LOOSE CHANGE on FOX News

[JackieO]

Watch the video

First of two parts, second part airs tomorrow.

September 11 Student Documentary

...A group of student film makers from Oneonta College say they know the truth that lies beneath the rubble. The student documentary entitled “Loose Change” is a film linking theories of a direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States Government.

The creators are three Oneonta College students: Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas. They say the film is total blood, sweat, tears, dedication and proclaim. They stress it is the duty of every American to view the film.

Dylan Avery, the writer and director of “Loose Change” says, “There are millions of unanswered questions about 9/11/01 not only asked by the victims but also by widows and orphans”.

http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=282

[wakeme2008]

1. looks like a good film ;) nt

[ClintonTyree]

2. Looks VERY interesting and .........

it was one heck of an undertaking by three State College students. I'm very interested in seeing the entire film. I'm not one usually given to believe in dark, sinister conspiracy theories but there are some nagging questions in my mind about the events of 9/11. This may be helpful in answering some of those questions.

[whopis01]

24. Interesting, but has it flaws

There are a few places in the film where they stretch things a little too much, in my opinion. Frankly it takes away from the credibility of their other points. For example, they put a quote on the screen, and have the actual recording of the person saying the quote... yet they don't quite line up with each other. Words like "the possiblity of" are left out to make the text seem more like the person was totally convinced of what they were saying as opposed to thinking of different possiblilities. And while the standard edit marks were used in places (i.e., "..." or putting paraphrased sections in brackets), they were left out of these places.

Also near the end they talk about the hijackers and say "The funny thing is that 9 of them are still alive", and then proceed to tell us how each is employed and present absolutely zero evidence to support this other than claiming Mohammed Atta's father received a call from him on 9/12/01.

Finally, after they spend a significant portion of the video claiming that the cell phone calls and the story of flight 93 were faked, they claim that what took place on flight 93 makes a good metaphor for what we must do to defend and take back our rights. Well, it is a nice metaphor, but if you just spend 20 minutes claiming it didn't happen, I don't think it makes much sense to use it!

[Kevin Fenton]

33. 6 "hijackers" still alive

This is the 9/11 timeline link for the "hijackers" still alive entry:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=%22photograph+of+somebody+else%22&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+
They're probably just cases of identity theft, but the FBI should have got to the bottom of it. Hell, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is probably being waterboarded as we write, couldn't they just ask him?

[FloridaPat]

3. Silverstein admits they "pulled WTC 7? How could they plan that

amid all the confusion of the day? Wouldn't someone notice them putting explosives in the building? I can see where it was planned a couple weeeks before, but not the same day. Interesting. Definately want to see that film.

Can you image how bad would be if most people belived our government was behind 9-11 like I do? End of the GOP.

[mirandapriestly]

13. what's interesting about that is

the way WTC 7 went down looks the same as how 1 & 2 went down, and it is admitted that 7 was brought down by explosives, so....

[mattclearing]

30. It is?

I've heard that as a rumor, but it certainly wasn't widely reported.

[philb]

71. I thought it was interesting that WTC7 was evacuated and abandoned

by the Mayor and others before there was damage there even though it was the best equipped emergency operations bunker in the country. and had lots of very important gov't agency security and intelligence operations and information.

also that someone turned off the fire alarm system at WTC7 the night before 9/11.

and when the building was evacuated, there were no efforts to secure it by shutting off valves to storage oil for the building. How could the most advanced EOC building in the country have no plan for such?

[HamdenRice]

27. Take a look at this

Do they look like timed charges? Why isn't this video shown over and over on TV?

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

[killtown]

31. Most logical answer about planted bombs in the 7

is that they planted these bombs in there BEFORE 9/11.

See my WTC 7 page for more info.

[sabbat hunter]

34. kill town are any links

are there any links you give that arent to your vanity site?


that being said it is recorded on tape that silverstein said "pull it"

which is used in demolition terms. but it would make no sense for him to give the order for a demolition over a public/recorded walkie talkie. in this day and age he more likely would have used a cell phone to whomever was in charge of a demolition.

just because it LOOKS like a demoltion doesnt necessarily mean it was one. more investigation needs to be done on it. with the amount of people that would have to be invovled in such a large conspiracy somebody is bound to talk.

peace

[IndyOp]

37. I thought the most interesting facts about whether the twins were pulled

was the comparison to other skyscrappers that have burned - some burned for many, many more hours and more floors were involved in the blaze - and they did not collapse.

I would like to hear from people who are very, very knowledgeable about fires in skyscrapers and hear if there are other skyscrapers that have collapsed that are not mentioned in the video.

In comparison to the buildings/fires mentioned on the video that burned much longer but did not fall, it seems very weird that the Twin Towers collapsed so soon after the fires started. Could there be a structural explanation - that other skyscrapers burned, but didn't have structural damage caused by a plane?

What about the evidence of massive damage in the basement?

After seeing this video today I want a HUGE F*'ING INVESTIGATION with 100's of people under oath, under questionning of some intense investigators.

:mad:

[hack89]

41. Look through the 9/11 archives

all your questions are debated about every four to six months.

As for the WTC collapse - it was a combination of structural damage due to the initial impact, weakening of the remaing structure by large fires, and the massive weight of the buildings above the impact zone.

They were unique events and can't really be compared to other fires

[IndyOp]

48. Even 'unique events' can be expected to have some comparisons

to other events - the Twin Towers were more massive than other skyscrapers that have burned, true. Still, the eyewitness reports of hearing and seeing explosions, the speed at which the buildings dropped, the fact that none of the 47-central steel beams were left standing - these are all in need of explanation. Why did the 9/11 Report say that there weren't any central steel beams - only hollow shafts through which elevators ran?

I just watched the David Ray Griffen talk at The Dossier and he corroborates a lot of what was said in 'Loose Change' -- my mind is open, but I am starting to be a whole lot more suspicious.

<http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11.htm>

Professor Griffin argues that "omissions and distortions" in the report amount to a cover-up by government officials and says that the available evidence suggests that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

[hack89]

51. Well,

1. Explosions do not equal explosives. It is hard to imagine the violence and forces involved with the collapse - noise would be deafening as thing collapsed or failed. Not to mention all the machinery in the towers failing.

2. Everyone makes such a deal about the speed of collapse yet no one is able to explain in technical terms why it is unusual - let me ask you: how fast did the towers collapse and how much faster than a non-demolition collapse did it take? Hint - calculate the mass and momentum of the building above the impact zone.

3. The 47 vertical core columns were not single homogeneous pieces of steel - each one was made up of hundreds of smaller beams joined end to end. As the massive weight of the building above the impact zone came crashing down, the stress overloaded all those joints and they failed. Each of those 47 beams disintegrated into its component parts.

[IndyOp]

52. If you are willing to consider a few more questions --

I get what you are saying about the mass & momentum of the building above the impact zone. Not only was there the weight of a large airplane, but also the weight of building above the impact zone. Still, I would suspect that if the 'pancake' theory were correct we would see the top (40?) floors collapse onto the floors beneath, which would hold the weight until it could not hold it anymore (seconds, minutes), then those floors would collapse down onto the next 40-80 floors, pause, collapse (and so forth). That sounds like what I would expect to see if the pancake theory were correct.

The only way - IMO - that it would make sense for it to fall as quickly as it did is if they 'pulled' it - lower floors & central floors first. "Loose Change" includes eyewitness reports from 2-3 workers in the 7th sub-basement who said that there had been explosions where they were; others reported flashes of light (explosions) in the 15th floor. There is a voice-over from Peter Jennings saying something to the effect, "It looks almost like a controlled demolition. Everyone knows that if you want a building to come straight down you have to blow it out from underneath."

What makes absolutely **no** sense to me is that the towers fell straight down -- particularly the second tower where the plane hit close to one corner of the building, not dead center, not even close. No one addressed this issue on any film or in any article I have read. I am wondering about this issue from personal experience -- when houses on fire cave in, when a building falls because of earthquake, or impact from an external object, or internal strutural failure I would expect to see swaying, toppling, timber!

The fact that eyewitness reports were perfectly opposite at the Pentagon, the fact that the likelihood of multiple successful cell phone calls being made at cruising altitude on the Penn flight is less than 0.05 -- means that if I think about the towers falling in the context of all of the other things that happened that day that are too bizarre to be true - well...?

[hack89]

53. Precision is the enemy of all CTs..

which is why no one has yet to produce any calculations showing how it was impossible for the towers to fall in the time observed without demolition. Interesting, isn't it, that there seems not to be a single 9/11 "researcher" with an engineering background. Show a me a single website that supports its theories with calculations instead of superficial analysis of internet video.

Some easy questions: how fast did the WTC fall? How fast would you expect them to fall from a pancake? Surely there are some hard numbers on those CT websites you read.

As to the pancake theory, some MIT engineers calculated that the dynamic loading on the support columns from the collapsing building was over 60 times their designed static weight loading. The point being is that any resistance was minimal and would not have slowed things down significantly.

Of course they would fall straight down - tens of thousands of ton of building unsupported and gravity the only force working on it. As far as I remember, gravity works straight done - what horizontal force do you propose was present that would make the building fall sideways?

[IndyOp]

54. CT websites I read? I've watched two videos...

"Loose Change" and the David Ray Griffin talk at Madison.

I won't write you back if you use "CT" again. It is my personal opinion that charging someone with being conspiracy theorist is a way of dismissing them out of hand. If you find me painfully naive about engineering, physics, and building design then you needn't reply.

> Some easy questions: How fast did the WTC fall? How fast would you
> expect them to fall from a pancake? Surely there are some hard
> numbers on those CT websites you read.
According to "Loose Change" the WTC (both towers) fell in 10 seconds. Haven't got a clue about the 'pancake theory' -

> MIT engineers calculated that the dynamic loading on the support
> columns from the collapsing building was over 60 times their
> designed static weight loading.
That is useful = Thanks.

> what horizontal force do you propose was present that would make the
> building fall sideways?
The plane that hit the South tower hit at the southeast corner - that corner should've collapsed first, causing floors above it to tilt sideways as a result of the support beams being knocked out at that corner. Conjecture, yes. Out of the realm of reality, no. I have seen houses burning that collapsed in similar ways - if the burn started on one corner, that corner caved in first. Different deal with 110-story skyscrapers? Perhaps. I'm not trying to resist gravity.

[hack89]

55. No offense intended,,

but you will soon discover that Griffin and "Loose Change" both parrot the same theories that hundreds (if not thousands) of 9/11 websites use. Not only do they add nothing to the discussion but many of their theories have been discussed and debunked in this forum over the past four years. If this forum is any indication you will also discover that the 9/11 community has not advance their arguments very far in four years - the same arguments are hashed and rehashed over and over again. That is the under lying point of my post - why hasn't the 9/11 research community even answered some fundamental questions in four years? Why can't they counter NIST and FEMA on technical grounds? Why hasn't some enterprising engineering student posted some basic calculations on the WTC collapse?

[stickdog]

59. NIST & FEMA don't present a SHRED of physical evidence

to support their strained and often absurd conclusions.

[hack89]

61. So what?

we are talking about the 9/11 "research" community. Why haven't they answered the NIST and FEMA reports in technical terms instead of heated rhetoric?

[stickdog]

62. You want us to fight pseudoscience with pseudoscience?

To convince all the pseudoscientists like you, perhaps?

The "9/11 research community" is nothing more than a bunch of concerned private citizens with a bunch of highly legitimate questions and well-founded suspicions (with a few well-funded disinfo agents and spam kings thrown in, of course). Your attempts equate the expected level of baffle in their bullshit with that of government funded studies made by scores of highly paid professionals is quite ridiculous.

[hack89]

64. So there are no "researchers" with scientific and engineering ..

background? Doesn't this interesting tidbit give you pause? Perhaps there are really no scientific and engineering grounds to challenge the official story - hence the lack of technical professionals that agree with you?

[stickdog]

65. PLEASE ...

Just look what happened to the BYU Physics professor.

What incentives do successful technical professionals have to share their concerns about 9/11 with the greater public?

[hack89]

67. Did you read his stuff..

not a calculation to be seen - the non-technical nature of his work would fit fine in this forum. And did you read his paper proving that there is evidence of Jesus in North America - how does that reflect on his judgment to you?

So not a single technical professional cares about justice for 3000 murdered Americans - thats a pretty damning statement on your part. You must feel so warm and fuzzy inside knowing what a special human you are!

[LARED]

63. Nice distraction

Not a shred of physical evidence? Exactly what type of physical evidence were you expecting that has not been produced?

What about the mountains of evidence regarding observed fires, computer modeling surrounding the temperatures based on those observation, etc, etc, yadda, Adda, Adda, not to mention the steel that was examined, tested, etc, etc, yadda, Adda, Adda.

[stickdog]

66. Not a SHRED of physical evidence was produced that supports

the official conspiracy theory.

Just a bunch of "photographic analysis", cooked to order computer modeling and etc, etc, yadda, Adda, Adda, as you so accurately illustrate.

[LARED]

68. Sorry , but you're wrong

You can have as many opinions as you like, but you don't get to create new and fancifully realities about there being no physical evidence.

There is photographic evidence, Video evidence, Eye witness evidence, Steel that was analyzed, Blue prints that were reviewed, Maintenance records, manifold data about the behavior of fire in office buildings. Jet parts, Flight manifests, airport videos, car rental agreements, letters, I could go on, but won't.

[stickdog]

69. What analyzed steel supports NIST's theory?

Please get back to us on this ASAP, LARED.

Photographic and video evidence is SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRETED.

The blueprints prove NOTHING about why the buildings collapsed.

Maintenance records prove NOTHING about why the buildings collapsed.

And the "manifold" data on fires say that no other steel framed highrise has ever collapsed due to fire in recorded history.

When and where did NIST or FEMA evaluate flight manifests, airport videos, car rental agreements and letters? I must have missed these reports. :eyes:

[LARED]

70. So if I understand your position, because the NIST

did not come up with a definitive cause for global collapse, there is something not right.

Correct? Incorrect? What. Is that your main issue?

[killtown]

39. if you don't like my site, don't click the links

>>but it would make no sense for him to give the order for a demolition over a public/recorded walkie talkie.<<


who says he did?



>>with the amount of people that would have to be invovled in such a large conspiracy<<

and how many is that?

[Tesla]

32. Marvin Bush was head of the Security Company assigned to WTC

*'s brother.

[mandyky]

4. I am from Oneonta, originally

Woo hoo!! Way to go SUNY Students!!

[chat_noir]

5. A search of DU on "Loose Change" in September 11 Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=59131

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=43158

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=46602


25 links total

[chat_noir]

6. watch the entire 1 hour 55 minute video of "Loose Change"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

[IndyOp]

12. Thanks for the link, I think. This is the first time I've seen the

shots of the bottom of the Boeing and the flashes before the plane hit the building.

:mad: :scared: :mad: :scared: :mad: :scared:

[Poll_Blind]

29. Much thanks, just finished watching it. n/t

PB

[sabbat hunter]

35. thanks for the link

i will check it out tonight when i get home. the link i have seen so far just showed about a minute of the video from a news report on it.

i always welcome new material, research to broaden my mind.

[Al-CIAda]

7. If you wish to converse with the creator/buy the movie...

Dylan Avery posts here regularly, and is a moderator...you can also purchase the film here.

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=2132efaf3c471e12f5b31d0ace60a5d4

----

Or direct link to purchase movie (11.00) at ebay store-

http://cgi.ebay.com/Loose-Change-911-Documentary-by-Dylan-Avery_W0QQitemZ6436339580QQcategoryZ617QQcmdZViewItem


Just an fyi...

[MadisonProgressive]

28. Just bought one! Thanks

[Al-CIAda]

8. .

[esvhicl]

9. WOW! FOX!?!

The news here is that this was reported on Fox. I have seen Loose Change, I got it as a premium from Pacifica radio's fund drive. If only I could get my Republican in-laws to look at it! They are retired Navy, addicted to Limbaugh and Fox News and totally clueless about the cabal occupying the WH.

[progressoid]

10. I'm sorry, but since when did Fux news become acceptable?

Dishonest, unreliable, inaccurate, deceptive; that's fux news.

[IndyOp]

11. It is Binghamton, NY local affiliate of FOX that reported on film (nt)

That it exists, was made by local students, and more - click on the link to read the brief, fair coverage. They actually reported news and did not spin it - they didn't call the students conspiracy theorists or cheapen the project in any way.

[progressoid]

25. Haaaa - Wrong.

In her first sentence she said there are "many conspiracy theories out there" about 911 and in the same breath introduces the students "who say they know the truth..."

But there is a bigger problem with this, and it is simple to grasp.
The fact that they are running this story is reason enough to avoid this movie at all costs. There is absolutely nothing on Fox news that should be trusted. NOTHING.

[IndyOp]

36. You are right, they *do* mention conspiracy theorists -

but my opinion differs from yours about the overall tone of their brief piece.

The movie was interesting. Interesting enough that I want civil engineers and others from many countries under oath and roasted by a team of attorneys until the points in this film are proven 'myths' or 'facts'.

[berni_mccoy]

14. WOW, The HIGHLIGHTS they did of the VIDEO on sub-collision explosions

IS INCREDIBLE!

These STUDENTS deserve a SERIOUS AWARD.

This TOPIC SHOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGE!

:kick: nominated

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Heh heh.

The film implies all three buildings were part of a controlled demolition.


I take it they weren't civil engineering students, then.

[Nightjock]

16. give me a fucking break!

I am still not sure in my mind about what happened on that day. I WANT to know and have an open mind.

I went to thier website to buy the dvd and the first thing I read is

"What if planes did not fly into the twin towers that day?"

That is the stupidest thing I have heard involving 9/11!!!!!
Now I would never buy that dvd!!!

Everyone on tv and on the ground saw them hit the towers!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it looks like expolsive charges may have gone off inside but what the FUCK?!...Planes didn't hit the towers??????

[Al-CIAda]

17. 'commercial' planes, that is...

Not that this should be accepted either (but there is a theory behind that).

fyi...

[IndyOp]

19. Right - I wrote a response to NJ below about the possibility of

missiles - had forgotten that they have eyewitness reports from people saying that they thought the planes that hit the towers were cargo planes instead of passenger planes. The planes (according to eyewitnesses, did not have windows and had a blue logo that did not look like any commerical passenger airliner).

I have the serious willies right now after watching that.

:puke:

[Al-CIAda]

21. correct -in fact, a FOX news reporter on the ground repeated this

there is footage of this report captured that was shown on TV at the time.

[MercutioATC]

43. ONE eyewitness reported no windows...a FOX reporter.

...just one.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[SittingBull]

47. So if the messages were deleted

it stays at one...

[IndyOp]

18. Hi NJ - If you watch the video online you will see that planes do hit the

towers -- and the video talks extensively about planes hitting the toweres and shows 5 different films of planes hitting the towers.

The point I think they are making by saying "What if planes did not fly into the twin towers that day?" is that they believe that the planes were equipped with and fired missiles into the towers before crashing into the towers themselves. If that sounds impossible, well, all I can say is that I've not paid much attention at all to 9/11 'research' except to maintain healthy skepticism and I found watching the video a worthwhile investment of my time.

I am still skeptical about some of their claims (I'm not convinced about the planes firing missiles into the towers before crashing into them) -- and what I found compelling were the eyewitness accounts of events at the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the remote site at which a plane went down. One eyewitness after another after another -- and their stories fit together, and their stories were taken from radio and TV coverage that got ignored once the 'official version' of the story had become fact.

I am actually pretty impressed by the way that the information has been pulled together in one place and presented in an emotionally-detached manner. For those of us with open minds who have heard snippets here and snippets there - I think this video is worth the viewing time.

[Nightjock]

20. Thanks to you and CIA

I'll buy it now. I have so many unanswered questions maybe it will help....or scare the shit out of me.

[IndyOp]

22. You can watch it online before you buy - I am cheap and

this is what I do if at all possible. :toast:

[janedoe]

40. Then, if you like it, send in a donation.

We owe these guys more than a few bucks. We owe them a whole lot of respect for doing something that no one else has been able to do.

[berni_mccoy]

26. You went to the WRONG website....

I know which one you went to, but the official website is:

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Which makes NO CLAIM that you mention. The site you probably went to is a site that's featuring the movie, but is not related to the makers of the movie.

[Beam Me Up]

23. Rate this thread up. It won't last long.

Very soon it will get put in the dungeon.

I've downloaded and watched the video. I do like most of it but, I DO WISH, they hadn't started it off with the pods and missiles. I'm not saying that hypothesis is false, only that, to me, it isn't the most compelling visual evidence. You have to lead a viewer into that sort of thing having built a background--which they do, but later on in the presentation.

Just my opinion.

[JackieO]

38. Yep

Looks like it gets removed from the "Greatest" page too, regardless of how many votes it has, after it gets dumped here. Very democratic. No more gold stars for me, thanks.

Btw, I read that this Second Edition of the film doesn't talk about pods.

[Beam Me Up]

44. Really? Just checked in on your reply to me so haven't looked at the

rest of this thread. So there's a new version? Guess I'll have to look up thread and figure this out.

Thanks!

BMU

[JackieO]

42. PART TWO:

Video link

[Beam Me Up]

46. Thanks, JackieO, that was fairly fair reporting, I'd say.

What is interesting is just now at 9AM Pacific time here in sunny California when I click on the http://www.loosechange911.com link from up thread, what I get is a blank page.

H m m m . . .

[JackieO]

49. It blows me away to see fake Osama exposed on TV news

I couldn't get the website to open either yesterday (got a blank page too) but it seems to be working now.

[Beam Me Up]

50. Still getting a blank page at 1:30 PM Pacific. I agree about fake Osama

tough. Damn, can hardly believe that aired, even if it was only local!

Amazing!

[Ferry Fey]

56. They won't accept my email?

I sent the Loose Change guys a polite critique discussing some ways their website could be improved so that it is not written off as amateurish. No white text on black background, don't write in all caps, give each page a unique title, use keywords, that sort of thing. Standard, basic web usability 101. A follow-up reply was immediately rejected with a note from their email provider that their IP "does not like recipient."

I didn't take it personally. But if what any of us is doing can't stand up to reasonable critiques from people on our own side, it sure as hell will not be able to withstand criticism from those oppposed to what we are saying. If they want to play hardball, they are going to have to get used to responses a lot less diplomatic than someone saying "Your website is hard to read, and this is why."

Just in case they are reading this, I'll post my follow-up that wouldn't go through:

Korey,

I hope you realize that I did the tough love bit
because I really do care. For a number of years I've
been involved in a field of enquiry (subject of which
I'd rather not be specific) that makes the farthest
out 911 theories look really mainstream in comparison.
My colleagues there have the unfortunate tendency to
assume that sincerity will make up for excruciatingly
amateur writing and hideous web design, and then
wonder why we get slapped around for being amateurs.

But nothing we've bumbled through in that field has
the potential to kill anyone, unlike the way our
failure to understand 911 has brought death to tens of
thousands of people, and has the potential to do so
for a long way into the future. When the stakes are
high, we can't afford to miss our targets, or give
detractors any reason to blow us off. If your website
usability causes someone to wander away, chances are
they won't be eager to come back.

My personal favorite website usability guide is Web
Pages that Suck.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/078212187X/qid=1133731875/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-3717303-1154366?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Beam Me Up]

57. H m m m . . . . I think that means the IP doesn't recognize the address,

not literally that it doesn't 'like' it.

Still. Very odd. Perhaps they got a little TOO MUCH attention?? And perhaps not from the folks they'd LIKE to get attention from???

Wouldn't be the first time.

Edit: Ah Ha: I'm getting through to the site now: Sunday evening 10:30 PM Pacific.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[Ferry Fey]

58. It may be an automatic mail response from server, it seems

I looked the phrase up, wondering if there are other uses of it, and it seems that "does not like you" may be a peculiar way of saying that their mail server just isn't taking in anything from anyone at the moment. Which would be understandable if they are getting more attention than they were ready for.

I'd taken it literally, not having encountered the phrase before.

I did pick up a good rule of thumb from that exploration, concerning bouncing mail. Someone used the phrase "One hour, one day, one week."
If your mail bounces, try again in one hour. If that bounces, wait 24 hours before trying again. If that doesn't work, wait a week before trying again. And if that doesn't get any results, find an alternative route.

[Beam Me Up]

60. I see in their blog that their server had been down.

Was back up last I looked. Try emailing them again.

[JackieO]

72. FOX 40 Covers Massive Response to 9/11 Coverage

Semi-censored on DU, word still gets out...

found on 9/11 Blogger:

9/11 Stories Attract Masses To Website

When Fox 40 aired two 9/11 conspiracy reports last week, we had no idea how much national attention we would gain.

This very website, wicz.com, averages approximately 1,000 to 1,500 hits on any average day.

However, since the 9/11 stories aired last Friday, we have had more than 15,000 hits on those articles alone. That figure includes between 80 and 100 people viewing the video broadcast at any given second.

As a result, we've crashed not one, but TWO web servers. In addition, our Foxfire question averages between 150 responses per day -- dwarfing the previous figure of 4 or 5 daily replies.

So, why all the attention?

We can only assume it involves the following three factors:

1. We're a Fox affiliate reporting on a topic many news consumers feel is often suppressed by our national counterpart.

2. Numberous 9/11 conspiracy theory websites picked up on our broadcast and supplied direct links to the site.

3. Perhaps the factor with the biggest impact: several sites that linked our story around the country discovered that just one day after we broadcasted the 9/11 report, it disappeared from the Fox 40 website. Those who applauded our report then assumed that the U.S. government, or higher-ups at the Fox network, or some other "dark force" had killed the story as part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth.

However, what actually happened was far less sinister.

The traffic generated from these reports was so overwhelming that it caused the server to crash. Our web administration had no choice but to move the story to another server which could handle all of the hits.

Despite deep suspicions to the contrary, this is what really occurred.


http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=308

[JackieO]

73. Video

WICZ Video