View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 25 Aug 2009, 11:59

This new film reveals "explosive" evidence on 9/11 from the mainstream media, and then from experts commenting on it. Allegedly, it is scheduled to be released to colleges and military bases all across America, which means that the 9/11 cover up could be blown wide open soon.

"9/11 Revisited: Were Explosives Used To Bring Down The Buildings?"
Watch the film here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +revisited

Description:

September 11th Revisited is perhaps the most riveting film ever made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is a powerful documentary which features eyewitness accounts and archived news footage that was shot on September 11, 2001 but never replayed on television. Featuring interviews with eyewitnesses & firefighters, along with expert analysis by Professor Steven E. Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, MIT Engineer Jeffrey King, and Professor James H. Fetzer. This film provides stunning evidence that explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

Visit http://www.911revisited.com to get the DVD or to watch the full movie online for free.


Reviews / Letters

One of the most valuable contributions to the 9/11 video library to date. September 11 Revisited is a powerful documentary. - 911truth.org



David Ray Griffin commented, "Here's new video, which probably provides the best case yet of this type for the controlled demolition of the WTC."



Thank you for making this documentary! For over 4 years I have wanted to tell family and friends this information, but wasn't sure how to go about it without coming off as a fruitcake. Your straight forward and unhyped approach is very convincing and effective. - Steve



I received the DVD today here in Canada. Thanks very much. I watched with the GF, and it opened her mind to possibilities she hadn't thought of, Which was the point I believe. - David



Just watched your DVD this evening with my mother. She commented that its the best 9/11 DVD I've shown her, meaning she liked it better than Loose Change 1 or 2, IPS, Treason Inc., or Martial Law. I thought your movie was very professional and subtle - great for public access TV showings. - Joe



Thank you for getting this out to the public, I am a very big participant on the 9/11 truth movement and give parties to show videos confronting the truth and I have viewed this, It's the best DVD since Loose Change and 9/11 Eye Witness, You are a true American Patriot! - Jennifer



Received DVD today; library's and schools across country should have this...thanks a bunch. - Matt



Let me begin by congratulating you. You have put together one of the best and most comprehensive compilations of video footage I have seen on 9-11. This documentary is truly remarkable. - John



I just saw your movie "September 11 Revisited, were explosives used to bring down the buildings?". I did a lot of research myself, saw a lot of movies on the subject but I think this is the best so far. - Hans



The more people that see this presentation, the more people will be calling for the heads of our "neo-con" coup affected U.S. Government!!! - JackBlood.com



Thank you for making this crucial information available. If we are to save this republic, the American people need to wake up NOW. Your great efforts will certainly have played a part. - James



I just received the DVD yesterday and my husband and I are very pleased!! We watched it twice and still found something new to find! I just wanted to let you know that you have done a superb job with it and I didn't care how long it took to get! - Lisa



FANTASTIC 9/11 DVD compilation! It’s the best one I’ve seen to date!! So many significant segments & smart edits. Thank again so much for this resource you’ve provided to everyone!!! - Angie



I've been researching 9/11 for years now and I have seen plenty of films and this is by far one of the best films out there. I am having a screening of it as soon as I get it. Thanks and keep it up the important work. - Rob



Your compelling and fact based video brought me to the sober realization that what really happened on 9/11 could not have happened the way we were told. - CT



It hurts my heart every time I see this video. This is one of the most crazy things I have seen in all my years of living. I'm a smart young man and I do believe that explosions where used to help bring down our towers. - GM



Just saw your DVD. Terrific! I've seen a bunch, including In Plane Site and Loose Change 2nd Edition, which I highly recommend, but yours is the one that should get the widest distribution because it is so solid with pictorial facts. It is clean--no sermon, no dramatic music, just the obvious truth. - JH



Thanks for a GREAT documentary-it's news reporting at its best. It's just the facts. No finger pointing. No judgments. Just reality and science. Superb! - HM



No one really wants to look at this stuff. I thought it was all crap, but the evidence is actually quite strong that it was controlled demolition. One thing is for sure: we need a independent investigation; which never happened. It certainly has nothing to do about "left" or "right" wing! - BL



Thanks for the time you spent making this excellent video... I have seen about every other 911 video made and I have to say that yours is definitely the most informative! - DP



September 11th Revisited is the most important contribution to American freedom since the Bill of Rights. I am telling everyone I know: watch this video, then demand answers! - DC



My whole family and I are conservative republicans and I at first thought that Rosie is crazy (still do) but I do now agree with her idea on what happen during 9/11 from the movie "September 11th Revisited" just simply from cold hard evidence. - Sam



I was there in NYC on that day in 2001 and it was a day that changed my life forever. I lost 9 friends that day and went to only 5 funerals. 4 friends were never found and so I have no peace about them. The events of that day must never be forgotten and what brought us to that day must be talked about and the truth has to be found and the culprits brought to justice. Thank you for continuing to bring awareness to this day and continuing efforts to keep this day in our minds and our hearts. The people we lost that day deserve at the very least that. So thank you. - Yvonne



The video was absolutely astonishing! From start to finish, I was in awe of this film, and believe it to be well documented, well produced, convincing through and through, and very powerful, from start to finish! WELL DONE Dustin!!! You have my complete support. - Doc


“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 25 Aug 2009, 18:27

BTW, here's the trailer that shows how "explosive" this new film is!

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 25 Aug 2009, 20:33

Oh brother! Another pseudoskeptic movie claiming explosives.

A lot of confused people in the "fog of war", as has been stated in another thread, running around thinking an explosiion must have occurred because the building collapses is not evidence.

1. Evidence is finding the tell tale marks of explosives on steel.
2. Evidence is finding the remains of explosives in the rubble pile.
3. Evidence is determining the opportunity to place the explosives.
4. Evidence is the noise of explosions.

Big failure on all counts by the pseudoskeptics that introduce these ridiculous videos. I have not seen the video, but the trailer is all of the rehashed nonsense seen on other sites.

1. Showing cuts on steel made by the clean up crews and claiming it happened in the collapse - shameful.
2. Showing chips of red paint and claiming it is thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, or whatever - shameful.
3. Being unable to account how hundreds of strangers placed hundreds of tons of explosives in the buildings without the occupants noticing - shameful.
4. Pretending that the videos of 9/11 show the sounds of CD explosions - beyond shameful.

Here is watch a CD sounds likes - it's loud!

I purposely picked a video on the first page of a search in YouTube that was not from 9/11. I chose the second video because it appeared to be further from the camera. The sound was not good on the first video.

The big problem is the noise of explosives. It's almost comical where the trailer has a person stating that the sound was like a string of small firecrackers going off.


Here is another video. Listen to how sharp the reports are from the CD explosions. This is not heard in any of the 9/11 videos.

I encourage everyone to scour the net for all sorts of CD video clips and see that any video with sound has these distinct, loud, and noticeable explosions. Then listen again to the trailer where people suggest there was one explosion or might have been an explosion and wonder what these film makers are thinking.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 04:22

Nostradamus wrote:Oh brother! Another pseudoskeptic movie claiming explosives.

A lot of confused people in the "fog of war", as has been stated in another thread, running around thinking an explosiion must have occurred because the building collapses is not evidence.

1. Evidence is finding the tell tale marks of explosives on steel.
2. Evidence is finding the remains of explosives in the rubble pile.
3. Evidence is determining the opportunity to place the explosives.
4. Evidence is the noise of explosions.

Big failure on all counts by the pseudoskeptics that introduce these ridiculous videos. I have not seen the video, but the trailer is all of the rehashed nonsense seen on other sites.

1. Showing cuts on steel made by the clean up crews and claiming it happened in the collapse - shameful.
2. Showing chips of red paint and claiming it is thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, or whatever - shameful.
3. Being unable to account how hundreds of strangers placed hundreds of tons of explosives in the buildings without the occupants noticing - shameful.
4. Pretending that the videos of 9/11 show the sounds of CD explosions - beyond shameful.

Here is watch a CD sounds likes - it's loud!

I purposely picked a video on the first page of a search in YouTube that was not from 9/11. I chose the second video because it appeared to be further from the camera. The sound was not good on the first video.

The big problem is the noise of explosives. It's almost comical where the trailer has a person stating that the sound was like a string of small firecrackers going off.


Here is another video. Listen to how sharp the reports are from the CD explosions. This is not heard in any of the 9/11 videos.

I encourage everyone to scour the net for all sorts of CD video clips and see that any video with sound has these distinct, loud, and noticeable explosions. Then listen again to the trailer where people suggest there was one explosion or might have been an explosion and wonder what these film makers are thinking.

Good post Nostradamus!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 05:01

Scepcop wrote:This new film reveals "explosive" evidence on 9/11 from the mainstream media, and then from experts commenting on it. Allegedly, it is scheduled to be released to colleges and military bases all across America, which means that the 9/11 cover up could be blown wide open soon.


Mr. Wu,
Do you know why your posts are not taken seriously by me or any of the other people who are not conspiracy theorists? It's because you don't do your homework before you post. You see something that supports your ideals and run with it. Want an example? The first 3 words of your first post. "This new film..." "This new film" you are talking about was released in 2006. Hardly new, Mr. Wu. (I'm a poet and didn't knowit :-) sorry, back to my rebuttal)
Another example of your lack of homework is your statement that "Allegedly, it is scheduled to be released to colleges and military bases all across America..." I retired from the military in 2007 after 24 years. Do you know how many movies they showd me in all those years? Zero. Zip. Not a one. Well, that's kind of a lie. They did show the annual safety briefing and base orientation movies. Oh, and our base did have a movie theater, but your movie was never shown there, that much I can promise. But as far as making us watch a movie? Nope, never happened. Do you have anything to back up that statement Mr. Wu or did you just see it somewhere and run with it? Sounds to me like someone who supports your cause made that up to sound like it's bigger than what it is. I can assure you that the military (and colleges for that matter) are far too busy to make their people watch propoganda crap.
Okay, I'm done for now.
Have a great day Scepcop!
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 05:30

Nostradamus wrote:Oh brother! Another pseudoskeptic movie claiming explosives.

A lot of confused people in the "fog of war", as has been stated in another thread, running around thinking an explosiion must have occurred because the building collapses is not evidence.

1. Evidence is finding the tell tale marks of explosives on steel.
2. Evidence is finding the remains of explosives in the rubble pile.
3. Evidence is determining the opportunity to place the explosives.
4. Evidence is the noise of explosions.

Big failure on all counts by the pseudoskeptics that introduce these ridiculous videos. I have not seen the video, but the trailer is all of the rehashed nonsense seen on other sites.

1. Showing cuts on steel made by the clean up crews and claiming it happened in the collapse - shameful.
2. Showing chips of red paint and claiming it is thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, or whatever - shameful.
3. Being unable to account how hundreds of strangers placed hundreds of tons of explosives in the buildings without the occupants noticing - shameful.
4. Pretending that the videos of 9/11 show the sounds of CD explosions - beyond shameful.

Here is watch a CD sounds likes - it's loud!

I purposely picked a video on the first page of a search in YouTube that was not from 9/11. I chose the second video because it appeared to be further from the camera. The sound was not good on the first video.

The big problem is the noise of explosives. It's almost comical where the trailer has a person stating that the sound was like a string of small firecrackers going off.


Here is another video. Listen to how sharp the reports are from the CD explosions. This is not heard in any of the 9/11 videos.

I encourage everyone to scour the net for all sorts of CD video clips and see that any video with sound has these distinct, loud, and noticeable explosions. Then listen again to the trailer where people suggest there was one explosion or might have been an explosion and wonder what these film makers are thinking.


LOL pseudo yourself! ALL your claims have already been answered. There is a video showing a huge explosion. Let me try to find it later.

Dude, um, you are not being reasonable here. The steel was shipped off and melted, we cannot examine it for more explosives residue. Duh! The molten steel and thermite constitute hard evidence anyway. You guys can't dismiss it, so all you can do is provide conjecture, not scientific evidence.

Opportunity to place the explosives was explained in the film I referred you to. The blueprint of the WTC was shown and it was pointed out how someone could plant explosives.

Yes there are plenty of noises of explosions by hundreds of witnesses, reporters, firefighters, policemen, etc.

All the evidence is there. The only problem is your faith based rejection of it. Totally illogical.

The red chips have been analyzed by scientific instruments and determined to be thermite.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... llapse.pdf

Why do you think the mainstream media mentioned explosions and bombs in the WTC? Dan Rather said it too. And so did Peter Jennings. Then the next day, they stopped saying it cause someone told them so. Why is that?

You do not present any science, only conjecture and denial.

I got one for you: "Evidence is proving how someone trained on a Cessna plane can suddenly jump into a 757 cockpit and fly the plane. REAL pilots say it's impossible. Only skeptic nutters claim it's possible to just jump in and fly a 757."

Check out this video too. Everyone says there was a BIG EXPLOSION.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 05:32

Nostradamus,
I found the clip I'm looking for. Here it is. In the beginning you can hear a HUGE echoing explosion. Definitely not caused by fire. (unless you want to delude yourself that it's from fire). Turn up your speakers for this one :)

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 05:53

Here are 10 minutes of reporters saying they heard "HUGE EXPLOSIONS", not small ones, big ones! Some even said it was a "loud blast".



Description:

Sorry for the audio being slightly out of sync. All of the individual news reports in this video can be found on YouTube and other video sites.

Bombs, explosions, secondary explosions, explosive devices....how many more times do we need to hear these words being said by 9/11 witnesses before we start asking questions about what really happened on that awful day?

This video shows that many actual 9/11 witnesses heard and saw explosions going off inside the towers, long before they actually fell. These witnesses include police, firemen and reporters.

And what is even more shocking is the fact that all of this has been largely ignored by the mainstream media after the day itself.

For those debunkers who wish to keep saying that the explosions were caused by gas lines, please save your breath. All of the three buildings that were blown up on 9/11 were all Class-A buildings. This means that gas lines were not permitted because the buildings had to comply with the safety regulations set out for Class-A buildings. So there were no gas lines!

We really need to wake up to the facts and ask questions. If we don't, what does that say about us?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 05:56

Just curious Scepcop, just what WOULD you expect to hear when a 110 story building falls? Crickets?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 06:07

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:This new film reveals "explosive" evidence on 9/11 from the mainstream media, and then from experts commenting on it. Allegedly, it is scheduled to be released to colleges and military bases all across America, which means that the 9/11 cover up could be blown wide open soon.


Mr. Wu,
Do you know why your posts are not taken seriously by me or any of the other people who are not conspiracy theorists? It's because you don't do your homework before you post. You see something that supports your ideals and run with it. Want an example? The first 3 words of your first post. "This new film..." "This new film" you are talking about was released in 2006. Hardly new, Mr. Wu. (I'm a poet and didn't knowit :-) sorry, back to my rebuttal)
Another example of your lack of homework is your statement that "Allegedly, it is scheduled to be released to colleges and military bases all across America..." I retired from the military in 2007 after 24 years. Do you know how many movies they showd me in all those years? Zero. Zip. Not a one. Well, that's kind of a lie. They did show the annual safety briefing and base orientation movies. Oh, and our base did have a movie theater, but your movie was never shown there, that much I can promise. But as far as making us watch a movie? Nope, never happened. Do you have anything to back up that statement Mr. Wu or did you just see it somewhere and run with it? Sounds to me like someone who supports your cause made that up to sound like it's bigger than what it is. I can assure you that the military (and colleges for that matter) are far too busy to make their people watch propoganda crap.
Okay, I'm done for now.
Have a great day Scepcop!
ProfWag


Well the film was new to me. Version 1 came out in 2006. Version 2 came out later. This is version 2. You are nitpicking irrelevant things. Skeptics do that when they don't have strong arguments.

In the trailer of the film, which I posted here in this thread, it says that it was shown in military bases across America. Just cause yours wasn't shown doesn't mean it was never shown in any military bases. It could have been shown in just a few bases or only some of them. Or maybe it was supposed to be shown, but never was. That's why I said "allegedly" cause it was only claimed in the trailer. See the trailer above.

We just don't know. Why are you claiming that it was never shown in any military bases? Stop making claims without evidence. Your military base does not represent all bases.

I thought you said you were a professor? Now you just retired from the military?

Oh and this is not propaganda. It's fact. MANY reporters said they heard explosions. YOU are the one dismissing it as nothing.

You forget that the buildings didn't use gas lines. And people said it was a LOUD BLAST, and also that the sound came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC.

You guys wear me out. You don't even use the scientific method in your reasoning. The scientific method says that if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, you update your hypothesis to fit the data. However, you skeptics ignore or dismiss the data, in order to get the hypothesis that YOU WANT. That is NOT the scientific method. That is PSEUDO-skepticism!
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 06:26

Scepcop wrote:Well the film was new to me. Version 1 came out in 2006. Version 2 came out later. This is version 2. You are nitpicking irrelevant things. Skeptics do that when they don't have strong arguments.

In the trailer of the film, which I posted here in this thread, it says that it was shown in military bases across America. Just cause yours wasn't shown doesn't mean it was never shown in any military bases. It could have been shown in just a few bases or only some of them. Or maybe it was supposed to be shown, but never was. That's why I said "allegedly" cause it was only claimed in the trailer. See the trailer above.

We just don't know. Why are you claiming that it was never shown in any military bases? Stop making claims without evidence. Your military base does not represent all bases.

I thought you said you were a professor? Now you just retired from the military?

Oh and this is not propaganda. It's fact. MANY reporters said they heard explosions. YOU are the one dismissing it as nothing.

You forget that the buildings didn't use gas lines. And people said it was a LOUD BLAST, and also that the sound came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC.

You guys wear me out. You don't even use the scientific method in your reasoning. The scientific method says that if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, you update your hypothesis to fit the data. However, you skeptics ignore or dismiss the data, in order to get the hypothesis that YOU WANT. That is NOT the scientific method. That is PSEUDO-skepticism!

First, I have extremely strong arguments that your hypothesis is completely and utterly wrong.
Second, you asked me to stop making claims without evidence. I presented to you my experience which is quite sufficient for evidence. What is YOUR evidence Mr. Wu? that this movie was shown on military bases? You have nothing but what some other person wanted you to think to strengthen their position. Fallacy.
Third, if you read any of my earlier posts, I have made it quite clear what my resume looks like. I am a 24-year military veteran with 6 months duty in the middle east. I have lived in England, Italy, Germany and Portugal for over 10 years of my life. I retired from the military over 2 years ago and I now am employed as a part-time professor of management for a small university. I am not a scientist, but instruct at the undergraduate level. Does that clear it up for you Mr. Wu?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 07:11

Strong arguments about what? You have not demonstrated that the HUGE explosions and LOUD BLASTS came from concrete dropping. People said they were from bombs or devices that day.

You have not proven otherwise.

All you do is give conjecture and denial.

Are you referring to the military base thing? I told you, it was "allegedly". We do not know if that film was shown on military bases or not. Ask the producer of the film about it. Sheesh. I never said it was a proven fact that it was shown in military bases. I already told you that.

You are nitpicking at irrelevant things again, which is a sign of desperation, cause the truth isn't on your side.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 11:36

Dude, um, you are not being reasonable here. The steel was shipped off and melted, we cannot examine it for more explosives residue. Duh! The molten steel and thermite constitute hard evidence anyway. You guys can't dismiss it, so all you can do is provide conjecture, not scientific evidence.


The steel was not shipped off. Samples were taken. The material was checked. There was no molten steel or thermite residue.

Yes there are plenty of noises of explosions by hundreds of witnesses, reporters, firefighters, policemen, etc.


No. There were no explosive noises - none. The claims of CD explosions are not recorded on ANY recordings taken that day.
Notice I didn't follow that up with the ad hominem DUH. Civility please.

All the evidence is there. The only problem is your faith based rejection of it. Totally illogical.


No. There is evidence. Where it leads is based on inferences. I see no reason to invoke CD when that conjecture requires loud explosions. There aren't any. Simple. No boom, boom, boom. No CD.

Yes I've seen that rather poor document done by the guy at the U of Copenhagen. It states that the material is red and gray and contains iron and aluminum (iron oxid pigement and kaolinite, a stabilizer). The document also says it burns at the temperature of paper - just like paint chips. All the paper says is that the material is flammable and well below the ignition point of thermite. Instead of saying it is not thermite the paper continues its demand of CD to state that this is the unknown *thermite. Please insert milli, nano, pico, femto, or whatever for the wild card character.

Why do you think the mainstream media mentioned explosions and bombs in the WTC? Dan Rather said it too. And so did Peter Jennings. Then the next day, they stopped saying it cause someone told them so. Why is that?


This is too simple. Someone not on site sees a large debris avalanche begin to form. They say explosion. They put into words what they see. So what. It does not mean there was an explosion.

You do not present any science, only conjecture and denial.


Scepcop you are doing exactly that. You are watching videos and not being properly skeptical of the claims. They say CD. Is that a reasonable claim? Compare the video to other CDs. Where are the dozens of bang, bang, bangs?

I got one for you: "Evidence is proving how someone trained on a Cessna plane can suddenly jump into a 757 cockpit and fly the plane. REAL pilots say it's impossible. Only skeptic nutters claim it's possible to just jump in and fly a 757."


Please provide a citation for this quote. It is of no use as it stands. BTW, I flew a plane once and never had any instruction. The maniacs that slaughtered thousands of people took lessons.

The video says explosion. It says huge explosion. That's not how CDs are performed. The single sound these people are reporting could not be a CD. Watch CD videos. Notice that later on the reporter gets his wits about him and can't tell if he heard an explosion or collapse. Other people report a single explosion coming down. The news reports call it an explosion. This si not a CD even if there were explosions.

Ever heard a sonic boom? I have. I'd call it an explosion. Ever heard a volcanic eruption up close? I have. I'd call it an explosion. That's does not mean that explosives were set off. Lots of things make loud. A building collapsing. That's loud. A huge ice fall or rock fall in the mountains is amazingly loud. No CD there either.

These are people caught in a horrible place trying to find words on the fly to describe the events taking place around them. Loud sounds are called explosions especially in light of the known terrorist connection here - planes hit the buildings.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 11:59

You forget that the buildings didn't use gas lines. And people said it was a LOUD BLAST, and also that the sound came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC.


A single loud blast. Good. We are onto something important here. CDs use dozens of explosions in buildings under 10 stories. Thess buildings were well over that. The building collapses top down. There should have been a 1000 explosions. You say 1. That means it was not a CD. Agreed?

On to more interesting things. Some and only some people reported an explosion near ground level. Some reports are from early on when walls cracked in the lobby. When those those walls cracked it wasn't a simple crack. Pieces of the wall flew across the lobby.

You guys wear me out. You don't even use the scientific method in your reasoning. The scientific method says that if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, you update your hypothesis to fit the data. However, you skeptics ignore or dismiss the data, in order to get the hypothesis that YOU WANT. That is NOT the scientific method. That is PSEUDO-skepticism!


No Scepcop. Truthers are the pseudoskeptics when they distort and misquote and misrepresent the data.

The evidence for a CD is a single explosion? But CDs use many explosions. The reports of explosions are based on an unreliable source - witnesses. The reliable source is the huge number of video recording devices used in the area, and the seismographs. These records of the events do not agree with the witness reports. These devices and others I cannot think of do not record the reports of explosions caused by explosive devices.

Who was it that made a statement about the 'fog of war'?

Anyways, the use of the term explosion does not mean explosives. It means an awe inspiring loud sound. Ever experienced a lightning strike within 100 meters. Explosion is the best word to describe my experience.

These people are in such harm's way and despite that they deliver a clear and moving account of their experiences. I am alwasy impressed with bravery of the people that stayed close to the WTC to save lives.

However, you skeptics ignore or dismiss the data


Scepcop, I'm not ignoring the data. I am evaluating it. That is what a skeptical person does. Someone wants to make a case for a CD of the WTC. Show me. I look. The claims are based on statements that are shown in some scrambled order. One of the videos begins with an interview of a pre-collapse rescue of someone gravely injured inside of the WTC and then switches to a statement of collapse. Stringing these events together could mislead people into thinking that the rescue occurred due to injuries suffered in the collapse. If someone made that claim then they would be egregious liars wouldn't they?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 12:17

Wow, Prof! Sounds like you have done some intersting things.

Strong arguments about what? You have not demonstrated that the HUGE explosions and LOUD BLASTS came from concrete dropping. People said they were from bombs or devices that day.


OK Scepcop. Need to do it again. You were the one that made the claim others were prone to "conjecture and denial".
Your claim is that people said that there were bombs or devices that day. Please provide a citation.

You are nitpicking at irrelevant things again, which is a sign of desperation, cause the truth isn't on your side.


The issue here is that I and possibly the Prof are looking at the simplest issues that are decidable. This is not nitpicking. Someone makes a statement and the question is whether or not it can be tested. I begin with the testable statements and proceed from there.

In this post you have changed from a single HUGE explosion to HUGE explosions. None of the earlier videos made a claim of multiple explosions. Please provide a citation.

We can keep this citation request to a reasonable level. You, not me, not someone else, said that others were making conjecture. Therefore, I am asking you to avoid conjecture by stating where you got a piece of information. So you might say, " the second video in post 4 has a guy in it about half way through claiming that he likes ice cream". That way I can connect your statements to something you are proposing. I have been relating personal experiences such as lightning, volcanic eruptions,
flying a plane, and so forth. I have also posted links to videos. Consider posting links to professional journals and the Wikipedia on such topics as structural engineering, chemistry, seismic analysis, and other relevant issues.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest