| ClanKiller.com https://forums.plasmasky.com/ |
|
| Video about 9/11 https://forums.plasmasky.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1672 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | ElevenBravo [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Video about 9/11 |
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0224991194 Very intriguing |
|
| Author: | derf [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its pretty crap. No decent sourcing, the narrator sounds like a geek, its all tarted up with rhetoric, spooky music and suspense. No real scientific reasoning. Shoddy and unreliable. |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dude, that video is totally full of shit. "a piece of equipment is mounted to the fuselage"... ...bullshit, it was a shadow. "the flash happened before impact".... ...bullshit, the flash happened immediately following impact. When you have an airplace going 400mph, judging the exact moment of impact based off of 25fps is a bit difficult. 'the flash is bigger than the fuselage"... ...first, it appears bigger than the fuselage...actually being bigger is something else. Optical distortion happens. Also, if the "flash" is an explosion...of course it's bigger than the fuselage. "the plane fired a missile"... ...this is where I lost it. It very obviously is not "firing a missile". It's hitting the building. You can see the nose piercing the side of the building. Also, planes don't fire missiles from their nose. Also, missiles don't blow up immediately after launch. Also, missiles have a very distinctive thrust....it's flame with diamonds in it from internal shockwaves. If you've ever seen it, you can't mistake it. Total fabrication.... ...and after running into something that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt complete fabrication, I lost interest. Anyway, sorry, it's just after watching for a couple minutes, absolutely every "point" the guy was making was wrong...one so horribly wrong it couldn't be anything than obvious fabrication. Makes me want to choke him. |
|
| Author: | derf [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Still, let us not discredit the underlying theme: Stay on your toes. |
|
| Author: | ElevenBravo [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Did you even watch it all? Its gets better and more scientific. You know its funny this the people who watch this video have 1 of 2 reactions. Which one are you? #1 You watch the full video and say "Wow, that was interesting" #2 You watch the first 20 seconds and say "FAKE" "BULLSHIT" "VIDEO IS TO GRAINY" Ive gotten the exact same reactions to this video and they are either #1 or #2 always. |
|
| Author: | derf [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well then let me analyse the trend. People #1 : Are people that are more intellectually refined when it comes to these matters. People #2 : Are more guillable people, that for the sheer fact that they even passed the first 2 minutes means that they did not detect the bullshit, and therefore reside in claiming that the material is infact, good. See what i mean? Its just an analysis. |
|
| Author: | ElevenBravo [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Since you so "intellectually refined" then Im sure you have heard the old saying "dont judge a book by its cover" |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sorry, but I can't take any video seriously when 'fact' after 'fact' is at best debateable and at worst complete BS. I mean, the missile thing was so ludicrous. It makes no sense on so many levels. Leaving aside the fact it didn't look like a missile, that a missile can't be fired 1/2 second from impact and expected to explode, and even how the fuck someone would wire a missile into an obviously civilian aircraft, WHY?! The damage caused by an airplane fully loaded with fuel would totally dwarf the damage caused by a missile, at least on a soft target like a building. It's pointless. Missiles are either to put holes through thing so they stop working (like other airplanes) or to focus some pain in a small, hard target (like a tank or bunker). You don't use missiles against soft target because you don't need to...you use something suited to the purpose. Like a bomb. If someone really wanted to make the airplane tear shit up, they would've stuck a 1,000 lb bomb in the cargo area. Now THAT would've caused some damage. Fuse that bastard to go off in the center of hte building, and BAM!, all the windows explode out and the building probably collapses since you blew out the supports. Bleh...anyway, regardless of who was responsible for 9/11, this guy either has his own agenda, or truly is an idiot that doesn't understand deductive reasoning. |
|
| Author: | derf [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:58 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | ||||||||||
I could also argue metaphorically by saying that infact i didnt "judge by the cover". Instead, I picked up the book (on recommendation) without knowing what it was about, read the first few chapters and THEN judged it. |
||||||||||
| Author: | ElevenBravo [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
@satis So just "missle" thing throws the whole video out? Did you even watch the rest? It raises a bunch of good questions. |
|
| Author: | pevil [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Vaguely paid attention to what little Mole watched of it. Sure its got some interesting points, though I'm not convinced either way myself. Yes, the lack of plane debris at the pentagon is intriguing. However the "this is what a 747 should look like from below" looked pretty much identical to me anyway, except a few ridges on the wings, and their "this is how it should have looked" only proved to me that the people making the video can edit video. |
|
| Author: | Myrddin L'argenton [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Generally occams razor rips this to shreds this argument. |
|
| Author: | derf [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Explain Ockams(sp?) razor? Too lazy for google. 
|
|
| Author: | Satis [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
@11b : your sig is broken, fyi. Anyway, I had a problem with every argument several minutes into the video, and then I did stop watching it. I didn't see the point. If the people are going to be stupid/lie about one thing, how can I trust their intelligence/integrity for the rest of the video? It just seems like a waste of my time to watch something that's already fatally flawed. Occam's razor...is that the law that states you shouldn't ascribe anything to conspiracy that can be caused by stupidity? Nah, googled it, nevermind. |
|
| Author: | Myrddin L'argenton [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Occam's Razor, old law stating that whatever is the simplest explanation is usually the right one, e.g. if I hear the sound of a smashed window and go outside to find someone in my garden with a smashed window pane caused by a football (note this is an English football for you Yanks) I would assume that it was them that caused it, not some bizzare alien prank. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
