>> ^ulysses1904:

meh. They will report anything they hear when it's live TV, they have to keep up a constant stream of chatter. That morning at work we were hearing that there was smoke coming from the White House and that the Sears tower in Chicago was burning, blah blah blah. We heard lots of stuff that day, this is par for the course.
Also there's plenty of footage of eyewitnesses whose versions are at great odds with the actual videos of that day. Like some guy insisted the 2nd plane shut off its engines and glided into the 2nd tower.


Yeah hundreds of eye witnesses claim there was multiple ground level explosions, including firefighters, emt, and police. But the 9/11 commission didn't feel it was necessary to hear their testimony, and the few it did hear never made the final report. So obviously the eye witnesses are just delusional and must be suffering from post traumatic stress... :eyeroll:

meh. They will report anything they hear when it's live TV, they have to keep up a constant stream of chatter. That morning at work we were hearing that there was smoke coming from the White House and that the Sears tower in Chicago was burning, blah blah blah. We heard lots of stuff that day, this is par for the course.

Also there's plenty of footage of eyewitnesses whose versions are at great odds with the actual videos of that day. Like some guy insisted the 2nd plane shut off its engines and glided into the 2nd tower.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
Title is incorrect. The independent journalist interviewed says the mainstream media is pushing NATO propaganda.
"Claims of rebel advances dismissed as misinformation by eyewitnesses" = Gaddafi is ready to die in Tripolis / The rebels win!
Orwellian doublespeak at it's finest.
Edit: video content deserves up vote even though the title is inaccurate.

I'm afraid I have bad news for you marbles. The great and beloved leader of the Libyan people truly has been overthrown by the Imperialistic puppets that western propaganda has labelled the Libyan opposition/rebels. It's a sad day for freedom hating people the world over.


You sound like George Bush. I guess you think we liberated Iraq too.

Title is incorrect. The independent journalist interviewed says the mainstream media is pushing NATO propaganda.

"Claims of rebel advances dismissed as misinformation by eyewitnesses" = Gaddafi is ready to die in Tripolis / The rebels win!

Orwellian doublespeak at it's finest.

Edit: video content deserves up vote even though the title is inaccurate.

The Canadians here and anyone else paying attention to the G20 riot in Toronto last year shudder at this. Deja vu all over again. Saturday, the cops let the "black bloc" (white kids trashing storefronts) do their thing.

Sunday, the cops responded with the savage beatings/kettling actions.

Seeing it once looks like an awful mistake. Seeing it a second time... troubling.

>> ^marbles:

Police were ordered to stand down as London burned:
...
According to eyewitnesses to the initial riots in Tottenham, police were seen “standing back and allowing rioters to cause havoc,” a trend that continued during subsequent nights before Prime Minister David Cameron ordered 10,000 extra police officers to patrol London last night.
This has now been confirmed by sources within Scotland Yard who said police were ordered to “stand and observe” even as brazen acts of violent crime were committed against both people and private property, a directive which prevented them from arresting any of the troublemakers.
...
The police’s inadequate response quickly led to calls for martial law, curfews and the use of water cannons on streets in England for the first time, a power that Prime Minister David Cameron has now authorized.
Britain’s most widely-read newspaper The Sun ran a poll today which found that two thirds of Brits support the use of rubber bullets to deal with rioters, while 33 per cent supported the use of live bullets.
“Curfews are backed by 82 per cent, using tear gas got 78 per cent support and Tasers 72 per cent,” states the report.

Police were ordered to stand down as London burned:
...
According to eyewitnesses to the initial riots in Tottenham, police were seen “standing back and allowing rioters to cause havoc,” a trend that continued during subsequent nights before Prime Minister David Cameron ordered 10,000 extra police officers to patrol London last night.

This has now been confirmed by sources within Scotland Yard who said police were ordered to “stand and observe” even as brazen acts of violent crime were committed against both people and private property, a directive which prevented them from arresting any of the troublemakers.
...
The police’s inadequate response quickly led to calls for martial law, curfews and the use of water cannons on streets in England for the first time, a power that Prime Minister David Cameron has now authorized.

Britain’s most widely-read newspaper The Sun ran a poll today which found that two thirds of Brits support the use of rubber bullets to deal with rioters, while 33 per cent supported the use of live bullets.

“Curfews are backed by 82 per cent, using tear gas got 78 per cent support and Tasers 72 per cent,” states the report.

>> ^Skeeve:

This is definitely some quality television.
I love examples of how "short" history actually is.
We have here a video recording of a man who was alive before the existence, politically speaking, of nations like Italy and Canada. He was born before the invention of dynamite and he coexisted with people who knew Napoleon personally. That stuff blows my mind.


indeed, about 5ish years ago, i was having dinner at a buffet and this older lady and gentlemen walked in followed by two other older ladies, i learned from the older man that he was 96, the smaller lady was his wife who was 104 (she looks about 70ish) and the two other women was there daughters who were each in there 60's, i sat there just dumbfounded at all the history these four new as "life" and all i had were crappy books and lame ass teachers in school.

"Eyewitness Andre Scheie told NRK: "There are very many dead by the shore... There are about 20-25 dead." Mr Scheie also said he saw people dead in the water at the camp."

lol +1 for the non attacking attacker. personally i find atheists twice as tedious as christians. At least christans are getting wound up by their own delusions.

>> ^VoodooV:

Guy really should have attacked the "eyewitness" evidence that one so-called "doctor" gave about the existence of jesus's resurrection.
There are three things I would attack if I were trying to de-bunk Christianity and it wouldn't involve stupid billboards
1. This so-called Christian science. No such thing. People need to be educated (or re-educated) on what science is. I'm not talking about what the people in the labcoats do, I'm talking about the basics of scientific thought. Making observations and performing experiments and peer review and how/why it works and show that Christian science couldn't be further from that.
2. The so-called monopoly Christians have on morality. We hear that all the time, if you're not christian, then obviously you're not moral. There needs to be a concerted effort to show what morality is and isn't and that morality often derives from reason, not faith.
3. Show that Atheists really aren't on the attack like the Christians would like you to believe. Christianity is always pretending that it's being victimized and oppressed and it simply isn't true. That needs to be exposed.
He did a great job not losing his cool during all that.

Guy really should have attacked the "eyewitness" evidence that one so-called "doctor" gave about the existence of jesus's resurrection.

There are three things I would attack if I were trying to de-bunk Christianity and it wouldn't involve stupid billboards

1. This so-called Christian science. No such thing. People need to be educated (or re-educated) on what science is. I'm not talking about what the people in the labcoats do, I'm talking about the basics of scientific thought. Making observations and performing experiments and peer review and how/why it works and show that Christian science couldn't be further from that.

2. The so-called monopoly Christians have on morality. We hear that all the time, if you're not christian, then obviously you're not moral. There needs to be a concerted effort to show what morality is and isn't and that morality often derives from reason, not faith.

3. Show that Atheists really aren't on the attack like the Christians would like you to believe. Christianity is always pretending that it's being victimized and oppressed and it simply isn't true. That needs to be exposed.

He did a great job not losing his cool during all that.

Ok you're doing it again. You're leaping from one thing to another with no real connection. So maybe a figure called Jesus existed. All that statement means is, a man lived at a period and had a name Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in a book written by a load of people who conspired to create a religious following about him is fact. You think everything in the Bible is fact, I don't. The bible has no evidence for its miracles and supposed preaching about God. It might have details about towns, people, nations, gatherings, that are also reported by other sources. But that doesn't in anyway confirm that supernatural beliefs held in the Bible. Like I said earlier, it would be a strange for them to write a book that tried to both introduce supernatural answers for the world in a made-up setting. They obviously set the Bible's story in a realistic background. You can not just then verify everything in the Bible because of that.

Do you know why? Because a) anything like those miracle situations hasn't had any evidence found since then to collude with the Bible's miracles, if it did all the scientists of the world would be in agreement that the miracles of the Bible were possible b) the story setting of the Bible is extremely similar to many stories that have been found and verified as being created before the Bible, ergo the Bible is a copy-work of those other stories, which diminishes its validity. c) It's obvious to anyone not brainwashed and not weak minded, what religions aim is; to prey on fear of death and to masquerade as a good force when in fact it's wasting your life and causing a massive amount of problems in the world whilst making a few people in the religion some of the richest people in the world.

Religion is a perfect example of the weakness of mankind, Religion and Greed are two of the worst things in the world, and until they are solved in our society we're stuck being fucked over in a cycle of retarded behaviour.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.
Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."
As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.

Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."

As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

>> ^Mazex:
Lol don't just copy paste a load of convoluted statements that you got off some website and flout it as fact...
There might of been a guy called Jesus, but I don't for a second believe he was born from a virgin, managed to perform miracles and managed to be resurrected. All those things are part of the bible too, and they have nothing to do with the archaeological record, which is why you citing it, is pointless.
Its obvious that the problems people have with believing the Bible is that it cites a load of miracles and preaching about a God that has never been proven. And you expect everyone to believe it, and believe they are going to Hell if they commit sins and don't repent.
His resurrection being true or not has nothing to do with being brainwashed, it has to do with it being a lie, its a story, its made up, its not real. What his disciples did isn't fact either, you don't know what happened. Because all that's left is a book they all wrote. If you experienced it, and thousands of others experienced it and lived to this day, then I'd say there might be more people that could believe it. But just writing a story down, and then expecting everyone to hold it as truth forever, isn't necessarily truth.
With all these scientific facts that are supposedly revealed in the Bible, you are missing the real truth completely. None of them are scientific claims, they are all you interpreting scientific facts from words. You can pretty much interpret anything that's happened with any piece of literature. Especially with the Bible which has been translated and revised so many times over the years, the actual form of it, is nothing like what it was originally. So your little world of the Bible pre-determining scientific discoveries is a complete farce, please actually think constructively and again don't just copy paste a load of crap from the internet.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm with imstellar28, this video is some guy presenting a hypothesis and testing it. NatGeo made a claim he believed was untruthful, and he wanted to prove it wrong. And he was successful.

He should have stuck with debunking NatGeo. He gets himself into trouble with all the "scientific" claims he makes that fall outside of his experiment and have no evidence.

20 seconds in he's claiming that the fires were "burning out and cooling down" after the plane hit. His cited evidence is verbal testimony from a Fox News helicopter.

At 55 seconds he lays the groundwork for the molten metal being steel. The evidence? "It looked like steel in a foundry."

He continues to cite eyewitnesses throughout the video; eyewitnesses who wouldn't know molten steel from boiling orange juice or magnesium flares from flash photography.

There's a reason eyewitness testimony is almost useless in science.

I admire this guy's willingness to tinker, but he comes across as very anti-science. Good scientists (like the people who wrote the official reports) are willing to admit when they don't know something. Yet this guy latches on to that as a failure or a cover up on their part.

He didn't disprove the official story. The official story is that burning jet fuel weakened the steel. How does this video disprove that? He cherry picked a few eye witness reports, he points to some uncertainties in the official report, and he highlights a few material samples of unknown origin and somehow that invalidates the official report?

Me: Rain falls from the sky.
Him: But eyewitnesses have white hot plasma forking through the sky. Also, I have photos of ice falling from the sky. Your shoddy cover up is now disproved.

You realize his central experiments are basically worthless? We know thermite cuts steel. That's what people use it for all the freaking time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Civilian_uses
"Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks..."

He's right that the National Geographic experiments were shoddy. But again, he doesn't understand science if he somehow thinks that invalidates the official story and at the same time validates his crackpot theory.


>> ^Hanover_Phist:

Thank-You Pantalones. Well said.
This video does not corroborate conspiracy theory, nor was that the intention. It simply disproves the official story to pressure the public and powers that be to find the real answers.