9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. Video

This is the expert-packed feature-length,Pre-Release v1.3, Low-Res documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Help us to make the most of the opportunity provided by the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to publicize the evidence about the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11. Visit the dedicated website http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org to watch or download the high-res video. Support AE911Truth by sharing the website http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org with your family, friends, and associates - and have them watch it on high resolution Pay Per View and/or download the film also.

If you watched the YouTube lo-rez video for free please consider supporting us at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home/68-contribute-to-ae911truth/420-donate-ae911truth.html with your $5 or $10 donation so we can complete the film's Final Release before November.

Don't forget your Facebook, Twitter, and other contacts. Order the DVD today at http://www.ae911truth.net/store.

High res 9/11 Documentary:
http://www.911ExpertsSpeakOut.org
http://www.AE911Truth.org

Join 23-year architect Richard Gage, AIA, in this feature length documentary with cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 top experts in their fields -- high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. Each is highly qualified in his/her respective fields. Several have Ph.D's -- including National Medal of Science awardee Lynn Margulis. She, along with the other experts, exposes the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied and acknowledges the "overwhelming" evidence of high temperature incendiaries in all dust samples of the WTC. High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition.

9/11 family members and psychologists ground the technical information with heart centered support for a new investigation and a close look at the psychology of 9/11in this milestone production of AE911Truth: http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org

Follow around the web:
http://ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/544-eso-trailer.html
http://www.911ExpertsSpeakOut.org
http://www.ae911truth.org
http://www.facebook.com/ae911truth
http://www.twitter.com/ae911truth
http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth
http://www.flickr.com/ae911truth
https://www.ae911truth.net/store/
http://www.ae911truth.org/911investigator
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=143 http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html#Videos_by_AE911Truth

@89089juiubui Free ...
@89089juiubui Free fall acceleration means falling thru air. Your lack of understanding of this axiomatic fact, or denial of it, is your problem. Again, either? you don't know or you are denying the facts. Concrete melts at 3272-4532 degrees F. weldcare[dot]co[dot]uk/app10[d¬ot]htm

@89089juiubui Free ...
@89089juiubui Free fall acceleration means falling thru air. Your lack of understanding of this axiomatic fact, or denial of it, is your problem. Again either? you don't know or you are denying the facts. Concrete melts at 3272-4532 degrees F. weldcare[dot]co[dot]uk/app10[d¬ot]htm

@89089juiubui Free ...
@89089juiubui Free fall acceleration means falling thru air. You lack of understanding of this axiomatic fact, or denial of it, is your problem. Again you don't know or denying the facts. Concrete melts at 3272-4532 degrees F. weldcare[dot]co[dot]uk/app10[dot]htm ?

@89089juiubui Free ...
@89089juiubui Free fall acceleration is not "circumstantial" evidence, it is scientific evidence. You are in denial. The only way for WTC? 7 to fall at FFA for 100 feet is - all the supporting structure is REMOVED on 7 floors. You ask for what you know does not exist. This is a thread bare denial tactic. "It can't be because ..." Nano-thermite can be engineered to cut columns without the usual huge noise because the 4500 degree iron does most of the cutting.

@chrisdeal Ever ...
@chrisdeal Ever heard of something called a reputation? Most of the major publishers don't want to turn into "conspiracy journals." But of course you don't get that? and think that everyone in the scientific community is open to contemplating 9/11 being an Inside Job.

@chrissarns " ...
@chrissarns "asking for what you know is not known is a denial tactic." No I'm not. You are displaying circumstantial evidence as 'scientific proof', when it isn't.? There was no controlled demolition. If there was, the main focus you try to convey wouldn't have to be peripheral issues such as free fall. No, you would point me to the footage clearly showing loud detonation blasts, as expected from a controlled demolition done with explosives. But you don't. Neither does the seismographic data.

@chrissarns "100 ...
@chrissarns "100 feet of free fall acceleration could only occur if all the supporting structure was removed with explosives." No.? Unfortunately you haven't shown this premise to be true yet. "The only explanation for the extreme temperatures, confirmed in the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum,? is some form of thermite." Bogus. The temperatures were not 'extreme', but definately high enough to weaken the steel in the places in question. The thermite thesis is thoroughly refuted on debunking911.

@chrisdeal You're ...
@chrisdeal You're a? smart man.

Why is one of my? ...
Why is one of my? comments removed? Anyway...

@89089juiubui The ...
@89089juiubui The scientific proof is: The 100 feet of free fall acceleration could only occur if all the supporting? structure was removed with explosives. The only explanation for the extreme temperatures, confirmed in the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum, is some form of thermite. Your "debunking" site does not debunk these facts. Your asking for what you know is not known is a denial tactic. "Tell me what you could not possibly know or I will deny the facts we do know."

favorite? this so ...
favorite? this so it can get more views.

@NothingAtAllXD ...
@NothingAtAllXD Totally dude.? Peer-reviewed publishers in the scientific community are always sidestepping opportunities to criticize the government. They're all spinless shills! Damn the New World Order!

@commanderetardo " ...
@commanderetardo "makes it seem like you are concerned about not being? taken seriously" With good reason. No serious scholar takes them seriously precisely because they are living in a fantasy land of wild delusions.

@commanderetardo " ...
@commanderetardo "makes it seem like you are concerned about not being taken seriously" With good reason. No serious scholar takes them seriously precisely because they are living? in a fantasy land of wild delusions.

@commanderetardo " ...
@commanderetardo "makes it seem like you are concerned about not being taken seriously" With good reason. No serious? scholar takes them seriously precisely because they are living in a fantasy land of wild delusions.

@commanderetardo " ...
@commanderetardo "makes it seem like? you are concerned about not being taken seriously" With good reason. No serious scholar takes them seriously precisely because they are living in a fantasy land of wild delusions.

@MADMAX839 I think ...
@MADMAX839 I think that was answered? explicitly in the documentary.

@chrisdeal Let's ...
@chrisdeal Let's wait until a major peer-reviewed publisher really wants to have "9/11 INSIDE JOB" on their front page and face a serious boycott? and disregard from the science community!

@chrisdeal This ...
@chrisdeal This must be DISINFO. Could you fail that bad to not pick out any other names of the 30+ people that appeared in this film? You must also suffer from some serious cognitive dissonance too. But? I understand, I used to be deluded as you.

@commanderetardo ...
@commanderetardo lol. This makes no sense at all. Most people when they see 9/11 truth are used to seeing Steven Jones or Richard Gage only in person offer their critiques of the official story. This is done throughout the documentary to established a numerable quantity of qualified professionals able to give their honest? opinions of the events of that tragic day.

Seems totally ...
Seems totally plausible. I can't wait until I have the opportunity to publish articles in activist publications and then openly call? the whole thing peer reviewed.

The? question, then ...
The? question, then, would be, WHY?

Because IF YOU HAVE ...
Because IF YOU HAVE THEM, then you have a better understanding of THE TRUTH. Which, is really what I'd like more of. So. Facts. Which, in this case, leads to questions. I'll end with one simple question: Why have we the people been "allowed" to see one camera angle, with less than one seconds worth of video of whatever crashed into the Pentagon?? I believe this to be a simple question with a simple answer.

Now. Do YOU know ...
Now. Do YOU know of any perfect acting humans, over the age of say 5 years. Or is it FAR MORE LIKELY than, at least once in a while, our elected officials can/do make mistakes, both intentional as well as innocently. If you believe the latter to be possible and EVEN IF? YOU DO NOT, you must ask yourself a simple question. As I said at the start of this tangent, I'm interested in facts. Very simple, facts are.

I'm not interested ...
I'm not interested in conspiracies. I'm interested in truth. Now, I? suppose I could adopt the policy of believing everything that anyone in power tells me. But then I'd be a complete idiot. Because all one needs is a pair of working eyes and ears, and actually one each would do, to see and hear that our gov't. officials are, in fact, HUMAN BEINGS.

@chrissarns "100 ...
@chrissarns "100 feet of free fall acceleration could only occur if all the supporting structure was removed with explosives." Unfortunately this premise has not been shown to be true yet. "only explanation for the extreme temperatures, confirmed in the RJ Lee? Group and the NYPD Museum, is some form of? thermite." Bogus. The temperatures were not 'extreme', but definately high enough to weaken the steel in the places in question. The thermite thesis is thoroughly refuted on debunking911.

@chrissarns If ...
@chrissarns If there was indeed scientific evidence for controlled demolition, then wouldn't it be wiser to publish the findings? for fellow engineers? Explaining what kind of explosives was used, where the thermite was placed, who was responsible for the bombs etc... Instead ae911 sticks to producing videos such as this targeting the simple layman. The debunking911 site INDEED refutes the claims that thermite/explosives/bombs (Which of those exactly was it?) brought down the WTC.

@DeanStructural ...
@DeanStructural Most people will never believe there was a controlled demolition until that magical footage appears which shows the actual DETONATIONS. Yawn. Besides, your whole post is one giant evasion of? the fact that your previous appeal to authority didn't work. Again, watch Mark Roberts (NY tourguide) debate Richard Gage here on youtube. ae911 won't put this debate on its channel for a reason.

@NothingAtAllXD ...
@NothingAtAllXD from a FILMIC perspective ( ie. focussing on the the FORM and ART of documentary ) there is far too much time devoted to the? credentials. it slows the piece down and makes it seem desperate. nothing to do with 'that tragic day' and everything to do with making content that is engaging.

@89089juiubui " ...
@89089juiubui "when the analysis of the WTC7 leads to ..." -? but not the discussion of the controlled demolition itself. That "Debunking" site is a lot of opinion and supposition. It does NOT refute any of the scientific evidence presented in this video. Stop making unsupported blanket claims and point to something specific. Lynn Margulis is an expert on the subject of what constitutes a scientific investigation and she said that the NIST report in not science.

---