9/11 as a case study of the pointlessness of activism in this day and age

[kendoiwan]

This line of thought stems from the beef in greece thread where the whole notion of rioting/uprising was poo-pooed and uncilvilized and counter-productive. I asked how effective has civil disobedence been in the last 3 or 4 decades? I never really got a satifactory response. Then I stumbled across this bit about Bill Maher and the media in general poo-pooing people who raise the issue of 9/11 truth. What strikes me the most are the parts where you see people protesting being dismissed by the men who get paid to sit in front of the camera. I thought freedom of speech was fundamental to the values of this place <_< LNsSn6D3CP4

Seems to me if you're not the guy/gal sitting in front of the camera you're opinion counts for little these days, and you never get to be the guy/gal in front of the camera unless your opinion is acceptable...

[MadamI'madaM]

Word.

I am fucking sick of Bill Maher preaching as a prophet of the "free thinking".

[lowtech redneck]

Freedom of speech is not violated by public derision.

As for civil disobedience, that's a fairly extreme means of protest-its almost always more effective to work through the system in liberal democracies. Protest takes many forms, and is best channeled through democratic means of opposition.

[Anonymous]

I think that 9/11 conspiracies are bullshit, but I agree that Bill Mahr can be a dick.

[Promethean]

I think that 9/11 conspiracies are bullshit, but I agree that Bill Mahr can be a dick.

Yeah, the conspiracy theory that a guy in a cave in Afganistan orchestrated a plan for a handful of zeolots with box cutters who couldn't fly to take over four airliners (and defeat the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, which incidentaly failed to respond appropriately for the first time ever four times in one day) and smash them into three buildings, two of which defied the laws of physics and just fell down while encouraging a nearby building to fall down the same way from shear sympathy is total bullshit.



I agree.

[kendoiwan]

Freedom of speech is not violated by public derision.

As for civil disobedience, that's a fairly extreme means of protest-its almost always more effective to work through the system in liberal democracies. Protest takes many forms, and is best channeled through democratic means of opposition.

Not violated, just seriously undermined. When you have Geraldo telling these people "get a life" it has an implication whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

And again I ask you to what ends has any of the protest regarding 9/11 truth come to? There have been countless movies, articles, pop stars, politicians, experts, rallies etc. All kinds of people in all kinds of ways shining a light saying this doesn't add up, something needs to be done. Yet to date they haven't even released the 84 videos of the plane hitting the pentagon. Let alone open another investigation.

By the time they do, if and when, all the people who had anything to do with it, or anything to hide will be dead and buried ala JFK. Show me the efficacy you keep referring to. :mellow:

pow5_UYKaJ8

He said it best...


I think that 9/11 conspiracies are bullshit, but I agree that Bill Mahr can be a dick.

Bullshit based on what exactly? There are plenty of unanswered questions. Legit questions. If those questions were answered there would be no need for theories now would there?

Edit:
Yeah, the conspiracy theory that a guy in a cave in Afganistan orchestrated a plan for a handful of zeolots with box cutters who couldn't fly to take over four airliners (and defeat the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, which incidentaly failed to respond appropriately for the first time ever four times in one day) and smash them into three buildings, two of which defied the laws of physics and just fell down while encouraging a nearby building to fall down the same way from shear sympathy is total bullshit.



I agree.

Err. What (s)he said...

[Anonymous]

Sorry guys, arguing about conspiracy theories is pretty low on my list of things I want to do, I just wanted to voice my agreement in that Bill Mahr can be a dick. Although I wouldn't say it's an issue of freedom of speech, as there aren't any laws preventing people from dissenting about what happened during 9/11.

[kendoiwan]

Sorry guys, arguing about conspiracy theories is pretty low on my list of things I want to do, I just wanted to voice my agreement in that Bill Mahr can be a dick. Although I wouldn't say it's an issue of freedom of speech, as there aren't any laws preventing people from dissenting about what happened during 9/11.

Reading is fundamental. A: The argument isn't whether or not the theories are true (although I doubt you could cite anything to the negative that holds any water) The argument is about how pointless all the "protest" regarding it was in this day and age. The media said it was nothing to look into and the public (sheep) followed the leader. B: As for the free speech component, reading is still fundamental...

[lowtech redneck]

Not violated, just seriously undermined.

No, their right to speak is not undermined, just the percieved validity of their positions. And guess what? Undermining the validity of positions you disagree with or think are batshit insane is also an aspect of free speech. Freedom of speech does not obligate others to take what you say seriously, or to refrain from mocking what are percieved to be crackpot positions.

As for the 9/11 Truth protesters, their efforts have come to nothing because they can't convince people they are being anything but stupid on this issue.

[foodeater]

When the population increases, the minority has to be much more vocal to make any kind of impact (or grow larger). This conspiracy has already spread pretty far, I think, compared to others. 36&#37; (I think) in a poll Mahr cited? Not bad for such a big, patriotism inducing event.

[Promethean]

Sorry guys, arguing about conspiracy theories is pretty low on my list of things I want to do, I just wanted to voice my agreement in that Bill Mahr can be a dick. Although I wouldn't say it's an issue of freedom of speech, as there aren't any laws preventing people from dissenting about what happened during 9/11.

I was merely trying to point out that the official story is in fact a conspiracy, and a bad one at that. Not one single shred of evidence supports it and almost everything from eye witness testimony, to metalurgy points to alternate explanations.

You don't have to have a better idea or conspiracy theory, to show that another is completely bat shit loco.

[Oso Mocoso]

Bullshit based on what exactly?

They've been thoroughly debunked.


There are plenty of unanswered questions. Legit questions.

Like what? Have you seen Loose Change? I know it's not the only movie in the 9-11 conspiracy pack, but I thought they did a good job of summarizing the major arguments. There's another version edited together where commentors go through and laboriously debunk each point that Loose Change raises and show how all of their questions have been answered.

Also, Loose Change did a great deal of deceptive editing of the interviews they conducted. Many of the people interviewed in that film say they disagree with the point of view they seem to be representing in that film. Many of them were confused eyewitnesses who were interviewed just after the events of the day. Later on they realized their early conclusions were wrong.


If those questions were answered there would be no need for theories now would there?

If the theorists seemed interested in actually learning the answers to their questions, they could find them. The problem is that the real answers to the questions are not as exciting as the possibilities raised by the questions.

[Promethean]

As for the 9/11 Truth protesters, their efforts have come to nothing because they can't convince people they are being anything but stupid on this issue.

Actually there is not one person I know that has taken a serious look into the facts surrounding 9/11 that still believes the official account. That doesn't mean they believe Bush or Aliens or anything else did it, they just know they are being lied to.

9/11 protesters efforts have come to little because the government is not afraid of them yet. Governments don't give a crap about anything that can't directly threaten them. When people replace posters with guns, things may change.

[kendoiwan]

No, their right to speak is not undermined, just the percieved validity of their positions. And guess what? Undermining the validity of positions you disagree with or think are batshit insane is also an aspect of free speech. Freedom of speech does not obligate others to take what you say seriously, or to refrain from mocking what are percieved to be crackpot positions.

As for the 9/11 Truth protesters, their efforts have come to nothing because they can't convince people they are being anything but stupid on this issue.

Yes and his method of undermining is by using a logical fallacy that the average american view is incapable of seeing through. Hence if Geraldo a guy who gets paid to stand in front of the camera, and by extention viewed as credible says these people need to "get a life" without actually offering an argument... You seem like a bright fellow you should follow where this is going.


When the population increases, the minority has to be much more vocal to make any kind of impact (or grow larger). This conspiracy has already spread pretty far, I think, compared to others. 36&#37; (I think) in a poll Mahr cited? Not bad for such a big, patriotism inducing event.


So much for the failure to convince people argument. Elections are decided by a smaller portion of the population than 36%:theclap:

[Oso Mocoso]

Yeah, the conspiracy theory that a billionaire in a capitol city in Afghanistan orchestrated a plan for a handful of zealots with box cutters who took flying lessons to take over four airliners (and defeat a sophisticated air defense system, which was poorly prepared to deal with this specific threat, and reluctant to shoot down civilian aircraft loaded with innocents and smash them into three buildings, two of which fell down while causing a nearby building to fall down the same way from being on fire is plausible compared to the alternative scenarios.

FYP.

[kendoiwan]

They've been thoroughly debunked.



Like what? Have you seen Loose Change? I know it's not the only movie in the 9-11 conspiracy pack, but I thought they did a good job of summarizing the major arguments. There's another version edited together where commentors go through and laboriously debunk each point that Loose Change raises and show how all of their questions have been answered.

Also, Loose Change did a great deal of deceptive editing of the interviews they conducted. Many of the people interviewed in that film say they disagree with the point of view they seem to be representing in that film. Many of them were confused eyewitnesses who were interviewed just after the events of the day. Later on they realized their early conclusions were wrong.



If the theorists seemed interested in actually learning the answers to their questions, they could find them. The problem is that the real answers to the questions are not as exciting as the possibilities raised by the questions.


http://www.archive.org/details/dn2006-0911_vid

they pwned Popular Mechanics

Edit: But I digress. This isn't the point of the thread. The point is plenty of people not name Oso made and are still making a ruckus about this and it has amounted to bumpkus

[Wise Fool]

i like the part where Martin Sheen talks of the immensity of the meaning behind considering 9/11 as an inside job. For people who choose to make themselves into patriots, this can be seen as running counter their own subjective sensibilities.

[Promethean]

Isn't the NIST report cute. Government reports on non-investigations are cuddly and make great Christmans presents for children.


FYP.

No you corrupted my post. I'd appreciated if you put something there to make sure no one thought I actually said that.

Read something other than popular mechanics that article was terrible. None of my information comes from movies like Loose Change. I actually became convinced after reading extremely lengthy and detailed physics papers about the collapse. I had to break out my textbooks and TI-89 and spent quite a while following along. I've yet to find anything from the official side using what looks to be real objective science and certainly no scientific discussion. It's all just assertions and statements and ridicule.

But, I digress, K is right about this not being what his post was about though. I agree with the OP.

[Chunes]

As for civil disobedience, that's a fairly extreme means of protest-its almost always more effective to work through the system in liberal democracies.

:thelook:

[Ivy]

I don't think protesting is automatically looked down on. But because something is being said in a protest doesn't automatically make it valid or well thought out or true or anything. I think some people have an idealized notion of protest and civil disobedience that leads to an automatic preference for anything that is being put forth through protest and civil disobedience.

[Oso Mocoso]

I didn't corrupt your post, I made it fall more in line with actual facts. If you wish to distance yourself from that, you've stated your position twice now.


Read something other than popular mechanics that article was terrible.

But it was a lot better than anything I've seen from the 9-11 theorist side of things.


None of my information comes from movies like Loose Change. I actually became convinced after reading extremely lengthy and detailed physics papers about the collapse.

Such as? Loose Change actually cites some "lengthy and detailed papers about the collapse" in their bibliography. They've all been debunked, of course, but they are lengthy and detailed.

Have you studied how thoroughly that movie got its ass torn out by the scientific community? Really, in the Loose Change debunking effort people went above and beyond the call of duty. Skeptic magazine devoted an issue to it as well.


I had to break out my textbooks and TI-89 and spent quite a while following along. I've yet to find anything from the official side using what looks to be real objective science and certainly no scientific discussion.

I'm sure you haven't come across real objective science from the official side. Somehow that fact isn't lending credibility to your opinion like you had hoped it would.


It's all just assertions and statements and ridicule.

There's a lot of assertions and ridicule out there because frankly it's a ridiculous collection of positions that you're talking about. There's a lot of half-assed journalism and "What about THIS? Huh?" questions that have already been answered.

If you have a respectable source to bring forward, name it.


But, I digress, K is right about this not being what his post was about though. I agree with the OP.

Yeah, the 9-11 conspiracy people are pretty goddamn useless. I don't think that says anything about the effectiveness of protest in our modern era, but it speaks volumes about that particular protest. It's about as effective as a herd of nearsighted dodos.

[doob]

As for civil disobedience, that's a fairly extreme means of protest-its almost always more effective to work through the system in liberal democracies. Protest takes many forms, and is best channeled through democratic means of opposition.

I don't know any social movement that has made progress without civil disobedience. I don't any that has made progress without violence (including the Indian Independence Movement). Give me some clues.

The point of the anti Iraq invasion protests (there is little point in calling it a war) was to inform "John and Jane Q. Public" the invasion was based on lies. The protestors were correct. It's not the fault of the protestors it took too long for the U.S. public and mass media to catch up.


If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground...
Frederick Douglas

I can't know what happened on 9/11. I do think if there weren't any conspiracies the U.S. Government is very seriously inept.

[Oso Mocoso]

they pwned Popular Mechanics

Actually, if you watched that video and that was your conclusion you're extremely ignorant about the topic they're discussing. If I give you a few hours worth of reading on this topic, would you look at it? People who are well educated generally look at this same footage and draw the precise opposite conclusion from yours.

FYI, Amy Goodman is an extremely biased source of poor credibility. This debate was about as poorly moderated as it could have been if her intent was to provide a balanced debate.

[MadamI'madaM]

The worst thing about a potential 9/11 conspiracy is that it doesn't even require that the use of bombs be required.

Religious zealots are a simple bunch.

They munch down half a Big Lie with a full glass of bullshit every morning for breakfast.

The fact that they were supposedly lead by Bin Laden only thickens the plot.

[Promethean]

I'm done here, there is no point continuing. I'm not going to convince you, and you probably havn't done enough research to convince me.

Here is a decent site, from architects and engineers. http://www.ae911truth.org/ Somewhere connected to this site or on it used to be a series of thermodynamic physics papers with detailed math showing how there were staggering amounts of unaccounted for energy in the collapse. If I find those papers I'll post them. I can't find any papers detailed in physics like that showing how the energy CAN be accounted for. It hasn't been tried on the official side as far as I know. Since there was no real investigation, only an attempt to explain how the buildings collapsed it was never really considered that it may not be possible without extra energy.

Anyway, peace. If you have any articles that take energy into account and can explain and balance the end equations I'll read them. Maybe I would find them more convincing.

[MadamI'madaM]

If I give you a few hours worth of reading on this topic, would you look at it?

I will.

I haven't drunk the koolaid quite yet, and I find physics kind of interesting.

[Promethean]

This is one of the articles I was looking for.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

Here is the main site.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

I havn't found information like this from any other source on either side.
If there are comporable arguments that show these to be incorrect I would appreciate seeing them.
Unlike most people, if you can show me, I will admit I'm wrong. I don't care about being right, I just want to know the truth.

[lowtech redneck]

:thelook:

What? Ostentatiously breaking the law to bring attention to something is rarely productive or advisable. People who peacefully protest are not engaging in civil disobedience. The only issues I can think of over the past few decades where such a campaign was both warranted and productive was segregation and the draft. A major purpose of liberal democratic systems is to provide a mechanism through which opposition and change may occur without destructive violence and societal disfunction, and essentially whining that not enough people take your pet issues seriously enough to effect significant change in a desired direction does not qualify as a conclusive damnation of "the system."

[bluebell]

But because something is being said in a protest doesn't automatically make it valid or well thought out or true or anything.

QFT

Also, the 'where there's smoke, there's fire' line of thinking can often be flawed as well.

[kendoiwan]

Actually, if you watched that video and that was your conclusion you're extremely ignorant about the topic they're discussing. If I give you a few hours worth of reading on this topic, would you look at it? People who are well educated generally look at this same footage and draw the precise opposite conclusion from yours.

FYI, Amy Goodman is an extremely biased source of poor credibility. This debate was about as poorly moderated as it could have been if her intent was to provide a balanced debate.

Amy Goodman has little to do with my viewpoint. Her moderation was no different than what we find in our presidental debates i.e. giving both sides an opportunity to air their points in the given amount of time. I don't recall seeing your "Why the Presidential debates are a joke" thread.

That said, here are just a couple of the points the Popular Mechanics guys out and out didn't address that raise my "extremely ignorant" eyebrow. The report of the fireman at the WTC, who's name I don't recall, who heard an explosion before the plane hit. The report of the woman at the pentagon, who's name I also don't recall, who climbed out of the impact site and said she saw no plane. Also without writing a book, the discrediting of the engineer because he worked in the water dept of his organization doesn't hold water with me, no pun intended. The science that he raised was valid if he worked in the cake dept. If the melting temp of steel is over 2000 degrees it's over 2000 degrees. If they used a special steel in the building was supposed to have higher melting point it was supposed to have a higher melting point. Those are just some of the legitimate questions that I've yet to hear answered. So if you can provide answers to them my "extremely ignorant" self would certainly take the time to look into it.



I'm done here, there is no point continuing. I'm not going to convince you, and you probably havn't done enough research to convince me.

Here is a decent site, from architects and engineers. http://www.ae911truth.org/ Somewhere connected to this site or on it used to be a series of thermodynamic physics papers with detailed math showing how there were staggering amounts of unaccounted for energy in the collapse. If I find those papers I'll post them. I can't find any papers detailed in physics like that showing how the energy CAN be accounted for. It hasn't been tried on the official side as far as I know. Since there was no real investigation, only an attempt to explain how the buildings collapsed it was never really considered that it may not be possible without extra energy.

Anyway, peace. If you have any articles that take energy into account and can explain and balance the end equations I'll read them. Maybe I would find them more convincing.


This is one of the articles I was looking for.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

Here is the main site.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

I havn't found information like this from any other source on either side.
If there are comporable arguments that show these to be incorrect I would appreciate seeing them.
Unlike most people, if you can show me, I will admit I'm wrong. I don't care about being right, I just want to know the truth.

:worthy: Facts and examples versus assertions of facts and examples refreshing :worthy:

[OrionzRevenge]

9/11 as a case study of the pointlessness of activism, was not pointless at all.

The Point, was to accuse the republican administration of this horror as cause belle for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Point, was to negate the surge McCain received in the polls when the surge worked in Iraq.

You guys crack me up with your Totally Biased underground videos and websites. PBS’s FRONTLINE did a really great and REALLY credible episode on the 9/11 truth allegations. I think Oso must have seen it too.

Anyways, Obama will sit in the Oval Office on 1/20/09, and he has a commanding majority in congress. This is the time for the 9/11 truth-ees to demand an Investigation.

…something tells me that’s not going to happen.
:):):)

[pocohauntus]

…something tells me that’s not going to happen.
:):):)

What, a little birdy?

[kendoiwan]

9/11 as a case study of the pointlessness of activism, was not pointless at all.

The Point, was to accuse the republican administration of this horror as cause belle for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Point, was to negate the surge McCain received in the polls when the surge worked in Iraq.

You guys crack me up with your Totally Biased underground videos and websites. PBS&#226;€™s FRONTLINE did a really great and REALLY credible episode on the 9/11 truth allegations. I think Oso must have seen it too.

Anyways, Obama will sit in the Oval Office on 1/20/09, and he has a commanding majority in congress. This is the time for the 9/11 truth-ees to demand an Investigation.

&#226;€&#166;something tells me that&#226;€™s not going to happen.
:):):)


Care to share the name of the episode or the airing date or maybe a link to it? I'm on the Frontline website now, have gone through their archieves dating back to 2001 and can find no such episode. There's one about Cheney in the bunker on that day, there's one about people mourning and questioning their religious beliefs, there's one about what to build on the WTC site, don't see anything of the nature you describe.

Also what does Obama have to do with anything? And what does McCain's poll numbers have to do with any of this? The 9/11 Truth business has been going on, well since 9/11 happened... :blink:

[OrionzRevenge]

Care to share the name of the episode or the airing date or maybe a link to it? I'm on the Frontline website now, have gone through their archieves dating back to 2001 and can find no such episode. There's one about Cheney in the bunker on that day, there's one about people mourning and questioning their religious beliefs, there's one about what to build on the WTC site, don't see anything of the nature you describe.


You'er right, it was actually the History Channel "9/11 Conspiracies, The: Fact or Fiction" When I searched YouTube, all I found was a shit pile of rebuttle homebaked videos like the one in the OP. I confused it with the Frontline Episode where the FBI agent was talking about how he had given pre-warning.




Also what does Obama have to do with anything? And what does McCain's poll numbers have to do with any of this?

Oh come on now, You can't see how Obama benifited from Alligations that the republicans orcastrated 9/11???????? Or that the celebs cited in your video are also outspoken proponents of Obama????

[kendoiwan]

You'er right, it was actually the History Channel "9/11 Conspiracies, The: Fact or Fiction" When I searched YouTube, all I found was a shit pile of rebuttle homebaked videos like the one in the OP. I confused it with the Frontline Episode where the FBI agent was talking about how he had given pre-warning.




Oh come on now, You can't see how Obama benifited from Alligations that the republicans orcastrated 9/11???????? Or that the celebs cited in your video are also outspoken proponents of Obama????

Hmmm. History Channel wants 25 bucks for it... The synopsis says that it's based on the Popular Mechanics article at any rate...

Obama may or may not have benefited from it (although I don't recall the 9/11 truthers being a factor in the election in the least bit) but the movement existed before Obama's candidacy. By your logic Kerry should've won in 04 as many of Obama's supporters where also his...

Edit: try this on for size (seems I can't talk about one without the other so) rW6Oez7pag0

This is one of 13 FYI if you care to look into it further his name is Richard Gage

[C.J.Woolf]

I think some people have an idealized notion of protest and civil disobedience that leads to an automatic preference for anything that is being put forth through protest and civil disobedience.
It goes with an attitude that the Establishment is always wrong. It's often wrong, but an Establishment that is always wrong doesn't remain the Establishment for long.

[OrionzRevenge]

Hmmm. History Channel wants 25 bucks for it... The synopsis says that it's based on the Popular Mechanics article at any rate...

Obama may or may not have benefited from it (although I don't recall the 9/11 truthers being a factor in the election in the least bit) but the movement existed before Obama's candidacy. By your logic Kerry should've won in 04 as many of Obama's supporters where also his...

Edit: try this on for size (seems I can't talk about one without the other so) rW6Oez7pag0

This is one of 13 FYI if you care to look into it further his name is Richard Gage

Yeah, History Channel wants 25 bucks... I wonder how many bucks Richard Gage makes for these little chats???

LOL, Kerry Apparently can't win his way out of a wet paper bag no matter who tries to help.

As per a Controlled Demolition of the WTC:
=)) =)) =)) =))

CD's require that the charges be placed perfectly (shaped charges require the metal cones to perfectly face the steel you want to cut.) and perfectly timed.

Now the one thing that can't be revised is the fact that Jet Airliners hit the Nort and South towers at certain locations. So too, That just so happens to be the levels at which the Towers first gave way and started to pancake from. >>>> we all saw it.... the exact level were it gave way for both towers.

Thus, the expert suicidal CIA pilots would have to have hit at the exact level required to carry the conspiracy...AND
None of the charges would have to be disrupted or pre-mature detonate in the OBVIOUS Fires at that level?????????????
=)) =)) =)) =))

[kendoiwan]

Yeah, History Channel wants 25 bucks... I wonder how many bucks Richard Gage makes for these little chats???

LOL, Kerry Apparently can't win his way out of a wet paper bag no matter who tries to help.

As per a Controlled Demolition of the WTC:
=)) =)) =)) =))

CD's require that the charges be placed perfectly (shaped charges require the metal cones to perfectly face the steel you want to cut.) and perfectly timed.

Now the one thing that can't be revised is the fact that Jet Airliners hit the Nort and South towers at certain locations. So too, That just so happens to be the levels at which the Towers first gave way and started to pancake from. >>>> we all saw it.... the exact level were it gave way for both towers.

Thus, the expert suicidal CIA pilots would have to have hit at the exact level required to carry the conspiracy...AND
None of the charges would have to be disrupted or pre-mature detonate in the OBVIOUS Fires at that level?????????????
=)) =)) =)) =))


Who knows if he makes anything? What I do know is I have complete access to it free of charge unlike the History Channel show...

and as for your =)) as you obviously can't be bothered to watch all 13 parts


lAQvUyi7s3s
QMcJ9EZbX50

So let me think... This is a toughy

[OrionzRevenge]

and as for your =)) as you obviously can't be bothered to watch all 13 parts


LOL, I seen quite enough, but thank You!
:) :) :)

[augi55]

Great music to end the video. Fuckin love Rage. Could have chose a better song by them though.

Bill Maher is a prick.

9/11 is just like pearl harbor. The government was fully informed of the events that were going to unfold (most likely helped) but didn't do anything about it so that they would have a reason/public backing to go to war.

Zeitgeist is a good movie. Online for free at zeitgeistmovie.com. Only seen the first one, the ending is a little ridiculous, but still very good and makes you think.

That is interesting that one part in the OP video when they point out that normal crime investigations go into motives and whatnot, yet most people only know what happened and that's about it. Bin laden had people hijack our planes with box cutters and they all flew their respective planes into random buildings and fields. It's almost comical if you step back and look at it: Government knew the dumb Americans would buy it (along with the rest of the world), so they set up for a few office buildings to come down (killing thousands), blow up one side of a government building to make the Americans feel sure it was an act of war against our government, then say there was another plane heading for the white house but LUCKILY crashed in a random field (where no debris, bodies, luggage, anything was reported being found) before reaching it's destination. Then blame it on some cave-dwellers halfway across the world, be sure the word "terror" is a common household word to keep the general public scared, and BOOM!... you got yourself a war.

Yup, I am proud to be an American.

[doob]

It goes with an attitude that the Establishment is always wrong. It's often wrong, but an Establishment that is always wrong doesn't remain the Establishment for long.

The subjective perception of "right" or "wrong" has little to do with longevity. The "establishment" that maintains it's power and influence over it's denizens is key to longevity.


I don't think protesting is automatically looked down on. But because something is being said in a protest doesn't automatically make it valid or well thought out or true or anything. I think some people have an idealized notion of protest and civil disobedience that leads to an automatic preference for anything that is being put forth through protest and civil disobedience.

QFT

Also, the 'where there's smoke, there's fire' line of thinking can often be flawed as well.

I don't know any protests against or for 9/11, and I live in protest central, the San Francisco Bay Area. The protests were against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The primary message in those protests was the rational for invading those countries was flawed or not true, no matter what you thought of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. There were splinter groups at those protest with their own platform, their messages were not necessarily embraced by the protest organizers. Usually the organizers or the articulate participants were not interviewed by the media. When absorbing any information it is always wise separate the wheat from the chaff. I think you'll find throughout U.S. history protest(ors) are usually not taken seriously initially.


What? Ostentatiously breaking the law to bring attention to something is rarely productive or advisable. People who peacefully protest are not engaging in civil disobedience. The only issues I can think of over the past few decades where such a campaign was both warranted and productive was segregation and the draft. A major purpose of liberal democratic systems is to provide a mechanism through which opposition and change may occur without destructive violence and societal disfunction, and essentially whining that not enough people take your pet issues seriously enough to effect significant change in a desired direction does not qualify as a conclusive damnation of "the system."

Enlighten me, name those social movements where completely non-disruptive and/or non-violent "peaceful" protest were effective. I'm assuming you're stating the anti-vietnam war and civil rights movement were disruptive and often violent.