This is todays webcast with Sen. Mike Gravel, and with Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Present: Explosive Evidence at World Trade Center on 9/11 Press Conference and Mock Debate, that FreeSociety posted his essay about here yesterday.
To stream this and listen to it you are supposed to register – and I’d strongly suggest you do that if you’re going to watch this – mainly to help A&E for 9/11 Truth build their email lists, by clicking through on the image above (they want names and email addresses):
I’ve already registered and extracted the embed code, however this webcast uses Windows Media Player, and it may not work embedded here for all browsers or all operating systems, but I thought I’d post it here for easy access. I hope it works for you – if you see a blank white area instead of a player below, or if it does not play, there is probably nothing I can do to make it work for you, and you’ll have to click the image above and register to watch it.
While the webcast is playing you might have some blank new windows open occasionally, as the speakers display some slides – if so there is probably nothing I can do to stop that from happening. I think I have that problem fixed.
btw, embedding this here may be copyright violation – so if I’m asked to remove this post I will do so
30 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
or if it doesn’t…
i had to download all kinds of stuff for firefox to see the webcast. i did finally get the thing to work!
it did cross my mind as i watched… i wonder if edger could embed this?? so ver cool you have!
i can see this, it works for me.
…HP Vista, Windows Media Player, not sure whether I watched via firefox or the evil blue e.
It was well done and very much worth the 2 hours watching.
…. doesn’t work.
It tried to open other Windows crap on this when it did. I do not do Windows crap on this puter because even the crap designed for Mac always causes problems.
Some of the you tube stuff I looked at earlier today of this topic and of the “woman in the hole” in the tower also crashed my browser. So God knows what sort of crap I just accidentally downloaded.
I read thru their A&E for 9/11 website earlier today, which has other video I looked at. They seem to be soliciting money to run advertising on local TV stations, per the info.
I’m not seeing any new evidence of anything that hasn’t already been discussed elsewhere. Their main beef seems to be the 9/11 report ignored building 7 and then the official explanation had a computer model that didn’t work, or did not match the video of the building 7 collapsing.
To suggest that the airplanes hitting the Buildings 1 and 2 had nothing to do with their collapse hours later from the inferno it caused, is still, imo, a bunch of bullsh*t.
I don’t think what happened to building 7 has been adequately “explained,” but anything that catches fire, if the critical parts holding the cross members fail, down it goes. Simple physics. No conspiracy needed, no demolitions teams.
It is extremely easy to fake video and obviously a lot of this stuff is being presented and edited in a way to encourage wild speculation.
The technical part of me is really not impressed.
Right now we have a political situation whereby this administration is still expanding the war into other countries, and the right wing is co opting the Democratic party and employing a litmus test based on how one supposedly feels about certain other foreign countries, and whether one is willing to snuff out others based on their definition of what is a terrorist.
Meanwhile your supposed villain is the Walking Dead with his portable heart pump battery pack slung over his shoulder.
I’d be more concerned with Conrad and Nelson and Lieberman in the Senate making sure any liberal agendas are sabotaged, right now, and why Obama never criticizes them, than what happened to #7.
There is also another right wing nutter semi anonymous group, RCA, which goes around attacking people who are exploring alternative theories of 9/11 and accuses them of the usual canard of being “anti semites.” They like to put people on lists. Since I’ve already been put on at least one list, and more likely 2, or 3 (waving hi at y’all ) I’m hoping that you are prepared for some more of that sort of shenanigans.
see here http://wweek.com/editorial/354…
2 planes, 2 towers, fall down, terrorists. That’s it nada mas! The basic narrative is already accepted. Skepticism may increase in the future, but it can’t change the basic narrative. The fact that the vast majority of the alleged hijackers were Saudi Arabian (and none were from Iraq or Afghanistan) doesn’t mean shit. And Bush’s explanation that they don’t like our way of life makes perfect sense to Americans. Just like an armed Jack Ruby having access to the Dallas Police Department while Oswald just happens to be walking down the corridor. Sure. It’s been ten years, and they know quite well what time will do.
By the way, I watched 1 1/2 hours of the clip. It is amazing. Hard to believe that tower 7 is essentialy non-existent in the official narrative. I also recall, when watching the towers collapse during live news, the strangeness that I felt as they went straight down.
Thanks for providing access to today’s event.
From pilots for 911 truth.
http://www.archive.org/details…
If the massive central columns of the WTC towers were cut by thermite charges, they would have fallen as discrete segments with edges showing linear melting. Surely someone would have noticed and recorded this pattern of damage. What is the evidence concerning the damage pattern on the remains of the main structural members of the WTC towers?
The microscopic thermate-like flakes present in the WTC dust samples could have originated as a coating applied to the structural steel in the WTC as part of a “fireproofing” procedure. Such a coating would not arouse any suspicion, since buckets of the liquid mixture could easily be disguised as ordinary paint or other construction-related coatings.
Applied by spray in a thick coating to the vertical beams accessible through the elevators shafts, this “demolition paint” would not any suspicion. A contiguous layer of this deadly substance would be safe, because of its high ignition temperature, and it would also be self-propagating once any fire reached any part of the coating.
If prepared in a manner that emulated the texture of fire insulation, the thermate demolition coating could even be applied by workers innocently assuming they were upgrading the existing fireproofing of the WTC.
The only thing that could not be disguised by such a plan would be the chemical signature of the thermate combustion remnants in the dust and on the steel in the rubble. Thus, removing the bulk of the rubble as quickly as possible and preventing the investigators from testing for explosive or incendiary chemical traces would be necessary to conceal the scheme.
..to debate this stuff with me on the evidence. Not the politics or horror of the conclusion, but just the evidence. (Hell, if they need to be believe that crazy Wahabi-ists did ALL of it, fine, but somebody got explosives into the damn towers.)
I honest to God can find a single one who can dispassionately, courteously explain the science to me as it supports the official explanation. Can’t explain the molten iron pouring out of the sides. Can’t explain the powdered concrete shot out from the walls so many stories up. Can’t explain the explosions William Rodriguez reported, or the fires in the basement elevator corridors when the fires in the impact zones were completely out. Can’t explain WTC 7 slipping down through the path of greatest resistance, rather than toppling, which it should have done if the damage came from fires below. Can’t explain how we have DNA from all the victims, but no trace of the black boxes from anywhere, or titanium engines from the Pentagon.
All I get is yelled at, insulted, psychoanalyzed and ridiculed, and compared to an Intelligent Design person or a birther (though I’m perfectly happy to dispassionately debate birthers and ID-ers on the facts). Curious to know if there are any “evidence only” polite defenders of the official story.