Improbable collapse review

This movie is pretty good but the beggining is pretty bad. I mean having people dance in the streets screaming about Thomas Paine and the patriot act is not going to convince
anybody of anything. In order for these 9/11 videos to become viral you have to just grab the audience with something of substance, like in Loose Change when they talk about
Northwoods right away. It grabs your attention much more, especially if your not a truther.

In my opinion, every 9/11 movie should deal with the fake osama confession tape. So many disbeleivers always say that he admitted it and if he really did then they have a point.
For example, Mathew rothschild brings this up as his first point in his debunking article. The guy in the tape is so obviously fake, and i think voice anaylsis has been done as well.He actually denied involvement.
Every movie needs to deal with the smoking gun "confessions" or else people see a movie like 9/11 mysteries and improbale collapse and feel that osama confession will nullify the movies points.
In fact if these movies get updated exposing the fake confessions would be a great way to open up a movie.

Yes, can't someone make a definitive 9/11 truth video that

demonstrates both the physics proof + the testimonial/documented proof together???

I wish the makers of 911

I wish the makers of 911 Press for Truth would do so. Improbable Collapse fell pretty short for me. I was very disappointed. Even 9/11 Mysteries had more science than what IC offered. Also, 'keying' Stephen Jones over the WTC 7 collapse was real cheesy.

There are several

There are several indications that the bin Laden confession video was faked. However, it's not central to establishing guilt, in my opinion. Even if bin Laden were to claim responsibility at some point, how could that be reconciled with the many times that he has denied any involvement? It just doesn't fit with the alleged motive.

Also, bin Laden's history as a CIA asset casts doubt over anything that he says.

I think

you're absolutely right. In my law class, I actually brought that point up; we were discussing something, I forget the topic, but we somehow digressed and I said that the FBI actually had no hard evidence connecting Osama to 9/11. His response was "Oh, well sure he did it, he confessed to it." My quick rebuttal, even though I could have made the point of him not writing with his proper hand in the confession tape, I simply stated: "So did John Mark Karr to killing Benet Ramsey. He didn't do it."

Loose Change was successful because, like stated above, it grabbed the audiences' attention. We need more presentations like that; we need to be able to grab the interest of those who don't want to hear it, and FORCE them to make the "paradigm shift" that Dr. David Ray Griffin spoke of. As he said, the second you can get someone to say "Wait, maybe it didn't happen as the government put it...", that said person will be unable to go back later in the day and say "Yep, it's just like the government said." They're forced to draw a logical conclusion using their own sense of reason; we need to appeal to this American sense of logic and reason that has been subdued since the government and media misdirected us as a country on and since 9/11.

"So did John Mark Karr (admit) to killing Jon-Benet Ramsey."

This is a much stronger way to go, IMO. Just completely leave aside the whole "faked" confession tape.

no its not

john mark karr is one example of a phony confession, there are many more examples of where confessions have been used as hard evidence to convict people.

John mark carr was a lunatic.............people dont view osama as being an attention starved loony whos all "talk" they know hes a terrorist, so the context of the karr confession is totally different.

Yes, it is.

It's still prominent in people's minds, and I think, although most people thought he was guilty of *something*, in the absence of physical evidence to corroborate his confession, people believed he was innocent of this one even though he confessed. That's why, for the present, at least, this is a compelling argument. The bottom line is that in terms of how the legal system is *supposed* to work, your confession alone is not going to get you convicted.

YOURE WRONG

CONFESSIONS, WHILE NOT USED SOLELY TO GAIN A CONVICTION HAVE LEGALLY BEEN A MAJOR PART OF A SOLID CASE TO GET A CONVICTION.

HAVING A UNREBUTTED CONFESSION IS DAMAGING TO A DEFENDENT. ITS ALSO NEGLIGENT FOR A LAWYER NOT TO FIGHT A CONFESSION THAT IS PHONY. IT COULD EASILY LEAD TO A FALSE VERDICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN COUPLED WITH PHONY GOVERNMENT REPORTS(NIST).

A GOOD ATTORNEY WOULD FIGHT ALL FALSE CLAIMS

There's no need to shout.

"CONFESSIONS, WHILE NOT USED SOLELY TO GAIN A CONVICTION HAVE LEGALLY BEEN A MAJOR PART OF A SOLID CASE TO GET A CONVICTION."

Here's the idea: You say, there's no hard evidence to connect Osama; there's not enough evidence to indict him.

They say: Oh yeah? Well, he confessed, that means he did it.

You say: Oh, is that so? Well, John Mark Karr confessed; did he do it?

That works, for me, as an argument, a lot better than "the video was fake" because his nose is too fat, and so on and so forth, even though I happen to agree that the tape is highly dubious.

WHAT THE HELL

KARR HAD A MOTIVE TO FALSELY CONFESS, DOES OSAMA? IS OSAMA TRYING TO GET ON LARRY KING FOR ATTENTION, LIKE KARR WAS TRYING TO DO?

A CONFESSION FROM OSAMA IS FAR MORE DAMNING BEACUSE HE HAS A VIOLENT PAST AND HE HAS VOWED DO KILL AMERICANS FOR OUR "CRIMES"

"THERES NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO INDICT HIM"
YEAH BUT PEOPLE WANT THE TRUTH MORALLY SPEAKING NOT LEGALLY, SO WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE THAT YOU SOUND LIKE A DEFENSE LAWYER WHO KNOWS HIS CLIENT IS GUILTY BUT KNOWS THERE ISNT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT.

A BETTER WAY IS TO ANYALYZE ALL THE DATA AND DISPELL AN EASILY PROVED PHONY VIDEOTAPE, RATHER THAN SAYING A CONFESSION DOES NOT MATTER, WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY DOES TO SO MANY AMERICANS.

WHY DONT YOU TELL A DEBUNKER THAT BECAUSE KARR LIED ALL CONFESSIONS ARE FAKE. THEY WILL LAUGH IN YOUR FACE WHEN YOU SAY THE FACT OSAMA CONFESSED IS IRRELEVENT.

SAYING THE VIDEO IS FAKE IS PROVABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, SAYING OSAMA'S CONFESSION IS NOT RELEVENT BY COMPARING IT TO ONE CONFESSION BY KARR, WHILE IGNORING ALL THE OTHER CASES OF TRUE CONFESSIONS IS CONCEDING TO FALLACIOUS DAMNING EVIDENCE.

Do you realize

that nor all truthers accept the idea that the confession video is fake? I tend to think it is, more for its highly dubious provenance than all the stuff about which hand he writes with and whether devout Muslims wear jewelry. I've heard arguments from both sides *within* the 9/11 Truth community on all of these things. It would not be easy to prove the video is fake.

Secondly, Karr is by far not the only person to have his confession disbelieved -- people confess to crimes they did not commit quite commonly, especially if they are high-profile cases. For that reason, measures have to be in place to weed out false confessions. Obviously, the confession alone is not enough for the FBI even in terms of labeling him "wanted" for the crime.

Finally, I tried hinting at this, but without success. Typing in all caps on a board like this (most boards, actually) is considered rude. It's the visual equivalent of shouting.

im a rude person

thats the way the muppett twiggles

yeah

i mean the guy in the video is so much darker, fatter, and if you zoom in you see his nose is way too big.
Exposing this in the opening of a movie would be hard evidence..........and people would then see the rest of the evidence without a phony confession to influence them.