« "The main motivation of the group in Germany is hatred against American citizens..." | Main | Stupid Americans...? »

Comments

I humbly wish to offer the following to ZDF as the basis for the next in their award-winning series analysing American History and US policy: 'Could he be - Satan?!!'

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

Many Germans denied the existence of the death camps too.

So what has changed from one generation to the next to make Germans anymore rational. I would say not much.

@Jorg
So we are playing the game of "what we are doing is ok because see someone like you is doing as well" again? Your comparison of a poll about Saddam and a poll about the US government tells a lot about your perception.

"Scout, how come everybody is talking about Iraq on 9/11 instead of "just honouring those who died and clearly stating who did it.""

Sure, Jorg, everybody in the US was just talking about Iraq on 9/11 and just because they directly related it to each other.

If you think that the poll in ZDF is not representative of the opinions in germany I would suggest to read in the comments sections of news magazines like FOCUS or news channels like N24 and NTV.
Sometimes it hurts to see how warped the perception of too many people here in germany is.

@ ALL

Your comments motivated me to write the following post about you and Medienkritik and the CNN poll that showed that many Americans believe in a 9/11 cover up:

Double Standards and the Popularity of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

@ don
@WhatDoIKnow, commonsense wrote that 43 minutes were devoted to the conspiracy theories and 2 minutes to the debunking. So you are being completely unfair - just like all of us Americans.

ZDF devoted 95% of the programme to the theories and 5% to the debunking - thus proving the complete fairness and balance of ZDF and by extension, all Germans.

commonsense's impression is wrong.
as i said earlier, it wasn't just 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the documentary.
they, for instance, had someone suggesting that the smoke that shot out of the buildings while they were collapsing was caused by detonating explosive devices. right after that you had people debunking that (dust came from gypsum plasterboards).
watch it, then judge it.

Well, Jorg... that was quite a piece of brilliant argumentation. First you built an Aunt Sally by deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote, and then you tore your quickly-assembled strawman to pieces, all by yourself! Are you sure you don't work for German television?

Joerg writes:

41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?" That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.
Source: Atlantic Review

In 2001, 2002 and 2003, there were good reasons to believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in planning and carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Saddam Hussein had already attacked his neighbors twice: He attacked Iran in the 1980s and he attacked Kuwait in 1990. He definitely had the means and the mind set to attack another country. He not only had the mind set to use chemical weapons against his enemies abroad, the Iranians, he also had the mind set to use chemical weapons against his own people. This was well documented.

There were prior to 2004, rational and substantiated reasons for Americans to believe that the 9/11 attack originated from a hostile state actor. Saddam Hussein was the logical suspect for this assumption. It is pathetic German Besserwisserei for Germans to criticize Americans for this belief.

Now granted, after the invasion, after principals in Hussein’s government were interrogated, after mountains of documents were translated, and after the sifting of facts, there appears to be no direct link to Saddam Hussein and 9/11. All of the planning and recruiting for the 9/11 massacre were made under the nose of German authorities in Hamburg.

However, there are still rational and substantiated reasons for Americans to rationally conclude that Saddam Hussein’s regime had indirect ties to 9/11. These reasons include:

The presence of Alzarkawi and his cell of Al Quida in Northern Iraq;
The mystery of the Anthrax attacks in New York and Florida just after the 9/11 massacre;
The meeting of Mohamad Atta and Iraqi Intelligence in Prague prior to 9/11;
The asylum of who’s who in terrorists in Bagdad prior to the Iraq invasion;
The video tape of Saddam Hussein’s cabinet meeting where Saddam lamented to Teraq Aziz, “It would be a tragedy if a weapon of mass destruction would fall into the hands of a third party actor, (wink wink)”

These are facts that have not been adequately debunked or refuted by the left or the peace crowd. Contrast these facts with the facts supplied by both American and foreign moon bats who believe that 9/11 was an inside job about seizing oil in the Middle East.



Even if you are sure Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with it, it`s much more crazy to believe a democratic gouvernment would kill deliberately 3000 of its people than to think two crazy violent branches of arab fascism have helped each other out at this.
I actually do have stored one photo, shot shortly after the invasion, showing american soldiers holding a billboard showing a proud cigar smokin saddam, a kaffyeh on his head, an Iraqi-Palestine-flags-melted emblem, the second plane hitting the burning WTC in the background (don`t know what the arabic writings are saying, though) So even if he wasn`t involved, he not exactly seems to have forbidden someone painting him as taking credit, maybe ordered him to, at least the painter didn`t seem to think it would be terribly wrong painting him like that, (as opposed to showing a "secular" Saddam with mickey mouse ears or something). Moreover, the thing`s a print.

OK, I watched it and this is pretty much what I found.

Begins
Moonbats come to word, narrator narrates moonbattery

At 8:33 the first sane person comes to word for about 15-20 seconds. It's Stephen Trimble and he says basically that the hijacked plains couldn't be found on the radar because of all the air traffic.
At 9:05 Trimble explains again for 22 seconds how hard it was for the fighter jet to identify the hijacked plains.
At 9:41 Trimble again, for 20 seconds, saying that it was basically chaos for the air defenses.

In the first 13 minutes moonbattery reigned. Sanity came to word for only about 62 seconds.


Pentagon part begins at 13:12

It starts with the official line, moonbats and moonbattery (no plane flew into the Pentagon, it was a missile).
At 19:40 a guy explains for about 60 seconds that bodies in what looked like flight attendant dress were indeed found.
At 20:52 for about 40 seconds an Air Force pilot, O'Brien, who was flying a military plane in the area, says he saw how the American Airlines plane hit the Petagon.

In about 8 minutes sane people come to word for about 100 seconds.


Shanksville, PA begins at 21:39

It starts with the official line, moonbats and moonbattery.
At 25:27 the narrator mentions for about 5-10 seconds that there are government photos of the plain debris.
At 26:40, 13 seconds, a guy from the local morgue says that they found bodies in the hole in the ground.
At 27:14 the narrator says the the plane crashed and wasn't shot down, but asks why the government doesn't make public more stuff

In about 7 minutes sane people talk for about 23 seconds. The rest is official line, moonbats and moonbattery. However, the conclusion, about 4 seconds, is that the plane wasn't shot down.


New York begins at 27:18

Until 29:07 official line, moonbats and moonbattery.
From 29:07 until the end only sane people come to word. The fire is explained, the collapse of WTC7 is explained, the puffy clouds of white dust coming out of the collapsing towers are explained, time is spent on the very poor record of compliance with the fire regulations etc etc.

Conclusion 1: out of a total of 43 minutes and 47 seconds, sane people present their views for about 17 minutes (out of which the narrator is also sane for about 14 minutes). The rest of the time narrates events (sane) mixed with moonbattery (insane). Those are hard to quantify, but moonbattery predominates.
Conclusion 2: no evidence for the conspiracy theories, but plenty of questions unanswered by the government, who feed those theories.

Feel free to correct me.

This documentary was made in a masterful way. They present sane people and opinions, but they also raise so many questions that the unsuspecting viewer is clearly left with the feeling that something's not entirely kosher.

One thing is clear, it is not a definitive debunking of conspiracy theories. After Fritz watched this he won't say to himself "those guys are lunatics". He will possibly say "hey, what if they are not lunatics after all?".

As I said, it's quite cleverly done. The producers covered their behinds - "we clearly stated that there is no evidence for conspiracy theories" - without truly putting the conpsiracy theorists in their place. It looks like ZDF can be quite unbiased when they want to...

Ray, I've been thinking about it, and I have to take exception with your statement that ZDF is chasing ratings.
As you are well aware, ZDF is part of the German public television organization which is funded by taxpayer money. They collect these taxes and spend them making propaganda for the Sheeple, and they will do what they wish, whether 40 million tune in, 4 million, or 4. It is not a normal business that has to make a profit. It's the government. They get the money regardless. I don't think they care the square root of sod all about "ratings" -- they do however care about presenting a programme that appeals to the feudal masters, since they are the ones who will ultimately decide to raise the taxes and give ZDF and ARD more money. So their programme needs to suit the needs of THAT target audience, not the normal serf taxpayer.
Before anyone gets started: Yes, I fully understand the differences between Steuer, Abgaben, and Gebühren -- but in my mind, if there is a law that says you have to pay it, and there is no realistic way of avoiding it, then it's a tax. Plain and simple.
BTW, there was a recent court decision in Germany. Essentially, the high court decided that the last television tax increase was NOT HIGH ENOUGH to "guarantee the independence of public television" and therefore unconsitutional. YGBSM.

Scout,

I do hope your shock is an effort to be funny.

Such a ruling by a german court is not at all unusal. Want to bet the three captured terrorists if convicted will be walking the streets as free men in 12 years.

@WDIK
What an absymally idiotic way to analyse the documentary. The question is not how much time was devoted to each "side" - the question is the conclusion and how convincing the arguments are. So, when it takes 10 minutes to outline the conspiracy theory, and 10 seconds to debunk it - WTF is the problem?

plenty of questions unanswered by the government

The question is: Are the makers of this documentary to blame for this? For example, I really see no reason why they were not allowed to film the parts of the Shanksville wreck.
I think this is yet another example for the unprofessional public relations work of this administration.

"Want to bet the three captured terrorists if convicted will be walking the streets as free men in 12 years."
Joe, based on what I've seen, my bet would be that they drag them into court for about a year and a half before the prosecution's case comes apart at the seams, and all will be released, with apologies and probably with monetary compensation. There have been too many recent examples in recent history.

"So, when it takes 10 minutes to outline the conspiracy theory, and 10 seconds to debunk it - WTF is the problem?"
Fuchur, I'm afraid you just don't get it. Humans being humans, there is a great tendency to remember the 10 minutes as opposed to the 10 seconds, especially if you were at the fridge getting a beer during the 10 seconds. As the ancient Greeks said, repetition is the mother of education, or in this particular example, the mother of indoctrination and brainwashing. That's actually what it is.

"I really see no reason why they were not allowed to film the parts of the Shanksville wreck. "
Knowing what I know now about German television and how whatever they film will finally be twisted, filtered, and used as anti-American propaganda, I wouldn't even let them in the country. Persona non grata.

fuchur

I don't have anything to add to what I said September 14, 2007 at 06:59 PM. Scout obviously tries one more time to make even you understand what's wrong with it. (I bet without any success)

You talking about idiocy is quite a treat though. I bet you are on a deep personal level very familiar with the subject.

I´m a bit slow these days. Despite of Scout already writing that:.
When I was the one responsible for the wreck I ( and having met those clowns before I presumably would have had a foreshadow how this film was going to look like, additionaly made for the audience of a foreign country) I wouldn`t have given a filming permission either. What else? Gloomy X-files atmosphere, an in this context lurid exploitation of one of the victims by playing her last phone call, they really bother to visit and interview the truthers wich in the way its cut heightens them to a discussable level, presenting the truthers arguments in the same factual manner as the "debunking"- the sheer mass of argument for conspiracy just overwhelms the thin effort to straighten it out. It comes across like it`s really a bad thing they have to tell you that your believes are (maybe) a little wrong. The last minutes immediately go into the synthesis, where you won`t be left without a substitute argument why it wasn`t Al Quaida: it was the Harbor administration, and the worldview implied by seeing latter as guilty is much more comfortable and assuring. The last sentence "there is not enough prove for a conspiracy" sounds like they are really sorry to tell us, but who knows? Maybe in the next movie?
The boss of this piece was Guido Knopp btw, who has a history with his "ZDF history" infotainment "documentaries" greatly contributing to the (not so) subtle efforts of relativating the German history of making Nazi-time Germans victims of the Nazis and greatly emphasizing their troubles as bombed and dispelled. He loves to portrait single Nazi personalities as tragic morally torn and troubled individuals.
Fuchur, you seemingly either believe or want that stuff to be believed and play down the serious implications of it being believed, or, considering what you wrote about truth above, think it doesn`t matter what`s true because we choose what`s useful for us anyway. Want me to say "I love you?"
Closing, see this in context of what else is shown, and more important, not shown. The context with German / EU policy. When will a film like "Obsession" be shown, merely giving an overall impression of what the west is up to.

@fuchur
For example, I really see no reason why they were not allowed to film the parts of the Shanksville wreck.
I think this is yet another example for the unprofessional public relations work of this administration.

You are saying the filmakers assert the Bush administration prevented them from filming the Shanksville site? That sounds odd to me. fuchur, did they say WHEN they wanted to film it? Although I can think of good reasons to disallow it. IIRC, the site is now operated under the auspices of the National Park Service, an arm of the Federal government that is rarely, if ever, associated with a given administration.

"For example, I really see no reason why they were not allowed to film the parts of the Shanksville wreck."

Uhhh... and just one more thing, as Columbo used to say. I really don't want to mince words with someone not writing in his native language, but Fuchur seems to have enough command of English that I feel compelled to ask the following:

_Wreck_, Fuchur? Maybe I'm a little oversensitive, but for my ears, "wreck" is a lot like "accident." Didn't we just have a thread on that? I must question your choice of words.

@ scout

wreck - like "plane wreck" (well, it depends on what you want to read into it, i guess)

and while where at it, ray posted the article nearly 7.5h after it was shown on tv, not before.

just sayin'

You are saying the filmakers assert the Bush administration prevented them from filming the Shanksville site?

No. The idea was that the plane was shot down and the filmakers didn't have access to any pieces of the plane wreck (thus the government hiding any signs of the missile explosion that downed the plane).

WDIK
No. The idea was that the plane was shot down and the filmakers didn't have access to any pieces of the plane wreck (thus the government hiding any signs of the missile explosion that downed the plane).

ROTFLMAO!!

Right. A government that denies access to film makers is hiding evidence.

I want to see the unedited version of the broadcast. If they don't show it to me, they're hiding evidence.

@Scout

This is really too childish. Take a look at WDIK's "analysis" of the movie: Yes, it is of course possible that someone went to get a beer 8.33 min into the movie. And then again after 9:05. And at 9:41 again... and so on. Yes, in that way, a person really might miss all the instances when a conspiracy theory is debunked (and he'd be thoroughly drunk). But even in that laughably construed scenario you miss the fact that the conspiracy theories are mostly presented in question form: "Could it really be true...?" Thus, even a person that for some strange reason tuned out of the movie about 25 times, and always at the "right" point, wouldn't end up with the impression that the conspiracy theories are correct, but only with the nagging question: So, what's the answer?

@hobo

Basically you're saying that you didn't like the documentary. You don't like the "gloomy X-files atmosphere", you don't like that the "truthers" had a chance to present their case, ... That's fine with me. As I already said above, there are also things I didn't like.
However: You can't debate taste. Maybe somebody else thinks that this was a cool documentary, because of the X-files atmosphere, and the many interviews...

Whatever you feelings may be, the simple fact remains: This documentary debunks the conspiracy theories.

Take a look at WDIK's "analysis" of the movie

It's "funny" how fuchur uses the word analysis in scare quotes when he talks about my posting from September 14, 2007 at 06:37 PM.

I read what he says here and I sincerely wonder what in the world could go on through the head of a fuchur, or what in the world could be missing from the head of a fuchur...?

My "analysis" from September 14, 2007 at 06:37 PM is nothing else but a factual description of all the timelines in the film. *Nothing* in that posting is my subjective opinion, it is only a timeline. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, fuchur chooses to describe my dispassionate report of the timeline as being a scare-quote-analysis. If he believes I got the timeline wrong, fine, he should correct me. In fact, I even said Feel free to correct me.

I understand that someone like fuchur might not draw the same conclusions as I do from that timeline, but how can you argue with the objective timeline itself? Well, in fuchur's world (and mind) you can argue with it if you don't like the message it conveys.

fuchur displays the pattern so widespread on the left (he probably doesn't see himself on the left) - mixing up message and messenger due to lack of logical understanding.

fuchur chooses to describe my dispassionate report of the timeline as being a scare-quote-analysis

Well, boo-hoo. The simple reason is that a timeline is an inadequate way to analyse a documentary.
It's like trying to find out whether a glass contains water or Sprite by looking at the color of the liquid. Sure, "the liquid is colorless" is a quite objective observation - but I'd nonetheless label this approach an "analysis".

fuchur, you little challenged being, as I said before, you might not like what the timeline reveals, you might not like that I did it, but the timeline itself is not an "analysis".

I'd nonetheless label this approach an "analysis"

Aaahhh, well, thanks for displaying your open mindedness (not that I had any doubts about it).

a timeline is an inadequate way to analyse a documentary

:-) Sure, when you don't like the timeline. (BTW, this falls into the same category as "Bush should listen to his generals" - "Bush shouldn't listen to his generals". Dishonesty galore, but that's to be expected).

fuchur, what do you think happened on 9/11?

You heard it here first. The SPD is a front organization for the CIA.

@Mir
Actually I already answered that in a previous comment, but hey...

Well, I'm German, and as Scout so diligently observed, we Germans aren't capable of independent thought and stuff like that. Therefore I duly believe what my government and our MSM are telling me: It was Osama.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28