He’s not on here is he?

Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine which ended up with multiple awards, was more factually based but only ended up grossing about 58million as against JFK’s 200+ million

Hmmm… highest grossing movies in 2012:

The Avengers – $1,511,757,910
The Dark Knight Rises – $1,076,273,624
Ice Age: Continental Drift – $859,023,270
The Amazing Spider-Man – $752,125,108
The Hunger Games – $686,533,290

I don’t think large takings can be linked to the number of people who find a movie believable.

JFK, truth or no truth is a bloody good yarn

Exactly.

…why was a reasonably budgeted film even considered if it wasn’t thought that there were enough would be believers to make it a commercial success?

😆

Right, because the general public are such a discerning bunch huh? That’s why there’s no dross on TV eh?

So, anyway, how long are you visiting our planet for?

Are you saying Ice Age isn’t true!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its all very well spouting b0llocks from amateur investigators but I am pretty sure that the real investigators have better access. Also the media probably are not privy to the full facts when they report.

Finding a small trace of some hole in a media story by an amateur investigator does not constitute a conspiracy. Additionally the depth of the coverups that people would have to go to are unfathomable and something like JFK or 9/11 would not be supportable due to the numbers of people involved to make the alternatives purported by the conspiracists as real.

I think there are definitely some shadier elements to the JFK assasination. However Lee Harvey Oswald being the gunman isn’t one of them.

The two main pieces of evidence in JFK that point to another gun man are the amount of time Oswald had to fire three bullets and the “magic bullet theory” both of these were made up for the film.

Why they let someone shoot Oswald before the trial is the more interesting conspiracy.

Also the far shadier assasination of Robert Kennedy never seems to attract the same attention.

Oh and Princess Di. A conspiracy so elaborate that it could have been completed foiled if she had worn her seatbelt

A conspiracy so elaborate that it could have been completed foiled if she had worn her seatbelt

Generally Often not worn by Royals or their protection, limits movement too much. 😉

JFK conspiracy theories were well up and running with Joe P prior to Oliver Stone’s film, tuckerUK – you can’t seriously be saying that it was this film that brought all these crazy ideas to the attention of the public.

A true urban legend, rather than conspiracy theory, is [whispers] Purple Aki.
Ask anyone in their 30s who went to school in the NW about the legend of the Purple one, and what he would do to you if he got hold of you. Turns out to have been true.

tuckerUK – you can’t seriously be saying that it was this film that brought all these crazy ideas to the attention of the public.

Indeed I am.

Without fail, every JFK conspiracy nutter I’ve spoke to mentions the entirely fabricated ‘facts’ that are in the film.

Perhaps you have some new evidence that really does hold water that you’d like to share with us?

Depends how old you are I suppose – if you were a teenager when the film came out then I could see how it would appear influential / people of your age group might be influenced by it.
Completely wrong to suggest this as the popularising source of JFK myths – they have been talked about widely since the early 70s at least.

TuckerUK I do not believe that you are capable of changing your opinion regardless of what new information you are shown.

However, what do you think that JFK was talking about in his speech? also have you been notified that Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction?

TuckerUK I do not believe that you are capable of changing your opinion regardless of what new information you are shown.

Why not try showing him some “new information” about JFK then and prove yourself correct ?

TuckerUK I do not believe that you are capable of changing your opinion regardless of what new information you are shown.

Also, did you change your opinion about 9/11 after reading the Peer Reviewed, professionally written paper I posted a link to explaining how its perfectly possible that the towers fell purely as a result of the planes hitting them.

Or are you incapable of changing your mind regardless of what information you are shown ?

A film doesn’t require anyone believing in the subject matter for it to be considered a viable financial proposition.

Are you saying Braveheart is not true and that the American never cracked the Enigma code – I find this impossible to believe they are fact and not fiction surely.

TuckerUK I do not believe that you are capable of changing your opinion regardless of what new information you are shown.

Personally I aspire to be as open to new evidence that counters my view as you are and not ignore actual science in favour of a You tube video 😕

You do realise you constantly attack other people about your own particular blind spots – of course you dont its a blind spot so save your denial

Hi kaesae.

Did JFK steal the frames?

I knew Purple Aki.

That is not an urban legend he was a persistent predator around my school in the centre of Liverpool.

As for changing view points many of the “facts” supporting conspiracy theories do unfortunately not make a whole therefore they remain simply theories, expanded upon by over zealous reporting and embellishment by some individuals into what they perceive as the truth.

nealglover, any paper that suggests a building will collapse through it’s path of most resistance is not worth reading, as it defies the laws of physics.

Do buildings collapse? of course they do in a fashion that follows a path of least resistance. Do they collapse in on themselves through the path of greatest or most resistance, not on this planet they don’t!

Junkyard, perhaps you could provide some of the evidence that has lead to your view point on 9/11, I have provided all those reading this with the 9/11 truth movements website and all the evidence it holds.

I am not interested in bickering or egotism or circular reasoning, so I will suggest as I did before that we simply choose one event and then research it as thoroughly as possible!

kaesae – Member
nealglover, any paper that suggests a building will collapse through it’s path of most resistance is not worth reading, as it defies the laws of physics.

Do buildings collapse? of course they do in a fashion that follows a path of least resistance. Do they collapse in on themselves through the path of greatest or most resistance, not on this planet they don’t!

You really do defy believe.

This paper: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

(which you have deemed as “Not Worth Reading”) was written and peer reviewed by professional Engineers and was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

I am sure you “think” you know more than they do.

But I hate to break it you ……. You don’t.

Here is the list of people who were on the editorial board of that Paper, you might want to let them know that you have some “New Information” for them to consider.

I’m sure they will all be as impressed as I am 🙄

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

…

so I will suggest as I did before that we simply choose one event and then research it as thoroughly as possible!

Sorry to say this, but you are not capable of any kind of meaningful research.

You can’t even take on board information when other people do the research for you and spoon feed it to you FFS 🙄

not on this planet they don’t!

I am surprised you know anything about this planet, you rarely seem to be on it 😉

Nothing anyone says will convince you so really what would be the point?
I am not Sisyphus

Neal.

Have you read the document?

Are you an engineer?

this says it all really.

Abstract: This paper3 presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of
the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 200

Some of the assumptions are a bit loose.

Nealglover just to be fair to you I have gone in and looked at the paper.

However I have hit a snag already. It would appear that it was written 2 days after the collapse? before I read the entire paper and since this to me is already questionable?

How can a paper written 2 days after the collapse have anything meaningful to contribute to the overall picture and who exactly commissioned this paper?

Neal.
Have you read the document?
Are you an engineer?

Yes I have read it.

And no I’m not an engineer.

Nealglover just to be fair to you I have gone in and looked at the paper.

So previously you had been disagreeing with it without even reading it ?

That’s bad form even for you 🙄

It would appear that it was written 2 days after the collapse? before I read the entire paper and since this to me is already questionable?

Why would it be questionable (because you are clutching at straws maybe ?)

[Quote]How can a paper written 2 days after the collapse have anything meaningful to contribute to the overall picture [/quote]

Why wouldnt it ?

The hypothesis of the paper has never been disproved professionally.

So what does your uninformed opinion have to offer ??

and who exactly commissioned this paper?

A weak insinuation at best.

Academic papers don’t need to be “commissioned”

How can a paper written 2 days after the collapse have anything meaningful to contribute to the overall picture

How can a conspiracy theorist three thousand miles away with a tenuous grasp of fundamental concepts like “physics” have anything meaningful to contribute to the overall picture?

TuckerUK – Member
…why was a reasonably budgeted film even considered if it wasn’t thought that there were enough would be believers to make it a commercial success?
Right, because the general public are such a discerning bunch huh? That’s why there’s no dross on TV eh?

They hired Kevin Costner at the peak of his fame just after dances with wolves, you don’t do that for a ‘documentary’ unless you’re sure of the interest and JFK conspiracy theorys have abounded for the best part of twenty eight years before they made that movie in 91.

So, anyway, how long are you visiting our planet for?

Your planet?

I am not interested in bickering or egotism or circular reasoning, so I will suggest as I did before that we simply choose one event and then research it as thoroughly as possible!

Indeed you do not want to debate, discuss or be open to other opinion. You want to choose an event and tell everyone what you think.

Research as thoroughly as possible! Hmmm, 9/11, will we have access to forensics labs, mass spectrometers, engineers etc. Princess Di, will have access to pathologists. JFK, ballistics experts.

I think most of its been done and as for us to provide evidence but its acceptable for you to point at a website. Umm a website does not constitute evidence you would have to be a little more selective.

and since this to me is already questionable?

Yet you advocate having an open mind?

Sorry Kaesae not really bothered about a ban when others have been banned for far less than what you do here on an almost daily basis. OK you have not been confrontational in this thread but you simply do not take on board that other people may be right and you may be wrong. You are a buffoon.

Your You’re a buffoon.

Corrected! Thanks for that loum, smell checker not working!

piemonster – Member

@Kaiser or whatever

All these terrible things you are fretting about, apart from STW. What are you doing about them?

Any danger of you answering this question?

i think consipracy theories are the “conspiracy”..
much as the victorians used the popularity of that sill game of football to control the oiks of the working class.
today the powers that be (those scary hidden ones) spend a teeny bit of cash by putting shacky phone movie clips on you tube such that the loonies in society with nothing to do but scour the net, spend their time staying at home (where they can do no harm) chatting to like minded muppets..
Thus lots of potential wrong doers stay indoors and all is well with the world..
Best bit is they then create an online petition forum for the conspiracy nuts to use in the misguided belief that ticking a box and adding your email id onto an online for is actually a democratic act and will have any effect..
Awsome, the internet and consipracy theories must be the cheapest way of controlling certain scary elements of society with them not even realising they are being controlled.
WWW > information or disinformation ?? 😯

the doc linked by Neal can be concluded from one single extract;

“It will nevertheless be appropriate to initiate research on materials and designs that would
postpone the collapse of the building so as to extend the time available for evacuation, provide
a hardened and better insulated stairwell, or even prevent collapse in the case of a less severe
attack such as an off-center impact or the impact of an aircraft containing little fuel.”

Essentially tall buildings cannot be built in a manner that can prevent collapse if a sufficiently large plane hits the bulding whilst carry a shed load of fuel (whilst making the building desirable for habitation, ie readily available access to daylight through windows.

Awesome, the internet and consipracy theories must be the cheapest way of controlling certain scary elements of society with them not even realising they are being controlled.

Scared of conspiracy theorists?
Wow.

I have nothing to add to this ridiculous Scooby Doo attempt at “research”

Other than ….

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zXihamL_Qk[/video]

The documental INSIDE JOB I would think constitutes a conspiracy.

Those responsible kept all the money they made from the fraud, then got bailed out by the US government and used the money to buy up all of the smaller independent banks that were in trouble.

There are of course better copies in terms of picture quality and sound, but this is free!

[video]http://vimeo.com/27292661[/video]

Anyone thought just to ignore this bloke yet? He’s incapable of any intelligent debate – just getting his kicks from winding you lot up.

Bored now.

Kael- you got bats in the belfry

http://www.Bored-now.com

what about a cycle trip to syria Kael– i’ll lend you an innertube..

Evidence should precede the conclusion. I think most conspiracy theorists get this the wrong way round.

They also don’t seem to be able to determine quality of evidence.

I think people have a world view and then beleive what fits this narrative. Strangley I’ve found religious people to be very succeptible to conspiracy theories with little tangible evidence.

Gas prices anyone?

Late to the thread as always…. the reason why conspiracy theories thrive and spread is because there are always inconsistencies in evidence caused by simple witness fallibility and incompetence. That’s all.