Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Best 9/11 documentaries

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Another collection of misleading statements? Firemen and Architects are not metallurgical experts. That is three minutes of life I wont get back....


Uh, no, they're not, you sure are right about that.
They were eyewitnesses who were there, but just like you, the government finds their stories and testimony to be worthless. The man who made the video IS an engineer and if you would've taken the time to watch, others in the video are as well. So, you are jumping to predetermined conclusions based on nothing. How can you expect to have your reply taken seriously when you admit you only watched three minutes of the video and won't even entertain the questions and evidence being brought forth? The answer is, you can't.

The firefighters take up a mere few seconds of the video and that's the best counter argument you got? Why the need to nit pick so tightly? That's a pretty weak argument you got my friend.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 

Umm, the first three minutes were full of the same misleading/false statements that have been used for over 10 years now to bolster conspiracy theories. Why would I want to waste more time? Does he start actually start using truth and real evidence at the four minute mark?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 

Umm, the first three minutes were full of the same misleading/false statements that have been used for over 10 years now to bolster conspiracy theories. Why would I want to waste more time? Does he start actually start using truth and real evidence at the four minute mark?


I rest my case.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Yep, you rest your case. You rely on lies and misleading statements.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Well I rest my own case. And that is 9/11 was in fact a conspiracy. (to me at least )


I have heard from enough metallurgists and people with phd's to now know that there is something with this. WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. And that takes weeks to prep. They certainly didnt set up demolitions for that building in 5 or 6 hours. And thus, it was planned. And thus a conspiracy. And thats as far as Im willing to go right now. Dont know the who and the why yet.

edit on 18-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


So, with the complete lack of physical evidence that there was a CD, you believe it was a CD. Interesting.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   


911 After 10 years all they have are Youtube videos and speculation.
reply to post by samkent
 


So you joined this conspiracy, alternative theory website with a view such as this?
Have you even tried weighing both sides of the "argument" ever?
If so, how could you not have been swayed even slightly after an entire decade?
Like such tiny matters as Boeing citing "national security" over "United 175"s pod/incendiary?
Look, surely there are parts of the OS that even yourself believe to be erroneous.
edit on 19/12/12 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 


United 175 did not have a pod. What you had was people who did not know what an airliner looks like.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


You would had to have had an entire airport staff and ground crew who did not know what a 767 looked like for that aircraft to have left Logan Airport without arousing a single person's suspicions.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
None of United Airlines jets have a split bottom hull like the one that crashed into the South tower.

Try explaining that.

Here's a photo comparison of what UA-175 should have looked like (except for the paint job) compared to the actual plane that crashed.

edit on 19-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Like I said....people who don't know what an airliner looks like. Especially when the compare a photo taken in shadow, with one taken with no shadow.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Is that even a photo of the same model?

One has gaps between the ailerons and flaps the other doesn't.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


That is the dumbest most ignorant answer I have ever heard.

You sir, obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Because you'd have to be blind to believe that the difference we see between the two jets is only caused by shadow.

Why don't you stop with the one liner, hit & run posting and give a detailed answer with something to back it up.

I'll be waiting.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   


Is that even a photo of the same model? One has gaps between the ailerons and flaps the other doesn't.
reply to post by samkent
 


That is due to its flaps being extended for takeoff/landing.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Fine, the picture on the left, with different lighting, does not give the same relief to the gear fairing/wing box as the light/shadow does on the picture of United 175. The "pod" you have been fooled into seeing, is nothing more than the gear fairing/wing box. There are plenty of spots on ATS where the subject is discussed.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by bknapple32
 


If you truly are looking for the Truth about 911, Dont look where they want you to look.

All the Evidence you need, happened long before those Planes left the Ground on 911.

Any one who watches this Doc, and still believes the OS, simply wants to live in a State of Denial.

Enjoy your Enlightenment.


Watch this one.

This documentary simply presents too much verified contradictory evidence to the official story it makes me want to cry.

Again, watch this one it has actual investigation and documented sources.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bknapple32
 


So, with the complete lack of physical evidence that there was a CD, you believe it was a CD. Interesting.


Complete lack of evidence? How about physics. Buildings loosing their structural integrity due to fire do not crumble disintegrate and fall to earth in its own footprint at free fall speed.

Oh and that pesky super thermite that was found in the rubble and apartments near the collapse.
edit on 21-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Buildings loosing their structural integrity due to fire do not crumble disintegrate and fall to earth in its own footprint


Which WTC building fell into their own footprint? if they fell into their own footprint, how did the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC, The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later. The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.


Oh and that pesky super thermite that was found in the rubble and apartments near the collapse.


That is just a silly conspiracy theory, no thermite was found.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by bknapple32
Buildings loosing their structural integrity due to fire do not crumble disintegrate and fall to earth in its own footprint


Which WTC building fell into their own footprint? if they fell into their own footprint, how did the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC, The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later. The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.


Oh and that pesky super thermite that was found in the rubble and apartments near the collapse.


That is just a silly conspiracy theory, no thermite was found.
there's always collateral damage. But it doesn't change the fact it fell in fee fall speed. or that the few beams found were cut in perfect diagonal shape.

And yes super thermite was found. It was actually the theory that it was just Cooper sulfate or anything else that was debunked. There has never been an answer to the super thermite besides "oh it was never there" so we disagree. That's ok. Let's move on.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
September clues is a must watch. Now I will most likely get flamed but it is one of the best. With updates and a website to follow up

you must also read his updates as he has dropped some of his original thinking about missiles and now subscribes to the same line of reasoning I do.

That it was faked and some parts faked badly to keeps conspiracy and debunkers going round and round for years with no sign of letting up because none of the os or demo stories make much sense.

Eta there is a four hour (very amateurishly done I'll say ) interview that is basically a directors commentary .it was posted not to long ago I'll find it if you want.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join