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:
9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
An independent documentary made in 2017 that explores important areas of inquiry into 9/11 which get overlooked:
the real possibility that advanced holographic image projection technology was utilized that day, "on the ground", in the sky above New York. This technology has been in the works for military application for 2 decades - the publicly available documentation and current commercial use of this tech is explored with 9/11 in mind
the strong evidence for the use of an exotic, directed-energy, black technology to "dustify" the World Trade Centre - evidence which is documented in the book "Where Did The Towers Go?", available for download in our wiki
the strange behaviour of Hurricane Erin on 9/11, and how the weather conditions over New York in the 24 hours prior to the morning of 9/11 could have contributed to what happened that day - a link to weather engineering?
debunking the misleading claims of some prominent "mainstream" & "alternative" 9/11 "truthers" (Simon "Shack", Steven Jones, Ace Baker) - are they just wrong, or are they intentionally producing dis-info?
The film purports to provide the most complete picture of the entirety of the events that unfolded that day, including matching the events at all the sites that day to the minute by minute magnetometer readings of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.
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.
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).