Best 9/11 documentaries

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have to ask this question, is it not possibly for thermite to be used just on one core column from the bottom up of the WTC to melt the connections, and wouldn't that alone be enough to bring the WTC down if most of the WTC was substandard and never tested for any heat resistance.

If the steel was very poor it would not take much to weaken it. If just one core column was destroyed the rest of the WTC would collapse.

Just a thought.

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've found it's best to watch some of the longer material in parts. I usually take notes and try to verify things as I'm watching so it's slow going sometimes but you end up getting a lot more information out of them that way rather than trying to absorb four hours of narration.

a reply to: wildb

No worries. I understand If I'm able to find it somehow ( unless it's been since taken down ) I'll post it here.

Is that everything is a rich man's trick?

originally posted by: sg1642
Is that everything is a rich man's trick?

Hum , that or JFK to 911,

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: sg1642
Is that everything is a rich man's trick?

Hum , that or JFK to 911,

same video JFK to 9/11:everything is a rich man's trick. I made a thread about it a while back. Good documentary.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: sg1642
Is that everything is a rich man's trick?

Hum , that or JFK to 911,

same video JFK to 9/11:everything is a rich man's trick. I made a thread about it a while back. Good documentary.

Well there you have it, thanks, yes it was very good..

a reply to: twitchy

That's actually a good idea. I know I "rushed" through at least an hour of it before work and finished the rest later on that day. I never really take notes on things like this and hope to retain it as best as possible, but yeah I feel like I should start taking notes.

originally posted by: MystiqueAgent
a reply to: twitchy

That's actually a good idea. I know I "rushed" through at least an hour of it before work and finished the rest later on that day. I never really take notes on things like this and hope to retain it as best as possible, but yeah I feel like I should start taking notes.

If you watch it 2 or 3 times you will pick up on even more..

a reply to: twitchy

Did you know that much of what 9/11 conspiracy websites present is disinformation and misinformation? Case in point; the claim that ACARS depicted 9/11 aircraft airborne after their reported crash time. Another claim that American 77 overflew the Pentagon and secretly landed at Ronald Reagan Airport.

Question is; how can a B-757 secretly land at the airport under the watchful eyes of radar controllers, ATC personnel and ground controllers? Who is going to pay the landing and gate fees and servicing cost for that aircraft?

Other claims include the a so-called pod seen beneath United 175. I took a look and noticed that they were confusing aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors as an attached pod they'd claimed, was placed there to carry explosives. I seriously doubt that United Airlines would have allowed its aircraft grounded for many months in order to have it modified for that purpose.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: twitchy

Did you know that much of what 9/11 conspiracy websites present is disinformation and misinformation?

Thats your opinion, but what does that have to do with the above ? There not talking about conspiracy websites..

a reply to: wildb

I have to ask this question, is it not possibly for thermite to be used just on one core column from the bottom up of the WTC to melt the connections, and wouldn't that alone be enough to bring the WTC down if most of the WTC was substandard and never tested for any heat resistance.

If the steel was very poor it would not take much to weaken it. If just one core column was destroyed the rest of the WTC would collapse.

Just a thought.

I am interested in your thoughts of thermite or some kind of demolition being used to take out just one core column of the WTC, considering the new information that the WTC steel may have been weak to begin with and was never tested for heat resistance.

a reply to: wildb

I already know that as a fact because much of what they had posted does not reflect the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

For an example, the claim that tampering with the transponder will render an aircraft invisible on radar. That is incorrect, especially for B-767's and B-757's because they are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.

a reply to: Informer1958

never tested for heat resistance.

Actually, that is moot by the fact that unprotected steel lose much of its strength due to fire.

a reply to: Informer1958

Not one all of them, tube in tube right, cut out the core columns and drop them 20 or 30 feet, what would happen, the building would come apart, disengage ..

I'm not saying that happened thou, because the observation was different. I do think something was used, I do not , cannot look at the collapse and believe it was gravity alone.

No one has explained the TOTAL COLLAPSE TO GROUND LEVEL, until then the OS stinks.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I already know that as a fact because much of what they had posted does not reflect the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

For an example, the claim that tampering with the transponder will render an aircraft invisible on radar. That is incorrect, especially for B-767's and B-757's because they are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.

You have the wrong person, not talking about aviation here..

a reply to: wildb

What do those 9/11 documentaries have to say about the 9/11 aircraft?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I already know that as a fact because much of what they had posted does not reflect the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

For an example, the claim that tampering with the transponder will render an aircraft invisible on radar. That is incorrect, especially for B-767's and B-757's because they are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.

I've never seen anyone claim it will render an aircraft invisible to radar if you shut off its transponder. Where did you read that?

a reply to: sg1642

I've never seen anyone claim it will render an aircraft invisible to radar if you shut off its transponder. Where did you read that?

From conspiracy theorist over the years. Here is another reference;

Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar,

www.communitycurrency.org...

Claims of this "Loose Change" video have been debunked with facts and evidence. I took special interest of the disinformation and misinformation it is spewing beginning at time line 42:00. "Loose Change" never revealed the rest of the story at the Pentagon.