Has anyone else seen this?

[CoCre8tor]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Though the conclusions may or may not be accurate, the science sure seems to make sense.

Mike

[SharonRB]

1. This is some really freaky shit.

Where did you find it?

[SharonRB]

2. Welcome to DU, by the way

You should post this in GD or somewhere more people will see it.

[SharonRB]

3. Has anyone seen the 9/11 video posted by CoCre8or in the Michigan forum?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

My daughter and I watched it last night. It's very compelling and is pushing me over to the MIHOP side. I sent it to KO with this note:

Keith:

I am an avid viewer and fan of your show, as well as a member of democraticunderground.com. Someone posted this link yesterday to a very compelling video about 9/11. While I risk having you think I'm a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, I promise you I am not. I have always found it hard to believe that our government -- as much as I disagree with most of what they've been doing lately -- would do anything on purpose like the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

I have been of the mind that they may have let it happen on purpose, but wouldn't let myself believe there was any chance that they would have made it happen on purpose. This video is starting to push me over to the dark side. My daughter and I watched it last night (it runs almost an hour and a half), and it makes some very compelling arguments and presents a lot of believable evidence. I'm definitely skeptical about some of it, but other parts confirm some of my greatest fears.

I urge you to take the time to watch it and report on it if you find any validity in it at all. Here is the direct link to the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Please keep up the great work. You are the only voice out there telling things as they are and telling them in a humorous, interesting way. My only complaint is that there's too much baseball talk lately when the time could be spent on more important issues. I understand that sports and baseball in particular are your first love, so I will cut you some slack, but please try to spend more time on other issues if you can.


Thanks for all you do,

[Joanne98]

4. I'm MIHOP too. Great video. Worth watching!

[SharonRB]

5. You saw it?

My daughter and I were mesmerized by it last night. Well worth the hour and a half it took to watch the whole thing.

[MrSlayer]

6. Is there a way to download directly to your hard drive?

Streaming doesn't work very well for me on this POS computer.

[SharonRB]

7. I have no idea.

Maybe ask CoCre8or via PM since he was the one to post the link.

[MsKandice01]

8. Yes, if you click on the link there is a download button

To the right of where the video appears.

[WePurrsevere]

10. Even w/ dialup we have DL'd it, even made a copy on DVD so it's possible.

it was well worth the time it took but locked up my husband's computer and line for 2 days (we're only at 21.6k if we're even that lucky.)

That said it seems that you have to have Win XP to view since you'll need the Google Video Player.

[DS1]

12. Yes, the big button on the right that says "Download"

[MrSlayer]

16. I've done that but it always links to the stream.

Even from the desktop. I need the movie in full on my hard drive.

[DS1]

18. Also on the right

Manually download the video

http://video.google.com/videogvp/911LooseChange2ndEdi.gvp?docid=-8260059923762628848

and the FAQs

Download FAQ

http://video.google.com/downloadfaq.html

[MrSlayer]

19. It just doesn't work for me.

When I choose "save to disc" it saves a 2.3kb link to the stream. I guess I'll have to buy the DVD.

[DS1]

21. Those are easy to copy

:)

[MrSlayer]

28. I just ordered it.

I'll be making copies and handing them out. Thanks for your help.

[Syrinx]

34. one way

This is something I've done when I've had trouble downloading something. Just let it stream. Then go into you browser's cache and find the file and copy it (or move it). It helps me if I sort my files by last time modified. I think all the google video files are in Flash Video format, so the copied file should receive an extension of ".flv". Hope this helps. :hi:

[MsKandice01]

9. I've watched it more than once..

Very compelling. I was MIHOP before this video was created though.

[DS1]

11. I only needed the first 5 minutes

:hi:

[Lefty48197]

13. I only watched about 15 minutes

but it sure raised my eyebrows.

[Beam Me Up]

14. Loose Change is compelling. There are some inaccuracies in it, however.

I think it is one of the best, especially considering it was put together by three young men in their early twenties. One of them is a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are a few errors. For example, he says a "B52 hit the Empire State Building" -- it was actually a B 25 (Dylan is a bit dyslexic). There are other errors, too, but I don't know what they all are. STILL, it is one of the best out there.

Another compelling one is September 11 Revisited:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=revisited&pl=true

[canetoad]

33. Looked at '911 Revisited' over weekend,

and would highly recommend it for being a compilation and starting point to hear the views of Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, James Fetzer and Jeff King from MIT.

Of particular interest is the first third or so of the video which replays actual news clips and interviews on the day. Many of these have disappeared from the public view.

At about a third of the way in, the section about the collapse of WTC 7, Byron Pitts of CBS News, who was on the spot, very clearly says (on the collapse of 7), "The one calamity that was NOT a surprise."

What did he mean? Did he and other know for sure that 7 was coming down?

[Jazz2006]

36. it wasn't a surprise

because the fire crews in place knew that the building was going to fail hours before it did. you can find all the evidence you need about that at the firehouse.com site.

[Beam Me Up]

15. Also see the videos mentioned in tis thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=822091&mesg_id=822091

[BelgianMadCow]

17. K&R chilling

[JDPriestly]

20. Amazing.

It really gives food for thought. And I would put nothing, absolutely past the cynical Bush's and their friends in the Middle East. What if it was really about fraud regarding the billions of dollars of gold and the insurance settlement for the building? That is an intriguing and perfectly possible thought. Who is this Silverstein guy? And who were the Kuwaiti interests? I bookmarked that site and will watch it again when I have more time.

[babsbunny]

22. OH My God!

Should we all send this to KO?

[FogerRox]

23. kickin

[SharonRB]

39. See my post upthread

I already e-mailed it to him.

[pauliedangerously]

24. That was about the best one I've seen yet.

It was very well thought out and it covered the gamut whereas a lot of the videos I've seen prevously only covered certain aspects.

[long_green]

25. Don't watch this video if you want to sleep well

It's pretty intense. The section on the building collapse is really good. The part about the plane in Cleveland begs the question: if 200 people were on that plane and the four planes took off from two different airports, how did they get them all on that plane?
The part about the hijackers is pretty mind-blowing.

[SharonRB]

40. LOL-- you are so right

I watched it just before I went to bed and I had a lot of trouble sleeping. I was sure I'd have nightmares about it, but didn't. It just made me so furious I couldn't calm down to sleep.

I didn't take it to mean the 200 people came from different planes. I just took it to mean there were 200 people on that plane. The whole part about the planes is what I'm still not totally convinced about, although the evidence at the Pentagon and in PA are convincing. Where did they take the people and what did they do with them. Just murder them outright? I'm freaked out.

[stillcool]

26. I've tried before to watch this...

but had difficulties...I just saw it. Fuckity, fuckity, fuck...

[WoodrowFan]

27. it's total BS to fool the gullible

Here, read something not produced by the tinfoilers.

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

some more reading by someone who's NOT a nutcase..

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/011...


http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/F...

and this section from a report by professinal engineers pretty much buries the tin foil crap you seem to love..

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml


BTW, all MIHOPers get a free trip to my "idiots list" ie. my ignore list cause frankly, if you believe MIHOP, you have nothing of interest to say anyway.

[bpilgrim]

29. so say the coincidence theorist

the rest of us have lot's of questions

peace

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reprehensor]

32. Add me to your ignore list.

Thanks.

[petgoat]

35. "if you believe MIHOP, you have nothing of interest to say "

Gee, that's real scientific of you, woodie.

[petgoat]

37. 911 myths is not real impressive on Building 7.

Look at the section on damage to WTC7. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

One guy says there was "some damage" at "the edge of the south face".

Another guy says "on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall."

A third guy says there was a bulge in the corner, and they monitored this with a transit.

So three witnesses give us three different descriptions of the damage. I guess this is
why the FEMA/ASCE report minimized the reports of structural damage and attributed the
collapse to fire. Of course there aren't any pictures of major fires either.

911 myths's uncritical acceptance of three mutually contradicting descriptions does not
give much confidence in that web site's competence.

There has never been a claim that the steel melted

Woody, maybe if you'd do more homework your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar. Read this by Tom Eagar,
the author of the zipper/pancakce theory:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many
scientists believe) that the steel melted."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building.

Once again, if you'd done your homework you'd know that Dr. Van Romero said a few charges in strategic
places could have brought the building down.

When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it.

Graveyard shifts in the elevator shafts.

Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event.

That's because they are concerned about protecting their insurance coverage. Military demolitions
experts, on the other hand, are cowboys.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. What if you didn't need to place explosives in different places

around the building? What if you had one really big explosive? Like a nuke maybe?

The WTC had very large freight elevators that were used to carry delivery trucks up and down. I know about this because in college my boyfriend ran a delivery route and one of his customers was on the 90+ floor of the WTC. Instead of parking outside, we would just drive the van into the elevator and go on up.

Now, we know that Marvin Bush was in charge of security, gee how convenient. And we know that the electric was shut down for parts of the building during the weekend before for maintenance. How easy would it be, especially if it was an inside job, to bring in a couple of trucks with a couple of weapons (like a nuke), drive it into one of these elevators, send the elevator to the basement, turn off the power to that elevator and leave it there? Then when the time comes, set the thing off with remote control or a timer and boom your done.

Remember if someone could get weaponized anthrax and the government can't figure out what happened, it wouldn't be that much harder to get a few wmd's. Especially, if it was an inside job.

[simonm]

41. Contamination

The contamination on 9/11 is negligible compared to what a nuke can provide. Radiation from a nuke lasts hundreds of years and that would make Silverstein's precious real estate into a wasteland.

If someone used a nuke on 9/11 then they should not have cared about the surrounding destruction and fallout. In addition, the perfect collapse of building 7 would not have occurred.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. Contamination is an issue

The WTC dust is considered very toxic.

The USGC's test show a significant amount of uranium, between 8-10 PPM. That's a lot when you multiply that by 600,000 tons of small particle dust.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html

Second, BushCo has been very interested in low-yield nuclear weapons and bunker busters. What do you think the base of the WTC was? Very similiar to a bunker in many ways. Of course, according to the WP, they need these weapons to blow up all those WMD's hidden in all those underground bunkers and tunnels that turned out not to exist.

The low-yield weapons being considered now would be designed to penetrate reinforced bunkers housing chemical or biological weapons and detonate underground, concentrating their explosive power and heat on the chemical or biological agents and reducing or eliminating radioactive fallout in the atmosphere, scientists say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32530-2003Feb19?language=printer

[StaggerLee]

31. This documentary brings up many valid questions

The ones the intrigue me the most are:

- The many witness accounts of multiple explosions before the collapse of the towers

- The absence of both engines at the Pentagon site. The part that they do show is much too small and doesn't even add up according to the expert testimony.

- The absence of blood or body parts in Shanksville, not to mention the absence of any plane parts. Seriously, I don't think you even see any seats, not a one.

- The coincidence that not only the two towers collapsing but that even world trade center 7 collapsed as well. That's like picking the power ball successfully three times in a row.

All valid questions that should earn a hearty :wtf: IMHO.



The American people are still waiting for answers and we will not forget.

That memory hole shit stops right the fuck here.

[JackRiddler]

43. Loose Change is a mixed bag...

A music video with some good material about 9/11 and a lot of very poorly argued and illogical non-evidence.

Here is a leaflet-sized critique by Vic Ashley (recommended):

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/supplements/loosechange.html

Here is long dismantling:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

Here it is in a nutshell, from a discussion at:
http://www.democracyforct.net/index.php?q=node/view/642

If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the attention of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for an hour-long DVD, or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better use clear hard facts for persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the crimes try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating moles that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to prove the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumb ones, is to divert its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story simply and clearly.

[KalicoKitty]

44. Thanks for that link!

Truly INTERESTING!

:kick:

[DemInDistress]

45. listen to the massive explosions heard just moments/seconds

before all 3 WTC buildings collapse. Very disturbing,. very troubling and in need of an explanation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness