With minds like what exactly? Minds capable of critical thinking? Minds which realise that "doesn't it look like..." armchair physics and video compression are not things to base a campaign around?
Then why not leave the you-tube fripperies at home and start talking about Press for Truth?
'Cos Press For Truth gives half a story and allows people to remain within some kind of political dialectic we need to blow apart. Maybe even blow to kingdom come.
I disagree, the information linking intelligence agencies (CIA, ISI) to 'al-Qaeda' angle is important to explode the myth of the War on Terror. As is information relating to funding of Mohammed Atta - which led directly back to the ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmed via 'al-Qaeda paymaster' Omar Saeed Sheikh.
My only criticism is that they don't follow these trails to their conclusions, but as an introduction or icebreaker to someone new to 9/11 truth it's a good alternative or supplement to repeatedly showing the collapse of Building 7 or whatever.
There's a tendency to emphasise the photographic and forensic evidence on 9/11 at the expense of powerful circumstantial evidence and the wider political context.
While initially less damning the circumstantial evidence surrounding the hijackers/patsies and the conduct of the 'War on Terror' is much harder to refute or misinterpret, and in its totality - as put together by people like Paul Thompson, Michael Ruppert, Daniel Hopsicker, Webster Tarpley and Nafeez Ahmed is extremely compelling, even if it takes more perseverance to pay dividends, and even if some of their conclusions are conflicting, you get a much fuller picture of 9/11 than you would otherwise.
So I think people write off these avenues of investigation at their peril, and while Press for Truth can appear to be '911 Truth Lite' it does at least point the viewer in the direction of looking deeper given how unsatisfactory, conflicting and contradictory the OCT is even from the point of view of the public record of the MSM as documented by Paul Thompson.
Press for Truth's approach may seem rather tentative and over-cautious, but at least there's no easily refutable or poorly thought out conjecture. Rather it presents a series of unanswered questions and glaring omissions that force the viewer into a position of scepticism regarding the OCT, and that can't be a bad thing. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject:
Stefan wrote:
Quote:
With minds like that
With minds like what exactly? Minds capable of critical thinking? Minds which realise that "doesn't it look like..." armchair physics and video compression are not things to base a campaign around?
1) Suppose this video is a fair comparison, even though it's a truck and a concrete wall - very different from plane and a aluminium/glass/steel lattice
2) If this were to be the same as the 2nd impact, the flame should have shot forth through the broken (or partly broken wall) and we should have seen a fireball on the right hand side of the picture.
We don't see this. I wonder why that is?
I will leave those who wish analyse the evidence carefully to decide.
Being somewhat of an expert on the lorry. I come from a long line of HGV's. The tanks on any lorry are low down on the chassis and placed fairly well back from the cab. Because the fuel tanks are low (below the wall). you may notice that there is a splashback effect. I would say, that the forward momentum will still be in play here. but the wall would have had the opposite effect and created a situation where the fuel would have remained mostly static, with a slight backward flow. Plus this is Diesel which as to be fired under pressure. It is not the most volatile of fuels.
Andrew,
That was a very well presented argument, thanks.
Unfortunatley, as ever with NPT, I can think of quite simple reasons for everything you flagged.
With the Naudet brothers clip:
The first one you showed was straight off the film and mic.
The second, it had been amplified. The same sounds are there, faintly, in the first, the news had amped them up to make it more dramatic.
With the third, it had been mastered to isolate and amplify all the plane sounds and lower the background noises.
The Ginny Carr recordings
Were through thick double glazed windows which would no doubt cut out most of the sound. There really is no comparrison between sound recorded which has passed through air and sound recorded which has passed through two layers of thick glass- only the loudest of the sounds would make it through.
The Three Comparisons of the same footage
One has been amplified, the other one is played slightly slower, and you can observe this with the visual as well. That stretches out the noises a little as well.
Generally with all the images we have microphones in different places, with different sensitivities, with the film played at ever so slighly different speeds. Of course what we will hear will be ever so slightly different.
But I do maintain that the same basic set of sounds are there in all.
What I found most interesting was the "sense of releif" you attested to at finally knowing the truth. This is what is behind theories like NPT in my mind, they take a part of the theory which no one can ever really know the answer to:
Were they commercial boeings, military jets, remote controlled strengethen planes, piloted planes, did they fire missiles, where did the flashes come from, was there a hijacking or was this all staged, what about the phonecalls, what about the passengers, where did the real planes go?
And provide a seemingly simple answer. But one that on further inspection is not simple at all, as attested to by your not wanting to think about how it was done.
Andrew I've actually met someone who watched the second plane hit from their appartment, you know that in our culture everyone gets their camcorders out at events like this, how could all of these be controlled?
But most of all, despite the compellingness of low-res youtube videos, I really haven't found anything which stood up to scrutiny in this theory. And I'm not closed minded, I did at first think it was compelling, but as I looked into it, there was nothing there which held me.
But thank you again for a refreshingly lucid and well mannered argument on this issue, which is all too rare in these parts these days. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
