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

page: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post 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.


Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 




Likewise, WTC 7 also shows no outward signs of being "blown up" or destabilised by explosive carges and there is NO audible explosions in the videos of the collapse. So again, neither video looks or sounds like a traditional demo.


Funny, the people trained in the field of demolition state the opposite in this video. Watch the OP video from the 15 minute mark to the first PBS break and it is EVIDENT the experts clearly state this is a classic controlled demolition.

Why are you posting falsehoods? There is a clear sound of an explosion in the video.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





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


Which =The NIST Report, along with all GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld statements made in the years following.

Who = The Corporations funding the war atrocities.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
 

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable.


This is being intellectually lazy. Witnesses may differ on intricate details such as the color of a suspect's eyes or the numbers on a license plate, but they're not going to mistake something like seeing a plane crash into the Pentagon with, say, someone flinging a sperm whale into the Pentagon.

You might as well insist the Zapruder film was faked and everyone in Houston is a secret agent covering up the "truth" that Kennedy was really stabbed to death. It's pointless and absurd.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Funny, the people trained in the field of demolition state the opposite in this video. Watch the OP video from the 15 minute mark to the first PBS break and it is EVIDENT the experts clearly state this is a classic controlled demolition.

Why are you posting falsehoods? There is a clear sound of an explosion in the video.


You are quoting people who were shown that mockery of a documentary from Richard Gage, which was specifically engineered to trick people into thinking WTC 7 was brought down by demolitions. Case in point- the NIST report estimates these "explosions" were the sounds of the structural failure of the building itself, not any explosives. Gage admits this himself becuse he universally snips off the collapse of the penthoise from all video clips of the WTC 7 collapse he presents to cover up the fact there was fatal structural collapse going on at the time of these "explosions".

When someone needs to hide information to prevent others from comign to a different conclusion that the presenter wants his audience to come to, it's a de facto admission that the presenter knows his claims are false.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
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.


You are being artfully deceptive here. None of these "people who heard explosions" believes the buildings were brought down by actual explosives. Eyewitness accounts from firefighters specifically report the side of WTC 7 was bulging from the fires and they knew right away it was going to collapse, while NYPD helocopter pilots flyign eyelevel to the impact areas of the buildings reported the structural columns were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse. Similarly, every eyewitness in the area of the Pentagon specifically reported it was a plane that hit the building.

The eyewitness accounts all jive with the "official story" as you put it, so the only contradictions here is coming from the conspiracy theorists themselves, as they insist on interpreting events not accoding to the facts, but to conform to their own predetermined outcome.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


While you may categorize it as being intellectually lazy, it is not. I actually agree with what you state.

Something flew into the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses may disagree as to what flew into the building in regard to size, shape, type, etc., but I did not make a claim Hancock came around and threw a sperm whale into the building and neither did any eyewitnesses.


Image obtained from: www.seeing-stars.com...

Just like some man commits a gas station holdup. Eyewitnesses may differ on the clothing, size, shape, and ethnicity of the man who perpetrated the holdup, but I am not claiming a kangaroo held up a gas station and neither would the witnesses.


Image obtained from: www.wisconsinhistory.org...

Your analogy is facetious. Eyewitness testimony is EXTREMELY unreliable and nothing you have written here will change that FACT. Investigators KNOW THIS and they would support my original statement and poo poo yours.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I watched the entire video. The fall of WTC 7 is shown from start to finish. Sure seems like a complete filming event to me...

What does this sentence mean?


Gage admits this himself becuse he universally snips off the collapse of the penthoise from all video clips of the WTC 7 collapse he presents to cover up the fact there was fatal structural collapse going on at the time of these "explosions".


Show me a video where the "snip," you claim exists is in place so I can do a comparison. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



You are quoting people who were shown that mockery of a documentary from Richard Gage, which was specifically engineered to trick people into thinking WTC 7 was brought down by demolitions.


You are assuming facts not in evidence. To wit:

1) Do you have evidence the engineers and architects in question were shown the documentary in advance of the final cut?
2) Do you have evidence indicating the architects and engineers were incapable of viewing the events as they took place that day?
3) Do you have evidence these people are capable of being deceived while you are not?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable.



Well, there goes eyewitness testimony about red and orange flashes, explosions, etc... right out the _ And video cuz they can be doctored....

I say let's totally disregard ALL eyewitness testimony and video evidence then and stick to pjysical evidence, engineering reports and papers,

So... whatcha got?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 





Well, there goes eyewitness testimony about red and orange flashes, explosions, etc...

Eyewitness testimony of a kangaroo robbing a convenience store could be verified by an objective camera taking stills or full motion video...What is your point? Just in case you missed my point, eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable unless it can be objectively corroborated. There are objective corroborations to eyewitness testimony that was not considered by the NIST.

right out the _

Yep, similar to that jumper we all saw that day, right?

And video cuz they can be doctored...

You got proof any of it was doctored? Please fork it over...

I say let's totally disregard ALL eyewitness testimony and video evidence then and stick to pjysical (sic) evidence, engineering reports and papers, So... whatcha got?

You would like that I am sure. So did the NIST...and that is the point. There are over 200 signatories to the Architects/Engineers/Pilots for 9/11 Truth. There are papers and engineering reports concerning steel, structural failure points, and comparison studies, concerning the collapse of 1/2/7. All you need do is a search.
edit on 28-8-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by repeatoffender
I'm waiting for them to start selling vacuum cleaners next


right...because that is obviously what these people are all about...not science...just carnaval barkers, trying to make a buck...to you, they are just hustlers, right?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by totallackey

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable.



Well, there goes eyewitness testimony about red and orange flashes, explosions, etc... right out the _ And video cuz they can be doctored....

I say let's totally disregard ALL eyewitness testimony and video evidence then and stick to pjysical evidence, engineering reports and papers,

So... whatcha got?


"watcha got"....there is no more scientific evidence needed, to justify an independant investigation...none...
the only reason for this, is that people that know the truth, have been bought off, intimidated, or threatened with harm.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



the NIST report estimates these "explosions" were the sounds of the structural failure of the building itself, not any explosives.


What miracle of science gave birth to these estimates, especially since the report lays blame on the failure of a single support?


Gann, R. G.; Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) November 20, 2008, ES.3 xxxvi

Further reading of the report indicates exactly the type of miracle relied upon to give birth to this baby: ASSUMPTIONS and faulty ones at that...


Gann, R. G.; Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) November 20, 2008, Chapter 1, p. 12


Gann, R. G.; Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) November 20, 2008, ES.2 xxxv

I am sure they were as extensive as they could be, given the delays; however, this is a travesty and is based on faulty science. Never before, as admitted in the report itself, has a building succumbed to fire alone and then failed. The fires were never hot enough (and never could be hot enough) to cause structural failure on the part of steel.


Gann, R. G.; Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) November 20, 2008, ES.3 xxxvi

Disproportionate collapse!? The entire collapse was PROPORTIONATE!!! It fell into its own FOOTPRINT!!!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
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.


You are being artfully deceptive here. None of these "people who heard explosions" believes the buildings were brought down by actual explosives. Eyewitness accounts from firefighters specifically report the side of WTC 7 was bulging from the fires and they knew right away it was going to collapse, while NYPD helocopter pilots flyign eyelevel to the impact areas of the buildings reported the structural columns were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse.


Dave we had been through this so many times before... lol

I responded to this




www.abovetopsecret.com...
They say things like, "there was A loud explosion" or "I heard a few explosions" Not: I saw dozens of flashes running up the building, accompanied by dozens of explosions, then the building seemed to sinking into the ground.


with this



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Okay ... 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



I know you appreciate that this quote came from the actual testimony and not from 'damned fool conspiracy websites".

What is being described here Dave?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 





I say let's totally disregard ALL eyewitness testimony and video evidence then and stick to pjysical evidence, engineering reports and papers,


I'm with you on this one... Actually I think totallackey is on to something here


It was Hancock -- drunk as usual.

Now if we only find a report written by Hancock that we can stick to...



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

There are objective corroborations to eyewitness testimony


No. there isn't. Some have convinced themselves that they are being honest and objective when they interpret evidence, like you appear to be doing.

The concensus about that is that your interpretation is wrong.


You got proof any of it was doctored? Please fork it over...


any of what?

there's plenty that have been shown to have been doctored by thise that espouse the whole 9/11 was an inside job view. Some research on your part would bring this to light.



There are papers and engineering reports concerning steel, structural failure points, and comparison studies, concerning the collapse of 1/2/7.


And again, the consensus is that those engineers don't understand the subject matter and their views are beliefs are therefore wrong.

You have nothing.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by totallackey
There are objective corroborations to eyewitness testimony

No. there isn't. Some have convinced themselves that they are being honest and objective when they interpret evidence, like you appear to be doing.
The concensus about that is that your interpretation is wrong.

Nobody gives two shakes about a consensus. What interpretation have I offered? Aside from the obvious appeal to numbers argumentation you blatantly you use as a bludgeon, I would ask this:
If 2 people claim they saw a eight foot tall kangaroo grasping a large rifle would you believe it on the testimony alone? Maybe, maybe not...but if you were to gain access to a stand alone camera and was able to pull a photograph from that stand alone camera that looked like this:

Image obtained from:www.wisconsinhistory.org...
I explained this entire issue in my reply to you earlier. Surprised you could not understand it. Well, you now know what constitutes objective corroboration.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by totallackey
You got proof any of it was doctored? Please fork it over...

any of what?
there's plenty that have been shown to have been doctored by thise (sic)that espouse the whole 9/11 was an inside job view. Some research on your part would bring this to light.

I was asking for proof from you. I see you have none. Thanks for the admission.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by totallackey
There are papers and engineering reports concerning steel, structural failure points, and comparison studies, concerning the collapse of 1/2/7.

And again, the consensus is that those engineers don't understand the subject matter and their views are beliefs are therefore wrong.
You have nothing.

And so we have it. According to this ATS Member, fluffaluffagous, the argument conclusively deciding the events of 9/11/01 is this: APPEAL TO NUMBERS...AKA CONSENSUS. You sure you understand what "deny ignorance," means?
Sorry, I thought I would experience a higher level of discussion. It is evident you are the one grasping at straws.
edit on 29-8-2012 by totallackey because: clarity
edit on 29-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-8-2012 by totallackey because: resolve quotes
edit on 29-8-2012 by totallackey because: clarity
edit on 29-8-2012 by totallackey because: compressed



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Your analogy is facetious. Eyewitness testimony is EXTREMELY unreliable and nothing you have written here will change that FACT. Investigators KNOW THIS and they would support my original statement and poo poo yours.


You claimed "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" in reference to their seeing a plane hitting the Pentagon and I will quote your own post back to you if you wish. The matter for debate is that eyewitness testimony can become unreliable on the MICRO level, as in identifying specific details, not the MACRO level, as in the larger picture. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other over what color a bank robber's eyes were (the micro level) but they're not going to refute each other over testimony that a bank had been robbed (the macro level).

Ignoring this detail is the very reason why these conspiracy theories exist to begin with- Eyewitness A may not have noticed windows on the plane that hit the Pentagon and then some conspiracy monger (cough cough Pilots for 9/11 truth cough) comes along and quotes "witnesses never saw windows n the plane" to sucker paranoid people into buying their "it's all a sinister secret plot" conspiracy books/DVDs, while intentionally ignoring the testimony of a second and third eyewitness B and C who saw windows on the plane...not to mention ignoring eyewitness A ackowledging it was still a plane he saw. Is this REALLY evidence of impropriety or is it the willful manipulation of self serving huckster deliberately quoting information out of context for their own financial gain?

So before I respond, I want to make sure I understand your position clearly- just WHY are you claiming "eyewitness testimony of planes hitting the Pentagon is unreliable"?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Nobody gives two shakes about a consensus. What interpretation have I offered? Aside from the obvious appeal to numbers argumentation you blatantly you use as a bludgeon, I would ask this:
If 2 people claim they saw a eight foot tall kangaroo grasping a large rifle would you believe it on the testimony alone? Maybe, maybe not...but if you were to gain access to a stand alone camera and was able to pull a photograph from that stand alone camera that looked like this:


The problem with your analogy is that the conspiracy theorists do not have any such real, tangible, and concrete proof of their own claims. What they do have, is misrepresentation and argumentative interpretation according to their own viewpoint. When we hear of "witnesses hearing explosions" what they're really saying is that witnesses heard really loud BANGs, which would certainly be a normal thing to hear when a building is collapsing. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand insist explosions always means EXPLOSIVES regardless of context. A year or so ago an electrical transformer down the street from me overheated and exploded, cutting out the power for an entire adjacent street. Trust me when I say this has more to do with an entire street using their air conditioners all at once more than it does terrorists planting explosives on an electrical transformer.

So when we see similar trickery coming from the conspiracy theorists (I.E. Richard Gage deliberately snipping off the collapse of the penthouse of WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse of the building itself, all so he can say "mysterious noises were coming from WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse") I would likewise believe there's a disinformation campaign at work here...but it's coming from the presenters themselves.

FYI that soldier was superimposed over that photo with the kangaroo and rifle. You can even see the white outline around his feet that came from the original photo the soldier was taken from. You do know that, right?
edit on 29-8-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join