See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Loose Change 2nd Edition on Google Video
Source:
Google Video
URL Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d ... 581991288263801&q=loose+change
Published: Jan 27, 2006
Author: Dylan Avery/Louder Than Words production
Post Date: 2006-01-27 13:22:46 by valis
Keywords: Edition, Change, Google
Views: 3113
Comments: 156
An ARG reader has noticed that Google Video is now hosting a streaming version of For those who have seen it, this link serves as a handy reference. For those who have not, after viewing, you’ll probably want to pick up a copy or two.
Loose Change 2nd edition (hopefully with Dylan Avery’s permission)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: Elliott Jackalope (#13)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't they whisk you away without arresting you, telling you what you are being charged with, or letting anyone know they snatched you in the first place? You just become another statistic for the missing persons list... So why even worry about knowing the laws?
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Any way you look at it the towers came down from the top. The other controlled demos go down from the bottom. That buildings should go down upon them selves isn't suprising, as buildings are empty boxes of air. I'm darn sure not saying something is amiss here, but these are my observations.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Yeah, Buzzy had his fingers in the pie somewhere along the line. What does this say? It says if the CIA had anything whatsoever to do with 9-11, you can bet Bush the Elder knew exactly what was coming. And the financing of global terror is definitely in the repertoire of the Bush Crime Family. This would also include the Saudis and Zionists, though the Zionists are still considered to be competitors of a sort. The money power is the main link.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
it looks to me like they come down from the bottom--like any controlled implosion or demolition. remember the implosion of the murrah building in okc? it came down the same way as did building 7. is it peter jennings in that one clip who says, "anybody whose ever watched a building demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure to bring it down." ?
This is from Sep 19, 2001: The Chicago Board Options Exchange said yesterday that it is looking into an unusual spike in trading in two airline stocks in advance of last week's terrorist attacks. As reported in The Chronicle, options trading in the stocks of the parent companies of American and United airlines was unusually heavy in the three trading days prior to the attack. That activity is the focus of an international investigation in the United States and several other countries that is trying to determine whether people with advance knowledge of the attacks sought to profit from the trading. Four American and United planes, along with their crew and passengers, were hijacked on Sept. 11. Three were used in the terrorist attacks against the twin towers of the World Trade Center and against the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Both airlines' stocks fell precipitously when trading resumed on Monday, with shares of UAL, the parent of United, dropping 43 percent, and shares of AMR, the parent of American, dropping 39 percent. Both recovered slightly yesterday, with UAL rising $1.49 to close at $18.99, and AMR rising $2, to close at $20. The Chicago Exchange, the largest options market in the nation and the board on which United options are officially listed, experienced volume eight times its normal levels in the trading of UAL Corp. put options on the Friday before the attack. The purchaser of a put contract is guaranteed the right to sell a specific amount of shares at a specified price by a certain date. The purchaser profits from the deal when the share price drops lower than the agreed sale price. Lynn Howard, the exchange's chief spokeswoman, said, "As is usual, CBOE is conducting an investigation of trading prior to the news event." Howard declined to elaborate on the specific nature of the inquiry. Sources who have agreed to speak on condition of anonymity say government investigators are also looking at the trades. Exchange officials and market markers in San Francisco refused to discuss the inquiry. On the day before the terrorist attack there was a spike of 25 times the normal levels in the trading ratio of UAL put options, with larger-than- average volume coming through the Pacific Exchange. Dale Carlson, a vice president of the Pacific Exchange, refused to comment on whether an inquiry is taking place there in the trading of put options on UAL or any other security. A floor broker with TFM Investment Group, the market maker in UAL options at the Pacific Exchange, also refused to comment.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
I watched the thing all the way through. One thing stuck in my mind. Flight 93's phone calls, but the most important thing, was the fact that they stated the plane landed in Ohio, all the passengers diembarked and went to the NASA hangar. I guess a smart person would go there, armed with luminol and a few of those lights, and see what REALLY happened to the passengers of Flight 93. Either that, or they were sent to another planet via space aliens.
They can't even tell you how many laws there are that you have no right to be ignorant of, but they can arrest you for breaking any one of them that they decide you've broken. Welcome to tyranny.
#52. To: all (#49)
#53. To: Dakmar (#38)
A. B."Buzzy" Krongard.
#54. To: tom007 (#52)
#55. To: BTP Holdings (#53)
New scrutiny of airlines options deals
#56. To: christine (#42)
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#57. To: christine (#54)
I am confused by this. From what I see, the towers come down starting from the top stories and colapse from there onto the lower floors.. Seems pretty clear from the multiple videos. The top floors collapsed before the lower ones - that's what I see.
it looks to me like they come down from the bottom-
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#58. To: tom007 (#57)
The top floors collapsed before the lower ones - that's what I see. Right and if you watch as it was shown on the video as each floor collapsed explosions were seen on lower floors..
I am confused by this. From what I see, the towers come down starting from the top stories and colapse from there onto the lower floors.. Seems pretty clear from the multiple videos.
#59. To: tom007 (#57)
For more detail on the explosions go to this film 9/11 Eyewitness: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11+eyewitness
#60. To: tom007 (#57)
i guess a better description is, to me, it looks as if the source of the collapse comes from the bottom as with any controlled demolition. i don't believe there is any way that the heat from the fire in those upper floors could possibly collapse the buildings straight down in that manner. it would have burnt out and the damage would have been restricted to those top floors. i recommend watching 'Painful Deceptions'. you can watch it here-- http://question911.com/. Eric Hufschmidt shows the contruction of the buildings in great detail. there is absolutely no way the fire alone could have brought them down.
#61. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#56)
does that hangar still exist? did he say? and if it does, i doubt seriously that they would let "a smart person" in there with luminol and a few of those lights. like he said in the video, we'll most likely never know what happened, but we do know what didn't happen.
I guess a smart person would go there, armed with luminol and a few of those lights, and see what REALLY happened to the passengers of Flight 93.
#62. To: Zipporah (#59)
Off sub, what was that http://XXXbuddada.com site you posted a week or so ago? Had a guy doing the ukalale that I need to watch again. If you please.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#63. To: All (#62)
OMG it's a hot link, I am not going there - it was something like sublime Buddada (memo to self, think before using "xxx" as a cipher on the web)was to link a video, IIRC.
at http://XXXbuddada.com
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#64. To: tom007 (#62)
I dont recall! .. It was a video?
Off sub, what was that http://XXXbuddada.com site you posted a week or so ago? Had a guy doing the ukalale that I need to watch again. If you please.
#65. To: Zipporah, christine (#64)
Yes - maybe Christine, you internet divias get confused in my neolithic mind.
dont recall! .. It was a video?
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#66. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#12)
I`ll buy it. The work is great and should be rewarded. Mark
#67. To: christine (#23)
The drills that had been run for weeks prior, helped to confuse the controllers involved. Everyone knew that the planes were "hijacked" but no fighters were scrambled for over 40min, and then when they were, they were flown out of a far air force base, and were not even flying supersonic to get there. Mark
#68. To: Zipporah (#48)
I forget what year it was, either 2000 or 2001, the Pentagon had a mock, computer, model, paper terrorist drill that had a airliner crashing into the Pentagon. There is somewhere on the internet the picture and info with a plane inside the ring, smashed up, with military officials standing around. Mark
#69. To: Kamala (#68)
Hmm I dont recall if that photo was in the video or not..
I forget what year it was, either 2000 or 2001, the Pentagon had a mock, computer, model, paper terrorist drill that had a airliner crashing into the Pentagon. There is somewhere on the internet the picture and info with a plane inside the ring, smashed up, with military officials standing around.
#70. To: tom007 (#52)
As the explosions continued, the top started to go, and the core was completely taken out, and the towers fell back into, pretty much there own footprint. Every floor didn't need to be rigged, if you watch closely, about every 5-10 floors are being blown as it was a top down demo. A couple months prior, CDI practiced on two giant abandoned watertowers in NY. No reason was ever given for the destruction of these watertowers. Mark
#71. To: christine (#60)
WTC 7 was a classic bottom up demo. It had the crimp and everything. Pools of molten iron and steel were found at all three sites, which is a dead give away of explosives. Mark
#72. To: Starwind (#21)
The google video site is a little confusing. If you download the google video player and click the link to download the video, it will download all of it to a folder that the video player sets up on your computer. The player itself and it's install program seem harmless enough. In XP, mine was defaulted at my documentsmy videosgoogle videos. It also saves the video in google's video format (.gvi), so if you are having trouble finding the folder you can search your hard drive for all files under that extension. However I don't know if that format can easily be converted to avi or mpeg for burning to a video cd or dvd.
(which doesn't actually download anything - just a 1kb file)
Nothing says "poor workmanship" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
#73. To: tom007 (#52)
As to WTC 1 & 2 that's the way I see it, too (top down). WTC 7 was without doubt controlled (went from bottom up).
Any way you look at it the towers came down from the top. The other controlled demos go down from the bottom.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#74. To: Zipporah (#69)
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html Mark
#75. To: Kamala (#74)
Good lord.. thanks for the link... rather revealing to say the least..
#76. To: Kamala (#67)
ah! i had forgotten that. thanks, mark.
#77. To: tom007 (#65)
here's the redo with a different narrator of Painful Deceptions, tom. i've not seen this yet myself.
#78. To: Kamala, tom007 (#70)
ah ha. there's the difference then between 7 and 1 and 2.
Every floor didn't need to be rigged, if you watch closely, about every 5-10 floors are being blown as it was a top down demo.
#79. To: Dakmar, Zipporah, Robin (#55)
Zipporah, here from Dakmar's article is a brief and correct explanation of put options: Statement Concerning SEC Terrorist Attack Trading Investigation Washington, D.C., July 22, 2004 52; The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9-11 Commission) has submitted its final report, which includes its review and conclusions concerning whether any trading in the United States securities markets was based on advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission cooperated fully with the 9-11 Commission and provided information based on the following actions. On Sept. 12, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation to determine whether there was evidence that anyone who had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on September 11 sought to profit from that knowledge by trading in United States securities markets. In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. In the course of our investigation, we examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11. Along with the New York Stock Exchange, NASD, the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Pacific Exchange, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, we reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets. We also reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. In addition to working with the exchanges and NASD, we worked with criminal law enforcement authorities, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, as well as our regulatory counterparts in the U.S. and abroad. Finally, we sought and obtained information from the legal and compliance departments at securities firms and other financial institutions to determine whether any unusual trading activity had been observed by their staffs in the period prior to Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-98.htm The SEC announced yesterday that following an extensive investigation it began the day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., it had found no evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. The SEC stated that in the course of its investigation, it examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11; reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets; and reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. As discussed in this Chicago Tribune article, reports emerged shortly after the terrorist attacks that in the days leading up to Sept. 11, "some traders placed unusually large bets for stock prices to fall at several firms, particularly for the parent companies of United and American Airlines, whose planes were hijacked and used in the attacks. That prompted speculation that some people who knew about the attacks also had sought to make a quick buck." The article notes that immediately following Sept. 11, shares of UAL dropped 43 percent and shares of AMR fell 39 percent, and that potential profits from the UAL options trading alone were more than $4 million. According to the SEC's investigation, which was incorporated in the just- released report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, each trade had "an innocuous explanation." The commission report stated that a U.S. institutional investor "with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda" bought 95 percent of UAL put options on Sept. 6 as part of a trading strategy that also saw it buy shares of AMR, and a sharp climb in AMR put options volume on Sept. 10 resulted from a recommendation in an options-trading newsletter. The purchaser of a put contract is guaranteed the right to sell a specific amount of shares at a specified price by a certain date. The purchaser profits from the deal when the share price drops lower than the agreed sale price.
And here is some background I looked up on the state of the SEC's investigation: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2004-98
http://slw.issproxy.com/securities_litigation_blo/2004/07/ July 23, 2004 SEC Finds No Suspicious Trading in Advance of Sept. 11 Attacks
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf 130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example the volume of put options - investments that payoff only when a stock drops in price - surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 - highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also include buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the security industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. [...snip...]
It is conceivable the SEC/FBI conclusions regarding the unusual pre-9/11 trading in AMR & UAL are truthful, and yet much else in 911 commission report can still be false.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#80. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#77)
tommy, if you have time, can you watch Painful Deceptions linked above? i'd like to get your opinion on which you think is better between it and 'Loose Change'.
#81. To: Starwind (#79)
The SEC announced yesterday that following an extensive investigation it began the day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., it had found no evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. The SEC stated that in the course of its investigation, it examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11; reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets; and reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. Hmm considering the number of trades and specifically involving the airlines that were used in the attack and that the trades took place very close to 9/11, does this seem plausible?
July 23, 2004 SEC Finds No Suspicious Trading in Advance of Sept. 11 Attacks
#82. To: Starwind (#79)
I went back and reread this and a couple of things.. "it had found no evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information" and also from the Commission Report: " A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also include buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. " Now this #1 makes the assumption that al Qaeda committed the acts.. so what the Commission Report is saying then, if the investors who purchased the put options in question had no ties with al Qaeda then they were eliminated from scrutiny?
#83. To: Zipporah (#81)
Assuming the SEC/FBI reporting is truthful, yes it is plausible. Daily, if not hourly, traders seek to exploit some perceived advantage in information and to profit on what they think they know. We often don't know these trades were made, much less learn if they made or lost money. 9/11 was unique in that it provided the context in which some trades related to airlines (and perhaps Wall Street real estate?) could be suspicious. By contrast, insider trading pre-9/11 in soybean futures would not be suspect because of no perceived connection. But if a freighter mysteriously sunk at sea ostensibly carrying soybeans to China (but alleged to also carry suitcase nukes for delivery to al Qaeda) then suspicions might be aroused to investigate shipping company trades and perhaps soybean trades. In the specific case of AMR and UAL, the investigation alleges (plausibly) a single institution was responsible for most of the trades, betting on a fall in UAL stock price and a rise in AMR stock price. These trades were likely executed through several trading firms (who inturn might front-run additional trades - illegally) to mask the identity of the trader and the tactic being used - that is normal when big trades are being made. It would seem in this case the trade likely busted. The trader bet that UAL would fall (it fell, so likely a gain) but that AMR would rise (it fell too, so likely a loss) - how it all net out wasn't reported. I could easily imagine someone like Carl Icahn attempting this.
Hmm considering the number of trades and specifically involving the airlines that were used in the attack and that the trades took place very close to 9/11, does this seem plausible?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#84. To: Starwind (#83)
The trader bet that UAL would fall (it fell, so likely a gain) but that AMR would rise (it fell too, so likely a loss) - how it all net out wasn't reported. I could easily imagine someone like Carl Icahn attempting this. Okay thanks for taking the time to explain this.. clarifies some things for me. And I wont ask who Carl Ichahn is, I'll do a search.. :P
9/11 was unique in that it provided the context in which some trades related to airlines (and perhaps Wall Street real estate?) could be suspicious. By contrast, insider trading pre-9/11 in soybean futures would not be suspect because of no perceived connection. But if a freighter mysteriously sunk at sea ostensibly carrying soybeans to China (but alleged to also carry suitcase nukes for delivery to al Qaeda) then suspicions might be aroused to investigate shipping company trades and perhaps soybean trades.
#85. To: orangedog (#72)
Do you know/recall if there is an install-time option to put video in a user- specified folder, and if you move a google video to some other folder (other than the default) will the google player re-play it, or will it only replay from its default folder? Naturally to download the video, communication with google's website is expected. But after a video has been downloaded, if you replay a video (say, a second time a day or so later) does the google video player require to again communicate with the google website, for example, perhaps to verify that your saved copy is legitimate and you have a 'right' to replay it? Do you have a firewall that notifies you of unexpected or unauthorized attempts to "call home to the mother ship"? Do you know, if someone emails you a copy of a google video, will your google video player play it, or might it complain that you're not the rightful owner or that you didn't download that copy yourself? Yes, I'm being lazy :) By asking you, I'm hoping to save myself trouble and irritation with Google's flavor of "digital rights management" as well as their brain-dead inflexibilty in how their products install & run.
If you download the google video player and click the link to download the video, it will download all of it to a folder that the video player sets up on your computer.
The player itself and it's install program seem harmless enough.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#86. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#56)
here's one for your 'you gotta be shittin' me" list. Rudy Guilliani 'we were told the world trade center was going to collapse in 10 or 15 minutes'.. now if this was such a shock.. unexpected.. how did they know #1 it was going to collapse and #2 when? http://media.putfile.com/Ruldolph-you-got-some-splanin-to-do
#87. To: Starwind (#79)
a bit off topic, but still the same crooks, from a very long article I thought you might find of interest:
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#88. To: Starwind (#79)
But they give no details, just blanket statements. Those are the juvenile and bully tactics being used. No explanation, just patent unsubstantiated statements despite all the facts refuting that statement.
Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example the volume of put options - investments that payoff only when a stock drops in price - surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 - highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -Gold Hat, now starring Alberto Gonzales
#89. To: Dakmar (#87)
Thanks Dakmar. I'd forgotten about BCCI - So much corruption, so little disk space.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#90. To: robin (#88)
Agreed, there are insufficient verifiable details for one to reach their own conclusion independantly. But the explanation is plausible, at least to me. I'm not sure to what "facts refuting that statement" you refer. There are many unsubstantiated suspicions by many in the trading business, yes. But their suspicions are no more substantiated fact than are TBR News Staff's allusions to "in-house memos now circulating" which is likewise unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but again plausible, at least to me. I wish it were different. I'd like to see images of timestamped, signed photocopy's with letterheads, watermarks etc. But sadly neither source provides sufficient verifiable details to reach conclusions on our own (or at least on my own). Not the SEC/FBI, nor TBR. If we're to avoid being mislead, in any direction by anyone, we ought to at least be consistent in where we set the bar for substantiation.
But they give no details, just blanket statements. Those are the juvenile and bully tactics being used.
No explanation, just patent unsubstantiated statements despite all the facts refuting that statement.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#91. To: Starwind (#90)
This NationalReview article is only looking for ties to al-Qaida and proves there are none, end of story. CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR "BUZZY" KRONGARD MANAGED FIRM THAT HANDLED "PUT" OPTIONS ON UAL Lucky Larry WTC destroyed, a multi-billion insurance compensation consoles Larry Silverstein
Was There Another 9/11 Attack on Wall Street?
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -Gold Hat, now starring Alberto Gonzales
.
.
.
Comments (92 - 156) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest