What should our next featured documentary be?
Make a suggestion in the comments (one suggestion per comment), and vote!
Previous featured documentaries are listed in the wiki
Please provide a streaming link for your suggestion, thanks.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Worst 911 documentary ever. Try 911 new pearl harbour.
(warning this turned into a bit of a rant, feel free to ignore)
This is certainly not as well made a documentary, or as well laid out as New Pearl Harbor. I should hope most here have already seen that film though. I think people should give this a watch, as it does cover evidence simply ignored by David Ray Griffin (the source for much of what's in NPH).
Also, as authoritative as NPH is, and I hold it in high regard, in the interim after watching it a few times a few years ago I've come across some minor, but crucial, errors in analysis. Some examples for anyone interested:
An incomplete analysis of the 5 cctv frames showing what hit the pentagon.
A silver/blueish/purplish blob can be seen ahead of the white blob, that is identified in the NPH, as an object that has entered into frame and is heading for the Pentagon. The colouring of the silver/blue/purple blob not mentioned in the film corresponds to the colour of the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon. One logical hypothesis is that the first blob looks like the plane and the white blob is a smoke trail of some kind coming off what looks like the plane. But in the film, if I remember correctly, he only analyses the shape of the white blob, ignoring the plane coloured blob. And then starts to speculate about the frames being edited.
The infamous Ong Phone call:
I can't remember how exactly this is covered in the film, but the Betsy Ong phone call is another significant piece of evidence with multiple interpretations that is usually only presented as having one interpretation. It seems there is "consensus" that she whispers "it's a frame" at the end of the call. But many who hear that whisper believe the words could actually be "you did great", and may be spoken by another (female?) voice, either also on the line or next to Betsy.
Almost as if someone is telling her she pulled off the phone call well, perhaps believing she had already hung up. Various interpretations can be made from this, and one line of thought is that it is not Betsy at all, but an impostor using voice cloning software (it exists), and "you did great" implies "you successfully fooled her husband into believing he was talking with Betsy."
There are more examples than just these, but I just wanted to demonstrate that NPH is not all-encompassing.
9/11 alchemy covers different ground and in a different style, with different source material. I will admit though, the film maker is in his own film too much. But it's an independent, no-budget affair, made by a first time long-documentary film maker, and clearly made in his spare time. Mazzucco, who made NPH, has made many impressive documentaries on different topics, and works at it full time in retirement, after a full career as a fashion photographer.
Correction to above - the call is made by CeeCee Lyles, not Betsy Ong.
There are plenty of good documentaries that explore the hard science behind why the buildings collapsed. The evidence for explosives and the chemistry behind it. Documentaries about the money aspect, the stock market bets, the war games, the amount of people that were mysteriously absent on the day of 9/11. The warnings prior to 9/11. The ace elevator company. The fact FBI informants lived with the so called pilots. I could go on. And yet people latch onto bat shit insane theories about holograms and space beams, it's a truly sad state of affairs.
Just because they put some bombs in the buildings doesn't mean the towers weren't dustified with exotic energy weaponry.
They did both to confuse honest researchers.
Exotic directed energy tech was 100% used on 9/11.
If you ignore this crucial piece, you have an incomplete understanding of 9/11.
Read "Where did the towers go?" and respond without ad hominems against its author (not directed at you, this is just what the shills do).
Find any evidence a 'direct energy weapon' can blow up a building. You'd need a truly enormous amount of energy to take down a building of that size.
Holographic projection has likely been developed to a much greater level than is publicly available. There is decades of well funded research and development behind it, and also an effort to erase mention of that from the internet. It has been developed for the military, so has has gone dark. Older books are still available though, from before it went dark, which show how much effort was being put into it. We only know about the less powerful, commercially available, novelty type we have seen on TV. With military application, their aim was to develop optical holography that would fool enemies into believing they saw planes that didn't exist. That was their literal stated aim, from many years before 9/11.
"Space beams", or more accurately, directed energy weapons, exist in various forms, and are used on terra firma. The issue is how powerful they are and the extent of their capabilities. Again, it is not clear that the true extent is public knowledge, since again this tech is supposedly developed for military application and is secret.
Mentioned in the documentary is how "beaming from space" is not a necessary element in the DEW theory of 9/11. That idea has been attached by people seeking to undermine the evidence, for whatever reasons. The technology could have been in New York that day, or near by.
DE functions through the influence on each other of intersecting fields, "field effects" - strong fields of static electricity, radio waves, micro waves etc intersecting, with the objects within the crossover of those fields being effected in various ways (anti-gravitic, molecular dissociation). The importance of the hurricane and weather in New York prior to the morning of 9/11 is that this perhaps could have set up the atmosphere over New York that day to be conducive to a DEW. Similar "field effects" have been observed during hurricanes,derechos, tornados; such as wood lodging in concrete, or soft straw lodging in the solid wood of trees, or extremely heavy objects literally floating. Molecular dissociation and other effects happen during these weather events, and no one really knows why... supposedly.
None of these theories have anything to do with 911. Pieces of the planes were found in the street, at least 1 engine and some landing gear if I recall. They definitely weren't holograms. We know the buildings were laced with explosives, there was seismic data and countless eye witnesses testimony. Wtc7 was admitted controlled demolition. A journalist who was on the scene who I forget his name was interviewed a year or two ago on 911 recalled his experience saying wtc7 was controlled demolition. It was intentionally blown up. The logic was they were afraid it was going to topple over and damage an adjacent building if I recall. He casually admitted this seemingly unaware of the official narrative.
i thought it had lots of facts and proof of what they were saying, a very good documentary ... did you even watch it? doesn't sound like it