NationStates Jolt Archive

Thought this might be interesting to share. Watch out though, it's a long one, a good 2 hours or so, so be prepared to watch for a bit. But it's well worth it. Oh, and skip through chapter one if you're offended and/or don't really care about the Jesus Myth theory, it gets far more interesting in the next chapters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924

Anyways, discuss, forum dwellers of NSG.

tl;dw

Just to add some context:

In addition to attracting significant public interest,[8] it has been criticized for relying too heavily on anecdotal evidence,[10] and for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers.[11][12][13] In a piece entitled "Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic", the Arizona Daily Wildcat refers to the film as "internet bullshit", saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points".[14] The Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates."[8]

Jordyn Marcellus of The Gauntlet felt it was ironic that the film's viewers "have blindly followed the documentary without doing their own research." He states that, though the film is "well-edited and is truly compelling", it "glosses over inconvenient facts," uses "deceptive filmmaking" and that "for a film that rails against deception, there's a lot of deception implicit in its creation."[13]

On March 10, 2008, director Peter Joseph removed the "Clarifications" section from the film's official site, which The Gauntlet believed "alluded to dishonest filmmaking tactics that would otherwise help to discredit the film." It was replaced by a "Q&A Section". The new section responds to the film's critics stating that "All Part 1 'debunkers' do one or more of the following: (1) They attack/marginalize the messengers. (2) They do no real research. (3) They blindly ask 'Where are the 'Primary Sources'?' (4) They projected their own subjective interpretation of a piece of information by using 'semantic manipulation'"[13]

tl;dw

Right.

Just to add some context:

I would have recommended first watching the film and then judging it, or allowing others to do the same, but that's just me.

I would have recommended first watching the film and then judging it, or allowing others to do the same, but that's just me.

I haven't judged it at all (I lie, you can't help but judge a film as complete bullshit when it claims 9/11 was a complete conspiracy), I just thought I would point out it's not that well received.

I haven't judged it at all (I lie, you can't help but judge a film as complete bullshit when it claims 9/11 was a complete conspiracy), I just thought I would point out it's not that well received.

Technically, it was a conspiracy, whether by the evil Bush administration and his tons of invisible explosives (or plane-missiles) or by the terrorists.

I have seen it and many like it. They are good entertainment, but tend to have gaping logical flaws in just about every conclusion they draw. Really a shame considering some of the issues raised are really pertinent, yet are only discredited by association to such poor quality exercises in propaganda.

I haven't judged it at all (I lie, you can't help but judge a film as complete bullshit when it claims 9/11 was a complete conspiracy), I just thought I would point out it's not that well received.

Among some, not all, critics, anyways.

But, let's not split hairs :) Let us allow the forum, if they can endure, to watch it and decide for themselves.

Watched it about a year or two ago. Didn't care about the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. On Religion, he's write to denounce the effect of institutional control, wrong to denounce it totally, especially since the last part of the film is rather mystical in its content.

Just to add some context:

I think that the "Arizona Daily Wildcat" speaks for many of us on the issue.

Just saw it, like a week or two ago. Overall it's a fun movie. It may offer some good material for thought, but I'd suggest not taking everything mentioned in there for granted.

The idea that 9/11 was engineered by the US government is insane. Noam Chomsky, who is considered by many a far-leftist has discredited it. In his words: Something like that would require a large number of people co-operating. It cannot be done by 10 or even 20 people. And ultimately something would leak out, as always and that would mean the execution of many high-up people for high treason and the dissolution of the republican party.

Chomsky on 911 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4)

Chomsky on 911 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&feature=related)


Could it have been prevented? I believe so yes.
Was it used as a pretext for revoking civil rights and furthering oppressive policy ? Definitely yes. And not just in US but all across the world.

I also saw Network the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUBbpvXk2A) which is mentioned in the film. It's pretty nice, but it has a sad Orwellian end.

But it's well worth it.

No it isn't. It is crap :)

Anyways, discuss, forum dwellers of NSG.

The whole of NSG should get together one afternoon to collectively watch a screening of it to stop this film coming with annoying frequency.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated could be the matinee ;)

No it isn't. It is crap :)

Good argument there.

Good argument there.

Really?

I just thought it was just a PoV...

:p


If you want me to go into more depth then I can. Though you may have to wait. My internet is acting very funny so I am loath to invest much time in my posts. Until around 12.00 or so.

EDIT: Actually as alluded to in my first post, there are many threads already on this topic. Ones even older than this account. I'm fairly sure stuff was dealt with in those threads already.

Good argument there.

No, it's bullshit is what it is.

I've seen it before, but frankly my patience was pretty worn out after watching cannons go off for five minutes to loud opera music.

It cannot be done by 10 or even 20 people.


But...Wasn't it done by 19 hijackers?

No, it's bullshit is what it is.

I was talking about how you just said "No, it sucks." without proof or backing.

I was talking about how you just said "No, it sucks." without proof or backing.

Ahem, I it sucks (or is crap) ;)

Though it is.

It relies on dodgy research using non-authoritative text or experts in the field and has a questionable consultant. It rests on extreme simplification, factual errors and outright lies. It doesn't cite anything (just unhelpfully throwing a load of "sources" at you without telling you anything about where they got specific claims. It is possible that the site has been updated. But that was as it stood when I last visited it).

It is naive and takes many questionable claims at face value.

These are just from the top of my head, from what I can remember when I watched it ages ago. And that is just the first part. The second part, IIRC, is pretty much a rehash of Loose Change with all of the faults there of. And the less said about the last part the better.

If you think I have got anything in particular wrong, please tell me.

Thought this might be interesting to share. Watch out though, it's a long one, a good 2 hours or so, so be prepared to watch for a bit. But it's well worth it. Oh, and skip through chapter one if you're offended and/or don't really care about the Jesus Myth theory, it gets far more interesting in the next chapters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924
Anyways, discuss, forum dwellers of NSG.
Part I : some good points, most of it complete horseshit
- e.g. there is no egyptian god "Thaw", and Typhon=Set, and Set is not an evil deity
Part II : makes one think
Part III : appears somewhat surreal

The first part doesn't sound like thát much horseshit, it could be an explanation where the myths surrounding the person Jesus came from. Afterall, people have been copy/pasting from eachother for centuries, and every myth and religion has it's roots in something else. I wouldn't be suprised, but ofcourse deeper and better research is needed.

The second part just makes me yawn, the same 9/11 Loose Change bullshit all over again. I prefer Southpark's point of view on this: the 9/11 conspiracy, is a government conspiracy :P
and Set is not an evil deity
He actually was demonised in a later period, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mythology%29

But...Wasn't it done by 19 hijackers?

Well I meant the theory that explosives were put in various spots of the towers and the pentagon.