Excellent Underrated 9/11 Mini-Videos

Excellent Underrated 9/11 Mini-Videos

WTC 7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...LArYXoCQ&hl=en

John McCain Takes Photos With 9/11 Truthers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCZ5PPeXG1o

Gore Vidal supports new 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14733

Blown to Kingdom Come
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDYv3oFnUkU

Bush Knocked down the Twin Towers (911) - Immortal Technique Mos DEF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdr_2IAJWU WTC7

The Smoking Gun of 9/11 (updated)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2843640256739#

The Third Tower
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3049463929480#

Mohamad Atta and the Venice Flying Circus (abridged)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7285177039347#

THE SECRET WORLD OF MOHAMED ATTA
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74590105525480

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial by Dr. David Chandler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...annotation_878

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

:lmao

---

+1

:lmao

By video 2, about one third in, he provides professional analysis that contradicts the official explanation. This video is pretty compelling.

You probably should have posted that video then.

In the one you posted, dude compares himself to Jesus with a cell phone.

That was not compelling.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

http://www.ae911truth.org/

---

I'm thinking of joining.

They don't really vet the applications very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You probably should have posted that video then.

In the one you posted, dude compares himself to Jesus with a cell phone.

That was not compelling.

---

true. I took it down momentarily, then put it back up after I made it to the analysis. here you go...start around 2:40:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

true. I took it down momentarily, then put it back up after I made it to the analysis. here you go...start around 2:40

---

He did a horrible job with the redundancy quotes. There were indeed significant differences between WTC7 and the three other buildings in the quote from NIST that made WTC7's structure more vulnerable in a fire, but he pretends they don't exist. That is quite dishonest for an engineer. I will never understand why "truthers" always end up resorting to lies.

I think he more than supports his contention that a new investigation is warranted, and that the NIST needs to show their work, thus opening the data to criticism, and he shows pretty clearly that:

1. the model they rely on doesnt result in the collapse that we saw, and
2. 15-25 columns could have supported the entire structure in theory, which is also pretty compelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

I think he more than supports his contention that a new investigation is warranted, and that the NIST needs to show their work, thus opening the data to criticism, and he shows pretty clearly that:

1. the model they rely on doesnt result in the collapse that we saw

---

NIST never claimed their model would jibe exactly with the observed collapse. Too much data was unknown.

Quote:

---

2. 15-25 columns could have supported the entire structure in theory, which is also pretty compelling.

---

Whose theory? He just throws that out there with nothing to back it up.

He also never shows the initiation of the collapse in the three videos I have watched so far.

Not once.

Why is he hiding that truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parker2112

---

Thermite!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

NIST never claimed their model would jibe exactly with the observed collapse. Too much data was unknown.

Whose theory? He just throws that out there with nothing to back it up.

---

did you actually watch the videos up that that point? He uses two formulas, one and one less "theoretical, and he cites the source of both theories.

Its funny how you talk about how NIST cant explain the collapse as it occurred, and has never claimed to be able to. Why would the case be closed completely, with no data released, and the topic never spoken of again in govt or mainstream media, if the event was never explained?

and could it be possible that the event will never be explained if they will never consider the possibility that it was in fact a criminal act?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Whose theory? He just throws that out there with nothing to back it up.

---

this is dishonest chump.

funny, chump, you have written maybe 20 sentences total on this thread, and at least two of them are completely untrue. just something to consider.

are you indeed attempting to hide the truth?

I doubt it, but the blade cuts both ways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

did you actually watch the videos up that that point? He uses two formulas, one and one less "theoretical, and he cites the source of both theories.

---

Yes, I watched the videos. Perhaps it is in a later vid or I missed it.

Quote:

---

Its funny how you talk about how NIST cant explain the collapse as it occurred, and has never claimed to be able to.

---

That isn't what I said. Go back and read it and find out where you went wrong.

Quote:

---

and could it be possible that the event will never be explained if they will never consider the possibility that it was in fact a criminal act?

---

Could it be possible that truthers lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

funny, chump, you have written maybe 20 sentences total on this thread, and at least two of them are completely untrue. just something to consider.

are you indeed attempting to hide the truth?

I doubt it, but the blade cuts both ways...

---

As I said, it is possible I missed it. I'm replaying the first four just for you.

I didn't prepare a public presentation that deliberately hid the truth like this guy.

Sorry.

Could you tell me in which video from 1-4 to look? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Yes, I watched the videos. Perhaps it is in a later vid or I missed it.

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. but let it be noted that benefit is not extended to this guy...for his opinions that you dont agree with, things you think he should have acknowledged that he didnt he is a liar. I am just saying...

besides that, you have come out throwing stones at this speaker, after having admitted you failed to watch the videos...your credibility falters here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Could it be possible that truthers lie?

---

absolutely.

but does your govt lie? if yes, then who do we believe?

and are we not to believe our eyes here? are we to not believe history, and the fact that this hasnt happened previously...a straight down free fall collapse due to fire and damage to a small percentage of the support columns?

are we to simply "move along, because there is nothing to see here?" doesnt that message by the govt and media, the refusal to question a finding that is full of holes, in itself say more than argument ever could? does silence indeed speak louder than words?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Could you tell me in which video from 1-4 to look? Thanks.

---

I cant remember honestly...and I am not going back to find it...there are 8 vids by the way :lol

I dont need to prove this guy is telling the truth, but he has raised some credible arguments here.

if your interested in the topic, I recommend the videos, 1-8,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

I cant remember honestly...and I am not going back to find it...there are 8 vids by the way :lol

---

Right, I told you where I was in the videos. I'm now on 6 and it still hasn't showed. If you are bitching at me for not seeing a formula in a video I have yet to watch, you are wasting my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

I dont need to prove this guy is telling the truth, but he has raised some credible arguments here.

if your interested in the topic, I recommend the videos, 1-8,

---

I recommend digging up Random Guy's 9/11 links and expanding your search for the truth. If you are only exposing yourself to one side of the story, you are creating your own bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'm thinking of joining.

They don't really vet the applications very well.

---

do you know this, or are you assuming?

I am seeing license info, which should be enough for you I would think. if you are claiming there are false registrants, do you have any specifically? any proof of your implied statement here?

http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

if not, your starting to sound like a truther, bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

do you know this, or are you assuming?

---

I know this. Several people have posted fake applications to test their vetting.

Turns out they aren't terribly vigilant.

Really, do a search. Look for the truth yourself.

And the first theoretical formula (which he admits can't actually apply to WTC7) is at the end of video 6.

Thanks for wasting more of my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I know this. Several people have posted fake applications to test their vetting.

Turns out they aren't terribly vigilant.

Really, do a search. Look for the truth yourself.

---

I trust you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And the first theoretical formula (which he admits can't actually apply to WTC7) is at the end of video 6.

Thanks for wasting more of my time.

---

if this dude is completely incredible, would you mind pointing to a credible engineer discussing this event without bias? that was what i was looking for when i watched this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And the first theoretical formula (which he admits can't actually apply to WTC7) is at the end of video 6.

Thanks for wasting more of my time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Look for the truth yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

if this dude is completely incredible, would you mind to a credible engineer discussing this event without bias? that was what i was looking for when i watched this...

---

It's going to be tough finding a video of that kind of thing.

You can see a debate of such issues in places like the JREF forum between people who at least claim to be engineers on both sides. I can't say they are without bias, but you can see as exhaustive analysis of these kinds of things as you can stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's going to be tough finding a video of that kind of thing.

You can see a debate of such issues in places like the JREF forum between people who at least claim to be engineers on both sides. I can't say they are without bias, but you can see as exhaustive analysis of these kinds of things as you can stand.

---

very cool man, thanks.

Man, he introduces so much new material at the end with zero explanation in his call to action it's a real mess.

He talks about thermite extensively halfway through his talk, then at the end says explosives are the most likely cause of the collapse.

WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Man, he introduces so much new material at the end with zero explanation in his call to action it's a real mess.

He talks about thermite extensively halfway through his talk, then at the end says explosives are the most likely cause of the collapse.

WTF?

---

sounds like he is calling thermite an explosive. but that would just be my assumption.

i will agree his ending is full of fireworks...wish he would have laid those points out from the start so i could have kept a tally...Im not watching it again though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

and are we not to believe our eyes here? are we to not believe history, and the fact that this hasnt happened previously...a straight down free fall collapse due to fire and damage to a small percentage of the support columns?

---

The United States government also never hijacked planes and crash them into buildings to terrorize America.

But I like your idea better because the reason for the planes falling couldn't possibly be the planes that crashed into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redzero

The United States government also never hijacked planes and crash them into buildings to terrorize America.

But I like your idea better because the reason for the planes falling couldn't possibly be the planes that crashed into them.

---

only talking about building 7 here, which was the 3rd building, the one that did not get hit, but fell 7 hours after the WTC attacks...

also if it indeed was an inside job, it wasnt the US govt, but a criminal faction inside of the US gov...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

only talking about building 7 here, which was the 3rd building, the one that did not get hit, but fell 7 hours after the WTC attacks...

also if it indeed was an inside job, it wasnt the US govt, but a criminal faction inside of the US gov...

---

We had those discussions before you arrived. The building was severely damaged by debris, and fire lead to weakening the steel, just like towers 1 and 2. The evidence completely fits that scenario. I fail to understand how people can think these things occurred radically different than explained by the experts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We had those discussions before you arrived. The building was severely damaged by debris, and fire lead to weakening the steel, just like towers 1 and 2. The evidence completely fits that scenario. I fail to understand how people can think these things occurred radically different than explained by the experts.

---

I understand that WC, however the video I posted was an engineer talking May of this year. He doesnt believe the "expert conclusions," and could be considered an expert himself.

I understand that many of you on here have reached your own conclusions...I have never really gone over the debate points, so if you've already drawn your conclusions, be a sweetheart while I draw mine. :wakeup

Parker...

I'm into the part 2 of 8. This guy is a charlatan. He is taking facts out of context. Maybe you don't see it, but he is clearly manipulating the facts. He may be an expert, but he is effectively lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Parker...

I'm into the part 2 of 8. This guy is a charlatan. He is taking facts out of context. Maybe you don't see it, but he is clearly manipulating the facts. He may be an expert, but he is effectively lying.

---

I am not buying this guy at all. But I will say parts 1 and 2 are a waste of time.

I was looking for an engineers take on this, and this guy seemed to fit the bill. But Chump says pretty much the same thing as you, so I will continue to look for an unbiased professional opinion elsewhere...

I wonder what happens when chemical fire retardants are introduced to molten aluminum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I wonder what happens when chemical fire retardants are introduced to molten aluminum?

---

is that a lead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

is that a lead?

---

No.

Just thinking out loud.

Fire repellents were used after the collapse. They are meant to put out flames. With the added heat from all the kinetic energy of the fall, and chemicals immune to burning in standard fires, their chemical makeup can explain so many things that the "truthers" take as signs that this was a false flag operation. It depends on the retardants used though. I don't know what chemicals were used, but it could explain several discrepancies that the truthers use.

I'm curious. Have you seen this:

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No.

Just thinking out loud.

Fire repellents were used after the collapse. They are meant to put out flames. With the added heat from all the kinetic energy of the fall, and chemicals immune to burning in standard fires, their chemical makeup can explain so many things that the "truthers" take as signs that this was a false flag operation. It depends on the retardants used though. I don't know what chemicals were used, but it could explain several discrepancies that the truthers use.

I'm curious. Have you seen this:

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse

---

no i havent. thanks for the link, ill be checking this out tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

also if it indeed was an inside job, it wasnt the US govt, but a criminal faction inside of the US gov...

---

Bilderberg!

People really can't tell the difference between controlled demolition and the collapse of the WTC?


I'll highlight a few

Controlled demos
===============
1) No fully fuelled 747's crashing into them
2) Much structure removed to aid access to beams
3) Series of LOUD explosions in controlled sequence
4) Failure starts at bottom


WTC collapse
===============
1) Fully fuelled 747's crashed into them, compromising structure and releasing burning jet fuel
2) Structure initally intact, before being struck by fully fuelled 747's
3) No series of LOUD explosions in controlled sequence
4) Failure starts near where fully fuelled 747's crashed into them



But, the first video is correct. That is an orange.

Did anyone watch all ten videos? Can you give us a blow by blow report?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Did anyone watch all ten videos? Can you give us a blow by blow report?

---

why bother? These threads always end the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Did anyone watch all ten videos? Can you give us a blow by blow report?

---

I've probably watched The Wizard of Oz a hundred times, but I still don't believe it's real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Did anyone watch all ten videos? Can you give us a blow by blow report?

---

You mean you didn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I've probably watched The Wizard of Oz a hundred times, but I still don't believe it's real.

---

Maybe you'll believe the miniseries "Tin Man?"