Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Best 9/11 documentaries

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
It's not a conspiracy film but 9/11 by the Naudet Brothers is awesome!.





posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
that the few beams found were cut in perfect diagonal shape.


Cut during cleaning up, there has been video's and pictures of that process posted here many times before...


And yes super thermite was found.


What peer reviewed journal was that claim in? Which lab tested it?

Why do truthers keep reposting much debunked silly stories?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I should think that it is amazing that people still see the picture of the beams being cut by the clean up crews as proof of demolition. But then, I've been around here long enough to know better.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The one thing I can say that I am convinced of is that the official story doesn't make sense.

There are too many holes and pieces to the puzzle being covered up.

The investigation was not thorough enough and lacks any credibility IMO.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I should think that it is amazing that people still see the picture of the beams being cut by the clean up crews as proof of demolition. But then, I've been around here long enough to know better.
fair enough on the brand. I'm wrong on that. But architects for truth. Plenty of phds who all agree on super thermite.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Here are some more obscure films to add to your viewing list.

What I want to see is a video that explains how the OS can be true. I have never seen one movie that comes close to answering the overwhelming BS factor the is the "Official Theory"













True Lies of 9/11



And my all time favorite Justice for 9/11
edit on 22/12/12 by sirric because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 




fair enough on the brand. I'm wrong on that. But architects for truth. Plenty of phds who all agree on super thermite.

It used to be nano thermite. They keep changing their stories.
If this conspiracy had any merit it wouldn't have to continuously evolve their stories.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I thought it was military grade hush a boom thermite??? It changed AGAIN?? You would think that instead of continually trying to concoct a decent, reliable, accurate story, that they would accept the reality that three heavily damaged, on fire, buildings collapsed due to the damage/fires.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Here is another video that focus' on the theory of explosives.

9/11 Grave Implications




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I should think that it is amazing that people still see the picture of the beams being cut by the clean up crews as proof of demolition. But then, I've been around here long enough to know better.
fair enough on the brand. I'm wrong on that. But architects for truth. Plenty of phds who all agree on super thermite.


A recent report ( Feb 2012 ) by Dr Millette found no trace of thermite in samples of WTC dust :-

dl.dropbox.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Do you really think it takes 11 years to come up with this report?

Do you really expect this to be accurate?

Where did the samples come from? Look at page 9.

The samples were recovered from locations blocks away from the ground zero.

Where are samples taken directly from the steel beams?

This report is a joke.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Do you really think it takes 11 years to come up with this report?

Do you really expect this to be accurate?

Where did the samples come from? Look at page 9.

The samples were recovered from locations blocks away from the ground zero.

Where are samples taken directly from the steel beams?

This report is a joke.


It didn't take 11 years to come up with this report it was only comissioned fairly recently.

Considering the report was made by a PhD member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences why wouldn't it be accurate ?

The samples were taken from sites close to the WTC. How far away are Cortlandt St or Church St ? You must have seen video of the dust clouds.

Were anybody's samples taken directly from steel beams ? Where did Steven Jones samples come from ? What was the chain of custody ?

The samples tested by Dr Millette have the same characteristics as other WTC samples, that is containing the red/gray chips, but they are not thermite.

Perhaps you could explain exactly why the report "is a joke"?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


The areas selected to sample are what makes this study a joke.

None of the samples contained the iron spheres that were the main focus in the report by Jones.

Melted steel is heavy and would not be carried by the wind like other material in the dust.

The molten metal was all found directly under the towers. Not 3 and 4 blocks away.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


thanks for the videos. plenty to watch. the level of attempted derailment of this thread is at once entirely predictable and wholly pathetic.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Alfie1
 


The areas selected to sample are what makes this study a joke.

None of the samples contained the iron spheres that were the main focus in the report by Jones.

Melted steel is heavy and would not be carried by the wind like other material in the dust.

The molten metal was all found directly under the towers. Not 3 and 4 blocks away.


Tell me where Jones samples came from then please ?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
This is the best documentary made by a truther




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





Tell me where Jones samples came from then please ?


Some of the samples were given to him by a woman who lived across the street from the towers.

Other samples, that were collected during a different study, were collected at 130 Liberty Street.

Source



One sample was collected on an indoor window sill on 9/14/2001, just three days after the disaster while searching for survivors in the rubble was ongoing, and in a building four blocks from ground zero. The other sample was acquired inside a fourth-floor apartment (whose upper windows broke during the WTC collapse) a few days later. We sought for samples acquired very soon after the collapses in order to drastically reduce any chance of contamination by clean-up operations (see Appendix). Furthermore, as we shall see, samples independently collected by other researchers corroborate the high-temperature indicators we observe



4.1. Observations of iron-rich and silicate spherules

Iron-rich spherules were also observed in studies conducted by the RJ Lee company [1] and the US Geological Survey (USGS) [2]. In particular, a USGS report on the WTC dust provides two micrographs of “iron-rich spheres” [3] and a “bulbous” or tear-drop-shaped silicate droplet [4] (see images below)



No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports. The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].” We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.



Moreover, the RJ Lee report provides provocative data regarding the abundance of observed iron-rich spheres. A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% [1]. As the report notes, the WTC dust has unusual identifying characteristics – in particular, the WTC dust in this sample has nearly 150 times (5.87/0.04) the amount of iron-rich spheres as ordinary dust
(where Fe spheres can arise from micrometeorites, for example).



130 Liberty Street

The 130 Liberty Street building, originally owned by Deutsche Bank, was severely damaged on September 11, 2001, by falling debris from the twin towers.


edit on 22-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:26 AM
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.


Since when is physical evidence the only type of evidence needed to prove a crime or turn a theory into an actual conspiracy? Also, video evidence as well as professional testimony are more often than not, enough proof. A crime scene of this magnitude should have taken many months, if not years to fully examine. It was all quickly removed, locked away or shipped out within what?...six months?

Steel buildings with a few floors on fire don't free-fall. I didn't need structural engineers with phd's to tell me what I was convinced about when I saw it happen live.

At least the OP did, which is fine...S&F for him. But you question his logic?

Interesting.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
And I dont understand where he gets off saying the 'complete lack of a controlled demolition'


Is it a complete lack of evidence when you just ignore it? I guess in the ignorant persons mind..

But I have a phd... In anthropology, more specifically archaeology. So when my buddies have a question pertaining to that subject, they ask me. And I either know the answer or I don't. If I do, I'm usually right. And If I'm wrong, or don't know, I research it until I find the correct answer. So whatever the end result is, they tend to go with my decision, because I just know more on the subject than they do... As they know more than I do on other subjects. That's simply how real life works

So when architects and physicists have phd's and masters and/or over 25 years of experience in the field, and they all come together to prove a point.. I listen. I am ignorant to their knowledge. But I know, understand, and respect the amount of their life they have dedicated to the field and the subject. And when hundreds of them all say the same thing, AND they aren't selling their opinion... Call me crazy, but I am going to listen and probably believe them. More so than some skeptic online who simply says " NO. No way, no how, just no! Just look! Duh! No evidence!". They need to provide evidence that refutes the arguments made by the qualified people by other qualified people not selling anything. And so far.. I have seen NOTHING (fitting that criteria) that refutes these real experts.
edit on 25-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


For there to have been a controlled demolition, there would have had to have been THOUSANDS of charges placed throughout the structures, entailing offices being ripped apart to get to the structural support of the building. Each of these charges would have had blasting caps, each of these charges would have had wiring running to the panel to initiate the charges. During the cleanup, those wires would STILL be there. The columns would have shown the evidence of the charges.

No wiring was found. No columns were found showing evidence of being severed explosively. No employees of ANY of the companies reported their walls being torn apart that would have facilitated placing the charges.

So, absolutely no physical evidence of any kind....and you base your beliefs on, " I heard it go boom"


p.s. you really dont want to bring up Scott Forbes and his power down fables.....that one is way to easy to tear apart.






top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join