What Would It Look Like? (New Video)

Walter Ego · 8th March 2008, 10:44 AM

Another humble vid per moi. It takes off from the video 'This Is An Orange' by Anthony Lawson but the real reason I made it was to use this Wittgenstein antedote.

Quote:

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and his companion are on a stroll through Cambridge.

‘I’ve always wondered why’, says Wittgenstein, ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’

‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’

‘Hmm’, retorted Wittgenstein. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun?’.

http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sund...ican_revo.html

Google Video This video is not hosted by the JREF, the JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Pardalis · 8th March 2008, 10:56 AM

They are again talking about how WTC 7 looks like a CD so therefore it must be a CD?

I thought I had put this bunk to rest with my formidable rock hyrax argument.

Tweeter · 8th March 2008, 11:31 AM

The same could be said about the OS of 9-11.

Pardalis · 8th March 2008, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tweeter

The same could be said about the OS of 9-11.

Could you expand on that?

cisco · 8th March 2008, 11:39 AM

good job

cisco · 8th March 2008, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Tweeter

The same could be said about the OS of 9-11.

You're right. What would it look like if what non-truthers say happened on 9/11 actually happened? It would look exactly like 9/11.

Par · 8th March 2008, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Tweeter

The same could be said about the OS of 9-11.

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Could you expand on that?

If I know The Tweeter, the answer will be something along the lines of: “The truth is out there!”

Open Blinded · 8th March 2008, 12:10 PM

I like this approach to the "it looks like a CD" claim. Asking them questions is a great way to show them how their logic is flawed.

When they say "it collapsed at near free-fall speed", I ask them "How fast should it have fallen if it was due to structural failure?". They usually don't have an answer and this is where I pull the chair out and ask, "how do you know if "near free fall" is suspect if you don't know how fast it should have collapsed".

Of course they squirm their way out of it but in a public venue it might help expose their lies to onlookers.

cisco · 9th March 2008, 02:50 PM

Bump for Tweet.

leftysergeant · 10th March 2008, 02:02 PM

You forgot "klunity-klunk."

Confuseling · 20th March 2008, 04:33 PM

Additionally, one would have to assume that in a hypothetical situation in which the 911 attacks were perpetrated by Islamic extremists without the personal blessing and assistance of the vice president, there would be a truth movement.

Someone, somewhere, will deny absolutely anything, no matter how commonsense, no matter how corroborated by independent lines of converging evidence.

So I ask truthers: If there were a truth movement which had no basis in fact, what would it look like?

eromitlab · 20th March 2008, 04:44 PM

You won't get a publically voiced answer to that... because that answer would be "what the 9/11 truth movement is now" and some poor twoofer's head would collapse into its own footprint rather than confront it.

Confuseling · 20th March 2008, 04:49 PM

Shh! I'm playing...

RKOwens4 · 22nd March 2008, 04:44 PM

I emailed Anthony Lawson a few weeks ago about this very video, and specifically his claim where he says there were only a few small fires in WTC7. I sent him a dozen firefighter testimonies saying the building was fully involved and on fire on all 47 floors along with pictures of heavy smoke coming from all 47 floors. After pointing out the irony that he gives no source for his "small fires on a few floors" when there are pictures where we can see with our own eyes that there was heavy fire and asks viewers whether they'll believe what they can see with their own eyes or believe what they're told... he sent me a link to his source, which was... 911research.com, a conspiracy site, which itself gives no source for it's claim of small fires in WTC7.

I just find the irony overwhelming. He and this radio host make much of choosing to believe what we can see with our own eyes over what we're told... but this is exactly the opposite of what Lawson is doing. Ironic and hypocritical.

Walter Ego · 22nd March 2008, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by RKOwens4

I emailed Anthony Lawson a few weeks ago about this very video, and specifically his claim where he says there were only a few small fires in WTC7. I sent him a dozen firefighter testimonies saying the building was fully involved and on fire on all 47 floors along with pictures of heavy smoke coming from all 47 floors. After pointing out the irony that he gives no source for his "small fires on a few floors" when there are pictures where we can see with our own eyes that there was heavy fire and asks viewers whether they'll believe what they can see with their own eyes or believe what they're told... he sent me a link to his source, which was... 911research.com, a conspiracy site, which itself gives no source for it's claim of small fires in WTC7.

I just find the irony overwhelming. He and this radio host make much of choosing to believe what we can see with our own eyes over what we're told... but this is exactly the opposite of what Lawson is doing. Ironic and hypocritical.

One of the truthers I met in Savannah last month gave a similar line on Bld7. In his case the line was that there were ‘only fires on two floors.’ And of course the collapse had ‘all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.’

He was completely unaware of the extent of the fires based on the accounts of firemen on the scene and that a transit put on the building showed it was dangerously leaning and that the eventual collapse was no surprise the NYFD.

He also didn’t know Bld7 was constructed over an existing ConEd substation. (He did know of course know the BBC had reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened.) When I offered to send him some information by email, he made it clear he wasn’t interested in reading anything from any ‘skeptical’ websites.

8th March 2008, 10:56 AM	#2
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 20,674	They are again talking about how WTC 7 looks like a CD so therefore it must be a CD? I thought I had put this bunk to rest with my formidable rock hyrax argument.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

8th March 2008, 11:31 AM	#3
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 791	The same could be said about the OS of 9-11.
Tweeter Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 791

8th March 2008, 11:35 AM	#4
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 20,674	Originally Posted by Tweeter The same could be said about the OS of 9-11. Could you expand on that?
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

8th March 2008, 11:39 AM	#5
cisco Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 709	good job
cisco Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 709	__________________ "Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger

8th March 2008, 11:42 AM	#6
cisco Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 709	Originally Posted by Tweeter The same could be said about the OS of 9-11. You're right. What would it look like if what non-truthers say happened on 9/11 actually happened? It would look exactly like 9/11.
cisco Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 709	__________________ "Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger

8th March 2008, 11:43 AM	#7
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Somerset, UK Posts: 2,712	Originally Posted by Tweeter The same could be said about the OS of 9-11. Originally Posted by Pardalis Could you expand on that? If I know The Tweeter, the answer will be something along the lines of: “The truth is out there!”

8th March 2008, 12:10 PM	#8
Open Blinded Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 66	I like this approach to the "it looks like a CD" claim. Asking them questions is a great way to show them how their logic is flawed. When they say "it collapsed at near free-fall speed", I ask them "How fast should it have fallen if it was due to structural failure?". They usually don't have an answer and this is where I pull the chair out and ask, "how do you know if "near free fall" is suspect if you don't know how fast it should have collapsed". Of course they squirm their way out of it but in a public venue it might help expose their lies to onlookers.
Open Blinded Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 66

9th March 2008, 02:50 PM	#9
cisco Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 709	Bump for Tweet.
cisco Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 709	__________________ "Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger

10th March 2008, 02:02 PM	#10
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 8,019	You forgot "klunity-klunk."

20th March 2008, 04:33 PM	#11
Confuseling Irreligious fanatic Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,243	Additionally, one would have to assume that in a hypothetical situation in which the 911 attacks were perpetrated by Islamic extremists without the personal blessing and assistance of the vice president, there would be a truth movement. Someone, somewhere, will deny absolutely anything, no matter how commonsense, no matter how corroborated by independent lines of converging evidence. So I ask truthers: If there were a truth movement which had no basis in fact, what would it look like?

20th March 2008, 04:44 PM	#12
eromitlab Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: north Alabama Posts: 892	You won't get a publically voiced answer to that... because that answer would be "what the 9/11 truth movement is now" and some poor twoofer's head would collapse into its own footprint rather than confront it.
	__________________ With my reputation, I do expect everyone to take what I say at face value. -Galileo

20th March 2008, 04:49 PM	#13
Confuseling Irreligious fanatic Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,243	Shh! I'm playing...

22nd March 2008, 04:44 PM	#14
RKOwens4 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 173	I emailed Anthony Lawson a few weeks ago about this very video, and specifically his claim where he says there were only a few small fires in WTC7. I sent him a dozen firefighter testimonies saying the building was fully involved and on fire on all 47 floors along with pictures of heavy smoke coming from all 47 floors. After pointing out the irony that he gives no source for his "small fires on a few floors" when there are pictures where we can see with our own eyes that there was heavy fire and asks viewers whether they'll believe what they can see with their own eyes or believe what they're told... he sent me a link to his source, which was... 911research.com, a conspiracy site, which itself gives no source for it's claim of small fires in WTC7. I just find the irony overwhelming. He and this radio host make much of choosing to believe what we can see with our own eyes over what we're told... but this is exactly the opposite of what Lawson is doing. Ironic and hypocritical.
RKOwens4 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 173

22nd March 2008, 05:30 PM	#15
Walter Ego Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Savannah, Ga. Posts: 1,287	Originally Posted by RKOwens4 I emailed Anthony Lawson a few weeks ago about this very video, and specifically his claim where he says there were only a few small fires in WTC7. I sent him a dozen firefighter testimonies saying the building was fully involved and on fire on all 47 floors along with pictures of heavy smoke coming from all 47 floors. After pointing out the irony that he gives no source for his "small fires on a few floors" when there are pictures where we can see with our own eyes that there was heavy fire and asks viewers whether they'll believe what they can see with their own eyes or believe what they're told... he sent me a link to his source, which was... 911research.com, a conspiracy site, which itself gives no source for it's claim of small fires in WTC7. I just find the irony overwhelming. He and this radio host make much of choosing to believe what we can see with our own eyes over what we're told... but this is exactly the opposite of what Lawson is doing. Ironic and hypocritical. One of the truthers I met in Savannah last month gave a similar line on Bld7. In his case the line was that there were ‘only fires on two floors.’ And of course the collapse had ‘all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.’ He was completely unaware of the extent of the fires based on the accounts of firemen on the scene and that a transit put on the building showed it was dangerously leaning and that the eventual collapse was no surprise the NYFD. He also didn’t know Bld7 was constructed over an existing ConEd substation. (He did know of course know the BBC had reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened.) When I offered to send him some information by email, he made it clear he wasn’t interested in reading anything from any ‘skeptical’ websites.
	__________________ Visit My 9-11 Video Blog Visit My YouTube Channel Last edited by Walter Ego; 22nd March 2008 at 05:32 PM.