If Conspiracy Theories are so prevalent...

andrew

Then why didn't the Americans / British just plant some wmd's in Iraq and have everyone love them for going in?

Compared to theories on 9/11 i'd say it would have been pretty easy to pull off.

Nick_oliveri

Ask Oliver Stone !

"It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11."

He added: "It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others.

"Mr Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

In political terms 9/11 is a WMD!

The guys from Massive Attack put it another way.

"Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber, fear is a weapon of mass destuction!"

So basically, there didnt need to be any WMD's in Iraq. But if there was, it would have been the icing on the cake.

bonkey

Its hard to take a man like Stone seriously when he criticises the world for being in the thrall of an event like 911, whilst simultaneously releasing a film about exactly that event.

""It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others."

Indeed Oliver...and thats why you made a movie about such things and called it World Trade Center.

Then why didn't the Americans / British just plant some wmd's in Iraq and have everyone love them for going in?

Takinga wild stab at this one....they didn't plant anything because they didnt need to. What makes you think public opinion is worth anything?

Compared to theories on 9/11 i'd say it would have been pretty easy to pull off.

Compared to the alternate theories of what happened on 911, there would have been easier ways to achieve any objective than what was done.

andrew

bonkey wrote:

Takinga wild stab at this one....they didn't plant anything because they didnt need to. What makes you think public opinion is worth anything?

Well, had WMD's been found, then there would've been justification for the war. People, instead of saying that it is just a war for oil (as they're saying now) would completely agree with the war. All this anti war stuff troubling america and turning forigen opinion against it - gone. The main problrm people have with america is that they believe that the war was unjustified. Public opinion does have value, think about it. People will now remember Bush as an idiot who went on a needless war. Because of this, the republicans probably lost some support in America. The war has given people infinate ammo for shooting the Bush administration (and the Rep party) with.

All i'm saying is that planting WMD's would've saved the Bush admin alot of trouble. Its not unconcieveable that they should have attempted to do something like this. But they didn't. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, there are no conspiricys, the americans don't plan conspiricys and trying to find conspiricys where there are none is just a waste of time!

mike65

On the wrong forum with those thoughts!

Mike.

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

Its hard to take a man like Stone seriously when he criticises the world for being in the thrall of an event like 911, whilst simultaneously releasing a film about exactly that event.

""It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others."

Indeed Oliver...and thats why you made a movie about such things and called it World Trade Center.

This is true. I thought that also upon (finishing) posting. I heard there are controversial elements in the film itself. I cant remember where i heard it though.

andrew wrote:

Public opinion does have value, think about it. People will now remember Bush as an idiot who went on a needless war.

Why did he get reelected then? A lot of people completly agree with this man.

bonkey

andrew wrote:

Well, had WMD's been found, then there would've been justification for the war.

Bush is still in power. America is still in Iraq.

What would they have needed justtification for?

People, instead of saying that it is just a war for oil (as they're saying now) would completely agree with the war.

Enough Americans did agree with the war to allow the Republicans win several elections in the meantime, including the second-term of the Bush Presidency.

What would they have needed more for? Do you think Dubya has sleepless nights about all those liberals in Old Europe or US coastal cities who think he's done a terrible job or something that he needs popular support?

The main problrm people have with america is that they believe that the war was unjustified.

Nope. They think its all gone to pot and the time to go is coming or has already arrived. They might think in retrospect that they'd have been better off never going there, but thats not why they think its time to go.

Public opinion does have value,

Only for the issues the public is led to focus on coming to an election.

Because of this, the republicans probably lost some support in America.

4 years ago, in the 2002 Senate elections, the Republians gained 2 seats and took the majority from the Democrats.

2 years ago, in the 2004 Presidential election, the Republican candidate (Bush) was elected to a second term of Presidency. Unlike in 2000, he won the popular vote whilst doing this.

This year, while a lot of noise is being made about this years' Senate elections, it is far from clear whether or not the Democrats can wrest back control.

The war has given people infinate ammo for shooting the Bush administration (and the Rep party) with.

And yet, hithertofore, they've chosen to shoot widely, or with blanks. Regardless, the only ammo they really have is that the war has gone badly, not that the war was unjstified. The public don't care about an argument thats so old and now irrelevant. The war happened. The US is in Iraq.

If it was all going swimmingly, and Iraq was a great holiday resort for US troops on what would be only-nominally active duty, the US public would be delighted. They wouldn't be listening to anyone saying the US should have left Saddam in power rather than rescuing Iraq.

But it didn't go swimmingly. Its a disaster and this is what, if anything, will be remembered. Even if it was all justified, the public would still be saying "look, we needed to go in there, agreed, but its all gone to hell in a handbasket and we don't need to be there any more".

Indeed, by not planting and finding WMDs, the US government avoided the possibility of such a find being used as a "mission accomplished....you/we can leave now" by some faction. By making their real purpose to be some fluffily-defined mission of mercy, they copper-fastened their ability to stay.

All i'm saying is that planting WMD's would've saved the Bush admin alot of trouble.

They've run non-stop since 911 making decisions that have had their disapprovers practically apoplectic. One less issue wasn't going to change that, especially when you consider that through it all, they've still turned it into gains at every election thus far....and WMDs being found wouldn't change matter for the coming election at this point.

OK, sure, maybe Bush would have won by more in the 2004 election had WMDs been found...but so what? He won. He's still in power.

Its not unconcieveable that they should have attempted to do something like this. But they didn't. Why?

Because the risk of being caught was greater than any potential reward, if there was any reward at all.

Because maybe, just maybe, there are no conspiricys, the americans don't plan conspiricys and trying to find conspiricys where there are none is just a waste of time!

There are plenty of conspiracies.

StunnedSurvivor

andrew wrote:

Then why didn't the Americans / British just plant some wmd's in Iraq and have everyone love them for going in?

Compared to theories on 9/11 i'd say it would have been pretty easy to pull off.

That is an excellent question, and it's what kept me from from believeing any of the theories for over 6 months. I read all the websites in early '04, but I read them more like a tom clancy type of thing.

Too damn risky I thought, if they wanted a war surely there were less risky/suicidal means of going about it. Then I heard about peak oil, and fell down the rabbithole.

Here's a new documentary on the subject which might give you some perspective, or maybe not. Either way, it's up to you

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7946373613537938266&hl=en

Ghost Rider

Let me first put my cards on the table and admit that I'm a close personal friend of the director/producer of "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors".

That said, while I don't necessarily agree with everything asserted in the film, I highly recommend a viewing of it to anyone interested in the subjects of 9/11 and/or the geopolitics of oil. It puts bold questions to a number of authoritative interviewees, including former British and German cabinet ministers, and gets quite disturbing answers. It's also an extremely well constructed, concise film which has production values of the highest order.

To my mind, it is the best expression of a particular point of view that I've seen in documentary form.

StunnedSurvivor wrote:

That is an excellent question, and it's what kept me from from believeing any of the theories for over 6 months. I read all the websites in early '04, but I read them more like a tom clancy type of thing.

Too damn risky I thought, if they wanted a war surely there were less risky/suicidal means of going about it. Then I heard about peak oil, and fell down the rabbithole.

Here's a new documentary on the subject which might give you some perspective, or maybe not. Either way, it's up to you

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7946373613537938266&hl=en

bonkey

Let me guess...

If i ask what this particular perspective or point of view is, you'll simply exhort me further to watch the film because it does a far better job of describing it than you could.

Ghost Rider

Who is that addressed to?

bonkey wrote:

Let me guess...

If i ask what this particular perspective or point of view is, you'll simply exhort me further to watch the film because it does a far better job of describing it than you could.

bonkey

Both of you. Either of you. Someone else.

I don't care, frankly.

stunnedSurvivor has 3 posts to his name, 2 of which are exhorting people to watch this video because its apparently convincing on some "perspective" it has to do with oil.

You've also chimed in, saying its quite good on the "particular point of view": it takes, which is something to do with oil and 911.

I'll take you slightly more seriously than SS, because you have more than 3 posts, and less than 2/3 of your posts have been plugging this video.

But, basically, the two of you are pushing this video, supplying no information about what it deals about other than the most general, vague sugegstions ( its about oil and 911).

You both insist its good and suggest we should watch it, and thats about it. No information, no discussion, no explanation.

I'm guessing that this isn't going to change, because thats the pattern thats followed almost exclusively when someone "pushes" a video in the manner that you two have just done. I'd love for either of you - or someone else - to prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope.

Its always the same:

- Challenge people to watch something, but provide little or no details on what it is.
- Insist its good.
- Optinoally throw in some "if you've got an open mind" or "or don't bother if you don't want to" non-content to add a bit of a challenge to the reader.
- Refuse subsequently to discuss any details on the thing until after someone has watched it.
- Once they've watched it, make sure the obligation is on them to explain in detail where their problems are, rather than you ever having to say why its convincing.
- Do not engage the critic on any issue.
- Dismiss criticism whatever way makes you happy.
- Continue insisting to anyone who hasn't watched it that you believe its worthwhile and that the critic is wrong to criticise.

As I said...I'd love for you to prove me wrong. I'm just a bit cynical because my experience in general suggests someone either lays out why you should watch it or isn't really interested in discussing the subject at all and is just "pushing" a video for whatever reason.

bonkey

Having checked around a bit, it seems that the following are amongst the issues brought up in this "best of breed" video we're being encouraged to watch:

- Six of the hijackers are alive.
- 67 "scrambles" in the past year.
- 15 exercises tying up "all the fighter jets in the Northeastern US".
- No steel frame building had ever collapsed before because of fire.
- "Pull it."

Thats enough right there to convince me that its not worth watching. In fact, the first item on that list alone is enough to convince me that its not worth watching.

Ghost Rider

Yes, you are a bit cynical. You're also a bit patronising.

I don't intend to get drawn into an argument about this. Even if I agreed entirely with the film's thesis (which I don't), I wouldn't want to give people an excuse not to watch it. It is a filmic argument, not a written one, so I believe it should be experienced as a film, not in an extrapolated form in a discursive context which displays a considerable amount of a priori hostility.

Of course the fact that a friend of mine was the producer/director has something to do with my protective attitude to it, but that bothers me not one bit. I happen to think the film makes an argument much stronger than I would or could. That's partially because I don't agree with it; it's also because I think the film is extremely well made. To verify or falsify that, you will have to see the film for yourself. But whether you do or not is of no ultimate concern to me. I am merely making a recommendation. (If you wish, you can interpret that as me "insisting" or "pushing" something, but that is your problem, not mine.)

I should point out that the film is available on Google Video, making it both free to watch and very easy to get to get your hands on. It is also less than fifty minutes long, so a viewing won't consume much of your life. If you still don't intend to watch it, then I can hardly help you, nor do I expect to. Again, nobody's trying to collar anyone, nobody's "insisting" anything.

That said, I recognise that some posters may want to get a better idea of what "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors" is actually about so they can decide whether or not to commit fifty minutes to a viewing of it. So, for the benefit of those people, and for anyone else with an open mind, here goes...

"Oil, Smoke and Mirrors"
The primary concern of the film "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors" is to reveal the so-called "war on terror" as an ideological construct designed to mask what is in effect a war over resources. In making this argument, the film hypothesises a link between the putatively forthcoming geological phenomenon known as "peak oil", its economic repercussions, and the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11th, 2001. Specifically, it suggests that the destruction of the WTC was a "false flag" operation - in other words, an "inside job" - with the strategic function of legitimating the "war on terror".

bonkey wrote:

Both of you. Either of you. Someone else.

I don't care, frankly.

stunnedSurvivor has 3 posts to his name, 2 of which are exhorting people to watch this video because its apparently convincing on some "perspective" it has to do with oil.

You've also chimed in, saying its quite good on the "particular point of view": it takes, which is something to do with oil and 911.

I'll take you slightly more seriously than SS, because you have more than 3 posts, and less than 2/3 of your posts have been plugging this video.

But, basically, the two of you are pushing this video, supplying no information about what it deals about other than the most general, vague sugegstions ( its about oil and 911).

You both insist its good and suggest we should watch it, and thats about it. No information, no discussion, no explanation.

I'm guessing that this isn't going to change, because thats the pattern thats followed almost exclusively when someone "pushes" a video in the manner that you two have just done. I'd love for either of you - or someone else - to prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope.

Its always the same:

- Challenge people to watch something, but provide little or no details on what it is.
- Insist its good.
- Optinoally throw in some "if you've got an open mind" or "or don't bother if you don't want to" non-content to add a bit of a challenge to the reader.
- Refuse subsequently to discuss any details on the thing until after someone has watched it.
- Once they've watched it, make sure the obligation is on them to explain in detail where their problems are, rather than you ever having to say why its convincing.
- Do not engage the critic on any issue.
- Dismiss criticism whatever way makes you happy.
- Continue insisting to anyone who hasn't watched it that you believe its worthwhile and that the critic is wrong to criticise.

As I said...I'd love for you to prove me wrong. I'm just a bit cynical because my experience in general suggests someone either lays out why you should watch it or isn't really interested in discussing the subject at all and is just "pushing" a video for whatever reason.

bonkey

it's also because I think the film is extremely well made.

I think Loose Change is very well made. Its bordering on a criminal level of dishonesty, mind you, but its very well made. It cons a lot of people into believing the fiction its peddling, its so well made.

I also found Lord of the Rings well made, even better than Loose Change. It, like Loose Change, is a work of fiction, but at least doesn't pretend to be something else.

For anything of a documentative nature, being well made is a secondary concern. Factual accuracy is of far greater importance. Being well made but inaccurate is worthless. Being not-so-well-made but well-researched and as accurate as possible....far better. Being well made and accurate....I'd watch it in a heartbeat.

Thing is that up until now, any video posted on the Conspiracy Forums with the "you should really watch this" style of post accompanying it....has failed in the accuracy stakes. So rightly or wrongly, I've noted that correlation and am skeptical of anything that's supposed to be a documentary being billed as "well made".

Its a bit like someone telling you their friend "is a lovely person" whilst trying to set you up on a date with them, when what you've asked is if she's good looking.

To verify or falsify that, you will have to see the film for yourself. But whether you do or not is of no ultimate concern to me. I am merely making a recommendation. (If you wish, you can interpret that as me "insisting" or "pushing" something, but that is your problem, not mine.)

So its good, you won't tell us why its good, and you still recommend we watch it.

Lets just recheck my list here...

- Challenge people to watch something, but provide little or no details on what it is.

Check.

- Insist its good.

Check

- Optinoally throw in some "if you've got an open mind" or "or don't bother if you don't want to" non-content to add a bit of a challenge to the reader.

Check

- Refuse subsequently to discuss any details on the thing until after someone has watched it.

Check...although in fairness you're saying you don't want to get into it at all, which is a nice variant cause it lets you avoid the next point:

- Once they've watched it, make sure the obligation is on them to explain in detail where their problems are, rather than you ever having to say why its convincing.

As pointed out, no check on this one, but you've avoided having to say anything after someone has watched it by saying you don't want to get drawn into an argument. And you've said you don't agree with the thing yourself, despite thinking its worth watching.

- Do not engage the critic on any issue.

Check

- Dismiss criticism whatever way makes you happy.

Check

- Continue insisting to anyone who hasn't watched it that you believe its worthwhile and that the critic is wrong to criticise.

Check.

Well, we're there. Everything bar one redundant point accounted for...in only one post.

It is also less than fifty minutes long, so a viewing won't consume much of your life.

I don't care how much or little of my life it consumes. The question is whether or not its a worthwhile investment of my time.

nobody's "insisting" anything.

You're insisting its good, and that its worth watching, but yes, I take your point. No-one is really insisting anything.

Neither you, nor I are insisting a thing.

We're just both offering opinions about a video, based on our own, clearly-differing approaches for judging such things.

So no problem...right?

That said, I recognise that some posters may want to get a better idea of what "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors" is actually about so they can decide whether or not to commit fifty minutes to a viewing of it. So, for the benefit of those people, and for anyone else with an open mind, here goes...

So after a long discussion of explaining why you won't talk about what its about, saying that you don't want to get into it and all the rest of it.....you go into what its about. At least that much is new.

Had you done that before I found an article listing some of the claims made in the video, your description would have encouraged me to watch it. As it is, the initial response was enough to make me go and find out that its almost certainly below par when it comes to objective, reasoned research, thus pretty-much making sure I won't watch it because so far you're still only telling me she has a lovely personality no matter that what I'm still asking is what she looks like.

Oh - kudos for slipping in the "open mind" dig there as well. Good one. Never seen that before.

Ghost Rider

As I pointed out, I'm not interested in locking horns with you on this. The points were made, the film is out there. I've given a description which will hopefully attract individuals interested in these matters and that's about as much as I can do. If someone in particular elects not to watch it - for whatever reason - it's no skin off my nose. And that's really all I can say.

bonkey wrote:

I think Loose Change is very well made. Its bordering on a criminal level of dishonesty, mind you, but its very well made. It cons a lot of people into believing the fiction its peddling, its so well made.

I also found Lord of the Rings well made, even better than Loose Change. It, like Loose Change, is a work of fiction, but at least doesn't pretend to be something else.

For anything of a documentative nature, being well made is a secondary concern. Factual accuracy is of far greater importance. Being well made but inaccurate is worthless. Being not-so-well-made but well-researched and as accurate as possible....far better. Being well made and accurate....I'd watch it in a heartbeat.

Thing is that up until now, any video posted on the Conspiracy Forums with the "you should really watch this" style of post accompanying it....has failed in the accuracy stakes. So rightly or wrongly, I've noted that correlation and am skeptical of anything that's supposed to be a documentary being billed as "well made".

Its a bit like someone telling you their friend "is a lovely person" whilst trying to set you up on a date with them, when what you've asked is if she's good looking.



So its good, you won't tell us why its good, and you still recommend we watch it.

Lets just recheck my list here...

- Challenge people to watch something, but provide little or no details on what it is.

Check.

- Insist its good.

Check

- Optinoally throw in some "if you've got an open mind" or "or don't bother if you don't want to" non-content to add a bit of a challenge to the reader.

Check

- Refuse subsequently to discuss any details on the thing until after someone has watched it.

Check...although in fairness you're saying you don't want to get into it at all, which is a nice variant cause it lets you avoid the next point:

- Once they've watched it, make sure the obligation is on them to explain in detail where their problems are, rather than you ever having to say why its convincing.

As pointed out, no check on this one, but you've avoided having to say anything after someone has watched it by saying you don't want to get drawn into an argument. And you've said you don't agree with the thing yourself, despite thinking its worth watching.

- Do not engage the critic on any issue.

Check

- Dismiss criticism whatever way makes you happy.

Check

- Continue insisting to anyone who hasn't watched it that you believe its worthwhile and that the critic is wrong to criticise.

Check.

Well, we're there. Everything bar one redundant point accounted for...in only one post.


I don't care how much or little of my life it consumes. The question is whether or not its a worthwhile investment of my time.


You're insisting its good, and that its worth watching, but yes, I take your point. No-one is really insisting anything.

Neither you, nor I are insisting a thing.

We're just both offering opinions about a video, based on our own, clearly-differing approaches for judging such things.

So no problem...right?


So after a long discussion of explaining why you won't talk about what its about, saying that you don't want to get into it and all the rest of it.....you go into what its about. At least that much is new.

Had you done that before I found an article listing some of the claims made in the video, your description would have encouraged me to watch it. As it is, the initial response was enough to make me go and find out that its almost certainly below par when it comes to objective, reasoned research, thus pretty-much making sure I won't watch it because so far you're still only telling me she has a lovely personality no matter that what I'm still asking is what she looks like.

Oh - kudos for slipping in the "open mind" dig there as well. Good one. Never seen that before.