Great stuff /u/gavy101 appreciate ya taking the time to index this for us.

This really is a cracking documentary, well worth spending the time to watch despite it's length. This resource offers a great opportunity to watch it in bite-sized chunks!

I take no credit for this at all, this is a copy and paste i have saved in Notepad, i am not sure who to credit for taking the time to do it all, if anyone does know, please pass the name on, also how on earth they managed to fit it all in a single post with a 10000 character limit, i have had to split it, it is about 15000 otherwise.

This I think it the original post

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xslls/911_the_new_pearl_harbor_irrefutable_proof_the/

by

/u/TheRealWhoretnon

Thanks.

IMO this is the definitive 9-11 video as of it's release. Very well done. This is the video that should be suggested/recommended for anyone who has not been exposed to 9-11 truth.

For anyone that wants to .Torrent the documentary

Download it from here (3.37GB) or a smaller, less video quality, from here (831MB)

• Questions

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why? QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

QUESTION: How could the terrorists be "preparing to take control of the flight" at 9:45 when they had already been in the cockpit for more than 15 minutes?

PART 4 - THE PENTAGON

QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

QUESTION: Given that the maximum fluctuation between the two cameras would translate in a difference of 25 feet in the position of the plane, can you provide a valid explanation for the large discrepancy between the two corresponding frames (23:19)? Absent a valid explanation for this discrepancy, we must conclude that at least one of the two frames is the result of intentional manipulation, or "photoshopping".

PART 5 - FLIGHT 93

QUESTION: Can you explain how most of an airplane weighing 100 tons could end up buried deep underground in a hole that closed itself up before the first responders arrived? (31:51)

QUESTION: Since the plane was carrying 8 to 10,000 gallons of fuel at the time of impact, can you explain why there is no plume of black smoke raising from the ground after the initial explosion? (34:45)

QUESTION: Since the plane is supposed to have hit the ground in one piece, can you explain how it was possible for debris to be found 6 to 8 miles from the crash site on a day when only a light breeze was blowing? (37:16)

QUESTION: Since they were only 20 minutes away from Washington and for almost 6 minutes the passengers had been unable to enter the cockpit, why didn't the hijackers continue flying towards the Capital? (43:25)

QUESTION: Even if they thought they couldn't make it to Washington, why didn't they try to crash the plane onto a small town nearby? Why crash the plane in an empty field where they knew they could not kill any more victims than those who were already on the plane with them? (43:30)

PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS

The "Sagging Trusses" Theory: Problem - 1. No proof of insulation "widely dislodged". 2. No proof of temperatures above 250ºC (480ºF) (1:10:58)

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the fireproofing from the steel trusses was "widely dislodged" by the impact of the planes, which NIST has made a necessary condition for the collapses to be caused by fire? (1:14:48)

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred? (1:14:51)

QUESTION: Can explain how a sagging truss weakened by heat could pull and eventually break apart the structure it is attached to with no external force being applied to it? (1:15:00)

QUESTION: Given that "the building section above came down essentially in freefall" (Source: NIST NCSTAR1 - p. 146); given that for freefall to occur no supporting structure must be present; and given that the falling sections did not have any extra energy to destroy the structure below, can you suggest anything different from some kind of demolition for the removal of the supporting structure which was necessary for near freefall speed to be achieved? (1:27:32) INTERESTING FACTS: 1. Major elevators renovation. 2. Heavy equipment moved on empty floors. 3. Bomb sniffing dogs removed. 4. Unprecedented power down (first time in 30 years) (4:31)

Fuel in elevator shafts theory: 1. No regular elevators from top to bottom. (Diagram 1 | Diagram 2) 2. Personnel not cremated by "fireball". 3. Volumes not considered (15:41)

QUESTION: Given that after the initial explosion and the ensuing fires there wouldn't have been enough jet fuel left to pour down the elevator shafts in substantial quantities, can you explain the at least three separate explosions reported by multiple witnesses at the time of the first impact in the North Tower? (29:16)

QUESTION: In particular, can you explain the huge explosion reported by multiple witnesses in the basement of the North Tower moments before the impact of the plane? (29:31)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the huge explosion that literally devastated the lobby of the North Tower, according to multiple witnesses, about one hour after the impact of the plane and before the collapse of Tower Two? (29:40)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the big explosion reported by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7, before either tower had collapsed? (29:51)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the multiple explosions recorded by different camera crews including the BBC and CNN, after the towers had collapsed and before the collapse of Building 7? (30:00)

QUESTION: Can you explain how more than 100 witnesses, most of them firefighters and policemen, could have all "been mistaken" in reporting explosions at the WTC? (30:15)

QUESTION: Given that what we see is clearly not glass from a broken window but concrete and debris, can you explain what caused the squibs observed 30-40 floors below the level of collapse? (32:45)

QUESTION: Given that the falling, upper sections of the towers had no additional energy to destroy the healthy structure below, where did the energy to hurdle these large chunks of structure at such a distance from the towers come from? (37:39)

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

If I have the timeline correct, NORAD was notified about Flight 77 (that hit Pentagon) at 9:24am, it hit the Pentagon at 9:37am. I don't know if it's clear when Secret Service were made aware of Flight 77, but Regan National airport controllers communicated with them at 9:33 and the VP was evacuated at 9:35.

For Flight 93 I think the key times were 9:28 when cockpit was breached, 9:34 when FAA controllers alerted their HQ about the suspected hijacking. Apparently no formal request was made to military for assistance with Flight 93 which crashed 29 minutes later at 10:03.

I believe that NORAD learned about Flight 93, not through the FAA, only after it had crashed.

I don't think the Secret Service was aware of any plane specifically for "the last 30 minutes"

Also I'm not sure it was possible to for the Secret Service to shoot anything down. It's never been confirmed or denied as far as I know, but speculation was that prior to 9/11 the Secret Service didn't have any specific anti-aircraft capability.

QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

I believe the common understanding is that they were referring to Flight 77, although the timing is a little unclear.

However given the testimony as it was given I'm not sure how it's possible to draw a conclusion that the unspoken order is not to shoot down the plane.

As I understand it, without a specific order to shoot the plane down, a pilot wouldn't be permitted to do so. The only order that would be necessary would be to engage, not to stand down. The default is not to engage.

-- I haven't watched any further than this in the documentary, so I'm going to address any of the other questions. Although I believe they've all be addressed at length online if you're actually interested in answers to them (whether you agree, or not).

/u/User_History_Bot thinkmorebetterer

Data for the last 764 comments (MAX 1000)

Want to remove this post? Send a message with the link to this post to /u/fuck_these_bots.

And... now what have you learned?

I'm currently 4 hours into the doc (been watching it the last couple of nights) and they do a fantastic job.

Unfortunately, as I browse through skeptic sites and this doc is brought up, it is universally panned not for its content, but because the filmmaker has also covered topics such as alternative medicines.

Anyways, if anyone is on the fence about watching it, it is worth it.

It has all the hallmarks of JTRIG in action, i done the same as you, the robotic responses just appear to be a smear campaign to destroy and discredit someones/the documentary reputation.

Without a doubt the best one to date.

Okay - /u/pinkfluffykins told me to watch this in another thread the other day. I got about 30 minutes in (as they suggested) without being especially impressed... I can't really devote 5 hours to it anytime soon, but I don't mind watching some bits as I get some free time.

So, with this index in mind, are there any specific bits (ideally that I can get through in 10-15 minutes) that any of you think are especially compelling that I ought to make a point to see?

Things I specifically believe, if it helps:

• No explosives in any building.
• There was definitely a plane at Pentagon.
• Flight 93 crashed, it wasn't shot down.
• No specific US government involvement.

I've watched Loose Change, many other videos and read a ton of Truther web content without seeing anything especially compelling... Is there anything in this video that makes any really good points without recycling content that I've likely already discounted? Or in a better way?

Of course, my mind isn't likely to be changed but I'll try to find time to watch any bits that seem especially interesting and consider them with as openly as I can.

I'd be happy to offer my thoughts if your interested once I've watched (although not keen to end up in pointless back-and-forth argument)...

I've saved this thread, so if I can't get to it soon, I will try to come back as I can.

If you can't watch this video and understand the evidence presented before you I'd call you a lost cause.

That's fine. I might say the same to you about rejecting the mountains of evidence that refute conspiracy claims. A pair of list causes, us.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were only about 30 minutes in. By the end you'll come to your senses.

I'm not holding out much hope, but if you'd like to point out any super excellent bits, feel free, because it may take me weeks to get through it in order.

honestly if you don't think it's important enough to know, then don't watch it. the evidence is clearly laid out and presented to you and is proof that an investigation is warranted.

do you think that there shouldn't be an investigation based on your non-watching of the evidence?

the good bits? the best bit is probably the collapse of WTC7. it proves that the NIST explanation of collapse due to fire is impossible - and necessitates explosives.

watch the last 5 minutes then if you can't and see if you can support those that have researched this intently for 12 years.

Nope. It's indexed for the easily confused. And I'll be right here eagerly awaiting your response after you finish the documentary.

Please respond with all parts you disagree with so we can have a constructive conversation, okay?

I'll try to find time, and I'm willing to provide my feedback. We'll see how I go.

Cool beans

If you can't watch this video and understand the evidence presented before you I'd call you a lost cause.