Excellent Underrated 9/11 Mini-Videos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Could you tell me in which video from 1-4 to look? Thanks.

---

I cant remember honestly...and I am not going back to find it...there are 8 vids by the way :lol

I dont need to prove this guy is telling the truth, but he has raised some credible arguments here.

if your interested in the topic, I recommend the videos, 1-8,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

I cant remember honestly...and I am not going back to find it...there are 8 vids by the way :lol

---

Right, I told you where I was in the videos. I'm now on 6 and it still hasn't showed. If you are bitching at me for not seeing a formula in a video I have yet to watch, you are wasting my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

I dont need to prove this guy is telling the truth, but he has raised some credible arguments here.

if your interested in the topic, I recommend the videos, 1-8,

---

I recommend digging up Random Guy's 9/11 links and expanding your search for the truth. If you are only exposing yourself to one side of the story, you are creating your own bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'm thinking of joining.

They don't really vet the applications very well.

---

do you know this, or are you assuming?

I am seeing license info, which should be enough for you I would think. if you are claiming there are false registrants, do you have any specifically? any proof of your implied statement here?

http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

if not, your starting to sound like a truther, bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

do you know this, or are you assuming?

---

I know this. Several people have posted fake applications to test their vetting.

Turns out they aren't terribly vigilant.

Really, do a search. Look for the truth yourself.

And the first theoretical formula (which he admits can't actually apply to WTC7) is at the end of video 6.

Thanks for wasting more of my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I know this. Several people have posted fake applications to test their vetting.

Turns out they aren't terribly vigilant.

Really, do a search. Look for the truth yourself.

---

I trust you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And the first theoretical formula (which he admits can't actually apply to WTC7) is at the end of video 6.

Thanks for wasting more of my time.

---

if this dude is completely incredible, would you mind pointing to a credible engineer discussing this event without bias? that was what i was looking for when i watched this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And the first theoretical formula (which he admits can't actually apply to WTC7) is at the end of video 6.

Thanks for wasting more of my time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Look for the truth yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

if this dude is completely incredible, would you mind to a credible engineer discussing this event without bias? that was what i was looking for when i watched this...

---

It's going to be tough finding a video of that kind of thing.

You can see a debate of such issues in places like the JREF forum between people who at least claim to be engineers on both sides. I can't say they are without bias, but you can see as exhaustive analysis of these kinds of things as you can stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's going to be tough finding a video of that kind of thing.

You can see a debate of such issues in places like the JREF forum between people who at least claim to be engineers on both sides. I can't say they are without bias, but you can see as exhaustive analysis of these kinds of things as you can stand.

---

very cool man, thanks.

Man, he introduces so much new material at the end with zero explanation in his call to action it's a real mess.

He talks about thermite extensively halfway through his talk, then at the end says explosives are the most likely cause of the collapse.

WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Man, he introduces so much new material at the end with zero explanation in his call to action it's a real mess.

He talks about thermite extensively halfway through his talk, then at the end says explosives are the most likely cause of the collapse.

WTF?

---

sounds like he is calling thermite an explosive. but that would just be my assumption.

i will agree his ending is full of fireworks...wish he would have laid those points out from the start so i could have kept a tally...Im not watching it again though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

and are we not to believe our eyes here? are we to not believe history, and the fact that this hasnt happened previously...a straight down free fall collapse due to fire and damage to a small percentage of the support columns?

---

The United States government also never hijacked planes and crash them into buildings to terrorize America.

But I like your idea better because the reason for the planes falling couldn't possibly be the planes that crashed into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redzero

The United States government also never hijacked planes and crash them into buildings to terrorize America.

But I like your idea better because the reason for the planes falling couldn't possibly be the planes that crashed into them.

---

only talking about building 7 here, which was the 3rd building, the one that did not get hit, but fell 7 hours after the WTC attacks...

also if it indeed was an inside job, it wasnt the US govt, but a criminal faction inside of the US gov...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

only talking about building 7 here, which was the 3rd building, the one that did not get hit, but fell 7 hours after the WTC attacks...

also if it indeed was an inside job, it wasnt the US govt, but a criminal faction inside of the US gov...

---

We had those discussions before you arrived. The building was severely damaged by debris, and fire lead to weakening the steel, just like towers 1 and 2. The evidence completely fits that scenario. I fail to understand how people can think these things occurred radically different than explained by the experts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We had those discussions before you arrived. The building was severely damaged by debris, and fire lead to weakening the steel, just like towers 1 and 2. The evidence completely fits that scenario. I fail to understand how people can think these things occurred radically different than explained by the experts.

---

I understand that WC, however the video I posted was an engineer talking May of this year. He doesnt believe the "expert conclusions," and could be considered an expert himself.

I understand that many of you on here have reached your own conclusions...I have never really gone over the debate points, so if you've already drawn your conclusions, be a sweetheart while I draw mine. :wakeup

Parker...

I'm into the part 2 of 8. This guy is a charlatan. He is taking facts out of context. Maybe you don't see it, but he is clearly manipulating the facts. He may be an expert, but he is effectively lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Parker...

I'm into the part 2 of 8. This guy is a charlatan. He is taking facts out of context. Maybe you don't see it, but he is clearly manipulating the facts. He may be an expert, but he is effectively lying.

---

I am not buying this guy at all. But I will say parts 1 and 2 are a waste of time.

I was looking for an engineers take on this, and this guy seemed to fit the bill. But Chump says pretty much the same thing as you, so I will continue to look for an unbiased professional opinion elsewhere...

I wonder what happens when chemical fire retardants are introduced to molten aluminum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I wonder what happens when chemical fire retardants are introduced to molten aluminum?

---

is that a lead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

is that a lead?

---

No.

Just thinking out loud.

Fire repellents were used after the collapse. They are meant to put out flames. With the added heat from all the kinetic energy of the fall, and chemicals immune to burning in standard fires, their chemical makeup can explain so many things that the "truthers" take as signs that this was a false flag operation. It depends on the retardants used though. I don't know what chemicals were used, but it could explain several discrepancies that the truthers use.

I'm curious. Have you seen this:

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No.

Just thinking out loud.

Fire repellents were used after the collapse. They are meant to put out flames. With the added heat from all the kinetic energy of the fall, and chemicals immune to burning in standard fires, their chemical makeup can explain so many things that the "truthers" take as signs that this was a false flag operation. It depends on the retardants used though. I don't know what chemicals were used, but it could explain several discrepancies that the truthers use.

I'm curious. Have you seen this:

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse

---

no i havent. thanks for the link, ill be checking this out tomorrow