Most of its claims, while outlandish, seem to actually hold some weight under further scrutiny and investigation. Pretty interesting video if anyone is bored and interested in history and global geopolitics.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM[/media]
Also the film uses Red Alert 2's Hell March song pretty frequently so that alone should be reason to watch a little bit.
[quote][B]Evidence-less/false claims[/B]
1 hour 20 minutes in it makes the claim that Kennedy was unaware of the Bay of Pigs invasion. My research concludes that is not true, however he did cancel the planned airstrikes as the video suggests.
1 hour 31 minutes in it makes the claim that 488th Intelligence Squad controlled half of the Dallas police. I can find very little information on the squad itself due to its covert nature and even less on its composition.
2 Hours and 5 minutes in it claims that J.D. Tippits body was moved from the Dallas Methodist hospital to the Parkland hospital. I can find no source for this claim.
2 hours and 57 minutes in and we get the high quality jet fuel cant melt steal beams.
2 Hours and 59 minutes suggests Operation Gladio was responsible for false flag attacks.
3 Hours in it suggests that men and women interviewed during/right after 9/11 are actually actors. Although he makes an attempt to explain this claim a minute later.
3 Hours 16 minutes in it talks about Securacom doing the security for the towers and that its owned by Bush. However starting in 2000 bush owned 0 shares. [url]http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html[/url]
[/quote]
[quote][B]Claims backed by evidence[/B]
2 Hours and 1 minute in is a testimony from a doctor that treated JFK after being shot. The doctor states he believes the bullet wound in JFKs neck is from the front.
2 Hours and 12 minutes in are two competing testimonies about what JFK's casket looked like being brought into Parkland hospital.
2 Hours and 14 minutes in Commander James Humes testified that he believed the bullet could only enter and exit from the rear. This is true.
"Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
[url]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm[/url]
2 Hours and 44 minutes it is revealed that George Bush Senior was working for the CIA before records show.
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Bush_Sr%2C_JFK_-_J_Edgar_Hoover_memo_2.jpg[/img]
2 Hours and 54 minutes Ted Gunderson, ex-head of the LA FBI, talking about the CIA and Military importing cocaine into the United States.
3 Hours and 2 minutes in it is revealed that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7, 23 minutes before it actually collapsed.
[img]http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/bbc-11sept-wtc7.jpg[/img]
This website [url]http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html[/url] has an hour of BBC footage from the day if you would like to confirm this your self.
[/quote]
Holy shit, 2 hours and 40 minutes in and you learn that almost all the alleged major players in the assassination or anyone that could have been a loose end was murdered.
[t]http://67.media.tumblr.com/010409d3e9659fc0fc1500d2e803ba04/tumblr_mmuiy9lHXm1qckp4qo1_1280.png[/t]
that said, I'll save it for a rainy day.
[quote]3:27:55[/quote]
Directed by Zack Snyder.
Its so long because it covers world history starting at pre WW1 american industrialization and then continues chronologically up to I believe current day. Haven't finished it yet.
you're asking me to watch a 3 and a half hour video about conspiracy theories?
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;51429275]you're asking me to watch a 3 and a half hour video about conspiracy theories?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;51429275]you're asking me to watch a 3 and a half hour video about conspiracy theories?[/QUOTE]
There is a three hour stream of someone [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1542998"]digging a hole.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;51429275]you're asking me to watch a 3 and a half hour video about conspiracy theories?[/QUOTE]
If you want your interested piqued in the topic check out this little article.
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/17/20031017-110534-8149r/[/url]
I had no idea of this connection prior to this film.
[QUOTE]3 Hours and 2 minutes in it is revealed that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7, 23 minutes before it actually collapsed.[/QUOTE]
You don't honestly believe that the media was in all this and had a timetable and KNEW what will happen next.
Slam a plane into a building and watch it all unfold, you don't have to PLAN what the media's next steps are, they just report the chaos that unfolds, it's much easier this way.
Also, as mentioned, it was a lot of chaos. The moment I turned on my TV in 2001, the first report was that a small light aircraft has hit one of the twin towers, nobody knew what was going on.
Of course there are a lot of wrong reports in between that mean nothing in the end.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;51430059]You don't honestly believe that the media was in all this and had a timetable and KNEW what will happen next.
Slam a plane into a building and watch it all unfold, you don't have to PLAN what the media's next steps are, they just report the chaos that unfolds, it's much easier this way.
Also, as mentioned, it was a lot of chaos. The moment I turned on my TV in 2001, the first report was that a small light aircraft has hit one of the twin towers, nobody knew what was going on.
Of course there are a lot of wrong reports in between that mean nothing in the end.[/QUOTE]
If that's what I believed, that's the case I would make. Instead I thought it was a pretty crazy coincidence though.
So this is the fraternity pledging to the Alex-Jones-Frat?
[QUOTE=Jackald;51430392]As always, these crazy conspiracy theories posit the most ludicrous ideas without stopping to think why anyone would bother to do that.
Also, the whole "BBC reporting before it happens" thing is because of technological problems in 2001. The "Live" image you see behind the reporters is actually approximately 30 minutes behind. Normally this doesn't matter, because it's very rare that the live image broadcasted for the studio is actually important enough to be truly live, and there are usually more important cameras that take priority.
Also, occam's razor; the simplest explanation is usually right. Which is more plausible, that the US government colluded with all media entities operating in New York, gave them a timetable of events, absolutely nobody in the hundreds of people that would have known objected to the wholesale slaughter of thousands of americans, a plane was controlled by the FBI, which put all the passengers in witness protection, fabricated recordings from on the plane, and then exploded thermite charges at exactly the same time that the plane collided into the building, and also made sure that the whole thing happened at exactly the right moment.
OR
Some terrorists hijacked a plane due to lax security.
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
Conspiracy theories are very interesting from a psychological standpoint. Basically they simultaneously let people feel superior to others and any refutation of the theory stands to strengthen the argument.
I'd encourage anyone who believes in conspiracy theories to take a look at this journal summary from The Open University about it: [url]http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/psychological-studies/the-psychology-conspiracy-theories[/url][/QUOTE]
Dismissing conspiracy theories out right is as foolish as believing any conspiracy theory out right.
We don't find out about a lot of things until after they happen. We are not always told the truth.
Gulf of Tonkin: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident[/url]
Operation Mockingbird: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird[/url]
Operation Northwoods: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods[/url]
Manhattan Project: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project[/url]
Watergate: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal[/url]
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jackald;51430392]As always, these crazy conspiracy theories posit the most ludicrous ideas without stopping to think why anyone would bother to do that.
Also, the whole "BBC reporting before it happens" thing is because of technological problems in 2001. The "Live" image you see behind the reporters is actually approximately 30 minutes behind. Normally this doesn't matter, because it's very rare that the live image broadcasted for the studio is actually important enough to be truly live, and there are usually more important cameras that take priority.
[/QUOTE]
As well
[quote]
[B]Questions prompted by the report include: How do we know what the correct time of the broadcast footage is? and How do we know that the imagery behind Jane Standley is live?[/B]
It is unlikely that the real times estimated above are off by more than a minute. The mpeg files are located in directories on archive.org with names that encode times down to the minute. For example, the directory name bbc200109111654-1736 encodes the time range 4:54 - 5:36 PM. No part of the 41-minute recording that contains the report shows a digital clock, but other recordings do, and suggest that the encoding of times into directory names is as meticulously accurate as the set of recordings is complete. For example, an NBC broadcast recording with the directory name nbc200109110954-1036, encoding the time range 9:54 - 10:35 AM, shows a clock with minutes and seconds. It displays a time of 10:20 starting at 25:34 in the recording, putting the start of the recording at 9:54:26 AM.[/quote]
The difference between those operations, and what this video proposes is literally massive beyond the scope of control and feasibility
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51431786]The difference between those operations, and what this video proposes is literally massive beyond the scope of control and feasibility[/QUOTE]
Which is why I try to dissect it piece by piece. As I state in the OP, a lot of its claims are outlandish. However some of its claims are shockingly true and one does not invalidate or validate the other.
Pshh
This is better
[video=youtube;UrJGlXEs8nI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI&t=2s[/video]
Probably
[QUOTE=Viper_;51431826]Pshh
This is better
[video=youtube;UrJGlXEs8nI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI&t=2s[/video]
Probably[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen it, thanks for sharing. I'll check this one out down the road. I do appreciate that the title of it is not so polarizing as the video I am attempting to share currently.
[QUOTE=Jackald;51432018]If they were true, they would be facts not claims.[/QUOTE]
Don't play word games with me.
[quote]Claims of Fact. (existence of something/definition or classification/facts -- inferences about past present or future)
Types of factual claims (generally "objective")
Factual / historical
Relational - causal connections
Predictive[/quote]
[url]http://department.monm.edu/cata/mcgaan/classes/cata335/o-claims.335.html[/url]
Especially when you aren't even right.
[QUOTE=Jackald;51432035]Ok, but riddle me this: Why would you need to tell the media you're gonna collapse a skyscraper? What possible benefit would telling them ahead of time give you if you want to orchestrate a disaster?[/QUOTE]
As far as I can come up with there is no reason. I'm not suggesting anyone told the media what was going to happen. I simply was trying to fact check the content provided by the film. The film does try to suggest that the BBC or other media "tells lies on behalf of the ruling class" but I think they do so unwittingly (at times) as pawns in a rich mans game.
Do you understand the logistics of any of this?
Do you understand that if as many people knew about this event as you're claiming, that the potential leaks would be massive, and the consequences disasterous? Like none of this makes logical 1+1=2 sense.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51432075]Do you understand the logistics of any of this?
Do you understand that if as many people knew about this event as you're claiming, that the potential leaks would be massive, and the consequences disasterous? Like none of this makes logical 1+1=2 sense.[/QUOTE]
Who am I claiming knew about the event? I assume you are referring to 9/11?
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
There's a lot more to this documentary then 9/11. The movie does not bring up 9/11 until 2 hours and 56 minutes in.
It sounds like when you posted this you did so with the intent to dismiss any dissent rather than listen to counterarguments.
I don't think anyone's inclined to watch this feature-length film at their own displeasure if you're not willing to discuss the content of it.
[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;51432827]It sounds like when you posted this you did so with the intent to dismiss any dissent rather than listen to counterarguments.
I don't think anyone's inclined to watch this feature-length film at their own displeasure if you're not willing to discuss the content of it.[/QUOTE]
I legitimately shared it because I was an hour into it, wanted to discuss some of it, and was amazed at what points it was making. No more no less.
I've had to defend just posting it on multiple occasions and am now doing the same to you. Please show me how I am just dismissing all dissent?
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
I started the documentary not sure at all what to expect. Hell, look at my section for claims without evidence, it begins before the section for claims with evidence! I point out 7 inconsistencies and 6 parts backed by evidence and I am here to just dismiss people?
The video basically says "jet fuel can't melt steel beams", says the film Loose Change is conclusive proof etc. Shit that has been refuted over and over. Are you seriously coming forward with this old crap? Come on man.
[QUOTE=KlaseR;51432874]The video basically says "jet fuel can't melt steel beams", says the film Loose Change is conclusive proof etc. Shit that has been refuted over and over. Are you seriously coming forward with this old crap? Come on man.[/QUOTE]
Yet again, the video doesn't once mention 9/11 until 2 hours and 56 minutes in.
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
Please, I even heard the jet fuel cant melt steel beams and immediately added it to the false section. To be honest I think this documentary could have done without the twenty minutes in spends on 9/11.
Nobody's going to watch a 3 and a half hour documentary, if there's an interesting claim in there with some evidence you think is worth people taking a look, give us a timestamp. Otherwise fuck that, even a really good movie would get grating after 3 and a half hours.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51432901]Nobody's going to watch a 3 and a half hour documentary, if there's an interesting claim in there with some evidence you think is worth people taking a look, give us a timestamp. Otherwise fuck that, even a really good movie would get grating after 3 and a half hours.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if the content I have shared is not up your alley. If you don't appreciate it, there's no need to comment and bumb it back up to the top. I however, did watch the entire thing while pausing to fact check and enjoyed myself. I didn't gobble it up and believe it all. Even claims that have some supporting evidence I am wary on.
3 hours and 27 minutes long documentary about conspiracies in the world, and not one mention of the Paul McCartney cover up.
I think I found the greatest conspiracy of all.
It's no secret that money = power, but shadow government, USA president complete puppet and 9/11 inside job are pushing it too far. I haven't seen the whole video of course, but it seems like just another conspiritard thing rather than something serious presenting valid information.
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;51432914]3 hours and 27 minutes long documentary about conspiracies in the world, and not one mention of the Paul McCartney cover up.
I think I found the greatest conspiracy of all.[/QUOTE]
Paul McCartney cover up? Never heard of it, are you referring to this?
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead[/url]
Funny.
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51432901]Nobody's going to watch a 3 and a half hour documentary, if there's an interesting claim in there with some evidence you think is worth people taking a look, give us a timestamp. Otherwise fuck that, even a really good movie would get grating after 3 and a half hours.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a timestamp but I believe it is an interesting speech (shown in the documentary) that highlights what the first 2 hours are about.
[video=youtube;AjCGpBUCOOM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjCGpBUCOOM[/video]
[QUOTE=KlaseR;51432918]It's no secret that money = power, but shadow government, USA president complete puppet and 9/11 inside job are pushing it too far. I haven't seen the whole video of course, but it seems like just another conspiritard thing rather than something serious presenting valid information.[/QUOTE]
Its been about a year since i've seen it so its not fresh in my mind, but every bit of its rationale is as flawed as the sources it cites. Its yet another conspiratorial video that sells itself by claiming to be information that "people don't want you to hear".
MadPro, this video doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.