Excellent Underrated 9/11 Mini-Videos

[Galileo]

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

[Blake]

+1

[Parker2112]

[Parker2112]

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

[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.

[Parker2112]

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.ae911truth.org/

I'm thinking of joining.

They don't really vet the applications very well.

[Parker2112]

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:

[ChumpDumper]

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.

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

[Parker2112]

[Parker2112]

[Parker2112]

[Parker2112]

[Parker2112]

[Parker2112]

[ChumpDumper]

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.

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?

[ChumpDumper]

Thermite!

[Parker2112]

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?

[Parker2112]

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

this is dishonest chump.

[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...

[ChumpDumper]

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.

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.

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?

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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

[Parker2112]

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...

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?