911 video

[1fastredsc]

This video will probably piss some off, but i came across this and thought i'd start a fire here, flame on.
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/12047/9_11_Staged_by_USA_Evidence
EDIT: It's a long video, don't dismiss it right away, there's a lot of interesting information grabbed from different sources.

[VaSteve]

...must...fight..urge...

[1fastredsc]

wow, no rants yet, i'm surprised, i must not have posted this in the OT forum.

[DonDavis]

Oh, you mean September , 11th. You can't edit your title but you should edit the post indicating this is NOT about the 911. Which is a Porsche.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by 1fastredsc
wow, no rants yet, i'm surprised, i must not have posted this in the OT forum.

Are you looking for spirited debate/debunking of this or just a rant that you're an idiot for even posting it?

I could give you the latter without even seeing the video.

[badcar]

well I watched....

First...thats 1 hour 21 minutes I won't get back...

Second....time to watch Disney's Cinderella...I need some realistic entertainment after watching that heap of dung

and lastly,

[}{arlequin]

Originally posted by DonDavis
Oh, you mean September , 11th. You can't edit your title but you should edit the post indicating this is NOT about the 911. Which is a Porsche.

ditto... thought it was gonna be something cool about the car...

skimmed... saw about 2 minutes total... looks like a conspiracy theory vid... nothing wrong per se, just not sure what's real what's not

[1fastredsc]

Sorry, threw in a "/" between the 9 and 11. Anyhow i just like hearing opinions that's all, so please, feel free.

[techweenie]

Well, you'll get a lot of kneejerk "trash" comments, but those people won't make substantive criticisms. For the most part, they won't actually watch it. It'll be the Fahrenheit 9/11 reactions all over again.

I did watch it all, and found it interesting. I even recommended it to a few people.

It covers ground previously addressed many times in other videos and on websites. It allows no conflicting opinions or in some cases, dismisses disagreements. It also produces decent documentation on some points.

It's far too ambitious in that four key topics it addresses are each worth 1-1/2 to 2-hour examination. The 'controlled demolition' story is interesting, especially related to Building 7. The whole 'what hit the Pentagon' story is weak and really needs expert counterpoint. The Flight 93 story is really in need of help. I don't see that there's anything there other than some loose ends that can't be woven together. The final story, that Bin Laden and al Quaeda were 'set up' is the weakest of all. It really needs some supposed 'reasons why.'

Interesting, and above average for the conspiracy-inclined.

[}{arlequin]

i did pause on the "localized" puff explosions coming out of the buildings but couldn't it also be explained by some type of pressure buildup due to the explosion's wave coming through and finding the weakest point for an outlet?

to me, as long as it's plausible, then it's not impossible...

[island911]

ah, but the real question is, who funded that piece, and why?

you see ... [cue dramatic music]

on December 5th 1971 a High School project, on the evils of US power, receive a only C- . . the same year that this same student was rejected by Shirley Wright. --that boy was Dave vonKleist.

on June 5th1978, Dave called into a local radio station, to express his opinions -- he was put on hold, and never got on the air.

on February 14th 1982 Dave sat in his underwear, and secretly made cassette tapes, acting out his fantasy of becoming a radio broadcaster . .. explaining to his imaginary world that Shirley Wright is a "Big fat Lier."


.. . . oh wait . ... cut the dramatic music .. . I can't finish this story. Just Google that bone head.


_ I can't believe people are such suckers for innuendo. --sad.

[VaSteve]

I don't have an hour and a half to devote to sitting in front of the computer watching that, but I did hear the 22 year old director on the radio (O&A show) discussing the video. Since normal media won't have anything to do with him, shows like O&A are the only outlet for the conspiracy theorists.

They made quick work of him.

The controlled demolition thing was one of the easiest to debunk. If you have ever seen one of those controlled demolition things on Discovery channel, you know that they string miles of cable and whatnot into the buildings that are going to go down. They also cut down a lot of the supporting columns. It generally takes a couple of weeks to prep a building...full time.

Assuming #7 was a controlled demo, when did they string all the wiring? When people were at their desks? On weekends? Think about it.

I did see an excerpt filmed from across the river of the WTC purportedly having an explosion in the lobby. If you watch that (or if it's in the long video) notice how the whole screen is blanked just for a second to make that anomoly so much more like an explosion. There is a lot of careful editing there and thing taken out of context that allows the weak or lazy mind to draw conclusions.

It is a fanciful video put together by people who are pretty good at video editing. Credit given there. Research on the other hand, not so good. IIRC from the video, they didn't talk to ANY of the experts that were interviewed or had some involvement in the after the fact analysis. The kind of people that were involved in contributing to the 9/11 commission report.

There are lot of people that don't like Bush. Not my favorite guy either. But I'm willing to accept the fact that we got caught with our pants down by people that hate us on this one. It's easy to distrust Washington especially by those outside the Beltway. I can assure you, it's a miracle ANYTHING gets done....let alone a conspiracy of this magnatude.

[}{arlequin]

well, again... as long as it's plausible, it's not impossible... they may not have needed to run wiring... 21st century tech will prolly allow to do this wirelessly...

[1fastredsc]

The thing that still gets me, no matter how much conspiracy is involved in the rest of the video, is how did that 737 crash into the pentagon, and leave a whole the size of the plane's main body, without a trace of damage from the wings or the stabalizers? And if those wings were sheared at the body from impact clean off, where are they? It's kind of hard to hide two huge wings. The other good point is how would that plane have been able to penetrate all those walls, maybe the first one but the energy absorption from the first wall should have slowed it down considerably.

[island911]

Rrrrriiiiight. . .. ."plausible" ... it was ALL done on a sound stage, at area 51.


fastred, put a Coke can out in the road, run over it, at high speed . .. . go back and check for damage to the concrete.




edit; What is absolutly AMAZING is how far the Bush-bashers will reach. . . all whilst thinking they are the reasonable ones. -AMAZING! (see also tech's post)

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by 1fastredsc
The thing that still gets me, no matter how much conspiracy is involved in the rest of the video, is how did that 737 crash into the pentagon, and leave a whole the size of the plane's main body, without a trace of damage from the wings or the stabalizers? And if those wings were sheared at the body from impact clean off, where are they? It's kind of hard to hide two huge wings. The other good point is how would that plane have been able to penetrate all those walls, maybe the first one but the energy absorption from the first wall should have slowed it down considerably.

Without even knowing too much about this I will postulate:

1. I doubt there was NO damage from the wings.
2. Planes are constructed from aluminum which has a very low burning point. As most of the aviation fuel is actually stored in the wet wings they would most likely have been at the center of the conflaguration. The aluminum of the wings could easily have melted or even burned away.
3. I see no reason why the plane should have stopped at the first wall.

But the main reason there was no conspiracy is:

1. If it wasn't a plane, where are all the people who were supposed to be on that flight? The checked in...but they never checked out.

The reality is that Mohammed Atta and his buddies DID do it. And like all secrets, they failed to keep it secret. They took flying lessons without landing lessons. They had scores of fake IDs. And they were all on the flights. They did it. End of story.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by 1fastredsc
The thing that still gets me, no matter how much conspiracy is involved in the rest of the video, is how did that 737 crash into the pentagon, and leave a whole the size of the plane's main body, without a trace of damage from the wings or the stabalizers? And if those wings were sheared at the body from impact clean off, where are they? It's kind of hard to hide two huge wings. The other good point is how would that plane have been able to penetrate all those walls, maybe the first one but the energy absorption from the first wall should have slowed it down considerably.

Everyone comes to this. There is a video out there of a smaller plane hitting a concrete wall (designed to simulate a plane hittinga nuke reactor). The plane pretty much just dissolves. I think people want to see a hole like a plane make in the WTC. The Pentagon is a tough building. I used to work there. The walls did slow it down considerably. The enery dissapated into the area between the rings (an area big ehough to drive a small truck in between) and then went into the D ring. Dissapated some more and punched through the C ring (middle ring).

I watched them tear down most of that section (which ironically just had been reinforced - go conspiracy theorists) for a couple of weeks and then rebuild it. A LOT of rock and concrete came out of there. Remember, the Pentagon is a military installation and was designed as such (plus metal was being used back in WWII for planes and tanks so they used all the stone). And build ciost plus 10% (or so). My wife worked in the building and from the inside they thought the impact was part of the ongoing constuction. The WTC was an office building in which corners were cut to make a profit (or keep costs down). It was designed to protect harmless accountants and lawyers.

FWIW, I saw the plane acting erratically moments before it hit. I was at point A on the map. And heard it hit a moment later.

http://maps.yahoo.com/dd_result?newaddr=&taddr=army+navy+drive&csz=Newington%2C+VA&country=us&tcsz=arlington%2C+va&tcountry=us

Do I hold any particular pride about this? No. I would give nearly anything to not have this memory. And if it hit somewhere else in the building, I might be a single man instead of married with a son.

Just because it didn't unfold on TV, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I hold this offer open to any PPOT conspiracy theorist. I will gladly show you around the area (what we can see) it will hopefully change your mind.

[}{arlequin]

you should've shot the plane down steve

[GDSOB]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
i did pause on the "localized" puff explosions coming out of the buildings but couldn't it also be explained by some type of pressure buildup due to the explosion's wave coming through and finding the weakest point for an outlet?

No, not an explosion. The building was coming down. As each floor fell on top of each other, the air in that space would have to go somewhere and take the path of least resistance.

[1fastredsc]

They stated that the walls that it went through were lined with steel. Also that the turbine engines from boeing are made of both titanium and steel. BTW island i'm not bashing anyone, i'm just asking questions, so tone the f**k down, there's nothing wrong with someone asking questions over something I don't understand.