Reply With Quote
yeah a group of unidentified men, with unknown affiliation crashed into the towers in a plane I got that
It was a group of terrorists who hijacked four planes.
yeah a group of unidentified men, with unknown affiliation crashed into the towers in a plane I got that
Your opinion for number 1 is just as plausible as mine, but I think your opinion for building 7 is slightly more implausible than mine, due to other buildings being closer that suffered no significant damage. Also the insurance policy taken out on building 7, just too many coincidences.
They were identified.
not officially
Which ones? WTC 5 and 6 and the hotel got clobbered.Since Silverstein has had to pay $10 million a month for a hole in the ground, how exactly does he come out ahead when he was leasing about 90% of the available space in the WTC?Also the insurance policy taken out on building 7, just too many coincidences.
See you guys in a few hours. Feel free to tell me what you think happened.
Yes, officially.
who identified them officially?
First you puppets ask us what we think happened. then when we do, you have the nerved to say this ?
No wonder mouse stop responding.
I just finished watching "In Plane Site" and this post is not a critique of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just some of my opinions on the film.
I liked how the narrator started out the film with an objective, "you decide for yourself" tone. That did not last long though. He used a forceful type of rhetoric like "It's clear that flash was not from box cutter wielding terrorists" or "it's clear that we are not being told the truth." I thought I get to decide for myself? Most of claims were followed by statements that forced an assumption of truth.
The biggest problem that I had with the film is the same problem I had with Loose Change; the evidence seemed to be cherry-picked. Not one single piece of evidence that might go against the film's thesis was examined. For example, they showed one witness saying the 2nd plane that hit WTC had no windows. Another woman screamed that it wasn't a Continental airplane. Weren't there hundreds of other eyewitnesses who claimed the contrary? If the film is seeking truth then it should show both sides. There were numerous other examples of this I'm too tired type them.
There is also the issue of the Pentagon. The film showed very few pictures of the actual crash-site and the pictures shown only supported the thesis. There were no pictures of the crash victims or workers carrying away pieces of the plane. How can I decide for myself when the evidence is so limited? When examining the logistics of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, they never examined the idea that landing gear is the heaviest and densest part of an airplane. My question would be, how does that play into the crash? This segment did have a strong piece of evidence (or reason for concern) which was the question of the other surveillance cameras. I have always wondered why no other footage has been released of the Pentagon crash. It's a pertinent question.
I try my hardest to look at theories like this with an open mind but films like "In Plane Site" make it very difficult for me. The lack of objectivity offends me because it seems like somebody is trying to manipulate me. This film did not feel nearly as manipulative as "Loose Change" but it was still very flawed in its pursuit of truth, IMHO.
ok now tell us what the film did show as far as unanswered questions, after all you claim to be this non bias person I am sure the film pointed out at least one thing you agree with, If not your just like Chump you see and hear what you want.
I have the film right here you want me to show the scene where they are picking up pieces of aircraft? I don't think you give the film any credit.
And you also talk about the film by Loose change like it's all lies.
besides if you knew anything about 9/11 you wouldn't wait till this topic was made to watch a film that is years old. Go watch the movie why the towers fell and get back to me with your Thumbs up take.
Last edited by =RTM=; 02-09-2007 at 03:00 AM.
How about the part where they talk about the plane that hit the pentagon was coming from the other side of the building and it would be an Impossible feat to have turned around and level off at that speed with a commercial airliner?
How about the part where they show explosions happening below the twin towers as they fell?
You left out many parts of the movie but that is your choice to beak it down as you see fit. unlike Chump I respect your analysis.
Like I posted earlier, I'm not critiquing the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I haven't done the research to do so. But I have seen both of these films and I just have problems with the way arguments are presented. Both films do raise important questions though.
Well put all movies aside for a moment, I wanted your honest opinion about this picture,
Also you notice the white smoke that comes from Thermite gas?
why is it when you Google Thermite charges you get the WTC websites?
Put all tin foil hat jokes aside. there is something we are not being told.
I took the time to skim through this thread earlier today and noticed this picture. This is one of the more intriguing pieces of evidence that I've seen yet. It does appear to be a very clean break on the beam.
Do you not see the run off from melted steel? Have you ever seen Thermite in person? I have back in 1981 at Ft. Bragg NC we used it to penetrate Russian tanks in a weapons demonstration for the Secretary of defense, That burned for 3 weeks. And we watered it 24 / 7
I noticed that too. At least from this angle, the 2 beams to the right don't seem to have any run off though.
Do you know how many steel beams were in the WTC? You must remember this was not some hotel in Vegas that was being demolished this was a building that they had to go in their undetected, did you not see the part of the film where the maintenance man said they closed off parts of the WTC and he was not allowed to enter? Did you not see the part where they stop using bomb sniffing dogs two weeks before the attack? What are you looking for a sign that reads Joe blow demolition construction site was here? Do you need to see DNA to know Jesus was here?
It's obvious your set in your ways so I will file you under the Chump Dumper head in the sand crowd.
Go watch the movie why the towers fell and get back to me with your Thumbs up take.
How many ing movies are you going to demand we watch?
Both movies have been "updated" -- as far as i can tell they have had the most ridiculous claims removed -- why should I be worried about their "truths" being corrupted by time?Who says it? Actual airline pilots? Folks with the flight path trcked on radar?How about the part where they talk about the plane that hit the pentagon was coming from the other side of the building and it would be an Impossible feat to have turned around and level off at that speed with a commercial airliner?If you can prove that white smoke only comes from Thermite gas and nothing else on the face of the earth, then you are truly onto something. For example, when the Pope is chosen the cardinals explode some Thermite in their fireplace since that's the only way to make white smoke. Now the Vatican is in on 9/11!Also you notice the white smoke that comes from Thermite gas?So shouldn't it be burning in that picture that was taken a week before 9/11 according to you?That burned for 3 weeks. And we watered it 24 / 7
Yeah, could have entered at any time -- he said he was afraid to enter. He was so concerned about it he told -- well, no one.Because they had a bomb threat at that time and they didn't find anything. if you can find a link that says bomb sniffing dogs were permanently employed at WTC in the years before 9/11, I might believe you.Did you not see the part where they stop using bomb sniffing dogs two weeks before the attack?
How many ing movies are you going to demand we watch?
The movie on why the towers fell shows all about heat , gravity, and steel structures, they do not point fingers or get all high on Bush juice like yourself.
They mealy show how if the building pancaked like they say in all the do entaries that the core steel beams would stay in tacked .
They show how many 30 plus year engineers who where silenced when they wanted to review the 911 report before it was published.
They just show the inconsistency's with what the Government and kool-aid drinkers like yourself try to force down our throats. I felt it would be a great movie for him to watch and for me to ask questions. Something you do in a civilized debate.
In no way I had intended to have to deal with your non stop meth induced stalking in the process. That was an obvious over site on my part, and for that I apologize.
The Bomb sniffing dogs were implemented after the first attack on the WTC as common procedure. My point was they were asked to not have them two weeks prior to the 9/11 attack. If you did your homework you would know that already. Or did you forget the WTC was attacked once before?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
