The Lies and Distortions of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Bolo Boffin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8yfNLSp_Pw

This short video exposes two of the most egregious misrepresentations of fact from Richard Gage and his group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Specifically, the lies that building 7 fell in 6.5 seconds and that it was exactly like a classic controlled demolition.

[whatchamacallit]

1. I can't believe I sat through this piece of shit...

Yoohoo, another armchair debunker's limp rebuttal. Hey I've got a question for ya Bolo, what in your opinion is the motive for A&E for 9/11 Truth to promulgate all these "lies and distortions"? Surely there must be a payoff for their wicked ways. What is it?

[SDuderstadt]

3. Dude...if WTC7 was a "controlled demolition"...

where are the deafening explosions and the flashes?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Me, either.

Lots of talk from you, what, and very little actual rebuttal of the video.

I don't usually get into motive, because it's such a subjective call and doesn't really prove anything. However, the fact THAT AE911Truth is spreading lies and distortions is undeniable -- they are.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Ok

1. Can you prove that the audio accompanying the "classic CD example" was an actual recording of that event, from the position of that camera?

2. Can you verify the audio accompanying the news clip (supposedly during the collapse of wtc7) was unaltered and recorded from the distance claimed in the video?

3. It pretty obvious (to anyone but the OCT) that 7 fell in two stages. First core structural weakening (penthouse crimp), and then the main structure which fell straight down at or near free fall. The cheap trick of adding in the duration of the first event does not change the duration of the second.

4. Of course you "don't usually get into motive", especially when you're shooting blanks.

5. Yes, someone is spreading lies and distortions. Wonder who...

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Do you really want to get into the subject of faking audio for CD videos?

Because AE911Truth was using a video of a Norway CD that someone had altered the audio by lopping off the sound of explosions at the beginning and then moving the truncated track up to start with the video. AE911Truth was looping that video with the truncated audio track over and over, comparing it to the actual videos of 7 and the towers in which no discernible explosive sounds can be made out.

I produced another video of the Norway CD that showed exactly where there should have been extremely loud explosions in the AE911Truth video. Rather quickly they removed the sound track and then stopped showing the video altogether for a while. I haven't checked recently to see what they're doing now.

But AE911Truth has never to my knowledge admitted the fakery or that they were duped by someone who altered that audio. NEVER.

So if you want to know if the videos in that tape have altered audio tracks, why don't you do a little legwork and produce a video with an audio track that fits them better? Because that's how I busted them.

And thank you for admitting that "7 fell in two stages." You agree with me then that anyone who says the building fell in 6.5 seconds or 7 seconds is not telling the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Excellent, Bolo...n/t

[lovepg]

5. Depends where you start counting from Hey? if you start at the initiation of the...

section of the roof collapsing then the fall takes longer. If you start counting at the initiations of explosions in the example demolition in the video than that building demolition takes longer as well.
If Gage is starting the sequence from where the building is actually falling then he is being accurate.
The very loud explosions heard on the example video seem to be coming from explosives planted on the OUTSIDE corners of the building.
The video seems to be capable of its own exaggeration as well. They claim building seven to have been hit by a 1000 ft building??????
Yes some debris hit the building but that is far from the same thing.

[SDuderstadt]

6. How is the collapse of the WTC 7 penthouse...

the equivalent of the initiation of explosions in the actual controlled demolition?

[lovepg]

7. Not the equivalent just an example of how people could have different start places for the ...

collapse sequence.
And hey thanks for the civil question. Noted and appreciated.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Except in the case of WTC 7, the building IS actually...

collapsing.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Any count that doesn't include the full collapse isn't timing the full collapse.

Anyone who says a partial count is the full count is being factually inaccurate.

[lovepg]

23. When does a birth start? With the contractions or the emerging baby?

Would someone who said the birth took two hours while excluding the four hours of contractions be LYING????
No they would not be.
Gage is timing the actual falling of the building not the first visible signs its about to collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. No, Gage is not timing the actual falling of the building.

He is arbitrarily picking a point in the middle to float his lies.

The building's collapse began when column 79 failed. That led to the fall of the east penthouse into the building. The eastern third of the interior collapsed, leading to the horizontal failure of the core columns, which dragged down the rest of the roof, and finally led to the failures of the exterior columns.

So Gage starts the clock when the interior of the building is either completely collapsed or in the process of collapsing. That is NOT when the entire building begins to collapse.

[lovepg]

32. He is picking the visible point where the building starts actually falling.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. No, the building visibly starts falling when the penthouse falls

The penthouse falls in a way only possible because column 79 collapsed under it. The interior of the building is falling first, and then the outside falls.

Gage is picking a point in the middle of the building falling and calling it the complete collapse. He is lying.

[hack89]

57. So an internal collapse that is not visible doesn't count?

how convenient.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Except it was visible by watching the penthouse...n/t

[hack89]

60. My point was that the actual collapse that led to the penthouse

starting to move started earlier deep inside the building and was not visible.

We don't know when to start the clocks but it certainly longer that what the truthers espouse.

[SDuderstadt]

61. Of course....n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

9. It's a lie for AE911Truth to start counting in the middle of the collapse and call it the total time

The building is actually falling when the east mechanical penthouse falls off into the building below.

Feel free to identify any explosive sounds from the collapse of WTC 7 and count from them.

[travis80]

12. so what's their motivation Bolo?

you accuse them of lying. why would they do that? is selling 9/11 truth DVD that lucrative that it's worth risking their professional reputations?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. As I said in Post #4 above...

I don't usually get into motive, because it's such a subjective call and doesn't really prove anything. However, the fact THAT AE911Truth is spreading lies and distortions is undeniable -- they are.

And Richard Gage doesn't have a professional reputation to worry about anymore, right? He got laid off from being an architect, right? He's living off severance and his salary from AE911Truth...

...right?

[SDuderstadt]

16. They ARE lying...

you're trying to argue that they wouldn't do what they've clearly done because they would lack the motivation, which simply is not true.

[lovepg]

22. Back at ya about the BUSH administration and the 911 commission both of whom clearly lied..

And had the motivation as well.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Where did the 9/11 Commssion lie, dude? n/t

[travis80]

11. this debunk video is so lame. playing on semantics

when A&E911 says the WTC 7 fell in 6.5, they mean the main structure, not when the penthouse starts.

when they say it came down like a classic CD, they mean it visually fell like a classic CD, which it did.

the only lie that's going on is you skeptics accusing them of lying.

pathetic. but that's what we come to expect from these stupid debunking attempts.

no skyscraper has ever collapsed like a CD from fire and that's a fact. deny it all you want.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Funny

When you say "main structure" as opposed to the penthouse, you ignore that what the penthouse falls off into used to be part of the "main structure" of the building.

Column 79 was one of the most important parts of the "main structure." It was located right in the middle of that penthouse. The reason that the penthouse is falling the way it is? That's because Column 79 has completely failed underneath it. The entire eastern third of the interior is falling away under the penthouse. Watch it up there. It sags in the middle (something NIST demostrates would only have happened due to the failure of 79) and then drops off into the building. It doesn't fall flat. You can see it hinge down into the building.

So keep telling yourself that the penthouse falling was different from the "main structure," because that's one of the things AE911Truth is counting on. Your ability to decieve yourself like that keeps them unaccountable for this lie.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Thank god NIST puked-up Column 79

Without this one unprovable bit of fiction, the Untruth Movement would be dead.

[lovepg]

20. Yes column 79 was the column the computers said had to go to create the collapse.

Gee i wish i had computer simulations when i was a kid to show what would of had to occur for my brother to have stole the cookies and not me.
It would have made childhood fibs a lot easier.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. Once the collapsed section under the Penthouse

impacted the transfer truss construction on floors 5-7, that partial collapse translated into symmetrical global collapse.

[lovepg]

105. Yes yes the Nist guys will pat you on the head for spewing out there "facts". nt

[Fainter]

27. What Caused Column 79 To Completely Fail Underneath The Penthouse? n/t.

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. NIST Answer

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

[lovepg]

33. What was burning in these UNCONTROLLED fires (besides ENRON documents)..

Paper burns fast, Rugs?? wall hangings? office furniture? asbestos?? concrete? fireproofed steel girders??
Now they do not even claim the kerosence tanks were involved. Why were the fires uncontrolled it should have been a fairly easy fire to at least control.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. NIST did detailed research on the contents of floors and used that information to inform their fire

modeling.

[lovepg]

37. Did they say what the contents were and why they were uncontrolled? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

38. I see that you have not read the NIST report.

I suggest that you do. Everything that they say is in there, and then you'll know what they report and why they say the fires were uncontrolled.

Here's a question to let me know that you've read the NIST report, or done a little bit of research: How many sprinkler systems were in Building 7, and how were they connected to water?

[lovepg]

101. You missed my point which I was guilty of being too subtle about......

All the uncontrolled fires occured on floors that contained secret papers and papers relating to investigations of corporate criminality.
Thats why I asked what fueled those fires!

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...why don't you educate yourself?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_water_supply.html

Your questions indicate a strange incuriousity for someone who professes to seek the truth. This is why I get so frustrated with the
"truth movement".

[Bonobo]

43. Remember, do not make "us" into a monolithic entity in your mind.

The truth of the "truth movement" is that there is none...except as an overly generalized concept in the eyes of those that oppose such thinking.


What I mean to say is, please do not fall into the lazy mental trap of thinking of us all as the same thing.

Yes, we all look alike in that we are formless text being produced on your computer screen.
We may even sound somewhat alike, filtered through, and transmogrified by the magic of the ethernet, the film of snarky expectations and the DU culture.

But behind all that you will find people ranging from teenagers to professional engineers to dentists to Japanese translators (lol) and more.

I am equally sure of the reverse. Let's just remember that we are all at different stages in our "development" and try to "help"
each other along.

[SDuderstadt]

45. I don't...

but I believe the "truth movement" (meaning organized groups like AE911truth.org, etc.) are doing a huge disservice by desseminating false information and, sometimes, outright propaganda.

[Bonobo]

47. To determine that, you would have to know the motivation of those behind it.

Either side could accuse the other of disseminating false (read 'misleading') information, but that is to be expected if both sides are proceeding from a false set of assumptions.

The key is to presume nothing when weighing the issues.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Except the nonsense from AE911truth can be....

factually disproven. I think they honestly believe they are right, but go offtrack by not vetting things better and there might possibly be an element of "the end justifies the means". not to mention confirmation bias.

[Bonobo]

52. Well, you may be right, but I wouldn't concede the point generally.

Perhaps, if you have specifics I might agree but I personally know of no "factually disproven" issues. Just ones where there may be disagreement of terms or more or less weight on a certain aspect of the facts.

Either way, I wouldn't want to get bogged down in a discussion defending any particular organization. I am not married to any of them :)

[lovepg]

44. And for someone who professes to have all the answers you show a strange aversion to answering...

a simple frigging question.

[SDuderstadt]

46. I have never "professed:" to have all the answers....

and I gave you a link to an explanation that does it far better than I can. My problem is that you keep asking questions that are easily answered, but you don't seem to want to apply yourself.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. Either you are a child

or you have very little experience in the real world. Please stop posting such silly crap and educate yourself.

[hack89]

59. Are you familiar with the concept of "fuel loading"?

it turns out that office fires are a well studied phenomenon. That's how they have the empirical data needed to create fire codes.

[vincent_vega_lives]

110. Thats just it.

There was no effort to fight the fire in WTC 7. It was "pulled" remember and left to burn for hours. I guess it was decided after loosing some 450 firefighters just a few minutes before that another empty office building just wasn't worth another life. :shrug:

Comon office fires can reach temperatures of over 2000 F.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. I'd add...

"another empty office building" which they couldn't get water to, which had strikingly visible structural damage, and was displaying signs of increasing structural stress "just wasn't worth another life."

[Fainter]

82. As Always, NIST Report Fine And Wonderful In Theory VVL...

but can you link to even one piece of steel from 7 (let alone column 79) that NIST forensically tested and demonstrated to have reached critical failure temperature?

[Bolo Boffin]

83. Why is forensically testing steel from WTC 7 the goalpost here? n/t

[Bonobo]

84. In investigations, it is common to rule things out if they are easy to do.

Why not test the steel? It would be easy and would provide data.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. But none of the steel from Building 7 could be identified as to where in the building it came from.

Provence is the problem here. The structural elements from the Towers were labeled and could be identified where they came from. The steel from Building 7 was not.

And the main reason steel from the Towers was collected was not to see what had happened to it, but to see if the specs in construction were met. It informed the modeling.

Forensic testing of the metal was not necessary to this process.

[Fainter]

89. Nutherwords, U Don't Got Milk. No Physical Evidence. Call Me Underwhelmed. n/t.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. :eyes: n/t

[lovepg]

103. You look for the steel that exhibits the chacteristics that Nist spelled out in its report.

I mean come on. Girder 79 should be fairly identifiable. If it failed as they said the wear on that girder would show that that is indeed what happened.

[vincent_vega_lives]

87. Nope

AFAIK the analysis was based on modeling.

[Fainter]

106. VVL, In All Honesty, Wouldn't You Feel More Comfortable...

with the analysis if there were actual forensic data points to back it up, and likewise, can you blame a layman for harboring doubts about the conclusivity of NIST's analysis in the absence of forensic evidence to back it up? If you decline to respond to this critique can you at least tell me what you find so compelling about the assumptions which the NIST relied upon to arrive at their model of the collapse? A good starting point would be to lay out precisely what NIST's assumptions about the collapse of 7 were.

[AZCat]

107. Several of us here have expressed reservations about NIST's simulations.

I, for example, have always taken the WTC 7 simulation with a grain of salt, partly for the reason you list (absence of hard evidence, as opposed to anecdotal, video and photographic) and partly because I don't trust complicated simulations in general.

[Grateful for Hope]

108. I know that you have, AZ

Just wanted to say "Hello".

:hi:

[AZCat]

111. Nice to see you.

I know your posting is a bit limited, with your "ghost" and all, but it's nice to see you're still alive and kicking. How's life?

[Grateful for Hope]

113. Busy with work

but, good overall.

And your's?

[AZCat]

116. It's been a busy summer.

I've had a lot of work, but also been able to get together with family and friends frequently. I'm glad to hear you're still working. Is it the same job?

[Grateful for Hope]

117. It is.

I really like the work I am doing. I feel very lucky.

Sounds like you had a good summer. Great to hear!

[Fainter]

109. OK, If We Both Agree There Is An Absence Of Hard Evidence Then...

in your view are my doubts concerning the conclusivity of NIST's analysis of the collapse unreasonable?

[AZCat]

112. I don't think your doubts are unreasonable. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

115. sure

but i will take their analysis of the collapse over a bunch of websluths.

[SDuderstadt]

15. The problem with your claim is that...

WTC7 was 47 stories tall. Coumt the number of stories that you can clearly see in the video. It's way short of 47 because the rest of the building cannot be seen because of the other buildings in the way.

Even if your claim was correct (but I have no idea why anyone would not include the collapse of the penthouses), the collapse in STILL much longer than Gage claims. That's why the video is dishonest. Bolo is correct.

[lovepg]

21. Your right I am sure the building paused a few seconds from freefall on the way down...

Just for a little rest!

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude...

how can Gage time the complete collapse of WTC 7 after it's passed from view?

[lovepg]

36. There are other videos that show the collapse almost to the ground. nt.

[William Seger]

39. Where? (n/t)

[SDuderstadt]

40. Then produce one...

and explain why Gage uses an incomplete one

[whatchamacallit]

48. The part of the main structure that is visible before disappearing

is measured at free fall. You got an excuse for that? Dude?

[SDuderstadt]

50. Because we're talking about the total collapse time...

dude.

[whatchamacallit]

53. Weak

of course.

[SDuderstadt]

54. I don't give a fuck what you think...

dude.

[whatchamacallit]

55. No...

I think you do... Otherwise, why would you spend 90% of your life in here calling people dude.

[SDuderstadt]

56. "90% of your life"

Hyperbole, dude?

[rhymeandreason]

62. So much for the "truce",

dude. What was that, a full twenty-four hours of heartbreak and mourning? Is that really "sufficient time to mourn our loss"? I'm sure you are posting through your tears.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Maybe you missed the part where I asked people, "who's with me?"

I'm not interested in unilateral truces. I'll be glad to extend it to anyone who meets me halfway. Ask Bonobo and Raster.

[lovepg]

91. Which is what gonna slow as it desends???????

Come on this is stupid beyond belief. Do you actually claim you cannot extrapolate the speed of total desent
from what the video shows??? Not really are you????

[SDuderstadt]

92. Are you fucking kidding?

Can you imagine the howling if we did the same thing? Why are you willing to tolerate the dishonesty of AE911truth.org?

[lovepg]

95. Because I remain unconvinced of this claimed dishonesty...

You say you cannot see the whole video so he cannot prove how fast it went down. Well back at ya dude.
Seems to me before you call someone a liar you should have some PROVEABLE evidence of said lying.
You claim its a lie prove it.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Dude...

HE FUCKING STARTS THE CLOCK AFTER THE PENTHOUSE HAS ALREADY COLLAPSED! How is that honest? You just keep making excuses for his dishonesty. DONE.

[lovepg]

98. No he just starts the clock from where the building starts falling........nt

[SDuderstadt]

100. The building starts falling when the penthouse collapses...

dude. Are you claiming the penthouse isn't part of the building? See? This is why it's pointless trying to reason with you. Done.

[lovepg]

104. Well how about the one from a few blocks away one of you provided to prove there..

were no explosion sounds???? I mean come on guys your just pulling your prove it time waster.
You know there is more than one video of seven collapsing.
Your stratedgery is becoming more and more obvious.

[lovepg]

93. So one of two things must be true....

either one cannot tell from the video how fast the building is coming down because of its "incompleteness".
Or one can extrapolate from what is shown how fast it is going down.
If the first is true you cannot prove Gage a liar because because there is no way to ascertain its accuracy.
So on what basis do call him a liar?
If the second is true prove his second count is wrong and he is a liar.

[SDuderstadt]

94. because he starts the clock AFTER the penthouse has already collapsed....

dude. How in the world does that look like a controlled demo? I'm not going to "discuss" this with you any more, dude. It's absolutely too frustrating trying to get through to you.

[lovepg]

97. Because Nist says 79 failed so the whole building collapsed....

Seems to me it would be easy to plant explosive devices IN the building to accomplish that without the sound being too obvious.
The penthouse going down could just as easily be the result of the device going off as failure from the fire.

[SDuderstadt]

99. So, you're claiming the penthouse collapsed due to controlled demo, right?

Then, why in the world would you start the clock AFTER the penthouse collapsed? If you don't think it collapsed because of tha controlled demo, then HOW did it collapse? Do you see the logical trap you are falling into here?

[lovepg]

102. I would still say the collapse started after the penthouse failed....

Just that the penthouse event was caused by explosives.

[wildbilln864]

30. Exactly! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Siss, boom, bah! n/t

[Bonobo]

51. Serious question here. Please reply.

I believe Gage shows a computer model of the collapse of WT7 (I can dig it up if you haven't seen it).

My question is: Why does the computer modelling, based on the collapse of column 7 (is that right? I forget the number, but I mean the main column supporting the penthouse), show a collapse that does not match the actual collapse.

I don't mean to be leading, perhaps you will disagree with me, but the computer generated model of the collapse that I saw was qualitiatively different than the actual collapse I have seen on video. Namely, the model showed a collapse from the perimeters sort of falling into the center if I recall correctly.

How can you account for this?

Thanks. Please let me know if I need to link or explain what I mean more clearly. I think it is a reasonable question that you should be able to answer.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. We'll need a link. Do you have any defense of the behavior discussed in the OP? n/t

[Bonobo]

69. I really don't have an opinion on that yet and have too many other things to do.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are entirely correct. I try not to wed myself to organizations for that very reason.

[William Seger]

67. The NIST model didn't include the exterior "curtain" walls

They're called "curtain walls" because they hang from the floor beams and columns and don't carry any gravity loads themselves (which is why NIST omitted them from their model), but curtain walls are in fact very rigid: They have to be strong enough to distribute huge wind loads to the floor beams and columns, and rigid enough to do so without caving in. Not including those in the NIST model allows the columns to go in all different directions as the interior structure collapses, but in the real building the curtain walls largely retained the building's box shape. (In fact, all we can really see in the videos is the shell of curtain walls going down.) Which has nothing to do with the cause of the collapse, btw, which is what the NIST model was intended to study.

[Bonobo]

68. A truly excellent reply. Bolo, I will concede the point based on this reply.

Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. AE911Truth Begins Using Altered Soundtrack Of Oslo Demolition Again

You may recall AE911Truth being busted for using an altered soundtrack on an Oslo, Norway controlled demolition. The soundtrack had actual explosions, but they had been clipped out, and the truncated soundtrack moved up to start with the beginning of the video. After that was pointed out, AE911Truth did stop using the clip.

They have begun using it again (flv file from AE911Truth's website), altered soundtrack and all. It's currently part of their most recent iteration of the slideshow presentation.

Again, for anyone who wants to compare the audio of this clip to another one, here's the same demolition at YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

:26 though :29 on that video corresponds to the beginning of the AE911Truth clip. The sound isn't that good, but you can clearly hear the explosive charges going off, and then dying away to the sounds of the building collapsing. The AE911Truth clip has no such explosive sounds or dying away. They have only the sounds of the building falling, even though you can clearly see charges going off.

By beginning to use this clip again, AE911Truth has once again demonstrated that it is NOT in the business of seeking the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Agreed, Bolo...

very deceptive.

[Bonobo]

70. I tried to follow up, but your first link brings me to scrambled garbage text.

Can you try again?

I would like you to prove that deception to me. If true, I have a BIG problem with them as well.

[Ohio Joe]

71. Try using the VLC media player

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

It will play pretty much all types of videos.

[Bonobo]

72. I downloaded it and started the app, but link doesn't "work" for me.

I click on it or try to dowload it and all I can is a corrupted looking text file. Even when I try to append .flv at the end.

Can you relink or something?

[Ohio Joe]

73. I'm not sure which is not working for you

Go to my link first and download whatever for whatever your OS is under binaries. This will give you an ".EXE" file, run it, this will install the player. Then Bolo's link should work fine.

[Bonobo]

74. I'm Mac and I got your viewer working. It is just that Bolo's link doesn't give me

a downloadable file I can use.

[Ohio Joe]

76. hmmm, mac...

I know nothing about mac's. On PC's, you need to associate file types with the application to open it... is there something similar on mac? Perhaps you need to do that? Otherwise, I don't know, sorry.

[Bonobo]

77. I renamed the sucker ".flv" but it didn't work. Thanks anyway.

[Ohio Joe]

78. It is not an flv when you download it?

That is weird... I get a file names "A2_30_OSLO_DEMO_2.FLV" when I click his link... I have no idea why you get something different.

[Bonobo]

79. Weird, whether I left click save or rt click save, it comes as a creepy text file.

Called "downloaded file".

But when I mouse over it, it shows up correctly as a .flv file.

Whatever. So is it true about the sound track? That would be verrrry low of them to do...

[Ohio Joe]

80. I cannot watch the video at this time

If it is the same as they used to have up, then yes it is true.

[Ohio Joe]

75. Also...

Bolo's link does not bring me to a page but rather has me download the video, which I then play from my desktop... Well... I click on it and it crashes my system like every other video until I get a new PC but it appears to be a valid ".flv" video file.

[defendandprotect]

81. Demo obvious to the naked eye, but the theory that a plane slices thru a steel building . . .

like butter is absolutely nuts ---

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rj5690]

88. CTists are nuts