Best 9/11 documentaries

skyeagle409, is it necessary to spam the thread with short replies instead of keeping it in one post? I also noticed how you totally ignored my post about your accusation of Steven Jones. Do you care to respond to that?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
That has been proven false. No sound of explosions as WTC 7 collapsed, no explosive evidence found in dust samples of the RJ Lee Group and no evidence of demolition explosions within the seismic data.

No it has not been proven false.

Here is the sound of an explosion prior to WTC7 collapsing..



What's baffling is that you always repeat your assertions despite being proven to the contrary


.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
...and no evidence of demolition explosions within the seismic data.

Actually the seismic data is pretty damning. See the big spikes on the left side of each collapse? Over twenty miles away no less.

a reply to: Debunkology

Here is the sound of an explosion prior to WTC7 collapsing..

That is not the sound of a demolition explosion, that is the sound of structural failure.

.

a reply to: twitchy

The spikes in the WTC seismic data do not depict demolition explosions, they depicted the impacts and collapse, but nothing to do with demolition explosives.

I want to add that operators of those seismic monitors have stated they did not detect demolition explosions.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Debunkology

That is not the sound of demolition explosion, that is the sound of structural failure.

That is your opinion.
My opinion, the opinion of millions of Americans, and the opinions of hundreds upon hundreds of firefighters and other first responders who were there, and the opinions of survivors, there were explosions long before and immediately prior to your 'structural failure'.

a reply to: twitchy

It is not an opinion, it is a fact, and to underline that fact, no demolition explosions can be found in the seismic data pertaining to WTC 7.

a reply to: skyeagle409
I'm guessing you aren't seeing the big spikes on the LEFT side of the timeline events. The largest readings you see there is what is called a spike, indicative of an energetic event registering twenty miles away before what is left of the debris hits the ground. That is perfectly consistent with a detonation.

www.youtube.com...

A long one but a great one in the end touching upon the JFK assassination to 9/11. A brief synopsis of each event is that JFK was essentially killed by a squadron in various hiding places. It touches upon 9/11 in the same way many do on the forums such as it being a conspiracy. I know what I'm saying is very brief in comparison to the amount of time the documentary is, but once you watch it a lot of it such as the JFK alone is one hour. Although everything that I have stated is what they say in an hour.

a reply to: twitchy

Demolition explosions leave firm evidence in the seismic data. There are no demolition explosion spikes leading up to the collapse of the WTC buildings.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: twitchy

It is not an opinion

Yes it is, and if eyewitness testimony trumps armchair warrior, then it's not even really an informed opinion. Not to mention, explosions recorded on video typically muffle low end sounds, it takes some high end audio equipment to achieve anything less. What your hearing, or not hearing, is a hell of a lot louder in person. So your obsession with posting the WTC 7 video and demanding evidence of audible explosions is pretty much moot... Ever tried to record a fireworks show?

a reply to: twitchy

Yes it is, and if eyewitness testimony trumps armchair warrior

The experts who were operating the seismic monitors during 9/11 trumps the eyewitness accounts because there are no characteristic demolition spikes prior to the collapse spikes of the WTC buildings.

Let's hear it from one of the experts whose company was operating seismographs in the area.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...

To sum it up, the experts who were operating seismographs, have stated their seismographs did not detect demolition explosions and the proof can be found in the seismic data of their seismographs.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Tell-tale spikes...

See the spikes?
Not to mention, Brent Blanchard is full of crap.

a reply to: twitchy

Not crap at all. The operators of seismographs have stated for the record their seismographs did not detect demolition explosions, which is evident by the fact no demolition explosions are heard on video.

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.

www.implosionworld.com...

To sum it up, there was never a case for explosives at ground zero.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
To sum it up, there was never a case for explosives at ground zero.

I love that, 'To sum it up...' lol
That is utterly and completely, your opinion. If the case is all good and summed up in your opinion, why linger?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
which is evident by the fact no demolition explosions are heard on video.

I feel it necessary to inject something I've been saying for a long, long time on these subjects: YouTube videos of 9/11 should not be used for anything other than the fact that a video does indeed exist of that particular place and time.

Every video on the subject is a multigenerational recompression of unknown providence. The video and audio has no investigative value. YouTube didn't even support HD videos until 2009, and for the most part, the audio is still not high fidelity. Attempting to use these poor quality videos, that typically also originated on poor quality equipment, is simply pointless for so many reasons.


I know people who were blocks away when the collapse began. They hear what they thought might be explosions, like many others in that area. But they attributed the explosive-sound to one of the world's biggest buildings failing under enormous stress.

Either way, the point is that there is no viable evidence to prove bombs were used, and conversely, that bombs were not used. So why not shelve the unproductive debate and focus on something that might come to plausible conclusions?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlordThe video and audio has no investigative value.

Do you reckon I could use the same defense in a traffic court, just tell the judge that the DA's compressed laptop video they have of me hitting the other car has 'no investigative value'? I disagree, in my opinion, the audio and video are incredibly valuable, and all considered, particularly damning of the official story.

a reply to: twitchy

You've heard Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentary Services, Inc., a company that operated seismographs that day, now, let's hear it from another group and its seismic report from the results of their seismic equipment.

WTC Seismic Spikes

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

www.popularmechanics.com...

In other words, conspiracy theorist had misread seismic data from Protec Documentary Services, Inc. and from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and as a result, another unfounded conspiracy theory was hatched.

In amongst all the bickering and arguing have any of you stopped to think that 1) the towers may have just collapsed because of the fires 2) the terrorists may have had help from the global intelligence community and 3) some of that help could have been from American intelligence?

There doesn't have to have been explosives planted for it to have been a lie.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

a reply to: skyeagle409
Ironic considering that Lamont-Doherty provide the most damning seismic evidence. Have they released the epicenters and depth data they were accused of withholding? It's not a story I've looked into in a while. It would be nice to have the sharp spike of short durations explained by somebody who isn't cashing Government checks though.

Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse
-Chrs Bollyn

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.
"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage -- but not causing significant ground shaking,"

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlordSo why not shelve the unproductive debate and focus on something that might come to plausible conclusions?

Agreed. OP, this is probably one of the better documentaries I've seen recently...

originally posted by: sg1642
In amongst all the bickering and arguing have any of you stopped to think that 1) the towers may have just collapsed because of the fires 2) the terrorists may have had help from the global intelligence community and 3) some of that help could have been from American intelligence?

There doesn't have to have been explosives planted for it to have been a lie.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

All possible, however there has yet to be an explanation as to how the towers collapsed all the way to ground level, and in fact it was not investigated, and I believe there is a reason for that , had there been the results would be damming .