>> ^griefer_queafer:
>> ^EndAll:
Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.

I respectfully disagree, Endall. Don't you think there is a way in which the absurd simplicity is kind of effective?
Its kind of the way I feel when I watch videos of these town hall meetings. In a way one might want to try and reason with these people, but after a while you have to kind of just sigh and write it off. Despite the condescending ending to Gjersten's vid, i think this work is kind of like a big sigh


Apples and oranges - the events around 9/11 warrant serious questioning and public inquiry - the townhall meeting protests are just stupid bullshit. I agree there need be no serious debate about whether or not the airplanes actually hit - there's no question about that, they did - but there's a lot more to what happened that needs to be looked into. Most truthers will tell you that the planes did hit, but that there were explosives in place as well. I don't make any claims about that, but it might help clear things up a bit.

>> ^Payback:
FAKE! Never trust someone who thinks the plural of aircraft is aircrafts.

I know!!! Everybody knows it's aircraftii

>> ^EndAll:
Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.


I respectfully disagree, Endall. Don't you think there is a way in which the absurd simplicity is kind of effective?

Its kind of the way I feel when I watch videos of these town hall meetings. In a way one might want to try and reason with these people, but after a while you have to kind of just sigh and write it off. Despite the condescending ending to Gjersten's vid, i think this work is kind of like a big *sigh*

>> ^csnel3:
Well it was clearly a conspiracy, so you can only argue which governments are involved, And I dont think you can.
Although your "Stupid. Bullshit, Wake the fuck up" argument, almost convinced me that you have special knowledge of the events of 911.
Just being sarcastic.... You dont know shit about what happened that day.


Huh?

you stated about the "thermite babble".
ok...that should be a topic of discussion


I would disagree, it should NOT be a topic of discussion. It deserves as much discussion as questions about Obama's birth certificate. It is a waste of time. I will gladly try to clarify the 'thermite babble' with friends, family and people I meet who believe it, I consider at least attempting that discussion worthwhile. I will avoid listening to hours of video that includes the 'thermite babble', that is relatively worthless.

I consider it akin to refuting the latest cult of the day. I consider watching Scientology's latest video to be relatively worthless. I do however consider discussing Scientology with friends, family and people I meet who don't know it's a scam worthwhile. I've already picked up enough about Hubbard that I really don't see the need for anymore proof for the truth of things. I don't feel a need to spend days and nights going through every piece of teaching anyone in Scientology has ever come out with before rejecting it all as not worth my time and a bad source for useful information. I consider videos that believe in the thermite myth to be in the same category of proven non-utility.


the "conspiracy theory" we were given and the questions therein have never been fully answered by the american government.


I'm not sure which 'conspiracy' you refer to. For certain I agree lots of what happened around 9/11 has not been answered, in particular a lot of what happened immediately after. My previous point though ties into my response here. Videos talking about thermite are one of the poorest places to go looking for those answers. The answer to the biggest question though is clear. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The proper response to that is littered with a lot of smoke and mirrors and a century of geo-politics, and I don't see any of the trailers for these videos looking as promising sources for wading through that.


i have no problem with disagreements,but at least digest the material before you critique said material.


Well, I've now watched the two that looked the most worthwhile.

"War Made Easy" didn't provide a single piece of novel information, and was little more than archived news footage with a one sided commentary read by Sean Penn. I learnt nothing as expected and wouldn't reccomend it to anyone. I'd in fact argue against someone not informed about recent history watching it for the very false image that it protrays of recent history taken all by itself without knowing the things the film leaves out.

"Why We Fight" confirms what I said I expected as the high mark of the videos. It includes some new footage and interviews, although the information found in those videos that is new/novel is trivial in nature. The major points and facts it does present are all available in other places, and with better context. More over, it presents an extremely one sided picture and works more strongly as a propaganda piece than as an informative work.

For anyone under the delusion that corruption isn't rampant in American government, this video has important information. There are better sources for that information though, and to be honest no video is likely to persuade people so deluded anyways. In the real world though, one has to actually look beyond the state of America and look also at the geopolitics of the places it is in conflict with. Yes, we all know Cheney is corrupt and his actions have been criminal, that isn't the final word on the Iraq conflict. In many ways, that fact is barely a footnote.

Both videos, as I've said elsewhere, follow the same road to failure as the mainstream media, and the same road to failure they themselves decry. That failure is the oversimplfication of geo-politics and it's causes. Both videos present the problem in American foreign policy as simply being too militaristic, and the solution as simple as reducing military spending or better media coverage of arising conflicts. If only the world where truly that simple. In reality things are vastly more complicated, and there is a wealth of video, interviews, and documentaries that attempt to investigate and reveal the layers of that complexity. These videos though are no where near that world.

I've presented my opinion before and I'll paraphrase again here.

You would be better served spending the 90 minutes this film runs watching old episodes of the Daily Show that you missed.

This is NOT a documentary in the journalistic sense of actually interviewing or even filming any new footage. It is at best a 'research' piece clipping together piles of carefully selected existing news and media clips and stringing them together with commentary. Unless you aren't familiar with what has been presented by the mainstream media over the years, there is NOTHING new to even be seen here. This is a video editorial, and is really nothing more. It's the same style of mashup and commentary that you can find from O'Reilly or Obermann, only this time with Sean Penn providing his take on things.

I must repeat, you are much better served watching a couple random episodes of the Daily Show. I guarantee you'll get to see an interview with at least one guest that shares something more interesting and novel than anything you'll find in "War Made Easy".

A more personal beef is the film starting off declaring how media has not reflected the complexity of the conflicts it covers. The movie then does nothing to try and reveal any of that complexity for any of the conflicts either. Worse, the film then carries on to commit the same sin itself. It pretends that the techniques used by government to build support for a war it deems necessary is proof the government simply wants war for war sake.

Unless you currently trust every word coming out of a government official's mouth is true, you have nothing to learn from this video. And I dare say if that describes you then unless you've been living in a cave your entire life this isn't going to change your mind either.

I've now watched the whole video, and my recommendation to others stands, don't bother. You would be infinitely better served spending the 90 minutes this film runs watching old episodes of the Daily Show that you missed.

This is NOT a documentary in the journalistic sense of actually interviewing or even filming any new footage. It is at best a 'research' piece clipping together piles of carefully selected existing news and media clips and stringing them together with commentary. Unless you aren't familiar with what has been presented by the mainstream media over the years, there is NOTHING new to even be seen here. This is a video editorial, and is really nothing more. It's the same style of mashup and commentary that you can find from O'Reilly or Obermann, only this time with Sean Penn providing his take on things.

I must repeat, your much better served watching a couple random episodes of the Daily Show. I guarantee you'll get to see an interview with at least one guest that shares something more interesting and novel than anything you'll find in "War Made Easy"

>> ^southblvd:
At 5:17 -- aliens?!


Some lightning guy walked into the shot? Luckily Neil didn't pull a Bale...

>> ^binglebongle:
lies j/k
As everyone knows, he did misspeak his planned legendary oneliner. He only left out a single letter word, but that "a" being absent makes the statement make no sense when you think about it. It always bothers me a little every time I hear it because I'm kind of a perfectionist, and if I had bungled that shit, I would have been really pissed off at myself.

Actually I believe they analyzed the recording and found that Armstrong actually did perform the line correctly(a man), but that in a freak coincidence, it was lost in the transmission.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4225856.html

If this were a dupe, we'd have to clean out a lot of weeds in the sift. Clearly not a dupe.

>>ashes2flame:
>>"It's the same video footage except this one is shorter and has a different sound track.
>>If you go 15 seconds into this one and 5 seconds into the other one .. it's the same thing.
>>Sorry."
Not enough to make it a dupe. If it were the same sound as well, it would be borderline, but now, not at all.

2 things make this not a dupe: New footage, as kulpims said, even if it's not a lot of new footage and different sound.

Reminds me of
http://www.videosift.com/video/Tank-Man-See-the-World-Through-Someone-Elses-Eyes

They forgot to filter the new footage to make it look more like the original footage.

it is sad that we got pushed back a month before we get brawl... but its always good to see new footage... great find...