9/11 Documentary

[danae 0]

There is a lot of specualtion and many theories. Many of these are just theories but they thrive for a reason. The reason for this is that the offiical story is full of holes. You down play it but there is a massive ammount of evidence to support an alternative to the official story. Simply saying the conspiracy theories are wrong is a joke. You don`t even specify which theory you think is crazy.

This is not about the moon. The moon is a different event. The number of people who don`t believe the official story is growing as well so to say the people who don`t buy the official story are likely to think something else aswell becomes even more laughable as a blanket statement. Questioning history is the intelligent thing to do as we are told so often to blindly accept things we are told without question. It seems to me that people should question everything and not question nothing. Just because you don`t believe everything you are told that does not make you crazy.

Name calling is really not an argument either.

Im totally with you on this one. On most things Ive read from you actually. You speak with intellect and a questionning mind, and I respect what you say.

I for one wish to keep my freedom- I cant not even fathom why others would not. Maybe because they are happy just following their 'leaders', living in blissful ignorance. Me, Id rather have my own mind, form my own opinions and live a free life.

Just remember, in the long run ignorance is NOT bliss.

'The world is a dangerous place. Not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing' Albert Einstein

[Alex+R 0]

Ok, how do YOU know?

I don't think anyone in the "conspiracy" camp, as many call it, has pinpointed exactly what happened in 9/11--all anyone is saying is that the official story is too fishy to be true. There is no conspiracy theory to poke holes in ("you have to assume first..."). This to me has nothing to do with the moon conspiracy. Or Elvis, for that matter.

The times have changed, and the less inquisitive we are, the fewer of those rights you value we're going to have left.

The official story makes an awful lot more sense than what the conspiracy theorists have come up with. Controlled explosions? A missile instead of a plane hitting the Pentagon? Oh please! You say it's "fishy" because there are a few things that don't add up perfectly or make sense to you. But if you did some research you'd find they add up, or if you educated yourself you'd see it does make sense. The conspiracy theory has MANY holes in it and is VERY fishy. Where is your evidence supporting the conspiracy theory?

And this does have everything to do with the moon conspiracy. The moon conspiracy theorists are wrong (and wackjobs as well) and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are just as wrong. If you did a survey of moon conspiracy theorists I'll bet a high percentage of them believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory too.

Rclouse, you didn't listen to a word I said, as evidenced especially by the part in bold!

My point was this: Let's take the focus off ANY other whole theory about 9/11, and put the focus on the currently accepted story the government has given us. I am suspicious about it, and I have taken the time to educate myself on it.

I am not proposing an alternative sequence of events. I am suggesting that there might be one. Why do I need to know exactly what happened to say that I doubt the current story is true?

[yabasta 0]

physics etc of 911

Jeff King

steven Jones on C span

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5kBkOX-qgg

fetzer

As for the question regarding the growing number of people who doubt the official story i would point you to zogby polls or the popularity of threads like this. In the past it would be the odd dissenting voice but now there are numbers. Maybe in your world everybody believes the official story but there is plenty to indicate that the number of "kooks" is growing. This is despite the huge effort to silence dissent aswell as the voluntary efforts of people to call people crazy. Many VJ members are guilty of this.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Well, here is more fodder for the grist mill:

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A03

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.

A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.

In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Jenn! 918]

Maybe in your world everybody believes the official story but there is plenty to indicate that the number of "kooks" is growing. This is despite the huge effort to silence dissent aswell as the voluntary efforts of people to call people crazy. Many VJ members are guilty of this.

Calling people unpatriotic seems to be a big one as well. I think that's just a scare tactic, but it really has nothing to do with anything. Having questions and uncertainty makes you unpatriotic?

Edited August 3, 2006 by jenn3539

[yabasta 0]

another video for anybody who is actually interested.

This one is from Jim Hoffman.

[rclouse 0]

another video for anybody who is actually interested.

This one is from Jim Hoffman.

I looked at your videos, and none of them are convincing. In fact, they all appear to be typical whackjobs.

The first one talks about "controlled explosions". Just think about how ludicrous this idea is. Government agents sneak hundreds of pounds of high explosives into the WTC towers without anyone becoming suspect or anyone knowing about the plan objecting. Then you hire Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into the exact floors where the explosives are. Then, after the fires burn for an hour, hour and a half WITHOUT the explosives going off, THEN you detonate them to bring down the buildings. And then afterward there is no physical evidence of said explosives.

I'm sorry, but that's ###### insane. If you believe that, you've got problems. SERIOUS problems.

[yabasta 0]

I looked at your videos, and none of them are convincing. In fact, they all appear to be typical whackjobs.

The first one talks about "controlled explosions". Just think about how ludicrous this idea is. Government agents sneak hundreds of pounds of high explosives into the WTC towers without anyone becoming suspect or anyone knowing about the plan objecting. Then you hire Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into the exact floors where the explosives are. Then, after the fires burn for an hour, hour and a half WITHOUT the explosives going off, THEN you detonate them to bring down the buildings. And then afterward there is no physical evidence of said explosives.

I'm sorry, but that's ###### insane. If you believe that, you've got problems. SERIOUS problems.

In other words you have not watched the videos i posted. Claiming that they are whack jobs is both idiotic and unreasonable. Somebody is a whack job because they can demonstrate how the towers simply would not come down from 757 hits? How do you explain the near freefall collapse?

Not sure why i am asking somebody like you since you can not make a post without being rude and low class in your debtae style.

Edited August 3, 2006 by yabasta

[rclouse 0]

In other words you have not watched the videos i posted. Claiming that they are whack jobs is both idiotic and unreasonable. Somebody is a whack job because they can demonstrate how the towers simply would not come down from 757 hits? How do you explain the near freefall collapse?

Not sure why i am asking somebody like you since you can not make a post without being rude and low class in your debtae style.

I said "I looked at". Of course I did not watch them all, you can tell from just a minute you're not going to get anything realistic out of them. It's kind of like listening to a Celine Dion record: you know after a minute it's going to make you want to blow your ears out.

The kinetic energy of the planes were not, by themselves, able to bring down the towers. There's plenty of evidence of that, say, one good videotape of the first attack and many, many excellent videos of the second. The fires afterward, however, were another thing and there was an entire Nova program devoted to explaining exactly how the towers came down. The vast majority of architectural and civil engineering experts agree how the towers came down. And it wasn't through "controlled explosions".

Again, answer my questions. How could government agents sneak hundreds of pounds of explosives into two buildings without anyone noticing or becoming suspicious? How could the government keep such a horrible plan secret without anyone involved blowing the whistle or warning anyone? Why the hell would the government conduct such an operation in the first place? How do you hire foreign agents to hijack planes and get them to commit suicide by flying the planes into buildings? Why do you place explosives on different floors of the two buildings (93-99 on WTC1, 77-85 on WTC2)? How do you make sure the planes are flown into the buildings exactly where the explosives are? How do you keep high explosives from exploding in the midst of jet fuel burning at over 1000F? How do you prevent any physical evidence of exposives from surviving the destruction?

This theory you seem to believe, in order for it to be true, must have logical, reasonable answers to ALL of these questions. I doubt you could answer even one of them, let alone all.

What you're doing is finding little details in what happened that don't make sense to you, then assuming the entire thing is false. What you're replacing it with doesn't have details wrong, it has just about everything wrong. As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Start supplying the evidence if you want to convince people you're not ###### insane.

I try not to allow myself ad hominem attacks, but this is just too crazy.

[VivaMexico 0]

This is the most definitive article I have found so far:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

And here is some info for those of you who disputed that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/02091...n.Pentagon.html

[rclouse 0]

And here is some info for those of you who disputed that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/02091...n.Pentagon.html

What gets me about the idea that it was a missile, not a plane, that struck the Pentagon, is that it ignores the literally HUNDREDS of people who watched the plane fly into the Pentagon. What, were they all delusional?

That's what should shut these people up and make them accept the facts. I think they're a bunch of Stephen Colberts, they don't like "facts" getting in the way of their truthiness. "No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart"

[yabasta 0]

I said "I looked at". Of course I did not watch them all,

I rest my case at this point because you have demonstrated yourself clearly in that statement alone. You are not interested in the view point in the same way that you dislike music. If you watched those videos you would find answers to many of your questions. Once more i would also state that i never claimed to have all the answers but your claim that fire brought down th towers has been found wanting. I would point you towards the evidence of this but the physics might bore you.

[VivaMexico 0]

And here is some info for those of you who disputed that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/02091...n.Pentagon.html

What gets me about the idea that it was a missile, not a plane, that struck the Pentagon, is that it ignores the literally HUNDREDS of people who watched the plane fly into the Pentagon. What, were they all delusional?

That's what should shut these people up and make them accept the facts. I think they're a bunch of Stephen Colberts, they don't like "facts" getting in the way of their truthiness. "No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart"

It's disturbing that people believe unsubstantiated rumors whipped up by internet blogs. I suppose someone will say the Popular Mechanics review was controlled by the CIA or some B.S. like that...

Once more i would also state that i never claimed to have all the answers but your claim that fire brought down th towers has been found wanting. I would point you towards the evidence of this but the physics might bore you.

Read the PM article i referenced above. I think you will find that fire did bring down the towers, unless of course you prefer internet blog physics to expert testimony.

[yabasta 0]

This is the most definitive article I have found so far:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

And here is some info for those of you who disputed that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/02091...n.Pentagon.html

The Popular Mechanics debunk piece is very popular with debunkers like yourself. However it is very half arsed and fails to adequately answer even the small ammount that it covers. This is the reason that none of you have used the information from such sites to debate the details.

The page cheers the pancake collapse theory which is again disproved in at leas tone of the videos i posted a link to. There is also evidence of molten steel in a video of the WTC which suggests Thermite was perhaps used to melt the steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

A counter attack to that debunk piece.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Read the PM article i referenced above. I think you will find that fire did bring down the towers, unless of course you prefer internet blog physics to expert testimony.

I have read it before and looked it over again just now. I do actually look into different ideas on this. I know you like to paint me as a whack job and all but i`m really not. Calling an expert names because they do not agree with your ideas is very intelligent of you. The scholars for truth are just that. You might like to attack them or their reputations but the fact remains that they know about physics.

Edited August 3, 2006 by yabasta

[rclouse 0]

Once more i would also state that i never claimed to have all the answers but your claim that fire brought down th towers has been found wanting. I would point you towards the evidence of this but the physics might bore you.

Read the PM article i referenced above. I think you will find that fire did bring down the towers, unless of course you prefer internet blog physics to expert testimony.

What s/he said. yabasta, you have taken the extraordinary stand. You must supply extraordinary evidence. The side I'm on doesn't need to explain every little "hole" you imagine or every little detail you don't understand. You need to answer the big questions about your theory before I will begin to consider yours. If you say "the moon is made of green cheese", you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence of its cheesiness before I'll begin to believe you.