Screw 9/11 Mysteries disinfo
There is a new disinfo "documentary" titled "Screw 911 Mysteries" which you may wish to look into. The author goes on about one sentence in "9/11 Mysteries" that "110 storeys hurled Earthward, pulverizing into dust" and he attacks the straw man argument that steel was pulverized in the WTC collapse, which clearly "9/11 Mysteries" does not argue. I don't know if it's worth paying attention to, it's clearly crap. But so far the discussion forum has not provided a cogent rebuttal (which would require actually watching the whole video) and the author is still trumpeting his doc as a "debunking." Somehow the "debunking" movement still powers itself by demanding 9/11 truthers bear the burden of proof when the official theory does not prove its case. But the public is still very confused about this issue. So, how should we respond to stuff like this? Point-by-point refutation which barely anybody will read? The disinfo camp thrives on the short attention span of people, especially those who do not feel they are qualified to evaluate the physics. To many people the Purdue cartoon is a valid argument in favor of the official theory. Do we waste our time getting into nit-picky arguments or do we do something more bold? Perhaps what we need is a video documentary using real model buildings and real model airplanes (perhaps using "big-atures" like the massive models used in LOTR). Or do we need to build a real 110 story skyscraper and crash real airplanes into it to make a point?
- Oneismany's blog
- Login to post comments
It's not that new. Round and
It's not that new.
Round and round we go, though.
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Ignore the Peanut Gallery
Don't bring fuel to their false fire, unless it's jet fuel (kerosene) which in the case of Screw 9/11 Mysteries blog, it will disintegrate everything their tiny universe.
These would-be debunkers make very bad debaters...
From what the author of that piece argues (in the comments section):
"Do you have ANY idea how much thermite would be needed to do that? The amount would be huge. More so, there are several images and photos out there that show the perimeter columns sagging inwards before collapse. So no, thermite and a few explosives could not reproduce that at all."
Yeah, the thermite/thermate required would be so huuuuge an amount that not even 5 twin towers could provide the capacity to hold the volume of explosives to bring even half a tower down....
See, thermite and a few explosives can not reproduce what we saw when the three towers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 came down!
That's why they came down even WITHOUT explosives. Only gravity, with a little bit of support from exploded jet fuel and a smattering of office fires can achieve that! Explosives can't. Honest, really!
very interesting... Look at
very interesting...
Look at it this way:
(for us Americans, who are very accustomed to violence I will use the standard sanitized military terms)
Battlefield and weapons:
Battlefield Operators
Screw 911 mysteries
It occurs to me that the 911 truth movement needs to use more specific weapons. For example I see nobody posting the 911Architects-presentation into architecture newsgroups. Thats a shame, because it would work so well. You see, if a former ardent OCT'er becomes a 911truther, you automatically make many others "think again" .. or at least SHUT UP and thereby reduce the NOISE and give people time and faith to THINK.
I just watched ZEITGEIST and although it does some jobs well (JFK secrecy speech) it is a disgrace in other terms (Federal Reserve, Amero, RFID chip) .. however I am glad they didn't talk about Contrails and Aliens. Sadly, it is the product of a "typical US mindset", someone has been reading too much PATRIOT literature and done too little research in the things 21st century. People in the EU will not take it seriously, full stop. It is also snobbish to its viewers. As if the film-makers were "more-special" and "better informed" than the viewers. Like using tiny writing .. and leaving long black at the end...
But that's a minor compared to the whacko and factually wrong parts.
But never mind... most of of it is correct, and some great juxtapositions.
Shitty soundtrack though. As if we needed loud sound-effects to enhace the story.
The 911 Architects presentation at 4:40 has an interesting snippet of a guy on
FOX NEWS 02 A FAV KTVU
come? "out of nowhere and just" screeeemed? "right into the side of the twin towers exploding through the other side .. and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
The architect's audience laughs spontaneously... and my first thought was "he must be a plant".
Has anyone seen the first part of his statement .. what did he see that screeemed?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22then+I+witnessed+both+towers+collapse+one
wow
Whats the next one called? Screw Physics? Screw the Path of Least Resistance?
_________________________________
Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 9/11
Hmm . . .
I saw the videos accusing 9/11 Mysteries creator Sofia Shafquat of faking the background noise of the clips she got from the documentary 9/11 Eye Witness and while I understand the need to enhance some low level noises for accuracy and effect, it might have been better not to have changed the audio of the original footage. But I definitely don't think having done so is anywhere near as bad as writing something as fictitious as the 9/11 Commission Report or creating the recent Purdue cartoon! The point is that explosions can be heard in both videos regardless of the background noise, and so it is pretty ridiculous to accuse 9/11 truthers of telling lies when all Sofia did was make a choice that was in the best interests of clarity.