[Doc Of The Day] The Demolition of Truth: Professionals Examine 9/11

Submitted by: monkwarrior 5 months ago News & Politics

September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day. Fifteen years later, the events of that day continue to have a traumatic impact on many people. Millions of citizens from around the world question the official account of that day. This film presents testimony from highly-credentialed scientists, engineers, and military experts examine the psychological impact of 9/11.

Originally aired on August 25, 2016 by PBS.

There are 22 comments:
Male 2,398
A bit of advice to MW....when your contribution to the post exceeds 50% of the replies....you've lost. Go and take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. We'll all be happier, m'kay.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Sorry man, your fallacious logic is still fallacious. It could be that people making, or wanting to make, fallacious arguments (as I've been pointing out), realize they're going to stand no chance at asserting their fallacy. You're welcome to try if you want, but you're down by one now.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
The full video can be found HERE. A $240 donation gets you the DVD!!
0
Reply
Male 1,801
also on pbs.org @ http://www.pbs.org/video/2365830754/
0
Reply
Male 48
I haven't viewed the video, so I won't comment on the actual content. However, the tag line on the main IAB page says "It's produced by PBS so you know it has to be legit, right?". I can't find any evidence that PBS actually produced this film. The page about the filmmaker doesn't claim any association with PBS. This film was shown by one PBS affiliate (which also broadcast a bunch of "alternative" (i.e. conspiracy theory) films about 9/11, which most PBS stations won't touch). Trying to give this film extra credibility by saying it was produced by PBS is extremely misleading. Sort of like your post the other day attributing a 9/11 "controlled demolition" article to a respected scientific journal, when they didn't publish it at all. The real takeaway i get here is "if it's posted by MonkWarrier, don't believe it without seriously checking his claims first". Or, better, given the track record, just ignore it and move on.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Also, if you had played the first 13 seconds, you'd see not one, but TWO "*PBS_LOGO_HERE* Colorado Public television 12" screens. And if you go to the link and start watching at 22 minutes (which you'll have to because the link here can only show a preview of the first 20m), you'll see the local PBS fund raiser 'commercial breaks' like you normally see on local PBS stations.
0
Reply
Male 10,853
Did you miss the part where they said "The views in this program are necessarily those of CPT12". It was an INDEPENDENT broadcast possible with the platform provided by CPT12. Programs like NOVA and Sesame Street do and/or did NOT have such disclaimers.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Annnnd.... apparently you wanted to ignore the PBS logo there too. If you don't want to watch the video its your choice, but how you want to reject it is ridiculously fallacious
0
Reply
Male 1,801
So you have compelling evidence to your claim that explosive evidence was found through deliberate cherry picking? Clearly this has overwhelmed you with emotion, because now you're going off now saying i have a theory, when all i've ever really said is "there is sufficient evidence to show that a re-investigation is warranted". It's not really a 'theory' at all, but just recognizing that the 'official report' is flawed as it ignored evidence, and does not stand up to science. I read ike's comment, but it sounds like you need to watch this documentary to break out of your emperor's new clothes syndrome. It's like your level of ad-hominem to reject a documentary is even more ridiculous now, but those psychological issues are covered in the documentary. good luck.
0
Reply
Male 10,853
"sorry bud, the fact is that explosive evidence was found" >>> Through some deliberate cherry-picking no doubt, I do recommend you read Mr Ike's comment on the last material you've posted. But sure keep telling yourself how the laws of physics support your theory because I assure you they don't.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
sorry bud, the fact is that explosive evidence was found. But i understand the importance for you to assert your opinion that the official fiction is a fact, even though the laws of physics completely disprove it, you know, to protect your world view. Sounds like you might be stuck in an emperor's new clothes syndrome dude.
0
Reply
Male 10,853
"But still, it's completely ridiculous that you want to reject a good documentary based on a 'disclaimer', because it tells the world you fear it." >>> Look who's talking, you're the one trying to convince everyone else there's a coverup and the experts for your narrative can't help but quote-mine the NIST report since day 1 of it's publication. I've seen my fair share of "good" documentaries to know not to waste my time on it.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
nice ad-hominem, i can see it's getting emotional for you. But don't try to say that "PBS did not produce this documentary", when it clearly says PBS and the disclaimer simply states "the views.. ARE NOT NECESSARILY those of CPT12". Don't you know what not necessarily means? It means not everyone of CPT12 may agree, but it also means not everyone of CPT12 may disagree agree. it in no way says PBS is not endorsing it. But sure, i get it if you want to think it does, based on your fallacious logic, as ridiculous as it seems. But still, it's completely ridiculous that you want to reject a good documentary based on a 'disclaimer', because it tells the world you fear it.
0
Reply
Male 10,853
You mean the one at the start of the video, above the narrated opinion disclaimer? I did see it, yet you're so wrapped up in your own echo chamber that you even want to ignore the OPINION DISCLAIMER. PBS did not produce this documentary, neither are they endorsing it. If you want to believe otherwise be my guest. I do suggest you stop trying to project your stupidity onto everyone else it just makes look even dumber.
0
Reply
Male 48
Well, if you actually read my post, I didn't say it didn't play on PBS. I explicitly said that it "was shown by one PBS affiliate". That's all the pbs.org in the web link, and the PBS logo at the head of the video prove - that the PBS affiliate showed the film - way different from "producing it". If those aren't your words, then that's on IAB, not good for any of us. But, in your reply to my post, you use the words "this pbs video", which implies that PBS had something to do with the production or ownership of the film - sort of like saying "this Disney movie". Your own words, according to you. Very different from just saying that "this video showed on a PBS station", which is all that one can legitimately say connecting this film to PBS.
0
Reply
Male 785
And still no reply to my earlier request for information several posts back?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
i replied to you arleady,
0
Reply
Male 1,801
as noted there, i don't have to give you any example, you already have made your decision to deny the facts exposed by science. I can't pop your bubble, you have to do that.
0
Reply
Male 785
Ah, I didn't get a notification of it. However, you didn't do what I asked in that other post. Give provable examples of how your crazy, nutjob, conspiracy theorist view could be be correct. I gave you provable examples of how my view could be correct, now its your turn.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
You can't find any evidence of it being on PBS at http://www.pbs.org/video/2365830754/ ? Don't you notice the PBS.org in web link, don't you notice the PBS logo on the web page? FYI I-A-B edited the tagline that i uploaded, as usual, and twisted what i actually posted (i simply said something like "this pbs video aired last month and it digs deep into the psychological impact of 9/11 as examined highly-credentialed scientists, engineers, and military analysts". I-A-B added the usual trash to make me look bad. That's actually I-A-B's track record, so if you want to put it on me, that sir, is your loss. Besides i could care less what you think of me, i'm putting out a document that was good. but the video is indeed on PBS, as you can see at PBS.org.
0
Reply