Pertaining to this link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/250207Conspiracy.htm
More Prison Planet? Do you guys read anything else? Talk about media brainwashing - if you get all of your info from just one source that has a very clear agenda and bias, how can you feel that your knowledge base and opinions aren't directly under their influence?
Look, first of all the article is basically just rundown of the fact that they don't agree with anything in the documentary that suggests there isn't a conspiracy. Excuse me, but could they be anymore whiny? Did they expect it to be a mouthpiece for all of Alex Jones' ideas? Of course not, that would be a sili thing to expect, but Prison Planey felt compelled to right about it anway, which I assume is because they need to write about anything 9/11 conspiracy related in order to drum up material.
From the description in the article, it sounds like the documentary gave a lot more credence to conspiracy ideas than most things - although it tended to advocate the type that iwant8inches describe, which are far more legitimate claims than "controlled demolition" type muck, which is so easy to disprove that it probably wasn't of much interest to the filmmakers.
One of the many inept and stupid points in the article: The author complains that just before the title credits the screen card reads "The theories are only theories and are not proven to be true" or something to that effect. He feels this is a final slight against conspiracists and unfair.
Uh, actually, the whole point of a theory is that we don't know it to be true, it's just our best and most agreed upon explanation according to the evidence. For 9/11, the conspiracy theories aren't the best, most cohesive, or most agreed upon explanations, so they're actually being generous by describing them as theories.
and this one: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260207_bbc_bldg7.html
What a suprise, more stuff from Alex Jones! I'm shocked, really.
First of all, I can't seem to view the clip, and I don't understand why they don't stable link it. Regardless, there's no time on the clips, so I'd like to see it for myself. That being said, if the clip gets removed it will be because of copyright infringement, which BBC usually doesn't pursue, not because of some sinister intention.
Alex Jones is fairly clever like that: there's a possiblity the clip may not stick around on the internet, so why not suggest to your readers that this could be 'part of the conspiracy.' That way, if the clip does get removed for any reason whatsoever, you look brilliant and the idea of a conspiracy is enforced to your fans - if it's not removed, no har no foul. You've got repsect that level of insight on how to work your fan base.
"Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot."
Uh, yeah, liked I said, "the source claims." Funny how this is just cropping up now anways, but what I'd really like to confirm is if that's WT7 back there. I have no idea what it looks like from that distance and angle. The conspiracists have been wrong about dumber stuff than this.
"The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure."
Hey, I agree. Here's one interesting question - why the hell would some BBC America correspondent be given advance information about our government's murderous conspiracy to blow up the towers, and then be so ravingly stupid as to report the buildings collapse when it's standing right behind her? Anybody want to take a stab at that one? Doesn't make a ton of sense.
Alex Jones and his kind are having to turn to sili stuff like this because the physics and old evidence they used to try and pass off has been disproved time and again. They're left with more news footage from the day, where in this case they actually suggest that a reporter would be given advance knowledge of the collapse for absolutely no reason, and is then so stupid that she jumps the gun on the rest of the news media (are they in on it as well? that was some fine acting when they saw the buildings come down in that case) by ten minutes despite the fact that nobody else was reporting anything. To the average person, this is a very sili proposition - the conspiracist, it's a eureka moment. Grasping at straws is more like it.
"The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!"
Just wanted to include the ad, which is feature several times embedded in the article. Alex Jones sure is a crusader for truth alright (and his own bank account). Hey, if the guy is such a saint, why not just take donations to pay for the website, or confirm that he donates all his profits to 9/11 families or something? Face it guys, he's making money off selling people the conspiracy info you crave.
"As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse"
Yeah, three freakin' hours before the building came down - and tons of members of the NYFD have gone on record as stating that there was widespread belief amongst firefighters that had seen the building up close that the thing was going to collapse hours before it came down. If Alex Jones still believes that there was some kind of 'order' given because of the explosives, then all these men are liars. But whatever, he's just rehashing old points to add a few more paragraphs to the article (probably to distract from the lameness of the BBC reporter story).
"Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse."
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard (okay not the dumbest, but it's up there). Let's humor the article here: so the government knows the buildings are going to come down, and since it's happening in the heart of the financial capital of the planet and cultural capital of America, it is reasonable to assume that there will be news coverage. But, for some unknown reason, they decide to "leak" the news that WT7 is going to collapse, despite the fact that hundreds of news networks are filming all around it and many have predicted hours earlier that the building will come down because it was so heavily damaged and burning so intensely.
Once again, this make absolutely zero sense. What is the point of leaking it? Conspiracists don't know, and they don't care. They don't need rational explanations to believe what they do.
I'm still waiting for anybody to explain to me the full story of the conspiracy and exactly how everything before and after 9/11 went down. Doesn't need to be a novel, just sort of a walkthrough of everything you believe went on would suffice.
More Prison Planet? Do you guys read anything else? Talk about media brainwashing - if you get all of your info from just one source that has a very clear agenda and bias, how can you feel that your knowledge base and opinions aren't directly under their influence?
Look, first of all the article is basically just rundown of the fact that they don't agree with anything in the documentary that suggests there isn't a conspiracy. Excuse me, but could they be anymore whiny? Did they expect it to be a mouthpiece for all of Alex Jones' ideas? Of course not, that would be a sili thing to expect, but Prison Planey felt compelled to right about it anway, which I assume is because they need to write about anything 9/11 conspiracy related in order to drum up material.
From the description in the article, it sounds like the documentary gave a lot more credence to conspiracy ideas than most things - although it tended to advocate the type that iwant8inches describe, which are far more legitimate claims than "controlled demolition" type muck, which is so easy to disprove that it probably wasn't of much interest to the filmmakers.
One of the many inept and stupid points in the article: The author complains that just before the title credits the screen card reads "The theories are only theories and are not proven to be true" or something to that effect. He feels this is a final slight against conspiracists and unfair.
Uh, actually, the whole point of a theory is that we don't know it to be true, it's just our best and most agreed upon explanation according to the evidence. For 9/11, the conspiracy theories aren't the best, most cohesive, or most agreed upon explanations, so they're actually being generous by describing them as theories.
and this one: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260207_bbc_bldg7.html
What a suprise, more stuff from Alex Jones! I'm shocked, really.
First of all, I can't seem to view the clip, and I don't understand why they don't stable link it. Regardless, there's no time on the clips, so I'd like to see it for myself. That being said, if the clip gets removed it will be because of copyright infringement, which BBC usually doesn't pursue, not because of some sinister intention.
Alex Jones is fairly clever like that: there's a possiblity the clip may not stick around on the internet, so why not suggest to your readers that this could be 'part of the conspiracy.' That way, if the clip does get removed for any reason whatsoever, you look brilliant and the idea of a conspiracy is enforced to your fans - if it's not removed, no har no foul. You've got repsect that level of insight on how to work your fan base.
"Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot."
Uh, yeah, liked I said, "the source claims." Funny how this is just cropping up now anways, but what I'd really like to confirm is if that's WT7 back there. I have no idea what it looks like from that distance and angle. The conspiracists have been wrong about dumber stuff than this.
"The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure."
Hey, I agree. Here's one interesting question - why the hell would some BBC America correspondent be given advance information about our government's murderous conspiracy to blow up the towers, and then be so ravingly stupid as to report the buildings collapse when it's standing right behind her? Anybody want to take a stab at that one? Doesn't make a ton of sense.
Alex Jones and his kind are having to turn to sili stuff like this because the physics and old evidence they used to try and pass off has been disproved time and again. They're left with more news footage from the day, where in this case they actually suggest that a reporter would be given advance knowledge of the collapse for absolutely no reason, and is then so stupid that she jumps the gun on the rest of the news media (are they in on it as well? that was some fine acting when they saw the buildings come down in that case) by ten minutes despite the fact that nobody else was reporting anything. To the average person, this is a very sili proposition - the conspiracist, it's a eureka moment. Grasping at straws is more like it.
"The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!"
Just wanted to include the ad, which is feature several times embedded in the article. Alex Jones sure is a crusader for truth alright (and his own bank account). Hey, if the guy is such a saint, why not just take donations to pay for the website, or confirm that he donates all his profits to 9/11 families or something? Face it guys, he's making money off selling people the conspiracy info you crave.
"As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse"
Yeah, three freakin' hours before the building came down - and tons of members of the NYFD have gone on record as stating that there was widespread belief amongst firefighters that had seen the building up close that the thing was going to collapse hours before it came down. If Alex Jones still believes that there was some kind of 'order' given because of the explosives, then all these men are liars. But whatever, he's just rehashing old points to add a few more paragraphs to the article (probably to distract from the lameness of the BBC reporter story).
"Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse."
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard (okay not the dumbest, but it's up there). Let's humor the article here: so the government knows the buildings are going to come down, and since it's happening in the heart of the financial capital of the planet and cultural capital of America, it is reasonable to assume that there will be news coverage. But, for some unknown reason, they decide to "leak" the news that WT7 is going to collapse, despite the fact that hundreds of news networks are filming all around it and many have predicted hours earlier that the building will come down because it was so heavily damaged and burning so intensely.
Once again, this make absolutely zero sense. What is the point of leaking it? Conspiracists don't know, and they don't care. They don't need rational explanations to believe what they do.
I'm still waiting for anybody to explain to me the full story of the conspiracy and exactly how everything before and after 9/11 went down. Doesn't need to be a novel, just sort of a walkthrough of everything you believe went on would suffice.