other than for entertainment purposes

BUT

starting around 28:00 minutes in, there was a few things that really bothered me, especially the footage from cnn that showed the towers still standing, but smoke coming up from below the towers to the northwest.....

http://tv-links.co.uk/show.do/4/1409

6/14/2007 7:10:00 PM

i know who is a fan of conspiracies and he's beat this one to death

6/14/2007 7:19:34 PM

haha yea we all know who that is, in all honesty though, take a look, at the very least fast forward to 28 min and watch for about 10 min

only reason i say that is because they said tower 7 collapsed because of the damage from the 2 main towers falling, but it's definitely smoking like hell before the towers drop

6/14/2007 7:20:56 PM

aliens built the pyramids and free-masons have secret summer homes in them

6/14/2007 7:22:56 PM

lol not so much

i don't believe in this conspiracy at all, i'm just wondering if you can see something that i'm missing that would logically explain it

6/14/2007 7:23:58 PM

this had better be worth it...

i'm actually going to look at this and try to figure it out without referencing aliens, zionists, j00s, or cheese

6/14/2007 7:33:04 PM

I can't imagine how two gigantic-ass flaming buildings full of jet fuel and other flammables could, upon collapsing, send that shit flying to nearby buildings.

It's honestly beyond explanation.

No, really.

6/14/2007 8:33:52 PM

^

Quote :

"but it's definitely smoking like hell before the towers drop"

6/14/2007 8:35:52 PM

6/14/2007 8:51:18 PM

OK I watched it. It's obviously edited heavily to sway opinion.

So the interesting questions that could use answering to me would be:

1) Why was the hole in the pentagon so much smaller than a 757
and why did the ensuing fire not appear to be as massive and intense
as the Tower post-crash fires?
2) Why only one camera angle released on the pentagon crash?
3) What was attached to the bottom of the 2nd plane?
4) What were the flashes that preceded the impact of both planes?
5) Why was there a large white puff of smoke coming up next to the towers before they
started collapsing?
6) Why did so many people report hearing explosions just before the building collapsed?

I'm not too sold on the conspiracy angle of this, but some reasonable answers to those questions would be nice.

6/14/2007 9:21:47 PM

^someone let me know when those get answered too.

I didn't watch the movie, but if its the same one that was made by the highschool/college kid a couple years back, it does bring up some interesting points that I could never logically find an answer to. (not that I know anything about it, but...) especially about the pentagon

6/14/2007 9:29:18 PM

i really hope that's trolling, ED

6/14/2007 9:54:21 PM

^
No..I'm in earnest.

Just give me some plausible explanations and I'll re-enter the De-Salsburification Clinic

6/14/2007 10:04:40 PM

ok...

1) How big should the hole be? It's steel reinforced concrete versus aluminum, for crying out loud... And the flames seemed to be pretty intense to me... They caused a partial collapse of the structure, you know.
2) Do you know of any other cameras floating around out there that were able to capture the impact?
3) Absolutely nothing. It is just an optical illusion. sorry
4) The "flashes" in one of the impacts actually occurred after impact. The video's resolution is insufficient for being able to see this as clearly as one would like. In the other, the "flash" is actually the glare of the sun reflecting off of the plane's underside.
5) The floors inside the towers collapsed before the outer structure did. This internal collapse is what caused the external collapse. And, since the floors collapsed, all of the air that was between them had to go somewhere, right? why not out the windows?
6) Again, those people likely heard the collapsing of the floors and the sound of air escaping the towers anyway it could.

really, man, all of these "questions" are easily answered if you think about it for about 30 seconds

6/14/2007 10:35:58 PM

if they are so easily answered why do people still believe in conspiracy theories

6/14/2007 10:39:47 PM

because they don't stop and think for the required 30 seconds

6/14/2007 10:50:40 PM

now look here. we've got aaronburo being the voice of rational moderation and reasonableness

and just yesterday, mathman and I agreed on something.

what the fuck is going on here? you people are confusing the shit out of me.







[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2007 11:47:52 PM

sorry

6/15/2007 12:06:03 AM

Quote :

"2) Do you know of any other cameras floating around out there that were able to capture the impact? 3) Absolutely nothing. It is just an optical illusion. sorry"

What about the cameras from the convience store and the hotel that were confiscated minutes after the impact and have never been released? They did not capture the actual impact, but the object which impacted. But lets be honest, the pentagon camera did not capture the actual object impacting, you see a frame of nothing, then all of a sudden a fireball.

And how do you make an optical illusion of something attached to a wing????

I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and I most definitely do not believe the zionist bullshit that salisburysteakboy posts, but, the more I research this shit, the more it becomes apparent that some shit went down that we have been blatently lied to about, and questioning the lies make you either a nut, or a terrorist.

6/15/2007 12:11:30 AM

ahhh yes, the magic convenience store footage. what makes you think that this footage is in anyway remarkable? Because someone, somewhere, on the internet claims it exists and was taken by "them?" If this store has such a great vantage point, then why doesn't it release some footage from other days in order to show just how good a vantage point it has? And what about the hundreds of eyewitnesses from the interstate who state that a passenger jet hit the pentagon? are we to disregard their stories simply due to the alleged existence of the convenience store's tapes?

and the "illusion" of which I speak is caused by the poor resolution of the cameras. It is actually a series of shadows that, due to the resolution, kind of looks like something else. If no one had ever said "hey, there's something under that plane!" then you would have never thought there was anything there in the video. Typical Hawthorne-effect-type(wrong term, but you get my drift) stuff right there.
the more research you do away from nutjobs like prisonplanet and infowars, the more you will see that 9/11 is what it is: a terrorist attack.
Besides, do you really think that dubya and his cronies could have kept such a huuuuuuge secret hidden? They couldn't freaking protect Scooter Libby, for crying out loud! How the hell are they going to hide such a massive conspiracy for 6+ years, now? please, do that 30 seconds of thinking of which I spoke earlier, k?

6/15/2007 1:01:05 AM

wasn't there a link in that eleventy billion page thread that showed very detailed pics and notes about where the aircraft that hit the pentagon went? I mean basically the plane disintegrated and stuff, but it showed why there wasn't a hole the size of an aircraft in the side of the pentagon. I'm too lazy to search for it

6/15/2007 1:16:57 AM

^^Libby was a sacrificial lamb for them to keep someone bigger from going down. Im not exactly sure who, but you know he will get a lot of money, and a possible pardon for taking the fall, that's pretty obvious.

For the record, I have NEVER visited Prison Planet.

6/15/2007 1:23:13 AM

It all boils down to this question


Do you think our government is seriously that smart that it could keep this a secret? Like absolutely no leaks at all?

6/15/2007 3:12:55 AM

Quote :

"It all boils down to this question Do you think our government is seriously that smart that it could keep this a secret? Like absolutely no leaks at all?"

Agreed.

The same folks constantly deride the bush administration for their blundering ineptitude but they were somehow able to orchestrate the biggest hoax in history?

Can't have it both ways.

6/15/2007 7:50:56 AM

well i'd say your comment is true, but you have to accept that there is a certain willingness towards disbelief on this issue. no one wants to think that their government did this. ignorance is bliss. Also, the people who would have orchestrated such an event are not the typical high visibility people you think of when working with the bush administration.

moreover, i used to work at the pentagon in 2004 as part of the pentagon reconstruction project ran by general dynamics. First of all this incident at the pentagon is directly responsible for the hundreds of millions of money put into this project, which resulted in all sorts of new agencies and accommodations for them within the pentagon. Secondly, through photographs that were taken on site, blue prints for reconstruction, etc.. I have seen what the damage was like. I strongly believe that it was not a 747.

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason : more facts...]

6/15/2007 11:21:39 AM

I don't think anyone believes that it was a 747.

And if you don't know the difference between a 747 and a 757, your assessment of what may have caused the damage is about as credible as Rosie O'donnell's analysis of the WTC collapse.

6/15/2007 11:35:48 AM

Fine. I do not believe the damage came from a plane of any substantial size given the structural damage from impact.

6/15/2007 11:49:35 AM

well, neither of us are going to convince anyone else otherwise, so believe what you want.

Until there's any REAL and compelling evidence that it was other than what it appeared to be, I'll stick with the obvious. I just don't believe that anyone inside of our government is intelligent enough to pull something like this off.

6/15/2007 11:52:23 AM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

6/15/2007 12:05:40 PM

Quote :

"I strongly believe that it was not a 747"

it being a 747 was already addressed. people will believe what they want to believe. there are hundreds of eyewitnesses on the highways around the pentagon that said it was a plane and there are many that said the plane was so clear they were able to read the writing on the sides of it. but because you strongly believe it wasnt a plane at all, we are to be "convinced" it wasnt either? join the rest of the so-called "no-planer" conspiracy theorists.

6/15/2007 12:51:30 PM

then why cant we see the camera footage (store, hotel, hell even the VDOT freeway cams) showing the plane flying towards the pentagon. To use some Bush logic, "if you have nothing to hide then you dont mind if we see your information!"

6/15/2007 1:01:34 PM

Quote :

"OK, I only read about half of this thread, but listen up. I know for a fact that a plane hit the pentagon becasue I saw it. With my own eyes. I was on my way to DC with my parents on the morning of September 11. I took the week off of school and after spending Monday night in Richmond, we were headed up to see the sites in DC. We were coming up on washington and were almost to the point where the pentagon is visable on the left. I was driving and my dad was in the passenger seat. All of a sudden we both see a plane coming from the right and behind us, though we hadn't heard it apporach. National Airport is in the direction that the plane was flying, but this plane was flying low and fast. It crossed our path and disappeared for about 2 seconds before we saw a flash of light and heard what sounded like a muffled firework. A few seconds later, we saw a large plume of smoke coming from where the plane had been headed. Just then we came around the bend and saw the building on fire. Fucking scary as shit. We pulled over on the side of the road, as did some of the other drivers, to watch and talk to the other people who had seen it, but about 5 minutes later a bunch of cops came through running everybody out. So yeah, it was a plane. End of thread."

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=159930&page=28

JH Price post at the bottom of the page.

6/15/2007 2:18:24 PM

someone post the god damn video of an airplane hitting reinforced concrete at full speed and vaporizing into dust please so we can end this nonsense

6/15/2007 2:44:21 PM

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sK3AqFYAWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2007 2:45:21 PM

lets say it is a conspiracy, and the cover story is hijacked airplanes hit all the buildings. why would "they" use airplanes in NY but not on the pentagon. thats just retarded. they would have used an airplane on the pentagon also not a cruise missile. but the conspiracy is bullshit anyways so whatever.

not too mention the tons of credible witnesses at the pentagon that day who saw the fucking airplane. one of whom i spoke with personally



[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2007 2:54:25 PM

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2007 2:57:51 PM

Quote :

"but it's definitely smoking like hell before the towers drop"

OK, then I ammend my statement thusly:

I can't imagine how two gigantic-ass jetliner explosions could spray jet fuel and other ignited flammables onto or even into nearby buildings.

It's honestly byond explanation.

No, really.

6/15/2007 2:59:27 PM

^^^ I don't believe any of this bullshit. But just to play devil's advocate: Maybe the conspirators thought they needed a military target being hit to justify a military response?

Yeah, it sounds very weak to me, too. I mean, why would we need additional justification after having been clearly attacked on our own soil?

6/15/2007 3:19:48 PM

^^like i said, i don't believe in this conspiracy at all, but looking at that footage, i doubt very seriously that the impact of the planes had anything to do with that tower 7

6/15/2007 3:43:25 PM

I don't know if anyone's already said it in this thread or any other thread on this topic in SB, so please forgive me if I'm repeating a tired point. With that said, the best reason to dismiss all these 9/11 conspiracy theories is that all this 9/11 conspiracy bullshit is no different from creation "science", holocaust denial, or any of the other conspiracy theories floating out there. What I mean is that people who promote the 9/11 conspiracy theories only quote the facts that fit in with their pre-determined conclusion while ignoring ones that don't. For example, one fact that these wackos and/or charlatans keep bringing up is that the temperature at which steel melts is lower than the temperature of the explosions that happened upon impact on 9/11. What they conveniently forget to mention is that there's a difference between steel melting and steel getting hot enough to lose its strength, as we saw when an exploding tanker truck cause an overpass in San Francisco to collapse. And that's just one example of how these people distort facts and why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

6/15/2007 4:09:41 PM

here is the problem with 9/11: many people have taken it upon themselves to proclaim their own self an expert on what happened when the majority of people are no where near being an expert. in fact, most dont have the brain cells to begin to comprehend what happened that day.

if one was to bother doing the research and reading on the subject, one would find that hundreds of experts in engineering, demolitions, physics, chemistry and whatever else relevant have all agreed that debris from the planes impacting WTC 1 and 2, debris from the tower itself upon initial impact, and debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 all significantly played a role in compromising the structural integrity of WTC 7.

but because we have someone who doubts seriously the impact of the tower, we are to throw out everything that hundreds of experts agreed on.

Quote :

"people who promote the 9/11 conspiracy theories only quote the facts that fit in with their pre-determined conclusion while ignoring ones that don't"

ding ding ding! bingo. on top of that, may theorists go so far as to manipulate information as well as take quotes and chop them up to fit their own ends. there have been lots of cases where people have come forward saying that their quotes were taken out of context and warped to completely give what was said a different meaning.

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2007 4:12:43 PM

IRSeriousCat, oh shit, not you again!

Quote :

"well i'd say your comment is true, but you have to accept that there is a certain willingness towards disbelief on this issue. no one wants to think that their government did this. ignorance is bliss."

Because most people trust their government unconditionally and never suspect it of any wrongdoing.

Quote :

"Also, the people who would have orchestrated such an event are not the typical high visibility people you think of when working with the bush administration."

Who cares? The bottom line is the Bush administration couldn't get away with keeping Scooter Libby, Michael Brown, or Alberto Gonzales a secret, how could they possibly keep the fact that they orchestrated an event like 9/11 a secret?

Quote :

" moreover, i used to work at the pentagon in 2004 as part of the pentagon reconstruction project ran by general dynamics. First of all this incident at the pentagon is directly responsible for the hundreds of millions of money put into this project, which resulted in all sorts of new agencies and accommodations for them within the pentagon. Secondly, through photographs that were taken on site, blue prints for reconstruction, etc.. I have seen what the damage was like. I strongly believe that it was not a 747."

Even if I weren't familiar with your past posting history on TWW, I would still ask: "and you are an expert on what damage from a plain impact looks like because... ?" However, knowing what I know about you, you don't even warrant that. I mean you think the Jews -- excuse me, those evil European pseudo-Jews that you admitted you have "a huge problem" with -- lied about the Holocaust and managed to convince every historian and layperson in the world of their lies. You have already demonstrated that you have a knack for believing wild conspiracy theories and no credibility whatsoever.

6/15/2007 4:54:08 PM

Quote :

"Who cares? The bottom line is the Bush administration couldn't get away with keeping Scooter Libby, Michael Brown, or Alberto Gonzales a secret, how could they possibly keep the fact that they orchestrated an event like 9/11 a secret? "

6/15/2007 5:17:42 PM

NOTE: I *do* believe it was Bin Ladin who was behind this.

************************

Now to clear up a false dichotomy that some people defending the accepted view are falling prey to:

That Bush orchestrated this is NOT the only other possibility.

There is a middle ground (theory) as well: That Bush/Gov knew the attacks were going to happen for sure, and they did nothing to stop them. Why? So that it would give them carte blanche to attack several countries.

Now, THAT particular theory, is very very plausible, because it doesn't go against the Bin Ladin video, and also, there is no confusion about what actually crashed, jetliners, or missiles.

It was definitely jetliners, and it was definitely Bin Ladin, however, Bush knew in advance it was going to happen, but did not stop it.

The only way to prove that would be:

1) Some documents (paper/audio/video) buried somewhere showing that the gov knew. However, they may have been destroyed.
2) A whistleblower.

There is NO way to disprove that theory, as there is to disprove the missile theory (or the theory that Bush's gov did it). Perhaps in 50 years we will know the full truth?

BTW, these theories have names:

MIHOP: Make it happen on purpose (nutjob)
LIHOP: Let it happen on purpose (highly plausible)

Look them up on wiki or whatever, but the gist is what I told you guys.

6/15/2007 6:31:55 PM

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 7:29 PM. Reason : 2]

6/15/2007 7:29:13 PM

If our government could pull this off, this is no question that our government could also plant WMDs in iraq

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 8:00 PM. Reason : l]

6/15/2007 7:57:38 PM

again, though, the strongest argument against LIHOP is the fact that dubya hasn't been able to hide Libby, Gonzales, et al from the American public. and yet somehow, with all of the hate that is directed towards the administration, much of it by the media, no one has come forward to blow the whistle on a much bigger conspiracy? The media would kill for a story like this, yet it can't find one credible person in the entire administration? pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaase.

6/15/2007 8:02:20 PM

Quote :

"LIHOP: Let it happen on purpose (highly plausible)"

6/15/2007 11:04:59 PM

your point? that some people allege FDR allowed Pearl Harbour to happen has absolutely NO bearing on 9/11. sorry man

6/15/2007 11:08:14 PM

^ well, it does have bearing though. it makes a case for the plausibility.

however, i dont need a LIHOP conspiracy..

i am fully able to conceive of a completely incompetent administration.

6/16/2007 4:14:57 AM