Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

reply to post by longlostbrother


Okay I get it. You're looking for a textbook description of a controlled demolition. I have not seen testimony that you are looking for.

This topic had been discussed a lot here before, I don't feel like getting back into it again, instead I will direct you to the thread I started a while a go...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's interesting how these kinds of threads almost always end up in some argument, as I've noticed a lot of the threads do at ATS.

But anyway, I think we can argue forever about the specifics of how the buildings came down or any other specific part of what happened that day and or what the effects of 9/11 were. However, I think the problem here is that you can't prove that the official story is either true or not without looking at the whole picture. And what I mean by that, is stepping back and looking at all the evidence, and all the events that followed and stemmed off from 9/11, not just specific parts of the whole event. You can argue all day about a specific part, such as how the two Twin Towers came down, and maybe you come to the conclusion that the official story is true, but you're avoiding so much other evidence against the official story that you haven't really proved anything.

I've swayed back and forth before between believing the official story and believing the conspiracy theories, and usually when I return to the official story, I do so because I'm ignoring certain parts of the whole picture without realizing it. I think when you see the whole picture it becomes very difficult to prove the official story as true.

I probably haven't done as much research as you all have, but from I can tell, even if the conspiracy theories aren't actually fully right, the government is clearly leaving something out of the story, covering up certain aspects, and heavily taking advantage of the situation that arose from 9/11. These series of videos really convinced me when I started looking into this and shows you the whole picture. Whenever I watch this I find it difficult to believe the official story. The evidence is just too strong for it to be true, even if there are some holes in the theories going against it.



I strongly suggest everyone watch that series and see it from the overall picture instead of in small parts that can be individually taken to prove the official story as true. There's 19 parts to the series. I'd rather not post 19 videos, so I'll allow anyone interested to find the rest, especially since you'll probably be able to find them in similar videos column.

reply to post by longlostbrother

So first you claim that nobody said this:

Not: I saw dozens of flashes running up the building, accompanied by dozens of explosions, then the building seemed to sinking into the ground.

So I give you testimony Of First responders where they pretty much say what you claim nobody did. And you come back with "it could have been anything" and " I haven't seen any footage of these, and so can't comment more".

What do you think hit the Pentagon? Was it flight 77 or something else? If you think it was in fact flight 77 can you please post a link to the footage of a jet crashing into the pentagon?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So first you claim that nobody said this:

Not: I saw dozens of flashes running up the building, accompanied by dozens of explosions, then the building seemed to sinking into the ground.

So I give you testimony Of First responders where they pretty much say what you claim nobody did. And you come back with "it could have been anything" and " I haven't seen any footage of these, and so can't comment more".

What do you think hit the Pentagon? Was it flight 77 or something else? If you think it was in fact flight 77 can you please post a link to the footage of a jet crashing into the pentagon?

Exactly Maxella well said! This guy says he can't comment as he didn't see footage of flashes, so how does he comment on a clip from a security hut camera that doesn't show a plane hit? Contradictory?

Originally posted by Mickles

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So first you claim that nobody said this:

Not: I saw dozens of flashes running up the building, accompanied by dozens of explosions, then the building seemed to sinking into the ground.

So I give you testimony Of First responders where they pretty much say what you claim nobody did. And you come back with "it could have been anything" and " I haven't seen any footage of these, and so can't comment more".

What do you think hit the Pentagon? Was it flight 77 or something else? If you think it was in fact flight 77 can you please post a link to the footage of a jet crashing into the pentagon?

Exactly Maxella well said! This guy says he can't comment as he didn't see footage of flashes, so how does he comment on a clip from a security hut camera that doesn't show a plane hit? Contradictory?

In this case eyewitness testimony is good enough for most of them because it doesn't go against their beliefs.

You see all of the people that said there were explosions going off all over the place are simply confused, and it was anything other than explosives that they were talking about. But people that saw a a jet flying at over 500 mph
Know exactly what they saw. Never mind that it was flying so fast that the camera couldnt see it.

Originally posted by maxella1
So first you claim that nobody said this:

Not: I saw dozens of flashes running up the building, accompanied by dozens of explosions, then the building seemed to sinking into the ground.

So I give you testimony Of First responders where they pretty much say what you claim nobody did. And you come back with "it could have been anything" and " I haven't seen any footage of these, and so can't comment more".

What do you think hit the Pentagon? Was it flight 77 or something else? If you think it was in fact flight 77 can you please post a link to the footage of a jet crashing into the pentagon?

Wow, that might that be kill shot right there. Star for you.

reply to post by Gaeos


If this guy is honestly interested in finding information that would make somekind of sense, he will realize that the official conspiracy theory is crazy and a lie from top to bottom. Or he will just try to dismiss all the testimony and continue arguing.

Will wait and see what he comes back with.

Originally posted by maxella1
he will realize that the official conspiracy theory is crazy and a lie from top to bottom.

So just which conspiracy theory is the official one?

Silent explosives?
the jews did it?
mini nuclear weapons?
holographic aircraft?
nano thermite?
beam weapons?
empty buildings?
missile firing aircraft?
the "pod" people?
the jews did it?

etc etc. which is the official one, and who decided their particular conspiracy theory is the official one/

reply to post by spoor

etc etc. which is the official one, and who decided their particular conspiracy theory is the official one/

Have you ever heard about National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So first you claim that nobody said this:

Not: I saw dozens of flashes running up the building, accompanied by dozens of explosions, then the building seemed to sinking into the ground.

So I give you testimony Of First responders where they pretty much say what you claim nobody did. And you come back with "it could have been anything" and " I haven't seen any footage of these, and so can't comment more".

What do you think hit the Pentagon? Was it flight 77 or something else? If you think it was in fact flight 77 can you please post a link to the footage of a jet crashing into the pentagon?

Slight little flaw in your logic there:

You believe in something hitting the Pentagon that you can't see.

And there are many witnesses to the Pentagon that DID see a plane.

To refute those witnesses YOU wuld need to provide video evidence, or any evidence, that something other than a plane hit.

As for the testimony.

They really are vague. Some say they heard some pops, at some point. That's not a description of an explosive demolition.

You say I'm looking for a "textbook description of a controlled demolition" which yuo can't give me... you also say that it's so obvious, from the video, that it's a demo.

To put that together in a digestible chunk:

You believe the video clearly shows a non-standard, obvious explosive demo, that bears few of the outward signs of a traditional explosive demo.

Uhhh... ok...

Can you show me ANY other examples of a demo that likes like the towers, or WTC7?

How non-standard was this?

Because if you're saying they're the only ones, in history to look like this, how can it be "obvious" by watching the video, what is happening?? That's a huge logical contradiction, and one you clearly can not respond to.

Again, I'll ask, since you have not responded to this:

Would you do me a favour? Would you describe the sequence of events as you see them, in that video...? Please.

I think I've done my best to respond to pretty much all your points. Just do me this favour and do that. It'll only take about 3 minutes.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Would you do me a favour? Would you describe the sequence of events as you see them, in that video...? Please.

Okay...
First I hear a few explosions and see a few flashes going off in the building, then I hear a louder and stronger explosion on the ground floor, then I see the building implode.


What is your point?

They really are vague. Some say they heard some pops, at some point. That's not a description of an explosive demolition.

What is so vague about this ?

Here's one

SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING

You say I'm looking for a "textbook description of a controlled demolition" which yuo can't give me... you also say that it's so obvious, from the video, that it's a demo.

I say it's obvious that the buildings are exploding. I never said that it's a "controlled" demolition.
WTC 7 looks just like a CD and nothing like a gravitational collapse. That building had the "mayor's $13 million command bunker" it was supposed to be able to withstand major disasters remember? 7 hours of fire and asymmetrical damage cannot bring it down the way it did.

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I really don't care what you think happened on 9/11.

reply to post by longlostbrother



If you haven't seen this movie yet check it out, and try to think about why you dismiss eyewitnesses at WTC but believe the people at the Pentagon..



and this one

reply to post by spoor

Originally posted by spoor So just which conspiracy theory is the official one?

Silent explosives?

I suppose this is possible, although I myself haven't seen any evidence really supporting the idea that silent explosives were used. Perhaps some silenced explosives were used, meaning that they were quieted like they do with guns, but I'm not sure of this either.

the jews did it?

Again, I suppose this is possible, but I honestly don't know what you would call the people behind what almost definitely seems like some cover-up of what happened on that day. Personally, I think it goes deeper than just blaming "the Jews."

mini nuclear weapons?

This I think is complete crap. I've looked into this and what evidence that's presented for this doesn't seem to be very good.

holographic airplane?

Another thing in the fringe of the regular 9/11 theories that go against the official story. This seems highly unlikely with all the evidence clearly pointing to the two planes hitting the towers. The Pentagon, however, I'm not exactly sure what hit that building.

nano thermite?

Nano thermite? I've never even heard of this. I've heard of the idea of thermite/thermate being used to help take down the the two towers, and there seems to be evidence for that, but not "nano thermite."

beam weapons?

Another thing that just seems too unlikely, and lacking any real evidence. It seems too unnecessary too, why bother going to all that trouble? Its unnecessarily risky.

empty buildings?

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

missile firing aricraft

I'm really not so sure about this, maybe for the Pentagon, but otherwise I'm not seeing it.

the "pod" people

I've never even heard of this.

the jews did it?

Not sure why you repeated yourself here.

etc etc. which is the official one, and who decided their particular conspiracy theory is the official one/

I think what Maxella is talking about here is the typical idea, that the Twin Towers were taken down purposefully through explosives with the help of the impacts from the planes. It's the one that's most discussed and the one that seems to have the most evidence to me, more evidence than the official story certainly seems to present.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
And there are many witnesses to the Pentagon that DID see a plane.

To refute those witnesses YOU wuld need to provide video evidence, or any evidence, that something other than a plane hit.

If you have any videos or any other source that shows witnesses discussing the Pentagon attack, I'd like to see it. I haven't seen much of any witnesses talking about the Pentagon.



reply to post by maxella1


Thanks for those videos Maxella, another couple of things to add to the ever-growing list of the things to look into.

reply to post by Gaeos

Thanks for those videos Maxella, another couple of things to add to the ever-growing list of the things to look into.

You're welcome. post what you think about them after you watch them, if you want to of course.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Can you show me ANY other examples of a demo that likes like the towers, or WTC7?

In case you missed this video...

ok OS'rs and truthers. I for one care not whether this was an inside job or not. However, my beef is with the alphabet agencies that failed to stop this. any how. I bring you the 1+1 connection that you have all missed.

They wouldn't use explosives in the "controlled" demo. Then it would be obvious it was a controlled demo, DUH.

Now did they not say there were traces of thermite all over?????

Well guess what. Thermite doesn't go boom when it burns through a steel beam.

And that my friends is the rest of the story.

Originally posted by jacknast76
Now did they not say there were traces of thermite all over

No trace of thermite was found. So what was your point?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by jacknast76
Now did they not say there were traces of thermite all over

No trace of thermite was found. So what was your point?

Did you figure out which one is the official conspiracy theory yet?

reply to post by jacknast76

Well guess what. Thermite doesn't go boom when it burns through a steel beam.

reply to post by SteveR

The documentary is a money spinner designed to give people like you what they want to hear. Nothing more nothing less.

The documentary is viewed for FREE! How is that a money spinner? The most spun money has been that generated by the FED/WARMONGERS/OIL/PHARMA! The OS has spun the money...