Zero - An Investigation into 9/11 (Irrefutable, MUST SEE!)

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

I’ve now made my way through 2 of the 10 videos, over 20 minutes of this hour and a half mocumentary. As I was watching, I made notes of the things they discussed. Scepcop says the information is “irrefutable.” Here are the notes I took while watching the first two videos. (Please let me know if I misrepresented the actual comments in the video.)

Zero: Osama is not on FBI Most Wanted List for 9/11.
Wag: So what? OBL hasn’t been indicted for the crime of 9/11 which would be required for addition to the list. To do so would require releasing information that could be detrimental to national security. There’s enough out there for his other crimes to put him away many, many times over.

Zero: “Explosion” by guy on 86th floor (name not written down).
Wag: Not sure what his story was supposed to be about, but perhaps he talks again later in the movie. If it’s because of the sound of explosions, then give me a break. Just what the hell is the sound of a jet plane hitting a 100 story building supposed to sound like? Also, just what the hell is a 100 story building collapsing supposed to sound like? Cotton swaps falling off your bathroom counter?

Zero: "WTCs designed to resist 2 plane crashes" - WTC, Frank DeMartini, WTC Designer.
Wag: Flat out misrepresentation of the facts. An airplane impact was considered by the designers, but it was not incorporated into the building code (explained in NCSTAR1-1 (18). His comment is actually not supported by the calculations of any designer and his comment is merely speculative. Unfortunately, we will never know for certain what he would say now as he was killed on 9/11.

Zero: “Never before or after 9/11 have steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire” Les Jamieson (a bit further in the 2nd movie, the Windsor Tower in Madrid was shown quite extensively.)
Wag: "The towers had their unique design. They can not be compared to other buildings, which have not even been damaged by an impact before the fires. The claim often includes comparisons to the Madrid Windsor fire. However, Windsor had a reinforced concrete structure with steel. All the steel parts collapsed there.
The towers were hit by airplanes traveling at very high speeds. Fireproofing was removed from the impact zones. Why would you fireproof steel if fire did nothing to it? (Brett, can you verify that the steel at the WTC was fireproofed and if so, why did they do it if steel isn't affected by fire?) The steel structure and supporting columns were severed and weakened by the impacts and further by the fires. Hat trusses redistributed the loads to the remaining columns, that eventually couldn't support the enormous masses of the upper parts of the buildings. The collapses started from the areas of the aircraft impact. The collapse was not improbable, it was evident.
Controlled demolition is never started from the top. And nothing was controlled in the twin towers collapse. Debris flew everywhere."
Ref: http://911guide.googlepages.com/wtc

Wag: I skipped over some stuff here as I am needing to move on with my life. So, I will end it with this. According to the Zero Video (by the way, appropriate name): “There was molten metal weeks after collapse.” Dr. Jones. While he was discussing the molten metal, the video shows the “waterfall” look of metal falling about 2/3 up the building. The video is of the towers while still standing, where’s the picture/video of this metal weeks later? Still nothing concrete has been presented. If he was referring to the molten metal that was free-falling, then that is a separate issue altogether. But none-the-less, it makes me wonder why Dr. Jones talks of molten metal for weeks after 9/11, yet when he’s discussion it, the video is showing the "waterfall effect" and this is even highlighted by a red circle for emphasis. Are the producers trying to convince us they are referring to the same thing? I don’t know. You can watch it for yourself. It’s towards the end of Video #2.
Wag: Conclusion: The first two 10-minute videos confirmed my hypothesis that this film is full of misrepresented facts and unless one uses critical thinking, then one could be made to believe in conspiracy theories. If one were to use critical thinking, then the only conclusion drawn from this video is that the filmmakers did not want to present the facts, but rather present theories they hope will convince people to support their agenda, whatever that may be.

Now, can we PLEASE move on to something else! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, for the love of God! No more frickin’ propaganda videos!!!!!

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[brett]

[ProfWag]

No disrespect taken Brett, but the who, why, and how in this case is very clear. Anything else such as theories that incorporate no planes, missiles, and thermite scheduled to explode an hour after the planes hit does not meet the common sense test, much less the evidence tests. In fact, any suggestion that the US Government planned, executed, or did nothing to stop it is outlandish, wishfull thinking on those that hate the US Government.
I'm not saying there isn't more to investigate as far as what the government actually knew, but the who, why, and how is quite clear and supported by overwhelming evidence.

[ProfWag]

BTW Brett, a page or two back I asked if you could verify that the steel in the WTC was fireproofed. Do you know if it was?
Wag

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]