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

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

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 29 Oct 2009, 04:53

ProfWag wrote:I just re-read my post and believe that I may have come across rude to you Ninja. If so, I apologize. I was intending that question to be geared towards the hardened, 9/11 pseudo-skeptics.

Not at all.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






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

Postby brett » 29 Oct 2009, 04:56

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.


well I don't hate the US government prof - and i don't think those who are asking questions do either
- but one even has to consider the possibility that there are groups within ANY government that may be ( or think themselves ) above the lawful government of a country - (and bare in mind that the USA is one heck of a big country - which if we think of it as a business , does the CEO really KNOW everything that's going on down the line ?? - think along the lines of "rouge traders " on wall st )

OK you will say i totally lost it now ,BUT neither I nor you KNOW what go's on behind closed doors , and we have to TRUST that ALL governments have the best interests of their respective peoples at hart , except we both know this is NOT the case with some ( many?? ) - the problem lies with those whose works are not accountable and transparent to the people ( and we know there are those like that within government ) - i will take a sizable bet that the president of the USA only REALLY knows what his advisers etc tell him - and like all of us can only act on the information he receives - and if that's not right or complete .....................

again i think you have to differentiate between what you seemingly see as hatred of your government and the wish of the ordinary person for the TRUTH whatever and however unpalatable that may be

but i am glad we can at least HAVE this discussion in a civilized manner - and for that you have my respect :D :D
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby brett » 29 Oct 2009, 05:11

ProfWag wrote: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


well to answer that prof , ( sorry missed that question - my apologies ) - i believe it was spray coated with some sort of fire retardant material , i remember they went on about this quite a lot in a documentary called ( if memory serves ) " why the towers fell " or some such - which promulgated the "pancake " theory and was shown on UK TV some time back - which to be fair ,at the time i took to be a factual portrayal of what had actually happened ,as i am sure many others did .

this may be of interest and answer the question ?? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236

and this is quite interesting IF correct http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Environment/Censored_Alert:_World_Trade_Center_Design_Flaws

obviously i can not verify any of the info - as i did not have a hand in building the towers - which rather reinforces my point about only being ABLE to asses info provided - one cant asses info that's not given ;) ( and i ain't psychic :lol: :lol: )
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby ProfWag » 29 Oct 2009, 05:16

brett wrote:
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.


well I don't hate the US government prof - and i don't think those who are asking questions do either
- but one even has to consider the possibility that there are groups within ANY government that may be ( or think themselves ) above the lawful government of a country - (and bare in mind that the USA is one heck of a big country - which if we think of it as a business , does the CEO really KNOW everything that's going on down the line ?? - think along the lines of "rouge traders " on wall st )

OK you will say i totally lost it now ,BUT neither I nor you KNOW what go's on behind closed doors , and we have to TRUST that ALL governments have the best interests of their respective peoples at hart , except we both know this is NOT the case with some ( many?? ) - the problem lies with those whose works are not accountable and transparent to the people ( and we know there are those like that within government ) - i will take a sizable bet that the president of the USA only REALLY knows what his advisers etc tell him - and like all of us can only act on the information he receives - and if that's not right or complete .....................

again i think you have to differentiate between what you seemingly see as hatred of your government and the wish of the ordinary person for the TRUTH whatever and however unpalatable that may be

but i am glad we can at least HAVE this discussion in a civilized manner - and for that you have my respect :D :D

I guess I just see so much evidence to the contrary of conspiracy theories that I can think of no other reason to spread propoganda than because there is an agenda behind it. As I said, I'm all for the truth, but 9/11 was too big for someone whose work goes unaccounted for to pull it off. I couldn't agree more you on your President assumption that he is really only as good as his advisors. Having said that, in my opinion that is further proof that the top brass in Washington had nothing to do with it. Who, outside of the circle of suicidal hijackers, would be able to convince a bunch of Saudi Arabians to dive bomb 4 American buildings to allow the US to go to war with Iraq? Critically thinking, no one, but that is what I am being asked to believe if I am to believe some conspiracy theorists.
Yes, it is nice to debate maturely, but boy oh boy does it get hard for me to stay that way sometimes... :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 29 Oct 2009, 05:21

brett wrote:
ProfWag wrote: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


well to answer that prof , ( sorry missed that question - my apologies ) - i believe it was spray coated with some sort of fire retardant material , i remember they went on about this quite a lot in a documentary called ( if memory serves ) " why the towers fell " or some such - which promulgated the "pancake " theory and was shown on UK TV some time back - which to be fair ,at the time i took to be a factual portrayal of what had actually happened ,as i am sure many others did .

this may be of interest and answer the question ?? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236

and this is quite interesting IF correct http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Environment/Censored_Alert:_World_Trade_Center_Design_Flaws

obviously i can not verify any of the info - as i did not have a hand in building the towers - which rather reinforces my point about only being ABLE to asses info provided - one cant asses info that's not given ;) ( and i ain't psychic :lol: :lol: )


Thanks for that info! Now, that brings me back to a point that has been debated. Can fire have caused the steel columns to collapse? Some people have said no, yet, if no, then why did the steel columns need to be fireproofed in the first place?

From the article Brett published:

"Even with the aeroplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires - which are not normal building fires - the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged," he says.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 29 Oct 2009, 05:28

brett wrote:
ProfWag wrote: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


well to answer that prof , ( sorry missed that question - my apologies ) - i believe it was spray coated with some sort of fire retardant material , i remember they went on about this quite a lot in a documentary called ( if memory serves ) " why the towers fell " or some such - which promulgated the "pancake " theory and was shown on UK TV some time back - which to be fair ,at the time i took to be a factual portrayal of what had actually happened ,as i am sure many others did .

this may be of interest and answer the question ?? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236

and this is quite interesting IF correct http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Environment/Censored_Alert:_World_Trade_Center_Design_Flaws

obviously i can not verify any of the info - as i did not have a hand in building the towers - which rather reinforces my point about only being ABLE to asses info provided - one cant asses info that's not given ;) ( and i ain't psychic :lol: :lol: )


Your second article, I found to be very interesting indeed. I tend to believe it. At least, more so than I would believe in a Theologist talking about skyscrapers, but that's just me.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby brett » 29 Oct 2009, 05:40

ProfWag wrote:
brett wrote:
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.


well I don't hate the US government prof - and i don't think those who are asking questions do either
- but one even has to consider the possibility that there are groups within ANY government that may be ( or think themselves ) above the lawful government of a country - (and bare in mind that the USA is one heck of a big country - which if we think of it as a business , does the CEO really KNOW everything that's going on down the line ?? - think along the lines of "rouge traders " on wall st )

OK you will say i totally lost it now ,BUT neither I nor you KNOW what go's on behind closed doors , and we have to TRUST that ALL governments have the best interests of their respective peoples at hart , except we both know this is NOT the case with some ( many?? ) - the problem lies with those whose works are not accountable and transparent to the people ( and we know there are those like that within government ) - i will take a sizable bet that the president of the USA only REALLY knows what his advisers etc tell him - and like all of us can only act on the information he receives - and if that's not right or complete .....................

again i think you have to differentiate between what you seemingly see as hatred of your government and the wish of the ordinary person for the TRUTH whatever and however unpalatable that may be

but i am glad we can at least HAVE this discussion in a civilized manner - and for that you have my respect :D :D

I guess I just see so much evidence to the contrary of conspiracy theories that I can think of no other reason to spread propoganda than because there is an agenda behind it. As I said, I'm all for the truth, but 9/11 was too big for someone whose work goes unaccounted for to pull it off. I couldn't agree more you on your President assumption that he is really only as good as his advisors. Having said that, in my opinion that is further proof that the top brass in Washington had nothing to do with it. Who, outside of the circle of suicidal hijackers, would be able to convince a bunch of Saudi Arabians to dive bomb 4 American buildings to allow the US to go to war with Iraq? Critically thinking, no one, but that is what I am being asked to believe if I am to believe some conspiracy theorists.
Yes, it is nice to debate maturely, but boy oh boy does it get hard for me to stay that way sometimes... :-)



yes I can appreciate that prof - as your whole system ( i am assuming you are an American citizen as your profile does not say ) is geared to patriotic support of your country and government , starting from what i have seen at an early age ( pledge of allegiance in school - is that every day ?? - i really wish i could afford or be ABLE to visit the states - so many differences between our cultures )

, where as we have no such thing here , in fact "patriotism " has become something of a dirty word here in the UK ( all this PC bullshit !! :x ) - and we have petty officials who will pull you for flying a national flag in some places ( on the basis it MAY be provocative to other cultures and ethnic groups - yea its that bad - could you see them getting away with that in the states ?? ) - so i hope you will understand that we here don't have the same level of loyalty to the government line - and trust them a LOT less , to say nothing of the UK being sold down the river to the accursed EU !! - ( but that's a different issue ) which is maybe WHY some of us tend to believe in all this NWO stuff and shadowy groups of "powerful" people with their own agendas - such as the bilderbergers etc - and once governments and "power brokers " become unaccountable to the people ..................................

so i can understand completely how you may not understand where i am coming from sometimes ( its a cultural thing :lol: :lol: ) - but of course us "little people" don't know anything anyway - do we ?? :roll: ( probably just as well sometimes ?? )

ho hum ...................... :D
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby brett » 29 Oct 2009, 06:02

ProfWag wrote:
brett wrote:
ProfWag wrote: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


well to answer that prof , ( sorry missed that question - my apologies ) - i believe it was spray coated with some sort of fire retardant material , i remember they went on about this quite a lot in a documentary called ( if memory serves ) " why the towers fell " or some such - which promulgated the "pancake " theory and was shown on UK TV some time back - which to be fair ,at the time i took to be a factual portrayal of what had actually happened ,as i am sure many others did .

this may be of interest and answer the question ?? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236

and this is quite interesting IF correct http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Environment/Censored_Alert:_World_Trade_Center_Design_Flaws

obviously i can not verify any of the info - as i did not have a hand in building the towers - which rather reinforces my point about only being ABLE to asses info provided - one cant asses info that's not given ;) ( and i ain't psychic :lol: :lol: )


Thanks for that info! Now, that brings me back to a point that has been debated. Can fire have caused the steel columns to collapse? Some people have said no, yet, if no, then why did the steel columns need to be fireproofed in the first place?

From the article Brett published:

"Even with the aeroplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires - which are not normal building fires - the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged," he says.



see the problem i have with the steel question is just the massive amount of it in the WTC buildings - and the fact that no steel framed building has before or since 9/11 collapsed so totally ,and so quickly

as to why fire proof steel ?? well of course it WILL melt if subjected to ENOUGH heat , and certainly weaken and deform if subjected to amounts of heat less than required to melt it , of that there is NO dispute and i have had first hand experience of steel framed buildings where fire HAS seriously weakened and collapsed /deformed it ( not on the scale of the WTC of course ) + plus of course there is the "aesthetics" of girders - and one tends to see two birds being killed with one stone so to speak in the use of fire proofing - again different countries have differing codes of construction - so i cant really speak much on that subject other than generally

but as a rule - it boils down to the "average " fire scenario ( what ever that is ?? ) not as is the case with the WTC of an "unprecedented " event , in that it gives say an hour or two protection from fire to structural components - enough to get the people out and NOT have the whole place collapse when the fire fighters are trying to put the fire out ( well that's the theory anyways ) - but of course structural fire protection is a whole subject in its self and i know the BASIC theory - ergo - stop the flames and heat impinging on the bare steel - and this will stop ( or slow down ) any chance of collapse

the places i used to HATE where the "tin shed " buildings , much beloved of DIY outlets etc ( and many factories ) here in the UK - bare steel columns every where - get a fire - and you got problems !! - in fact we had 2 or 3 fire fighters killed in just such a building when it collapsed on them not long ago because of this type of design up county from here - but i have had some "hairy" experiences in these types of buildings my self , and am just lucky to still be here
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 29 Oct 2009, 06:20

Brett wrote:see the problem i have with the steel question is just the massive amount of it in the WTC buildings - and the fact that no steel framed building has before or since 9/11 collapsed so totally ,and so quickly

One of my personal questions as well. More the first part, "massive amount of it in the WTC buildings" and the lack of debris. Of course, that powdered debris was all over the city along with papers and unknown pieces (small chunks) of 'whatever'. So I guess if someone swept it all up into one neat pile, it would have been much bigger considering the area it did cover.

It was also the pancaking of the buildings that puzzles me. No matter how many times that is explained to me logically, I guess I have a hard time accepting it. That was either the luckiest thing that could have happened or there is a God. To have two, 110 ten story buildings, not topple and take out even more innocent victims is short of a miracle. It's science in a controlled demolition situation but in a scenario such as this???? As Brett said, this sort of thing has never happened before or since 911.

I can fully accept that fire could have weakend the beams, causing them to warp, hence causing a pancake like collapse but the fact that it fell directly into it's footprint without doing some tilt at some point, amazes me.

I had also seen a TV production of an explanation of how the towers were constructed where the guy stated that even 'if' two jet airliners hit them, they would not come down. They also explained the pancaking in that same TV production but I'll be darned if I can find it anywhere to post it here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby brett » 29 Oct 2009, 14:50

hi NP - i think one of the problems people have is getting their heads round the difference between a building "pancaking" , which is what you see when you get an earthquake - eg the floors come to rest on top of each other and IF that had happened you would have had a rather large pile ( well 3 actually ) left with , in the case of the towers - a couple of massive stumps of the steel center core standing - but never the less the fact the floors would have been identifiable as such

and what HAPPENED on 9/11 - which was NOT the above - but total disintegration of 3 buildings into their own footprints ( or near enough ) -WHICH ,regardless of if people don't want to accept that someone dropped those buildings deliberately , or not , the fact REMAINS that they came down way too quickly for it to be the product of a couple of planes hitting them , and of course WTC 7 did not get hit by a plane at all

someone , somewhere knows the truth of what happened that day - find them , and you have the answers - ;)
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby ProfWag » 29 Oct 2009, 23:15

brett wrote:
and what HAPPENED on 9/11 - which was NOT the above - but total disintegration of 3 buildings into their own footprints ( or near enough ) -WHICH ,regardless of if people don't want to accept that someone dropped those buildings deliberately , or not , the fact REMAINS that they came down way too quickly for it to be the product of a couple of planes hitting them , and of course WTC 7 did not get hit by a plane at all

someone , somewhere knows the truth of what happened that day - find them , and you have the answers - ;)

Brett, just how fast do you think a building that was constructed as the WTCs (open floor plans, etc.) should have fallen? What is your baseline for comparison?

Also, there are millions upon millions (I would even venture to say billions and billions) of people that know what happened that day. Unfortunately, there will always be people who don't want to believe the simple story so regardless of whether or not you find them, there will never be answers that suit everyone.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby brett » 30 Oct 2009, 05:10

well that's simple prof , given the amount of damage /fire in the towers , WHICH incidentally the NYFD reckoned was containable ( there's a radio message saying this from a chef that i have heard in amongst all the other stuff ) - at WORSE CASE scenario i would say that possibly the top section of the towers could have collapsed and again possibly PARTS of them fallen , - that's worse case remember , with sufficient resources those fires where containable IMO , OK they may have spread to a few more floors down and the top whatever floors would have been gutted -BUT and this is a big BUT i still fail to see HOW the things came down as they did eg completely and in less than 6-10 seconds .

when buildings collapse because of fire , they do so progressively - NOT as the towers did - and i just don't accept the theory that there was enough weight in the damaged sections to pulverise the rest of the towers - that's delusional thinking , no architect is going to design a structure so flimsy , they build in strength , and don't forget the lower down the towers you go -THE STRONGER THEY HAVE TO BE TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT ABOVE - this is common to ALL buildings not just the WTC - so even IF the top sections had collapsed , the RESISTANCE that the weight coming down wold meet would progressively INCREASE until the momentum was halted

think of the top sections as the hand of a karate expert chopping through a pile of tiles - he / she can ONLY chop through so many because they don't have the FORCE to do so ,and as they go through each layer the resistance increases relative to the original force applied

and the theory that the momentum would allow this to happen is against the laws of physics ** - if you want to try this for yourself , get a pile of tiles 110 in number , separated by wooden blocks to simulate the floors and set a fire 3/4 of the way up let the support blocks burn out till the thing starts to collapse and see what happens ( this is a crude analogy off the top of my head ) but i will put money on it that the sections BELOW the fire will stand up even if the top section crashes down

also don't forget we are not talking tiles here but buildings that where made with reinforced concrete and many many tonnes of massive structural steel columns - the things where if any thing probably OVER engineered

and as to WTC 7 - not hit by planes - the fires in that where not enough to bring that down - no way , jeez i have seen worse fires than that in buildings and they did not collapse

i just don't see WHY you cant see this prof ?? - and frankly I am beginning to wonder if you REALLY cant see this , or just don't want to believe that some agency other than a few terrorists had a hand in the whole thing - OK i can understand why you DONT want to believe the government was involved or knew about it , but have my previous points about agencies OUTSIDE / OR WITHIN BUT NOT SANCTIONED gone THAT far over your head ??, or is it you are just having fun at our expense and arguing for the sake of it ??

this is now becoming pointless - as you are never going to accept a contrary view to the official story or even seemingly consider one - OK well that's your privilege - so basically believe what you will - I am done with this subject - this site is supposed to be about the paranormal - NOT 9/11 - there are plenty of sites where you can argue the issue if you so desire - time this thread was closed !! - as it will just go on ad infinitum or should that be ad nauseum ??

I'm out on this one

** i am no physicist - and no doubt someone can explain my crude analogies a lot better than i have
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

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

Postby Scepcop » 03 Nov 2009, 20:49

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Skeptics, a quick question for you.

Experts say that the top pilots only have a 1 in 20 chance of pulling off the maneuver that the hijackers did with AA77.

What "experts" are you referring to please.


There you go with your denial again. No one to you is an expert if they disagree with the official story. You are so subjective.

The expert I'm talking about is the guy from Boston's air traffic control who is also a flight instructor. Do you think a flight instructor knows nothing about flying?

My God.

He was featured in the film. Go watch it. You say you only saw two parts. It gets better as it goes on. I don't care if you don't agree with the film, at least watch it all the way through. It's only 90 minutes.

Look at all the raving comments about it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet? ... %3Drelated

Great video. I have seen every documentary involving 9/11. Loose Change, Zeitgeist, Alex Jones Material, In Plain Sight, History channel documentaries, Public Enemies. This was probably the most powerful, and indisputable. Great work, and thank you for posting this Wakeymedia


See, others call it "indisputable" too, which is similar to irrefutable.

Here is another smart comment:

In the past, one question alone kept me from siding with the 9/11 Truth people, and that was, how can the many people needed to do an inside job keep a lid on a conspiracy for so long? But then I realized that a lot of past CIA and military operations were kept under wraps for decades (like the testing of nuclear fallout on US soldiers in the 1950's). If Operation Northwoods had been approved by Kennedy, chances are we would never have known about who was behind it.


ProfWag, as to that pilot you gave me the email of, is he the same guy who wrote that article you cited? If so, I already wrote him, but he never answered my emails. Why don't you email him and ask him to watch "Zero"?

What about Russ Wittenburg, the veteran who flew Airlines for 30 years? He is an expert. So why don't you listen to him too? I quoted him many times.

To Ninjapuppy:

Each person in that film is named at the bottom in white letters. Are you watching the film in full screen mode? If not, better to watch in full screen mode so you can read the text too. In a small box, it's sometimes hard to read the text.

If you don't like youtube, then watch it on google video. It's all in one part so you don't have to keep clicking the next segment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8603788739
“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: Zero - An Investigation into 9/11 (Irrefutable, MUST SEE!)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 03 Nov 2009, 21:06

SCEPCOP - I never got beyond the second video. I have been dealing with H1N1 since last week. Needless to say, this flu is kicking my butt.

As for watching in full screen, on my computer screen, it gets very pixilated. What I have been doing is watching the smaller screen but pausing and reading the text, then hitting play and listening. It works rather well actually. It just takes more time. I also like the fact that the segments are about 10 minutes each. If I miss something, I can easily go back and re-watch that whole segment with minimal effort.

When I'm back on my feet, I will pick this one back up.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby Scepcop » 03 Nov 2009, 21:19

ProfWag wrote: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,
Those are cheap ass copouts again.

You forget that the reason the FBI didn't indict Bin Laden is because they had no "hard evidence" according to Rex Tomb. It was NOT because revealing the evidence would be a violation of National Security. My God. If you lack such basic common sense and make up shit like that, then perhaps your IQ is too low for this forum.

It's like you're so God damn deceptive that you will make up stuff just to ignore irrefutable facts.

My God.

Sure the towers had some unique designs, but nothing that could make them fall at near free fall speed from fire or airplane hits.

Damn you are desperate to ignore reality aren't you?

You miss the whole point about the explosions. It's not a matter of what jets hitting buildings sounds like. It's the fact that the explosions occurred BEFORE the plane hit. And they were felt by several people as coming from the BASEMENT levels of the WTC!

You are so blind and deaf when it comes to these facts that crush your dogmatic faith in the official story.

The WTC steel was fireproofed. They did not remove the fireproofing or the asbestos as that would require billions of dollars.

But either way, it doesn't matter. The fires were not hot enough to weaken or melt steel.

You forget all this.

Debating you is a complete waste of time. You deny facts, and never consider evidence that refutes your beliefs. You also make up shit about the FBI that goes against what their spokesman said. That's dishonest and deceptive.

Oh and controlled demolition can start from the top. It depends on which charges you set up to go first. You can start from anywhere.

Your lies are so tedious to address. I'd rather teach kindergarten than correct your lies and errors. At least the kids don't make up stuff and remember what's told to them. Sheesh.
“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

PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron