Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-09-2013, 06:30 AM   #1
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor (Full Movie)



"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 a divulgatory, 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.

--- TRAILER ---

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor Trailer - YouTube

--- DVD 1 ---

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor 1/3 - YouTube

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 ---

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor 2/3 - YouTube

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 ---

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor 3/3 - YouTube

(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

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modu...icle&artid=167

--- About the author ---


Massimo Mazzucco, award-winning filmmaker, screenwriter, and journalist. Editor of luogocomune.net, dedicated to 9/11 research. His 2006 9/11 documentary “Inganno Globale” was broadcast on Italian TV (Berlusconi’s Canale 5), sparking a national debate. His documentary “The New American Century” appeared in film festivals worldwide. Massimo Mazzucco is a member of 9/11 Consensus
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)

Last edited by sertes; 08-09-2013 at 08:59 AM.
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 09:00 AM   #2
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Can some mod turn the youtube links into embeds? (or explain to me how it's done?)

It would help visibility a lot.

Thanks!
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 11:26 AM   #3
helloperator
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)
Default

I like the dramatic music at the start...really got me in
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 03:31 PM   #4
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Thanks Sertes. I don`t know if you`re in contact with the people who made the movie, but if you are I would like it very much if the NRO and AWACS drills could be mentioned in part one if it ever gets an update, as well as Tripod II in New York. The air defense drills are just one part of the exercise complex, and although it`s probably the one it`s easiest to develop in this format, the others are just as damning if not more.
Also Apollo and Vigilant Guardian are worth keeping in mind, since they were the most strategic exercises going on on 9/11, and were directed against Russia, possibly for nuclear blackmail. They also seem to have elements of COG coup d`etat built in, and threats against puppet Bush on AF1. And finally Amalgam Virgo specifically included missile attacks on the Pentagon by a "rogue state barge", and you`d think this might be worth mentioning when you`re questioning the possibility of the plane`s trajectory.
In general the names of these exercises should be presented to people a lot more than they are. Any false flag attack needs drills to cover them, or they`ll be exposed. And there`s no way to really stage them without using the actual state bureaucracies and agencies. On every topic therefore the relevant drills need to be mentioned as the final evidence needed to remove all doubt, at least from my perspective.
Apart from these omissions, this is the best 9/11 documentary I`ve seen.

Last edited by skulb; 08-09-2013 at 05:34 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 03:56 PM   #5
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
QUESTION

Marwan Al-Sheikki had never flown a jet before in his life, let alone a huge airliner. How was he able to perform ascents of 3000 ft/m and plunges of 10,000 ft/m while keeping full control of the plane, and why would he want to take such unnecessary risks, including collisions with other airliners, instead of flying safely with the autopilot towards the intended target?
QUESTION

Why would a drone operator want to take the unnecessary risk of a 20,000 ft power dive?
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 04:44 PM   #6
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
QUESTION

Why would a drone operator want to take the unnecessary risk of a 20,000 ft power dive?
In all probability, to gain the speed necessary for a complete penetration of the drone into the twin Towers

---

Btw I also rely your question to Massimo, and I'll post his answer here. I'm only a collaborator of the movie project.
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)

Last edited by sertes; 08-09-2013 at 04:46 PM.
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 02:04 PM   #7
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Thanks to Reopen911.info the movie is being translated into french as well!

The first segment of the movie is published on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rf2nCW8SUE
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)

Last edited by sertes; 09-09-2013 at 02:05 PM.
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 03:53 PM   #8
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

The narrator says that flying drones into the towers "would seem a far-fetched possibility". I agree with that. Later though, the documentary assumes that's exactly what happened. Where is the evidence that military drones were flown into the towers? The 'pod theory' was a huge embarrassment to the truth movement. Why are you trying to resurrect it?
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 08:15 AM   #9
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The 'pod theory' was a huge embarrassment to the truth movement. Why are you trying to resurrect it?
You seem pretty angry at the movie, I got that.

But where do those accusation come from? Do you see the pod theory anywere in the movie?

(FYI Massimo Mazzucco was one of the first to disprove the pod theory, as he's a 15-year experienced professional photographer and a 9/11 Truther from day 1)

So, if you want to discuss elements from a 5 hour movie, be my guest. Just behave, ok?
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 12:27 PM   #10
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
You seem pretty angry at the movie, I got that.

But where do those accusation come from? Do you see the pod theory anywere in the movie?

(FYI Massimo Mazzucco was one of the first to disprove the pod theory, as he's a 15-year experienced professional photographer and a 9/11 Truther from day 1)

So, if you want to discuss elements from a 5 hour movie, be my guest. Just behave, ok?
The pod video was the main piece of evidence supporting the original military drone theory. Another piece of evidence supporting the military drone theory was a video of a woman saying "that was not an american airline". There was also some circumstantial evidence, such as Operation Northwoods and Dov Zakeim's modified refueling tankers. This new documentary assumes that military drones were used, but the only evidence it offers is Operation Northwoods.

It gives two possible motives: 1) the military planes would be able to fly at otherwise impossible speeds, 2) the passengers would be able to use their mobile phones after the changeover.

What type of drone do you think they used? Did they modify passenger jets to make them strong enough to fly at twice their maximum speed at 700 ft, or did they modify fighter jets to make them look exactly like passenger planes? Is either option plausible? The 5 hour documentary doesn't touch on this at all.

Do you think it would be worth going to all the trouble and risk of substituting drones for passenger jets just so a few passengers could ring their families?

What if the streets had been littered with plane parts that didn't belong on a Boeing 757/767?

Why not just hijack the passenger jets using remote control and fly the same planes into the buildings?
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 02:16 PM   #11
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The pod video was the main piece of evidence supporting the original military drone theory. Another piece of evidence supporting the military drone theory was a video of a woman saying "that was not an american airline". There was also some circumstantial evidence, such as Operation Northwoods and Dov Zakeim's modified refueling tankers. This new documentary assumes that military drones were used, but the only evidence it offers is Operation Northwoods.
Ok, maybe I'm being too much harsh myself... sorry for that

The pod theory was based on fake direct evidence. People saw a shade under "UA175" and thought that was a pod, so based on this fake direct evidence they thought that since a normal 767 has not that pod, it would serve some usefulness, like piloting the 767.
Just a couple of days later people analyzed the photo and concluded that that shade was just a shade, not a pod. In other photos there's no pod.
That's all.

In this documentary you'll see there's no possibility for the calls to originate from those planes.
So you may wonder, is there a theory that could explain it? Yes there is, one possibility is for UA175 to be a drone.
That's it.

Quote:
It gives two possible motives: 1) the military planes would be able to fly at otherwise impossible speeds, 2) the passengers would be able to use their mobile phones after the changeover.
Also, from the conspirator side, it would give more control on the trajectory: any pilot, however duped or convinced to slam himself toward a building could change idea or at least be scared off. It's human, after all. To the conspirators side, a remotely flown jet increases chances tenfold.

Quote:
What type of drone do you think they used? Did they modify passenger jets to make them strong enough to fly at twice their maximum speed at 700 ft, or did they modify fighter jets to make them look exactly like passenger planes? Is either option plausible? The 5 hour documentary doesn't touch on this at all.
Don't know, don't care. The 5 hour documentary lacks even more stronger points (north pass at the pentagon, nanothermite paper, put options...) so there was really no more time to talk about SIDE ISSUES.

Quote:
Do you think it would be worth going to all the trouble and risk of substituting drones for passenger jets just so a few passengers could ring their families?
Yes, of course. Since we do not have any photo of the hijackers at the boarding pass or anywhere at the airports there would be need to confirmation for "arab looking hijackers". You may recall in Operation Northwoods when they blow up the drone, they make an indipendent plane/ship to find the debris, and they write explicity that an indipendent corroboration would make it more credible!
Also, the confirmation from the calls that the hijackers had only cutters extempt the people at the boarding gates from any accountability or responsability. Remember: in 9/11 no one is responsable. No one is demoted. It just happened.

Quote:
What if the streets had been littered with plane parts that didn't belong on a Boeing 757/767?
Well, they secluded the area, destroyed crime scene, and made a felony to remove debris.
Also, see this on the other side: in every major disaster NTSB always make a pairing to see serial number with the plane... every time but on 9/11.
On 9/11 you don't have positive identification of the pieces/plane debris

Quote:
Why not just hijack the passenger jets using remote control and fly the same planes into the buildings?
Probabli (my guess) because then you should install fly-by-wire on 4 planes while they're still in service, during common maintenance. Someone outside military would have noticed, for sure.
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)

Last edited by sertes; 10-09-2013 at 02:16 PM.
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 09:03 PM   #12
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
In this documentary you'll see there's no possibility for the calls to originate from those planes.
So you may wonder, is there a theory that could explain it? Yes there is, one possibility is for UA175 to be a drone.
That's it.
What about the other possibilities. Did the documentary mention any?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
Also, from the conspirator side, it would give more control on the trajectory: any pilot, however duped or convinced to slam himself toward a building could change idea or at least be scared off. It's human, after all. To the conspirators side, a remotely flown jet increases chances tenfold.
These arguments can be used to support 'military drones', 'remote-controlled takeover of passenger jets' or 'no planes'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
Yes, of course. Since we do not have any photo of the hijackers at the boarding pass or anywhere at the airports there would be need to confirmation for "arab looking hijackers". You may recall in Operation Northwoods when they blow up the drone, they make an indipendent plane/ship to find the debris, and they write explicity that an indipendent corroboration would make it more credible!
Also, the confirmation from the calls that the hijackers had only cutters extempt the people at the boarding gates from any accountability or responsability. Remember: in 9/11 no one is responsable. No one is demoted. It just happened.
You're assuming that flying military drones into the towers would be the only way to allow the passengers to use their phones!


Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
Well, they secluded the area, destroyed crime scene, and made a felony to remove debris.
Also, see this on the other side: in every major disaster NTSB always make a pairing to see serial number with the plane... every time but on 9/11.
On 9/11 you don't have positive identification of the pieces/plane debris
People had cameras. The media were filming it live. The perps would have no idea which bits would land where.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
Probabli (my guess) because then you should install fly-by-wire on 4 planes while they're still in service, during common maintenance. Someone outside military would have noticed, for sure.
How can you possibly know this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post
Don't know, don't care.
On this forum you are one of the most vocal critics of any truther who dares to promote a theory that you think might put the 9/11 truth movement in a bad light. Some of the people you rip into and accuse of speculating unnecessarily have written papers, published books and produced documentaries packed with evidence to back up their theories. Whether or not you accept that evidence is beside the point. Here you are collaborating in a documentary which pushes the idea that military drones may have been flown into the towers, and you don't know or care whether the idea is even plausible.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 09:14 PM   #13
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

The 5 hour documentary is a lot more cautious when it comes to speculating on the role of the media...

Quote:
At 5 o'clock, Building 7 can clearly be seen on the right of the picture. But the BBC correspondent who is obviously unfamiliar with the landscape didn't recognise it. This has fueled ludicrous conspiracy theories which accuse the mainstream media of having been informed in advance of what was going to happen on September 11th. In truth, this incident only confirms that the information on the impending collapse had been circulating long enough in downtown Manhatten to have already reached the BBC before it happened.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 10:27 PM   #14
emmerdale
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 69 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The 5 hour documentary is a lot more cautious when it comes to speculating on the role of the media...
I heard that too but to be fair putting the media in the know would stipulate that the reporters knew too.

one of my queries and is probably one of the most important questions is how many people were involved??

how many could plan and take this out?

i am sure some were in the know but not everyone
emmerdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 03:34 AM   #15
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The pod video was the main piece of evidence supporting the original military drone theory. Another piece of evidence supporting the military drone theory was a video of a woman saying "that was not an american airline". There was also some circumstantial evidence, such as Operation Northwoods and Dov Zakeim's modified refueling tankers. This new documentary assumes that military drones were used, but the only evidence it offers is Operation Northwoods.

It gives two possible motives: 1) the military planes would be able to fly at otherwise impossible speeds, 2) the passengers would be able to use their mobile phones after the changeover.

What type of drone do you think they used? Did they modify passenger jets to make them strong enough to fly at twice their maximum speed at 700 ft, or did they modify fighter jets to make them look exactly like passenger planes? Is either option plausible? The 5 hour documentary doesn't touch on this at all.

Do you think it would be worth going to all the trouble and risk of substituting drones for passenger jets just so a few passengers could ring their families?

What if the streets had been littered with plane parts that didn't belong on a Boeing 757/767?

Why not just hijack the passenger jets using remote control and fly the same planes into the buildings?

What you`re talking about here is precisely why research needs to be done into the AWACS drill(s) going on on 9/11. One of the main uses of AWACS is remotely controlling other aircraft, and the presence of these drills makes it very plausible that one or more of the planes that day were in fact remotely controlled and therefore by definition drones. Since AWACS planes are the only explanation for remote controlled planes apparent in the exercises going on on 9/11, this is the logical avenue to explore in my view.
On the face of it, we can rule out missiles, at least in New York, and no planes, because why would there have been AWACS drills during the attack if there weren`t planes involved to be remote controlled? Which as far as I can see leaves either remote controlled passenger planes or remote controlled military planes. In the video documentation it is curiously hard to decide between the two options though, at least as far as I know. But surely the official version doesn`t get confirmed in any way by any of this, and if anything looks even more ridiculous.

Last edited by skulb; 11-09-2013 at 03:42 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 08:28 AM   #16
rigsby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 495
Likes: 303 (118 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sertes View Post


"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.

...
Thanks for this, will watch it later
rigsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 09:49 AM   #17
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmerdale View Post
I heard that too but to be fair putting the media in the know would stipulate that the reporters knew too.
I agree with the documentary that episode doesn't prove the complicity of the BBC, but I think it's going a bit far to say that the idea the media were handed a song sheet is an outrageous conspiracy theory.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 03:10 PM   #18
sertes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 354
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
What about the other possibilities. Did the documentary mention any?
These arguments can be used to support 'military drones', 'remote-controlled takeover of passenger jets' or 'no planes'.
Of course there are, but we ruled them down.

You don't see the research we did to turn down "no-plane theory" in this movie, including asking Simon Shack for a public debate (twice) and interviewing Jim Fetzer which basically is the man who first introduced that theory in the system.
We studied on our own the "tv fakery" theory by watching all the impact videos from of the second tower, we found out that Simon Shack carefully selected the videos in which there's a possibility to be vague, and distort a testimony which hears a missile sound to make it appear he actually saw a missile.
Massimo asked the famous question: how many testimony do you have with a clear view (South of South Tower, for example) who saw the explosion but not the plane? (there should be about ten thousand). There are people who didn't saw the plane, but were North, or close to the buildings and could not possibly saw that, but how many you can find with a clear view? I had to come to this very forum two years ago to find the first one! We're still at one, who claims that.

Also Massimo is a professional photographer, another member of italian 9/11 truth is a video specialist, both agree that many argument pro-no-plane are faux, parallax problems, like "verrazzano bridge moving" and "there's no sky in this shot". I debunked a couple claims myself from no-plane theory, the infamous "continuous smoke" is not from an actual tv shot but from a "photoshopped rearranged movie", for instance. I could be more specific if you want.

---

Remote-controlled takeover of the planes is an unnecessary complication and has no ground in history, while drone theory is based on Operation Northwoods.

We choose the SAFEST, ESAYIEST route. (sorry for my bad english), yet as you say there may be your possibilities or even other possibilities we didn't find yet.

Quote:
You're assuming that flying military drones into the towers would be the only way to allow the passengers to use their phones!
No, we're assuming the calls were made by real persons as they include errors, like the man that calls his mother and says "hi mom, I'm Mark Bingham", of Cecille who closes her call by saying "it's a frame".
Evidence first, theories later.

Again, safest, esayest route to explain that.

The calls could be faked by a pc, of course. It doesn't change the fact that THOSE planes could not achieve THOSE speeds and THOSE manouvrabiliy

Quote:
How can you possibly know this?
Because we have contacts with every major 9/11 Truth Group including Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
The movie is the sum of 10 years of research and debate.

Quote:
On this forum you are one of the most vocal critics of any truther who dares to promote a theory that you think might put the 9/11 truth movement in a bad light. Some of the people you rip into and accuse of speculating unnecessarily have written papers, published books and produced documentaries packed with evidence to back up their theories. Whether or not you accept that evidence is beside the point. Here you are collaborating in a documentary which pushes the idea that military drones may have been flown into the towers, and you don't know or care whether the idea is even plausible.
No man, you asked what type of drone they used, I answered "don't know, don't care".
There are bigger problems in 9/11 than to indulge into this inquiries, like showing the common man 9/11 is an inside job and every war after that is faux.
If you think that the fact I don't care what exact model of drone they used puts 9/11 truth in bad light, I take notice.

However you may notice that I don't agree with you on some points but still I Always write the reason why I don't agree with that, and I also write that there are many Conspiracy theories on 9/11 but the single one we're sure is false in every issue is the Official one (al-Qaeda did that)
__________________
The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. (SHAYM SUNDER, NIST lead investigator)

Last edited by sertes; 11-09-2013 at 03:19 PM.
sertes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 03:05 PM   #19
grey area
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 555
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Excellent work.

Thanks for posting!
grey area is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 07:23 PM   #20
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Which as far as I can see leaves either remote controlled passenger planes or remote controlled military planes. In the video documentation it is curiously hard to decide between the two options though, at least as far as I know.
Your first option is impossible according to this new documentary. Are you disputing the expert testimony from pilots and aeronautical engineers in Part 1?
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
9/11 truth, documentary, full movie, massimo mazzucco

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.