9/11 consipracy movie

[FelixDeCat]

Wow! Did you see the credits at the end? When played backwards and "video enhanced" with indistructible black boxes made by a secret subsidiary of ExxonMobile it says:

Al Queda Productions, Ltd.

Thanks, but Ill let the Muslim extremists do their own dirty work. :shocked:

 

[MrChad]

The video was well done, but I don't buy it.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: MrChad
The video was well done, but I don't buy it.

What exactly don't you 'buy' about it?

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: MrChad
The video was well done, but I don't buy it.

I do not buy half of it.
On the other hand, I think that it is hard to contest that WTC7 looks like it was brought down thanks to a perfect controlled demolition.
Read two of my posts above on this page to find very interesting videos about it and WTC 1&2.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: MrChad
The video was well done, but I don't buy it.

What exactly don't you 'buy' about it?

A lot of the video relies on two main bodies of evidence.

First is a set of eyewitness accounts and opinions of a small, select group of individuals. There is an overwhelming preponderance of eyewitness accounts and expert testimony that suggests that the official story checks out. Dismissing other expert accounts as government puppets doesn't make for a strong argument.

Second is a series of grainy video footage and select photo shots. The video footage is not nearly clear enough to draw any firm conclusions off of. And photographs can only show so much. You can use a photograph to demonstrate what's there, but it's more difficult to use a photo to show what's not there.

I don't think you can definitively prove one way or another what really happened that day. I'm going to go by what the majority of eyewitnesses, media and experts agree happened.

 

[erikistired]

so wait. if there was a big black box on the bottom of the 2nd plane why didn't anyone at the airport notice it? are they all in on it? i'd notice a giant missile launcher on the bottom of my plane for sure.

all these people do is disgrace the memory of those lost that day, both on the planes and at the towers.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

I agree with you: this is totally ridiculous. They removed it from the second version:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

Concerning the memory of those lost that day, it must be said that many victims' families claim that the 9/11 Commission report is a cover-up, like a certain report about JFK. And several members of those families participate in some of the videos listed below.

You can start with this video by a scientist: Physics professor Steven Jones, from Brigham Young University, gave a simple physics lesson on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings a few days ago. Here is the torrent of the 697.1 MB video (very good quality, 2h15):
http://www.911blogger.com/files/BYU_Pro...xplosives_WTC_September_11.avi.torrent
Also on emule:
ed2k://|file|Steven.Jones.2.2006.avi|730957182|ADEA559F8ACAE1C45CBEBBDF6B9400BE|/
The powerpoint presentation from Dr. Steven Jones's recent February 1st seminar is now available for download via his BYU homepage:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
It contains many very interesting slides quoting demolition experts, structural engineers,...
The zip file weighs in at 29MB and includes a powerpoint viewer for those without it.

I am watching the video now and the example of the stove is very convincing. When you burn anything in a stove, do you expect the stove to collapse? No, of course! Then why did 3 WTC buildings with 284 steel reinforced columns (WTC 1&2) collapse? The planes? No, the collapse would have been immediate, and WTC7 was not hit by a plane. Everyone must watch the thorough temperature and steel analysis by him and other engineers in this video.
Jones quotes a mechanical engineer teaching at another university who contacted him and agreed with his paper, but does not want to be named because she fears losing her job. Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator, said the same in a video available on emule and here: there is an incredible amount of pressure on her, who is famous, but also on many others, to shut up. A famous engineer (Kevin Ryan, of Underwriter Labs, that set up models of the WTC buildings components and tested them: they did not fail as required by the official story) has been fired because he contradicted the official version too well. Another retracted his first convincing analysis that it was a controlled demolition, but why? At least noone got killed, unlike after JFK's assassination.

I also suggest that you watch this new documentary, 911 Eyewitness, which includes footage in which you can see and hear four bombs exploding in the WTC before the collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness
Like Zapruder, by chance this guy had his video camera positioned in the perfect place, which let him capture what happened much better than most TV crews, which were all in the same place.

The documentary "Confronting the Evidence -A call to reopen the 911 investigation" (NOT copyrighted) contains a very thorough analysis of the WTC collapses (from 39:50 on).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9124194186333362123&q=9%2F11+reopen

Everything about the mysterious collapse of WTC7, hit by no plane at all:
http://www.wtc7.net/contents.html
It contained thousands of sensitive SEC files that many corrupt friends of this administration wanted destroyed. How lucky these guys are!

Interesting C-SPAN videos:
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...roduct_video_info&products_id=187857-1
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...roduct_video_info&products_id=187857-2
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...roduct_video_info&products_id=188134-1
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...o_info&products_id=186335-1&template=4
Available on emule. Or there for Griffin:
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/index.html

There is that one, too:
C-SPAN- Judicial Watch News Conference with FBI Special Agent Robert Wright
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/idrive/ter053002_judicial.rm
Former FBI counter-terrorism agent Robert Wright claims that the agency inhibited his probes into terrorist groups

Many videos few people know about, there: http://www.911busters.com/
Like:
- 1st International Citizen's Inquiry into 9-11 held in San Francisco March 2004
- DC Emergency Truth Convergence, July, 2005
- 9-11 Awareness Exercise 4th of July '05
- Citizens' Commission on 9/11
- Misc. Audio / Video Evidence Exposing the 9-11 Cover Up
- LA Citizens' 9-11 Grand Jury, Oct. 2004

In 9-11 Perspectives, a Brigadier General who worked in the White House under Eisenhower says that "he realized he was losing control" and that the military-industrial complex "was not going to be in the best hands". Other specialists explain that the creation of the NSC and the CIA meant the creation of a state within the state, without democratic oversight. Absolute power. Corrupts absolutely.

About Popular Mechanics attack against 9-11 independant investigators: the debunking got debunked:
http://911review.com/pm/markup/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
Funny: Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece, is cousins with Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack.
When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter.
911review.com's Mainstream Press Attacks page contains an expose' of connections between the Hearst Corporation -- owner of Popular Mechanics -- and the CIA.

Other interesting documentaries:

Painful Deceptions (reopen911 edition)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful+deceptions

Truth & Lies of 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9%2F11+ruppert

The Great Conspiracy -The.9-11.News.Special.You.Never.Saw
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...813972926262623&q=the+great+conspiracy

search results for "Alex Jones" = 3 video.google pages
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=alex+jones&so=0

A site with up-to-date info about 9/11 research: http://www.911blogger.com/

A site to see clearly through some apparent contradictions of 9/11 researchers (some may well be CIA trying to disinform people and discredit independant researchers; it happened with JFK): http://www.questionsquestions.net/

 

[91TTZ]

Votingisanillusion, your screenname, your long-winded posts and your signature all lead one to believe that you're a lunatic. Are you treating your schizophrenia?

Nobody with any amount of common sense can take your political posts seriously.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Votingisanillusion, your screenname, your long-winded posts and your signature all lead one to believe that you're a lunatic. Are you treating your schizophrenia?

Nobody with any amount of common sense can take your political posts seriously.

His other 9/11 conspiracy thread in P&N was thouroughly debunked and locked. I think the mods let him have this one out of pity.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Votingisanillusion, your screenname, your long-winded posts and your signature all lead one to believe that you're a lunatic. Are you treating your schizophrenia?

Nobody with any amount of common sense can take your political posts seriously.

His other 9/11 conspiracy thread in P&N was thouroughly debunked and locked. I think the mods let him have this one out of pity.

The boy is just obsessed with this type of stuff. It's not a bad thing to be open to possibilities, but, when it becomes an obession, it also becomes a problem.

I don't know FOR SURE what brought down the WTC towers and I'd wager only a handfull of people really do but there are those whom do I'm also sure. I am an engineer albiet not structural, aeronautics is my field but knowing what I do, I will say that it is possible the impact and fires brought down the towers. It is also very possible that explosives aided in taking them down.

I can though dismiss all the claims that it was a Bush admin. plan because a detonation like this is not something you just decide upon and do within the time he was in office. Beyond that, how did he even know for sure he would be in office? I know, I know.....it was all predestined right? Well, then you have to also agree that someone above our government is actually pulling the strings!

IF explosives were in fact used, my money would be on bin Laden or the owner of the towers.

The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward. They in fact did not. Fires were reported in the lobby quite some time before the towers fell, natural gas was used in kitchen suites throughout the building, fuel was going down elevator shafts.......the smoke from the base is not surprising. By the same token though, while possible, it is surprising they fell the way they did (oh, and NOT straight down as some suggest). As stated, it is "possible" though not likely. One thing for sure though, once a floor at the impact area did collapse, the whole building would go in "pancake" succession. It wasn't the weight of one floor, but the weight of every floor above the point of initial collapse and this would definately cause the building to "pancake".

I honestly doubt we'll ever know "for sure", but, if in fact explosives were used, as stated, my money is on the owner first, then terrorists.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Votingisanillusion, your screenname, your long-winded posts and your signature all lead one to believe that you're a lunatic. Are you treating your schizophrenia?

Nobody with any amount of common sense can take your political posts seriously.

His other 9/11 conspiracy thread in P&N was thouroughly debunked and locked. I think the mods let him have this one out of pity.

The boy is just obsessed with this type of stuff. It's not a bad thing to be open to possibilities, but, when it becomes an obession, it also becomes a problem.

I don't know FOR SURE what brought down the WTC towers and I'd wager only a handfull of people really do but there are those whom do I'm also sure. I am an engineer albiet not structural, aeronautics is my field but knowing what I do, I will say that it is possible the impact and fires brought down the towers. It is also very possible that explosives aided in taking them down.

I can though dismiss all the claims that it was a Bush admin. plan because a detonation like this is not something you just decide upon and do within the time he was in office. Beyond that, how did he even know for sure he would be in office? I know, I know.....it was all predestined right? Well, then you have to also agree that someone above our government is actually pulling the strings!

IF explosives were in fact used, my money would be on bin Laden or the owner of the towers.

The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward. They in fact did not. Fires were reported in the lobby quite some time before the towers fell, natural gas was used in kitchen suites throughout the building, fuel was going down elevator shafts.......the smoke from the base is not surprising. By the same token though, while possible, it is surprising they fell the way they did (oh, and NOT straight down as some suggest). As stated, it is "possible" though not likely. One thing for sure though, once a floor at the impact area did collapse, the whole building would go in "pancake" succession. It wasn't the weight of one floor, but the weight of every floor above the point of initial collapse and this would definately cause the building to "pancake".

I honestly doubt we'll ever know "for sure", but, if in fact explosives were used, as stated, my money is on the owner first, then terrorists.

it really comes down to the steel.

what was found in the basement / substructures has been reported as "molten steel".
however, this was not the case on the upper floors, where most of the jetfuel was burning along with carpet, and other office materials. the steel on those upper floors were not found to be melted, yet they were in a "molten" state in basements?

please correct me if i'm wrong in this matter.

for those of you who haven't actually watched 9/11 eyewitness, you can HEAR explosions going off seconds before the collapse of of WTC1 , which is the 2nd tower to fall that day...(and you see smoke rising from the street levels in front of the tower).


edit:

"The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward"

I agree with you, Endgame...that is rather puzzling. Let's assume for a second that there indeed were explosives detonated in the basement. Would that be enough to weaken/shake the central column foundations, and thus causing the collapse to start from the top, since the steel frameworks on the higher levels were already weakened?

 

[MikeMike]

Votingisanillusion

read http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y that, its very very good and debunks most of the major things you like to push.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Votingisanillusion, your screenname, your long-winded posts and your signature all lead one to believe that you're a lunatic. Are you treating your schizophrenia?

Nobody with any amount of common sense can take your political posts seriously.

His other 9/11 conspiracy thread in P&N was thouroughly debunked and locked. I think the mods let him have this one out of pity.

The boy is just obsessed with this type of stuff. It's not a bad thing to be open to possibilities, but, when it becomes an obession, it also becomes a problem.

I don't know FOR SURE what brought down the WTC towers and I'd wager only a handfull of people really do but there are those whom do I'm also sure. I am an engineer albiet not structural, aeronautics is my field but knowing what I do, I will say that it is possible the impact and fires brought down the towers. It is also very possible that explosives aided in taking them down.

I can though dismiss all the claims that it was a Bush admin. plan because a detonation like this is not something you just decide upon and do within the time he was in office. Beyond that, how did he even know for sure he would be in office? I know, I know.....it was all predestined right? Well, then you have to also agree that someone above our government is actually pulling the strings!

IF explosives were in fact used, my money would be on bin Laden or the owner of the towers.

The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward. They in fact did not. Fires were reported in the lobby quite some time before the towers fell, natural gas was used in kitchen suites throughout the building, fuel was going down elevator shafts.......the smoke from the base is not surprising. By the same token though, while possible, it is surprising they fell the way they did (oh, and NOT straight down as some suggest). As stated, it is "possible" though not likely. One thing for sure though, once a floor at the impact area did collapse, the whole building would go in "pancake" succession. It wasn't the weight of one floor, but the weight of every floor above the point of initial collapse and this would definately cause the building to "pancake".

I honestly doubt we'll ever know "for sure", but, if in fact explosives were used, as stated, my money is on the owner first, then terrorists.

it really comes down to the steel.

what was found in the basement / substructures has been reported as "molten steel".
however, this was not the case on the upper floors, where most of the jetfuel was burning along with carpet, and other office materials. the steel on those upper floors were not found to be melted, yet they were in a "molten" state in basements?

please correct me if i'm wrong in this matter.

for those of you who haven't actually watched 9/11 eyewitness, you can HEAR explosions going off seconds before the collapse of of WTC1 , which is the 2nd tower to fall that day...(and you see smoke rising from the street levels in front of the tower).


edit:

"The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward"

I agree with you, Endgame...that is rather puzzling. Let's assume for a second that there indeed were explosives detonated in the basement. Would that be enough to weaken/shake the central column foundations, and thus causing the collapse to start from the top, since the steel frameworks on the higher levels were already weakened?

To answer the last question first, no. The structure still would have shown collapse at base level if the support was taken from that level first. My answer for the base dust/explosion still seems logical toward natural gas/other fuel. Also, of course there would be explosion like sounds when the structure began collpase. Oh, and I did watch many of these films.

As to the "molten steel", the debris burned for days, that was stated in nearly all presentations. Of course it would burn hottest at the base of the debris. That said, I have no idea what type of fuel would be present to burn at that temp but a ruptured natural gas main for the WTC towers is not out of the question.....but then, niether is thermite, but use of thermite at the base is NOT indicative of the manner in which the towers fell. IF thermite was used though, even on upper floors, it would burn it's way to the base.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Votingisanillusion

read http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y that, its very very good and debunks most of the major things you like to push.

About Popular Mechanics attack against 9-11 independant investigators: the debunking got debunked:
http://911review.com/pm/markup/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
Funny: Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece, is cousins with Michael Chertoff, the famous Secretary of Homeland Security, an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack.
When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter.
911review.com's Mainstream Press Attacks page contains an expose' of connections between the Hearst Corporation -- owner of Popular Mechanics -- and the CIA.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Too many explosions filmed in 911 Eyewitness and reported by the firemen in <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+ch
nge">Loose Change 2nd Edition</a> to be explained away vaguely.
What does the 9/11 Commission report say about these explosions? If you do not have an official explanation, then you have a serious problem. A problem that reminds me of the bullets that were shot at JFK but not reported by the Warren Commission.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Votingisanillusion, your screenname, your long-winded posts and your signature all lead one to believe that you're a lunatic. Are you treating your schizophrenia?

Nobody with any amount of common sense can take your political posts seriously.

His other 9/11 conspiracy thread in P&N was thouroughly debunked and locked. I think the mods let him have this one out of pity.

The boy is just obsessed with this type of stuff. It's not a bad thing to be open to possibilities, but, when it becomes an obession, it also becomes a problem.

I don't know FOR SURE what brought down the WTC towers and I'd wager only a handfull of people really do but there are those whom do I'm also sure. I am an engineer albiet not structural, aeronautics is my field but knowing what I do, I will say that it is possible the impact and fires brought down the towers. It is also very possible that explosives aided in taking them down.

I can though dismiss all the claims that it was a Bush admin. plan because a detonation like this is not something you just decide upon and do within the time he was in office. Beyond that, how did he even know for sure he would be in office? I know, I know.....it was all predestined right? Well, then you have to also agree that someone above our government is actually pulling the strings!

IF explosives were in fact used, my money would be on bin Laden or the owner of the towers.

The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward. They in fact did not. Fires were reported in the lobby quite some time before the towers fell, natural gas was used in kitchen suites throughout the building, fuel was going down elevator shafts.......the smoke from the base is not surprising. By the same token though, while possible, it is surprising they fell the way they did (oh, and NOT straight down as some suggest). As stated, it is "possible" though not likely. One thing for sure though, once a floor at the impact area did collapse, the whole building would go in "pancake" succession. It wasn't the weight of one floor, but the weight of every floor above the point of initial collapse and this would definately cause the building to "pancake".

I honestly doubt we'll ever know "for sure", but, if in fact explosives were used, as stated, my money is on the owner first, then terrorists.

it really comes down to the steel.

what was found in the basement / substructures has been reported as "molten steel".
however, this was not the case on the upper floors, where most of the jetfuel was burning along with carpet, and other office materials. the steel on those upper floors were not found to be melted, yet they were in a "molten" state in basements?

please correct me if i'm wrong in this matter.

for those of you who haven't actually watched 9/11 eyewitness, you can HEAR explosions going off seconds before the collapse of of WTC1 , which is the 2nd tower to fall that day...(and you see smoke rising from the street levels in front of the tower).


edit:

"The puzzling thing to me is actually the way they fell. The talk about the clouds at the base before they fell.....well, explain this then.....I've seen video and even spoken to witnesses......the towers fell from about the point of impact downward. If thermite or another explosive was used at the base to take the towers down they would have fallen in that manner......from the base downward"

I agree with you, Endgame...that is rather puzzling. Let's assume for a second that there indeed were explosives detonated in the basement. Would that be enough to weaken/shake the central column foundations, and thus causing the collapse to start from the top, since the steel frameworks on the higher levels were already weakened?

To answer the last question first, no. The structure still would have shown collapse at base level if the support was taken from that level first. My answer for the base dust/explosion still seems logical toward natural gas/other fuel. Also, of course there would be explosion like sounds when the structure began collpase. Oh, and I did watch many of these films.

As to the "molten steel", the debris burned for days, that was stated in nearly all presentations. Of course it would burn hottest at the base of the debris. That said, I have no idea what type of fuel would be present to burn at that temp but a ruptured natural gas main for the WTC towers is not out of the question.....but then, niether is thermite, but use of thermite at the base is NOT indicative of the manner in which the towers fell. IF thermite was used though, even on upper floors, it would burn it's way to the base.

"To answer the last question first, no. The structure still would have shown collapse at base level if the support was taken from that level first."

-- That sounds reasonable (if most of the support was taken out)... so I'll throw another possibility to you. From what I understand, there were 40-50 + central columns in each building? What if the inner-most columns were what the explosions had taken out? It's a rather large building... the effects might not be seen at base levels due to the base structures being relatively unaffected by the fires from floors 70+. Is that out of the question? Not claiming to be an expert by any means...just questions I ask myself sometimes.


From an article: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1036.htm
Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, ?That?s the $64,000 question.?

Loizeaux said, ?If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.?

(Mark Loizeaux is the president of Controlled Demolition)


-- Your question about natural gas / alternate fuel is logical... but is that combination along with jetfuel enough to produce molten steel? More research for us to do. If anyone knows, please chime in.


(The following isn't really directed at you, Endgame... it's just been on my mind)

-- From what I've been reading...in order for steel to reach a molten state, a temperature of 2800 F (or 1500 C) needs to be reached.

-- We know the steel in the basement has been documented as "molten" (from Loizeaux IIRC, among others)

-- This is what continues to trouble me. From Firehouse.com

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes. And what did burn over the next hour, or hour and a half, was much of the contents of the buildings."

So, the steel on the upper floors never reached the molten state...yet the steel in the basement did?


It bothers me that these questions haven't been fully answered. An all out comprehensive investigation for the largest fire collapse in history should've been a no brainer...at least that's what common sense tells me... if nothing else, to prevent future towers being built to withstand another possible plane / jetfuel disaster. Instead, most of the debris was shipped overseas before we were able to fully investigate? That's troubling to me.

 

[Finns14]

Bump for updates

 

[Queasy]

So, what happened to all the people that were on the three planes?

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Queasy
So, what happened to all the people that were on the three planes?

Read about Operation Northwoods and try to guess: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

 

[moomoo40moo]

I watched loose change 2, and just finished the eyewitness one. Both very good movies, eyewitness one a little slow. He basically gives evidence of explosives going off seconds before the collapse, and as it is falling. (he adjusts the audio so there is no delay when comparing the collapse visually and with sound) I doubt that there was anything like a missile underneath the plane when it hit (im glad they took it out in the loose change 2nd edition [the first one should be discarded or deleted or something]) I really think there are a lot of people involved in high places, and making a lot of money off of the event.

I think people up top were looking to dramatically get the peoples perspective on the middle east changed. Nowadays, our goverment plays extremely on the fear of the people. I don't think this thing with the govt coverup of the WTC attack will go anywhere unless some major media names begin picking up the story and doing some indepth research talking to the right people.

On a side note: It was just kinda going through my head what would happen if something (basically enough already) was found that would definitely point the finger at the governent being responsible. What would happen? Would the people revolt? Would they just impeach bush? (Many others probably involved so idk about this one)

Last side note: Within the last 2-3 years I had been subscribed to popular mechanics, and after learning about the head editor being cousins with the head of the department of homeland security, I notice now the amount of copies that featured "homeland security" and just pushing it, and saying how we need it or we will all die from suitcase nukes, trying to scare us again. Maybe no correlation, but still. I too am very interested about the truth surrounding this whole ordeal. The govt can relieve so many growing fears by just releasing a few videos.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

What you tell us about Popular mechanics is very interesting. It confirms that it is linked to the CIA, as indicated in the page debunking the Popular mechanics attack:
http://911review.com/pm/markup/
911review.com's Mainstream Press Attacks page contains an expose' of connections between the Hearst Corporation -- owner of Popular Mechanics -- and the CIA.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Loizeaux said, ?If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.?[/i]

(Mark Loizeaux is the president of Controlled Demolition)

I like this quote very much. Who is more authoritative than the president of such a prestigious firm, that has demolished buildings professionaly all over the World? They hold four World records, so I guess he knows what he is talking about:
Seattle Kingdome
Seattle, Washington, USA
03/26/2000
Record: The world's largest structure, by volume (19.821 million cu. m.), to be demolished by explosives.

J.L. Hudson Department Store
Detroit, Michigan, USA
10/24/1998
Records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson?s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded.

Villa Panamericana & Las Orquideas
San Juan, Puerto Rico
08/16/1998
Record: The most buildings shot in a single implosion sequence.

Omega Radio Tower
Trelew, Argentina
06/23/1998
Record: At 1202' 6", the tallest manmade structure ever felled with explosives.

 

[DaShen]

Wag the Dog

 

[DaShen]

Talks about some other cover ups done by the same group.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Wag the Dog

what was that movie about?