| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Prince of Peace
New Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Any new revelashions in it, or is it simply repititishion of all that has been said before?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDbeliever
New Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: Emphasis on basement explosions... |
|
|
| Mostly repetition, but she does talk alot about Forbes' experience during the power down. I felt the movie did a good job emphasizing explosions in the basement and it gave a good view of the blown out lobby in the North tower before the actual collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zabooka
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
It mentions some things that other documentaries dont mention. Such as the underground bath tub like walls, which stop Manhattan from being flooded, especially its underground networks. These walls that hold back the water started to crack and shift because of the huge explosions. They did not shift this much during the 1993 basement bombing of WTC.
It also showed a brilliant scene, where it says that official explanation for WTC7 collapse is some bits of the Twin Towers struck the bottom of WTC7. However then it shows FEMA photographs of WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6, which bore the brunt of the Twin Towers collapse, yet their structures remain standing!
I love the style of 911 Mysteries, Part 1 : Demolitions better than any other documentary that is on just the collapses. Its well worth watching, its easy viewing really, not exactly like Loose Change, but more so than other 911 documentaries I have seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Any new revelashions in it, or is it simply repititishion of all that has been said before? |
Very shubtle.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zabooka wrote: | It mentions some things that other documentaries dont mention. Such as the underground bath tub like walls, which stop Manhattan from being flooded, especially its underground networks. These walls that hold back the water started to crack and shift because of the huge explosions. They did not shift this much during the 1993 basement bombing of WTC.
It also showed a brilliant scene, where it says that official explanation for WTC7 collapse is some bits of the Twin Towers struck the bottom of WTC7. However then it shows FEMA photographs of WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6, which bore the brunt of the Twin Towers collapse, yet their structures remain standing!
I love the style of 911 Mysteries, Part 1 : Demolitions better than any other documentary that is on just the collapses. Its well worth watching, its easy viewing really, not exactly like Loose Change, but more so than other 911 documentaries I have seen. |
That is interesting, the bath tub staying intact is one of the arguments used to support the idea of beam weapons being used, because, so it is said, the full weight of the building falling into it would surely crack it!
So the conspiracists want it both ways, if the bathtub is cracked it proves there were bombs in the basement, if it is not, it proves a beam weapon disintegrated the building? I think not!
WTC3,4,5 and 6 did not catch fire, did they?
Sorry, I did try to watch, but the patronising tone of the commentary and the stream of misinformation proved too much for me.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Zabooka wrote: | It mentions some things that other documentaries dont mention. Such as the underground bath tub like walls, which stop Manhattan from being flooded, especially its underground networks. These walls that hold back the water started to crack and shift because of the huge explosions. They did not shift this much during the 1993 basement bombing of WTC.
|
That is interesting, the bath tub staying intact is one of the arguments used to support the idea of beam weapons being used, because, so it is said, the full weight of the building falling into it would surely crack it!
So the conspiracists want it both ways, if the bathtub is cracked it proves there were bombs in the basement, if it is not, it proves a beam weapon disintegrated the building? I think not!
|
You beat me to it.
Twoofers make what they fancy of any "evidence". Looks to me like they have a job for life.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YAWN ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: |
YAWN ! |
RACIST!!!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YAWN !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: | | YAWN !!! |
Your fillings are showing!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zabooka
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
.......That is interesting, the bath tub staying intact is one of the arguments used to support the idea of beam weapons being used, because, so it is said, the full weight of the building falling into it would surely crack it!
So the conspiracists want it both ways, if the bathtub is cracked it proves there were bombs in the basement, if it is not, it proves a beam weapon disintegrated the building? I think not!
WTC3,4,5 and 6 did not catch fire, did they?
Sorry, I did try to watch, but the patronising tone of the commentary and the stream of misinformation proved too much for me. |
I dont know about people saying or trying to prove that the bathtub stayed intact. If they have so or tried so, please do enlighten me with a reference, preferably an url please, unless I have misunderstood you then please forgive me.
The other WTC3 to WTC6 did seem to be on fire I think... I am not sure, will have to have verification of this. However, they looked more damaged than any fire alone could have caused.
The tone of the commentary did seem at times patronising, however what do you mean by this "stream of misinformation"? Does anyone else agree with this statement? Can someone also provide me the basis for these findings please.
Thank you  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zabooka wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
.......That is interesting, the bath tub staying intact is one of the arguments used to support the idea of beam weapons being used, because, so it is said, the full weight of the building falling into it would surely crack it!
So the conspiracists want it both ways, if the bathtub is cracked it proves there were bombs in the basement, if it is not, it proves a beam weapon disintegrated the building? I think not!
WTC3,4,5 and 6 did not catch fire, did they?
Sorry, I did try to watch, but the patronising tone of the commentary and the stream of misinformation proved too much for me. |
I dont know about people saying or trying to prove that the bathtub stayed intact. If they have so or tried so, please do enlighten me with a reference, preferably an url please, unless I have misunderstood you then please forgive me.
The other WTC3 to WTC6 did seem to be on fire I think... I am not sure, will have to have verification of this. However, they looked more damaged than any fire alone could have caused.
The tone of the commentary did seem at times patronising, however what do you mean by this "stream of misinformation"? Does anyone else agree with this statement? Can someone also provide me the basis for these findings please.
Thank you |
See Judy Wood's site here for her take on the bath tub.
I think you are right, WTC3 to 6 did burn as well as suffer damage from the towers falling on them.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
