Loose Change - Part IV

[Kent1]

Wait, why would somebody do that?

I mean, the person who dubbed it obviously knew what they were doing, knew they were "faking" the video. So is this a faction within the deniers who knows it's BS but who propagate it for some other reason? Someone playing a practical joke? What?

This isn't the first time a collapse video has been poorly dubed either.
There seems to be a stronger trend of fake information these days.

 

[CptColumbo]

This is a derail.

I was on Youtube.com looking at planes and FDR data and came across this:



and thought it was cool.

 

[nathanmcginty]

I noticed that the LC guys said something about their movie being released in the theatres next year? Ummmm....I know I bring this up a lot...but the majority of LC was footage pirated from other sources....how is this possible?

 

[CptColumbo]

I noticed that the LC guys said something about their movie being released in the theatres next year? Ummmm....I know I bring this up a lot...but the majority of LC was footage pirated from other sources....how is this possible?

I think at one point they were trying to get it out this year, in time for the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Then the Naudet's lawyers hit them with a C&D order, regarding their footage.

 

[LashL]

I think at one point they were trying to get it out this year, in time for the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Then the Naudet's lawyers hit them with a C&D order, regarding their footage.

Yes, I recall that several months ago they were claiming that it was going to be in theatres in advance of the 5th anniversary... that obviously didn't work out for them - big surprise.

Despite the assertions of Do Over, etal, no legitimate studio is going to pay them for their plagiarism, which is all that the first several versions of LC has amounted to. They're going to have to come up with something original if they ever expect to make any money from their grotesque exploitation of the victims.

 

[CptColumbo]

Here's how I think a meeting with a studio exec would go:

Studio: So what do you guys have?

DA: An exciting new documentary.

Studio: Really, they are pretty big lately. Inconvenient Truth and March of the Penguins made quite a bit of money. What's yours about?

DA: 9/11.

Studio: So it's like that Naudet Brother's documentary. With lots of compelling footage.

DA: It was quite a bit like theirs, but not anymore. It does have an interesting new twist.

Studio: A twist...in a documentary...go on.

DA: The US goverment did it.

Studio: Did what?

DA: 9/11.

Studio: You have proof of this?

DA: Not really.

Studio: What do you have?

DA: Questions.

Studio: And these "questions" have never been answered?

DA: They have, but not in a way that supports our film's theme.

Studio: Well, putting that aside, there have already been two movies this year theatrically released about 9/11. I don't think there is going to be much interest in yet another one.

DA: But we already have a huge following on the internet.

Studio: Like Snakes on a Plane? So, you've been wetting peoples appetites with clips to make them hungry for more.

DA: Actually, we've been showing them the whole thing.

Studio: WHAT! Why the hell would anyone pay to see a movie in a theatre that they can watch for free on the internet in their home?

DA: We've also generated quite a bit of interest on the street.

Studio: By handing out flyers, advertising your website?

DA: No, by handing out DVDs of the movie.

Studio: Selling them on the street?

DA: No, we can't do that anymore. We give them away.

Studio: And you expect us to invest money resources and time to put a movie in theaters that is available for free to anyone walking down the street.

DA: Yes.

Studio: What are you, retarded? Why did you stop selling it?

DA: We used copyrighted footage from other filmmakers without their permission.

Studio: Uh-huh. That's the kind of thing you learn not to do at film school.

DA: I was not accepted into film school. Can you believe it?

Studio: Yes. Since you have such an enourmous following online, why don't you get your supporters to put it in theaters.

DA: They really don't like leaving their keyboards for any extended length of time or actually doing anything outside of the internet.

You know, they warned me that no studio would go against the "official" story. Since both the government and Hollywood are controlled by Jews.

Studio: This is Sony Pictures.

DA: What's your point?

Studio: Get out of my office!

DA: Charlie Sheen liked it.

Studio: Well, if the co-writer of Men at Work liked it, here's a check for $100,000.

DA: Really?

Studio: No! Get the f--k out of my office!

DA: Shill!

Studio: Moron!

 

[uk_dave]

love it!!

especially the....

Studio: What do you have?

DA: Questions.

Studio: And these "questions" have never been answered?

DA: Yes, but not in a way that supports our film's theme.

 

[Graham2001]

Yes, I recall that several months ago they were claiming that it was going to be in theatres in advance of the 5th anniversary... that obviously didn't work out for them - big surprise.

Despite the assertions of Do Over, etal, no legitimate studio is going to pay them for their plagiarism, which is all that the first several versions of LC has amounted to. They're going to have to come up with something original if they ever expect to make any money from their grotesque exploitation of the victims.

Sadly that's not always the case. The woman who made this film about the Estonia sinking allegedly got financial support from the German Govt to make it!?!. Basically it claims that the KGB sank the ship to stop the US getting its hands on a 'secret weapon' and that the US then covered it up for some reason.

(For more info check out pages 121 to 126 of The Outlaw Sea by William Langewiesche.)

In slightly better news I managed to pursuade a CT believer in my office that 'Loose Change' was not worth purchasing at any price (even if it is for free)

 

[Belz...]

Here's how I think a meeting with a studio exec would go:

You, sir, slay me.

Studio: Yes. Since you have such an enourmous following online, why don't you get your supporters to put it in theaters.

DA: They really don't like leaving their keyboards for any extended length of time or actually doing anything outside of the internet.

 

[T.A.M.]

here is a simple question from a man with alot of old, and forgotten physics background. I could not think of what other thread to put it in.

When calculating how long it should have taken for an object to fall "Freely" from a given height, so as to compare it to the actual fall times of the towers, how did they go about it.

if WTC1 fell in 9 seconds, approximately, how did they calculate how long an object in "Free fall" would have taken to fall a similar distance.

Did they use d=0.5*g*t*t

if so, what did they use for distance d. we know g=9.8 m/ss

did they use the height of the impact zone (372m), or the full height of the building (417m) or the center of gravity for the falling 12 floors that fell (394m)?

And what about WTC2?

Answers please? AM I way off base here?

TAM

 

[Bell]

TAM, IIRC they (LC) used the total height.
The showed a clip that started at the precise moment (or later) the collapse started, and stopped counting somewhere the first debris and dustclouds hit the ground.... IIRC
But who cares if I'm wrong, LC doesn't care if they are.

 

[LashL]

Sadly that's not always the case. The woman who made this film about the Estonia sinking allegedly got financial support from the German Govt to make it!?!. Basically it claims that the KGB sank the ship to stop the US getting its hands on a 'secret weapon' and that the US then covered it up for some reason.

Interesting. Did she make her film with nothing but plagiarized material like the Loose Change gang did?

In slightly better news I managed to pursuade a CT believer in my office that 'Loose Change' was not worth purchasing at any price (even if it is for free)

Well done

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM, IIRC they (LC) used the total height.
The showed a clip that started at the precise moment (or later) the collapse started, and stopped counting somewhere the first debris and dustclouds hit the ground.... IIRC
But who cares if I'm wrong, LC doesn't care if they are.

Yes, for counting the fall time, that is what they did, but my question is, in calculating how long, theoretically, it should have taken to fall, if in "Fre Fall",

(a) did they use the equation d=0.5*g*t*t, to arrive at the time, and if so, (b) what did they use for the distance fallen, was it (1) full height of building, (2) height of impact zone, or (3) height of center of gravity of intect portion above impact zone. These are three different heights, and would make a substantial difference to the Freel Fall time.

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

To anyone from Québec, conspiracy theories (especially 9/11) will be covered on tonight's "les Francs Tireurs" show (sort of our Penn & Teller).

Prepare to be bukkaked with stupid. I got my raincoat and my goggles ready.



http://www.telequebec.tv/lesfrancstireurs/

 

[T.A.M.]

The above is where my line of thinking is. If you look at it, there are 3 possible Free Fall times, depending on the height (d) you use in the equation...

d = 0.5*g*t*t

to give

t = square root of (d/5)

if you use top of building, free fall is = 9.13s
if you use the 98th floor, free fall is = 8.62 s
if you use the 104th floor (assumed center of gravity of top portion),
then free fall is = 8.88s

Seems like a small difference, but in fact it is aabout 1/2 a second difference, which out of 8-9 seconds is significant.

Once again, any help would be appreciated.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

sorry duplicate

TAM

 

[rwguinn]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10761455202155aceb.jpg[/URL]

The above is where my line of thinking is. If you look at it, there are 3 possible Free Fall times, depending on the height (d) you use in the equation...

d = 0.5*g*t*t

to give

t = square root of (d/5)

if you use top of building, free fall is = 9.13s
if you use the 98th floor, free fall is = 8.62 s
if you use the 104th floor (assumed center of gravity of top portion),
then free fall is = 8.88s

Seems like a small difference, but in fact it is aabout 1/2 a second difference, which out of 8-9 seconds is significant.

Once again, any help would be appreciated.

TAM

I usually use the topof the building, just to give them the longest time...mess with their mind...
I think that is what they tend to use, since it "proves" their point (some debris would have hit sooner than 8.8 seconds, if you read the seismograph "properly"

 

[Graham2001]

Interesting. Did she make her film with nothing but plagiarized material like the Loose Change gang did?

I haven't actually seen it (yet) but from the description in "The Outlaw Ocean" and the IMDB.com page it would seem to be a 'dramatized reconstruction' of what she believes happened. There's also supposed to be a lot of poetic licence involved...

Basically its an action thriller based around a particular conspiracy theory with a heroic reporter uncovering the vile plot, infiltrating military bases, etc...

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.telequebec.tv/lesfrancstireurs/

The show was great BTW, it showed the CTists as they are... completely nuts.

The journalist ended the segment by saying:

"you can't argue with a CTist, it's like trying to nail jello on a wall."

I never heard that one before!

It's a strange thing, to hear the exact same words and phrases the CTists are saying, but in French. They really are an international cult, repeating the same things over and over again.

They interviewed a paranoid lecturer, sort of a mix between Alex Jones and David Icke, who was followed around by people with camcorders... Reminds you of anyone?

ETA: oh, and they use the expression "9/11", which in French doesn't make sense. That would make it November the 9th...

 

[T.A.M.]

I usually use the topof the building, just to give them the longest time...mess with their mind...
I think that is what they tend to use, since it "proves" their point (some debris would have hit sooner than 8.8 seconds, if you read the seismograph "properly"

Ya I kind of figured they most often use the building heignt, but that is likely inserting a 5-10% error. Alone that isnt alot, but if you start off 5-10% off, the little errors soon add up.

So I would use the center of gravity height, which would be 394m, not 417m, and for WTC 2, the error would be even greater, as the impact was lower, and hence the center of gravity for the falling portion of the building above would be much lower than the full height of the building.

TAM