Sponsors: Expat Living Forum
View Active Topics Latest 100 Topics View Your Posts Mobile Version Join Mailing List
Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.
I'm into part two right now. IMO, part one was very well done. The footage shown was as I remember but I don't know who the 'guy' is who is telling his story. Either I didn't pay attention to an introduction or he hasn't revealed his name.
I’ve now made my way through 2 of the 10 videos, over 20 minutes of this hour and a half mocumentary. As I was watching, I made notes of the things they discussed. Scepcop says the information is “irrefutable.” Here are the notes I took while watching the first two videos. (Please let me know if I misrepresented the actual comments in the video.)
Zero: Osama is not on FBI Most Wanted List for 9/11.
Wag: So what? OBL hasn’t been indicted for the crime of 9/11 which would be required for addition to the list. To do so would require releasing information that could be detrimental to national security. There’s enough out there for his other crimes to put him away many, many times over.
Zero: “Explosion” by guy on 86th floor (name not written down).
Wag: Not sure what his story was supposed to be about, but perhaps he talks again later in the movie. If it’s because of the sound of explosions, then give me a break. Just what the hell is the sound of a jet plane hitting a 100 story building supposed to sound like? Also, just what the hell is a 100 story building collapsing supposed to sound like? Cotton swaps falling off your bathroom counter?
Zero: "WTCs designed to resist 2 plane crashes" - WTC, Frank DeMartini, WTC Designer.
Wag: Flat out misrepresentation of the facts. An airplane impact was considered by the designers, but it was not incorporated into the building code (explained in NCSTAR1-1 (18). His comment is actually not supported by the calculations of any designer and his comment is merely speculative. Unfortunately, we will never know for certain what he would say now as he was killed on 9/11.
Zero: “Never before or after 9/11 have steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire” Les Jamieson (a bit further in the 2nd movie, the Windsor Tower in Madrid was shown quite extensively.)
Wag: "The towers had their unique design. They can not be compared to other buildings, which have not even been damaged by an impact before the fires. The claim often includes comparisons to the Madrid Windsor fire. However, Windsor had a reinforced concrete structure with steel. All the steel parts collapsed there.
The towers were hit by airplanes traveling at very high speeds. Fireproofing was removed from the impact zones. Why would you fireproof steel if fire did nothing to it? (Brett, can you verify that the steel at the WTC was fireproofed and if so, why did they do it if steel isn't affected by fire?) The steel structure and supporting columns were severed and weakened by the impacts and further by the fires. Hat trusses redistributed the loads to the remaining columns, that eventually couldn't support the enormous masses of the upper parts of the buildings. The collapses started from the areas of the aircraft impact. The collapse was not improbable, it was evident.
Controlled demolition is never started from the top. And nothing was controlled in the twin towers collapse. Debris flew everywhere."
Wag: I skipped over some stuff here as I am needing to move on with my life. So, I will end it with this. According to the Zero Video (by the way, appropriate name): “There was molten metal weeks after collapse.” Dr. Jones. While he was discussing the molten metal, the video shows the “waterfall” look of metal falling about 2/3 up the building. The video is of the towers while still standing, where’s the picture/video of this metal weeks later? Still nothing concrete has been presented. If he was referring to the molten metal that was free-falling, then that is a separate issue altogether. But none-the-less, it makes me wonder why Dr. Jones talks of molten metal for weeks after 9/11, yet when he’s discussion it, the video is showing the "waterfall effect" and this is even highlighted by a red circle for emphasis. Are the producers trying to convince us they are referring to the same thing? I don’t know. You can watch it for yourself. It’s towards the end of Video #2.
Wag: Conclusion: The first two 10-minute videos confirmed my hypothesis that this film is full of misrepresented facts and unless one uses critical thinking, then one could be made to believe in conspiracy theories. If one were to use critical thinking, then the only conclusion drawn from this video is that the filmmakers did not want to present the facts, but rather present theories they hope will convince people to support their agenda, whatever that may be.
Now, can we PLEASE move on to something else! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, for the love of God! No more frickin’ propaganda videos!!!!!
I agree with you that the video is very well done. However, if the filmakers produced a crappy video, would you watch it regardless of their position?
First of all, we are talking about YouTube segments.
Segments may have been edited
Pieces taken out of context
Things put in that weren't there in the first place
The rest would be determined according to my definition of 'crappy'.
Video is choppy or shaking around due to bad camera holding
Done in language that I can't understand, like technical terms that would go right over my head.
Monotone narration that puts me to sleep
Really grainey filming which seems to happen a lot on YouTube
The video keeps stopping and starting due to improper loading
As long as I can watch something that doesn't make me hit the 'back button' due to boredom or any of the above, I will watch it if asked. I am not a fan of YouTube to begin with.
That doesn't mean that I can or will comment on it objectively or in an educated manner until I finish watching it.
Which is exactly what we skeptics are left spending so much of our time doing...pointing out what is inaccurate, Identifying what has been edited, taken out of context, etc. If all one is going to do (okay, I'll say his name--Scepcop) is post a video and watch it a couple of times and agree 100% with it's contents without doing any personal research into the validity of the information presented in the video, that makes him wrong in presenting it as irrefutable.
That is why I am glad that SCEPCOP puts up these videos for discussion. Think about how many things 'experts' put out as irrefutable until someone proves them otherwise and they find that their data is flawed or they just plain lied about the results. Until someone can prove it to be other than it really is, it will stay as fact. The more people discussing their personal views, the better the chance of different viewpoints determining the facts. Even if a film that is up for discussion is blown out of the water as hooey. I'm not saying that anything posted here is complete hooey either. I do enjoy reviewing these 'films' for a few reasons as they do make one think.
Hmmmm, I'm not sure I can agree with much of that. Sorry Ninja. The films that he's putting out there such as Blueprint, Zero, Mystery, etc. are chalk-full of inaccurate data. The DaVinci Code made me think even though it was a work of fiction. If he presented as non-fiction, then there would be much to discuss about it as it contained many non-factual errors. But these videos that Scepcop's putting up are presented as non-fiction when, much of the information is simply fiction. It's the other way around. I don't enjoy people taking me for a fool which is how I view these filmakers.
Fiction, non-fiction, opinion, a ploy for attention, vanity, world domination... who really cares? One man's melted plastic is another man's pool of molten iron. Most of what I see is speculation and opinion. Isn't that what they call 'spin'? You're only going to see what 'they' want you to see. Who's going to show you a totally unbiased 'YouTube' video that doesn't represent their opinion?
As for films...same thing. In the same light, if the government puts it out, it must be true. They always have their facts 100% correct, right? I don't think so. In the name of 'National Security' there have been gaping holes of left out information in many different investigations. I understand this mentality and I don't necessarily argue it's importance. But then you have to be a believer of another type if you're willing to overlook ommission of information.
The way that science like to prove or disprove something is by replicating the situation. Since that can't be done in this instance, we can only assume that claims made are correct or incorrect. You can play with accurate models or cardboard boxes and with computers doing the math until the cows come home but the best you can do is speculate or form a theory with the available information. We know that the WTC buildings came down on Sept. 11. The 'who', 'why' or 'how' is up for discussion and probably always will be.
Who: Al Qaeda (Specifically, 19 men who's names I can't pronounce as well as a few other supporters and planners.)
Why: Because the U.S. support Israel and because the US is seen as an invader of the Middle East and is perceived to want to take over wealth, land, and ownership of the Middle East through financial, political, and military domination. (Not necessarily an invalid reason).
How: Flyng lessons, willingness to die and spend eternity with a bunch of virgins, and a well-planned hijacking scheme that was virtually undetectable.
What's so hard to understand about that?
no disrespect prof - but it must be wonderful to have such faith in the "official line " ,most people in the uk would not beleive our poiticos ( or would at least ways check ) if they wished them good morning !! - are all the american people so different ?? - obviously not seeing as there are questions being asked
a few quotes you may like to consider :
Edmund Burke (attributed):
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary: men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.
Pearl S. Buck:
When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevail.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings.
and lastly :
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. quote verified at snopes.com
i hope you get my drift
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
No disrespect taken Brett, but the who, why, and how in this case is very clear. Anything else such as theories that incorporate no planes, missiles, and thermite scheduled to explode an hour after the planes hit does not meet the common sense test, much less the evidence tests. In fact, any suggestion that the US Government planned, executed, or did nothing to stop it is outlandish, wishfull thinking on those that hate the US Government.
I'm not saying there isn't more to investigate as far as what the government actually knew, but the who, why, and how is quite clear and supported by overwhelming evidence.
BTW Brett, a page or two back I asked if you could verify that the steel in the WTC was fireproofed. Do you know if it was?
Nothing. That is all very understandable and acceptable.
I might even go out on the line and say I can understand why they did it. I mean, putting myself in their shoes, I don't like a bunch of people outside my boundaries telling me what to do and invading my space. If it were purely religious base, I'd have a hard time with it, but there is more motivation for them to do what they did than that.
I just re-read my post and believe that I may have come across rude to you Ninja. If so, I apologize. I was intending that question to be geared towards the hardened, 9/11 pseudo-skeptics.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests