This week's film is produced by the History Channel, and it represents the official 9/11 story.
As you watch this film, consider the following: Who are the "talking heads" for each side of this debate? Are they equally credible as experts? Are they given equal time on screen? Who typically gets the last word?
Does this film emphasize the evidence of Press for Truth or Loose Change?
I found this documentary to be fairly biased against conspiracy theorists. The “talking heads” that spoke for the conspiracy theorists were a car mechanic, teenage boys and a former religion professor. Where as the spokesman against conspiracy theorists included, an editor-in-chief of a magazine, research editor and a magazine publisher. Furthermore, the anti-conspiracy theorists almost always seemed to get the final word on every matter. The conspiracy theorists however do seem to get more screen time, but their evidence is consistently discredited one way or another quickly by the ‘non-believers’. The thing that really stuck out to me was the burden of proof. The conspiracy theorists make claims that building seven was demolished on purpose yet provide no evidence that to me is definitive and beyond a doubt proving it to be true. Just like in a court of law it is the job of the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This cuts both ways because I have not seen such evidence come out of either school of thought. This documentary further strengthened my position that there was no conspiracy to attack the USA on September 11, 2001. At the beginning Michael Shurmer says, “A huge event should have an equally huge cause” which I believe is where a lot of conspiracy theorists start.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe video offers some interesting insight by systematically going through each conspiracy and debunking them. I feel as though conspiracy theorists would be better off choosing a few counter conspiracies and sticking to them, rather than attempting to question every single event that transpired on Sept 11 2001. Even after watching the video I continue I've to have reservations surrounding the events surrounding Sept 11. But mainly in the areas of the governments unwillingness to release information. While watching loose change I remember being swayed in the direction of a conspiracy regarding the hole left in the building. However I felt the experts opinion regarding what happened to be valid. Especially when the expert from popular mechanics said "conspiracy theorists imagine that when a plane hits a structure it leaves some kind of cartoon like imprint of a plane" only to go on and explain that, that is not the case. Although his opinion was slightly facetious, it was a good point that has merit. Overall I felt it was an interesting documentary that provided a good counter balance to loose change.
ReplyDeleteThe bias in this video is undeniable. Not only between the representation of the “talking heads”, but by the narrative as well. On the one end they have their “credible experts,” including credible researchers, historians, magazine editors, and authors, while on the conspiracy theorists are represented by young boys, a truck driver, a retired professor, and some random students. While the documentary is presenting these not so credible speakers, the narrative is reinforcing the notion that all conspiracy theorist are unreliable with statements about their methods of spreading information. They give examples of theorists as being loners, with laptops in basements, with the ability to post their opinions and home made documentaries on whatever blog, video uploading site or personal website. After this type of statement they introduce Dylan Avery, the director of “Loose Change,” and make sure to mention his age, his laptop, and that his documentary started as a work of fiction. Not only are the experts more credible than theorists, but there seem to be more of them as well. Both parties seem to have equal amounts of time on screen; however, the theorists are generally discredited with a rebuttal, leaving the experts with the last word. Nevertheless, I did find the argument over a passage from Dylan Avery’s documentary to be rather interesting. In his documentary, Avery points to an excerpt written by Thomas Donnelly from the Rebuilding America’s Defense Report. The statement describes the need for a revolutionary change through a catastrophic event, “like a new Pearl Harbor.” When I watched Loose Change, this statement surprised me, and I was swayed to the theorist side, but by introducing the author of that statement, who seems genuine in his dismay that it was not meant in the manor presented, I found the statement less credible. That being said, the video does offer some interesting insights, even with the obvious presence of bias.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction, the portrayal of conspiracies was done in a manner to discredit and make them seem inferior. The film was deem to “debunk” each conspiracy out there with their so-called experts but instead it didn’t deliver a convincing case. Although the experts against conspiracies seemed to look more credible than the side who were for the conspiracies, they still didn’t provide valid answers in order to “debunk” all of the theories. For example when they brought up the conspiracy of controlled demolition theory the experts stated how it may appear that way but it is completely possible for the buildings to fall like that. The experts blame the conspiracy theorists of ignoring the scientific evidence while when explaining how the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed they only speak vaguely and didn’t mention specific studies conducted or even other engineers who agree with their explanation of the collapse. The film focused heavily on the psychological reasons of why people make up and believe conspiracies. The experts would talk about how people who believe in conspiracies are emotionally unstable and are unable to accept that a group of “nobodies” could carry such a plan causing mass destruction. The experts also highlighted the point of how heartless conspiracy theorists are since they don’t think about all of the lives that were taken and the families impacted on 9/11. This statement completely ignores the fact that the families impacted were the ones who pushed for the commission report and are still actively fighting for answers. Although conspiracy theories get more film time ,the film definitely gives the experts the last word as if to state that the conspiracy has been “debunked”. The film emphasizes evidence from Loose Change in order to discredit the information with its panel of experts. No evidence is mentioned from the 9/11: Press for Truth, since it would be hard to explain why the American government didn’t want to issue an investigation on one of the biggest tragedy to occur in American history.
ReplyDeleteThe film Fact or Fiction is very bias towards the official commission report, and blatantly disregards the conspiracy theories. The narrator was introduced as part of the history channel, professional, and in support of the commission. They then proceeded to immediately portray the conspiracy theorists as pushy or arrogant. In this film we again see an appearance of Alex Jones, the radical theorist who was known to have absurd ideas; he was in support of the conspiracy theories. The “talking heads” were very opposite and it was clear who was supported. Those who supported the commission were historians, religious professors, magazine editors of Popular Mechanics, the documentary referred to them as “the experts.” Also on the screen they were all given an official title along with their name and a long time frame to express their opinions. Whereas the conspiracy theorists were given a short time frame, sometimes only seconds, and often no title or name. Even when they were given a title it was that of nurse, truck driver, and random supporter. They were clearly portrayed as not professional in order to portray the image of being unreliable. Often they compared the director of Loose Change, Dylan Every, with the other similarly aged man Davin Cobrun who is an editor of Popular Mechanics. They portrayed Dylan as young, just out of high school; not professional looking and often didn’t get a tile or name and used sentences such as “like to believe Loose Change is official.” On the other hand they presented Davin as professional; wearing a suit, always got a name and official title, and used big words to explain his support for the commission. They used these two people to contrast the two opinions, clearly showing support for the official report. They included Bush as one spokesperson and deliberately included the clip of him telling all citizens to rebuke the conspiracy theories. They showed the theorists harassing other citizens such as Val and her photograph of Flight 93; to discredit the theories. Every time the theorists come up with a point discrediting the commission, it was quickly rebuked by experts with lengthy official evidence. Those in favour of the commission always got the last word, even to the extent of calling Loose Change propaganda.
ReplyDeleteI found this film pretty biased against the conspiracy theory side of things. The “talking heads” that provided evidence for the conspiracy theorists were a car mechanic, teenage boys who created loose change and a former religion professor. And the spokesman against conspiracy theorists included, an editor-in-chief of a magazine, research editor and a magazine publisher. This film was used to go against the conspiracy theorists and made them out to be arrogant and liars. It seemed to me like both sides had a decent amount of time on the screen, if not the conspiracy theorists may have had a little more time. That also includes the protesting and the non conspiracy telling us why the other side isn't true. The non conspiracy theorists also tried to get more "reliable" resources to make them seem more professional than the opposing side. Example: Val and her picture of flight 93. Another aspect I found to be unreliable about this film was the fact that they were calling the non conspiracists the "experts." Just because they agree with the commission report does not make them more right than any other evidence found about 9/11. The experts go on calling conspiracy theorists "no bodies" and said they were insensitive to the families who lost people in the tragic event. Although they were known as the experts, in my opinion they were being disrespectful and unwilling of the other side's evidence and stories. Even if the film allowed more time for the conspiracy theorists to try to explain their findings, the "experts" always got the last word in to show that their facts and commission is the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe video was according to me good summary of conspiracy theories. It also provided us expert responses about the different conspiracies raised. Although the “talking heads” that were believers of conspiracy theorist, that is, the conspiracy theorists were shown as “losers”, teenage boys, radio show host while on the other the people who were against conspiracy theories were shown as well educated and also well-dressed compared to that of believers of conspiracy theories. Moreover, though the conspiracy believers had a large part in the video of believing and providing evidence to them but the experts who were non-believers had the last part and more influential one in the video. The video emphasizes a lot on the “Loose change.” when interviewing the director of loose change and his evidence of different forms of lights before collapsing world trade center were evidence that there were bombs placed in WTC but when experts gave there point to discard such evidence and the way they explained it, seek views attention, pulling it away from conspiracy believers and according to me it happened at every response to every evidence by conspiracy believers. Over all, the video was biased and disregarded the conspiracy theories calling them stone hearted and complete nobodies.
ReplyDeleteThe video is undeniably biased against the conspiracy theorists. It seems to show the conspiracy theorists as more emotional and sporadic people. One thing I caught was that the professionals point out the lack of evidence that the theorists provide in their arguments, and yet they give no evidence of their own to back up their own arguments. They provide alternatives in the same manner that the conspiracy theorists did. The things that the conspiracy theorists looked at as potential explosions in the towers were called air by the professionals, but there is nothing to make their claim any more credible than the one made by the theorists. One valid argument that they gave was that they pointed out that the fires and collision damage for the world trade centers did not have to be significant enough to destroy the metal in the towers completely, but rather do enough to cause the metal to become unable to support the weight above it any further. I find that I am easily deceived by this stuff. When the argument that the flames are incapable of destroying the metal entirely, I bought it whole heartedly. Now when I’m told that the metal did not need to be destroyed entirely for the towers to collapse, I totally agree with them. Perhaps it is the ability of these people to brainwash you with the way they present the fact, or perhaps my own ignorance that makes me so susceptible to these stories. The structuring of the film sides with the so-called ‘experts’, as the pieces provided by the conspiracy theorists are presented in a manner that shows them to be the brain child of under qualified people, and then they present the ‘experts’ who are more professionally dressed and given the final say on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis film gave me a more realistic glimpse into the events that unfolded on 9/11/01, from the standpoint of several professionals, and many conspiracy theorists. Let me begin by saying that I appreciate that this film offered opinions from Structural Engineers, Professors, Researchers, as well as the conspiracy theorists. I did, however, find that the demographics of the talking heads differed largely between the professionals and the theorists.
ReplyDeleteThe film used the authority of these structural engineers, researchers, and scientists to really debunk the views of the conspiracy theories and offer a fresh and reassuring look at 9/11. The supporters of the 9/11 truth movement, like Dylan Avery and the mechanic interviewed on the sidewalk, likely have very little - if any at all - formal education on the matter of 9/11, only very extreme ideas. Allowing these two very opposite populations to "play on the same field" sets the conspiracy theorists up for failure. The questions asked by the conspiracy theorists are confidently answered by these professionals, and backed up with scientific examples and case studies. For example, while theorists would like to believe that a plane crashing into a building would cause a cartoon cutout of that plane, scientists and engineers explain why that wasn't the case, using the laws of physics.
While experts were seemingly given way more air time and always the last word, it is about time. For too long, people have taken the words of Dylan Avery and his friends as Gospel after watching Loose Change. This film provides a good and presumably reputable counter argument to films like Loose Change and Press for Truth. Overall, I find this documentary to provide a lot of answers to once unanswered questions.
After watching the film it is clear that the film has a bias stand against the conspiracy theorists. The two sides are not evenly represented in the documentary. I felt like the documentary was made to counter attack the video made by Dylan Avery, Loose Change. The one side was made up of many experts and professionals, generally speaking older more well established individuals. The theorists side was made up of a few young guys and one retired professor. When examining the information brought forward buy the conspiracy side it makes it difficult to believe their claims without more creditable sources or expects backing up these claims. As for the representation in the film I feel that the theorists got a fair amount of screen time but the other side merely picked their claims apart using their sources. I feel that the non conspiracy theory side always had the last word in the film. This was probably done strategically, as their claims would be the last thing most viewers would take away from that particular problem being described.The film itself did not persuade me in any particular direction. I am not sure where I stand on the 9/11 events. There certainly are some interesting facts or things that happened during the attacks, but proving the entire plot was a conspiracy is a difficult process. Some other the events on that day I do believe someone or a few select individuals knew about them and where a part of the process but proving so isn't as easy. I do believe that there was a purpose for the attacks of 9/11 and that bin Laden and his men simply did not act alone, the U.S at some point played a role in the destruction that occurred following the attacks of 9/11.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary was well organized and is seemingly successful in its debunking of conspiracy theory. After watching loose change i was slightly swayed in the direction of conspiracy theory after hearing some of its claims. After viewing the documentary the claims made by loose change seem increasingly opinionated and lacking in hard evidence. It would have been more effective to have more knowledgable and unbiased researchers look into the claims made by loose change. This is somewhat present in this documentary, however the documentary seems quite biased against conspiracy theory. The documentary also uses ad hominem attacks against the conspirators themselves, which drags attention away from evidence. I think the video would have been ore productive had it included more intellectual researchers on the side of the conspiracy theorists instead of its focus on speculative enthusiasts.
ReplyDeleteThis movie is very biased especially on who is talking for each side. On one side we have a truck mechanic vs a civil engineer or a nurse vs a demolition expert. In the film it seems as they want to make sure the conspiracy theorists do not have a leg to stand on. The non-conspiracy theorist are defiantly given more time and are usually the one who gets the last word. Even the narrator sounds like he is against the conspiracy theorists. In this film they portray conspiracy theorists as lower educated, young and crazy yet the non-conspiracy theorists are highly educated older and seem trusting. Alex jones definitely does not help the conspiracy theorists case at all. The engineer and the demolition expert defiantly had some helpful insight on some of the theories. For example the plane hitting the pentagon in my opinion they had a great explanation that made sense to me. The only fact that seems to be not included in any of these movies is the fact of the insider trading of the event. To me this the most important piece of the puzzle.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning of 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction seemed to be steering the viewer in the direction of 9/11 Conspiracy theories, however, as the film progressed, it was evident that the main purpose of the film was to discredit theorists and represent the official story of the event. There were several factors in this film that not only depreciated the theorists and portrayed their ideas as insignificant but also credited the official story as well as the people who supported it. The ‘talking heads ‘ on the conspiracy theorists side were identified and described as “20 something year old” teenage boys, a truck driver, etc; while on the opposite side of the spectrum, the supporters of the official reports were magazine editors, historians and professors and were further identified as the “experts”. I also found that the expert opinions were definitely given a little bit more time on the screen as an attempt to further increase their significance.
ReplyDeleteThis film definitely emphasized and tried to discredit the ideas of the film Loose Change. Firstly, the film mentions how it started as fictional then made into a documentary which basically says there isn’t truth in Loose Change. Second, the film literally attacked each idea that Loose Change had and stated both sides of the specific element in a expert vs. theorist battle. 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction definitely sided with the experts and made their ideas and explanation seem far more professional and credible than the theorists leaving the experts with the final word; that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. This film was successful in providing other possible insights to certain elements of 9/11 such as the hole in the Pentagon, the steel of the WTC, witness accounts of the secondary explosion that was heard, controlled demolition, etc; however, in my opinion, the experts opinion can be just as credible as the opinions of the conspiracy theorists because when it comes down to it, both sides offer their opinions and try to explain it as much as they possibly can but there is no proof that can either credit or discredit their ideas. People can take sides as much as they want but as far as I’m concerned, there is not enough evidence to prove either side.
The main drive for this documentary seems to be to portray conspiracy theorists as nut jobs by discrediting their ideas towards the events of 9/11. There is a strong bias against conspiracy theorists which is prevalent throughout the whole film. For example, they take examples of conspiracies talked about in Loose Change and debunk them using their own explanation. An example of this would be the second explosion that was apparently heard after the building collapsed. Theorists say that it is because of government bombs placed in the building while experts say that it was just an explosion that sounded like a bomb due to all the chaos happening in the building. The talking theorist heads in this film were portrayed as teenagers, random people and a truck driver and the anti-conspiracists were professionals like editors and historians and were the ones who had the last say in this video. The amount of time on the screen that both sides had were pretty close but the experts had a little bit more. In regards to credibility the fact that this video was placed on the History Channel makes the experts appear more credible than it is since the History Channel is an educational channel. I think the experts are more credible because they have more knowledge on this stuff because they can back up their explanations with science. It is more likely that their explanations are correct instead of the conspiracy theorists but it doesn't mean it is what definitely happened. This video emphasized Loose Change and not Press for Truth.
ReplyDeleteI found that this documentary was particularly biased towards conspiracy theorists. The film was not evenly represented. The one side was based on conspiracy theorists that were made up of younger uneducated men and the other side was the older educated experts. I believed that within the movie the conspiracy theorists did get to have a say; however, in the end they did get to back up their points. The experts came in and explained what “actually happened” with factual evidence. I believe that the non- conspiracy side always had the last word in the film. The talking head theorists in the film were described as the young uneducated individuals. There is certain event that took place during 9/11 that makes me question what actually happened or if someone knew the attack was going to happen. However, this video did clear up some of my questions. I believe that will never know what actually happened that day.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video, I felt this documentary was biased against conspiracy theorists. It seems as their ideas, or theories I should say was out of line. It's quite funny how credible magazine editors, historians, experts and such were the ones to represent the actual events and what what had happened during that time. However; when it came to the conspiracy theorists there were presented as random young boys, a truck driver and a retired teacher; who probably don’t do much in their spare time but sit behind their laptops and live in their basements. It does not give much credibility to them, which means anyone who were to watch it would brush off the ideas of the conspiracy theorists. Even the tone of the narrator is biased towards the conspiracy theorists and their ideas. When it came to the “credible” educated experts on the incidents of 911, their answers and conclusions to the many questions asked were not very complete. They do not seem to give a full and satisfying answer to the questions they were asked. They were not able to “debunk” the conspiracy theorists’ theories. It seemed to me as if the experts always had the last say to almost everything.
ReplyDeleteThe talking heads in this movie were not evenly selected for the two sides of this argument. The conspiracist they chose to highlight were not credible sources unlike the anti-conspiracist which were well educated professionals. It is hard to accept or acknowledge the movies message when it is so clearly biased. It completely discredits the whole thing. In football nobody likes to watch a blow out win, it is the same scenario here. When you put unfair competition against each other like the nurse versus the demolition expert it gives off a sense that something is off. To continue with the sport analogy the conspiracists were average joes versus NBA All-stars (the experts). I would be more readily to agree with the expert if they had to face strong counter arguments and still were able to defend their points. This movie colors conspiracy theorist as loner internet dwellers with a wild imagination that likes to sit in their basements. However, they did not talk about the hundreds of architects that do not agree with the official 9/11 story. The movie also used ad hominen attacks against the conspiracy theorists. It was interesting hearing how the 4000 jews didn't go to work theory started. The movie ends with the experts being able to have the last word and create a lasting impression in the audiences mind.
ReplyDelete