9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Good Video On Demolition Claims...
Goto page Previous 1, 2

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:59 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

I've seen the camera shake on 2 separate videos from fixed cameras at the same time, 12 seconds before the North Tower comes down. Living in NZ, when the ground shakes, there is usually a reason.

Your NZ expertise may qualify you as a leading truther. It's certainly good enough to get on AE911's list.

Quote:

Also add into the mix videos like this one - worth a viewing - less than a minute.

This camera shakes for virtually the whole 42 seconds - evidence of a series of preparatory explosives pre-collapse...

...or just a handheld camera?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:32 am Post subject:

James C wrote:

It is of great relevance since it adds to Loose Change's argument that the tripod didn't move just because it was knocked which is the basis of Robert's whole argument. Robert's ommission of this fact is pure propaganda and immediately reduces the worth of his entire video.

Well now this is interesting. Because I went to reference the 2nd edition, and the version that is linked from the Loose Change site (the 2nd edition 'recut') no longer makes any claims as regards the projectile on the right side of the building.

So basically you are criticising Roberts for excluding something that is no longer in the official version of Loose Change 2nd Edition. He cannot exclude footage that is not actually in the film.

So any idea that this was propaganda or in any way misleading is utterly false. Roberts 'quotes' Loose Change absolutely correctly. His comments, that they did not use the evidence that the audio provides, was never in question anyway.

I'm glad that the issue has been cleared up anyway. Perhaps you have a reason to knock one of the other 28 points that Roberts brings up in the video.

Quote:

I would say that this demolition debunking video is already looking rather weak wouldn't you?

So far you have created a straw man argument to criticise the video for something it was never intended to prove. And you have made an erroneous argument about missing footage that appears to be quite false. I would say the video is standing up to scrutiny so far - I am still waiting for a genuine criticism of any of the points that it makes...

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:07 am Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

KP50 wrote:

I've seen the camera shake on 2 separate videos from fixed cameras at the same time, 12 seconds before the North Tower comes down. Living in NZ, when the ground shakes, there is usually a reason.

Your NZ expertise may qualify you as a leading truther. It's certainly good enough to get on AE911's list.

Quote:

Also add into the mix videos like this one - worth a viewing - less than a minute.

This camera shakes for virtually the whole 42 seconds - evidence of a series of preparatory explosives pre-collapse...

...or just a handheld camera?

Watch it again - it isn't about the camera shake.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:02 am Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

I haven't once mentioned where that piece of falling debris fell from so it is amazing you should know it was on the right. If you are aware of this then Robert's should be too, regardless of the recut edition. Therefore, why didn't he mention it? Loose Change 2nd edition has been around for some time so he can't plead ignorance here and you shouldn't create a straw man argument out of this which would be hypocritical don't you think?

And as I've said, Robert's puts great emphasis on the audio which is incredibly poor. I'll repeat, it is hard to even hear the rumble of the building falling to the ground so how on earth could it be possible to hear explosives going off?

I know you are desperate to prove me wrong but to suddenly pretend evidence is missing when it has been available for a long time is not a good enough excuse. When I was studying architecture at university I was taught some law and remember clearly being told of a case brought against one architect who had designed a nightclub with poor acoustics and was subsequently taken to court. The prosecution discovered from a reading list he'd been given while at university a decade before a book he should have read on acoustics in buildings. This was enough for him to be found guilty and was dealt with accordingly. Comprendez?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

You accused Roberts of leaving out a bit of the Loose Change Version 2 commentary, which when I checked up on it, no longer appears in version 2. Roberts is innocent of that charge, however you try to spin it. He might have known what they earlier claimed, but as they removed the claim off their own backs he can hardly be criticised for going along with it!

Quote:

And as I've said, Robert's puts great emphasis on the audio which is incredibly poor. I'll repeat, it is hard to even hear the rumble of the building falling to the ground so how on earth could it be possible to hear explosives going off?

His point is that with the audio intact the footage makes much less of a valid case for some explosive charge rocking the camera. I agree with you it's not the best point in the video - there are at least 15 better made by Roberts in the video. But it IS a POINT that he chose to make.

Quote:

I know you are desperate to prove me wrong...

I unequivocally did on this point. But we're all allowed to be wrong on internet forums from time to time.

Quote:

...but to suddenly pretend evidence is missing when it has been available for a long time is not a good enough excuse. When I was studying architecture at university I was taught some law and remember clearly being told of a case brought against one architect who had designed a nightclub with poor acoustics and was subsequently taken to court. The prosecution discovered from a reading list he'd been given while at university a decade before a book he should have read on acoustics in buildings. This was enough for him to be found guilty and was dealt with accordingly. Comprendez?

Irrelevant IMO. You may think Roberts made a weak point in this tiny section of a much longer video, but I think I have proved that he at least made the point in good faith.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

Well then, perhaps you'd be so kind as to send Roberts this link. This is the same as the version I have on DVD and which has been copied time and time again for others to see. He was obviously watching the 2nd edition recut version. Tell him to observe closely from about 15mins in and to pay closer attention to the different versions next time so he can understand what has been said over time. After all, he makes reference only to Loose Change 2nd Edition and doesn't cite whether it is the recut version which makes me question how you know which one he is referring to.

Loose Change 2nd Edition

I couldn't give a monkey's whether he made these points in good faith. That doesn't help the argument does it?

Display posts from previous:

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

Jump to:

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 cannot download files in this forum