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.

[CORed]

I wasn't there either, but planes with full loads of fuel crashed into both towers. No way these were small fires. Look at the videos. Look at the amount of smoke and flames produced. There were several thousand gallons of jet fuel burning. These were the biggest, hottest fires ever to hit highrise buildings. To compare these to ordinary fires burning carpeting and furniture is absurd. I will say again: by Occam's Razor, the plane crashes and fires did cause the collapse, regardlesss of any hand-waving explanations of how they couldn't possibly have done so. If you want to propose an alternate cause for the collapses, show me some supporting evidence.