Gravy's "Ground Zeros" (ATS VIDEO TEST)

WoW!

I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments thus far.

I watched all 3 clips in succesion and saw nothing more than someone Attempting to point out Obvious discrepencies in that which 911Truth is purporting as Fact.

Not to say that everything they claim is in error, but more that All they claim As fact Isn't. (?)

Yeah. The guy in the video does come across as a bit of an a$$/"nuisance to their cause", but aren't we All actually seeking the facts, the truth? Do you want to be one that, in your attempt to inform others as to the inconsistencies regarding what happened on 911, imparts information that is in any way False, Erroneous, In Err, Assumptive? I don't.

Personaly, I see the 911 truth "movement" as more a case of "right idea - wrong approach" ... but that's just me.

? thoughts ?

You know what, regards to the Vid-player, initially I missed the sidebar video parts II and parts III. Maybe its just me, but it could some attention grabbing to alert the user that there are other parts. Perhaps embedded within the "tv screen" at the end of the Part I video? Just my views on it to improve etc...

BTW, is this a 1st screening before a large public audience? And are the participants working to improve or change the video in any way?

Not that this wouldn't be accomplished on you-tube, but with google video, or youtube, the audience is HUGE potentially, can get into the half million viewers mark, and by that time a video should be solidified without changed to be made.

So I'm wondering if this is a test-run before mass exposure.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Personaly, I see the 911 truth "movement" as more a case of "right idea - wrong approach" ... but that's just me.

? thoughts ?

I am in agreement with you here.




[edit: clipped Big Quote to relevant portion]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by greatlakes
So I'm wondering if this is a test-run before mass exposure.

greatlakes,

The "test-run" is of and for the Player only ... the video is simply filler (i.e. content) to check functionality and compatibility.

I hope this answers your questions.

If ever a question or concern please don't hesitate to U2U.



 

I personally never seen a better video then this one here: September 11th revisited

(My opinion)
This is a video where if you watch it, anyone with common sense will think to him self that the government got a heck of a lot to explain about that day.

If you want to test your new video player, might as well use a good video.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by GwionX
Oh do you want to see some of Gravy's facts?

It isn't like this is his only contribution to debunking the 9/11 conspiracy industry.

Here ya go--

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

You mean his links to other people's work? I have no problem with him using them as a source but nothing is more annoying than someone who defends their views with a book.

"You want to know what I think? Well read this!".

No, **** you. If you want to promote your views then at least take the time to explain key points. Otherwise, there's no way to debate anything.

Imagine all the candidates for president saying, "Well, my opinion on education is all in my book. Read it and you'll know what I think".

Do you have any link that actually explains the collapses? By that I mean, not refuting other's analysis, but rather provides his own.

Originally posted by GwionX

Originally posted by Griff
My problem with Gravy and people like him (I won't mention any names) is that it seams like they get their jollies off by "debunking" any and all 9/11 related issues. What drives these people to be so "viscous" when it comes to 9/11? What drives someone to take the time to make videos/create websites etc. to "debunk" conspiracies? They believe that these conspiracies are all "crazy" and we are part of a "cult" but yet they are driven (by something) to spend their time "debunking" something they feel is crazy and part of cultish behavior? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Because 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists aren't just "asking Questions" they are trying to actively convert people to their views.. erronious, ill concieved views that are based on lies and half-truths.

Dangerous views that relieve culpability from the Middle-eastern radicals, and place it on the USA. Sounds like a mindset that could have only been the goal of Al-Queda in the first place. How do I know if the conspiracy zealots aren't actually Al-Queda operatives using the internet to wound America further? Or fringe groups in America that support Al-Queda, Hezzbolla, and Hamas, and posting this Anti-American propaganda WORLDWIDE, to not only drum up support for their cause but to rally support against the USA ?

This exchange is priceless. Ah, the irony...

Got yourself a nice little conspiracy going there, GX.

So now truthers are AQ/Hezbollah/Hamas/Hummus operatives? Oh puhleeze!

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Not to mention strident? (all caps for 'worldwide" was a nice touch, btw)

Don't worry, this is only a rhetorical question.

_______________

The video feature works quite well, kudos all around for that.

As for the premier content, it was droll but pathetic. All downhill from the credits, cut it off soon after, just couldn't any more.

Really these people need to grow up and get a life. Felt like high school. Or grade school, actually.

I'm with Griff, it's disconcerting bordering on creepy that this guy felt so compelled he made his video, but about what? arguing over signs on a barricade?

Props to SO for picking what might be the perfect video to give the player a good shake down. By picking something that would be so controversial as to incite near riots was definately the way to go.

Video itself despite perhaps coming under fire for heavily borrowed samples is spot on in the presentation. Notice how it needlessly over stresses every single point and opinon, great satirical mockery of some of the slicker truther videos. The structure of a segment ending before the chapter does is also a fine point in the structure of the film. Now this may orginally be an unintended side effect of using memory sticks, but post production would have easily fixed that.

Overall content of film finds Mark using the exact same annoying as heck tactics that the truthers do. Endless spouting of material, in your face accusations of idiocy. What Mark has done is to hold a mirror up to people that do not like the reflection, parroting exactly what he has seen these past years. His commentary input is exactly as the decries of blind ignorance and "sheeple" labels too often bantered about. The "who's paying you?" is a suggestion of disinfo agent by the way.

Specific addresses to comments in this thread:
He claims the wall by placing his signs first. Had he taken their signs down to place his own then he would be in the wrong. Notice how a week later, after being told by a police officer that they can not use nails, they are nailing the signs up again overtop of Mark's signs as a blatent disregaurd to freely speak his views. Yes he does paint Les and Company in a very bad light...but can you honestly say that Les and Co. do not deserve this due to how they behave as well?

Les and Co. do what they want and as they want becuse they feel they are right. They use their numbers (might equals right) to give Mark a hard time. Yes, Mark is a bit of a jerk to them, but they are definately no better. As some else said good intentions but bad implimentation. They should however be happy they are in NYC, in small town USA they would mostlikely get themselves hurt very badly if not killed. Not because of the message, but for the delivery.

Had I been that victim's family member that they were giving a hard time I would had asked the officer to turn his back for about five minutes so I could give personal instruction in manners to a few that didn't get it when they were younger. Several officers around here would be kind enough to let me examine their nightstick and forget to ask for its return before checking out the crowd across the way. Case and point, you have the freedom to say whatever you want. Just be prepared for others to give their opinion as well. No matter how right your words, they are meaningless of presented wrong. And some people will correct you for being wrong, even if what you said was correct.



[edit on 28-5-2007 by Ahabstar]

Sublime-- you said:

"Also, while he does a great job critiquing others, I didn't see the part where he displays his facts."

I responded, that Mark Roberts has done his homework and provided a link. If you did more than just glimpse at that information you would find volumes of information written by Gravy. You would also find volumes of information supporting his assertions. Conversely, you will also find sound counter-arguments to most claims made by the "truth movement."

For me it comes down to credibility. The collapse mechanism for the twin towers was explained suffeciently by NIST. The Video Skeptic Overlord posted showing the exact point of collapse on WTC 2 on this very thread shows no evidence of explosives, thermite, or sooper-sekerit particle beams. It shows the structure buckling then collapsing due to damage inflicted by Jet-liners and uncontrolled fire.

Why would people discredit the 200 NIST scientists and their 10,000 page study, and opt for theories presented by one man, Eric Hufschmid's opinion that " OMGZ! there musta been some bombs up in them buildin's cause I never seen that happen before."

Yeah-- no one had seen jumbo-jets plow into abnormally tall skyscrapers before.

Like I said I will go with the boring credible sources..

Originally posted by gottago

This exchange is priceless. Ah, the irony...

I am glad you have the ability to identify irony. Do you use it in all situations or just when you want to begin an argument from ridicule?

Got yourself a nice little conspiracy going there, GX.

Is it plausible?

So now truthers are AQ/Hezbollah/Hamas/Hummus operatives? Oh puhleeze!

What is the ultimate goal of this movement? Is it to ask questions? Well, it has been 6 years..I don't see the "just askin' questions" as a motivator anymore. I see the so called "movement' as more of a rally to hate the US Government- After all, "believers' don't hesitate to accuse our own citizens of mass murder. Do you not think that would be considered an auxillary success to a martyrdom operation? To affect people profoundly so they misguide their anger to the same target as the original martyrs? While diverting attention away from their culpability, even bolstering sympathy for their cause?

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Not to mention strident? (all caps for 'worldwide" was a nice touch, btw)

Ah, you speak of Irony. Heh! How about, thousands of pounds of explosives, thermate, Shadow government, Joos! Lizard men from the planet Niberu, thermite, Micro nukes, no planes, no buildings, cruise missles, republicans, corrupt cops, corrupt firefighters, corrupt scientists, federally issued death threats, lazer beams from outter space, keebler elves, ridiculously inefficient file and record destruction, patsies, Bilderberg, neo-cons, A-10 warthogs, clairvoyant bureaucrats, corrupt media, A seemless and borg-like federal system bent on world domination, zionists, Molock the owl, Die hard gold heist, Microchip implants, Manchurian candidates, Evil US government plots.

Yeah-- I have definately found ridiculous and strident.

I'm with Griff, it's disconcerting bordering on creepy that this guy felt so compelled he made his video, but about what? arguing over signs on a barricade?

Being the irony aficionado that you are; I am surprized you couldn't make the connection.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by GwionX]

Personaly, I see the 911 truth "movement" as more a case of "right idea - wrong approach" ... but that's just me.

Very well said,and I agree 100%.Not everyone who doesn't believe the official story is a "nut case" or an "idiot".I also agree with the person who stated that the music clips and looney tunes audio in the video was a little ridiculous.Btw,the new M.P. is great.Great job to all responsible.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by crowpruitt]

Originally posted by GwionX
You accuse my brothers and sisters of Mass murder, you had best have an airtight case. Not just a couple of-- "Gee that looks funny" or "Never before in history--yadda, yadda"

Shouldn't that also be the case for our Muslim brothers and sisters? Or is it because they are considered the enemy, they don't count? BTW, I'm not Muslim.

I'm talking about the FBI not being positive of the ID of the highjackers. Bin Laden not being on the most wanted list for 9/11. Etc. The government isn't positive it was 19 arab highjackers, how can you be?

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Dude/Dudette I'm going to give you a WATS just for that post...

Ok...what did you guys do with the WATS link ???

They got rid of it exactly because of instances like this. What was WATS worthy in his post? Other than his point of view being the same as yours? That is not worthy of a WATS in my book.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Do you have any link that actually explains the collapses? By that I mean, not refuting other's analysis, but rather provides his own.

I doubt if you could find ANY "debunking" site that has it's own train of thought. They can all (pretty much) be traced back to the original (if you can call it that) ideas of debunking911.com. Just my opinion but that's what I've seen.

Edit: It is also my personal opinion that debunking911.com was written as a "debunking manual". Remember the quote from Rummy about agents being on conspiracy sites in full force? I do and am reminded of it practically daily around here.

[edit on 5/28/2007 by Griff]

A few things to add.

1). The video is awesome quality. Well done.
2). That video was shameful in it's representation of both of their points. I also find it very suspect that SO would use that video sequence to showcase the new video system.

Let's face fact. The believers of the official story have all of the creditials, evidence, support, to make their position seem right, because that is the way the situation was presented. Those going against the grain have to dig up things that don't fit, and when we just show those things that don't fit, we are called crazy, and we are bacthed in with our worst reoresentation.

Fact, there are holes in the story, these guys seem to think so as well. Don't ignore the actual valid questions because a few simpletons want to show their stupidity. BTW, that video seemed more rhetoric than anything else and for that I feel ashamed that ATS advocated it.

I will reluctantly digress.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
BTW, that video seemed more rhetoric than anything else and for that I feel ashamed that ATS advocated it.

???

From my opening post:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
As is our style on ATS, we encourage all sides of the debate on the topics we examine as a methodology to understand important issues. This video represents a degree of "extreme conspiracy skepticism" not often encountered here, and will certainly be a valuable piece of information as we continue to examine the facts we believe point to conspiracies.

You call that advocating?

Originally posted by GwionX
I responded, that Mark Roberts has done his homework and provided a link. If you did more than just glimpse at that information you would find volumes of information written by Gravy. You would also find volumes of information supporting his assertions. Conversely, you will also find sound counter-arguments to most claims made by the "truth movement."

For me it comes down to credibility. The collapse mechanism for the twin towers was explained suffeciently by NIST. The Video Skeptic Overlord posted showing the exact point of collapse on WTC 2 on this very thread shows no evidence of explosives, thermite, or sooper-sekerit particle beams. It shows the structure buckling then collapsing due to damage inflicted by Jet-liners and uncontrolled fire.

Why would people discredit the 200 NIST scientists and their 10,000 page study, and opt for theories presented by one man, Eric Hufschmid's opinion that " OMGZ! there musta been some bombs up in them buildin's cause I never seen that happen before."

Yeah-- no one had seen jumbo-jets plow into abnormally tall skyscrapers before.

Like I said I will go with the boring credible sources..

Well for 1 NIST has changed its reports a lot, they have refused on several occasions to attend an open debate forum to take questions on their reports. They also still have not come up with a real explanation why building 7 collapsed.

They are contridictions in thier own reports, and they admit they only looked at one possible reason for the collapse of the towers.

Their is no real, hard evidence to support the official story. We have no FBI and NTSB crime scene reports, no location of where the parts found at the Pentagon were taken. No reports on the 2 seperate debris fields caused by flight 93 just to name a few.

I appreciate the effort, BUT the editing was a NIGHTMARE to watch. The intro credits ran for ever(got so bored i click to the next section) and the consent stopping of the footage to play sound effects was painful to say the least.

The player seems to have bugs - first part played fine, second played about two minutes then cut to the ATS advert. I started part 2 again, this time it goes about 5min before the advert. again cuts in, plays then stops. This is with the Opera browser btw...