Interesting post, thanks. Shame whoever originally uploaded it to YouTube was too cheap to buy the full version though!

911review.com thinks Scott Forbes may be a hoax: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html. Other sites disagree.

Anyone in a position to weigh in on this?

This has been around a few months, but is a fairly concise examination of what happened to the three buildings at the World Trade Center that collapsed.

Yeah, I know, we're all bored of talking about 9/11, and everyone's made up their mind already. But it doesn't hurt to see presentations from people who actually seem to know what they're talking about, and aren't just selectively filtering information that best suits their world-view. (Except James Fetzer. He's a kook.)

I have no doubt that the usual suspects (and I'm not proclaiming my own innocence here) will take the opportunity to espouse their own pet theories here. Can we keep it related to the science in the video please?

Yeah, I read that page. It carefully avoids the main point of Olmsted's article though: Every passenger, except Dana Falkenberg, was identified (that means that enough of them was found to make a positive identification), and yet NONE of the hijackers were. There may be an innocent explanation for that, but we need to hear it. Frankly, it strikes me as a little odd.

I've taken the liberty of posting 9/11 Revisited (SnakePlissken, if you're here, thanks for pointing me to it on this post: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7048. Never got round to watching it until today, and it was well worth it). It is here: http://videosift.com/story.php?id=7122.

Really don't know what to make of this. It certainly can't be ignored, that's for sure. On the one hand, the Secret Service certainly didn't follow SOPs (it doesn't matter what image the President wants to project: the Secret Service's ONLY responsibility in that scenario is for his safety - not for his image), and the slip in the town hall takes some explaining.

And yet... suppose he, or his staff, knew - would they reveal their complicity in such an obvious manner? Having a live closed-circuit feed of the first plane hitting the tower in a public building is some pretty lousy OPSEC. And the Secret Service should still pretend to do their job, even if they do know there's no danger to Bush or the children (and in a genuine and chaotic situation they could not guarantee that - remember all the crazy speculation that was flying around the media that day, multipy it by Worst Case Scenario, and THAT's what the military's/Secret Service's response SHOULD have been).

The sites that attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories (some of which, such as 911myths.com, do an extremely good job in many cases) don't even touch this, and it's not exactly a new observation. We can take that to mean that they can't explain it. Why not?

In any case, this is all circumstantial. If anyone ever expects to prosecute the perpetrators of this crime (and, just in case you believe the ONYA - Osama and Nineteen Young Arabs - conspiracy theory, it's worth noting that the FBI hasn't prosecuted a single person and openly admits it wouldn't have enough evidence to convict Osama Bin Laden even if he was still alive), there are more fruitful avenues of investigation - the demolitions, the NORAD/USAF stand-down, the security lapses at the airports, the lack of any Arabs on the Flight 77 Autopsy list, and so on.

Keep gnawing away at the bullshit, folks - the truth's in there somewhere. Just don't believe everything you hear, whoever's saying it. This Is Not A Partisan Issue.

Have you got a memo pad?

My grandmother gives good head!

I don't want to offend anyone or anything, but MAN these people are nuts. Come to think of it, I don't care who I offend. They're all nuts! I laughed so hard a piece of snot came out.

@Krupo - cheers for the links, the NYT article was an interesting read. Kind of what you'd expect from a 'pillar of the establishment' like the Gray Lady, though. It's interesting to note that most of Russo's critics attack his assertions regarding the 16th Amendment, using court rulings to bolster their arguments, rather than his claims about the Fed.

Hopefully this film will stir up some informed debate. We'll see.

@pickleking: yes, she is! she's a thoroughly annoying bint. Exactly the sort of interviewer you would expect on the 'Conscious Media Network' - it would have been interesting to see Russo go up against someone who didn't share his views and see how well he presents his case.

No-one show this to Steve Ballmer! If he learns how easy it is to bypass Google security...

He's probably in his underground lair right now, cooking up 1000 pizzas laced with ricin, cackling like an evil genius.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chucking/

would be better without the crappy slo-mo, IMO.

Perhaps it's time the rules were made a little more explicit. How is this different from the video (currently at #4) in which some moonbat razes a town and then shoots himself? In both videos, people die but not in a 'visually explicit' way. (That wasn't a rhetorical question BTW, I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think.)

Posting Guidelines, #3: "We do not want pornography or "snuff" films (in which people die). There are plenty of other sites that have these markets covered, but it's not for us."

Do the rules need to be made clearer, or are we capable of self-censoring?

Disclaimer: I haven't actually watched this video, I don't really have the stomach for it.

Stuff like this is why rumours if Microsoft's impending death have been greatly overstated. They have the resources to hire the best minds in the business and let them tinker around with this sort of technology without needing to put pressure on them to release a product. It's only when they scale operations up that everything goes wrong (Windows, Office etc) and an open source development model becomes the most productive option (and it seems like MS has finally realised this and is starting to become more OS friendly).

@ThwartedEfforts: I can see why you'd think that, but I just watched an interview with one of the devs on this project at http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=220870 - the algorithms that identify the points of similarity between images really aren't fussy. They don't care about resolution, or lighting, or the angle of the lens etc., and so you don't need to have decent pictures or spend any time setting it up - that's the whole point of this. You can take a bunch of pictures with the same tag off Flickr and Photosynth will do the hard work of stitching them together.

Also, this isn't going to be a product, as such - it's going to be a technology around which products can be built, and as such it will be free. Cool! Imagine using a web plugin to 'walk' around a hotel before you book it, without being limited to the pictures in the brochure to make your decision, by letting it gather pictures of the same place from all around the web. That said, to eliminate false positives it would probably be best used in conjunction with some kind of geotagging mechanism and text tagging.

a national treasure. but he's no karl pilkington.

Oh, America. What happened to you?

Really? How many Unreal 3 engine games have you played lately? Or have you just been toying around with a PS3 devkit?

The Doom3/Quake4/Prey engine is showing its age, but UE3 is a generation beyond Source (though I love how Valve keep adding new features incrementally, like HDR, and the depth of field and motion blur in this video). Matter of fact, the original Unreal engine had portals, albeit slightly rubbish ones.

Argh, you've made me sound like a fanboy.

I like the music. What is it? Anyone know?

Of course, this PROVES nothing. But I'm as big a 9/11 skeptic as anyone, and I believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

There's a REASON that the Pentagon crash gets all the attention. Think about it - how much print space does the evidence confirming the demolition of the towers get, or the shooting down of Flight 93, or the orgies of improbable evidence (flight manual in back of car - check; passport that survived an impact that destroyed a black box - check; suicide letters that Islamic scholars said couldn't have been written by Muslims - check), or the insider trading on AA and UA stock? Very little, if any.

Instead, the public perception of 9/11 conspiracy theories is that of people who don't believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon, when it obviously did. When the 9/11 Truth Movement begins to gain more traction, expect the release of more evidence demonstrating that fact. All of a sudden, ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories - both stupid and sensible - lose credibility.