SOTT editors on TV

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
T.C. said:
Perceval said:
Does anyone know if the show (streaming adobe flash) can be downloaded?

Yes, it can be downloaded using "RealPlayer".

T.C.

Did you download it? How big is it?

We don't have Realplayer (I presume the "pro" version is needed"?
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Perceval said:
T.C. said:
Perceval said:
Does anyone know if the show (streaming adobe flash) can be downloaded?

Yes, it can be downloaded using "RealPlayer".

T.C.

Did you download it? How big is it?

The file is 100MB and can be found at _http://www.edgemediatv.com/watchonlinevideos/watchonline005.flv

I am downloading it right now. Let me know where you want it uploaded.

Safari has this great feature where it shows all components of a page it is loading (Window -> Activity). That's how I found the above link.

D.
 

John G

The Living Force
For the RealPlayer option it is with the free Realplayer Download & Recording Manager that sticks files in a folder on your computer. I never heard of it before and thus didn't know anyone in the famly was using it but I found some Littlest Pet Shop songs in the folder, apparently my 7 year old daughter has been using it :/
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Also a plugin for Firefox allows you to download any flash video from any website:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/220

While watching a flash video, right click anywhere on the page (not on the video itself) and click Flashgot Media

And great job on the show guys, hopefully you can do more shows!
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I am providing an alternate download place: http://pintro.esotericglossary.com/ and the file is called JoeandSimon.flv

Edit: I created an iPod version as well: JoeandSimon.mp4

Hopefully this will prevent the Edge Media server to be sotted.

PS. I am coining a new term here: sotted is similar to dugg or slashdotted from the verb 'to sott' which is roughly translated at to seek thruth. ;-)
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
domi said:
PS. I am coining a new term here: sotted is similar to dugg or slashdotted from the verb 'to sott' which is roughly translated at to seek thruth. ;-)
And from that follows that a SOTT is a "Seeker Of The Truth". :)
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Great job to Joe and Simon! :clap: :thup: :clap:

It was good to see, well you two for one, :wow: but to see some important facts getting put out there for people to see and hear and to get them thinking about what really happened.

The program was way too short, I agree and hopefully they will have you back and more can be discussed. There is so much more to be told. :scared:

Can't wait for your new book to come out, too!

:cool:
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Stargazer said:
Perceval said:
Anyone else want to think their way through the pros and cons for the likelihood of this?
I couldn't find anything about it on the 'net. The whole "remote control operators" thing sounds overly-complicated and unnecessary. If these people exist and witnessed something, where are they? Who are they? If Lewis knows about them exclusively, how did he find out about them? Was he provided with a bunch of manufactured disinfo by someone with intel connections?


Yeah, there are many problems, as far as I can see, with this theory. If the flight controllers were flying "blips" on the radar rather than real planes, how was control of the actual 9/11 planes transferred to them without them knowing? Surely in a military exercise bogus names or call signs would be given to such planes and planes with real call signs would be known?

How likely is it that those who were carrying out the 9/11 attacks would entrust such a core aspect of the plan - the flying of flight 175 and 11 into the WTC towers to people who were not involved in or aware of the operation? Would this not have been a serious risk to take?

If in military exercises of this sort, the designers of the "war games" try to make them as realistic as possible, would the people who were playing the part of the enemy or "hijackers" not be given freedom to do as they wished, like attack "some buildings" in New York for example? If so, then how likely is it that the real directors of the 9/11 attacks would just hand over control of the Flights 11 and 175 to these unwitting parties? Would there not be a serious risk of them, for one reason or another, not completing the mission?

If on the other hand the planes were preprogrammed to fly directly into the WTC towers and there was no way to stop them, then what is the point in having a military controllers "controlling" them, if he cannot change course? What is the point of having anyone "controlling" them at all, rather than just watching them on the radar and reporting their movements?

Why add this complication and then the added complication of having to slience them? It seems to me that, along with the "pods" that Lewis has promoted in his film "In Plane Sight", there is a good chance that this is just a distraction and an attempt to confuse the issue. Of course, Lewis may well be totally unaware that he is being used in this way.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Perceval said:
If in military exercises of this sort, the designers of the "war games" try to make them as realistic as possible, would the people who were playing the part of the enemy or "hijackers" not be given freedom to do as they wished, like attack "some buildings" in New York for example? If so, then how likely is it that the real directors of the 9/11 attacks would just hand over control of the Flights 11 and 175 to these unwitting parties? Would there not be a serious risk of them, for one reason or another, not completing the mission?
Even if they were told to fly into WTC, considering how difficult this maneuver is with a large jetliner, and considering it's just "for fun", it's unlikely that the people playing the "game" would take it so seriously as to do their utmost best to hit the exact target they were told. They would assume if they missed a few times they could just do it again, or maybe hit another building if they just aimed for Manhattan, and that would be ok too. No that is highly unlikely that such an operation would be entrusted into the hands of unknowing people who wouldn't take it seriously because they don't think it's real.
 

Shallel

A Disturbance in the Force
How is it possible to watch the CNN footage repeatedly and think this is a real event?

Newton be damned, there is no collision, no equal, opposing force on the plane.

Several of the photos shown were stills of frames of the video, where the majority of
the wings and engines were inside the tower, yet there is intact building between the fuselage
and the engine. Pods? Paaa! This is not a plane crash. Not even a rivet has fallen to the street.

Please get a high school physics text and read it.

Oh, buy the way, Hello!
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Shallel said:
How is it possible to watch the CNN footage repeatedly and think this is a real event?

Newton be damned, there is no collision, no equal, opposing force on the plane.

How many previous videos have there been of large airliners flying into tall buildings of the type of the WTC towers? The point is, we don't exactly have anything to compare it to. So how can anyone say that the fact that the planes just disappeared into the buildings like a stone into soft mud is NOT how it should have been?

Shallel said:
Several of the photos shown were stills of frames of the video, where the majority of the wings and engines were inside the tower, yet there is intact building between the fuselage
and the engine.

Can you provide some examples?

Shallel said:
Pods? Paaa! This is not a plane crash. Not even a rivet has fallen to the street.

Can you prove this assertion?

Shallel said:
Please get a high school physics text and read it.

It is possible to come to a more or less scientific conclusion based on the laws of physics if you have sufficient data to analyse. Images from the TV are not sufficient data from which to draw conclusions based on the laws of physics.

Shallel said:
Oh, buy the way, Hello!

Glad you could stop by
 

RedFox

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Just wanted to say congratulations to Joe Quinn and Simon Davies, its nice to be able to put a face (and smart suits!) to the voices I know so well from the podcasts.
Having read the comments before watching the video, I was waiting for Lewis to propose his theory. When the presenter asked you both to comment on it I wondered how on earth you'd deal with that, have to say that was really well done.
Having had the production crew say it should have been 2 hours not one, did anyone suggest you could come back and do more on the subject? I would love to think you could!

I have a few friends that I will be sending the link of the video too as way of introduction to the subjects. :)
Also thanks to domi for the download link.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
RedFox said:
Having had the production crew say it should have been 2 hours not one, did anyone suggest you could come back and do more on the subject? I would love to think you could!

The presenter seemed fairly enthusiastic afterwards about us coming back. He said that if we had any ideas for a show he would be glad to hear them. So we are thinking of putting an outline together and pitching it to him. We shall see
 
Top Bottom