 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
221.165.250.250
The internet seems to be producing armchair movie makers but it is perhaps a way of finding talented documentarians and other film makers who do not have to get eaten by the slack jawed hollywood machine of sterile plot lines.I recently viewed this free documentary about 9/11 which is interesting and quite well made. Though tough to take I suspect for a number of people. The trouble is there i much truth in this film and images are worth sometimes all the words necessary -- as is the science.
It is less sensational than a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 so it may actually be able to convince the right wingers that something funny really was going on -- black ops on the homeland -- not at all unlike the film Wag the Dog.
1 and half hour free film that is far more engaging than 90% of the dreck that came to the movie theaters this year.
Follow Ups:
It's largely "right-wingers" (also called, more revealingly, "anti-government" types) who think the 9/11 thing was hokum, just like the OK City bombing, and even Waco.clark
Sorry I just figured it was levelled at right Wingers - since they re elected (well Bush was not really elected the first time) the proto-human a second time. There is a 1 and half hour presentation of a writer named Webster Tarpley - though his assertions seem a little convenient - but Bush being a puppet seems reasonable given Bush's obvious lack of intellectual insight.Although the whole Bush family monarchy plutarchy thing sure is humorous and makes you pause at least a little but with a Saturday Night live "makes you go hmmm"
The trouble with Conspiracy theories is that when it is againt the government and the government uses its employees to refute the evidence without any hard evidence that they have not really debunked anything.
xc
Is he a quack? He is not a lefty that's for sure.
NT
He is saying things like why is there no direct link from the De Classified files about the government planning a plane switchout in the film -- but there is later. This shows intent - a clear plan that the government could see planes being used as terrorist attacks. Government officials kept saying "we could never have seen this coming." I agree dates should have been used but in the statements - Michael Moore is a lot bette rabout that. Nevertheless the quotes were clearly after 9/11 and really taht is all that matters for the particular quotes in question.I'll try and watch on but it seems to be 3 hours. As for why there are several cuts -- plenty of directors cut things to shorten the film due to uneccessary length or to add things in to make points stronger. That is no reason to try and IMPLY that there is something shady going on. Implications so far into this film is all Iradian is offerring up. I hope it gets better soon.
In his own inimitable words: "When you try to label the government for being a butcher and slaughtering 3000 of his own people, you better provide concrete evidence to back that up."OK...
But then: "When did the Truth require a Second Edition or a Final Cut?" LOL! Answer: Many, many times after the main episode, as the government got its act together. Watching the shifting, whispering sands is one of the delights of a 9/11 researcher.
Thanks for introducing us to this screwy guy, who appears to be for hire cheap.
clark
based upon your apparent propensity to believe many conspiracy theories, at any rate, people can watch both videos and decide for themselves which make sense to them. The rebuttal makes the most sense to me.
...do *you* believe about the events of 9/11?clark
Yes but the rebuttal is filled with outright lies and I am not even 15 minutes into it. I am definitely on your side that you can;t just take the initial documentary on face value but at the same tim eif the rebuttal film has obvious outright lies then you have a serious problem.This for example
"11:05 into the film. Iradian tries to minimize the fact that Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco was warned 8 hours before the 9/11 that "Americans should be cautious about their air travel."
Iradian goes on to lie by stating that the Mayor took the flight anyway. [and then suggestes the makers of Loose Change are liars of omission and cannot be trusted] This is false. The mayor instead went to City Hall, and on the way made phone calls to close down all city buildings and schools.
Another lie by Mark Iradian.
Article here:
[link to www.sfgate.com]"I read the article and I don't see where Iradian can make his claim?
It's not a conspiracy theory when the facts are on video - conspiracy facts should not be relegated to theory - the Big Bang and evolution are only theories but pretty much all of science back them.
Haven't watched the film so I don't know how many issues are addressed by the Popular Mechanics myth debunking, but the PM article is worth reading.
I get to page 4 where they are attempting to rationalize the heat melting or warping steel and all they are doing to "debunk" the so called conspiracy is oferring up Guesswork. "However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat."I am not convinced because plenty of other buildings in history with metal pillars which bunrned at high heats from Rugs, paper etc did not fall down and some of those building were burning for a full day over more floors and were not as well built. The tower pillars would not have caved in on themelves going straight down - if they did not melt and merely warped then the concrete would have fell between the pillars. I mean you just have to look at that one logically - they are not debunking it they are merely trying to explain it from the position of the government being honest.
The engineer who said it looked like demolition explosions and who now claims he was misquoted is not debunked at all. Although I also agree with the issue around pancaking that does not explain the visible white lights of an incenduary device. Certainly pressure from above would push out the smoke similar to explosive but there is nothing debunking about this -- again it is another explanation.
And because Romero is on the Government payroll he is goingto have a tough time. Assuming for a moment that the conspiracy theories were true - if the government was willing to kill 3000 lives I am certain they would be willing to threaten the lives of Romero and his family to shut up and retract what he says. If you dismiss the conspiracy theory then of course you just take his word for it and put the onus back on the conspiracy theorists. Clearly it looks like a controlled explosion. The heat tranfer just does not really support their views.
The issue of the bombs in this film do not suggest that they were at ground level.
They offer lots of "could have been the reason" for kind of evidence but that is hardly evidence. Although I do grant neither has the other side. I mean the fact that all the put in stocks went up due to insider information days before 9/11 and that the fellow who owns the buildings put a 3.5 billion insurance policy on the building 6 weeks before they were hit are just coincidental happenstances as well.
The argument on the film was not that the wing hitting the pentagaon should make a cartoon like hole into the building but that there should at the very least be damage to the wall where the wing hit or some evidence that the grass was hit by the wing that Popular mechanics is saying happened -- or that at least the blast withstanding windows would have been impacted by a blast outweighing their protective abilities. Though I will give them the plausability on the windows.
The plane issue being a plane or a missile - well yes there were plane parts - the question not answered by PM is that the plane parts do not correspond with the right plane.
In this film Fligt 93 is reported to have landed at an entirely different airport and that those people at the crash site of Flight 93 have not found a single drop of blood or wreckage at all. This differes widely with all the conspriacy theories and as I say we would have to check their fact on this one.
Man I don't know but that whole article is supsect in terms of scientific debunking -- explanations yes - some plausible ones too but gee it does not really stack up much.
The problem with a conspiracy theory is that if it is levelled against a government body and the government body is paying the scientists and experts to refute the conspiracy then you have a serious problem related to identifying the actual truth. It is not unlike trusting the science of the drugs the drug industry promotes when there is a huge profit factor in the line.
Most of what PM has done is pick and choose which arguments to refute and which ones to stay well clear of. Not unlike the film JFK. Stone notes that in his film (a decade later) that they have in fact refuted some of the leaps he made based on the fact he had at the time -- but refuting 12 facts still leaves the other 25 untouched is hardly enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How much has to be debunked before deciding the film isn't trustworthy?
My slow internet connection makes watching even short videos a pain, so I'm not likely to watch the film. Looking into every claim would be more time than I'd want to spend on it, anyway."The plane issue being a plane or a missile - well yes there were plane parts - the question not answered by PM is that the plane parts do not correspond with the right plane."
There's an examination of that at this link. Were there other questionable parts not dealt with in the information at this link mentioned in the film?
This film shows video footage in slow motion frames that no plane hit the building except an explosion. They argue that the plane hit light poles which were knocked over on the freeway which had apparently no effect on the plane...nor was there any damage to grass around the the site. Their argument was that small pieces of debris were planted and that the shape of the engine ring do not match up with the shape of the parts shown in the picture. they do not argue issue about size of the engine.They argue that the government claims the plain bounced off of the ground before it hit the building - yet there were no marks on the ground.
They argue the pilot was below average and could barely fly a cesna. They argue that flight 77 knocked down 5 light poles and continued on unscathed where another plane's wing hit one and was sheered clean off. The initial news reports all claim that it did not look like a plane crashed into the Pentagon or that that there were any plane parts. so they were not there at first but showed up later? They argue that the governments esplanation was that the intense heat vaporized the entire plane - which is why there were no large pieces. The filmaker argues that if it was hot enough to completely vaporize the plane then how could they identify the bodies of 184 of the 189 passangers? I note that if it can vaporize steel so too can it vaporize teeth.
They argue that the plane was using the Rolls Royce engine that is in the link you provided. They argue that the Titanium's melting point is 1688 degrees celcius and that jet fuel is 1120 degrees if the fuel source is maintained after 40 minutes. They argue that it is scientifically impossible for 12 tons of steel and titanium to be vaporized by jet fuel.
The film argues that an expert at Honeywell's aerospace division (on anonymity) who makes the APU for this plane argues that the piece found is definitely not an APU Wheel. The American Free Press also contacted Rolls Royce's Spokesperson John Brown and he said that it "is not a part from any Rolls Royce Engine that I'm familiar with and certainly not the AE 3007H made here at Indy.
They also argue that the one piece of fusselage is not singed or identifiable to this particular aircraft.
The defuser case they take issue with as well. They argue that there are none of the triangular bezzles around the openings which are not on the defuser case.
They argue that if it vaporized on impact it would be the first time in aviation history. They look at 2005's crash in Greece where a plane hit a hillside head on and yet all the major pieces were found, tail section, wings, engines and bodies. They argue that there is no way this plane created this little damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon squezzing into a 16 foot wide hole - no major parts of the plane found and no damage to where the wings hit the walls. They argue that the windows directly beside the hole where the plane's wings and engines would have barreled into them at 500mph should have been damaged. They show the trajectory of the plane and the hole created and superimpose the plane over the hole and it is pretty clear that if a plane this big hit this building there should at least be a mark where the 6 ton engines would at least put a dent in the building.
They suspect a more logical case would be a cruise missile. They show an image of Misvalich's place which was hit by such a missile and it looks very similar indeed. They argue that eyewitness accounts were all quite different from an American airlines plane to a commuter plane to a US Military helicopter.
They argue that witnesses said that they smelled cordite which is not the same as jet fuel. Witness say that the explosion had a silvery flash and they argue jet fuel would be bright yellow at best. They argue that people inside felt a shock wave that a plane crash does not create. The three video cameras from a gas station, Hilton and one other building had their tapes taken away and employees told not to say anything. The filmaker simply asks -- show us the video of the plane hitting the building. He argues that the government released one video of 5 frames and none of those show a boeing hit the building -- all it shows is an explosion -- something that big would have shown up on these frames -- I mean not showing the video to me seems really bizarre.
I mean it's one thing to end the conspiracy debate -- and yet? They argue that building 7 of all the buildings surrounding the towers conveneintly fell down -- all those 3000-4000 files of Wall Street investigations.
They argue that building 7 would be the third building in history to fall down from a fire - the first two being the twin tower buildings. They cite The Empire State Building was hit by a B52 Bomber in the 79th floor - and it dod not come down. They cite several other buildings which had massive multi-floor fires and none of them came down.
Now who really knows if these filmmakers are totally correct but when the government does not really make the evidence visible and they don't really offer up evidence that is clear they look like they're hiding something. They could so easily clear these things up and yet they let the door wide open for questions. Does asking questions about your government truly mean you are lefty communist conspiracy nut? Knocking a few holes in the conspiracy theories still does not make all the pins go down.
This film seems to avoid most of the Popular mechanics issues - or vice versa.
Either way the film is well made and quite effective even if it does in fact turn out to be wrong. Kinda like Michael Moore flicks.
