Something to get GS and BFG riled up!

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Ok, I apologise for the non-descriptive name, but I really couldnt think of anything else to put for this.

Summary:  The following movie presents a wildly opposite view to the generally accepted story of what happened on September 11th, 2001.  In advance:  This is obviously produced by an amateur and is not all that objective in its narration.  However, if we could avoid basing our responses to the upcomming link on the fact that the narrator is far from objective, I would be much obliged. 

DISCUSS THE VALIDITY OF THE EVIDENCE, NOT THE POSITION OF THE NARRATOR

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

I dont want to sway the oppinion of people before they watch, so I will end with this:  It is an hour long, so be prepared for a long sit. 

-Lone

[jerkasaur]

You should also watch 9/11 In Plane Sight. It goes into great detail on similar issues including a significant segment on the pentagon attacks. Actually it looks like most of the information on this video is taken from 9/11 In Plane Sight.

[DarK.]

Wow.

Thats all you can say after watching this movie.  I honestly don't know what to think.  I'm speechless... maybe later words can come to me but at the moment I am ... just speechless.  Kinda hard to believe that this might be true. 

[BFG]

im about a third of the way through... thanks lone this is a great find - very very interesting!

Looking forward to sitting down with tea and cookies and discussing this one GS

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Alright, another video for you all.  I found the presentation by the engineer in the last 1/4th of the movie to be very interesting.

http://911revisited.infad.net/video.html

[Toxic::Joka]

I was under the impression that WTC7 was deliberately demolished in a controlled manner because it would have collapsed sooner or later anyway, and that this was widely known. They even interviewed the guys who put the explosives there in some documentary, if I recall correctly. What's the official story on WTC7?

Anyway, I'm no big fan of Bush but these conspiracy theories are just a load of crock.

The guy points out a few inconsistencies and makes really absurd conclusions based on them. Interesting video though.

[BFG]

was under the impression that WTC7 was deliberately demolished in a controlled manner because it would have collapsed sooner or later anyway, and that this was widely known. They even interviewed the guys who put the explosives there in some documentary, if I recall correctly

Errrr Whaa!?? Official story... the inpact of the planes and the heat of the fire caused both of them to collapse... officially... i think

[c| Lone-Wolf]

The official story of wht WTC7 came down was due to fire damage caused by falling debris from WTC 1 or WTC2, not due ot a controlled demolition.

[jerkasaur]

Actually I'm quite sure that WTC7 was collapsed by explosive charges after it was determined that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 comprimised the structural integrity of WTC7. How then did it in such a short time still bewilders me....

[Toxic::Joka]

was under the impression that WTC7 was deliberately demolished in a controlled manner because it would have collapsed sooner or later anyway, and that this was widely known. They even interviewed the guys who put the explosives there in some documentary, if I recall correctly

Errrr Whaa!?? Official story... the inpact of the planes and the heat of the fire caused both of them to collapse... officially... i think

WTC7 

I was just suprised how the guy presented this as some mysterious conspiracy, when, I thought it was widely known.

[DarK.]

There is no way a small fire and small peices of falling (Or large for that matter) could hamper the structural integrity enough to warrant a destruction of the WTC7.  It is incredably illogical.

[c| Lone-Wolf]

I agree with Dark, there was no visible structural damage on the building from the many angles I have seen it from, and it had only two firs, on the 8th and 12th floors (i believe those are correct, but I know it had fire on only two floors).  Considering the numerous large building fires which were cited, I find it hard to believe that two fires in the building would so weaken it that it was deemed necessary to take the building down -right then-.  Not only that, why do you send people into a structurally weakened building, that is on fire, with explosives?  Seems like a recipe for bad if you ask me.

[BFG]

You can't blow up a building of that size that quickly - demolition experts can take weeks or months to examine a building and plan a demolition - let alone the carfull placment of explosives etc...

There is no way that after the planes hit the building a demolitions team entered the scene, worked out how to blow the buildings without them exploding all over the place and destroying everything in their wake,  set the appropriate charges in all the appropriate places, cleared everyone from the area, and then detonated ...

I mean hold on thats the most stupid idea i have heard so far.. how could they possibly say that??

[*DAMN Hazard]

I didn't watch the movie because I really think these kind of videos are stupid to try and cite or prove valid. It's just straight information and opinions from people supporting one side of the argument.

I'm not dissagreeing with the argumnent, I just think a lot of these facts can be made up and people are eager to prove a point true when you spark the imagination.

I would like more scientific opinon from both sides before I rush the pentagon...

but thats just me.

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Then Haz, follow up the second link I posted, particularly about the last half of it.  I say this because the two presentations on the last half of the video are by college professors, the second of which was an electrical/structural engineer for many years.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

More about controlled demolitions http://www.911revisited.com/

One of the most comprehensive 9/11 resources http://www.911truth.org

Video Presentations from some of the top Scholars, Researchers, and Analysts from the International Community http://911busters.com/

There are literally hundreds of reasons to be skeptical of the official story of 9/11, from the fact that the head of the Pakistani ISI wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 weeks before the attacks, and was then in Washington meeting with George Tenet and the current CIA head Porter Goss ON THE MORNING OF 9/11 to the fact that Marvin P. Bush, GW's younger brother held significant positions in both Sercuracom (responsible for all aspects of security in the WTC) and HCC insurance company, one of the main insurance carriers for the WTC. Not to mention that many of the hijackers resided just outside of Langly.

And it's not like this exact trick has not been pulled in politics before (see the Nazi torching of the Reichstag in 1933, in order to institute martial law).

Oh yeah, look up something called OPERATION NORTHWOODS, in which the DOD mulls over staging terrorist attacks on US CITIZENS as a justification for an invasion of Cuba in the 1960's.

Also you might wanna do a little research on the remaining HYDROCARBON reserves in the world to provide a little context.

And if that does'nt wet your wistle, check out a little PAC called the PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, in which Cheney, Wolf and Rummy all agree that the only way the US can use unfettered military force is for a “cataclysmic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Habor” to occur.

Ah, but the 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT already closed the book on this case, you say, accepting that the cause of the attacks were because of 'lack of imagination' on part of our intelligence agencies. Do yourself a favor and look at this http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

It took me a while to get my mind around the fact that our government was capable of such an atrocity, but you simply look back on history and find that this is just history repeating itself in a different context, with the overall goal being the same, to make you FEAR and COWER to the protective blanket of the government. Oldest trick in political science.

Oh yeah did I mention that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fires?

[jerkasaur]

Spetz is correct.

[Croosch]

I still find it odd that... Bin Laden's family actually has tides to Bush's oil industries... directly after the attack Bin Laden made a video... we attacked Afghanistan, never found Bin Laden... we then attacked Iraq and all of our focus moved to Saddam Hussein.  Bin Laden seems to have gotten off, and Bush seems to have gotten what he wanted, an attack on Iraq.

Maybe I'm going a bit far but I wouldn't doubt this too much... Bush needed a terrorist act to declare war on Iraq and Bin Laden was just the man to do it.

[DarK.]

BFG who said that a demo team entered after the planes hit?

[c| Lone-Wolf]

I was under the impression that WTC7 was deliberately demolished in a controlled manner because it would have collapsed sooner or later anyway, and that this was widely known. They even interviewed the guys who put the explosives there in some documentary, if I recall correctly. What's the official story on WTC7?

Anyway, I'm no big fan of Bush but these conspiracy theories are just a load of crock.

The guy points out a few inconsistencies and makes really absurd conclusions based on them. Interesting video though.

Since BFG isnt online, I thought i would provide the quote for him.