The Definitive 9/11 Documentary

Login or register to post comments Last Post 6240 reads   44 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 44 total)
  • Sun, Nov 17, 2013 - 10:06pm

    #31
    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 239

    count placeholder0

    Thanks for Posting the 911 video

Thank you to PeakProsperity for posting this film.  I have put in a good bit of study into the 911 event.  One big omission in the film is that NIST admitted they never tested for explosives.  It's hard to believe that the biggest crime scene in history was never tested for explosives.  The other omission was that Pres. Bush did not call for an investigation until some 400+ days after the event.  So most of the evidence was already cleared and carted off before an official investigation started.

I did learn much more about the planes and the maximum velocity speeds and how the official story is highly unlikely – just from the point of view of how fast the planes were moving at low, low altitudes debunks the official story.

Since 911, look at the policies and legislation that have transpired:  official war in Iraq and Afghanistan, un-official war in Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria, the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, the NDAA bill including a provision for indefinite detention of US citizens, the TSA, the NSA, secret meetings to make secret kill lists, killing US citizens, and more and more militarization of local law enforcement agencies.   Our local sheriff in Gainesville, FL purchased an armoured vehicle, for pete's sake!

What to do?  I keep informing people, sharing my video collection of 911 documentaries, I vote for third party candidates only (except when I voted in the Republican primary for Ron Paul), I do not give any money what so ever to cable, satellite or direct TV, and I have written to my representatives about how absurd the official version is. 

It's gotten to the point that I don't believe any "official" news stories about such events as the Boston bombing or school shootings. 

I have no trust at all in the US government.  Frankly, I believe that 911 was a coup.

 

 

 

 

  • Sun, Nov 17, 2013 - 10:18pm

    #32
    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 239

    count placeholder0

    Agree

Once I saw the evidence some 7 years later, I felt like a complete schmuck!  Granted, I have lived without television, radio and newspapers for 25 years.  I was not pasted to the news when the event occurred, but I still accepted the official version. 

There is a real grieving process that occurs once you realize those buildings were brought down my demolition.

  • Thu, Nov 28, 2013 - 12:19am

    #33
    J Kovacs

    J Kovacs

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 07 2009

    Posts: 288

    count placeholder0

    9/11

 

The American people and the thought process can be summed up pretty much like a quote from the Movie TED.  With the Following Quotes

"No matter how big a splash you make in this world whether you're Corey Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually, nobody gives a shit"

Translated

NO matter what happens in the U.S. whether it's 9/11, Pearl Harbor, JFK, Boston Bombing or Other events…..Eventually Nobody Gives a Shit"

 

  • Sat, Nov 30, 2013 - 02:17am

    #34
    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 458

    count placeholder0

    Who benefits?

You have to ask yourself, who benefited from 911? I can think of very few oligarchs who didn't . Plus, it provided a plausible explanation for surveillance, and policing infrastructures to be laid down, in the event of civil insurrection.

And yet, still, some people look at you like you have three heads when you tell them it looks like an inside job. What part of pathocracy, don't people get?

  • Sun, Dec 01, 2013 - 09:20pm

    #35
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1452

    count placeholder0

    simple

https://www.freespeech.org/video/what-happens-when-911-truther-challenges-noam-chomsky

 

  • Mon, Dec 02, 2013 - 07:59am

    #36
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 782

    count placeholder0

    Simpleton

Doug,

I wish you would have written something more than the title "Simple" and then posted a video link. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. My first thought is that you want to discredit the 911 truth campaigns by saying that they should simply follow the tried and true method of presenting findings in papers to professional organizations and gathering support that way. Wouldn't it be nice if it truly were that simple?

Unfortunately, professional journals are very politically minded. They have a reputation to protect. They will give more latitude to a novel idea than to one that refutes an established finding. That makes sense. If I were to invent a new material that was significantly stronger and significantly lighter than steel, the professional journals would eagerly print any information about this new product – simply because it would be noncontroversial and would benefit the profession. Consider a paper that questions the use of an established proprietary product or design process. The editors would require a much higher standard of proof before publishing – simply because it is controversial and they could be sued for defamation. They don't want to be held culpable (but they want all the credit.)

Now, let's look at 9/11 from a professional journal editor's perspective.

  1. There is an established finding (NIST report, etc.)
  2. There is a very real possibility that questioning the established finding will have severe economic and political ramifications.
  3. Unless there is absolute irrefutable evidence to support all aspects of the claims, they put themselves and the society they represent at risk.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that these journals are more interested in serving the immediate needs of their memberships than fight a battle that puts themselves at considerable risk. They simply won't do it.

I didn't know much about Noam Chomsky, so I looked him up on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky. Noam is only a PhD linguist, although a cunning one at that. He, of all people should know the power of words and how to compose an argument. In the video, after being asked the question about Building 7, Noam acknowledged that there is consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers – a couple of them are perfectly serious. (Straw man argument – hardly unintentional.) Later, he says that there are a lot of people who have spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot about physics and it doesn't work that way (insinuating that anyone who disagrees with the official story is in this group.)

I wonder if Noam has even spent an hour on the internet trying to learn physics, and yet, people listen to him like he's a wise man with all the answers about this situation.

Doug, I'm wondering if you've invested that much time studying physics and the structural design of the buildings that fell. I seriously doubt it. If you knew more, you wouldn't have posted that video. (Did you hear how derisively the talking head referred to "truthers" as if wanting to know the truth is a bad thing?) Only simpletons can be completely convinced that the truth has been exposed here.

I am one of nearly 20,000 people who have signed the petition at http://www.ae911truth.org/. Here is the text of that petition:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

What is so unreasonable about this petition?

Grover

  • Sat, Dec 28, 2013 - 11:15am

    #37
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 782

    count placeholder0

    Not so Simple

Doug,
 
After I posted my last post here, I went to the front PP page. I noticed that my post didn't register in the recent comments. I opened the recent comments to look deeper. Still not there. Then, I looked for your post. Nope. Nowhere to be found. I thought about it for a couple of days and decided to flag my post so the administrator could check into it. I wrote my concerns in the justification for flagging. I never heard anything so I sent a PM to Jason on 12/5. I didn't hear anything back, so I copied the PM and sent it to Adam on 12/9. Adam responded on 12/20. He told me that he's working Jason like a "rented mule" and that it sometimes takes a while for comments to show up on the recent comment list. When receiving his PM, I looked through the recent comment list. It still wasn't there. I sent another PM, but haven't heard back. I'll give him a week to sort out the problems. Then, I'll post this on another thread.
 
That's the way it seems to be with anything related to 9/11. There isn't any conspiracy here. Nobody from any Czar's office came down to Chris and Adam and told them to react this way. There wasn't any need to. After all, if you just ignore the kooks, they'll crawl back into their holes and wait for other pieces of sky to fall. Right?
 
I'd like you to listen to that link you posted and (in your mind) substitute "Global Warming" anytime anyone says anything about 9/11 and replace "truther" with "wormer." (I know it shoud be "warmer," but you have to admit that they twist the word "truther" a wee bit.) If you do that, you'll see that Chomsky's tone wasn't exactly conducive to an open exchange of ideas. The Talking Head was even more closed minded.
 
If you compare the investigation of the towers collapsing with the space shuttle Columbia's disaster, you'll see the difference between a ramrod and an actual search for a cause. For the Columbia disaster, they collected space debris from several states and painstakingly arranged it in a hangar. After reviewing all the evidence, they concluded that some foam struck and damaged some heat shield panels. The following picture was contained in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grid_with_Columbia%27s_Debris_-_GPN-2003-00081.jpg
 
 
The towers never got that treatment. The steel superstructure was loaded onto barges and shipped to China for recycling. Granted, at the beginning, there was a rescue component to the 9/11 scene. After all, there were several thousand people in there. After it was obvious that there were no more survivors, they continued with the demolition operations. They didn't need to investigate because it was obvious that planes flew into the buildings and the buildings subsequently fell. That's where the story ends for most people. Anyone who questions the stories is derisively called a "truther" and then subsequently ignored.
 
So, Why don't I buy the official story? I'm not a structural engineer; however, I took at least one structural engineering class during each semester of my junior and senior years for my undergraduate studies. That was about 3 decades ago. The laws of physics haven't changed one iota. The practice of engineering has changed somewhat, but the underlying theories are still intact.
 
There were 3 buildings that collapsed that day. These were the first, second, and third, steel framed buildings in the entire world to ever collapse as a result of fire. To date, those 3 are the only buildings to ever collapse as a result of fire. (Reread that last sentence until you understand how unprecedented the collapses were.) Two of the 3 were struck by airplanes. All 3 collapses are beset by nagging questions. You see, when buildings fail … they don't fail into the strongest component.
 
Many 9/11 "truthers" focus on the WTC 7 collapse as the smoking gun. In my opinion, it's collapse is the most suspect. Nonetheless, the tower collapses were suspect also. Here is a documentary from NPR showing the building of the World Trade Center. It is only 18 minutes long and well worth watching! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/bonus-video/newyork-construction/ (Sorry, but the video is part of the page. I don't know how to embed it here.)
 
The towers were constructed with a central core of 47 columns that carried about 2/3 of the building's load to bedrock. The other third was carried by the outer skin. These components were connected by the lightweight floors. The combination of all these components made a strong, resilient structure capable of withstanding all the loads it was subjected to … until 9/11.
 
When you watch the video, I'd like you to pay particular attention:
  • At 2 minutes, 15 seconds, you'll see a oblique artist's rendition of a typical floor. You'll see the central columns, clear span floor, and exterior skin.
  • At 9 minutes, 45 seconds, you'll see a section of one of the interior columns being hoisted. This column section is about 30' long and consists of 4 plates of steel (4' wide X 2" thick) that are welded together to form a hollow 4' X 4' square column section.
  • At 11 minutes, 10 seconds, you'll see a flyover view from a helicopter that shows the central columns, the lightweight span, and exterior skin. There's another flyover at 13 minutes, 50 seconds.

I can't imagine that anything during the construction of these buildings was left to chance. At the time, these were the tallest buildings in the world. New technologies and construction techniques had to be invented for these buildings to be constructed. I'm sure that the welding was performed by qualified personnel and tested by other qualified personnel. Every aspect of construction of these buildings was scrutinized and built within acceptable design tolerances. (I haven't reviewed the construction documentation, so I take this entire paragraph as an article of faith.)

The accepted collapse theory goes something like this: Planes flew into the buildings, asbestos insulation was dislodged from the lightweight trusses as a result of the impact, the fuel in the plane ignited and caused the lightweight trusses to heat up and lose strength, floors started collapsing, the added weight couldn't be supported by lower floors, and a "pancake collapse commenced. Once the lightweight floor trusses collapsed, the exterior skin lost support and disintegrated.

That almost makes sense. If support from the floors vanished, the exterior skin wouldn't be able to stand more than a few stories before collapsing.

Remember the 47 interior columns? The elevators, stair cases, and utilities were housed in this area. There was framing around the group of columns and that is what the lightweight trusses were connected to. Assuming all the floor trusses on the triggering floor collapsed simultaneously (highly unlikely given the eccentric airplane hit,) the collapse should have looked more like a donut than a pancake. After the collapse concluded, there should have been 47 weakened columns sticking a quarter mile in the air. This column group relied on the exterior skin to provide lateral support. Without support, the columns would have toppled haphazardly into adjacent buildings. That didn't happen.

The investigators want you to believe that the floors were weakened enough to instigate the collapse sequence, but were strong enough to take the 4' X 4' X 2" thick steel columns with them. Really??? There are many other inconsistencies with the accepted collapse theory, but this is the one that gives me the most heartburn.

To me, knowledgeable investigators would have been able to question the plausibility of every theory. Not one of the Commission members was an engineer. They were appointed by Bush II with blessings from the Republican controlled congress. They were tasked with producing a final report (and they did that) glossing over key details that could possibly be politically damaging. Here is a very short and succinct link that explains (in laymen's terms) some problems with NIST's WTC 7 collapse report: http://www.rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/

So, Why should we care?

When we look back at major events in life, we can remember where we were when we first heard the news. The bigger the event, the more details we will remember. Based on that definition, you have to agree that 9/11 was a very big event. Government leaders are expected to make changes to prevent these events in the future. Look at the space shuttle. They investigated the problem, determined the cause (foam blocks striking heat shield,) and instituted design and procedural changes to minimize the risk. That was appropriate.

Let's look at changes that have been instituted as a result of 9/11:

  • We have a "War on Terror (WOT)." This is as nebulous as the "War on Drugs." There is no face or name that can be associated with it. When will it be over? How many resources are required to fight it effectively?
  • We have a new Federal Agency – "Homeland Security." They are the first line defense on the WOT. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know that the NSA collects all manner of information about us. The computing power would have gotten to this point regardless, but would the people (as in "We The People") accept this intrusion without the WOT? (I'll bet this post has been analyzed and rated by the NSA before you had a chance to read it. Does that bother you?)
  • Our then fearless leader declared war on Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda (and teach them a lesson.)
  • We then shifted attention to Iraq because of purported weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had or was trying to develop. (They have gobs of oil, right?)
  • We've spent $trillions, killed or wounded tens (hundreds?) of thousands, and created lifelong enemies. (No wonder the WOT can never end.)

Those are just the high points. I'm sure we could list many, many more. The point to me is that all of this was predicated on an event that simply could not have happened as reported. And yet, anyone who questions the events (or the subsequent remedies) is considered a whack job conspiracy theorist. After that, everything that person says is considered suspect.

So, where does it go from here? How do we stop the madness if we can't question the cause? Do you realistically expect anything (along these lines) to get any better with time? How many more liberties will be removed in order to "keep us safe"?

I hope it isn't too late.

Grover

  • Wed, Jan 22, 2014 - 02:29pm

    #38
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2346

    count placeholder0

    Go Seahawks! (and Pete Carroll has his doubts)

http://www.dailycensored.com/a-911-truth-superbowl/?utm_content=buffer3e0d2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

  • Wed, Jan 22, 2014 - 08:11pm

    #39
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 782

    count placeholder0

    IX :^ XI

Time2help,

Thanks for the link. I never liked Pete Carroll because his college team would always beat my alma mater. I've got newfound respect for him.

Super bowls use Roman Numerals to add some class to the event. What do you think of the emoticon in the subject line?

Grover

  • Sat, Mar 22, 2014 - 09:22am

    #40
    SPAM_buzzbindaas

    SPAM_buzzbindaas

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 13 2014

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder0

    Thanks for sharing the

Thanks for sharing the documentary with us. It is really very informative and I have seen the other documentary film on hotels in rishikesh

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 44 total)

Login or Register to post comments