I agree, it shouldn't have been locked.

At any rate, I typed up this reply but was unable to post it before it was locked:



I've watched more of it now, and let me break it down for you:

1.) The kid is interviewing people who are uncredible to say the least, and looking for attention at best. One of the guys has been writing conspiracy theory books for a long time. He's even dumb enough to quote tabloids.

2.) The narration has basic grammar issues... do you really think that a kid who can't even narrate with correct grammar is clever enough to uncover all of this?

3.) His favorite thing to say is "The governmen isn't talking" or "The FAA isn't talking" or "So and So isn't talking". Actually, they are talking. The kid is either refusing to read what they've said or is making up it for dramatic effect. I choose the latter.

4.) All of his information from eye-witness accounts is from tapes of CNN and Fox News from a couple hours after it all happened. All of the accounts are from phone-in callers, who have absolutely no crediblity. If these people had actually seen what they claim to have seen, then there would have been a lot more talk about all of that afterwards. In almost every single major event in history, and especially tramatic events, people tend to imagine things, remember them incorrectly or even flat out make stuff up. Many people in New Orleans claim that they saw goverment jets dropping bombs on the levies during Hurricane Katrina. Oh wait... you probably believe that one too.

5.) He talked about other buildings that were on fire that hadn't collapse. None of those buldings suffered the impact of a commercial airliner, and none of those buildings were as big as the World Trade Center. Also, the World Trade Center was built MUCH differently. Do you know those 110 story buildings were designed? They were held up the the exterior of the building. The internal skeleton wasn't for support. This aided in those building's collapse.

6.) He has no proof to back up any of the government documents, or even the quotes for that matter. Ugh.


Either you can let yourself get taken or you can do some research on your own and see how wrong this documentary is.

Odds are the post would have went down in flames eventually, or at least broken up into one of those huge debates that goes nowhere.

Ever since Anarchy Robot posted a new theory every week those sorts of posts have been against forum policy.
Conspiracy theories fall into the 'controversial posts' category.
Nowdays we've got blogs, which are a much better place for that sort of stuff.

I really wish that there were notes attached to threads when they get locked, even if the reason seems obvious.

Just because a thread will probably go down in flames doesn't mean needs to get locked BEFORE it ever happens. Wait until something is actually wrong before you fix it.

True, there's a warning of "controversial posts such as religion, politics, race, sex, etc. may be removed without notice" but that rule is, in my opinion, shit. Don't punish entire topics because a minority of the community acts up. Go after them instead of what seems to be the easy way out by shutting everybody up.

They may have the largest ratio of drama, but they're also the most interesting types of threads you'll ever read. That's why they're called controversial. Take that away and all you get are circlejerks of posts that are generally a waste of time to read. Nobody wants to waft through a thousand replies of the same thing, which is what gets those eventually locked for "chattiness" too.

Edit: Typed before seeing Digi's reply. Still, I don't think that sterilyzing the forums of "hot topics" is a good thing. It's not like everybody is a Byond member to bring up their questions. Besides, the extent of drama you get here is Jamesburrow.

Nono, what I meant is that most of the drama stems from Jamesburrow's posts. They're the source. Whether he intends for that to happen or not, I can't say. I don't mean this like he's doing it on purpose.

The thing about these blogs is that because there isn't supposed to be any moderation, that anybody can take things into their own hands. So now you get people banning others from their journals left and right and making a scene and causing even more drama than before.

I understand that the Byond moderators only do this because they want a friendly atmosphere, but I think that by avoiding one extreme it's shifting to another. The moment a couple of people erupt, the conversation will get blasted for everybody.

I know most analogies suck, but I think it's like spraying an entire garden with herbicide just because a few weeds pop up, whereas the Byond journals have the capability of fertilizing themselves and stretching things out of proportion.

"Many people in New Orleans claim that they saw goverment jets dropping bombs on the levies during Hurricane Katrina. Oh wait... you probably believe that one too."

Wow, now that's an eye-opener. ;-)