Good Video On Demolition Claims...

Alex_V

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

An excellent video I felt, that summed up a lot of the deceitful and fraudulent claims made by certain members of the truth movement. Well worth a watch, especially if you're still deluded enough to believe that the 'truth movement' actually have any sort of basis for believing in controlled demolition.

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

information, information, information blah blah blah.....

theres so much stating this or that or which uses it in a way to support which ever view point you have, its certainly why i no longer go there or listen to either side. if anything it only strengthens the need for a independant inquiry as there is so much disagreement on the findings or conclusions anybody has made to explain the event they call 9/11.

its at the minimum a ratio of 50/50.

there has to be a reason for this and when so many people doubt things labeling them looneys does not work or take away the many valid questions.

the offical explainations could be wrong without it being a inside job there is so many combinations of things that could explain the broad disagreement that only an inquiry would resolve.

as mark roberts trys to prove, the goverment have nothing to hide, therefore a independant inquiry aint going to hurt if it helps to put an end to the broad disagrements is it? most in the truth movement are only campaigning for a new inquiry which accounts for all evidence this time.

what may or may not of happened is just a side issue from it, and i see no reason for not having a inquiry when it would help family members who also have questions and solves some issues with those who disagree.

people will provide evidence for CD, people will provide evidence for no CD, it won't change a thing and certainly will not stop more people asking the same questions once they are aware of the information which goes ferther than just the collapse of the wtc's.

disagreement in general over what happened is more than enough and normally all that is needed to result in an inquiry to sort out the facts and account for ALL evidence inorder to put the issue to rest for the vast majority who previously had questions or doubts.

why else would inquirys be held or exsist? every inquiry that has been held boils down to one thing only, doubts! disagreement over the conclusions drawn from the evidence or new evidence coming to light, otherwise the offical account would never be challenged and inquirys would not exsist.

why there has not been a independant inquiry over 9/11 or 7/7 etc beggars belief. you'd think putting the pubics mind at ease would be more important especially if its bizarre to think there could of been any inside influence that brought the events about to ferther agenda's and a technic used in the past by goverments or powers.

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:39 am Post subject:

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

i don't know about anybody else, but i'd rather have a panel of experts from many different backgrounds and with no ties to goverment or who's whole business relys on govermental contracts and who account for ALL of the evidence(no omtting out evidence) drawing the conclusions.

rather than one guy who already holds a view and who only provides evidence and promotes it to fit that view.

for example if i 100% believed aliens visit the earth and i decided to make a documentary about aliens, would i make it impartial and fair or would i use evidence and present it in a way that it would fit my view?

this is why inquirys are needed rather than indiviuals providing evidence that fits their view point.

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

also i think you would find many disagree with mark roberts findings, but we shall see.

my point is not about the information ie whos wrong or right, but rather about the back and forth providing of evidence to fit view points that gets nobody anywhere.

you will proberbly see a sequal to this pointing out mark roberts errors or false claims which will just swing it back to inside job view point, and this will continue on and on back and forth.

paul wright · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:03 am Post subject:

jeezus, Alex, that's the most stupid and incompetent video I've ever wasted my time watching
There's no way conventional demolition scenarios should be imitated at this particular time
The technique was completely upended, and other elements were added
Pulversisation and footprint-fall was an absolute necessity
You can't judge conventional definitions by this one. There was far too much at stake
Bar 7 of course

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:43 am Post subject:

Paul,

The problem is that the truth movement has, for many years, been saying (I am generalising here) "Look, isn't it obvious that this was a CD".

One of the cuts of Loose Change, for example, is proved beyond any doubt in Roberts' video to have edited a collapse video to avoid the obvious sounds of demolition. Your criticism of Roberts might be better applied to all of the CD proponents who have been comparing footage of WTC 1 and 2 with CD videos for all these years. Roberts cannot be wrong to argue against this fraudulent claim.

If what you are saying is "there is no way that WTC1 and 2 could be considered CDs by any conventionally known means" then I totally agree with you. It's a point that you may already understand, but clearly many in the truth movement do not.

Marky,

If nothing short of an independent inquiry could convince you of anything then there's no point in ever considering an issue - it's a convenient way of washing your hands of having to engage with the debate, but I think the idea of an independent inquiry is just impossible anyway, so we are stuck with the imperfect system of having to make our own judgements based on the material provided to us.

One thing I would disagree with is the idea that debunkers' points are, by necessity, disproved. You assume that they can be, which kind of gives away where your sympathies lie. In my experience utterly fraudulent accusations exist for years even once they are utterly disproved beyond any reasonable doubt.

How can Dylan Avery, for example disprove the multiple accusations that he has manipulated video clips, pictures and quotes many many times in his Loose Change films? He cannot - there is no counter to such obvious proof. He is guilty of that, and there is no escape, it is shameful behaviour, especially on a subject that concerns mass murder - there is no excuse. How can anyone defend him and the Loose Change creators? There is no defence offered.

If Steven Jones is able to counter the multiple criticisms aimed at him, many from within the truth movement, then where is his response? He seems to simply ignore all criticism of his work. Griffin is the same - they get paid nicely for their lectures and books, and carefully choose their radio or TV appearances, and offer no response to those who question their work. The idea that there is some sort of open dialogue between the truth movement and its critics is utter fantasy I'm afraid.

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:58 am Post subject:

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:53 am Post subject:

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:10 am Post subject:

First point to consider Marky.

Firefighter Miller is quoted in a now-famous bit of video shot on the day of the disaster. Three of the firemen in his unit were missing. He says about WTC7 - "It's definitely coming down, there's no way to stop it... the structural integrity is not there."

I think that is a strong bit of evidence FOR the official explanation of building 7. It supports the idea that the building was unsound, and that the fires were not fought for safety reasons (he says as much). And also that he thought the building was definitely going to collapse.

For WTC7 to be a controlled demolition Firefighter Miller has to be (a) utterly (and very coincidentally) wrong in his opinion or (b) an accomplice to mass murder, including men in his own unit. I suppose you could come up with more far-fetched theories about the building being specifically compromised earlier in the day to throw him off the scent. But the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the interview is that he is telling the truth as he sees it, and is not part of any conspiracy or plot to murder other firefighters and members of the public for a neo-con cabal intent on world overthrow. Would you agree, Marky?

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:36 am Post subject:

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

This film is truly awful and no better than any 'truth' video in its presentation of the argument. It is no more conclusive and in fact I would argue that the level of detail is at an absolute minimum compared with some videos out there. Alex_V, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such garbage.

Alex_V, why don't you help Bushwacker in the other thread on this topic? Perhaps you could explain what that wave of dust and debris is seen blowing out, floor by floor, well below the falling mass of the south tower. Bushwacker cannot so maybe your input is needed. I happen to think details like this are very important even if discussion of them is rather pointless

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject:

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

Alex_V

I was surprised by the criticism of the video I posted - I thought I would look at it point by point to evaluate what was strong or weak about it.

- South tower inward bowing of exterior wall, no smoke-disturbing detonations precede collapse.

While there is no doubt that there was bowing long before the collapse, I don't like Roberts evidence here that there were no obvious detonations before the collapse. While I think he is generally correct, I don't think a close up of the chaos of the collapse really proves anything in particular. So I am happy to accept this starting bit as weak.

- South tower fake collapse audio promoted by truthers as real

Evidence that apparently truther videos used footage of collapse with fake dramatic explosions and screams added to it - it's not clear how and why the fake audio was added. Obviously that is poor practice, though Roberts doesn't make clear who actually used it.

- What actual explosive demolitions look and sound like

This is all fair comment I think - footage of demolitions that sound absolutely nothing like the collapses on 9/11. The point may be rather obvious to some, but I don't think anybody could prove that the point is fake or misleading - these demolitions do make a lot of noise, and the 9/11 collapses certainly don't match up with that. Paul Wright points out earlier in the thread that this is unfair, as the collapses were top down and clearly different in character, but I still think it's valid to point out if they don't sound like other demolitions caught on video.

- North tower audio deception in Loose Change.

The argument here is that Loose Change promotes the idea that a wobble in a camera shot could be a pre-collapse explosive of some description, but they left the audio out that provides no sound to support the idea. It's fair comment, and was always a silly bit of non-evidence in the first place.

- "I heard a bomb" – witnesses using figures of speech to describe loud sounds. Includes interview with Hursley Lever, witness to the north tower elevator shaft fireball.

The point here is that though a witness uses the word bomb, they are not actually referring to a bomb - they are using the word as a descriptive term for the sound that they heard. Again, with this isolated example, I don't see that anybody could really disagree.

- Use and effects of steel cutter charges.

This is some background on certain steel cutter charges, nothing more to it really - it's obviously lifted from some TV show or other.

- A few pounds of cutter charges = huge boom and flash.

Roberts is trying to make the connection here between the noise and effect of small amounts of charges, compared with the amounts that some claim were present in the twin towers. I do think it's a point worth making, but whether his video evidence here is strong enough to persuade any truthers I doubt.

- Structural Engineer, collapse expert, and Weidlinger Associates WTC investigator Matthys Levy on conspiracy theories

This is a structural engineer who led an investigation into the twin towers collapse completely ruling out explosives. Fair enough - committed truthers would have to assume that he is lying.

- North tower "squibs" compared to explosive blasts

Weak video evidence - I'm not sure it even comes close to proving what Roberts says it does. I just hate stuff like this, because clearly all sorts of people have looked at video evidence and come up with all sorts of strange conclusions (like no-planes!).

- Explosive demolitions eject debris, sometimes dangerously.

Again not a strong point - Roberts is pointing out how dangerous demolitions can be, and I suppose is trying to say that a demolition of the twin towers would possibly have been even more deadly to those around it than a collapse. It's not a great point I concede.

- Les Robertson, Twin Towers head engineer, on conspiracy claims

Another expert who sides with the OT. Fair enough.

- WTC 7: deceptive claims made by conspiracists, collapse expected by media

I think this is a great point from Roberts, pointing out how Loose Change misrepresented the start of the collapse of WTC7, then compared the collapse with an existing demolition video that they had edited to remove the clear audio of loud demolition noises. Loose Change has no defence to criticism of this kind - it has gone out of its way to deceive truthers and distort evidence.

Also the point is made that the WTC7 collapse was expected by the watching media. I don't think truthers dispute this point - it is fair comment.

- FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro on conspiracist claims

A key fireman on 9/11 dismisses conspiracy claims - fair enough.

- Collapse of WTC 7 expected by all. On-scene account by FDNY firefighter Miller of Ladder 15

As mentioned in another of my posts on this thread, I think this is first-rate evidence from the day of how a fireman felt about WTC7. Clearly he felt it was structurally unsound, as many others have indicated since, but this evidence is clearly taken from the day.

- Brent Blanchard of Protec, who spoke with demolitions experts on the scene and documented the clean-up process, on conspiracist claims.

Another expert dismissing conspiracy claims - another that truthers would have to dismiss as either a liar or a co-conspirator.

- WTC 7 structural engineer Irwin Cantor on conspiracist claims

Another expert, this time one supporting the idea that WTC7 could not have survived long-burning fires. Fair enough.

- New WTC 7: safety and structural features

Background on the new WTC7 - I'm not clear exactly what points Roberts is trying to make here, so the section is weak.

- "Architect for 9/11 truth" Richard Gage gives presentation including audio deception

A note here - I'm not a big fan of Roberts' dismissive approach towards conspiracists, because it just makes him sound angry and intolerant. The Jref forum suffers from similar problems imo, and I would prefer for them to just present their points without throwing abuse around. But we're all guilty of that from time to time.

For some reason the exact evidence of Gage's deception is not included but only referred to, probably for technical reasons. It's not the strongest criticism ever, but it is true that Gage's has edited out sounds of demolition from his version of the video.

- AE911Truth and STJ911truth member and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti claims Silvertstein said WTC 7 was brought down for safety reasons, and claims the towers showed upward explosions.

Clearly Szamboti lazily misquotes Silverstein completely. His ideas on the towers are also strange. Though Szamboti should clearly be more accurate in his statements, this does come across as just Roberts trying to discredit an opponent.

- Leading conspiracists claim pyroclastic flows resulted from use of mysterious explosives.

Roberts uses satire here, and it isn't a point strongly based in fact I agree, but I also think he does have a point. Why do conspiracists claim pyroclastic flows? I have never seen any convincing evidence of this - it is a very strange feature of conspiracy claims.

- Was all or most of the WTC tower concrete turned to a fine powder?

Roberts questions this assumption, and shows pictures of what look like bigger chunks of concrete. Again his counter-evidence isn't that strong, but again I feel it is an important question to ask of truthers. Is the idea that most or all of the concrete was turned into powder a fact or an assumption?

It's also a valid question to ask of the dustcloud. How much of it was concrete, and how much of it was other matter from the towers. How can truthers be sure of any answer to this question?

- Conspiracists claim tons of explosives – or a sci-fi mystery weapon – was used. Video of 100-ton TNT blast

Not strong evidence from Roberts of anything. Yes, TNT makes a very loud noise, and that is something that truthers would have to explain with their theory of collapse.

- Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and Richard Gage can't make up their minds: explosives, thermate, or super-secret mystery weapons?

This is a simple point - Jones suggests thermate was used, but also claims pulverisation of concrete, so has to be advocating explosives as well. It's a strange theory - why have both? I think it's fair enough to at least question this.

- Tons of TNT equivalent were stored in the towers – gravitational potential energy

A physics point, a primer for the approaches of Bazant etc. Fair enough.

- Mysteriously-expanding dust clouds? Alex Jones accuses, Jim Hoffman investigates.

It's a conspiracy claim I haven't really come across - that the huge dust clouds could only have been generated by some feature of the inside job. Surely this is a bit of a daft claim that Roberts is within his rights to ridicule. As he rightly points out, collapses cause lots of dust.

- Conspiracist papers published in engineering journals.

There are none. I think Roberts is right to point out that conspiracy papers have struggled to gain any credibility outside of the truth movement.

- The conspiracists' best and brightest run from a tour guide

His point is basically that as an enthusiastic amateur Roberts has proved a very effective debunker of the truth movement, which hardly speaks wonders for their credibility. Few will agree to debate him on the issues, and even fewer openly respond to his criticisms.

- AE911truth & STJ911truth website statistics graphed

Roberts thinks interest has peaked in the inside job conspiracies. I think he's right.

- Structural engineer and WTC investigator Gene Corley on conspiracist methods – or lack thereof.

Some damning criticism of conspiracy theorists' methods from another structural engineer. Fair enough.

Having gone through the video point by point I really fail to see where it lacks credibility. I do think that a few of the points made are not that strong, particularly those that rely on certain interpretation of video evidence. I also think that sometimes the tone is too dismissive of truthers - I can see why many would be put off by that and dismiss the video on that basis. But really I would like the critics of the video to explain exactly what they feel was either false or misleading within the video, because I can't see it...

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject:

Alex_V · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject:

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

Alex_V · Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject:

pepik · Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject:

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

Alex_V · Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject:

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

KP50 · Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject:

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2