The 10 minutes spent watching this was well worth it. I watched all the major 9/11 Truth videos back in the day, but time makes everything a bit hazy.

Good to have a refresher now and then.

UPDATE: I was wrong. I learned several things!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/zbsZjW-m0x8[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/70Ce_mbY5cc[/youtube]

Part 3:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/gQEUKB1Nb4o[/youtube]

.

No discussion of what really happened on 9-11 is complete without reference to Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and its founder Richard Gage, AIA, and its 2,300 signatories, who are all technical and building professionals:  either architects, professional engineers or degreed engineers.





(This is cool -- go to this page and scroll your mouse pointer over the logo at the top half of the page "AE 911 Architects & Engineers..." and see the image/words 'explode' under the 'pressure' of your mouse pointer:  http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html )


Here is a sample from their FAQs page:
(Where "A more detailed answer is available here" appears at the end of an answer, the source page has a link to another page with more details.  I provided links below for FAQs 1, 2 and 9.)


FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions — Here you will find some answers to some of the most commonly asked questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

 

As each FAQ response is published in our newsletter and posted on our website, it will be added to this page.



FAQ #1: Who demolished the Twin Towers and Building 7 and why?

We do not know who the perpetrators of this crime are. Identifying the culprits is the purpose of a real criminal investigation. However, we are able to provide overwhelming evidence of a cover-up of this crime. In addition, scientific forensic evidence indicates that only individuals who could gain long-term access inside the highly secure WTC skyscrapers and obtain advanced thermitic materials could have orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?

Some of the demolition devices were undoubtedly disturbed by the plane impacts, but not enough to prevent the rest of the devices from performing adequately. Even the NIST report states that the collapse of the North Tower started on a floor with fairly minor structural damage. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #3: What’s your assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) hypothesis?

The DEW hypothesis is not supported by the forensic evidence, nor can it explain the available evidence, including the molten iron microspheres docuмented by USGS and RJ Lee, the molten metal at Ground Zero and the active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #4: Why weren’t the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of known controlled demolitions?

Many sounds of explosions were in fact heard at the WTC on 9/11, and their continuous and rapid nature  would make individual explosions very difficult to hear. In addition, thermite incendiary materials, which were identified in the WTC dust, create less noise than conventional explosives. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #5: What caused the isolated high-speed ejections of pulverized dust and debris from the Towers?

Video evidence shows that these ejections were composed of pulverized building materials, and they occurred at isolated, geometrically precise locations, in an engineered pattern which are attributable to explosives – not air pressure from above. In addition, the ejection speeds were too high to have been caused by the pressure of the collapsing structure above.  A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #6: Why does AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of architects and engineers?

Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it.  A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #7: Aren’t the red-gray chips identified in the WTC dust merely primer paint from the WTC steel structural elements?

Key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the chemical composition of the red-gray chips – and vice versa. More importantly, scientific tests have revealed that the red-gray chips ignite at 430º C, creating molten iron as a reaction product – characteristics that confirm they are thermitic material and not primer paint. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #8: What is nanothermite? Could it have been used to demolish the WTC towers?

Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal that produces temperatures well in excess of 4000° F when ignited, certainly high enough to allow cuts through the structural steel of the Twin Towers. Nanothermite is a nano-engineered variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive, intensifying its destructive power. Residues of thermite and nanothermite were discovered in the WTC dust, which indicates they were used to destroy the WTC skyscrapers. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #9: Were the Twin Towers designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes?

Yes. Airplane impact tests that were conducted during the design of the Twin Towers showed that the skyscrapers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which has more energy upon impact than the 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. In the following years, lead WTC structural engineer John Skilling, WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson and WTC construction manager Frank Demartini made statements that underscore that analysis. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ # 10: Did WTC 7 Owner Larry Silverstein Admit to Ordering the Controlled Demolition of the Building?

Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” statement is so cryptic and vague that it is impossible to know for sure what he was referring to. However, according to Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Silverstein tried to get approval to demolish WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. Even though Silverstein’s statements have no bearing on the scientific evidence that proves WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, he should still be questioned in a future WTC investigation.
A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?

No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #12: Where are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?

Many of those who cannot accept the scientific evidence that refutes the official story of the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11/2001 argue, "If 9/11 was an inside operation, surely at least one whistleblower would have come forward by now. You couldn't keep something like that secret." While at first blush this argument might seem to be logical, closer examination shows that it makes no sense. Since scientific evidence has clearly shown that the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers cannot be true, the theory that the official story must be true because there have been "no 9/11 whistleblowers" is entirely specious. A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #13: Who was Responsible for the Controlled Demolition of the WTC Skyscrapers?

Arguably, no question surrounding 9/11 arouses more intense interest than this one. An investigation of 9/11 will certainly not be complete until we know who perpetrated the crimes and until they are brought to justice. Crime scene investigators know that, "Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err." (Paul Kirk, Crime Investigation) A more detailed answer is available here.

 
FAQ #14: What was the Molten Metal Seen Pouring Out of the South Tower Minutes Before its Collapse — Steel and Iron, or Aluminum and/or Lead?

Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important? A more detailed answer is available here.

Much of the evidence was quickly disposed of. Steel beams sold to
China at a very discounted price, remainders disposed in deep water.
This destruction of evidence is unheard of. The crime scene is always
reconstructed such as crashed planes and burned buildings.
And, non of this was reported in the media.
Everyone that studied the events of 9-11-01 have concluded that
it was all an inside job.
To show how dumb the Joe six pack on the street, he was convinced
by mass media propaganda that Iraq is at fault when alleged
pilots of the planes were all Saudi Arabians. And supported an
unjust war and sanctions that starved and killed millions of people.
to death.  

 

The biggest secrets of 9-11-01 is on 9-10-01 and reported on the news
over a trillion dollars were missing from the pentagon budget.
The plane or I suspect was a drone crashed into the area of the Pentagon
where the auditors were hard at work tracing the money, and was
 this was area the Pentagon employees died on 9-11-01.
The money is perhaps sitting in Swiss Bank accounts paying people
off to keep their mouths shut, and  pay people to lie and come to
false conclusions to deceive the public.
It is no secret that most of the world knows what really happened
on 9-11. The Russians have yet to release their satellite photos
of what really happened, they claim they have.

.

So there are at least two categories of inquiry that can be used to uncover the falsehood and subterfuge that was the "official version" of 9-11.

1 - There is objective, scientific examination of the physical characteristics of the WTC buildings themselves, #'s 1, 2 and 7, how they were damaged and why they collapsed:  if WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to fire caused by "planes" crashing into them (which can be shown to be impossible on 2 levels of examination), then why did WTC7 collapse, which was not struck by any plane at all?  And why did it come down on its own footprint with free-fall acceleration (which can only happen in steel framed buildings when they are deliberately demolished with explosives)?

2 - There is critical analysis of the media reporting of that day's events, the video footage that was broadcast at the time, and the video images that were published later, both by industry journalists and by amateur photographers.  

Regarding both categories, no serious investigation has ever taken place, but instead it has been entirely left up to private parties and grass-roots efforts to get to the truth of what happened on Sept. 11th, 2001.

This is an interesting contribution, obscurus:

One of the best docuмentaries analyzing the events of 9-11 I have seen are September Clues and the Addendum. The conclusions may seem astonishing. Nevertheless, the creator of this doc analyzes with a fine-tooth comb the audio and visual images broadcast by the media and concludes that no planes actually hit the Towers nor the Pentagon. He concludes that they were missiles, which I think changes the narrative a bit.-

At 16:20 in the first video linked (I've embedded them below for convenience of readers), Mike Walter of CNN tries to explain away why the damage to the exterior wall of the Pentagon shows no impact of the two jet engines that would have hit the wall, some 30 feet away on each side of the center hole.  He says he saw the wings "fold back" against the fuselage "because they weren't strong enough to withstand the impact," and that's why there's only one big hole in the wall.  That's at 18:00+, while a clip of the "plane" hitting the South Tower is shown and the wings do not "fold back".

Any engineer can tell you that if the wings were not strong enough to withstand the impact, they would have simply crashed into the side of the Pentagon, because at 500 miles an hour, there isn't time for the wings to change direction and start to "fold back" against the fuselage.  Walter is trying to twist the theory to fit the observed reality of only one hole in the wall and no impact damage from the two engines, nor any engine parts at the scene.

The only way to get through the thickly insulated perception of most American believers of the MSM version of 9-11 is to have a long list of questions which you can CALMLY and SOFTLY ask, selecting from the most appropriate ones depending on the listener's evident topic of interest.  

You can't be excited, and you can't be LOUD, or they won't listen to what you say.  That's what Liberalism has done to us.  Anyone who is passionate about their message is broad-brushed a "fanatic."

-Watch it for yourself:

September Clues:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GIfMw7mEDNk[/youtube]

September Clues Addendum:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/vD_IgCKpNrY[/youtube]

September Clues Website:
http://septemberclues.info/

Quote

The News Media had a central role in pulling off the 9/11 psy-op. The operation involved airing on television a substitute, computer-generated version of reality. It has temporarily succeeded to sell to the world the preposterous tale of 19 young terrorists using hijacked airliners to attack the USA. This longstanding research has established the falseness of the images shown on LIVE TV on 9/11 – as well as all the subsequently released video material. A large number of casualties was also reported to generate public outrage and support for illegal wars of aggression. However, the September Clues research has determined that the alleged victims were fictitious identities mostly/or entirely created within the digital realm. The 9/11 hoax - and the phony "War on Terror" - are definitively exposed by method revealed.

The first video above ends with recalling that one of the 4 missing planes was supposed to be headed for Los Angeles, so they go to LAX and find no families showing up to meet their anticipated loved ones (there could normally have been up to several hundred potential greeters at LAX), and instead the airport was being shut down and evacuated, but no reason was given for WHY evacuate the airport.  Was there some security threat?  No answer.  

How many airports across the country were being evacuated for security reasons?  They don't say.  Perhaps there were none.  All air traffic was suspended, and planes were called in to land wherever they were.  But that doesn't entail evacuating the airports.

Maybe they were evacuating LAX to obscure the fact that nobody was showing up to meet their family members who were scheduled to be arriving from the east coast.  No such family members were being interviewed by the news-hungry media (which normally would have been ALL OVER getting their stories out for all to see).  No passenger manifest was ever published with the names of passengers who were missing, and should have been on the 'missing plane'.  Nobody in Los Angeles ever came forward with a sad story of how their friend or loved one never came home that day.  Why would we not conclude that there never was any list of passengers because there never were any passengers?

.