New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

That was sickening to watch for even 30 minutes. Well, sickening may be the wrong word. Disgusting? Maybe or maybe not. Just can't think of words to describe it, but good--it was not. I'll grant that the people in that video have guts to put their name to such ignorant comments. Let's take Steve Jones at the 20 minute mark, shall we? He makes almost a joke out of the NIST not testing for explosives. (which makes me wonder how Steve Jones knows it's there if the NIST didn't test for it, but that's a different subject...) However, why would they test for explosives? From the NIST:


NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

All in all, the video only presented one side of an argument and did nothing to get into real, obvious evidence nor did it do anything to address the obvious questions that would come up should they be right--which are: Who put the explosives there? Why? How did they get it to match on the same day as the planes? Who all knew about the planting of the explosives because many, many would have to know and no one has yet come forward. Why has no one reporting seeing any of the dozens of workers that would have been planting the explosives. Why were there no flashes that are indicitive of a controlled demolition? Why have the 9/11 masterminds who sang like a bird when under interrogation not name anyone else? Why are there hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers who do not want to be associated in any way with Richard Gage? If the video addressed anything after the 30 minute mark, please let me know. After some dude was trying to convince me a small fire wouldn't bring down the buildings (duh), I shut the freakin' video off.
Winston, I will never again watch a video you recommend. They have all been dispicably one-sided.

[Craig Browning]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Scepcop]

Check out this great satire video I received of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory that sums up the whole thing in 5 minutes. It's so true.

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

Winston, just what is your most compelling argument that supports a controlled demolition in any of the buildings? I'm just looking for one thing to keep it simple and then, let's debate it. Is it concerning WTC 7 turning steel into dust or whatever you call the rubble? Something else? Maybe with WTC 1 & 2? Just what piece of evidence do you find so compelling that you are convinced this was a controlled demolition?

[Jayhawker30]

It might be just me, but I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a skyscraper to crumble after a passenger jet or two crash into it.