What Would It Look Like? (New Video)

Walter Ego

Illuminator
Walter Ego
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
3,377
Location
Dixie
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.

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_sunday/2005/08/copernican_revo.html
Click to expand...


Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF 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
 
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. :(
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom