes, I was looking for a letter message in this case. And I found it.
If there was witten "Ho chin ming", I cannot see a message. But if I can see "MY TOWN" changing into "Y N" and I know that Kubrick is born in NY and it is his town, so all my red lights are shining. What is wrong ?

 

[Tomtomkent]

nobody can give the evidence, that I am wrong.
Only Kubrick can say it. But he is dead.

I have never said, that I am right.

Then what was the point of your posts exactly?

I am making every effort to listen and offering you every oppertunity to supply the evidence that your theory is valid.

Nobody needs to supply any evidence you are wrong. The theory is void and meaningless until you offer actual evidence.

May I suggest you enquire about the concept of burden of proof?

 

[twinstead]

Apparently he's suggesting simply that he's the Yang to our Yin

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you really think that all objects in a video are 3 dimensional ?

No. But I believe that object was three dimensional.

Lets ignore your discussion of how art and films work and assume everybody knows they are looking a flat screen. Now credit us with some intelligence and assume we can tell when a (or several) pieces of set dressing are three dimensional objects filmed from different angles.

I try to find the intention of the painter or moviemaker in this case. This is iconology.

And you offer no means by which your speculated motives or intentions can be tested of varified.

I suspect that you are doing is not actually iconology. I am fairly sure anybody qualified in art history or the like would consider them an iconographist. I am pretty sure that if what you were doing was in any form of disciplined field you would have had no issues with describing your methodology, or referencing your other iconologist works in their peer reviewed journals.

What you describe has thus far sounded like armchair pseudo study, with no viable method and no viable outcome. It sounds very much like you watch films, you look for images to confirm a predetermined outcome and you call it iconography.

If I am wrong, then by all means correct me here. Show me you are working to a sustainable method and share your insights.

Yes, I was looking for a letter message in this case. And I found it.

You seem to miss the point. How did you eliminate EVERY OTHER body of text seen in the film? Why are THEY not meaningful messages and clues?
How do you eliminate EVERY OTHER text in EVERY OTHER film?

If there was witten "Ho chin ming", I cannot see a message.

But if there was any other English phrase no doubt you could find a way to make it fit with your idea.

But if I can see "MY TOWN"

And not MY TOAN?

changing into "Y N"

If you squint enough?

and I know that Kubrick is born in NY and it is his town, so all my red lights are shining. What is wrong ?

Well,
1) It doesn't say my town.
2) If it did there is no evidence it meant Kubricks town.
3) YN does not spell New York.
4) We have no evidence connecting Kubric to the attack.
5) We have no evidence of Kubric having prior knowledge of the attacks.
6) Even if Kubrick was giving a message about New York we have no reason to assume it is about 9/11.
7) YN can spell out other messages.
8) You give no reason to ignore all other written messages in the film. Presumably because they do not match your "theory"?
9) Why would Kubrick be sending these messages anyway?

 

[GlennB]

As I saw the "raining letters" in the "my town" scene, I thought it was a god place for Kubrick to hide a text and I looked at the sequence in single pictures and found "MY TOWN".

I think it was Beachnut who said it is "MY TOAN", but there is no evidence for an A.
..

It is "MY TOAN".

Put
"my toan" vietnam
or
"my toan" vietnam kubrick
into Google.

In addition, there isn't room for a W between the O and the N

You have found something that is not there Something you were looking for.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Perhaps Kubrick was predicting the demise of Al Fresco dining and the office cultures turn to Al Desko?

 

[Macgyver1968]

It is "MY TOAN".

Put
"my toan" vietnam
or
"my toan" vietnam kubrick
into Google.

In addition, there isn't room for a W between the O and the N

You have found something that is not there Something you were looking for.

^ this

It's even easter-egged in Call of Duty- Black Ops:

there are two buildings with signs that read "Tam Phuon" and "My Toan", these two buildings are direct references to the ones in Full Metal Jacket, also set in Hue City.

and is listed on IMDB as a continuity goof:

Animal's aimless shots blow away parts of the "My Toan" sign, but it is later seen intact.

Fail.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Ya know...this isn't the first time we've had a truther try to claim that the events of 9/11 were forshadowed in movies....but I've yet to hear one of them explain how it could happen. As a logistics guy, I always wonder about that:

(phone rings)
Stanley Kubrick: (answers phone) Stanley Kubrick...talk to me.

Evil Planners: Mr. Kubrick...we are members of an evil cabal trying to take over the world...we need your help.

SK: Oh...I've heard of you!....aren't you the guys that made "Leonard part 6"? Geez...talk about trying to blow up the world...that one was a serious bomb.

EP: No, Mr. Hubrick...even we have standards. You see...we are planning a false flag terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York...and we'd like you to throw some vague references to it, in your completely unrelated new movie "Full Metal Jacket".

SK: Hmmm....I see. So you're planning the attacks for right after the movie opens?

EP: No...in 14 years.

SK: 14 years?!? Do you really think anyone will remember a decade and a half from now? Why would you want to do such a thing?

EP: Just to mess with conspiracy theorist's heads 26 years from now....on something called the "internet".

SK: Wow...you guys are evil. Ok...I'm in. What's the internet?

EP: A place to get free porn.

SK: Sweet!

 

[Hans Peper]

.....and you call it iconography...

No Sire,... iconology.

I came here, after I had googled "conspiracy theorys" and your forum came out.
All I want to know is, if you hear about the twin towers in FMJ final scene. I see, you have not.

I do not want to convince you.

But I see your reaction : You say, I am wrong. This is the best way for you, to explain, why you have not seen it befor. Okay, that is mankind's nature.

While this hard discussion with you, I found "MY...TO*N" and "N..Y" - right is left and up is down. You will know that.

Hans

 

[DGM]

I do not want to convince you.

And we have no doubt you see what you want to see. So?

 

[Hans Peper]

McGiver1968 , are you looking for a job in Hollywood ?

 

[Macgyver1968]

It's Macgyver....or just Mac. So how does a sign that says "My Toan" in a movie 14 years before the attack have anything to do with 9/11?

 

[carlitos]

Google translate tells me that "my toan" means "my box" in Vietnamese.

ETA - I meant to start a title contest for the Biggie Smalls photo. I'll start - "Stanley Who-brick? I eated him."

 

[Hans Peper]

And we have no doubt you see what you want to see. So?

So what ? Certainly not. I came here to show what I found in that movie.

It seems, that nobody can also see it. Is that right ?

But what are you doing now here ? Wasting your time ?
Why do you reply since days ? Why are you storing lots of popcorn ?

Why ?

Say it : you want more

warm regards Hans Peper

 

[Macgyver1968]

OK...so you presented what you thought were references to 9/11 in a movie from 1987, and were shown that you were wrong.

Just say it...."Sorry guys...I was wrong about the "my town" sign...it really says "My Toan"..and has nothing to do with 9/11."

Is that so hard?