The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey · 21-01-2007 07:13PM

Flyingfish wrote:

Yeah that's why it's in quotes!!!

THe quotes in your post match identically to the posts in the article. So the "borrowed" content isn't quoted per se.

I gave the link to that site and that article above. I'm not trying to pass it as my own

My bad. I didn't notice it was the same link as above.

- I don't think your "superior" attitude helps any of us either!

And I don't think your substandard research helps any of us. Fortunately, both of us have the freedom to offer such opinions.

The real question I’m interested in is, to use a legal term, do ye believe that there is enough reasonable doubt to warrant a fresh independent investigation into the American governments “involvement” in 9/11?

No. I honestly don't. There are individual issues which are anomalous, but no-one has managed to limit themselves to just these issues and show why those anomalies are suspicious. Instead, we get layer after layer of misquoting, selective presentation of facts, inaccuracies, etc. lumped on top of these anomalies in order to suggest that there is something going on.

Not only that, but the very idea of saying that there should be an investigation into the government's involvement suggests that those levelling the claims are not objective.

If you want to find the truth, then ask for a new investigation into the events of the day, the relevant events which led to them and which subsequently were caused by them.

By asking for an invesitgation into the government's involvement you immediately discard any pretence of being objective. You've decided who is guilty.

In my view, the conspiracy theories about 911 have gained so much traction because on an intuitive level everyone knows that something is badly off.

You're entitled to your view, as I keep saying.

I base my view on evidence, and analysis. If all of tehse people alleging that somethign is wrong are really on to something, then there should be at least one claim which holds up to scrutiny and they should be able to produce it as the first point in their argument. This never happens. Never.

So is their enough reasonable doubt?

No, there isn't. There is a small minority who are increasingly vocal in certain environments who claim that there is, but such claims involve discarding the opinion of the vast majority of relevant experts who have weighed in on the case.

If we're going to go with weight of numbers, I'll put my faith in the numbers of experts supporting NISTs research rather than the number of non-experts who decry said findings but repeatedly show an inability to address even the fundamentals objectively and informedly, demonstrating a sufficient grasp of either the science involved, or an acknowledgement of the limits of where their own knowledge can take them.

Insiting "I'm not an expert on X, but I've decided that I don't believe all the experts who say something because it doesn't feel right to me" is not reasonable doubt. Adding that some other non-expert has made a case which you believe, but haven't researched the counter-case nor the claims made is still not reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt involves the doubt being based on reasonable grounds. I don't believe that reasonable grounds have been found nor presented.

The "debunkers" miss the big picture in my view!

But I'm not a debunker. I'm a skeptic. I ask for people to supply the evidence to back up their claims, and supply evidence to show why those claims may not hold water.

I cannot find fault with NISTs technical work. I can find fault with a lot that the government did, but can equally find numerous explanations which do not require some vast evil conspiracy with an unimaginable mix of brilliance and stupidity to explain those actions.

When it comes to the conspiracy theorists, I don't debunk. I point out that their case is far from firmly established, and that time after time they demonstrate all the hallmarks of not having done enough homework to be able to put any faith in their claims in the first place.

I could be wrong. I'll accept it when I'm shown to be wrong. But I won't just accept that something is rotten in the state of Denmark because someone who wants (at some level) there to be something rotten has decided that some shoddy research coupled with their own gut feelings is a more compelling argument.

Let’s just imagine that a magic single piece of paper fell from the sky tomorrow… would the “debunkers” do anything about it?

Or simply move on to the next “debunk” project?

What do you mean? If a piece of paper fell from the sky, I'd ask where it came from. I'd reject any theory which did not have a compelling argument. I'd reject any theory which didn't stand up to scrutiny, involved self-inconsistencies, demonstrated logical or scientific shortcomings, etc. I'd review the remaining theories and either conclude that it could be any of them, or figure that one is the most likely.

As for what was written on the piece of paper....I'd ask if we could trust the origins of where the writing came from. Without that trust, then what does it give us? Nothing. Its as credible on its own as an anonymous posting on a boards forum from someone purporting to "have the truth". To such a person, I'd say "prove it".

What would you do?

bonkey · 21-01-2007 07:21PM

Flyingfish wrote:

Do you believe the 9/11 Commission was fundamentally flawed and biased?

I believe the Commission was limited in scope in order to make sure that it was not in a position to lay charges of incompetence at anyone's feet....most especially those of the Bush administration.

I believe that it carried out its brief comparatively well, but that this brief was artificially limited in scope for the above reason.

I do not believe that any of the shortcomings of the Comission has any relevence to the NIST research nor its findings, as they were two entirely seperate investigations on what were effectively seperate aspects of the events.

Flyingfish · 21-01-2007 07:51PM

If you have time (1H: 24M) please do watch "Press for Truth" as it’s very well made and does contains some really solid "bigger picture" info surrounding 9/11 that's been assembled by Thompson and his valuable timeline project.

Thanks for the detailed (as always) response! This does seem like a more productive approach to the 9/11 discussions in this thread. I'm not a researcher or an investigator (thankfully) so I'm not going to pretend to be one, & I think others should do the same.

I do however believe that the events before, during and after 9/11 when put together do form the basis for enough reasonable doubt about the identity of "those" behind the attacks and indeed about the nature of the attacks to warrant a fresh investigation.

From where I’m standing none of the rigorous standards outlined in your post have yet been applied to the official version of events in any real way. If they had why I wouldn't be writing in a thread with conspiracy theories in the title.

bonkey · 21-01-2007 08:36PM

Flyingfish wrote:

I'm not a researcher or an investigator (thankfully) so I'm not going to pretend to be one, & I think others should do the same.

I'm neither a researcher nor an investigator either. The difference between us, however, seems to be that I check out both what sides are saying and also learn as much as I can independant of either in order to give me a basis on which to judge their comments.

I do however believe that the events before, during and after 9/11 when put together do form the basis for enough reasonable doubt about the identity of "those" behind the attacks and indeed about the nature of the attacks to warrant a fresh investigation.

As I keep saying...you can believe what you like. However, "I believe" isn't a terribly convincing argument when it comes to getting others on to your side. If you can't explain unambiguously where the reasnoable doubt comes from, then you don't have a case. If your explanation is riddled with errors, then you don' thave a case. You can still believe it, but from my perspective it stretches any definition of "reasonable".

From where I’m standing none of the rigorous standards outlined in your post have yet been applied to the official version of events in any real way.

Then explain why. I have tried to show why your various points up to now are wrong, misleading, omitting relevant details, or whatever. I don't believe you've done the same.

You've pointed out the possible existence, for example, of eutectic reactions. You failed, at the same time, to note that it is undetermined as to whether these reactions occurred in the debris pile post-collapse, or in the fires pre-collapse. You've also failed to offer an explanation of why there is something sinister, as opposed to something merely unexpected about the occurrence of such reactions.

If there is no flaw in the research that says the buildings would fall as a result of impact and subsequent fires, then there is no need to explain additional oddities. They're oddities, until someone can show that they raise important, unanswered questions. This hasn't been done. Rather, those supporting claims of a cover-up try to shift the burden of proof back on to NIST - its not enough that they have provided a model of what their investigations say happened, they apparently have to explain that nothing else could have happened....which is an impossible task. And because they haven't met this impossible requirement....the accusations of cover-up, incompetence, sloppiness, etc. all continue.

If they had why I wouldn't be writing in a thread with conspiracy theories in the title.

I can think of several reasons, but to be honest, I'm not entirely interested in why you post here. Your reasons are your own.

What I am interested in is the case you can make. If you believe that the investigation was sub-standard, then you should be able to argue as to why that is so. I don't believe you've established any serious failings.

You've pointed out some issues which haven't been explained, sure, but you've really only argued that becasue they haven't been explained they must somehow be sinister and that a lack of explanation is itself sinister.

If you want to show that the research is flawed, then show that the research is flawed. Show that there is some accepted standard which should have been met, and explain why it wasn't. Then explain the resultant impact of that standard not being met. Ideally, show that the standard could have been met (i.e. there's little value in saying that something wasn't done if it ws impossible to do). At that point, I'll accept there's a case to be made that the research is flawed, but not before.

The bar I'm setting, incidentally, is not unreasonable. Its typical of how the burden of proof is set - you make a claim, you back it up with evidence, and if the evidence holds up then your claim has some weight. If the evidence doesn't hold up nor does your claim. It doesn't make your claim wrong...merely unsupported.

I can't personally find fault with the technical work that NIST have done. I have not seen anyone else manage to find a reasonable, valid critique either. I'm sure some people feel otherwise, but if they're right then why then do they repeatedly trot out easily-debunked or inconclusive issues rather than hammer home on an irrefutable failure time after time?

Diogenes · 21-01-2007 09:10PM

bonkey wrote:

Including the event in 2006?

Also, given that the first accepted hikacking occurred in 1931, I think its pretty certain that the list isn't complete.

However, it does establish that there is nothing atypical about passengers not "rising up" against their hijackers.

Sorry yes to clarify I meant a list of the most significant large passenger jet hijackings of the past forty years. I'm obviously not including every hijack or attempted hijack.

The fundamental fact remains that as bonkey states "cockmynuts' claim that it was "unlikely" or "highly unlikely" that passengers or crew would not resist hijackers, is not borne out by precedent of previous hijackings and crew behaviour during hijackings. I'd submit that based on crew behaviour during previous hijackings their behaviour, and that of passengers fits the behaviour of crews and passengers facing hijackers. And would like cockmynuts to elaborate on his claims further.

Flyingfish · 21-01-2007 10:03PM

I'm neither a researcher nor an investigator either. The difference between us, however, seems to be that I check out both what sides are saying and also learn as much as I can independent of either in order to give me a basis on which to judge their comments.

You're speculating based on assumptions you made based on some links I posted today. Remember that proof thing works both ways... you don't know anything about me so please don't be so rash in passing judgement.

As I keep saying...you can believe what you like. However, "I believe" isn't a terribly convincing argument when it comes to getting others on to your side. If you can't explain unambiguously where the reasonable doubt comes from, then you don't have a case. If your explanation is riddled with errors, then you don' thave a case. You can still believe it, but from my perspective it stretches any definition of "reasonable"

Fair enough... TBH the issues are so numerous I don't know where to begin.

Then explain why. I have tried to show why your various points up to now are wrong, misleading, omitting relevant details, or whatever. I don't believe you've done the same.

Well quoting “debunking 9/11 Myths dot com” info on WTC7 - which is actually an un-attributed quote of the NIST interim “report” as you said still not complete and in my view the credibility of NIST IS in doubt due to conflict of interest. Namely:

--The NIST Director reports directly to the president and is also a presidential appointee - potential for conflict of interest if their findings were to implicate the Bush Administration?

--The demolition hypothesis (a reasonable possibility considering the physical evidence and unanswered questions) has NEVER been considered or investigated by NIST – all reasonable options have NOT been considered and any report they may issue is thus incomplete.

-- Sloppy and unrepresentative experiments (such as the shotgun test for example) with a leaning to the official theory and prior assumptions made by scientists involved (see Kevin Ryan's lecture)

You've pointed out the possible existence, for example, of eutectic reactions. You failed, at the same time, to note that it is undetermined as to whether these reactions occurred in the debris pile post-collapse, or in the fires pre-collapse. You've also failed to offer an explanation of why there is something sinister, as opposed to something merely unexpected about the occurrence of such reactions.

Again I don't judge NIST / FEMA to be independent sources and as such their finding compromised by default. You do. In that case why didn't the UN have Iraqi WMD inspectors in Iraq? Using your logic there would be no problem with the Iraqi's being compromised or biased right? If the demolitions... sorry "collapses" look dodgy / raise questions (freefall speed, buildings turned to dust, molten metal under 3 buildings etc etc) then the US agencies may be compromised no? That's my fundamental difficulty with this argument... US government agencies are all out of credibility ATM. Pass the investigation on to an impartial third party. The US gov can NEVER do this however as this would imply (correctly or not) some form of US guilt so we're stuck in a loop now

The will surpress a real investigation of the FACTS at all costs... it would be suicide for them not to. The only chance may come after this current administration is out of power. Unless a high-level insider comes forward.

If there is no flaw in the research that says the buildings would fall as a result of impact and subsequent fires, then there is no need to explain additional oddities. They're oddities, until someone can show that they raise important, unanswered questions. This hasn't been done. Rather, those supporting claims of a cover-up try to shift the burden of proof back on to NIST - its not enough that they have provided a model of what their investigations say happened, they apparently have to explain that nothing else could have happened....which is an impossible task. And because they haven't met this impossible requirement....the accusations of cover-up, incompetence, sloppiness, etc. all continue.

Considering the magnitude of 9/11 collapses and the subsequent events I think you're way off on this "call" - are you basing that on any known guideline?

What I am interested in is the case you can make. If you believe that the investigation was sub-standard, then you should be able to argue as to why that is so. I don't believe you've established any serious failings.

You've pointed out some issues which haven't been explained, sure, but you've really only argued that because they haven't been explained they must somehow be sinister and that a lack of explanation is itself sinister.

Again.. NIST and FEMA do not count as independent sources in my view and any report they produce is tainted and null as a result. An international independent technical investigation of the available evidence is required.

If you want to show that the research is flawed, then show that the research is flawed. Show that there is some accepted standard which should have been met, and explain why it wasn't. Then explain the resultant impact of that standard not being met. Ideally, show that the standard could have been met (i.e. there's little value in saying that something wasn't done if it was impossible to do). At that point, I'll accept there's a case to be made that the research is flawed, but not before.

Non-independent, biased or potentially compromised research is by definition fundamentally flawed IMO.

The bar I'm setting, incidentally, is not unreasonable. Its typical of how the burden of proof is set - you make a claim, you back it up with evidence, and if the evidence holds up then your claim has some weight. If the evidence doesn't hold up nor does your claim. It doesn't make your claim wrong...merely unsupported.

I can't personally find fault with the technical work that NIST have done. I have not seen anyone else manage to find a reasonable, valid critique either. I'm sure some people feel otherwise, but if they're right then why then do they repeatedly trot out easily-debunked or inconclusive issues rather than hammer home on an irrefutable failure time after time?

Well... as I said... IMO Kevin Ryan is already doing a great job at that & I admire his courage for doing so... that is something neither of us can say... speaking from the safety of this anonymous Internet forum. I don't see the point of regurgitating the information from his research again in my own words here. I do not have the expertise to personally carry out that research. Maybe you do?

Again that link for anyone interested: Kevin Ryan --http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan--

BTW - Your previous one-sentence-dismissal of Kevin Ryan’s work in a previous post does not even begin to meet you own standards!

Diogenes · 22-01-2007 11:00AM

Flyingfish wrote:

Well... as I said... IMO Kevin Ryan is already doing a great job at that & I admire his courage for doing so... that is something neither of us can say... speaking from the safety of this anonymous Internet forum. I don't see the point of regurgitating the information from his research again in my own words here. I do not have the expertise to personally carry out that research. Maybe you do?

Again that link for anyone interested: Kevin Ryan --http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan--

BTW - Your previous one-sentence-dismissal of Kevin Ryan’s work in a previous post does not even begin to meet you own standards!

Well seeing as the first words out of Ryan's mouth on this video
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s

Is a utter lie, I don't see why I should bother continue.

Furthermore as I understand Kevin Ryan's area of expertise isn't structural steel, nor is the company he worked for;

""UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

" http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...yan22nov04.htm

"Merely being affiliated with a company such as UL does not make one immune to becoming a conspiracy theorist. In any event, Ryan was not directly employed by UL; he was an employee of Environmental Health Laboratories, which is not, as he claimed, a division of UL, but merely affiliated with UL (as many companies are). UL released a public statement saying that they do not certify the steel materials for buildings, and that Ryan was fired for making his absurd and inaccurate comments. No credence should be given to anything Ryan said in his letter. "
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/...up#The_UL_Claim

"Kevin Ryan is not an “expert” in the matters about which he spoke. Kevin Ryan is merely a “chemist” who was employed to study “water” at a division of Underwriter's Laboratories. [This and other easily verified facts ought to be mentioned in any subsequent articles about “loose change”]

Kevin Ryan committed deception and was justifiably fired. Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
“We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.”

Apparently, because it did not suit his DECEPTIVE PURPOSES, Dylan Avery did not bother to look up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is. ASTM E119 does NOT test “steel” nor “steel components” per se as Mr. Ryan had implied. Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance:

“ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:

“• Flame penetration through the wall section;
“• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
“• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.

“Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire.” http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html

The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing. Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested. After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials. [Accordingly, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker stated, "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns, and trusses used in the World Trade Center"] The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
" http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/08-15-06/...ion.cgi.88.html

Your proporting that Kevin Ryan has the expertise to challenge the NIST report is just false.

Furthermore I echo Bonkey's point re videos, I am not bothering to discuss videos anymore. The effort it takes to post a link to video, and the effort it takes to write a long rebuttal are radically different. If you lack the time or will to write a coherant argument yourself, it begs the question; If this event is so important and significant, why cannot you drag yourself away from youtube or google video, to take the time and effort to personnally educate people.

bonkey · 22-01-2007 10:19PM

Flyingfish wrote:

you don't know anything about me so please don't be so rash in passing judgement.

What I know about you is what you've presented here to back u pyour argument. My judgement is based on that. Like all my judgements, its not final.

Fair enough... TBH the issues are so numerous I don't know where to begin.

Oh, just pick one. Just one thats absolutely bullet-proof. Then ideally explain why you posted a load of other points ranging from non-bulletproof to downright incorrect before going for the kill.

I honestly can't understand the logic that suggests "I have a really strong argument, but I choose to present far weaker ones instead".

--The NIST Director reports directly to the president and is also a presidential appointee - potential for conflict of interest if their findings were to implicate the Bush Administration?

The NIST director neither wrote the report, nor has any influence on the myriad of external expert who have since reviewed the work. Casting doubt on the director's independence has no impact on the credibility of the hundreds of contributors to the report, unless you can show there is a credible reason to suggest that the director interfered with their investigation. Can you do this?

Incidentally, do you apply the same "conflict of interest" criticisms to research on the pro-conspiracy side? If you did, then Jones' explanations of how peer reviews are carried out on the works the scholars have produced would immediately disqualify any of those works from being considerable as valid.

--The demolition hypothesis (a reasonable possibility considering the physical evidence and unanswered questions) has NEVER been considered or investigated by NIST – all reasonable options have NOT been considered and any report they may issue is thus incomplete.

Thats incorrect. NIST have commented (in the report, or in the subsequent clarifications they posted sometime in the 2nd half of 2006) that they did consider the demolition hypothesis and explain why they discarded it.

-- Sloppy and unrepresentative experiments (such as the shotgun test for example) with a leaning to the official theory and prior assumptions made by scientists involved (see Kevin Ryan's lecture)

Ryan does what you have done - assert that the tests are sloppy and unrepresentative. Neither he nor you establish why this assertion is accurate. Furthermore, see Diogenes comments regarding Ryan's "expertise".

Again I don't judge NIST / FEMA to be independent sources and as such their finding compromised by default. You do.

No, I don't.

I find their findings to be well-researched, widely accepted by experts in the relevant fields. I find that their work has been only negatively commented on by those who were already opposed to any non-government-condemning findings and who are also not qualified in the relevant fields.

I find criticism of their work to be exactly like what you have offered here - that because you can show there are fewer then 6 degrees of seperation between everyone involved and Dubya, it must be dodgy.

Its a scientific work. It stands or falls on its scientific merits, not on what your (or anyone else's) opinions are of the organisation under who's auspices the work was carried out.

In that case why didn't the UN have Iraqi WMD inspectors in Iraq?

Please don't change the subject. We're not discussing Iraq and WMD weapons inspectors. We're discussing the validity fo the research carried out regarding the events of 911.

AS it happens, the UN did have inspectors in Iraq, headed up by Hans Blix. They reported that they found nothing. This report was dismissed by the US on grounds similar to yours - that they simply rejected the information because they didn't like it. History has shown that the rejection of the UN inspectors' findings was incorrect. If anything, your tangential point only strengthens my case. If you can't fault the research on the research's merits, then you're on shaky ground.

If the demolitions... sorry "collapses" look dodgy / raise questions (freefall speed, buildings turned to dust, molten metal under 3 buildings etc etc) then the US agencies may be compromised no?

If they looked dodgy to people qualified to judge that, I'd agree. The number of qualified people who say it looks dodgy are vastly outnumbered by those who say it looks as expected.

Your Iraq commentary is a perfect example of what happens when we allow non-qualified people to decide what "feels" right. Bush et al decided that the findings of the UN investigators was wrong because they were so damned sure there were weapons there. They had no evidence, no real grounds on which to fault the investigation, nothing. They just hand-waved away the quality of the data, manufactured false claims, claimed false authority, claimed that the most qualified people weren't actually the right people to make the assessment....and were wrong.

Pass the investigation on to an impartial third party.

Such as whom? The NIST report involved a large number of independant third-parties who's only connection to the state was that they were paid by NIST, who in turn received its funding from the state. Unless you're suggesting that there is a private, independent, well-funded organisation with an established track-record of infallible objectivity, you're not going to actually be able to get a more impartial third party.

Even if you did, the work would still be reviewed subsequent to its public release by structural engineers worldwide who want to learn the lessons inherent in the findings. Amazingly, they too must all be partial by your logic, as not one of them has stepped forward to refute or even emaningfully fault the findings. Instead, they've adopted the lessons learned in terms of improving high-rise design.

The will surpress a real investigation of the FACTS at all costs...

FACTS? Does that stand for "Fictional And Convenient Truth Substitutes" perhaps?

Considering the magnitude of 9/11 collapses and the subsequent events I think you're way off on this "call" - are you basing that on any known guideline?

Yes, I am. "the guideline" is known as Occam's razor and its track record shows it to be one of the most successful tools ever employed in the scientific method. Amazingly enough, it doesn't care about the "magnitude" or importance of events. It is a standard approach in all scientific research.

Again.. NIST and FEMA do not count as independent sources in my view and any report they produce is tainted and null as a result.

And again, you're entitled to your view, but so far all you can do is state it as a claim. You can't actually show that there is anything inconsistent or wrong about the report. You just want us to believe there must be because you don't like it or who wrote it.

An international independent technical investigation of the available evidence is required.

No, its not. Not until you can demonstrate the flaws in the existing research.

There is evidence, for example, that the 911 Comission were misled on certain issues by the airforce regarding their reactions, what infmation they received etc. This serves as grounds to re-investigate that particular aspect. It does not, however, suggest that the impact of a plane smacking into the twin towers did not have the effects that hundreds of specialists from dozens of iboth state-run and independant companies using the most complex and advanced modelling system ever used concluded is what happened.

Non-independent, biased or potentially compromised research is by definition fundamentally flawed IMO.

I can only say it so many times - your opinion is only convcincing once you can show the flaws. Saying "it must be flawed because I don't like who did it" shows you're forming your opinion from bias - one of the very criteria you say automatically[/] disqualifies something from being worthy.

I, on the other hand, base my opinion on the level of scrutiny that the work of NIST has been subjected to, and the fact that the only people to mount challenges to it are - practically to a man - unqualified to make such judgements from a scientific perspective.

I don't see the point of regurgitating the information from his research again in my own words here.

And I don't see the point in refuting it if you won't.

I do not have the expertise to personally carry out that research. Maybe you do?

What matters is whether or not you have the expertise to understand and crtique his work. I do have that. If you don't, then you have no basis to say its worthwhile or not. If, like me, you do, then you have the expertise to ""regurgitate" it and also defend it against criticism.

BTW - Your previous one-sentence-dismissal of Kevin Ryan’s work in a previous post does not even begin to meet you own standards!

I already said earlier that I will put the same amount of time and effort into debating a point as the person who is making the claims.

This far, you've simply said that you find the guy convincing, respect him, and aren't going to delve into his arguments. Why does this merit more than one line of a response?

Please don't take my reticence to debate a point that you're not willing to make as an inability to do so. I assure you that it isn't.

Flyingfish · 22-01-2007 10:54PM

Diogenes wrote:

Well seeing as the first words out of Ryan's mouth on this video
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s

Is a utter lie, I don't see why I should bother continue.

Furthermore as I understand Kevin Ryan's area of expertise isn't structural steel, nor is the company he worked for;

""UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

" http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...yan22nov04.htm

"Merely being affiliated with a company such as UL does not make one immune to becoming a conspiracy theorist. In any event, Ryan was not directly employed by UL; he was an employee of Environmental Health Laboratories, which is not, as he claimed, a division of UL, but merely affiliated with UL (as many companies are). UL released a public statement saying that they do not certify the steel materials for buildings, and that Ryan was fired for making his absurd and inaccurate comments. No credence should be given to anything Ryan said in his letter. "
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/...up#The_UL_Claim

"Kevin Ryan is not an “expert” in the matters about which he spoke. Kevin Ryan is merely a “chemist” who was employed to study “water” at a division of Underwriter's Laboratories. [This and other easily verified facts ought to be mentioned in any subsequent articles about “loose change”]

Kevin Ryan committed deception and was justifiably fired. Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
“We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.”

Apparently, because it did not suit his DECEPTIVE PURPOSES, Dylan Avery did not bother to look up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is. ASTM E119 does NOT test “steel” nor “steel components” per se as Mr. Ryan had implied. Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance:

“ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:

“• Flame penetration through the wall section;
“• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
“• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.

“Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire.” http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html

The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing. Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested. After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials. [Accordingly, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker stated, "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns, and trusses used in the World Trade Center"] The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
" http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/08-15-06/...ion.cgi.88.html

Your proporting that Kevin Ryan has the expertise to challenge the NIST report is just false.

Furthermore I echo Bonkey's point re videos, I am not bothering to discuss videos anymore. The effort it takes to post a link to video, and the effort it takes to write a long rebuttal are radically different. If you lack the time or will to write a coherant argument yourself, it begs the question; If this event is so important and significant, why cannot you drag yourself away from youtube or google video, to take the time and effort to personnally educate people.

WOW you got me… congrats it must have taken you a quite a time to write that… right? You could have saved yourself the time...REALLY!

As I've said before on this thread, your missing the big picture. I'm taking the events of 9/11 in the context of the most serious and dangerous period in world history... to date... EVER! I don't have my head buried in the sand (like you) on any one detail of the 9/11 events.
Consider the bigger picture and learn some history while you're at it please. The writing has been on the wall for decades. I'm so sick of people like you! Ignorant fools with appreciation for anything that sounds official and you call yourself "sceptical"! HA! With people like your around, we can all say hello again to LittleBoy and FatMan and meet SkinnyWoman and BigGirl when we're done

If you expect me to take 1 single thing that the US Gov "broadcasts" or "publishes" as some kind of authoritative, objective or trustworthy standard as a measure for the truth or some kind of assurance that all is well with the US, Iraq's oil and the brand known as "The War On Terror" then you are as stupid as you sound! Look at the events following 9/11! IT WAS THE PERFECT PRETEXT I'm sorry I don't want to flame here, really, but I can't take you seriously...I'm sorry I can't. When the "truthers" (Can’t say I’m one either BTW) say, "wake up!!!" they may be talking about something else but as you'll see... where there's smoke there's fire. In relation to those SCEPTICAL of the official story about this. Their fear and response may even seem irrational in the minds of some here...but believe me, you need to pull your head out of your ASS!!!!

Please educate yourself on the reality of the times YOU live in:
---http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6546453033984487696&q=media---

I don't expect you to look at that link and TBH I don't particularly care. For anyone that does watch it... still think that the US Gov or Shadow Gov would not be capable of carrying out 9/11? How can you be so sure? Please show me the "evidence" for that assumption!

I posted this link so maybe there's now a chance that some of those here with an open mind will watch it. They know who they are. To be honest I also feel you probably best not comment on it afterwards or on Google Video for that matter as you have already implied that in some way, Web-published Media is sub-standard material or is not to be taken seriously as apposed to “Real News”. As they say at home "it shows what you know!!!" However you are, luckily for now, entitled to your opinion. But let's be clear, that's all it is!

Come on – wake up and smell the depleted uranium! If I were a cheesy presenter on FOX “News”...would you believe me then or would what I’m saying “resonate” better with you? Or maybe you'd buy any old crap I'm saying if it was published with a government crest on the front? Hmmm? Apologies to others for the rant but I feel better for having got that small point out of the way, I hope you understand!
Don't trip over the elephant on your way out! :eek: :rolleyes:

Sorry you were saying something about ASTM E1 or some other bull**** you have NO more of a clue about than any of us do! Please do go on... it's fascinating....

Best,
FlyingFish

civdef · 22-01-2007 11:35PM

I'll happily admit at this stage that I'm lost - can someone quickly bring me up to speed?

I believe that two aeroplanes crashed into the twin towers, causing impact damage and started fires which ended up in the towers collapsing. I find this entirely plausible, as does pretty much every other engineer I am aware of in the world and the most extensive fire/structural engineering investigation ever conducted into a building collapse.

Why am I (and they) wrong exactly?

Flyingfish · 23-01-2007 12:14AM

civdef wrote:

I'll happily admit at this stage that I'm lost - can someone quickly bring me up to speed?

I believe that two aeroplanes crashed into the twin towers, causing impact damage and started fires which ended up in the towers collapsing. I find this entirely plausible, as does pretty much every other engineer I am aware of in the world and the most extensive fire/structural engineering investigation ever conducted into a building collapse.

Why am I (and they) wrong exactly?

Please at least READ my post above. Don't mistake the engineers silence for agreement by them!

Steyr · 23-01-2007 12:38AM

The Pentagon was hit by a Missile, the Entry point is consistent with that of a small fast object, not an Aircraft, nobody saw a "jet" also one camera from a oil station across from the Pentagon captured the fast object as something small and slek not an Airliner. Also 9/11 must have been "set up" there are 8 United States Military Airfields of the different Groups (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps) littered within the City of New York and the state and i find it amazing that they never launched any Available Aircraft from any of those bases as some Operate F18's,F16's,A-10's,F15's instead they chose to Launch Aircraft ( 2 X F16 Falcons ) from a base some 800Miles away those said Aircraft had to go Supersonic to NY but never got there on time.....also the F16's that did scramble were armed with Inert Sidewinder Missiles, they interviewed the Pilots on Disc channel about it.

civdef · 23-01-2007 09:34AM

Flying Fish - I get the feeling that post above is about the first time in your life you heard of ASTM fire tests. That's the sort of thing I do for a job, yet you feel more qualified to lecture me about it?

You also seem to think the world engineering community is maintaining a silent disagreement withthe NIST findings? You must have great sources. No-one sent me that memo.

Unless you can convince me you're qualified to tell me about what engineers think, I won't be paying too much heed to that, if it's all the same.

Diogenes · 23-01-2007 11:17AM

Flying fish I won't bother to reply to your post as it is little more than a rant. The conspiracy theorist throwing his toys out of the pram equilvent. Once shown how dubious and poorly thought out your argument is, you resort to name calling etc, and start making assumptions that I am someone who just "buys" and swallows fox news. It's quite arrogant, and very tedious.

Steyr wrote:

The Pentagon was hit by a Missile, the Entry point is consistent with that of a small fast object, not an Aircraft, nobody saw a "jet"

Hundred of people saw a jet on the motorway that it passed over before it struct the pentagon. It was a 8 lane highway.

Your claim would be similar and as implausible as someone flying a missile into the red cow in, on busy weekday morning in the middle of rush hour.

The plane also struck lightpoles and damaged a power substation, again how could a small missile do that.

also one camera from a oil station across from the Pentagon captured the fast object as something small and slek not an Airliner. Also 9/11 must have been "set up" there are 8 United States Military Airfields of the different Groups (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps) littered within the City of New York and the state and i find it amazing that they never launched any Available Aircraft from any of those bases as some Operate F18's,F16's,A-10's,F15's instead they chose to Launch Aircraft ( 2 X F16 Falcons ) from a base some 800Miles away those said Aircraft had to go Supersonic to NY but never got there on time.....also the F16's that did scramble were armed with Inert Sidewinder Missiles, they interviewed the Pilots on Disc channel about it.

http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

Educate yourself.

billy the squid · 23-01-2007 11:26AM

Flyingfish wrote:

I'm so sick of people like you! Ignorant fools with appreciation for anything that sounds official and you call yourself "sceptical"! HA! With people like your around, we can all say hello again to LittleBoy and FatMan and meet SkinnyWoman and BigGirl when we're done

Well if you are sick of the people who post here then it is only right and proper that you take a week off.

bonkey · 23-01-2007 12:49PM

Steyr wrote:

The Pentagon was hit by a Missile, the Entry point is consistent with that of a small fast object, not an Aircraft, nobody saw a "jet" also one camera from a oil station across from the Pentagon captured the fast object as something small and slek not an Airliner.

The entry-point is not consistent with that of a small fast object. The damage from composite pictures (because no one shot covered the entire area) taken shortly after the crash (unsurprisingly) shows damage 100% consistent with an aircraft of the size and shape of the one which hit the building.

If you take only one of those pictures, and concentrate on a hole which was caused by an engine (which we can say by placing it relative to the wing-marks and tail-marks on teh walls), then sure, it looks like something small smashed a hole.

Plenty of people saw a jet. In fact, the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses report seeing a jet. There are a small number of eyewitnesses who report not seeing a jet, but given that eyewitness accuracy is nowhere close to 100%, we can safely say that we would expect a small number of vastly-divergent-from-reality recountings of what would happen. However, to give this minority credibility, you'd need to explain why their version is credible but that of the vast majority is not.

Additionally, the tape from the petrol station has been released and most certainly does not show an aircraft. You perhaps mean the tape from the hotel, or the tape from the checkpoint camera's of the pentagon itself. In both cases, the frame-rate and resolution are too low to draw meaningful conclusions.

If one had enough technical specifications of the camera (lens curvature, distance from target, focal length, frame-rate, encoding accuracy, approximate resolution), then it would be possible to estimate what the camera might be expected to have seen.

I've seen some approximations of this technique used. Those supporting the no-plane theory basically go "this is how big a plane that far away should look and here's a picture I took / mocked up in photoshop to prove it". Compare that assertion with the details I've provided above. Indeed, compare those details with what any good photo-stitching software will ask you in order to be able just to match two shots from the same camera.

In short, you're a long, long way from making a case for what you believe to be true.

Also 9/11 must have been "set up" there are 8 United States Military Airfields of the different Groups (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps) littered within the City of New York and the state and i find it amazing that they never launched any Available Aircraft from any of those bases as some Operate F18's,F16's,A-10's,F15's instead they chose to Launch Aircraft ( 2 X F16 Falcons ) from a base some 800Miles away those said Aircraft had to go Supersonic to NY but never got there on time.....also the F16's that did scramble were armed with Inert Sidewinder Missiles, they interviewed the Pilots on Disc channel about it.

Read up on US deployment and readiness status prior to 911. What you'll find is that there were a total of 16 craft maintained for the entire country, using a system which was predominantly outwards looking. Even then, when they say the planes were in a state of readiness, they don't mean that they were fueled, armed, fired up, and the pilot sitting in the ready-room just waiting for the scramble order to dash out to the plane and get into the air. Readiness meant (if memory serves) that they could be in the air within something like 30 minutes. No other planes were typically maintained in such a state of near-readiness and even if they happened to be in that state, the central command would not have been aware of it. We can say, with hindsight, that this policy was negligent (and I believe there is a case to be made to that effect), but its a long-standing, well-established policy. Its something any terrorist could have found out with a bit of research just as easily as it is something that the government would have known they could leverage. In short, the system was open to the vector of attack chosen, but that knowledge wasn't limited to the US government in any way.

Bear also in mind that until it was confirmed that the first plane really did crash into the towers that there would have been little need for urgency. A plane was hijacked...that would have (using the mindset of the day) meant it would be flown to an airport where it would be landed, and then demands would be issued. Even then, the confusion which reigned was unbelievable. Its easy to look back, knowing what we know now, and to forget how much of that information didn't emerge for certain until hours, days, or in some cases months after the days in question. Camera footage of the first tower being hit didn't emerge until the following day, for example.

Bear also in mind that operational regs prior to 911 required that overland military flights remain subsonic. While its easy in hindsight to insist that this should have been thrown out the window, the US miltiary doesn't actually make a habit of simply throwing policy and procedure out the window because they've decided its a good idea on the day.

While there are still questions to be asked about the FAA / Military communications of the day, and there is a case to be made that the investigation should be reopened in this area, it is more because there seems to be too much ass-covering going on rather than a corruption-cover-up. However, even allowing for that, the criticisms which can be laid at the USAF for the day in question are not those that you have offered.

As I have said to others, you have every right to believe what you believe. But if you try to argue that its based on an informed analysis of the established and known facts of the day, then unfortunately you're mistaken.

jc

pH · 23-01-2007 06:01PM

http://www.911truth.ie/plus-emails/plus33.html

Anyone know what the status of RTE's supposed showing of 'Loose Change' is? Has an air date been announced?

Anyone else think that if RTE show this they're stooping to a new low (Did they ever show the Alien Autopsy or Moon Hoax 'docs'?)

I'm totally against censorship in any form, but the fact that some of my license fee is now in these people pockets makes me angry.

If it's shown surely RTE are going to take some heat from the US embassy? Has any European broadcaster already shown it?

bonkey · 23-01-2007 06:35PM

pH wrote:

Anyone else think that if RTE show this they're stooping to a new low (Did they ever show the Alien Autopsy or Moon Hoax 'docs'?)

I can't say for definite, but I'm pretty sure I've seen CT "documentaries" on RTE at some point.

Personally, I think RTE should show it. I don't approve of the idea that some television censor gets to decide whether or not something is factually accurate enough to be shown.

To be honest, the biggest worry that showing something like this should have is "a lot of people are dumb enough to be convinced". Thats not the fault of the producers nor of RTE. Thats the fault of the people.

If it's shown surely RTE are going to take some heat from the US embassy?

Why? Surely such an action would be self-defeating, as it would only lend credence to the "they want to shut the critics up because they have something to hide" line of reasoning?

Diogenes · 23-01-2007 10:13PM

bonkey wrote:

I can't say for definite, but I'm pretty sure I've seen CT "documentaries" on RTE at some point.

Really? any examples you can think of?

Personally, I think RTE should show it. I don't approve of the idea that some television censor gets to decide whether or not something is factually accurate enough to be shown.

I disagree, I've worked on several documentaries for RTE, the commitment to factual accuracy is just the same as any scientific report you've looked at Bonkey. More actually, on any credible news program or factual documentary, context of a quote is considered. Like yourself credible news journalism, and documentary film making must strive to hold itself to a higher standard. By broadcasting a film that the film makers admit has factual inaccuracies RTE wounds the credible film makers on its channel.

To be honest, the biggest worry that showing something like this should have is "a lot of people are dumb enough to be convinced". Thats not the fault of the producers nor of RTE. Thats the fault of the people.

What about the fact that a film being broadcast on a mainstream channel you'll assume the channel, checked the facts?

Personnally I'd be happy if rte broadcast the film with a qualifier, or at the very least a selection of links or even a round table debunking the film at the end of it.

Why? Surely such an action would be self-defeating, as it would only lend credence to the "they want to shut the critics up because they have something to hide" line of reasoning?

If the film is broadcast without critical response it will not be self defeating.

InFront · 24-01-2007 01:34AM

Hi just came across this thread... bonkey mentioned a CT show on RTE, I think I remember that as well... vaguely. I think one programme was about the "Irish crown jewels"? / Order of Saint patrick or something?

Diogenes · 24-01-2007 11:05AM

InFront wrote:

Hi just came across this thread... bonkey mentioned a CT show on RTE, I think I remember that as well... vaguely. I think one programme was about the "Irish crown jewels"? / Order of Saint patrick or something?

The Irish Crown Jewels, similiar to the Casement Diaries, are a type of documentary RTE occasionally air. A speculative historical documentary, examing events.

Importantly these documentaries don't draw conclusions they just state what is know, and leave the final answer in the viewers hands. Loose change isn't such a film, it presents an argument (badly at that) and presents its evidence for such an argument. It makes no pretense at balance, or evenhandely presenting the facts.

More importantly It would be incredible rare and odd for RTE to broadcast a film that contains factual errors, and even the film makers admit that there are factual errors before it is broadcast.

"We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves."
– Korey Rowe, August, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/qruh7

Rowe is the film's producer. Rowe has also admited that he hasn't read the 9/11 Commission report, which he constantly says is completely invalid.

"We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That's the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…. "
-- Dylan Avery on Hardfire. Avery is Loose Change's Director.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

bonkey · 24-01-2007 01:47PM

Diogenes wrote:

Really? any examples you can think of?

I did say that I couldn't say for definite. Bear in mind I haven't lived in Ireland for almost 6 years now.

've worked on several documentaries for RTE, the commitment to factual accuracy is just the same as any scientific report you've looked at Bonkey.

As a producer, I've never suggest otherwise of RTE. As a broadcaster I sincerely doubt they even have the resources to fully check the factual accuracy of every single statement in every single documentary-style program that they broadcast.

As a matter of inerest....have RTE transmitted any of Moore's documentaries?

By broadcasting a film that the film makers admit has factual inaccuracies RTE wounds the credible film makers on its channel.

If you say so. I think it wounds the credibility of the makers of the documentary. I'm not going judge Joe Bloggs because the same channel that broadcast his program also broadcast something by Fred Smith which was inaccurate, especially when Joe Bloggs and Fred SMith have nothing to do with each other, don't share a production team, or anything else.

What about the fact that a film being broadcast on a mainstream channel you'll assume the channel, checked the facts?

YOu might. I don't. I would expect that anything produced by a mainstream channel would at least point out where points are controversial or speculative, but I wouldn't assume that becasue they don't say otherwise that every word is gospel.

Personnally I'd be happy if rte broadcast the film with a qualifier, or at the very least a selection of links or even a round table debunking the film at the end of it.

On this we can agree.

If the film is broadcast without critical response it will not be self defeating.

And? RTEs purpose is not to defeat the aims of the likes of hte producers of 911.

Diogenes · 26-01-2007 10:09AM

bonkey wrote:

I did say that I couldn't say for definite. Bear in mind I haven't lived in Ireland for almost 6 years now.

As a producer, I've never suggest otherwise of RTE. As a broadcaster I sincerely doubt they even have the resources to fully check the factual accuracy of every single statement in every single documentary-style program that they broadcast.

For starts loose change presents itself as a factual investigative documentary. It's presented not as a "documentary style" program, but a documentary, period.

As a matter of inerest....have RTE transmitted any of Moore's documentaries?

Good point. I know both Roger and Me (his best work) and Bowling for, have been shown, and I'd expect Fahrenheit to have been screened.

Where I differ from you is in a matter of context. Moore's films are polemics, agressive rants aganist and for certain subjects. Personal views and bias are laid out, and the resulting facts are then viewed through that prism.

Loose Change doesn't do anything the same. It presents it's "facts" in a clinical precise manner, of a detacted investigative presentation.

In my opinion context matters, and the manner Moore presents his opinion, is wildly different to the manner the loose change jokers do.

If you say so. I think it wounds the credibility of the makers of the documentary. I'm not going judge Joe Bloggs because the same channel that broadcast his program also broadcast something by Fred Smith which was inaccurate, especially when Joe Bloggs and Fred SMith have nothing to do with each other, don't share a production team, or anything else.

Well bonkey, to be honest I think you're smarter than the average bear. (or beer). I think a significant proportion of our countrymen, will assume that because something is on RTE, RTE must endorse it.

YOu might. I don't. I would expect that anything produced by a mainstream channel would at least point out where points are controversial or speculative, but I wouldn't assume that becasue they don't say otherwise that every word is gospel.

Again fair enough. I disagree.

On this we can agree.

How about a massive aston throughout the program, advertising "screw loose change"

And? RTEs purpose is not to defeat the aims of the likes of hte producers of 911.

RTE is a public service broadcaster, part of it's remit to broadcast factual accurate programs.

bonkey · 26-01-2007 11:11AM

Diogenes wrote:

For starts loose change presents itself as a factual investigative documentary. It's presented not as a "documentary style" program, but a documentary, period.

I fail to see the relevance. My point was that saying RTE is a highly credible producer does not suggest that as a broadcaster they should or can apply the same standards.

Where I differ from you is in a matter of context. Moore's films are polemics, agressive rants aganist and for certain subjects. Personal views and bias are laid out, and the resulting facts are then viewed through that prism.

Thats all well and good, but one of those films won an Oscar for Best Documentary. It is therefore unquestionably a documentary and therefore your position says that RTE would not show it without verifying every point about it was accurate.

You now seem to be shifting and saying that its only documentaries that take a certain tone that need to be vetted. Indeed, I'm guessing you won't suggest that RTE independantly verify every claim made by the likes of Attenborough, such as when presents something that his trips to the wild captured <event x> for the first and only time on film.

I know you have a low opinion of LC, and don't mistake my opposign you as disagreement on that point, but the argument you're making for RTEs standards as a broadcaster are simply untenable. They cannot and do not independantly research and verify every claim made in every documentary that they broadcast, nor even every documentary that doesn't sound to you like just another Rage against the Machine.

Loose Change doesn't do anything the same. It presents it's "facts" in a clinical precise manner, of a detacted investigative presentation.

It doesn't matter. Again - one of those documentaries you dismiss as a rant won an Oscar for Best Documentary. While it may be a controversial choice, and cognoscenti may dismiss the Oscar ceremony as not being a terribly laudable standard of quality, the fact is that the public will have been presented a documentary that was awarded the most prestigious high profile accolade that a documentary can.....and you don't have a problem with it.

Well bonkey, to be honest I think you're smarter than the average bear. (or beer). I think a significant proportion of our countrymen, will assume that because something is on RTE, RTE must endorse it.

Mmmmm. Beeeeerrr....

OPh, sorry, where was I. Right...RTE show it == RTE endorse it. Like Ocar-Winning Moore's documentaries.

RTE is a public service broadcaster, part of it's remit to broadcast factual accurate programs.

Show me where that is stated rather than it being an assumption.

Also show me where the same remit says that anything presented as factual must be correct.

Watch a political debate on any news program and you'll see the people on there engaging in everything from spin to downright lies. Now, show me where RTE do follow-ups to establish that what was said was inaccurate. By your argument they're endorsing it by showing it....and they let the lies stand.

As I said...you don't like LC. I don't like LC. Where the difference ultimately lies between us, I guess, is that I don't see gagging as an effective way to expose lies. It only gives scope for cries of oppression, and evidence that the system really is stacked against them (just not for the reasons they may claim).

Let them have their mainstream podium, and instead fight to have their lies exposed, their arguiments rubbished. And when office water-cooler-gossip turns to "did you see that amazing documentary" have a calm, reasoned response ready.

civdef · 26-01-2007 12:22PM

Diogenes, time for you to produce an alternative docuementary, or has anyone else got there already?

(Thinking along the lines of a TV version of the Popular Mechanics article).

Diogenes · 26-01-2007 12:39PM

bonkey wrote:

I fail to see the relevance. My point was that saying RTE is a highly credible producer does not suggest that as a broadcaster they should or can apply the same standards.

Thats all well and good, but one of those films won an Oscar for Best Documentary. It is therefore unquestionably a documentary and therefore your position says that RTE would not show it without verifying every point about it was accurate.

Um Bonkey?

Bowling for Columbine won Moore an Oscar, Fahrenheit 911 didn't.
http://documentaries.about.com/od/awardwinners/a/oscars.htm

Having worked on a variety of documentaries, there a re subtle and not so subtle distinctions between types of documentaries. The generally considered theorist view of documentaries is that they are a creative treatment of actuality.

I mean trimuph of the will is technically a documentary.

Moore's film is what is technically known as docu-ganda. A documentary with an agenda.

Loose change tries to set itself up as straight up fact checked, meticulously accurate film making of the Panarama schol of documentary making.

You now seem to be shifting and saying that its only documentaries that take a certain tone that need to be vetted. Indeed, I'm guessing you won't suggest that RTE independantly verify every claim made by the likes of Attenborough, such as when presents something that his trips to the wild captured <event x> for the first and only time on film.

Again nature films something of a thrill for me. Attenborough would be the first to admit that many of his moments are staged, (particularly the sound,)

For example take a fantastic bit in blue planet. Where they place a whale carcass at the bottom of the sea, and chart it's carcass being devoured and decaying. That had to be staged, because the chances of them coming across such a find would be millions to one. And they admit this in the film.

I know you have a low opinion of LC, and don't mistake my opposign you as disagreement on that point, but the argument you're making for RTEs standards as a broadcaster are simply untenable. They cannot and do not independantly research and verify every claim made in every documentary that they broadcast, nor even every documentary that doesn't sound to you like just another Rage against the Machine.

Which is fair enough, however the whole premise of the documentary is fairly extraordinary. It's a fairly atonishing claim. I don't think it's too much to ask for at least a cursory fact check, before broadcast. I have actually sat in a room with two RTE lawyers for 8 hours, as they combed a documentary they commisioned about Ullysses, searching for dubious content, lest they endured the wraith of Stephen Joyce's solicitors.

I'm not asking for that level of fact checking. However the internet version of loose change, opens, by boasting it hasn't got copyright clearance for most of the footage it contains. Just a cursory look at the facts before paying cash for something.

It doesn't matter. Again - one of those documentaries you dismiss as a rant won an Oscar for Best Documentary. While it may be a controversial choice, and cognoscenti may dismiss the Oscar ceremony as not being a terribly laudable standard of quality, the fact is that the public will have been presented a documentary that was awarded the most prestigious high profile accolade that a documentary can.....and you don't have a problem with it.

Um, small point, already made, it didn't win the Oscar.
And again among the cognisant The Grierson award is the trophy most documentary makers covet.

Mmmmm. Beeeeerrr....

OPh, sorry, where was I. Right...RTE show it == RTE endorse it. Like Ocar-Winning Moore's documentaries.

Show me where that is stated rather than it being an assumption.

Also show me where the same remit says that anything presented as factual must be correct.

http://www.rte.ie/about/programmemakersguidelines.pdf

Note that the law does not define some programmes as public service and others as nonpublic service or commercial. Rather it says that the schedules should meet the test of public service by including broad categories of programmes as described above. Among the important characteristics of public service broadcasting are

Freedom from political control or influence
Fairness
Accuracy
Impartiality
Objectivity
Independence from vested interests

Watch a political debate on any news program and you'll see the people on there engaging in everything from spin to downright lies. Now, show me where RTE do follow-ups to establish that what was said was inaccurate. By your argument they're endorsing it by showing it....and they let the lies stand.

Actually. and I'll never find the link, because it was a live during the divorce referendum, the RTE presenter challenged Justin Barrett, because he was lying.

You'll see that on round table discussion programs all the, factually inaccurate comments are challenged by the moderator.

I see your argument and it's a good and fair one.

As I said...you don't like LC. I don't like LC. Where the difference ultimately lies between us, I guess, is that I don't see gagging as an effective way to expose lies. It only gives scope for cries of oppression, and evidence that the system really is stacked against them (just not for the reasons they may claim).

Let them have their mainstream podium, and instead fight to have their lies exposed, their arguiments rubbished. And when office water-cooler-gossip turns to "did you see that amazing documentary" have a calm, reasoned response ready.

I've sent in a complaint to RTE in it, I've explicitly stated that I don't want to film censored, but I think it should be broadcast with a qualifing statement either before or after it.

Diogenes · 26-01-2007 12:45PM

civdef wrote:

Diogenes, time for you to produce an alternative docuementary, or has anyone else got there already?

(Thinking along the lines of a TV version of the Popular Mechanics article).

Screw Loose Change

Screw 911 Mysteries

pH · 26-01-2007 02:33PM

I really don't want to see the film censored, yet a documentary shown on state TV should be factual, not complete fiction.

If as bonkey claims, RTE should show any documentary, whether or not it has any basis in fact, then documentary making for RTE would be the easiest thing in the world, just make stuff up and film it - "The Irish Scientist who invented the Atomic Bomb" - no problem, a nature-film about wild bears living on the Aran Islands - easy!, breakthrough in cancer treatment pioneered in Galway hospital - yep that too.

What about news items bonkey? Should these be factual and accurate or would you also see no problem with RTE inventing segments for the nine o'clock news?

If you've got to ask yourself why (apart from legal reasons) respectable broadcasters don't engage in this behaviour, then let me answer it - you would quickly get a reputation for broadcasting lies and once the novelty of these docs wore off, you'd have a station that people no longer trusted to provide them with information.

bonkey · 26-01-2007 04:18PM

pH wrote:

If as bonkey claims, RTE should show any documentary, whether or not it has any basis in fact, then documentary making for RTE would be the easiest thing in the world,

Except that bonkey has consistently said that RTE the producer holds to the high standards that Diogenes says.

What I have said is that it is simply not practical for RTE the broadcaster to apply those same standards to everything they broadcast. We can argue over where and how a line should be drawn, but the notion that RTE rigorously investigate every single claim made in documentaries they neither comissioned nor produced directly is simply untenable.

just make stuff up and film it

Which means that the standards I agreed RTE holds to as a producer would be ignored....so I never suggested that.

What about news items bonkey? Should these be factual and accurate or would you also see no problem with RTE inventing segments for the nine o'clock news?

Does RTE produce its own news? Yes, it does. Therefore, this again falls under the standards that I argued apply to RTE as a producer.

Does RTE news take any old items from any old production company around the world and show it? No, it doesn't? Why not? Because as a producer that would be ignoring the high standards it sets itself.

RTE did not produce LC.

My position is that RTE would not show LC as a news item, or as part of any overarching production of its own where LC would be presented as fact. From what you're saying, it appears we agree on this.

However, RTE the broadcaster is not prohibited from showing something just because its factually inaccurate. It is also not prohibited from showing something produced by a third party without doing its own research on the issue.

I've gone so far as to say that I would prefer them not to show it without passing comment about its accuracy. Indeed, I would expect this of RTE, but thats not the issue here.

What I opposed is the notion that RTE would be wrong to show it as a documentary on the grounds that RTEs production unit would never produce something so inaccurate.

This is simply misconstruing the situation - much as you've misconstrued my position.

If you've got to ask yourself why (apart from legal reasons) respectable broadcasters don't engage in this behaviour,

In what behaviour?

I've said that I'd like them to comment before or after showing it on the accuracy.

I've said that I'd like LC to be given a public forum so that it can be publically torn to shreds.

All that I've objected to is the notion that Diogenes was getting angry simply on the knowledge that it could be broadcast at all, suggesting that it has no place on the airwaves. He's since clarified that he thinks it should be shown, in a manner that I've agreed would be the right way to do so....so it would seem that all of this has simply stemmed from a disagreement regarding his original comments that he no longer stands by.

If I were to read your stance as inaccurately as you've read mine I would conclude that you would oppose RTE running a special where they discussed the dishonesty of charlatans producing lies for profit, dishonouring the memory of thousands killed in a disaster and then showed LC, or excerpts from it, as a case in point, showing carefully how the content was so shoddy?

I know thats not the point you're trying to make, so I ask you to consider the full content of what I've said on the issue rather then on the bits which are easy to get offended by when taken out of context and alone. Pay attention to the bit where I agreed with the sentiment that a happy medium would be to show the show with a "rider" before-or-after saying that it

you would quickly get a reputation for broadcasting lies and once the novelty of these docs wore off, you'd have a station that people no longer trusted to provide them with information.

There's no shortage of channels which manage to show oddball stuff without losing any reputation. They either qualify what they're showing, or they establish a "niche market" time-period in their weekly schedule for such sisues.

Again - let me stress - I said I believe it should be shown. Never once did I say that it should be shown on its own, without comment, and I agreed with the sentiment that a happy medium would indeed be to include comment before/after it.

bonkey · 26-01-2007 04:46PM

Diogenes wrote:

Bowling for Columbine won Moore an Oscar, Fahrenheit 911 didn't.
http://documentaries.about.com/od/awardwinners/a/oscars.htm

Yeah. Thats why I said 'one of those films' rather than 'Fahrenheit 911'. Moore engages in an amount of dishonest tactics in Columbine which I would argue RTE would never allow in their own productions - the whole "cold dead hands" issue for one (yes, he said it. No it wasn't at the rally being discussed in the voiceover at the time).

Moore's film is what is technically known as docu-ganda. A documentary with an agenda.

Thats not the point I'm making. RTE screened Columbine. What comment did they pass on its content? And if they didn't, doesn't your argument say that RTE believe the content met their own production standards?

I don't believe RTE would produce a Columbine, let alone a Fahrenheit. But they'll screen them, as documentaries.

Loose change tries to set itself up as straight up fact checked, meticulously accurate film making of the Panarama schol of documentary making.

And nowhere have I suggested that this is how it should be broadcast. All I ever said is that I believe RTE should screen it and that I didn't want someone deciding to censor it from our airwaves.

I have no objection to, and even said I agree with, the sentiment that it should be given a "rider". I feel the same way about numerous things which are shown (notably 'graphic content of a disturbing nature'). I believe they should be shown rather than witheld, but that does not mean I believe they should be shown without comment and nowhere have I suggested that.

Attenborough would be the first to admit that many of his moments are staged, (particularly the sound,)

Yup. But RTE don't comment on this, and to not do so proves that your allegations of their production standards also applying to their broadcasting standards are simply not true. Indeed, if RTE engage in the same practices in their wildlife productions, then your allegations of their standards being as high as scientific levels completely fall apart as they clearly would only not apply in all cases.

For example take a fantastic bit in blue planet. Where they place a whale carcass at the bottom of the sea, and chart it's carcass being devoured and decaying. That had to be staged, because the chances of them coming across such a find would be millions to one. And they admit this in the film.

But thats fine - they admit it. I'm talking about stuff they don't admit. Do RTE check every claim thats not admitted to be false? No, they don't.

And again among the cognisant The Grierson award is the trophy most documentary makers covet.

And among the cognisant, LC is a heap of dog poo anyway. The Oscars are the highest profile....so its no good arguing that "people who know better" know that winning an Oscar for a documentary doesn't say much. People who know better aren't who we're concerned about here.

I've sent in a complaint to RTE in it, I've explicitly stated that I don't want to film censored, but I think it should be broadcast with a qualifing statement either before or after it.

And I agree....as I did the last time you said that this si what you'd like to see. My objection was and remains to any suggestion that they shouldn't broadcast it on grounds that its inaccurate. If there's still copyright issues...fair enough....thats a seperate issue. But if its inaccurate, then transmit it and rip it to pieces.

The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Comments