Excellent Underrated 9/11 Mini-Videos

[Parker2112]

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

[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,

[ChumpDumper]

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

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

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[Parker2112]

I'm thinking of joining.

They don't really vet the applications very well.

do you know this, or are you assuming?

[Parker2112]

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/signpe ion.php

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

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[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.

[Parker2112]

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.

[Parker2112]

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...

[Parker2112]

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.

Look for the truth yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[Parker2112]

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.

[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?

[Parker2112]

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

[redzero]

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.

[Parker2112]

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...

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[Parker2112]

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.

[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.

[Parker2112]

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...

[Wild Cobra]

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

[Parker2112]

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

is that a lead?

[Wild Cobra]

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 re ants 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

[Parker2112]

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 re ants 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