|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 8, 2013 22:11:26 GMT -5
"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" is a 5 hour documentary that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11. While aimed primarily at a general, uninformed audience, the film also contains some new findings that may be of interest to advanced researchers. This film is intended as an educational, non-profit operation, and must remain so in order to fulfill all the requirements for the usage of copyrighted material. As such, the entire film is made available online for free from day one. Any purchase of the actual DVD will be considered as a form of donation to the author, in recognition of the time spent to put together this material. Free duplication and distribution of all DVDs is encouraged. At the bottom of the page you will find more information related to this film, including the links to order the DVD, and the TRAILER. TRAILERDVD 1 (1:55:06) DVD 2 (1:30:24) DVD 3 (1:28:10) www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167Note: I have not yet viewed all the videos.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 9, 2013 8:18:53 GMT -5
The people who work for a "non-profit" are still able to make huge salaries
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 9, 2013 11:43:59 GMT -5
The people who work for a "non-profit" are still able to make huge salaries Not that it has any relevance to any of the videos I posted or to the events of 9/11, I have no clue what these people are making. Personally, I hope they are well compensated, they deserve every penny and more. Their combined work is priceless and we need for them to continue as long as they can (by "we", I mean only for those who care obviously). You claim they're still able "huge salaries". How do you know how much they're making? How do you know what they're making in comparison to what they were making? Who are you talking about? And why does this even matter? So let me get this straight, I posted about 5 hours worth of videos and that is all you care about? I take it you didn't watch 1 second of any of these videos because you posted that this is all "background noise" to you, so again, why are you posting here?
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 9, 2013 15:17:03 GMT -5
The people who work for a "non-profit" are still able to make huge salaries Not that it has any relevance to any of the videos I posted or to the events of 9/11, I have no clue what these people are making. Personally, I hope they are well compensated, they deserve every penny and more. Their combined work is priceless and we need for them to continue as long as they can (by "we", I mean only for those who care obviously). You claim they're still able "huge salaries". How do you know how much they're making? How do you know what they're making in comparison to what they were making? Who are you talking about? And why does this even matter? So let me get this straight, I posted about 5 hours worth of videos and that is all you care about? I take it you didn't watch 1 second of any of these videos because you posted that this is all "background noise" to you, so again, why are you posting here? dude I just posted a little factoid about non-profits. keep your shirt on LOL
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 9, 2013 16:26:35 GMT -5
Not that it has any relevance to any of the videos I posted or to the events of 9/11, I have no clue what these people are making. Personally, I hope they are well compensated, they deserve every penny and more. Their combined work is priceless and we need for them to continue as long as they can (by "we", I mean only for those who care obviously). You claim they're still able "huge salaries". How do you know how much they're making? How do you know what they're making in comparison to what they were making? Who are you talking about? And why does this even matter? So let me get this straight, I posted about 5 hours worth of videos and that is all you care about? I take it you didn't watch 1 second of any of these videos because you posted that this is all "background noise" to you, so again, why are you posting here? dude I just posted a little factoid about non-profits. keep your shirt on LOL What you posted is not a "factoid" about non-profits, it's just your irrelevant opinion about some people (whoever they may be) who may be making huge salaries (which is a matter of interpretation) while working for non-profits. It has zero to do with this thread so again, what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 9, 2013 18:53:41 GMT -5
I just finished going through all the videos and learned some things that I never knew before so it was well worth the 5 hours. The videos address many "debunker" points, virtually all of which have been posted here almost verbatim by Shred. What's interesting about the many "debunkers" depicted in the videos is that they all seem to share the exact same opinions and theories. What's also typically characteristic of "debunkers" is not one of them ever questions any part of the official story and they all spend a lot of time denigrating those who do question any minute part of the official story as well as use character assassination in their arguments. Sound familiar?
For those who want just some specifics, here's the index:
DVD 1
INTRODUCTION
0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11 0.14:10 - The debate: main issues
PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE
0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors? 0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" (radars, transponders) 0.22:00 - The military drills 0.29:40 - Specific warnings 0.33:08 - The chain of command 0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments 0.39:50 - The Mineta case 0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken" 0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary
PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS
0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots" 0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175) 1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93) 1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77) 1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions 1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack 1.13:10 - Someone knew? 1.16:40 - Airport security cameras 1.20.15 - The missing black boxes
PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES
1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones? 1.28:20 - Impossible speeds 1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers? 1.38:35 - The cellphone calls 1.48:30 - The debunkers' position 1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?
DVD 2
PART 4 - THE PENTAGON
0.02:35 - Downed light poles 0.03:30 - The missing plane 0.04:30 - The official version 0.05:24 - Problems with the official version (wing, ailerons, tail, engines) 0.13:09 - The mystery hole 0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations 0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis 0.17:00 - The missing tapes 0.18:30 - Security video analysis 0.23.40 - Pentagon summary
PART 5 - FLIGHT 93
0.24.15 - The empty hole 0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations 0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion? 0.34:50 - The debris field 0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis 0.38:50 - The small white plane 0.41:40 - "Let's roll" 0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93
PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS
0.45:10 - Introduction 0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret 0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein 0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers 0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings? 1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1 1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2 1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation 1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation 1.18:50 - Law of physics violated 1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall 1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E
DVD 3
(Twin Towers continued)
0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions 0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives" 0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses) 0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory 0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras" 0.30:26 - Squibs 0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage) 0.35:00 - Ejecta 0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts 0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses? 0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures 0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations 0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams 0.47:40 - Molten steel 0.51:05 - Molten concrete 0.53:50 - Pulverization 0.57:40 - Victims vaporized 1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers
PART 7 - BUILDING 7
1.05:10 - Introduction 1.06:35 - Official version by NIST 1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation 1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation 1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker" 1.14:25 - Preknowledge 1.19:00 - Symmetry 1.20:00 - Freefall
EPILOGUE
1.22:30 - John McCain 1.24:35 - The last word
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 9, 2013 19:40:02 GMT -5
dude I just posted a little factoid about non-profits. keep your shirt on LOL What you posted is not a "factoid" about non-profits, it's just your irrelevant opinion about some people (whoever they may be) who may be making huge salaries (which is a matter of interpretation) while working for non-profits. It has zero to do with this thread so again, what is your point? Just my opinion, but I sometimes get the feeling that people throw out the term "non-profit" to give folks the feeling that they are selflessly sacrificing their lives for some grand cause, and they cry all the way to the bank
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 9, 2013 21:14:18 GMT -5
What you posted is not a "factoid" about non-profits, it's just your irrelevant opinion about some people (whoever they may be) who may be making huge salaries (which is a matter of interpretation) while working for non-profits. It has zero to do with this thread so again, what is your point? Just my opinion, but I sometimes get the feeling that people throw out the term "non-profit" to give folks the feeling that they are selflessly sacrificing their lives for some grand cause, and they cry all the way to the bank I can't argue that. However, it has zero to do with the point of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 9, 2013 21:22:53 GMT -5
Just my opinion, but I sometimes get the feeling that people throw out the term "non-profit" to give folks the feeling that they are selflessly sacrificing their lives for some grand cause, and they cry all the way to the bank I can't argue that. However, it has zero to do with the point of this thread. They are the ones who mentioned it first
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 9, 2013 21:38:22 GMT -5
I can't argue that. However, it has zero to do with the point of this thread. They are the ones who mentioned it first It still has zero to do with the point of this thread. How much profit was made by select corporations and people as a result of 9/11? Why does that not concern you more than what profit individuals may be making (if any) while exposing the 9/11 FRAUD? There is not one iota of comparison.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 9, 2013 22:08:14 GMT -5
Until you become brave enough to put your own ideas on the table re what actually happened, I cannot take any of it seriously. You have posted dozens (maybe hundreds) of paragraphs on the subject. You cannot tell me you don't have an opinion as to what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 9, 2013 23:24:29 GMT -5
Until you become brave enough to put your own ideas on the table re what actually happened, I cannot take any of it seriously. You have posted dozens (maybe hundreds) of paragraphs on the subject. You cannot tell me you don't have an opinion as to what really happened. Yes I have posted a ton of information about 9/11, much of which comes from experts in a variety of scientific disciplines and academics of all kinds. I have posted the official narrative and some "debunker" theories as well. Everything is important, despite your failure (or pretense) to recognize that. What you're really saying is that unless I'm "brave enough" to post my opinion as to what happened, there is not a thing I posted from others that you will take seriously. That is one of the most ridiculous excuses I have heard for ignoring or failing to recognize the facts and logic about 9/11. You claim to be depending solely on my opinion as to what happened on 9/11 before you'll even recognize the thousands of issues these people expose. Personally, I think you're either full of s**t or if you're not, you have some serious issues yourself. I vote for the former. I don't really care about your personal issues. I don't post all this valuable information on 9/11 to try to convince anyone who wants to wear blinders. Those people are and always will be in fear of reality. I have posted my opinion about 9/11 many times and it matches the FACTS. That is partly, that the official 9/11 narrative is a LIE and a COVER-UP for a massive crime (or more precisely, for many massive crimes). Other than the FACTS, I have no opinion as to what actually happened, who, where, how and why because frankly, I don't know. No one does other than those who were involved. But it is exactly what I'm looking for, the TRUTH, not government LIES. For me to get into speculation (i.e. Bush did 9/11, it was UFOs, etc.) is absolutely ludicrous and distracts from my intended goal. For me, what's most important about 9/11 is to EDUCATE those who want to be educated and as many as I can get educated. Ignorance of this subject is NOT bliss, it is one of the primary tools criminals use to enslave The People. They thrive on it. It's nothing new, Goebbels could not have said it better. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda
|
|
|
Post by rkmw56 on Sept 10, 2013 3:34:26 GMT -5
I watched all the videos and think they did an excellent job of debunking the Debunkers and/or the "Official" version.
I did see things I hadn't heard of before, as well as much that I had seen before, with excellent diagrams and charts, plus verbal explanations that were logical.
I liked this part of a speech by First Responder, David Miller in New York- 2006.
"I don't think we're crazy,
Conspiracies are only evidence the courts won't hear".
He died in December of 2010, 4 years after that speech, of cancer in both lungs, as a result of his work at Ground Zero.
It wasn't easy for me to watch it ... when the extent of the plot is laid out so plainly, to the number of people involved, some for power and some for greed ... and not just the president and his gang, lots of people involved ... perhaps some did so unwittingly ...
but what really did happen to the people on the planes, if those planes were actually drones?
Yep, it left me with some new questions, too.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 11, 2013 8:29:30 GMT -5
Especially on 9/11, this excellent documentary needs to stay on top. It encompasses many years of research and lays out just about everything known about 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 8:33:55 GMT -5
Tripe Bob, it's yet another load of s**t which excuses the crimes of the Hamburg cell hijackers of Al Qaeda who carried out the atrocity and pretends that this horrific attack was an inside job by misrepresenting PNAC's rebuilding Americas Defences paper. PNAC were warning against another Pearl Harbour not calling for one. www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 11, 2013 9:19:27 GMT -5
"Tripe Bob"
Ok, so ignore it, it's not for you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 10:54:06 GMT -5
That load of tripe you posted is not for anyone with blessed with a working brain. The fires in the twin towers were so hot people above the impact zones were jumping from them. Stop trying to excuse the crimes of the hijackers by blaming your ex government.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 11, 2013 11:04:34 GMT -5
"That load of tripe you posted is not for anyone with blessed with a working brain."
Is that something you believe you have, a working brain? If you did, you would know your immature tactics are worthless.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 13, 2013 7:53:07 GMT -5
This thread will remain at the top because the documentary by Massimo Mazzucco is perhaps one of the most comprehensive ones available today. That is not to say this one does not rank at the top as well:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 25, 2013 12:25:26 GMT -5
David Cole is currently in the process of challenging NIST directly on their numerous discrepancies (deliberate omissions and fabrications in my opinion), such as the obvious missing shear studs and welded stiffeners that appear in the actual WTC7 blueprints vs the NIST drawings as well as the seat width and walk off distances that don't match. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 22, 2013 8:13:08 GMT -5
This is the most important documentary on 9/11 to date. It presents both sides, the official narrative and statements by those who support it and the side that contradicts and questions it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 30, 2013 19:31:58 GMT -5
Review of "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor", a documentary by Massimo Mazzucco By David Ray Griffin
There have been several good films and videos about 9/11. But the new film by award-winning film-maker Massimo Mazzucco is in a class by itself.
For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for.
Whereas there are excellent films treating the falsity of particular parts of the official account, such as the Twin Towers or WTC 7, Mazzucco has given us a comprehensive documentary treatment of 9/11, dealing with virtually all of the issues.
There have, of course, been films that treated the fictional official story as true. And there are films that use fictional stories to portray people’s struggles after starting to suspect the official story to be false.
But there is no fiction in Mazzucco’s film – except in the sense that it clearly and relentlessly exposes every part of the official account as fictional.
Because of his intent at completeness, Mazzucco has given us a 5-hour film. It is so fascinating and fast-paced that many will want to watch it in one sitting. But this is not necessary, as the film, which fills 3 DVDs, consists of 7 parts, each of which is divided into many short chapters.
These 7 parts treat Air Defence, The Hijackers, The Airplanes, The Pentagon, Flight 93, The Twin Towers, and Building 7. In each part, after presenting facts that contradict the official story, Mazzucco deals with the claims of the debunkers (meaning those who try to debunk the evidence provided by the 9/11 research community).
The Introduction, reflecting the film’s title, deals with 12 uncanny parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11.
The film can educate people who know nothing about 9/11 (beyond the official story), those with a moderate amount of knowledge about the various problems with the official story, and even by experts. (I myself learned many things.)
Mazzucco points out that his film covers 12 years of public debate about 9/11. People who have been promoting 9/11 truth for many of these years will see that their labors have been well-rewarded: There is now a high-quality, carefully-documented film that dramatically shows the official story about 9/11 to be a fabrication through and through.
This is truly the film we have been waiting for.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Dec 20, 2013 11:34:52 GMT -5
September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor Review of the Film by Simon Day and Commentary on the Italian Premiere by AE911Truth Staff The DVD reviewed here is quite important for the 9/11 Truth movement generally. However, it ventures far outside the scope of AE911Truth’s mission and area of expertise. While we review, and wholeheartedly embrace, the excellent segments of the DVD that cover the World Trade Center evidence, we specifically do not endorse, or even discuss, the other three hours of material on the DVD.In September 1997, “The Project for the New American Century,” a Washington, DC-based US think tank, was founded with the purpose of promoting US global leadership. In September 2000, they published a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.” In this document, we find the following statement: “[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.” Wind the clock on another year to the devastating events of September 11th, 2001, and we have a plausible candidate for this New Pearl Harbor. This is the case made by Massimo Mazzucco in his superb new DVD, September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor. This epic production, stands head and shoulders above most of the other offerings that try to span the spectrum of the events on 9/11. So what makes this one so special? For me, there are three key points to be highlighted. The first is the quality of the presentation. Many documentaries address this complex subject, but fail to achieve a level of professionalism. In contrast, Mazzucco’s production has the sort of quality that one might see on television or in the mainstream media. The second is the enormous depth and quality of the research that has gone into the production. Mazzucco has let out all the stops, has explored most of the angles, and provides a wealth of information. A lot of the information in the film was obtained through the efforts of various researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement via Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Key facets of the controversial issues surrounding 9/11 are presented meticulously and fairly. The third is Mazzucco’s adherence to the principles of logic and science. But let’s get back to the central point of Mazzucco’s work – the similarity between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor (PH). He kicks off the DVD by describing 12 points of similarity. First, we are told that the claimed goal of the government in each case differed substantially from the actual goal. In the case of PH, the actual goal was war with Hitler, whereas the stated goal was war with Japan. Similarly, in the case of 9/11, the larger goal was war with Iraq, whereas the country first attacked by the US after 9/11 was Afghanistan. Subsequently, in both cases, a powerful propaganda machine was cranked up to establish the necessary connections in the public mind. A huge number of Americans ended up believing that Hitler was responsible for PH and that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11. Foreknowledge was another key area of similarity. In both cases, it was well known in Washington, DC, that attacks were expected well before they actually occurred. Even the exact dates of the attacks were known weeks in advance. The foreknowledge of the attacks enjoyed by one group in the government was withheld from other groups that might have been able to avert them. In both cases, the government was accused of having this foreknowledge, but these claims were, unsurprisingly, denounced. At the same time, when honest officials who wanted to avert the attacks tried to report it to their superiors, their calls fell on deaf ears. Moving on to the military response to the attacks (or lack of it), we see yet more similarities. In both cases, at the exact time of the attacks, key members of the military made themselves unavailable. Donald Rumsfeld, it is reported, vanished without trace for 30 minutes. Prior to this, in both cases, the available military force in the area had been deliberately reduced. On 9/11 there were only four available jet fighters to defend the whole of the Eastern seaboard of the country. On top of this, in both cases, we have stand-down orders that were issued (apparently from VP Dick Cheney on 911), further crippling the country’s defenses in its hour of need. Needless to say that, in both cases, the indignation of the public following the attacks was used to justify entry into wars that had been planned long before. The aftermath of each attack saw the formation of commissions whose stated purpose it was to investigate the government’s failure to thwart the attacks. The Roberts Commission (in the case of PH) and the 9/11 Commission were both “investigations” into conspiracies that might have been led (astray) by the conspirators themselves. Neither investigation acknowledged any involvement by insiders. The myths of 9/11 crumble under Mazzucco’s fierce and unrelenting scrutiny as he takes apart Popular Mechanics piece by piece.Moving on again, we are told of the various citizens groups speaking out about the events of 9/11 and the state of the ongoing debate between them. First we have those in the 9/11 Truth Movement, sometimes called “Truthers,” who question the official narrative of events. Then we have the “debunkers,” who have attempted to disprove the evidence offered by the Truthers. Mazzucco devotes much of his attention to disproving such attempts by the debunkers, resulting in a comprehensive, highly coherent rebuttal of the debunkers’ case. In Mazzucco’s sights are Italy’s top debunker Paulo Attivissimo and his French counterpart Jerome Quirant. Both these men have been active in their home countries on the lecture circuit presenting their “facts” about 9/11. At the top of Attivissimo’s list is Popular Mechanics magazine which produced the book Debunking 9/11 Myths. Although this book has been thoroughly debunked by AE911Truth, it is still regarded by some as the best attempt yet by debunkers to challenge the 9/11 Truth Movement. In more than four dozen separate examples, Mazzucco effectively demonstrates that a lot of the debunkers’ “evidence” is either entirely untrue or is based on misconceptions and erroneous inferences. Mazzucco, on the other side of the debate table, recognizes the outstanding efforts by the professionals at AE911Truth to refute the building collapse reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The core structure of the Twin Towers was far from a being “hollow steel shaft” as it was described in The 9/11 Commission Report. The 47 massive steel box columns in the core were 52 in. x 22 in. at the base and almost solid steel. Yet debunkers try all manner of (often dishonest) justifications to explain away how these columns suddenly, all at once, gave up about 90% of their strengthLet’s have a look at some of the debunkers’ arguments in a little more detail. (Many of these points are also provided in the detailed documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out by the 2,100-strong Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is used throughout this important 2-hour section of Mazzucco’s 5-hour DVD.) One constant theme is that the three WTC towers were allegedly built using light construction that rendered them fragile and weak. This is based around the fact that the towers’ interior columns were located in the core of the buildings, with an open area between that core and the perimeter that was spanned by floor-framing members. Some debunkers say that it’s the location of the uprights that made the Towers weak. Others, including the 9/11 Commission, maintained that it was the location of the uprights in the core that made it weak – calling it a “hollow steel shaft.” Attivissimo, for example, makes this claim in one of his lectures and goes on to say that “as far as I know, only the [Willis (formerly)] Sears Tower is of the same type, and nobody uses [this method of construction] anymore.” The facts, of course, as pointed out by AE911Truth petition signers David Chandler and Anthony Szamboti disagree with this assertion. The core, far from being a hollow shaft, was in fact a solid array of very substantial columns that were more like a separate skyscraper within a skyscraper. The outer shell, joined to the central core via a hat truss at the top of the building, resulted in a structure of immense strength that was capable of supporting three to five times the actual weight of the building. This design model is so strong that it is still used in new buildings today. In fact, a similar design was used by Larry Silverstein’s architects to construct the new building that stands on the site of the originally destroyed third tower – WTC7. Also, the structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers noted that one of the design criteria was that that it should be able to withstand an airliner hitting it at 600 mph. They said, “[T]he problem would be that the fuel would dump into the building [causing fires] – but the building would still be there.” Mazzucco emphasizes a solid tenet of the Truthers’ argument, which is that the free-fall collapse of the three towers is impossible without additional energy being supplied to the system during collapse. The idea here is a simple one. As the section of the building that was falling (the upper block of floors in the case of WTC1 and WTC2) fell onto the section that was, at that point in time, stationary (the intact lower floors), energy would have been absorbed by the stationary section in two ways. The AE911Truth experts who testify in Mazzucco’s powerful documentary note that there would be equal and opposite destructive forces acting on the top section of the building as it crushed the lower section. In fact, according to Newton’s Third Law, it would be destroyed in the first four seconds of this conflict – as video clips show that it was
First would be the energy needed to shatter the lower section and move the columns – allowing the falling section to accelerate downward at nearly the rate of free-fall. Since, in the government’s narrative, the only source of energy was the kinetic energy of the falling upper section, we should, therefore, observe substantially less than a free-fall downward acceleration. However, for a large part of the duration of the collapse, the event proceeded at near free-fall acceleration: exactly the opposite of what would be predicted both by physics and common sense. One would expect NIST to have some kind of explanation of this in their report. However, shockingly, there is no such explanation. NIST was careful to point out that their investigation only covered what happened up to the “initiation of collapse,” and omits any discussion of what happened after collapse initiation – insisting that it was unnecessary because, as John Gross, Co-Project Leader of the NIST report states rather flippantly, “After all, the building collapsed and we all saw it.” Perhaps the reason for this is that to have done so would have necessitated an explanation of why the laws of physics did not hold true on 9/11, even though they have proved unvarying on every other day throughout time. Mazzucco makes all this clear by showing an excerpt of a presentation by AE911Truth’s Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth. Gage explains that is not too difficult to calculate the structural resistance of the lower floors to the collapse from the weight above – and the decelerating effect this would have. When this is taken into consideration, he demonstrates that it is not even possible that the whole building would collapse at all, let alone at the near free-fall acceleration that was documented by researchers (and that is even admitted by official reports). Mazzucco employs dozens of examples such as the above that refute the position of each debunker exhaustively. The DVD is not only an effective source of information for anyone already well versed in the events and debate of 9/11, but also an excellent starting place for anyone new to the many fascinating technical issues involved. Their disturbing implications are also well covered in the film. David Ray Griffin, 9/11 researcher and author of 10 books on the subject, notes, “There have been several good films and videos about 9/11. But this new film by award-winning film-maker Massimo Mazzucco is in a class by itself. For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for.” www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/830-september-11-the-new-pearl-harbor.html
|
|