Difference between revisions of "Snowshoe Films/Zelikow/part 2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with '==About== ZELIKOW Part 2, also titled "Zelikow's Parallel Universe", was posted to YouTube on {{date|2007-08-17|August 17, 2007}}. ==Description== From th…') |
m (→Arguments: inserted missing close-parenthesis) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Arguments== | ==Arguments== | ||
Zelikow's rhetorical techniques in response to pointed questioning are worth examining in more detail: | Zelikow's rhetorical techniques in response to pointed questioning are worth examining in more detail: | ||
| − | * In response to a question about some of the 9/11 hijackers being found alive (and why this issue was not even mentioned in the [[9/11 Commission Report]], he basically says the hijackers all died, and that's the best information we have. | + | * In response to a question about some of the 9/11 hijackers being found alive (and why this issue was not even mentioned in the [[9/11 Commission Report]]), he basically says the hijackers all died, and that's the best information we have. |
* He then subtly belittles the idea of questioning the official story by claiming that any alternative interpretation could only have taken place in a "parallel universe" with very little connection to this one. The put-down implicitly links "[[truther]]s" with [[UFO nut]]s. | * He then subtly belittles the idea of questioning the official story by claiming that any alternative interpretation could only have taken place in a "parallel universe" with very little connection to this one. The put-down implicitly links "[[truther]]s" with [[UFO nut]]s. | ||
* Mentions that there are about 2000 allegations, but there are "so many incredible allegations" that they simply didn't have time to address them all because they "couldn't have sustained the narrative and the kind of report we wanted to provide". | * Mentions that there are about 2000 allegations, but there are "so many incredible allegations" that they simply didn't have time to address them all because they "couldn't have sustained the narrative and the kind of report we wanted to provide". | ||
Revision as of 22:59, 2 February 2010
About
ZELIKOW Part 2, also titled "Zelikow's Parallel Universe", was posted to YouTube on August 17, 2007.
Description
From the YouTube description:
Zelikow, author of the 9/11 Commission Report, responds to a couple of uncensored questions August 9, 2007 at Chautauqua Institution. Question 1 comes from Paul Zarembka, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11-2001. Professor Zarembka, State University of New York at Buffalo (Economics Dept), asks Zelikow why he failed to investigate reports of several of the so-called hijackers alive and protesting their non-involvement. Then yor yevrah of snowshoefilms asks Zelikow about Building 7. Zelikow says he doesn't accept the hypothesis that any buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
Arguments
Zelikow's rhetorical techniques in response to pointed questioning are worth examining in more detail:
- In response to a question about some of the 9/11 hijackers being found alive (and why this issue was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report), he basically says the hijackers all died, and that's the best information we have.
- He then subtly belittles the idea of questioning the official story by claiming that any alternative interpretation could only have taken place in a "parallel universe" with very little connection to this one. The put-down implicitly links "truthers" with UFO nuts.
- Mentions that there are about 2000 allegations, but there are "so many incredible allegations" that they simply didn't have time to address them all because they "couldn't have sustained the narrative and the kind of report we wanted to provide".
- Claims it's impossible to refute every theory because as soon as you refute one version, it pops up again as another version.
- In response to the question about WTC7, Zelikow cites an "enormous engineering study", but just says "we don't believe" it was CD. No explanation, no counterargument; just "we don't believe". "We don't find any persuasive, affirmative evidence that this is true."
- Zelikow simply leaves when a questioner asks him how he accounts for WTC7's rapid rate of descent.