jmzero

Member Profile


Member Since: November 8, 2006
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to jmzero

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

Duckman33 says...

Fair enough.

In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Maybe it's more about what was allowed to happen, and less about who did what. Ever think of that?


Uhh.. yes, I have thought of that. And if the theory is that the US government could or should have done more before 9/11 or that they knew something or whatever... fine. Cool. I think you can believe that and not be crazy. US government incompetent? Check. US government failed to save some people (on purpose) to further some end? Sure, why not. Maybe they thought the towers wouldn't go down and it would be mostly just a symbolic thing? There's plenty of possible variations here that aren't nutbars. I'm sure there's a whole continuum of different types and kinds of information that the government acts on or doesn't act on for all sorts of reasons (often probably fairly shady ones).

To be clear, I don't think "the government" likely had terribly good, credible information coming into 9/11 - or to the extent they did I think they didn't use that information appropriately for reasons more like incompetence than planning. But, again, I don't think anyone would be crazy for not agreeing with me on that. As before, there's no good reason it couldn't be true. If people are demanding investigations into who knew what when and who didn't act on what then cool. Great. Do that.

However, the videos I've been commenting on have typically been of the "it was a controlled demolition planned by someone other than terrorists" variety. Those are very different theories than the ones we're talking about, and they are nutbars.

And here (in the comment you're commenting on) clearly, I was responding to a comment that wasn't "US government let it happen". He was deriding the claim "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11". It was precisely about "who did what" not "what was allowed to happen". Even if that comment wasn't clear, which I think it is, for context you can read the 1000 other comments he's made here - clearly he isn't just saying "the government knew". And, if that was what he had been saying, I (and probably many of the others who make fun of him) would respond to him differently.

Duckman33 says...

Maybe it's more about what was allowed to happen, and less about who did what. Ever think of that?

In reply to this comment by jmzero:
scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)


Meh - he clearly presented the strongest argument against the "conspiracy theory": that it doesn't make any sense. As he explains, it requires tremendous risk, is far from foolproof, requires magical execution, and there's much, much simpler ways to get to the same place. These are the same simple objections that should come up in anyone's mind when presented with this theory.

Why don't you tell us what you think happened and who did what? Don't be a coward and say "well, I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't because of these X things that I don't accept the explanation of". How about you just tell us what happened and why you think that it makes any sense whatsoever? Or, and this is a much bigger task, provide an explanation that makes more sense and fits better with evidence than the official explanation?

Chomsky would love to be able to get behind this kind of conspiracy (or even leave open the possibility) - heaven knows he loves the underdog, and obviously he had no love for Bush - but he's a rational, smart guy.

Now, if you were calling him a scumbag for defending some dictator in the 70s, then whatever - but calling him a scumbag because even he's not willing to get on this crazy bus? You don't know him, or you're nuts. When Chomsky won't even entertain an idea like this, it says something about the idea, not about Chomsky.

LadyDeath says...

I honestly never pay attention about the video,I just LOVE their music and her voice

In reply to this comment by jmzero:
I like her voice too, and I think there's potential here... For this one, I think they should have bumped up her levels - the instruments aren't doing much interesting - and generally I don't think this is a great song for her.

Less important, but much worse: the video is really bad, worse than the high school bands I see now. Just the band altogether playing in some rocks (shot from a few angles) during the day would have been fine. Generic, but fine. Or have a little story or something if you want, but if you do that you need to commit a bit. Or have her just kind of randomly walking in a cave, like 1/3 of 1980s videos. But what they got - her just kind of rocking like that, randomly interspersed with thunder, quick shots of someone else (with distracting transitions and time shift), and repeated "fade out" cliches - is distractingly bad.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos