Must see video of 9/11...

I was in Manhattan at the time of the attacks, and although I only heard the explosions I was watching them go down live on T.V at the time. My wife woke me up as soon as the news reports started coming on about it. I didnt want to say anything at first for fear that she might get mad or something, but when we watched the buildings go down on T.V, even she even thought they had demolished them with charges as they went down. Im still just not sure
 
Cloud Strife said:
everyone sould be thankfull that you live in a country that allows you to express your opinion.
if you want to dissagree with tis countrys' leaders mabe you sould go to china and try to 'express yourself'.
see what happens....:mad:
So what are you saying? :lol:
Are you saying we should express it? or shut the hell up?
 
:rolleyes:

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

Put options:

http://911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

Let's not forget what bad shape most airlines were in at the time. Their stocks had been falling for some time, I thought this was pretty common knowledge. The conspiracy theorists will toss out things like "4 times the daily average!", and hope to lure you in. What they'll fail to mention is that not only was UA's put options at over 8,000 twice earlier in the year (April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072), but a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

Anthrax: Skipping this one, I don't know enough about it to really comment.

Building collapses:

Man, the firefighters were sitting there looking at the buildings saying they they looked questionable. WTC7 always seems to be the biggest focus, so...

Fire Chief Daniel Negro -
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

What about claims of limited fires? I guess it all depends on what angle you're looking at. Here's WTC7's South side, which conspiracy theorists don't like to show... It's originally from FEMA's report.

WTC7_Smoke.jpg

You can see more here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Tons of other facts that are all over the net debunking all this nonsense. I'm glad that some of you are actually interested in learning what really happened that day. You should be. However, learn to decipher fact from fiction. Go do the research, and don't just click on the conspiracy links. All this stuff has been debunked before, time and time again. I'm not going to continue to lend creedence to it. It's utter crap.

I don't like Bush. I'm not very fond of my government. But I'm even less enthralled by the stupidity that resonates throughout the american public on a daily basis. If you truly want to know the truth, then do some real research. The kids that made that video should be flogged for stupidity.
 
Nice post shadow. At last someone hits the point instead of just posting 'it can't be true'. Following the OT principles properly, unlike most people. :cool:

The reason why the put options were dismissed by the official 9/11 report was precisely because there were no conceivable ties to Al Quaeda. But what if Al Qaeda doesn't exist? What if it didn't exist at the time, but has become a rallying flag for Muslims opposed to the US now? Personally, I'm far from persuaded about its existence, or about the independence of Bin Laden from the CIA (or at least part of the CIA).

The government report made the assumptions that there were no conspirators aside from those in Al Qaeda, which is the root of much of the mistrust in the report. It seems that the buying of the put options is a coincidence. A coincidence too far?

On the collapse of the buildings not hit by a plane: the collapse must have been due to fire alone or a fire + demolition. The damage to the building in your photo looks like it was caused by multiple fires. It doesn't explain it's vertical collapse, the cause of those fires or the inability of the sprinkler systems to put the fires out. I have another video here on CD, where a fire department guy (don't recall the name) said that the building was pulled and not the people from inside the building pulled out. If this clip is genuine it proves a demolition. However, none of us know for sure whether our sources aren't BS.

Your link about the fires being slight is irrelevent, it's debunking a straw man conspiracy theory. The theory that I supported does not in any way depend on the fires being small. The collapse, if such it was, was still identical to a controlled demolition and very unlike any precedent.

As far as I'm concerned the case is far from closed.

Why bring Bush into this? It's not necessary for Mr Bush's fingerprints to be on this one. Does anyone think that Bush is in full control of his government and its agencies, has he given you that confidence?
 
Bush has absolutely no control over the government, the Patriots are the true controlers of the government(Conspiracy theory #3343)
 
shadow2k said:
The kids that made that video should be flogged for stupidity.

I don't know, the fact that they got so many people to buy into that rubbish makes me think they were rather clever. ;)
 
sysyphus said:
I don't know, the fact that they got so many people to buy into that rubbish makes me think they were rather clever. ;)
You are referring here to the Bush regime, no?
 
Cloud Strife said:
everyone sould be thankfull that you live in a country that allows you to express your opinion.
if you want to dissagree with tis countrys' leaders mabe you sould go to china and try to 'express yourself'.
see what happens....:mad:
So we should censor ourselves... because we have freedom of speech?

I've seen the video before, it does have some good questions, plenty of them have been answered on this thread. I won't say that Bush and co. planned it, but there were steps they could have taken to prevent this tragedy.

Edit:
Cloud Strife said:
I am saying if you don't like the way this country is run you should leave:mad: :mad:
So because I don't like something, I should leave? Hm... odd, seems like something most fascist countries say. America is not a fascism, so I suggest you stop acting like it. If you have a problem with it, work to change it. That's what democracy is for, it's not for the many to oppress the few.
 
I watched the video first, and then went through three or four debunking sites, including the article by PM. And they still leave most of the major questions unanswered.
 
Ecclesiastes said:
I watched the video first, and then went through three or four debunking sites, including the article by PM. And they still leave most of the major questions unanswered.

Maybe you should read it carefully. The rebuttals seem pretty clear to me. What's not clear to you?
 
I just read the PM article again down to here:

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

There are many such eyewitness reports. PM's point is that the fires may have reached as high as 1832 F, enough, it says, to weaken the steel. Yet molten steel was found 21 days later. How do you square that?

This is hogwash, yet another case of debunking a straw man therory.

I have read through the entirety of the the PM article now and it is an attempt to distract attention from the anomalies in the official story by cherry picking weak elements in some alternative conspiracy theories.

The eyewitness reports of major devastation in the basement, that could not have been caused by a jet fuel fireball need to be remembered too.

The PM article does not stand up to scrutiny at all. If fires and fires alone were responsible for 1 or more collapse, then surely the companies that designed and constructed those buildings would be sued by the Government and bosses would be imprisoned for corportate manslaughter, the building regulations would have been tightened and remedial work would have been done to make safe other similar buildings. Has this happened?

What we saw on 9/11 in NY can only be explained by the use of explosives. To believe anything else is to have no confidence in the evidence of our own eyes.
 
Spartan117 said:
although one thing still concerns me about video... if the government was behind this, wouldnt they have done a better job planning for it, because i felt this movie pointed out a lot of things that obviously do not go along with offical explanation.....

I am inclined to agree. The thing with the government is, they generally have all the angles covered and leave no or maybe a trace amount of room for errors, they would not leave heaping gaps like the documentary suggests. Also, they would not publish so many things about "hijackings" and the like.

That note about the CIA Agent meeting Bin Laden, was possible. But, Osama was probably surrounded by a good several dozen armed guards at the time, and nobody, regardless of training would try and assassinate somebody with that level of protection currently surrounding him. I grant you there are some nutjobs that try, like the one that tried to kill Reagan, but as we already know, they tend to fail miserably. Also, I doubt that the CIA Agent would have been able to smuggle a weapon into the compound without one of his guards finding it and executing him on the spot and I doubt they would have been having steak for supper that night (knife to cut the steak).

You may then ask "Why didn't he call in an airstirke?", we weren't at war with him, he was just another rabble rousing "Kill the Infidel Zionistic Pigs!" nobody. I wish we could have used a little more foresight, but we can't change the past. Osama is not a moron (aside from 9/11, and attacking America), he would have hauled a$$ outa there as soon as the CIA man left.

I despise movies like these, conspiracy theory fuel.
 
Back
Top Bottom