| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
 Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
If you are questioning TV Fakery you must be referring to something you already believe to be true, the media footage and official story.
Are you suggesting that the media footage puts forward a professional coherent credible case, enough for you to believe it?
You do have a position and do endorse the media footage as you are using that footage as the basis for criticising TV Fakery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | If you are questioning TV Fakery you must be referring to something you already believe to be true, the media footage and official story.
Are you suggesting that the media footage puts forward a professional coherent credible case, enough for you to believe it?
You do have a position and do endorse the media footage as you are using that footage as the basis for criticising TV Fakery. |
What a bizarre argument.
The argument implies that if you believe that footage broadcast from, say, Iraq was not physically faked (green screened, CGI tanks whatever) you therefore automatically believe what the media tells you about Iraq.
You can apply the same about any footage the media shows you about anything.
The argument fails to acknowledge there is a difference between visual images displayed and the narrative that accompanies them.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
.............. |
where'd you come from?
As there was no question in your post i can only ask you,
"do you believe the official story of hijacked planes hitting the towers?"
from this point i can reply to you any question you ask me.
If you wish to pop into any philosophy forum or create another thread here to discuss reality, materialism, internalisation, discourse, hyper-reality, simulacra, subjectivity, i will participate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | | If you are questioning TV Fakery you must be referring to something you already believe to be true, the media footage and official story. |
Morning. No that's not true as I tried explain before. For me the way I look at all the different theories or scenarios is to weigh them in the balance and conclude that the probablity that X is true is Y%. These percentages might change as new evidence comes to light. I rarely deal with absolutes.
Whilst I am intrigued by the latest Fred you tube presentation it leaves many questions unanswered. For me to accept TV fakery 100% I would need to 100% confident that I could also explain the holes in the side of the building, the fireball, the eyewitness accounts, etc.. I'm not
| zark wrote: |
Are you suggesting that the media footage puts forward a professional coherent credible case, enough for you to believe it?
|
No, but that is different from accepting TV fakery
| zark wrote: | | You do have a position and do endorse the media footage as you are using that footage as the basis for criticising TV Fakery. |
Doh, as I said before we strategy is to disprove the official story, so obviously I start with the evidence that officialdom puts forward including its media coverage. That does not mean I endorse it.
It's like SG's work on flight data does not endorse or accept that a plane hit the pentagon, It is just that it starts the official mdata. Again what is so difficult to understand about that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Probably best discussed in the moderators area Tony, but how exactly do you propose to bring an end to this 'nonsense'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: |
.............. |
where'd you come from?
As there was no question in your post i can only ask you,
"do you believe the official story of hijacked planes hitting the towers?"
from this point i can reply to you any question you ask me.
If you wish to pop into any philosophy forum or create another thread here to discuss reality, materialism, internalisation, discourse, hyper-reality, simulacra, subjectivity, i will participate. |
Strangely enough, there is generally no requirement that a post should contain a question, so I am perplexed as to why the lack of one in my post confuses you so greatly.
The point I made was a point of logic which is generally of paramount importance in philosophy, but I fail to see how it is inherently connected to Foucault, Baudrillard or any other theories or their primary advocates. It was a statement rather than a question - the implication being you could choose to agree, disagree or clarify your original meaning further if you felt my interpretation was inaccurate.
Since, in your reply, you do not wish to answer it, but feel compelled to ask a different question I will attempt to respond:
You refer to the 'official story of hijacked planes hitting the towers' - I find the 'official story' in terms of the narrative outlined in 911 commission report to be highly questionable in many respects. In that regard, I do not subscribe to the 'official story'. I do, at this time, believe aircraft struck the towers. Whether or not these aircraft were specifically flight 11 and flight 175 (and that these had been hijacked) I really do not know. Even should I decide they were, this would not mean I believed the 'official story' - if you subscribe to LIHOP, this stands in stark contrast to the 'official story'.
So, unless you believe that only if you regard all of the tv footage from the day as fake do you not believe the 'official story' (a viewpoint I find to be rather strange), I do not believe the 'official story'. I do not, however, claim to know exactly what the 'truth' of the mater is.
What I would ask you is this - if all of the footage is fake and no planes hit the towers, why is it than none of the thousands of people in New York on the day (particularly as the second plane hit when people's attention was generally aimed at the towers) stated that there was blatantly no plane to be seen?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: |
| zark wrote: |
Are you suggesting that the media footage puts forward a professional coherent credible case, enough for you to believe it?
|
No, but that is different from accepting TV fakery
|
ermmmmm ?????????
So you suggest that the media footage isnt credible which is exactly what TV Fakery is saying.
There is no need to proceed onto 'no planes', the initial point is that the media footage is not credible.
| Quote: | | For me to accept TV fakery 100% I would need to 100% confident that I could also explain the holes in the side of the building, the fireball, the eyewitness accounts, etc.. I'm not |
Wow!
Holes in the side of the building? What holes?
The fireball? what fireball?
TV Fakery.
The eyewitness accounts are interesting but are a completely separate issue to TV Fakery.
You are mashing together TV Fakery and 'no planes'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I give up zark. It's like conversing with a particularly dim witted child.
At the end of the day I don't care what you think about what I think. My primary purpose on this thread is to rebut any suggestion that this forum censors TV fakery and no planes theories.
Yes in my mind the two aspects of the evidence (TV fakery and no planes theories) are connected. Are you saying they are not?
I'm saying the media both on the day and ever since has failed to give me a coherent credible explantion of the events I saw. That is not the same as accepting they used blue screen technology and TV fakery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm saying the media both on the day and ever since has failed to give me a coherent credible explantion of the events I saw |
what you saw is being exposed as fake.
| Quote: | | That is not the same as accepting they used blue screen technology and TV fakery |
Why do you continually link two separate things?
TV Fakery AND no planes
explanation AND expose' of fake footage
| Quote: | | My primary purpose on this thread is to rebut any suggestion that this forum censors TV fakery and no planes theories |
You have placed Freds video into 'controversies' on this forum
911 truth movement continues to censor 'tv fakery'
You actively criticise TV Fakery as being unsubstantiated or incomplete based upon 'what you saw'.
What exactly did you see on 9/11?
What exactly do you mentally refer to when making a personal judgment about TV Fakery?
You see, the censorship is not just of other people. The psychological warfare that occurred on 9/11 has been internalised and one is actively censoring oneself.
its a bit complicated but i can explain it.
So there is;
1) website censorship of TV Fakery through use of separate forums
2) censorship of TV Fakery by the 911 Truth Movement with its scumbag cult leaders directing the naive
3) self-censorship of TV Fakery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zark,
Explain how putting a topic in 9/11 Controversies is censoring it?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
did 9/11 even happen?
is all the media footage faked?
why not just film the actual event?
or was it only certain parts of the event that was fake?
and i agree the fakes are being exposed, ive very aware of the fakes but not in the way you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 1) website censorship of TV Fakery through use of separate forums |
You reckon there should be only one?
| Quote: | | 2) censorship of TV Fakery by the 911 Truth Movement with its scumbag cult leaders directing the naive |
You naming names here? Got any evidence? Or is this just general paranoia? Is it possible to disagree with you and not be a "scumbag cult leader"? Is it possible, in fact, that you are ever wrong? Heck, hows omnipotent divinity working out for you?
| Quote: | | 3) self-censorship of TV Fakery |
Is that nu-think for "not accepting the sloppy poorly reasoned unsourced non-peer reviewed material I proslytise and call "research"?"
What a joke. BTW, as well as the battery park photo being exposed as a fake, 19 Rictor Street has been found again, you'll be pleased to know: both Fred and Killtown are "on the run" from refuting that one
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. How do we know that what someone has posted on YouTube or Google Video is original footage, when it could be some third-, fourth, etc generation video file that got digitally manipulated somewhere along the way by some prankster or - more seriously - by some cointelpro disinformation agent intent on causing confusion and misdirection? Indeed, how do we know 9/11 forum spammers who make dodgy claims about their dodgy videos are not such people?
Answer: we don't. Remain vigilant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
| Quote: | | 2) censorship of TV Fakery by the 911 Truth Movement with its scumbag cult leaders directing the naive |
You naming names here? Got any evidence? Or is this just general paranoia? Is it possible to disagree with you and not be a "scumbag cult leader"? Is it possible, in fact, that you are ever wrong? Heck, hows omnipotent divinity working out for you?
| Quote: | | 3) self-censorship of TV Fakery |
Is that nu-think for "not accepting the sloppy poorly reasoned unsourced non-peer reviewed material I proslytise and call "research"?"
|
2) dont pretend to be ignorant.
3) you accept the media footage on 9/11 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | did 9/11 even happen? |
aside from the disappearance of 2 big buildings and the murder of thousands of people, to your knowledge what did happen?
You write '9/11' as if it has a set definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | I agree. How do we know that what someone has posted on YouTube or Google Video is original footage, when it could be some third-, fourth, etc generation video file that got digitally manipulated somewhere along the way by some prankster or - more seriously - by some cointelpro disinformation agent intent on causing confusion and misdirection? Indeed, how do we know 9/11 forum spammers who make dodgy claims about their dodgy videos are not such people? |
and the hijacked planes hitting the buildings?
If you are a 'thinkers' forum. Think.
How do you know hijacked planes hit the buildings?
You are still censoring yourself from thinking about everything you were told and saw on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is getting like Life of Brian!
| Quote: | If you are a 'thinkers' forum. Think.
How do you know hijacked planes hit the buildings? |
How do you know they did not?
| Quote: | | 3) you accept the media footage on 9/11 |
I don't accept wishfull thinking, squinting at a low res clip or footage manipulated since 9/11 as proof that I should not, nor a smorgasboard of blended maybe's berift of facts as having any value for campaigners
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | This is getting like Life of Brian!
| Quote: | If you are a 'thinkers' forum. Think.
How do you know hijacked planes hit the buildings? |
How do you know they did not? |
What hijacked planes?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 3) you accept the media footage on 9/11 |
I don't accept wishfull thinking, squinting at a low res clip or footage manipulated since 9/11 as proof that I should not, nor a smorgasboard of blended maybe's berift of facts as having any value for campaigners |
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html
Blah blah blah, John. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911 a past gone mad
Minor Poster
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | | John White wrote: | This is getting like Life of Brian!
| Quote: | If you are a 'thinkers' forum. Think.
How do you know hijacked planes hit the buildings? |
How do you know they did not? |
What hijacked planes?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 3) you accept the media footage on 9/11 |
I don't accept wishfull thinking, squinting at a low res clip or footage manipulated since 9/11 as proof that I should not, nor a smorgasboard of blended maybe's berift of facts as having any value for campaigners |
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html
Blah blah blah, John. |
Oh no, John White thinks the planes may have been hijacked now. 
_________________
Steven Elvis Jones leads the way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
