OCTA's sign in here for your daily blue pill---->

[HamdenRice]

OCTA = Official Conspiracy Theory Apologists.

Sign up here for your regular dose of the blue pill.

Then you can believe that a guy in a cave in one of the most primitive countries on earth overwhelmed and circumvented the $1 trillion, most technologically sophisticated air defense system ever created -- using just box cutters -- without any malfeasance, turned blind eye, or assistance, by the most dishonest, corrupt, dictatorial, imperial administration in US history -- which incidentally wanted an excuse for war since before it was even sworn in.

And, please remember to check in each day around noon for your blue pill.

http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60

[HughBeaumont]

1. Even if you toss out CD, which I believe . . ..

ALL of the documented evidence, communications, situations, the wholesale bellyflop by NORAD and the FAA on that day ONLY, WTC7. . . just read Thompson's book and TELL me the airline-and-Big Oil/Cheney tied 911 Commission doesn't smell in ANY way shape or form.

[hack89]

2. Afternoon is more convenient for me...

I talk to Cheney everyday at noon to get my orders.

[carlvs]

3. As long as you and your fellow loons

get fitted for the stait jackets you all so richly deserve!!! :grr:

[MercutioATC]

4. Go easy on them, Carl...this passes for witticism to them.

Sad, really...

[HughBeaumont]

6. Right, because ad hominems ALWAYS build bridges.

And the 9/11 Commission report is FULLY believable and as in-depth as it gets.

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

9. Who said the 9/11 Commission Report was fully believable or complete?

I haven't seen anybody here who believes that.

We just draw the line at pods, holograms, fuel sprayers, missiles, controlled demolitions, plane swapping, etc. because they don't make any logical sense.

If not seeing eye to eye with somebody who's convinced that AAL77 really landed at Reagan or all of the aircraft debris at the WTC was planted beforehand means that I'm "taking the blue pill" then yep, I guess I am.

I'll agree to take the blue pill if some of the CTists will agree to take their Lithium.

[Kevin Fenton]

10. What's a fuel sprayer?

Almost everybody thinks pods are ridiculous. As far as I can tell most people here think missiles and holograms are pretty far-fetched too. I doubt the planes were swapped, but what's wrong with controlled demolition? Surely, that's the most plausible thing you listed?

[MercutioATC]

11. There's a certain pod believer here who believes the video evidence shows

"fuel sprayers" spraying fuel right before the plane hits (to make a bigger fireball). :eyes:

All other arguments aside, WHY use airplanes when you've already set up controlled demolitions? Why introduce a HUGE set of variables into the equation when it's completely unnecessary? Just blow up the towers and blame it on terrorists. Since we know there were airplanes involved (well, some of us do) controlled demolition doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

[Kevin Fenton]

16. It's two conspiracies, not one

"WHY use airplanes when you've already set up controlled demolitions?"
Al Qaeda used airplanes. The administration had pre-planted explosives. It's not really a coincidence that the explosives were pre-planted in the very building the terrorists chose to fly a plane into. They were planted there because it was the world's number one terrorist target and Al Qaeda attacked it because it was the world's number one terrorist target.

I think you would have led with a technical argument against any of the other "crazy" theories you listed (for example, "It's not a pod it's the fairing"). Is the fact you led with a conceptual one against controlled demolition significant?

Could I just ask two questions:
(1) What altitude does radar stop working at? 100 feet, 200 feet, something else?
(2) I saw a report about a plane crash (in Pakistan actually) where the pilot allegedly flew into a mountain at 3,000 feet miles from the airport he was supposed to land at. Air traffic control apparently warned him not to descend below 4,500 feet. I know lots of planes crash due to pilot error. Is this a typical pilot error? Is the official story credible?
Thanks.

[MercutioATC]

17. So you're saying that both Al-Qaeda amd the government were

involved separately? Al-Qaeda did their thing and the government took the opportunity to use explosives that were already in the buildings? I'm just trying to get your position on this...

I've already done the technical arguments against the wacky CTs and come to the realization that some people will cling to an idea even when you explain that little things like the laws of physics make it impossible. I'm trying a new tack...common sense. There's a new CT every week but the basic elements remain unchanged. Expanding the argument beyond the minutiae will (hopefully) make sense to people at a different level. The results have been disastrous so far, but we'll see...

As to your questions:

1) RADAR is a line-of-sight tool. There's no set altitude at which it stops working, it all depends on keeping an unobstructed path between the individual RADAR site and the target (if there's a hill or buildings in the way, the radio signal can't "see" the target).

2) That kind of thing happens a few times a year. Pilot error is almost always the cause (occasionally, the instruments are to blame). There was a crash a couple of years ago in South America (Peru?) where the crash was due to the pilot entering the wrong navigational fix into the plane's computer (the plane was flying on autopilot). While it's a statistically rare occurrance, it's not as uncommon as you'd think.

[Kevin Fenton]

18. Exactly

"So you're saying that both Al-Qaeda amd the government were involved separately? Al-Qaeda did their thing and the government took the opportunity to use explosives that were already in the buildings?"
Yes, exactly. Having looked at it from all angles, Al Qaeda seems to be a real organisation, some (at least) of the 9/11 operatives do seem to have gone to Afghanistan and the evidence for their involvement in 9/11 seems pretty convincing to me. However, every time I watch the WTC collapse, it seems to explode - I've already tried lithium, but it didn't help.

(1) This concerns United 93 - this means it would have disappeared from the radar at the time it went below the altitude of the hills/mountains/ridges in the area, right? So it kept flying after it disappeared from the ATC radar, but we don't know how long.

(2) I once knew a pilot who got lost in the Alps in fog when he was low on fuel. Even though he was lost, he had the common sense to go up, not down. I would expect that this would be a common reaction by most pilots, who should be aware of the danger of crashing into mountains. The plane in question was a Fokker carrying Air Chief Marshall Mushaf Ali Mir (head of the Pakistani Air Force), his wife and a bunch of his closest aides. Mir allegedly had met Osama and, obviously, a PAF pilot was a member of the Hamburg cell, which is why I'm curious about it. There are lots of CTs about it - the Indians/US/president of Pakistan shot it down - and the debris field reports are very contadictory. I don't really know what to believe. The pilot had never flown that particular route before, which is apparently odd for a PAF pilot transporting VIPs. A thought just struck me - who sets the altimeter? Could somebody have interfered with that? That really would leave no fingerprints.

[Andre II]

20. Your theory

implies as well that the one side (the insider planting bombs etc) knew of the second conspiracy, therefore had and interest in its succes and not only let it happen but did everything to assure that it happens? Do you agree with that?

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Not necessarily

My guess is that they didn't know of this specific plot, but merely were aware that there may be some plot at some point (although I might be wrong).

The 1993 bombers planned to topple the North Tower onto the South Tower (which then would have fallen itself, totalling a good chunk of lower Manhattan) and they estimated 250,000 fatalities. I would imagine that the explosives were there to stop one tower being toppled onto the other in the event of a repeat, as there's no real other way to stop them trying again (except stop shafting the other countries of the world so they wouldn't want to bomb the WTC, but this obviously wasn't an option).

[petgoat]

22. WHY use airplanes when you've already set up CD

Because airplanes spead fear into the heartland.

Every time a plane flows over the hayseeds say to themselves "They might
crash that into our grain elevator! Or our hospital! Or make a traffic
jam at the Interstate Bridge and crash into that!"

Somehow the notion of a bunch of swarthy men moving boxes into your
local grain elevator or your local hospital or the notion of a truck
bomb in a traffic jam on a freeway bridge or in a tunnel are just not as
frightening.

But while they had to use planes, they also had to bring the towers
down. Face it--fireballs in movies are just special effects for
pizzaz--they never hurt the good guys. A standing tower with a
plane-shaped hole in it would be a symbol of endurance, not
vulnerability.

[MercutioATC]

24. Bombing a public building spreads fear pretty well, too.

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree.

I don't think the planes were necessary to get the reaction they wanted.

[petgoat]

26. Bombing a public building spreads fear

It didn't work. We already had WTC in '93; we already had Oklahoma
City. Clinton did use them as an excuse (among others) to enact
measures that made Nat Hentoff call Clinton the most anti-privacy
President in history. But they didn't create the kind of wide-spread
panic of 9/11 that justified torture, abrogation of the right of habeas
corpus, and pre-emptive invasions.

Bombs always happen "over there"--even if it's just across the street.
The strategy here was to turn ubiquitous objects--aircraft and postal
envelopes--into perceived threats. Only that could justify the extreme
measures that were taken.

[MercutioATC]

27. I don't agree.

Actually, the best way to spread fear would be to bomb random public places (sports arenas, grocery stores, schools, etc.) Outside of NYC, most people weren't afraid. Random bombings of places we all go every day would be much more effective IMO.

[petgoat]

29. "Outside of NYC, most people weren't afraid."

I disagree. In NYC, Seattle, and the Bay Area--all places that can
expect to be terrorist targets, voters were 80% for Kerry.

In the areas away from the threat zones, scared people uncritically
supported Bush's panic-stricken rush to war.

[MercutioATC]

31. NYC, Seattle and the Bay area are heavily Democratic areas anyway...

I'm betting THAT'S why Kerry had such support there.

I don't know anybody here in Ohio that was concerned in the least. Hell, my sister was living in NYC at the time and even SHE wasn't scared.

As long as significant buildings are the targets, there's no need to be afraid unless you live next to one. If causing widespread fear is your goal, you have to personalize the danger.

[petgoat]

35. The devil you do know

is less frightening than the devil you don't know. 20% of Americans
have never flown and 17% are afraid to fly.

http://www.aspenairport.com/fear.htm
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/bbfe5b4a1db84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

By using planes, two groups are targetted--those who are afraid of
airplanes, period, and those who have to fly in them frequently and
were not afraid of them until 9/11.

You say there's no need to be afraid unless you live next to a
significant building. Well, people who live near Rapid City, Wichita,
Rock Island, Memphis, Birmingham, Phoenix, and Pocatello consider
their tall buildings significant. Personal threat is less an issue
than is the hazy concept of "nation under attack". Every time an
airplane flies over they're reminded of the threat of attack, while
last week's grocery store bombing in Minnesota is just so far away...
and so last week....

[MercutioATC]

38. Apparently we're motivated by different things...

I'm in Cleveland. There are no high-profile targets here. I never felt worried in the least. If there were random bombings of schools, grocery stores, libraries etc. (places we all use every day) I'd be a lot more concerned.

[petgoat]

44. Cleveland has no high-profile targets, I'll admit.

Out in the plains, people consider their twenty-story towers
high-profile. Grocery store bombings threaten society, but aerial
attacks on high-profile targets threaten civilization. Citizen
vigilance can guard against grocery store bombs. Only federal
vigilance can protect us in Kansas from airplanes that flew in from
Atlanta.

[pauldp]

12. I agree with you on the holograms, fuel sprayers, missiles, plane swapping

and I'm not 100% convinced on CD of the twin towers, but I have a simple question for you regarding WTC7. If the collapse of building 7 is so clearly NOT a controlled demolition there must be some aspect of the collapse that is inconsistent with controlled demo right? Can you find something specific? Anything? The twin towers fell top down. That's inconsistent with a CD. Most other structural failures you can find are asymmetrical or partial collapses that occurred over a longer period of time or in some way are obviously different from a CD.

Remember when FEMA was done investigating they said the cause of the collapse of 7 was "unknown at this time". Then of course all of the steel from the building was destroyed.

So how is it illogical to think that just MAYBE one explanation for the unexplained collapse is that it might just be exactly what it looks like?


edit: typo

[MercutioATC]

13. A question:

Numerous buildings were damaged/destroyed. Assuming a conspiracy, why would WTC7 be singled out for controlled demolition? Why go through the trouble to wire that ONE building while trusting the planes (or pods or holograms or missiles or fuel sprayers) to take care of the rest?

I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm saying that unless you believe in an omnicsient administration (and believe that the damage and fires wouldn't have brought down WTC7 by themselves), it doesn't make sense.

[pauldp]

19. I don't know. I'm not asking for a motive.

I'm not saying I believe the towers were or weren't also wired. I'm not saying I know the motives involved. I'm not saying I believe in an omnicsient administration. I'm not saying I believe anything.

I'm simply asking: Given that the FEMA team did not know the cause of the collapse, if there is NOTHING different about the sequence of the collapse of WTC7 and a Controlled Demo isn't it LOGICAL to conclude that CD is a possibility?

This is ABSOLUTELY in a completely different class of argument from the hologram/podcraft/fuel sprayer arguments and I don't think it is fair at all to lump it together with them.

[petgoat]

23. why would WTC7 be singled out

Maybe because the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and FEMA were there?

"Why go through the trouble to wire that ONE building while trusting the
planes... the rest?"

Harder to hit a 47-story target than a 110-story one?


The most peculiar thing to me about the supposed damage to WTC7 is that
FEMA makes no note of it. They say they don't know why it came down.
Why don't they note the ten story cash reaching deep into the building
(the one NIST draws for us, since they have no photos) and say it looks
like structural damage.

[MercutioATC]

25. As far as I know, they all have shredders.

It's ludicrous, IMO, to think somebody would blow up an entire building to destroy some evidence (I'm assuming that's what you're getting at).

[petgoat]

28. ludicrous

Okay, suppose WTC7 stays up and on 9/12 when a hypothetical SEC
investigative team shows up to work, the team leader tells them that
while the building was evacuated, somebody shredded all their files and
wiped their hard disks. So they get out their tape backups and start
over.

Or what happens is: The team borrows a conference room at Federal
Plaza. The place is abuzz, they're granted the room grudgingly, they're
thrown out as soon as the the team leader has informed them that their
investigation is a heap of rubble, the they're all being reassigned to
the war on terror. In fact, they're being dispersed all over the
country so there will be no delays. The nation is at war, and expects
nothing less.

[MercutioATC]

30. That's just it. The "investigative team" is hypothetical.

You think they'd blow up a building because of a hypothetical investigative team?

[petgoat]

33. The investigative team was not hypothetical--unless you're

going to maintain that a building housing the IRS, the Secret Service,
the SEC, the IRS, the FBI has NO investigative teams until their
existence is proven.

The only hypothetical was the use of the shredder, and that was YOUR
hypothetical.

Also, I've seen reports (that I haven't confirmed) that two Secret
Service agents died in the collapse. There were Secret Service offices
in WTC7.

If the Secret Service files were important enough to guard when firemen
were afraid to go in and fight the fires, they may have been important
enough to destroy.

[MercutioATC]

39. NOW who's using a hypothetical?

If the Secret Service files were important enough to guard when firemen
were afraid to go in and fight the fires, they may have been important
enough to destroy.

I didn't mean to imply that no investigative teams were housed in WTC7. However, there were no teams involved in an an investigation of records in WTC7 that I know of. Why assume that the agencies housed at WTC7 had records to hide? Furthermore, why assume that they'd blow up an entire building to destroy those hypothetical records rather than just shredding them?

Is there something I'm missing?

[petgoat]

43. Why assume that the agencies housed at WTC7 had records to hide?

1. A hypothesis is a kind of limited assumption that helps you
understand possible explanations to events. We were trying to
understand why someone might want to demolish WTC7.

2. Government agencies keep records. Investigating, keeping records,
and tracking their own performance and internal needs are about all they
do, right?

3. If a Secret Service agent stayed in WTC7 until it collapsed,
presumably he was guarding the records. What else would he have been
doing there? (It's interesting that he appears to have been an
out-of-towner who was there on a temporary assignment. So why was he
assigned to stay in the building?)

You asked: "Why not use a shredder?"

Because when people come to work on Wednesday morning and find that
their documents have been shredded while the building was evacuated
during an emergency, they'd be expected to have some questions. If
the building collapses, the teams can be dispersed and the
investigations deprioritized. "We'll take this up in a few months,
once this state of war thing is resolved." And then they never take
it up again.

[MercutioATC]

45. But you're operating on the assumption (with ZERO proof) that they had

something to hide. There's absolutely NO indication that there were documents in WTC7 that would need to be destroyed...much less documents that would necessitate destroying an entire building.

That entire argument is based in nothing but conjecture.

[petgoat]

46. To cite a lack of proof as an excuse for failing to investigate

makes no sense. In criminal investigations you don't say "Well here's a
list of suspects and here are possible motivations, but since we have
no proof the victim must have beaten himself to death with a hammer."

You examine all the evidence. And when suspects destroy evidence,
intimidate witnesses and investigators, frame innocents, and when their
stories shift from telling to telling you have some pretty
guilty-looking suspects.

[MercutioATC]

47. Not at all.

I'm all for further investigations. I just don't see the sense in demolishing an entire building to thwart a hypothetical, unsubstantiated investigation.

[petgoat]

48. It depends on the nature of the investigation

And while it may be hypothetical and unsubstantiated to you and me,
it wouldn't necessarily be either to someone else.

[MercutioATC]

49. Unless there's proof of some investigation somewhere,

that's EXACTLY what it is to everybody: "hypothetical and unsubstantiated".

[petgoat]

50. hypothetical and unsubstantiated

Of course.

But any claim that because there is not yet any proof of sensitive
investigations and therefore WTC7 could not have been demolished is
absurd.

The lack of proof that I have ever been to France but that is not proof
that I haven't been.

We don't know what investigations were and were not going on in the
building. And since the steel was recycled as fast as they could move
it (except for the FEMA Appendix C sample which shows very mysterious
characteristics) we can't know if the building was or was not
demolished. You would think insurance actuaries around the world would
be quite perturbed at the prospect that a 47-story tower could fall from
random structural damage and fires.

[MercutioATC]

51. To clarify:

I'm not saying that it's impossible that WTC7 was taken down because somebody wanted to destroy sensitive documents inside.

I'm saying that there's absolutey 9b] no evidence that that's the case. Even if there were an investigation going on, there are certainly other ways of destroying evidence than blowing up an entire building.

The idea that WTC7 was destroyed as a cover-up isn't impossible, it's just not based on any known facts and doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

[hack89]

32. In an electronic age..

do you really believe that every important record in those offices didn't reside on a backup tape stored off site in another building? And why would the government want to target its own agencies in order to destroy information?

[petgoat]

34. backup tape stored off site

Right, destroying the documents would not be sufficient.

Destroying the team is what needed to be done. "Oh gee, you guys got no
place to work. Too bad you can't help with the WTC investigation. We
sure could use your enthusiasm. But now of course your objectivity is
destroyed. So, why don't you go and do your bit in the war on terror in
Sioux Falls, and you in Billings, and you in Albuquerque."

"Why would the government want to target its own agencies."

In case you haven't noticed, the current administration is very
anti-regulation, and gets in a lot of trouble with the law. Have you
heard of Hastert, Frist, DeLay, Safavian? The first 9/11 investigation,
the Joint Investigation, was targetted by the FBI so all its members
were intimidated.

[hack89]

36. So you have evidence that no one in those offices

was involved in the investigation? I can't wait to see your proof.

[hack89]

37. What was so unique about the people there

that they could not be replaced in an investigation. Precisely what areas of investigation did they specialize in that they could not have been replaced by other people.

You realize of course, that there is not shred of evidence that the FBI intimidated anyone. But then, just like ID, faith can always overcome a lack of proof.

[petgoat]

42. I have learned that when somebody says "You realize of course"

that they're about to say something untrue. I've also learned that
when somebody says "not one shred of evidence" there's usually
evidence.

Sen McCain's statement is evidence of FBI intimidation of the
Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

"During this Congressional Joint Inquiry, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI")—itself a subject of the inquiry—initiated an investigation of Senate committee members for an alleged security leak and made an unprecedented demand that members of Congress submit to lie-detector tests. Senator John McCain said, "What you have here is an organization compiling dossiers on people who are investigating the same organization" (The Washington Post, 8/3/02 and 8/24/02; Associated Press, 8/29/02; )."

http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_I_Complaint_111904.php

See also cooperativeresearch's compliation on the subject:

"A law professor states, “Now the FBI can open dossiers on every member and staffer and develop full information on them. It creates a great chilling effect on those who would be critical of the FBI.” ....

"The FBI asks 17 senators to turn over phone records, appointment calendars and schedules that would reveal their possible contact with reporters. Most, if not all, turn over the records, even as some complain that the request breaches the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. One senator says the FBI is “trying to put a damper on our activities and I think they will be successful.” "

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=damper&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

[hack89]

52. I concede the intimidation point...

now all you have to do is link it to WTC 7 .

[HamdenRice]

40. Have you ever seen a litigation file?

Most of what the IRS and SEC do involves legal processes. Having worked in a law office, I can tell you that about 1/2 of 1% of the vital material that a lawyer depends on consists of back-upable computer files. There are loads of handwritten notes, docuements collected from the other side as xerox's, court filings, etc, etc.

If a case file is destroyed it is virtually impossible to proceed, or even figure out what the matter was about.

[hack89]

41. So what cases were they working on ..

that justified such a risky operation? Why wouldn't the investigators just start over again? Is there any evidence to support this particular CT besides pure speculation and hate/mistrust of the BFEE?

[Rich Hunt]

53. why do people...

Why do people always say it's 'the government'?

This 'the government' saying annoys the hell out of me. How many times do I have to point out that 'the government' is enormous. These people need to be more specific, as it is, they sound like some Roswell / alien implant types.

I mean, let's remember that some people say this stuff whether 'the government' is headed by Democrats or Republicans.

I think we ought to press them further to get their views on the U. S. government and its relationship to people - both real and ideal. I'm starting to feel like I'm back in the mid-90s Clinton era. These people are expressing the same view of 'government' (however poorly articulated) that they did during the Clinton era. 'The government is always out to get them.' I mean, when I first joined this board, it was critical of the Bush administration (naturally), but not, like, 'they're watching me all the time' paranoid. I'm sorry, but I don't think George Bush is reading my e-mail.

Someone done put a number on these people, if you ask me. Anything bad happens to them, it must be 'the government'. What's more, this reflects a distrusting view of humanity, since 'the government' is made up of human beings and reflects a broad spectrum of American society.

I don't want to lend the new agey 'paranoid' alien implant people too much credibility, and right now, there is a disturbing lack of balance on this board which works to in their favor. This is basically a Democrats' board, and the truth is that Democrats don't typically blame 'the government' in general. Neither do Progressives in general (progressives are about reforming government, not fear of engaging it). They don't have anti-government paranoia as a platform.

Moreover, their sweeping and poorly delineated theories eliminate the possibility of private interests either perpetrating, profiting or otherwise exploiting from 9/11 - nice going, 'citizens'. Governments aren't the only interests that can exert enormous power over citizens.

[HughBeaumont]

14. No one's saying you have to take anything.

Just don't be all holier-than-thou about what you think is plausible. I'm not. It's just that we've noticed an over-curmudgeonly "how can you be so goddamned DUMB" attitude among forum outsiders regarding this. It's damned annoying that nothing is done about ad hominems; I've already put one tool on ignore already, yet he continues to come into this forum, contribute nothing at all to the discussion and insult people despite the numerous times I've reported this to the mods. I don't normally erase people, but sometimes you have to.

And just for the record, CD is the only thing I believe out of everything that you listed. But there's no way on EARTH that this happened strictly through incompetence.

[MercutioATC]

15. You DID read the OP, didn't you?

That's what my reply was in reference to (an ad-hominem).

[LARED]

5. Do you really believe this nonsense?

911Hoax.com: statement of principles

1. There is no documentation confirming that commercial jets AA 11 and UA 175 struck the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. All of the video, still photos and audio that have been broadcast of these events by the major news media is phony.

2. The author of this site doesn't know what really struck the WTC. Maybe missiles were fired at it. Maybe a hologram projection was employed to keep eyewitnesses distracted.

3. There has been enormous effort to suppress the idea that the TV news video was fake.

4. Because Indymedia and other ersatz news sources have been so determined to prevent skepticism over the 9/11 news video from spreading this idea must concern powerful interests.

5. Anyone who wants to try to stop the unjust wars abroad and destruction of civil liberties in the US should consider telling other people that the 9/11 news video is disputed.


http://www.911hoax.com/Statement_Principles.asp

[HamdenRice]

7. No absolutely not --only cite it for the visual

Lared,

I'm glad you brought this up. The site I cite is far beyond anything I consider plausible. I use it for the visual solely because all the other videos of this phenomenon have to be downloaded to be viewed.

If people have to download it and view it on real player, they are less likely to actually watch the video.

But the video is authentic and can be viewed on other sites.

[chat_noir]

8. Gee, ya know if only...

FEMA and NIST weren't goverment agencies...