9-11 Demolition Documentary..

[CrazyPsycho]

Apparently, this was just released on the 11th of this year. I'd like to get some other opinions of this, I think it's very well done. It's an hour and a half long, three 30 minute parts. I encourage everyone on both sides of the fence to take a look at this. This is NOT Loose Change.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

[pvn]

cliffs notes?

[CrazyPsycho]

I was hoping people would watch it first, but there's a lot of video evidence explaining controlled demolitions and comparing them to 9-11. Lots of witnesses hearing explosions, video evidence of said explosions.

Explained how the towers were built and that they were built with this type of attack in mind. In 75, there was a three hour fire that did NOTHING to the structure of the building. There's really a ton of info, I can hardly remember it all, I'm going to half to run through it again another time.

Alot of debunking of the official videos that were put out. It's really quite convincing. Shrug.

[hmkpoker]

Just watched the first one. It's another attempt to debunk the official story from a physical perspective, but it does say some interesting things that I haven't heard before (namely logical estimations of the time for a resisted pancake-style collapse to occur).

This is a much better job than Loose Change since it doesn't concern itself with conspiracy reconstructions.

I'd be very interested to hear what anyone with a knowledge of architecture or engineering has to say about this.

[New001]

First interesting point: The fireman quoted in the first video, approximately 5:30 mentions the "two isolated pockets of fire" on the 78th floor. Now, the exact tower is never mentioned, but the planes crashed between floors 94 and 98 in the North Tower and between floors 78 and 84 in the South. I assume this firefighter was in the South Tower.

The communication that was quoted says nothing about anything else except for "two pockets of fire on the 78th floor." The video is taking that to mean there is nothing else. There are just two tiny fires easily managed. I imagine the reality is much different, but I wasn't there.

Further, who's to say that the firefighter wasn't wrong? Maybe this was his first communication and he corrected himself later. Maybe he just missed others. Who's to say that there weren't more fires between the 79th floor and the 84th, you know, where the plane hit? Who knows?

I expect to see a lot more of this ambiguous kind of stuff for the remaining hour or so.

[New001]

More ambiguous [censored]. "Compare a 20 hour inferno to 90 minutes of smoke." Lady, I could hold a torch to the base of a building for 20 years and it wouldn't do a damn thing. If she's not going to mention the temperatures of the fires, why bother comparing them?

[New001]

"Here, look at this video that shows the thick steel remnant from the core after the building collapsed.. Look how thick and sturdy it is!"

Highlights on a video showing rescue workers standing underneath pieces of the core.

Two minutes later.

"Why does PBS fail to explain the complete disapperance of the Twin Towers' cores?"

Cut to a different video showing none of the same remnants as before.

Edit: Not to mention, if you look at the video that was posted in OOT last week, you can sort of make out the "core" of the building lagging behind the rest as it's collapsing.

[New001]

13:17 into it now. I don't understand this. So the lady says at 10:30, she heard explosions (not to mention the first tower collapsed 30 minutes prior and the second collapsed two minutes prior, I'll assume she meant roughly 10:30). She heard two explosions, and if there was a third, the tower wouldn't stand up.

First, why did she have to be told by someone to leave the building AFTER THE NEARLY IDENTICAL TOWER ADJACENT HAD COLLAPSED? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have stuck around. Then, why doesn't her story match up with the firefighters just before? They said there were tons of little explosions. She said two big ones. Oh, that's because eyewitness accounts are consistently bogus. The creators of the video just wanted to put clips of people talking about the buildings and explosions, nevermind their expertise (or lack thereof).

[New001]

How many of the people saying there were "explosions" have actually heard an explosion of that magnitude before? And how many of them have heard a building of that size collapse before?

And if they haven't heard one or both, how accurately can they be making that comparison?

[New001]

Blah blah, sound travels slow, blah blah, but do they fail to mention that the smoke is covering the top half of the building? Of course they do. So the sound of the "explosion" gets to the camera by the time the top half of the building has probably collapsed. Gee, what insight.