New doc: September 11 The New Pearl Harbor

[TonyGosling]

September 11 The New Pearl Harbor

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2WFZ1G2QR4
"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.
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarti cle&artid=167

Trailer for the doc - rather more managable!

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0


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?

INDEX for 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

INDEX for 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

[TonyGosling]

It will take another 9/11 for Britain to go to war abroad, says minister
Britain is war-weary and only “extreme circumstances” like the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks could persuade the public to support a major new foreign deployment, Philip Hammond says
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10368311/It-will-take-a nother-911-for-Britain-to-go-to-war-abroad-says-minister.html

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond Photo: ANDREW CROWLEY FOR THE TELEGRAPH
James Kirkup By James Kirkup, Political Editor10:00PM BST 09 Oct 2013
Costly campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have put voters off foreign wars, with the result that there will be no significant military operations “any time soon” the Defence Secretary said.
Once Britain’s mission in Afghanistan has drawn to a close next year, the Armed Forces will not be involved in major foreign deployments for many years, the minister told MPs.
“Public appetite for expeditionary warfare is pretty low, based on the experience of 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Mr Hammond said. “It would be realistic of me to say that I would not expect, except in the most extreme circumstances, a manifestation of great appetite for plunging into a prolonged period of expeditionary warfare any time soon.”
Mr Hammond compared Britain’s attitude with that of the US public following the Vietnam War, when America undertook a “clear disengagement” from international affairs. In August the Commons voted against military involvement in Syria.
The Afghan operation, which began in 2001 and has cost 444 British lives, will be wound up next year. Speaking to the Commons defence committee, Mr Hammond said it would take several years before politicians and military leaders could start to “rebuild” public support for military expeditions abroad.
However, he suggested that unexpected events could transform public opinion very quickly.
“We saw with 9/11 what a single event can do to change the tone,” he said.
The rise of powers such as China means that Britain’s economic future depends on a willingness to defend Western values of democracy and the rule of law, he added. “We are a nation more dependent than any other on an open global trading system. The survival of that system is not a given,” he said.
Whitehall officials are starting to consider the next Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015, which will define Britain’s military ambitions for the rest of the decade. The Armed Forces have based their plans on the assumption that the defence budget will be spared additional cuts after the 2015 election, and more will be available for new equipment.
Mr Hammond said that if the next government failed to deliver that funding, the Forces would have to abandon entire military capabilities.

[scubadiver]

I posted a new thread by mistake.

I've just watched this for the last two days. Brilliant, aimed at defenders and debunkers.