If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
New 911 Documentary
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I just happened to come across this new video uploadd about 2 months ago on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en
Starts getting interesting after 16 minutes when several university experts start to give their views of how the laws of physics shows that the building should not have fallen just by the impact of a plane and if they did it should have taken anything from 48 seconds to over 100 seconds not the 8 seconds it took.
Does this video change or back anyone views of whether the towers were brought down by planes or pre planted explosions? And if so who could have had access to 3 different buildings?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en
Starts getting interesting after 16 minutes when several university experts start to give their views of how the laws of physics shows that the building should not have fallen just by the impact of a plane and if they did it should have taken anything from 48 seconds to over 100 seconds not the 8 seconds it took.
Does this video change or back anyone views of whether the towers were brought down by planes or pre planted explosions? And if so who could have had access to 3 different buildings?
0
Comments
I think the 3 buildings that collasped on sept 11th are the key to proving the whole thing was staged.
I've never seen 3 buildings collapse so perfectly (exept on videos of controlled explosions) and as shown in the documentary never in the history of building fires either before or since has the building collasped like it did 3 times on that day.
Plus this video is from another University professor who says the contents of the particles found on that day show traces of explosives used specicially for blowing up buildings and also talks about how convient it was the piece seem to most be cut at 30 feet long (i.e. just the right size to fit on trucks and be whisked away)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904&q=stephen+jones+thermate
And then finally the 2nd video on this page gives one chap's top 10 reasons for why the bombers were fakes
http://www.st911.org/
Which include the fact several of the people the FBI said carried out the hijacking have been found alive and well
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/2373_comment.php
And also that mobile phones inthe USA wouldn't have worked at that speed an altiude (and in the USA their mobile phones work on a really high frequency which means their signals don't go very far - bad for consumers but good if you want to track someone's movements via their phone signal)
I simply cannot believe at the end of the day that 3 buildings, espacially tower 7 which only had two small fires could fall so perfectly without a little help from someone and that 2 guys with not that much flying experience could fly so perfectly into those buildings.
As the guy inthe first video says there are certain laws of nature - like the laws of gravity and you'd have to break the laws of physics to make the story the government gives fit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4262509.stm
The shear number of people you would need to pull something like this off will mean if its dodgy it will out, but I very much doubt it.
Exactly.
It's been too long now for the amount of people that would of had to be involved not to let slip. Even if it's just to a family member, word soon spreads.
Because it wasn't hit by a jet liner filled with aviation fuel would be my guess...
"Stupid" questions again ?????
I would speculate as to why you often seem antagonistic to the questioning of things.
Perhaps it was the beloved state education/propaganda mill ?
I remember the directives "Don`t ask questions" and "Do as you are told" so surely you must ?
Did you see flames anything like as intense in 911 as you can in those pictures of the madrid fire?
And even if it is avitation fuel how does that explain building 7 that fell first and wasn't hit by a plane?
And on one website it gives the various tempretures at which iron and steel melt which is double the tempreture at which fuel burns
The simple facts of temperatures:
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
The site that is featuring university professors questioning 911 is interesting because they all go through very strict procedures of collecting facts and then sumitting it to their piers to review, etc
And as one of the professors was saying, how come any plane got to the pentagon when it's supposed to be the most heavily protected building in the entire world - surrounded by a multi-million dollar system of surface to air missles.
The only video's of the so called plane hitting it have never been shown - just a few frames of what could be anything - so basically the only thing professors, etc can come back to for proving it was staged is to examine the falling of the 3 towers.
911 has made a lot of people extremely wealthly (like those that have shares in defence companies) and made the US able to pass laws that make it more powerful then ever.
More pictures of other sky scraper fires, none of which collasped either
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
oh really, exactly how many years after the Reichstag burned down did the Germans find out it was Hitler what dunnit........?
and Pearl Harbour, the Yanks knew the Japs were coming and let them attack without warning the ship, but this didn't come out for years either.....of course by the time the info surfaces it's all rather irrelevant anyways, too late to stop WW2, too late to stop the Yanks joining in, and too late to stop the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq.....
Which in a round about way is exactly what I said.
I dont say it wasnt a conspiracy or that its impossible, I just think its unlikely and if it was then it will out.
But in the mean time I really fail to see how it changes anything.
okay, it sounded like you said if there was a conspiracy we'd all know about it by now.........i agree it changes nothing, it would be nice to see those responsible strung up but i've resigned myself to the fact it will never happen......
As for 9/11, maybe they knew and did nothing about it, but i hardly think they, the Americans, engineered absolutely the whole thing from start to finish and created Osama Bin Laden as a "bogey man" when he was really just some guy chilling out, sipping non-alcoholic wine with his hundred wives kicking back watching Law and Order.
I don't know if the US knew about pearl harbour, but it's well reported that the British knew the Germans were on their way to bomb certain cities in the UK but did not do anything about it because it would have revealed the fact that they'd cracked the German's Enigma Machine which was used for sending secret messages.
The Manhattan Project is also another example of a secret the US were able to keep for years,, until 2 bombs were finally dropped on Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
When you're part of government projects this sensitive it's not the sort of thing you'd let slip (if you value your own safety or those of your family)
The Manhatten Project was kept quiet for 4 years - and involved 400 people.
Anyway, not that many people would be required to pull 9/11 off, and those that did are most likely to be highly shadowy. A few "engineers" to lay the bombs under the cover of maintenace work, a central command to take over the planes by remote control, and a few patsies to take the blame. Then you have drills of exactly the same thing happening at the exact same time - confusing NORAD etc.
To be fair its not really a comparison is it? The pictures are taken from different angles, from a building which didn't collapse (and thus isn't covered in a covering of smoke and dust) so from ther snapshot you can't make a comparison
However unless the fires were still burning in the Madrid up to 12 weeks later I'd hazard a guess that they weren't as intense.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
and
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
.
To be frank the melting point of steel is irrelevant - it does have to melt as it softens at temperatues way below melting point and once it starts to soften it can't hold the weight its designed to do ergo it collapses
This is quoted quite often - but there's actually no evidence that before the attack the Pentagon was protected by SAM missiles. No one's ever addmitted to serving in one, there's no evidence in any published US order of Battle of there being there and no-ones ever seen one - and there a bit hard to hide in the middle of a metropolis.
Actually its not suprising - the US in peace time wasn't expecting a suprise air attack from a foreign power and certainly wasn't expecting a hijacked airliner to crash into it, so putting SAMs near a flight path seemed to promise no reward for some potential risk (accidental misfiring for example).
Do you mean hitting the pentagon - well there may not be much film, but there are plenty of witnesses, plus people who cleared up and saw bits of body and aircraft.
I'll save you the trouble of claiming many people claimed not to have seen the plane or any evidence and just post the rebuttals
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
Doesn't proove a thing I'm afraid, because whilst its bolstered some shares it also reduced profits in plenty of manufacturing industries which rely on oil, the passenger aviation industry, the tourist industry etc.
To be fair no-one had crashed a jetliner into one.
But to be honest why bother to all the trouble and risk of planting explosives. Two planes definetely crashed into two tower blocks - even without the collapse that killed several hundred people on the planes and an untold number in the tower blocks (numbers unknown but a pretty significant amount I'd say). This alone is a major terrorist attack and would present the justification for Bush acting as he did.
We still don't. We know the Nazis profited from it, but that's all.
Most researchers now agree that Marinuus van de Lube did it, who was a communist sympathiser who did it.
They disagree whether he did it as a patsy for the Nazis (who used an agent provacteur), the communists or acting alone (personally my money's on option 3 but I'm open to persuasion any way)
Unfortunately most serious historians of the period think the claim that roosevelt knew is complete bollocks.
The claim rest of several charges:
1) That at a time of heightened tension with Japan the US was woefully unprepared for a suprise attack (this is true, but for a country many of who's citizens were desperate to avoid getting sucked into war quite understandable)
2) The US had broken Japanese codes (partially true - unfortunately they'd only broken diplomatic codes - none of which even hinted at the attack, for the probable reason that most Japanese diplomats were as suprised as the US by the attack)
3) The common racist view that how could a bunch of 'slant eyed Japs' overcome the superior 'White race' (funnily enough often a subtext of the 9/11 theorists as well).
Against that a failed attack would have been just as beneficial to Roosevelt as a succesful one - better in fact because he didn't loose half his Pacific fleet and wasn't left looking like someone who'd been suckered. So if he knew why not warn the fleet and end up looking like someone who foiled a suprise attack.
Well apart from all the leaks to the Soviets. But then again there were plenty of rumours on what was going on within Berlin and Tokyo - what they didn't know was exactly what and if it was an Atomic Bomb how far they'd advanced.
And frankly if that bomb had then been dropped on New York instead of Hiroshima and the Japanese blamed there would have been plenty of whistle blowers.
ETA - Chruchill keeping quiet on Coventry has also been pretty much debunked. all they knew was that a city was going to be attacked and it was assumed to be London. to be honest even if they'd known it was Coventry there was little they could do - British nightfighting capability was such at the time that it couldn't shoot down the raid and a warning to the population to flee the city would have just resulted in congestion on the roads when the bombs started falling 9when it would actually be safer to be indoors and in your shelter than out in the open)
Hitler didn't do. Van de Lubbe did it. Hitler just capitalised on the situation.
OK, but 3 Buildings fell down perfectly, within their own foot print (i.e. they did not topple over, or were part standing afterwards)
2 we saw planes fly into them .. but the very first building to fall (Tower 7) also fell straight down .. why?
Here's 4 videos of it falling .. last one is very interesting..
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273&q=wtc+7
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4322650841860671469&q=wtc+7
Can you explain how WTC 7 building fell, when there was only minor fires?
And also how it fell so perfectly? i.e. straight down.
I see you didn't look at my link
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
I saw that link but I don't see which part is supposed to answer my original question?
Why did it fall if no other sky scraper has ever fallen before? (and not had planes fly into them) .. in Madrid the building was burning for 24 hours and it was still standing the next day? .. Do the Spanish build superior buildings to the Americans?
And why did it fall so perfectly? If anything your link shows a lot more fire and smoke on one side of the building then the other so if it had have fallen from natural causes (i.e. fires) wouldn't it have leaned to one side first and toppled over?
Plus a little bit of critical thinking shows that anyone who planned and was able to execute a major cover up isn't going to just blow up an undamaged building next to the twin towers and hope no-one notices it wasn't damaged.
If you have any links to online videos (not just static sites) that show some of these experts talking about how science supports their views I'd be interested to view them, so far every single scientificly based video I've seen about the buildings supports the demolitian view, i.e. talking about the buildings falling in freefall when they believe instead of taking 10 seconds to fall the twin towers should have taken over 100 seconds
If you have links to videos do post them
I started this thread more to talk about the science and physics of the buildings falling and to discuss which view the science supports (i.e. natural or man assisted collaspe)
Oh dear
it's a fair request, I've posted several links now on this thread from university guys talking about how the buildings fell, and ones showing things like the speed of a falling ball compared to the falling tower, so there must be some that support your point of view .. right?
At the end of the day when all is said and done we only have video footage of the 2 towers being hit and the 3 towers falling - there's no public video's of the pentagon, or that other flight that's supposed to have crash.
I'll even help you out - here's the only video I've found to support your point of view (based on science) - but it is a computer animation and the chap speaking is obviously saying why he thinks it's not
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2724976424725060242&q=wtc+7