Must see video of 9/11...

[Mr. Dictator]

*raiseshand*

guess capslock still cant find those "answers"

i just finished it, and.....wow

but if the polls are any indication americans are far more likely to believe this now, well not the hardcore evangelical conservatives but the sane people are

threadstarter, post that in your sig

 

[Mr. Dictator]

when i saw the thing about the gold in the WTC i thought of those coins they sell late at night that were "miraculasly(sp?)" rescued from the vaults

 

[Spartan117]

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.....

 

[Dida]

this video is just an instance of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation

 

[cemsity]

i like it how some people belive that bush is the most unintelgent president then then if you get them talking about 9/11 then they start spewing that bush planned the whole thing, ether all presidents have been davinci's, enstiens, newton, feynmen so forth or they (the consperice theroist/bush is an ape crowd) are just crazy

 

[Spartan117]

dida i agree that many conspiracy theories form during a traumatic events, but the lack of information available or released from 9/11 just fuels conspiracies, and since the event was that major which ultimately led to many things afterward makes it even more subject to criticism...

i find conspiracies on 9/11 plausible however that will be said by someone regarding all conspiracies as that is the point of coming up with a "logical" conclusion is that they should be at the very least plausible

well this movie wasnt bush bashing aka farenheit 911, at least i didnt think so

 

[Red Stranger]

The video is just conspiracy and anyone with half a brain would know that. Just list what you believe the video to be true, and I'll give you the facts to refute it.

 

[Red Stranger]

I just watched the first part of the video, and laughed so hard at the thought that anyone could believe it. It's suggesting that the government planned this in 1987 with the Boeing test crashes. Ridiculous.

I guess some people are so quick to want to hate Bush that they don't see the flaw in their thoughts.

 

[general_kill]

Dude this guy ripped off the pentagon conspiracy flash movie that was made years ago. There were plenty of refutations for such arguments. This guy is a hack and rip off trust me.

If the Government wanted to deceive all of America into thinking a plane slammed into the Pnetagon, I think that they were probably use a freakin airplane. Why he raised the Tomahawk argument, I don't know. Why would they make a plane, its passengers, and its radar signiture disappear just to use another plane to crash into the Pentagon instead? With all the Cameras, people, media crisscrossing the path of the airplane that hit the Pentagon in broad daylight, why would they use a military plane?

The lawn skid mark argument, I love how he used a blurry picture full of smoke to prove that you can't see anything on the lawn. I love how uses bs arguments to confuse people viewing the video using irrelevent facts to support them. Like when he was talking about buildings being on fire causing collapse. First of all, the twin towers collapse because the jet liners stripped the protective materials around supportive beams. The materials are there to protect the beams from fire damage. Second of all, he gave all those facts on Chemistry. Steel melts at this and jet feul burns at that. Useless info. The steel doesn't need to be heated to melting point to collapse. It needs to weaken only a little before it bends under the weight it supports. Third, the Empire State Building was struck by a WWII era bomber. Compare the size, speed, and type of feul with that of a 747, and you'll know why the building stood. And the rest of the buildings he showed didn't have their protective covering stripped off of their support beams. So it was really irrelevent.

I could go on and on refuting all of his arguments, but I don't want to waste my time. Please be very skeptical when you view this. The movie maker did a good job of cropping and editing the movie with deceiving clips and photos. Don't get fooled by them.

Edit:
http://www.montalk.net/pentagon.html

 

[Red Stranger]

I laughed again when he tried to use Galileo's free falling equation. Where did he get 16... from? I'm not a physicist, but I know it's either 9.8m/s^2 or 32ft/s^2.

 

[general_kill]

The black box argument... THEY WERE FREAKING FOUND!!!!!!!

WHY IS THIS GUY TALKING ABOUT SUCH EASILY REFUTED INFORMATION1?!?

Why would the government even play the black box recording for anyone? If this was a conspiracy, they would try to gain as little exposure as possible.

 

[bed_head7]

You mean he used something like x = 16*t^2? That would be correct, as the equation is x = x_0 + v_0*t + .5*a*t^2. Since it is 32ft/s^2, if x = 16*t^2 was used then that makes sense.

Obviously, I have not seen the movie, and have no intention of wasting my time by doing so. I have read a number of refutations of this claim, and talked about some of the claims made with others, and it seems pretty clear to me that the makers of this video were willing to ignore lots of facts to make their points. I even read somewhere that many other September 11th conspiracy theorists are upset over how outrageous the claims made in this video are, as they make the rest of the conspiracy theorists look crazy.

 

[MobBoss]

I guess people will largely believe anything they choose too. If people still believe in the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, no reason why they shouldnt believe in such things as this.

However, just bear in mind it makes you look really, really, silly when you say you believe in such things that have been disproven, over, and over, and over.

Come on folks. Even Osama released tapes saying that his organization planned and did the 9/11 events. Unless of course, you think that Osama is working for the US government...o.O

 

[Red Stranger]

Here are some more inconsistencies with the video.

The video said that the plane couldn't have vaporized when it crashed into the Pentagon, yet we see that the planes were vaporized when they hit the World Trade Centers. If they can be vaporized in the WTC they can be vaporized in the Pentagon.

The video claims that some people saw a helicopter. Well I saw a helicopter too, after the WTC had been hit. Just look at the video at 35:50, there's a helicopter there. People saw that helicopter.

 

[Dida]

The fire at the pentagon was substantially less intense than the fire at the twin towers.

 

[general_kill]

That whole video just pissed the hell outta me. The guy with the annoying girly voice in the background needs his butt kicked for making such an idiotic video. I need to get punched for being dumb enough to sit through that.

Trust me guys, this whole video is crap. I mean he refers to wikipedia for information for god's sake. What respected documentary would base crucial parts of an argument on Wikipedia?

 

[MobBoss]

The fire at the pentagon was substantially less intense than the fire at the twin towers.

I wouldnt bet on that. Jet fuel is jet fuel, whether it explodes in the twin towers or whether is explodes at the Pentagon. And knowing the volitility of jet fuel as I do (I was in an Aviation Bde for many years) if a plane/aircraft impacts with a full tank of jet fuel chances are very high that practically all of the aircraft could be consumed in the ensuing blaze. I, for one, do not find it odd at all that very little was recovered of that plane.

 

[Red Stranger]

The fire at the pentagon was substantially less intense than the fire at the twin towers.

It doesn't matter. If he claims that just fuels can't melt an airplane, why not explain why it melted the ones that hit the WTC?

Besides, why do you think it's less intense? The plane exploded, and fuel burned in both situations.

 

[MobBoss]

It doesn't matter. If he claims that just fuels can't melt an airplane, why not explain why it melted the ones that hit the WTC?

Besides, why do you think it's less intense? The plane exploded, and fuel burned in both situations.

Ahem...just as an FYI, I have seen aircraft melted by jet fuel....it leaves hardly enough left to scoop up.

 

[Dida]

It doesn't matter. If he claims that just fuels can't melt an airplane, why not explain why it melted the ones that hit the WTC?

Besides, why do you think it's less intense? The plane exploded, and fuel burned in both situations.

The fire that was burning at the WTC was intense enough to destroy the two towers, while the pentagon seemingly suffered very limited damage, relatively speaking. Fire was burning at ground zero days after the collapse.