Best 9/11 documentaries

originally posted by: MystiqueAgent
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.

Very good Doc, well worth the time. It used to be six hours long, I have not been able to find that cut.

a reply to: twitchy

Ironic considering that Lamont-Doherty provide the most damning seismic evidence.

Apparently, you missed their report, so here it is again.

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.

originally posted by: twitchy
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'?

It's not the same thing, and I think you know it.

That being said, traffic cases involving red light tickets have been successfully challenged when the municipality could not produce the original video, and instead were relying on a copy that had been compressed, and thus, different from the original.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Like I said, SO, I disagree, in my opinion, the audio and video are incredibly valuable, and all considered, particularly damning of the official story. Is there a particular source or resolution that is acceptable, it seems a little contentious to just say 'you tube videos' are worthless.

a reply to: Debunkology

"Building 7 mimics the collapse of other steel structured high rise buildings collapsing via controlled demolition.
So WT7 being brought down by some type of controlled demolition is only the natural conclusion of process of elimination."

Demolitions remove structural support and allow for gravitational collapse. A gravitational collapse looks like a gravitational collapse regardless of initiation. What was lacking were the visual and auditory clues of explosive demolition.

"Rethink911 then also contacted the physics department of around 30 top Universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford. They also emailed the American Physicists Society, and the German (GPG), to argue the case for the official conspiracy theory narrative. However no top physicist was interested in supporting the government’s official narrative. This I find alarming."

Why do you find this alarming? You might think that it is a burning question on the minds of many but it is not. Very few people think that there is anything to debate. There would be a series of discussions where the physicists would ask for evidence and get the usual tap dance about collapses and how this had to be a controlled demolition. Evidence? "It didn't look right" or "it couldn't happen that way." Then any responses would be termed "opinions" and discounted by those who want a conspiracy, exactly like ATS. Regardless of the outcome, there would be no reinvestigation and the only result would be those who want a conspiracy shouting louder about it, and those who see no evidence ignoring them, completely.

The bottom line is that it is a pointless exercise.

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: MystiqueAgent
www.youtube.com...

A long one but a great one....

I'm watching that one now for the first time, it's pretty well done. That was an interesting bit about Dulles and the Treaty of Versailles.

a reply to: twitchy

The original video, of course.

Before 2007, when uploading a video to YouTube, the audio and video were compressed quite a bit. CD-quality audio is 16-bit @ 44KHz. YouTube didn't support anything over 8-bit @ 22KHz, before compression, until after 2007. Their compression routine automatically down-sampled audio to that lower-rate before compressing to a maximum bit-rate of the equivalent of a 96k MP3.

Then, when considering the providence of an unknown number of people downloading, editing, and reuploading to be compressed once again -- it's garbage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The burn rate is specific, but the materials it is burning through isn't. If the steel it's burning through isn't identically uniform, it will burn through at different rates.

What if the WTC core columns were built with substandard cheap steel, never tested for any heat resistance and would weaken or melt at a much lower temperatures.

What if the thermite was just used to bring down just one core column, if this was done, the rest of the WTC would collapse as we saw in all those videos.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Ah, so the original footage is the only acceptable videos for use in investigating 9-11 and anything else is just compressed and useless. I'm starting to understand things a little better now. I'll run right down to NBC and get a copy which is likely shot on what, Betamax?

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Ah, so the original footage is the only acceptable videos for use in investigating 9-11 and anything else is just compressed and useless. I'm starting to understand things a little better now. I'll run right down to NBC and get a copy which is likely shot on what, Betamax?

Betacam..... back then, now it's solid state drive, many use a 16 MB SD card.. just fyi..

originally posted by: wildb

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 .

Plausible deniability. That's one of the reasons why foreign nationals from countries with mutual interests are often used in operations of a clandestine and covert nature. September 11th wasn't a tale of towers being blown to kingdom come with explosives, it was a tale of a rich and powerful elite using the power that came with the positions they held and political ties with foreign nations who held the same goals and interests to advance their own agenda. In both the personal and collective sense.

a reply to: wildb

In the six hour one was there much of a difference? I know I watched a three hour one and then found this one and there wasn't really too much difference really. It's like adding one more source for a paper just giving you some more information on the same thing.

Look at it this way. Atta and the rest of his group were (or are) just the kind of men that the CIA, MI6 Mossad the ISI etc would look to recruit and train. In fact going by the official narrative they conducted themselves just as you would expect from people with that kind of background and training.

If they were the kind of men who would be of benefit to those groups then perhaps they were the kind of men who were of benefit to those kind of groups.

The White House didn't know about the attacks or didn't know there was an aggressive operation being mounted in their own back yard, yet Israeli intelligence had men living on the same street as the hijackers. There's something very wrong there.

originally posted by: twitchy
Ah, so the original footage is the only acceptable videos for use in investigating 9-11 and anything else is just compressed and useless.

First-generation with modern compression techniques would be fine.

It took me a fair bit to find this one. Back in 2009, a member posted an analysis after they paid for a DVD version of the Naudet video -- which was likely originally shot on film, and converted in some unknown manner to DVD (which has other providence issues).
Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery

Now, his conversion from DVD to digital looks like it could have been done much better, but it's still good enough to highlight the extraordinary differences between unknown-generation YouTube, and likely third-generation digital (Film -to- DVD -to- digital via amateur methods).


Here you can see the glaring difference between an unknown-generation version of the Naudet video (top) and the member's third-generation video (bottom).

originally posted by: wildb

Betacam..... back then...

Quite Right, which would of course mean that no video shot of the WTC events would be acceptable, uploaded to youtube or otherwise.

originally posted by: MystiqueAgent
a reply to: wildb

In the six hour one was there much of a difference? I know I watched a three hour one and then found this one and there wasn't really too much difference really. It's like adding one more source for a paper just giving you some more information on the same thing.

I can't tell you, it has been a long time since I saw it, sorry..

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'd love to get my hands on some of the original footage, or for that matter 'First-generation with modern compression techniques' would be awesome. Until then, we have to rely on what is available,which was largely originally shot on Beta. An 'acceptable resolution' seems to be a matter of opinion though, unless this becomes an ATS policy... and how high of a resolution do you need to see 600,000 tons of concrete turning to micron sized particulate or explosive charges shooting from the sides of the building?

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'd love to get my hands on some of the original footage, or for that matter 'First-generation with modern compression techniques' would be awesome. Until then, we have to rely on what is available,which was largely originally shot on Beta. An 'acceptable resolution' seems to be a matter of opinion though, unless this becomes an ATS policy... and how high of a resolution do you need to see 600,000 tons of concrete turning to micron sized particulate or explosive charges shooting from the sides of the building?

If there was any unquestionably concrete ( no pun intended) evidence of any kind to support the idea of explosives it would have surfaced by now.

originally posted by: twitchy

originally posted by: wildb

Betacam..... back then...

Quite Right, which would of course mean that no video shot of the WTC events would be acceptable, uploaded to youtube or otherwise.

Not sure what you mean, don't confuse the two, Betacam was professional standard at the time, Betamax was a consumer product..

After Betacam came XDcam, shooting to disk DVD, now SD Cards.. Sony made a boat load along the way.

a reply to: wildb

It was a mistake on my part. I was typing in three different windows at the time. I've got a little experience in video and film editing but it's been a long time.