New 9/11 truth documentary among most watched on pbs

I wouldn't doubt that most of the people who watched this thought they were watching Comedy Central.
 
The AIA should be concerned that a modern, 47 floor, steel framed building, meeting all the applicable building codes in 1985 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for eight stories, uniform and symmetric across its length and breadth. This, the official story says, was due to a minor fire (by historical standards).

In response, NIST developed 47 building and fire code recommendations and shepherded them through the standards process. Virtually all were related to firefighting like intercoms in the stairwells.

All of those that were related to structures were either not accepted by the appropriate committees or simply codified best practices already in-place throughout the industry. The closest NIST got to a structural code change was "the definition of the primary structural frame to be broadened to include bracing members essential to vertical whether or not they carry gravity loads." None Â… not one Â… were relevant to competent structural design and construction designed to prevent a catastrophic, accelerating, progressive collapse of a high-rise steel framed skyscraper.

AIA members should be alarmed that no significant structural building codes emanated from this free-fall building collapse. Either unsafe, easily collapsed buildings are acceptable to AIA members ... or AIA members support the underlying fraudulent and misleading NIST reports ... or AIA members havenÂ’t looked.
Architects Shy From Trutherism - Architecture - Architect Magazine Page 2 of 3
 
Still going with all that?

Minor fire?
Building at free fall?
Uniform and symmetric?

Go ahead and take that to court and watch it get shreded.......
 
eots said:
SFC Ollie said:
What is truly amazing is that after 11 years they still have no proof of any cover up or plans from the government that would stand up for 2 seconds in court........ And they know it...........
Click to expand...

NIST has zero evidence for their theory...what kind of evidence other than NIST failed to explain the collapses and in fact lied and deterred fact finding their are you expecting ?...there is a lot of evidence to show NIST lied...and there is nothing NIST has produced that could withstand cross examination in a court... but individuals do not have the power ..it would take a DA and a grand jury and even at that the chances of any real investigation would be slim...the court of public opinion says the government lied about 911 anf the 911 commission and NIST reports are cover ups
Click to expand...

Gomer and Dawgshits handlers sure are paying them well the way they keep coming back for their constant ass beatings here.

Lies like the ones Gomer,Dawgshit and the other trolls always ignore is the fact NIST lost its credibility when they were caught red handed lying saying there were no pools of molten metal found when several credible firemen and many other witnesses reported pools of molten metal everywhere.so much for the NIST report and their credibility.:D
 
Last edited:
eots said:
The AIA should be concerned that a modern, 47 floor, steel framed building, meeting all the applicable building codes in 1985 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for eight stories, uniform and symmetric across its length and breadth. This, the official story says, was due to a minor fire (by historical standards).

In response, NIST developed 47 building and fire code recommendations and shepherded them through the standards process. Virtually all were related to firefighting like intercoms in the stairwells.

All of those that were related to structures were either not accepted by the appropriate committees or simply codified best practices already in-place throughout the industry. The closest NIST got to a structural code change was "the definition of the primary structural frame to be broadened to include bracing members essential to vertical whether or not they carry gravity loads." None … not one … were relevant to competent structural design and construction designed to prevent a catastrophic, accelerating, progressive collapse of a high-rise steel framed skyscraper.

AIA members should be alarmed that no significant structural building codes emanated from this free-fall building collapse. Either unsafe, easily collapsed buildings are acceptable to AIA members ... or AIA members support the underlying fraudulent and misleading NIST reports ... or AIA members haven’t looked.
Architects Shy From Trutherism - Architecture - Architect Magazine Page 2 of 3
Click to expand...

This Jeremy Stahl guy is obviously a paid shill like Gomer Ollie and Dawgshit here as well. He loses his credibility here because the only thing thats a debunked conspiracy theory is the governments version of events.:lol: Its ironic as well that he brought up what I was just talking about on NIST lying because he fails to mention what I just got done saying on how NIST was caught red handed lying their asses off saying there were no pools of molten metal found when the photos clearly back up what many firefighters and other witnesses reported seeing of pools of molten metal.:lol::lmao::lmao::lmao::D
 
eots said:
what really amazes me is people of Ollies mind set cant listen to this guy and hear his honesty.integrity and common sense

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth - Erik Lawyer Speaks - YouTube

and how they can listen to this guy and not hear a shifty,dishonest man of no integrity

9/11 Truth: NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero - YouTube
Click to expand...

you got to remember Gomer and Dawgshit wont listen to this guy or try to debunk that five minute video of Pauliticians because if they ever admitted they were were proven wrong,their handlers would stop paying them the big bucks they do to troll here.

so thats no surprise they wont watch videos always claming they have but always proving they havent when they never even try to debunk experts from videos or information like that 5 minute video of Pauliticians.:D so you got to remember that.
 
Last edited:
You see, the thing about SCIENCE, is that for it to be considered real science, and not junk science, or pseudo science, one's results must be reproducible. And that is really what the controversy about NIST's results are all about. That is why it has had to publish multiple reports on WTC 7, and why it's report on WTC 1&2 is nothing but a hypothesis, and not actually a theory. (Google Ockham's razor,lex parsimoniae.)

Science should be reproducible. Real Science. I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories, I just think on an intellectual level we should have and could have a working theory that fits with real world physics.

Again, I reiterate. Science should be REPRODUCIBLE.
http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf :confused:
ooop. Guess not.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326622

A close examination of NISTÂ’s final report on the WTC Towers indicates that it appears to be true, as the documentary argues, that NIST does not explain the rapid destruction of the buildings. The NIST report describes the top floors of the towers beginning to tilt, poised, it would seem, to topple over the sides of the towers. In the 298-page document, only two paragraphs (on page 146) concern what came next, the entire building collapse of the undamaged floors below:

The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by that downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

The official government investigation of the buildings’ destructions stops there. No scientific data is provided to support these narrative statements. NIST does not explain why the intact structure offered “minimal resistance” or provide an estimate of “the potential energy” that was released or explain why it “far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure.”
Read more: New 9/11 doc - Gov admits it hasnÂ’t explained WTC collapses
Click to expand...
 
Incidentally I asked an activist friend of mine who is pretty passionate about this subject and who really thanked me for digging up that cryptome document, why,

"I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety."

How knowing the data they used would "jeopardize public safety." He said that it would jeopardize public safety because people would know that the government's story was bunk, that it was an inside job, and people would start rioting, thus, it's a threat to public safety. :badgrin: That is how they justify keeping that information from the public, so they are, in essence, telling the truth.

Those crazy paranoid troothers, eh? :redface:

But my god, could you imagine if my crazy buddy were right? That's a bit scary if he were. All I want is a reality that makes some scientific sense. You know, is some scientific accuracy, and political openness a little too much to ask? We do live in an open society do we not?
 
9/11 inside job said:
I mean they dont even air anything that doesnt support the governments other fairy tale that oswald was the lone assassin.
Click to expand...

This is technically inaccurate. For many years now they have been airing the truth about what really happened. And people that are "in the know," have a pretty good idea how things went down.

The BBC did a very good documentary on it, and A&E bought it and used to run the documentary every year. (History Channel) The estate of LBJ sued (threatened?) them over it, and now they only run the first six hours of the nine part series. I was surprised when I could only access the first six hours on my Netfilx. :tongue: (You can still find the last three hours on-line now I am told if you really hunt.) Most people that are into this thing know that a man by the name of E. Howard Hunt who was a highly placed ex-CIA man gave a death bed confession to his son that filled in all the details. He had an axe to grind it is true, but he hated the commies more. lol

What people often forgot is that when there is an assassination, or an assassination attempt, the person that is most likely the ring leader, or the person in charge or "in the know" of a cover up, is usually going to be the VP. For instance, when the attempt was made on President Reagan's life, again, that was the CIA. Well duh, what highly placed CIA man do we know that stood to gain if that was a success? Anybody? :eusa_whistle:

The authoritative documentary on the JFK assassination is The Men Who Killed Kennedy. The LBJ estate threatened legal action to keep it from airing on television I do believe.

The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Broadcast history and critical response

The Men Who Killed Kennedy began with two 50-minute segments originally aired on 25 October 1988 in the United Kingdom, entitled simply Part One and Part Two. The programmes were produced by Central Television for the ITV network and were immediately followed by a studio discussion on the issues titled The Story Continues, chaired by broadcaster Peter Sissons. The United States corporation, Arts & Entertainment Company, purchased the rights to the original two segments. In 1989, the series was nominated for a Flaherty Documentary Award.[3] In 1991, the series was re-edited with additional material and divided into three 50-minute programmes, which were also shown by ITV. A sixth episode appeared in 1995. The series typically aired in November every year and from time to time during the year. In November 2003, three additional segments ("The Final Chapter") were added by the History Channel, but the series is no longer aired.[4]

The ninth documentary in the series, entitled "The Guilty Men," directly implicates former U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) and created an outcry among Johnson's surviving associates, including Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, journalist Bill Moyers, ex-President Jimmy Carter, Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America), and the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission commissioner and ex-President Gerald R. Ford. These Johnson supporters lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel, and subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel.

The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004, titles "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired. The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, "The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologizes to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show." Conspiracy author Barr McClellan, interviewed in the documentary, complained that although the historians examined the evidence, they did not interview him or Turner.[5]

All three new documentaries by Turner ("The Guilty Men," "The Smoking Gun" and "The Love Affair") were then permanently withdrawn by the History Channel, though they were originally slated to be viewed at least annually on the History Channel until the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination (November, 2013).[citation needed]

In another episode that warranted discussion, French prisoner Christian David was interviewed by author Anthony Summers. In the interview, David says he was approached to become one of three French criminals hired to carry out the assassination of Kennedy, but that he refused. David claimed that deceased French mobster Lucien Sarti was one of the men who carried out the assassination.

E. Howard Hunt placed LBJ at the top of a conspiracy list connected to Cord Meyer, Bill Harvey, David Morales and "French Gunman Grassy Knoll" in his death bed confession to his son.[6][7]

Malcolm Liggett, a retired economics professor, sued A&E regarding the episode "The Smoking Guns," which claimed Liggett was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Liggett and A&E reached a settlement, which required that a letter by Liggett be read on the show History Center.[8]
Click to expand...
Go find them all on YouTube. It's your right to know the truth. Do lots of research into E. Howard Hunt.
 
MisterBeale said:
9/11 inside job said:
I mean they dont even air anything that doesnt support the governments other fairy tale that oswald was the lone assassin.
Click to expand...

This is technically inaccurate. For many years now they have been airing the truth about what really happened. And people that are "in the know," have a pretty good idea how things went down.

The BBC did a very good documentary on it, and A&E bought it and used to run the documentary every year. (History Channel) The estate of LBJ sued (threatened?) them over it, and now they only run the first six hours of the nine part series. I was surprised when I could only access the first six hours on my Netfilx. :tongue: (You can still find the last three hours on-line now I am told if you really hunt.) Most people that are into this thing know that a man by the name of E. Howard Hunt who was a highly placed ex-CIA man gave a death bed confession to his son that filled in all the details. He had an axe to grind it is true, but he hated the commies more. lol

What people often forgot is that when there is an assassination, or an assassination attempt, the person that is most likely the ring leader, or the person in charge or "in the know" of a cover up, is usually going to be the VP. For instance, when the attempt was made on President Reagan's life, again, that was the CIA. Well duh, what highly placed CIA man do we know that stood to gain if that was a success? Anybody? :eusa_whistle:

The authoritative documentary on the JFK assassination is The Men Who Killed Kennedy. The LBJ estate threatened legal action to keep it from airing on television I do believe.

The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Broadcast history and critical response

The Men Who Killed Kennedy began with two 50-minute segments originally aired on 25 October 1988 in the United Kingdom, entitled simply Part One and Part Two. The programmes were produced by Central Television for the ITV network and were immediately followed by a studio discussion on the issues titled The Story Continues, chaired by broadcaster Peter Sissons. The United States corporation, Arts & Entertainment Company, purchased the rights to the original two segments. In 1989, the series was nominated for a Flaherty Documentary Award.[3] In 1991, the series was re-edited with additional material and divided into three 50-minute programmes, which were also shown by ITV. A sixth episode appeared in 1995. The series typically aired in November every year and from time to time during the year. In November 2003, three additional segments ("The Final Chapter") were added by the History Channel, but the series is no longer aired.[4]

The ninth documentary in the series, entitled "The Guilty Men," directly implicates former U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) and created an outcry among Johnson's surviving associates, including Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, journalist Bill Moyers, ex-President Jimmy Carter, Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America), and the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission commissioner and ex-President Gerald R. Ford. These Johnson supporters lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel, and subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel.

The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004, titles "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired. The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, "The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologizes to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show." Conspiracy author Barr McClellan, interviewed in the documentary, complained that although the historians examined the evidence, they did not interview him or Turner.[5]

All three new documentaries by Turner ("The Guilty Men," "The Smoking Gun" and "The Love Affair") were then permanently withdrawn by the History Channel, though they were originally slated to be viewed at least annually on the History Channel until the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination (November, 2013).[citation needed]

In another episode that warranted discussion, French prisoner Christian David was interviewed by author Anthony Summers. In the interview, David says he was approached to become one of three French criminals hired to carry out the assassination of Kennedy, but that he refused. David claimed that deceased French mobster Lucien Sarti was one of the men who carried out the assassination.

E. Howard Hunt placed LBJ at the top of a conspiracy list connected to Cord Meyer, Bill Harvey, David Morales and "French Gunman Grassy Knoll" in his death bed confession to his son.[6][7]

Malcolm Liggett, a retired economics professor, sued A&E regarding the episode "The Smoking Guns," which claimed Liggett was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Liggett and A&E reached a settlement, which required that a letter by Liggett be read on the show History Center.[8]
Click to expand...
Go find them all on YouTube. It's your right to know the truth. Do lots of research into E. Howard Hunt.
Click to expand...

Yeah the history channel for a long time till about five years ago or so, was objective on the kennedy assassination and used to air THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY every november but they arent objective anymore.They pulled that show and never air it anymore.at least I havent seen it aired in november the past 5 novembers or so like they used to.

Yeah its interesting that E Howard Hunt throughout his entire life denied that he was in dallas that day or participated in the kennedy assassination but then on his deathbed confessed to his son that he indeed was part of a CIA operation.

There are a lot of trolls here you'll find out because many of them still defend the fairy tales of the warren commission to no end here amazingly even though all these specials that PBS and the history channel air that endorce the propaganda of the warren commission even THEY have come out and said at the end of their show crap like-Despite all this evidence that oswald killed kennedy,80% of americans think there was a conspiracy.

You mentioned Hunt being involved in the kennedy assassination for the CIA.whats a lot less known fact though that backs up Hunt that the CIA was involved was the House select committe on assassination investigation in the 70's how even they said the warren commission was wrong,that his death was the result of a probably conspiracy.Their investigation was a more serious investigation than the warren commission was admitting there was a conspiracy,however it also wasnt a true investigation either.

They knew that many americans no longer believed in the fairy tale of the warren commission anymore and that they knew there was a conspiracy so to satisfy them they said the warren commission was wrong and there indeed was a conspiracy but the reason their investigation was not seeking the truth either and also was not a serious investigation was there was a senator who served on that committe.

He wrote a book about the investigation and talked about it in his book how he resigned in disgust from the HSCA investigation because they were not serious about finding the truth in what really happened.He talked about how anything that pointed towards government involvement,the committe ignored and did not pursue.

Example,heres the other thing that backs up Hunt that the CIA was involved,towards the end of the investigation when the committee was winding down its investigation,two CIA men came forward and confessed that they were part of the operation saying-"We did this,we were involved in the assassination.Where do you want to go with this in your investigation?" and the committe of course did not pursue that lead.They were only interested in telling the american people the mafia and the mafia alone did it.and that again is what made that senator resign in disgust for ignoring all evidence that pointed towards CIA involvement.

There are so many paid trolls here it is unreal.No matter how many times you mention to them that fact that even the HSCA concluded the warren commission was wrong and admitted there was a conspiracy,they ALWAYS ignore that fact like you never posted it and call you names and then run off.:lol:

There are a lot of similarities in 9/11 and the kennedy assassination like how the media before there was any kind of investigation in both cases announced they had the culprit already in their hands and how security was relaxed and people who gave versions different than the governments dying mysterious deaths ect ect.The list goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
The more interesting thing now would be the psychology behind the belligerent stupidity of the troofers, and how that might differ from the belligerent stupidity of the other conspiracy cult members.

Are troofers a different group than birfers, moon landing deniers, CIA-killed-Kennedy-believers, antivaccers or global warming deniers? What are the differences, what are the similarities? How many belong to several of those conspiracy groups?
 
Though several of them (Make that most) Cross the lines and will believe nearly anything that makes the US Government the bad guy, the truthers are still a breed apart. They think they can change the laws of nature and that thousands of people can keep a secret.......
 
mamooth said:
The more interesting thing now would be the psychology behind the belligerent stupidity of the troofers, and how that might differ from the belligerent stupidity of the other conspiracy cult members.

Are troofers a different group than birfers, moon landing deniers, CIA-killed-Kennedy-believers, antivaccers or global warming deniers? What are the differences, what are the similarities? How many belong to several of those conspiracy groups?
Click to expand...

says another bot whos entire knowledge of the wtc collapses comes from TV sound-bites and popular mechanics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Art Of Propaganda...

< Previous Thread

Obama Overthrow Plot Widens As US Martial Law Fears Grow

Next Thread >

Similar threads

R
The evidence of a Missing 411 disappearance:
Replies
12
Views
416
Stryder50
S
munkle
Sen. Ron Johnson Persuaded by Firefighters, Wants a New 9/11 Investigation
Replies
7
Views
144
munkle
munkle
shockedcanadian
I just can't watch movies on my own, it's boring
2
Replies
34
Views
602
hondo 50
hondo 50
odanny
What do you know about the Vietnam War?
5 6 7
Replies
136
Views
1K
Failzero
Failzero
DigitalDrifter
'Open declaration': Hegseth slammed over new tattoo seen as insult 'to the Muslim world'
Replies
11
Views
176
DigitalDrifter
DigitalDrifter

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom