Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 I'd like to make an introductory post. Then I'd like to try to open a discussion that some people here might find interesting. I'm not trolling. I'm not looking to make any profit from what follows. If people don't agree with my ideas than that's ok. I'm just looking for an opportunity to get my ideas heard. I've been an independent filmmaker over the years. However, I wasn't strong enough of a filmmaker to have "made it" when I was younger. Now, the prospects of making a film seems kind of remote. I still am a huge film buff and believe that eventually, hopefully, I'll be able to make a feature film. Lately I've been watching Eric Rohmer and Robert Bresson. My passion is moving towards austere minimalism. Now with the subject I'd like to bring up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 911 and the Society of the Spectacle: http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/140816/index.php mirror: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/309914.shtml I employ cinematography in my arguments that the TV news aired fake video of planes striking the WTC on 9/11/01. I know that sounds preposterous. However, please consider taking a look at the cinematography logic that is employed. Thanks. related link: http://www.911Hoax.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Video Review: '911' by the Naudet brothers: http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/di.../8062/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 mirrors, which may be easier on the eyes. 911 and the Society of the Spectacle A Review of "911" by the Naudet Brothers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JONATHANEDWARDS Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Quote from 911hoax.com ?With the court-ordered release of the 911 transcripts by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey a large community of people united by the Internet is hurrying to verify their respective conspiracy theories of what really transpired that day. Personally, I am wondering if any part of the transcripts will confirm that any plane crashed in New York on September 11, 2001.? Ah yes i can see it now tommy lee jones and will smith in Men in black 3 EXT DAY New York ? ladies and gentlemen if i can draw your attention from the giant flying saucer hanging out of the world trade center for just a minute and i promise folks everything will make a lot more scents in just a fue moments . Tommy lee jones takes out his trusty brain washer and FLASH just think with a imagination like that you could start working for my favorate news paper the weekly world news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Some would say that the tendency to believe in conspiracy theories, is because of an idividuals inability to support their political or world view, based on obvious facts, and/or obvious simple logic. There is a preposterous amount of evidence of this in history, sometimes with disastrous consequences (Hitler's conspiracy theories about Jews, for instance), that you would think modern humans would have figured out that this is an extremely silly thing to engage in. (Oh, when will we ever learn...) However, maybe the fact I'm making these comments, is in itself evidence of an even wider conspiracy! The truth is, not only did 9/11 not happen, but there's no such place as The United States of America! This is all one huge conspiracy! The place doesn't even exist, and I'm not even really here posting this message! Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Matt, "coincidence theories" are often more ridiculous than "conspiracy theories". With regards to the events of 9/11, the more you look into the official story of what happened the more ludicrous it becomes. I posted this topic on this forum to get feedback on the cinematography I use to argue my case. Do you have anything to say about the image of "flight 175" as it enters the South Tower quietly and effortlessly like a hot knife through butter? The fuselage of the plane and the wings are largely made out of aluminum. Every video clip I've seen of any plane crash shows the plane's fuselage disintegrating as it makes contact with the other object. In this case. we expect that the aluminum pieces of the plane would shred and turn into metallic confetti as it contacts the exterior steel walls. Car manufacturers understand that heavier cars are safer to drive than lighter ones. The aluminum of the plane is much lighter than the steel columns it collides into. Throw in the fact that there wasn't any audio recorded of the metallic plane impacting the metallic building and the video becomes very suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 There are so many fallacies and assumptions in your statement above, it's hard to know where to start! First of all, this one: "Every video clip I've seen of any plane crash shows the plane's fuselage disintegrating as it makes contact with the other object. In this case. we expect that the aluminum pieces of the plane would shred and turn into metallic confetti as it contacts the exterior steel walls." Every video clip you've seen, is irrelevant. You say "the other object" as if ALL OBJECTS react in the same manner when hit by a jumbo jet! THIS jet hit THIS building, and if you will sit a moment and reflect on all the crash video's you've seen, it's always a jet hitting the GROUND. Modern skyscrapers are built so the interior structure provides the strength. The exterior walls are astoundingly flimsy (obviously). Your expectations that the jet would bounce off the walls, like it would hitting the concrete on a runway are just silly. Also, jets crashing into the ground are usually attempting to land, therefore they are traveling at the slowest possible speed; just above stall speed. (or I should say, not quite above stall speed, given that they're crashing!). These jets were going at a much higher speed, probably 300-400 mph. All that weight and energy has to go somewhere, in this case, right inside the building. And as is usual with conspiracy theories, you're placing 100% of the importance on THIS ONE thing, as if there's no evidence of any kind otherwise - just the video, nothing else, ignoring the thousands of eyewitness accounts of what happened by the people that were there, inside the building and on the ground. Was the entire New York City population paid off by the CIA to say they saw two jets flying into the buildings? Or maybe they were all collectively hypnotized? LSD was put into the drinking water? George W. Bush is so omnisciently powerful and popular, that the entire population of the city decided on its own to go along with the conspiracy? MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Modern skyscrapers are built so the interior structure provides the strength.The exterior walls are astoundingly flimsy (obviously). Actually, the exterior steel columns of both towers were quite strong. They were supporting the vertical and horizontal loads of the buildings: Exterior Columns Pulling their Weight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Zukin Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Scott, Your posts are a disgrace - a lot of innocent people lost their lives that day. You seemed like a guy who's starved for attention. Take it somewhere else. Ken Zukin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Y.M.Poursohi Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Mr Loughrey It seems you are also forgetting that the angle that the planes hit the buildings is different than all plane crashes. Usually planes skid off on the ground when in a crash situation, on Sepetmber 11th the planes hit the towers directly. You are also disregarding many New Yorkers who saw the crash and saw the collapses. Besides the fact that it is a disrespect to those who lost their lives but also a disrespect to intelligence and logic. There are many emails going on the Web about hoaxes, the fact is all these conspiracy theories are hoaxes themselves. Yousef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidSloan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 It would really be nice if mr Tyler gave you the boot. No one wants to read this disgraceful trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 This has nothing to do with CINEMATOGRAPY! :angry: Albeit some of our discussion swerve away from the topic of cinematography They still hover around the realm of filmmaking. THIS POST DOES NOT! READ THE GUIDELINES! This is not a political forum... Only the politics of filmmaking will be discuss! So stop inciting an argument! If you have a question about cinematography ask it and we'll try to answer it If you have a need to validate your conspiracy theories go somewhere else. There are enough important argument over cinematography already For you to try to introduce this totally unrelated topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 It seems you are also forgetting that the angle that the planes hit the buildings is different than all plane crashes. Usually planes skid off on the ground when in a crash situation, on Sepetmber 11th the planes hit the towers directly. You are also disregarding many New Yorkers who saw the crash and saw the collapses. Besides the fact that it is a disrespect to those who lost their lives but also a disrespect to intelligence and logic. Actually, I'm ignoring and disrespecting no one. Also, many people will continue to lose their lives unless the public reexamines what reallly happened on 9/11. This has nothing to do with CINEMATOGRAPY! ... I'm employing principles of cinematography in my arguments that the news media aired faked video. I came in asking for cinematographers to review my conclusions. 911 Hoax.com, cinematography included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Oh look! Scott Loughrey loves morbid, macabre video feeds and is in complete denial about 9/11 because he is AFRAID, ignorant of how the rest of the world works and probably a paranoid schizophrenic to boot. Wow Scott. Good for you! Way to go humanity! And no, little troll, I will NOT watch your video feeds. My family lost a close friend of the family on 9/11 and people like you, with too much free time on their hands, are extremely insulting to those of us who look at the tragedy of 9/11 as more than just a bunch of planes smashing into big buildings. Well, you keep on pursuing your new little hobby of turning the victims of 9/11 into statistics for whatever-the-bloody hell it is you wish to achieve. Maybe when you collect enough of the "fake 9/11 videos the media aired", we can trade your videos for my collection of disfigured lamb fetuses. Until then, get a life. and oh yeah... just a recap of the past several hundred years in case you weren't paying attention: -the Holocaust DID happen. -Slavery DID happen. -women who practice herbal medicine are NOT real witches. -minorities are NOT stealing your jobs - you're just too lazy to go out and get one. -women are NOT the root of all evil. -we DID land on the moon am i forgetting anything? eh. who cares. in one ear, out the other .. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I don't know why we're indulging this whacko by responding to him. And I have to agree with Rik that this is simply not the forum for such a discussion - wobbly arguments that it is "cinematography related" notwithstanding. I heard something like this long ago: "Never get into an argument with a crazy person - people might not know the difference." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well, you keep on pursuing your new little hobby of turning the victims of 9/11 into statistics for whatever-the-bloody hell it is you wish to achieve. My goal is ask cinematographers to look into my argument that the news media aired fake 9/11 video. Nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 My goal is ask cinematographers to look into my argument that the news media aired fake 9/11 video. Nothing more, nothing less. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People here are all telling you that it's a bunh of bullshit, myself included. You got your reply, now stop in sulting those who were more impacted by that day than you were. In an attwmpt to steer this conversation a little: I enjoyed the documentary by the Naudet brothers, very interesting and compelling stuff, yeah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alex Ellerman Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 (edited) Guys; First off, this is not a good place for this discussion BUT... scott is not suggesting that 9/11 didn't happen. He is not dishonoring their memories. He is asking if their lives were taken under the guise of terrorism, but in reality were part of something more sinister. The ad hom attacks on the guy are not much better than the trolling, in my estimation, and only fuel the fire... theturnaround Edited February 17, 2005 by theturnaround Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 He may not be insinuating that 9/11 didn't happen. No, he's just insinuating that terrorists didn't do it, George Bush did it. Considering the flimsy justification that we used to go into Iraq, it's patently absurd to think that our government would think it needed to blow up two skyscrapers full of people to justify going to war, which from what I can tell, is what this guy is insinuating. It would also be stupid to blow up all those high-wage earning tax payers too. Bad for the economy, bad for re-election. Plus, the terrorists have been blowing up stuff of ours since the Clinton administration, so there's nothing this would accomplish anyway. So, if you have the ability to take what he's saying seriously, I'd like you to consider the following FACTS: 1. Ringo Star & Yassir Arafat. - Same guy. You never saw Arafat making public appearances at the same time as a Beatles concert or recording session, and you haven't seen Ringo in public since Arafat died. Coincidence? I think not. 2. There's no such thing as the Statue of Liberty. Every picture of it in existence, is a forced perspective miniature shot. They sell little 9-inch statues of it in N.Y., and everyone holds the statue out with their left hand, and takes the picture with their right hand. 3. JFK is not dead. He was cryogenically frozen, then thawed out in 1970, had extensive plastic surgery, and emerged as Gene Simmons of the band KISS. How else do you explain Gene Simmons having bedded over 3500 women? It can't be his looks! Nobody by Jack K. has the smoothness to pull that off. Plus, he wrote the screenplay to the movie JFK, Oliver Stone stole it, and JFK now lives on the Island that Mel Gibson recently bought. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 "1. Ringo Star & Yassir Arafat. - Same guy. You never saw Arafat making public appearances at the same time as a Beatles concert or recording session, and you haven't seen Ringo in public since Arafat died. Coincidence? I think not. 2. There's no such thing as the Statue of Liberty. Every picture of it in existence, is a forced perspective miniature shot. They sell little 9-inch statues of it in N.Y., and everyone holds the statue out with their left hand, and takes the picture with their right hand. 3. JFK is not dead. He was cryogenically frozen, then thawed out in 1970, had extensive plastic surgery, and emerged as Gene Simmons of the band KISS. How else do you explain Gene Simmons having bedded over 3500 women? It can't be his looks! Nobody by Jack K. has the smoothness to pull that off. Plus, he wrote the screenplay to the movie JFK, Oliver Stone stole it, and JFK now lives on the Island that Mel Gibson recently bought." 9/11 guy, are you following all of this? I know..I know... lots of words. And some big ones there too! Time to break out that dictionary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Loughrey Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Les Raphael discusses '911' by the Naudet brothers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Oh, now I get it. Just because some guy says it on the internet means it true. Do you by any chance attend a church that worships Art Bell? Just asking... Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetorian Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 A few things: Like said before, forum guidelines prohibit politically driven discussions. If you feel the need to discuss this further, visit a political forum. Stop by politicalcrossfire.com (where I am Republican leader) and start a thread with this topic. Just be prepared to have your butt handed to you worse than it was in here. And even if political threads were allowed, there would be no need to debate further. Popular Mechanics has done the hard work for us: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...842.html?page=1 Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts