I haven't been this terrified since 9/11 - I just watched in Plane Site.!

[veracity]

I'm not kidding. I just watched the DVD of In Plane Site...that challenges the information we have been given about 9/11, and I am totally freaked out.

This is not about conspiracy theories...but about a conspiracy. Big difference...and the evidence is not from wild sources...it's from footage taken by the major networks....CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.

I'm just sharing here.... but I'm totally devastated by what I've seen. It's not just seeing George Bush claim he SAW the first tower hit, when there had been NO footage of the first plane hitting Tower One on that day at all.. but the films of the planes themselves, and the eye witness reports....

Preview some clips and see for yourself.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/911_in_plane_site_video.html

[Bluebear]

1. Well now, "tin foil hat, tin foil hat"

It seems you can't even speculate anymore without hearing that cliche.....here's a few questions:

1. Why was John Ashcroft advised not to fly commercially in summer 2001?

2. Why did we never see this FOX news footage again, describing 'definitely not a passenger plane, no windows and a big circular bluw logo up front'....

3. Does anybody ever question why the crash footage is never aired? Or do we simply accept the pacifying "it's too painful to look at again" excuse?

Just wondering.

[BeHereNow]

4. #2...

We hear from the families of the victims in
the world trade center...why are there no families
of the passengers in that organization?
Just WHERE are the family groups of the passengers?
I've heard isolated interviews with people who say
their loved ones were one the flights, but why have
none of them come forward with the questions
like the ones from the WTC?
Were the people we saw on television after
911 talking about their family members on the
planes part of advertising scheme
like the witness who testified about the incubators
being turned over?

BHN

[anarchy1999]

27. Well now, you are taking a leap, aren't you dearest. Love you.

n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

79. Well, we heard from Ted Olsen....

His wife Barbara died on one of the planes. Pretty odd, though, that Ted was Solicitor General under Clinton and helped the "Arkansas Project" get off the ground.

[veracity]

100. the conspiracy theories explain this.....

....that the plane that the fighter jets were chasing 'out at sea' - was really the hijacked plane. Read the 911 Commission report section that discusses this.

The problem also was that experts say that there was no way there could have been cell phone communication from that plane. I don't know all the details...but if you want to explore the many discrepancies...they're linked at

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/conspiracy_.html

But this film, as I said, is NOT about theories...just evidence to ponder and draw your own conclusions. Mine are clear - it's just plain frightening.

[Sterling]

101. There was a man I saw at Kyle Hence's first conference

in DC that had a daughter on one of the flights. He is with a group of family members that question the official story. It was so sad to hear him talk about his little girl.


What does that mean? Not sure but at least one person with family on those flights seems like a real person who does not support Bush and wants to know what really happened to his little girl.

I don't think that leaves out the possibility that not everything was as it seemed on those flights. The Bab’s Olsen coincidence is not believable especially given that it is her alleged conversation with Ted was the first mention of “Arab” hijackers.

[greenman3610]

5. ashcroft

I think Ashcroft is a cowardly prick too, but,
my understanding is that Micheal Moore had to drop
the "stopped flying in July 2001" story from F911, because
Ashcroft appeared to have a satisfactory answer to that
question. I still lean toward LIHOP, but
that particular story has some caveats.

[Bluebear]

7. I would love to hear Ashcroft's update on this answer:

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

[Bridget Burke]

11. What's Ashcroft's exact answer? Where's the link?

The original story--Ashcroft announcing he was going to begin flying by private jet because the FBI had informed him of security threats-- is still up.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

I believe he said that he had actually flown commercially at some point after the story appeared. But he didn't deny what he said; nor did he give any more details about those "threats".

[librechik]

23. his testimony before 9/11 committee: "That never happened"

nobody warned him. He continued to fly commercial.

Gee, I wonder what cbsnews did with all their lying video footage?

[smirkymonkey]

36. Ashcroft stopped flying because...

"if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given us wings," or some such nonsense.

[veracity]

6. there's much more...

The film shows that both planes that hit the two towers shared a 'flash' of light - like a mini explosion, - just BEFORE the fuselage impacted the building. There is also clearly something attached to the belly of the second plane. The footage comes from four different sources, and four different angles...

The film doesn't just raise questions based on external events... it shows evidence and lets you make up your mind.

Anyone out her who has seen the film and wants to share their reactions. Mine is sheer devastation.

[bobbyboucher]

12. Were you skeptical before watching it?

I mean, did you go in with Lihop/Mihop on your mind, or are you one of the trusting people who thought "no way could they have done that"?

[lanparty]

118. The flash of light ...

Was the fuselage hitting the building. Thats a high velocity collision of metal against stone, glass and metal. You WILL get a spark from that.

The only other explanation is that the highjackers had bombs and blew themselves up shortly before impact. The flash could have carried out of the cockpit and reflected off the glass on the building.

Are they saying it was a bomb inside the building???? If so, how could they predict EXACTLY where the plane would hit???? I'm not saying there weren't bombs in the building. I'm saying it's far fetched that a demolision crew could trigger a bomb .25 second before the plane hit in the EXACT place the nosecone was GOING to hit. I think you have to apply accums razor on that one.


I found those video clips VERY weak. The shadow underneath the plane has been explored before. I think the presence of un object under the fuselage is about irrefutable as the face on Mars. It's a shadow that produces an optical allusion.

As far as the Fox footage goes, when have we EVER trusted a Fox News reporter???? I'm not sure about you but I'm not sure I could pick out the windows on a plane flying at 400 mph, 300 ft from me. Yeah, you watch planes take off and land all the time, but they aren't going full speed.

There is no damange to the upper floors of the Pentagon because the plane was flying at a downward tragectory. You can clearly see this from the Pentagon checkpoint video. As far as wreckage goes ... have you ever SEEN pictures of jets being smashed into solid objects at FULL THROTTLE. They disintegrate. Hundreds of witnesses saw the plane crash with their eyes. Are they all lying (and I KNOW one personally, he's not a kook, he's a research scientist).

This stuff is pretty weak and really an insult. The REAL puzzler starts and ends with WTC 7. From all appearances, it just fell down as if a controlled demolition took place.

The presence of a controlled demolition conspiracy with a highjacking as a cover sounds pretty far fetched. But if you can believe that WTC #7 was the target of controlled demolition, than why not 1 and 2????

WTC 7 is the brains of JFK exploding out of the BACK of his head. The normally stable diesel fuel stored in safe tanks exploding is the magic bullet. The dissappearing steel is the assasination of Oswald (a Porter Goss associate).

[lanparty]

119. Shadows filmed from four different angles ...

... remain shadows. It only changes if your filming YOU OWN shadow or the time of day changes.

[soothsayer]

10. that dude from Fox was giggling thru his statement about "no windows"

What the hell was that giggling for?

[GreenArrow]

24. Hysteria?

Fear? Horror? Shock?

[soothsayer]

30. I guess, but it comes off as....odd. n/t

[ChickMagic]

135. Re: Hysteria? Fear? Horror? Shock?

How about foreknowledge? :tinfoilhat:

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Relive 9/11 here

If you want to relive the 9/11 times, I have the video for you:

http://brainscream.com/MP3/wtc-Roger_Waters_and_Waking_Born-World_Trade_Center_Tribute.mpg

It's 69 Megs, so not for the dialup users, but it's worth the download, I promise.

Swiftboat Veterans for Bush

JFK - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Bluebear]

18. Believe me I don't want to 'relive' those times...

I don't think I'll ever get over them. But there does seem to be a need for everyone to be in agreement about it and not to touch it as a sacred cow as far as discussion goes. F'rinstance, I guess I was caught unawares of this "al qaeda" before that day. Never heard Bush mention them but within hours they had been assigned blame although no one from that 'organization' ever stepped forward to claim responsibility. Anyhow I'm talking in circles. I feel there's more to know than we ever will, though.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. The download is tastefully done

Really, although it does include footage of the towers, it has an uplifting anti-Bush theme.

FYI

Swiftboat Veterans for Bush

JFK - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[merh]

25. Thank you for that link - I just watched it

Again my heart is filled with sadness and the hate for *&co is magnified. If he let it happen, if he made it happen - whatever, he is responsible.

[goforit]

39. Or Why did Wall Street have a practice emergency plan in NJ on 911

Or why did Ed Koch warn Al Franken not to go to
work that day at the WTC the Friday before in addition to
Koch's other"fellow friends"?

Or why did Bush/Cheney cut back the staff working to find
Osama Bin Ladin by 90% immediately when they took office and firing the #1 guy on the case, John O'Niel?

Or how many friggin meetings did Cheney/Kenny Lay have with
the Taliban prior to 911 and three weeks prior to this horrific event did Dick Cheney threaten them saying that he would "carpet bomb them"?

Or why weren't the Israelis agents in the white van across the river from the WTC apprehended?

Or where the hell is the debris for the plane that hit the Pentagon?
Or where the hell are the BLACK BOXES?

No this isn't a Tin Foil Hatting......
It is the truth and it is REALITY!!!!

These thugs have attacked our Country!!!

[lanparty]

120. I'm not as concerned with the Pentagon debris field ..

A plane travelling at full-throttle has a LOT more energy than one struggling to regain control or crashing just before takeoff or on landing. Airframes are pretty thin skinned and lightweight. Most of that stuff just disentegrates in high speed collisions (watch the air force tapes of slamming old jets into concrete blocks on rocket sleds, the material just dissapears).

The lack of the black boxes is the REAL kicker. I'm pretty sure they were found and then buried. There is NO WAY IN HELL that the paper passport of a terrorist could have survived when the hardened steel black box perished.

[King_Crimson]

60. How 'bout the put options...

on the two airlines involved...UA and UA? :shrug:

[Sperk]

2. I ordered my copy last week. Hope I'll get it soon. I plan on having

a little get together with my friends when it arrives. I'll let you know what I and they think of it.

[Jester_11218]

29. If you ordered it from us...

You should have it soon. We ship all orders same day or next day.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Thereare a couple of threads in 9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism

that are very interesting especially this one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=15554&mesg_id=15554

[tridim]

8. I listened to the producer on the radio last week

and was equally freaked out.. Mostly about the Ohio airport portion. Of course I posted it here on DU and was mostly bashed as a tin foil'er and conspiracy theorist. Good luck! :)

[soothsayer]

9. Did you hang in long enuff to see the OKC bombing footage? THAT was

far more compelling, imho, tho I am intrigued by the strange flashes prior to the planes hitting.

[dubyaD40web]

14. I HAVE A GOOD QUESTION:

Okay, put on your tin-foil hat:

There are people who dispute the plane going into the Pentagon because the damage didn't look that bad. Personally, I think the plane did smack into it.

My question is this: Is there any video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon?

If not, why not? If you ask me, the Pentagon is one of the most secure places in America. There are cameras everywhere for security. Surely a camera had to be filming when the plane crashed into the building. Right?

[veracity]

15. Please please get the video

The footage from several news networks at the scene.. shows a FOURTEEN to SIXTEEN foot hole in the Pentagon....before the collapse of the facade. There is now way the 757 could have gone through a hole that small...and disintegrated so nothing, nothing, nothing was left...especially since the video shows footage of the inside of the hole are...with paper unsinged, tables, unsinged, and the walls intact an unsinged. This HAS to be seen. Heck.....chip in with your friends and order the video. I promise you'll post and thank me.

And no.. there is NO footage of the crash from the angle of a plane hitting. The only surveillance camera (like the Pentagon had NONE running... like yeah, right)... was one in a nearby gas station. That camera was CONFISCATED by the FBI. uh....conspiracy? I do believe....

[BeFree]

17. There is no solid evidence

...of a large airliner hitting the pentagon. The grass outside was not even burned. No one has ever been able to show a picture of whatever it was that hit the pentagon.

Beleve me, I wish someone could prove that AA77 hit the pentagon, it would make life so much easier. But so far no one has solid proof of any thing crashing into the pentagon. Yeah, there's a big hole there, and there was a fire, but that's it. Oh there's a pic of a tire and what looks like an engine of some sort amidst the rubble, but the rest of AA77? Where'd it go?

They say it crashed thru several reinforced masonary walls and then after all that, it vaporized. Nope, ain't buying that. Anyone, show me the proof. Just one good pic of solid proof. Is that too much too ask for?

Pictures don't lie, only humans do.

[Zero Gravitas]

26. Right

Look into the ValuJet crash in Florida 1996. There was nothing visible at that crash site, just a small hole in the mud. Check out http://www.flight592.com/welcome.htm and look at the images section.

Is that a coverup too? What happened to the flight that was supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon, but according to you did not? Where did it land? what happened to the people on board? how did they make it look like it turned around and head into DC and then disappear on the radar screens? how did they make 100s of people think they saw a jetliner crash into the Pentagon?

If you don't have answers to those questions maybe you should examine whether you know as much about what happens when a plane crashes into something at 500 mph as you think you do. I'm not trying to antagonistic when I say that, but people's assumptions about that sort of thing are not always correct.

Other than the engine cores and landing gear planes are made of lightweight materials that are not very strong (at least when force is applied in the "wrong" direction) If you sit over a wing of an aircraft you'll likely see areas marked "NO STEP" meaning they are not strong enough to withstand a person standing on them without warping. When you fly something into the ground or a reinforced building like the Pentagon at 500+ mph (i.e much faster than typical landing or takeoff speeds) most of the structure of the plane simply shreds into tiny pieces.

[BeFree]

37. Wrong

"...plane simply shreds into tiny pieces"

I really wish you hadn't written that.
I really wish you could show me some proof that a plane, of the size you believe, hit the pentagon. I have looked at many of the pics of the pentagon, and I see no shred of evidence. What I have seen is that something busted through many a masonary wall, leaving a series of holes about 16 feet in diameter.

But you say a "plane simply shreds into tiny pieces". How could a plane that "shreds into tiny pieces" create so many holes? Following your conjecture, the "shredding of the plane into tiny pieces" would have left the tiny pieces on the outside and not a series of holes through many masonary walls.

As far as what happened to AA77.... I have an idea, but that really doesn't matter. What does matter is that there is no solid proof that it hit the pentagon, and you have offered nothing to make me think otherwise.

I know it is hard to accept. It took me awhile before I could come to terms with the idea that what I was told was not the truth. Now, if you can show me a picture that is solid evidence, I will be more than glad to look it over. Maybe the 'Worst president Ever' would like to release some of the pentagon video the FBI has?

[Zero Gravitas]

44. It does matter

Your theory is that somehow AA77 was "disapeared" along with everyone on it. Unless you can come up with a plausible theory for that all you are left with is a poor understanding of physics.

[BeFree]

49. No, it doesn't

I have a plausible theory about what happened to AA77. Several theories, in fact. The one theory you believe in, is the least plausible.

Afterall, all you have is a theory. That's all it is: A Theory.

You have not a shred of solid proof you can show me, or anyone else. Your belief is merely a theory. You need to accept that, first, then your mind will open up to the alternate theories.

BeFree

[Zero Gravitas]

53. So enlighten me

what might have happened to AA77 ?

I am open to evidence of alternate theories of what happened, but so far I have not seen any plausible evidence of what might have happened.

Nothing in this thread or any of the other threads on this topic has any evidence whatsoever that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Simply saying that the damage does not fit with preconceived notions of what damage should be there is not evidence of anything other than a lack of understanding of basic physics.

[BeFree]

58. Enlighten you?

That's not my job, man. <grin>

Very simply: There is no solid evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon. A basic understanding of physics tells you that.

The only thing you have provided is a repeat of the theory put forward by the 'Worst president Ever' and his minions. It is the least plausible of all the theories.

For 'Enlightenment' may I suggest you browse the 9/11 forum? Just skip over the posts from those who proffer the theory you presently believe.

Better yet, put those posters on ignore temporarily, and when you are done, in a few days or so, take them off ignore.

Happy hunting.

[Zero Gravitas]

48. University Academics Part Of The Conspircay?

I suppose the Purdue Computer Science and Engineering departments are also part of the conspiracy?

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis.htm

[BeFree]

52. Mr. Worst...

Sorry, but I am not about to click on a link leading to who knows where, written by who knows who. If you would kindly give some background it might be ever so helpful.

Besides, a University is somewhat populated by government hacks who will whore themselves out to their benefactors, given half a chance.

[Zero Gravitas]

55. So you're True Believer then

Right don't click on links to the non-beleiver's blashphemy. Who know what neferious ideas those spooks at Purdue might subliminaly implant through their web site. Your mind is obviously closed like a steel trap, I feel sorry for you. I'm done with this exchange if you won't even consider the possibility that your theory is incorrect.

[BeFree]

59. Read 'em again, for the first time

As I said, I have several theories, including the one you believe. I believe there are parts, indeed, some maybe even in hole, incorrect. I just don't know yet. I do not have enough facts to be able to make a firm declaration.

I do know that the 'Official' theory is the least plausible, and therfore, most likely, incorrect. If only the officials would release ALL the facts they have established, I might be better able to firm up my beliefs. But having seen what the 9/11 commish went through, just to issue it's feeble and lacking report, it gives me pause as to it's veracity, and continues to feed my belief of it's implausibility.

Thanks for playing. It was fun. Not.

[lanparty]

123. Are you nuts ...

OK, so they did a physical level simulation of what happens when a light airframe impacts steel reinforced concrete at 600 MPH. You don't want to read ANY of this stuff because it will interefere with you're pre-determined conclusion.

You don't have to BELIEVE them. Personally, I don't believe ANY simulation that isn't carefully checked by prediction and reconciliation. But they make some good points and an effort to SHOW you what happened.

University profs are NOT government hacks. They are largely people with an absolute passion for their subject area. You HAVE to be that way in order to be a researcher. This often produces people of high integrity when it comes to defending what they believe in (science).

Finally, Purdue University is located in West Lafayette, IN (the north-central portion of the state). The article deals with work by Structural Engineering and Computer Science researchers.

There, you know something about it now, you can go read it. It's not very long or technical. But I'm sure if you want to read their work in minutia, it's all available.

[gatorboy]

65. I've had a few questions about the Pentagon crash.

For one, why did the plane come in so straight? Coming in at an angle, which would've been easier, would've hit from the top and would've inflicted more damage.
Coming in at such a straight line risks the chance in missing. If you come in too low too fast you could crash before hitting the target.
I've been curious as to how far you would have to prepare for a straight landing going so fast. It seems like the plane would've caused damage across a long line, hitting telephones, etc., before hitting the Pentagon. Has there ever been reports of this?

[lanparty]

122. Energy ...

E = mv2

Velocity is squared energy. Any object moving at significant speed contains a massive amount of energy. How is that energy released in a collision??? It's released in light and heat. This is the flashes of light we see when the two planes hit WTC 1 and 2.

Now when a material gets hot enough, it WILL evaporate, it will fly apart and become a little bomb of it's own. The thinner and lighter the material, the easier this is to do. Only the largest, strongest parts like the engines will survive in such a collision.

Many planes crash leaving signifiact wreckage. But not all planes crash going full speed engines blaring with enough fuel to get them to LA +500 miles.

Oh now, between the velocity and the jet fuel, there was MORE than enough energy to evaporate most of the aircraft.

[Sterling]

102. That was a swamp.

I really don't have a dog in the did a plane hit fight but I think we are talking apples to oranges with the value jet crash site.

[Beam Me Up]

40. I call it "THE MAGIC BOEING THEORY"

The JFK assasination had its "magic bullet"; this is better -- a vanishing Boeing 757. It all fragments into a million tensy little pieces. No wheels. No engines. No carrage frame, wings or tail fin. Naturally no seats, luggage or passangers. And NO BLACK BOX, apparently. Magic Boeing!

[BeFree]

54. Indeed, Magic

9/11 is quite historic, in that just one black box was recovered that day. Never before in modern aviation history have so many black boxes magically disappeared. Historic. The NTSB must be scratching their heads over that.

[Gore1FL]

68. It wasn't all that magic

Hundreds of people on the roads and Metro saw and identified it as an AA jet before it hit.

[BeFree]

70. Millions of people voted..

...for boosh. People can be terribly mistaken. Taken pictures are missed in this investigation.

Oh wait, there are a few pictures, and none of them show AA77. Not one. Of all the pics, not one can be used to prove AA77 was the missile that tore a 16 foot hole clean through the pentagon.

If you cruise the 9/11 forum, you will find a few theories that plausibly explain the pentagon's missile attack and talk about the eye-witnesses optical delusions. Happy hunting.

[Beam Me Up]

74. No doubt it looked like one.

You fail to mention, however, that some witnesses reported something different, that it looked like a small commuter jet and one witnessed said it looked like a missile with wings.

Eye witnesses, even a large number of them, can be mistaken. For thousands of years people saw the sun come up every morning. We still speak as if that is what happens even though we know it doesn't.

No one is saying that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. The question is, was it a Boeing 757? Was it Flight 77? If so WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Again, not evidence that 'something' hit or 'something' happened; but specifically the evidence of Flight 77.

Example: How many security cameras are there around the Pentagon? I would assume MANY. However, only five frames of one security camera have been made public and those are very 'fishy'. The date time stamp is wrong. Some frames in the sequence are missing. No 757 is clearly apparent. An object (parking lot gate) OBSCURES any clear identification of the plane. There appears to be a contrail following the 'plane' (contrails do NOT form at ground level -- however, smoke exhaust from a rocket or missile DOES form). The DoD did NOT release this video; no one seems to know WHERE it came from. This is from the Washington Post, dated March 7, 2002:

A series of five photos obtained Thursday by news organizations shows the first available images of the Pentagon as a plane hijacked by terrorists slammed into the building the morning of Sept. 11.

The photos, which depict a fiery explosion on the building's northwest face, are each dated Sept. 12. Officials say the date may reflect when the images were catalogued by investigators since they are not the actual date of the attack.

CNN first obtained the images and broadcast them Thursday afternoon. Reporter Jamie McIntyre said the photos were captured by a camera at security checkpoint on the grounds surrounding the Pentagon. A bright orange fireball is visible in the photographs but the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible.

The photos, taken by the camera positioned north of the section of the Pentagon, cover a span of four one-hundredths of a second. The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner – possibly the plane just a few feet above the ground. The second shows a white glow immediately after the impact. In the three remaining photos, a mountain of orange fire and black smoke rises above the building.

Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras.

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7¬Found=true

That URL is fragmenting: here is the 'Tiny URL' version:
http://tinyurl.com/4qg46

I understand that no one wants to entertain this possibility because, if true, it means what we are up against is something far more sinister than we would ever want to imagine. But if American Airlines Flight 77 DID hit the pentagon, then WHY can't we, the American people, be given clear, unambiguous evidence of this fact? Surely there is at least ONE other surveillance video taken from another camera, another angle? Surely there was at least a photograph of a large ENGINE PART or WHEEL that is clearly and unmistakably from a Boeing 757?

Well, there may be, but WE haven't seen it. Why not? Why is it we are derided as 'cooks' or 'conspiracy theorists' when we even ask for this evidence? We are told we are stupid because we questioning the obvious. WELL EXCUSE ME FOR NOT SWALLOWING YET ANOTHER CATASTROPHIC LIE FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION. Clearly something struck the Pentagon. What? Why must I simply BELIEVE without unequivocal evidence?

Moreover, the evidence that IS available, does NOT support the official story. Look at the photographs. Look at them. A 757 loaded with thousands of lbs of jet fuel caused ONLY that amount of damage? LOOK at the photos of the Pentagon facade prior to the upper stories collapsing. Why weren't the windows directly above the entry hole broken out? How can the damage to the right and left of the main entry hole not extend the entire 125 width of a wingspan of a Boeing 757? How can the main entry hole be SMALLER than the body of a Boeing 757? Why did all the thousands of lbs of jet fuel NOT incinerate flammable items on the floors immediately above and to our left of the impact area (books, computer monitors, all clearly visible after the collapse of the facade)?

Why must WE -- who are given NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE -- be asked: "Well, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to it and the people on board?" How the hell should we know?! Whatever happened to it, there is damn little evidence that it happened at the Pentagon.

[lanparty]

124. Here is a nice witness website

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

One thing you'll notice is that witneses talk about the plane clipping streetlamps and knocking them over. A bomb doesn't do that.

[lanparty]

121. Vaporization is what happens in high energy collisions ...

Yes major portions of the super structure were vaporized. A whole is ONLY as deep as the digger penetrates. After that, little or no harm is done.

Consider the alternative of a bomb going off INSIDE the building. One would see a radial blast pattern that is the COMPLETE opposite of what you describe.

Then of course, what happened to the plane and the victims ON that plane. How did they convince so recruit so many witnesses from so many walks of life????

[veracity]

31. That point is made in the film

Not a single camera, inside or outside the pentagon filmed anything. The only camera operating was that in a nearby gas station, with a direct view of the line of the 'crash.' According to the film, that camera was confiscated by federal agents. Hmmmm.

Again... there has never been a crash in history in which a plane, its contents, and its passengers disintegrated into dust, yet the surface near the impact was free of heat so that even paper remained unsinged.

See the film. See it.

[Sterling]

103. I was one of the very first to raise that question.

Back in the good ole days when Ewing2001 was here and we were just starting to take a critical look at the events of 9-11.

The lack of video in the most sensitive target area in the world is not believable any more than the notion the could not have defended DC well over an hour into the event.

Anyone who claims to know exactly what happened that day is a fool and or a liar.

[Comicstripper]

56. Yes

Time magazine published a series of stills over a year ago, taken from security cameras. There were about four pictures, in color, though fairly grainy, as it was in the distance. The photos were not exactly portrait quality, since they were simple security cameras.
The photos show the pentagon sitting there, pentagoning, then being hit, then a big fireball.
i don't trust this conspiracy theory, neither LIHOP or MIHOP. i think it's silly, and i think all your questions have answers, answers you either haven't been told or haven't gone looking for.
i live near DC. the sniper shootings a while back took place in my county. I had friends in school who were crying on 9/11 because their parents worked in DC, and they didn't know if they were safe.
the REASON you don't hear from passenger families (which, again, you would if you were listening) is because there aren't that many of them. at least, not that many compared to those that died in the blast/collapse. plus, the media doesn't cover them b/c they're not as sexy as those killed in the buildings. what's cooler, dying in a plane crash, or dying in a massive ball of fire brought on by muslim extremists?
same reason you don't hear about pentagon families. not that many, not that sexy. the towers were huge phalluses that collapsed, the pentagon was a squat vagina that just smoked. it was simply it's time of the month, as far as the media was concerned.
that being said, i still want to see In Plane Site. I don't believe a lot of conspiracy theories, but i do think they're cool!
:nuke:

[Sterling]

105. You lie

I have those photos. I actually used them in an edit I did recently. They do not show a plane hitting. All the show is a series of fireballs. That's it. No way of telling what actually hit the building.

[Comicstripper]

108. APOLOGIZE

I SAID- "The photos were not exactly portrait quality, since they were simple security cameras.
The photos show the pentagon sitting there, pentagoning, then being hit, then a big fireball."

YOU SAID-They do not show a plane hitting. All the show is a series of fireballs. That's it. No way of telling what actually hit the building.

I didn't say they did, and I didn't lie. They don't show the entirety of the plane (the nose perhaps). But he was saying we have no footage of the attack, and we do. I strongly dislike Bush and would never vote for him, but this theory strikes me as complete and utter bullshit. I'm going to stop commenting on it until my DVD order gets here, but I've heard your strongest arguments and i still have not heard any argument for this ridiculous theory that i haven't seen refuted elsewhere a dozen times or more.
just takes a simple google search.
you guys just aren't looking hard enough. conspiracy theories are fun. but don't mistake theory for fact, and the facts often contradict what you're saying. everything you bring up has a rational explanation.
go to the www.snopes.com and look it up. this is a reputable Urban Legend site that determines the factuality of various rumors and theories.
Please look. And look with an open mind.

[Sterling]

111. Stills does not equal footage.

And that is the point. Of all the cameras that we know have to be in use at that complex the only one they put out is a series of stills that don't show what hit the building.

Sorry but that is an obvious question that needs answering by people more qualified that snopes. Snopes are the people who called M Moore a liar for helping break the Saudi exodus story.

I am not sure if they ever adequately retracted but I do know they are sloppy and seem to be less than willing to look at 9-11 with a true skeptical eye.

[Comicstripper]

115. UGH

I'm tired of this.
A) Footage, stills, it doesn't MATTER. You're being PETTY! I said that I had seen frames of the attack. I didn't say the plane was on the thing, I didn't say it proved that a jet hit the Pentagon; I was responding to another poster's claim that he had seen no images of the attack in progress. i responded saying that i had, indeed, (and you have, too) seen pictures of the attack in progress in Time magazine.
B) I'm assuming that you read the article. Snopes has an impressive accuracy rating, and they updated the Michael Moore story as more information came through. The article itself addresses just about every single question that has been brought up here. You either did not read it, or choose not to believe it.
C)Skeptical eye? Snopes looks at everything with a skeptical eye. I am a hardcore skeptic. That's precisely why I'm being skeptical of absurd and poorly-argued conspiracy theories with more holes in them than the official story.

I am so tired of everyone attacking me for being reasonable. There is nothing of substance regarding these theories. Do a Google search and look at the facts for yourself.

That being said, I am through talking about this until I've seen the film, which should arrive soon.

I would still like an apology for being called a liar. Nothing I said was untrue.

[Comicstripper]

116. UGH

I'm tired of this.
A) Footage, stills, it doesn't MATTER. You're being PETTY! I said that I had seen frames of the attack. I didn't say the plane was on the thing, I didn't say it proved that a jet hit the Pentagon; I was responding to another poster's claim that he had seen no images of the attack in progress. i responded saying that i had, indeed, (and you have, too) seen pictures of the attack in progress in Time magazine.
B) I'm assuming that you read the article. Snopes has an impressive accuracy rating, and they updated the Michael Moore story as more information came through. The article itself addresses just about every single question that has been brought up here. You either did not read it, or choose not to believe it.
C)Skeptical eye? Snopes looks at everything with a skeptical eye. I am a hardcore skeptic. That's precisely why I'm being skeptical of absurd and poorly-argued conspiracy theories with more holes in them than the official story.

I am so tired of everyone attacking me for being reasonable. There is nothing of substance regarding these theories. Do a Google search and look at the facts for yourself.

That being said, I am through talking about this until I've seen the film, which should arrive soon.

I would still like an apology for being called a liar. Nothing I said was untrue.

[ArkDem]

98. I heard the plane crashed into the camera.

[Sterling]

104. Your kidding?

I know you must be but that is exactly the kind of stupid shit the official story is full of. I am sure there are many many many cameras around that complex.

I am just as sure there are surface to air defenses and a huge AF base a rocks throw away that could have easily prevented the strike on DC.

[Gregorian]

16. See the thread on this over at Bartcop. Good explanation.

Qualified people saw the plane before it hit. Someone over at Bartcop responded to a similar post. Just the impellor fan alone, is enough to give it away. It was a large plane engine. Furthermore, planes are mostly comprised of air. There isn't a lot there. Crash sites are often nothing more than piles of loose debris.
I dismissed this long ago.
Give it up, and get on with Darfur, Bush, overpopulation, and extremely important issues. Even if it were true, I think we can't let this stuff hold us back from the present. Sorry if this is a dorky reply, but I'm running out the door.

[BeFree]

19. Air??!?!

...planes are mostly comprised of air.

What about all that metal? And the fuel? And the interior? All made of air? Ya can't get anymore ridiculous than that, but I'm sure you will try, eh?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

62. Hah......

So, that's why they are called AIRplanes!

Ya learn something new everday, huh?. Yep, a real Comic you are there, Ms. Stripper.

Let's see, buildings are mostly air, too. Funny, I never heard of AIRbuildings, or AIRrooms, or AIRgarages. But, AIRports are full of air, and so are AIRways. Hahahahahahaha

Geez, I'm up past my bedtime. But I'm glad I stayed up long enough to get this one......

[Comicstripper]

72. Ahem

a few points real quick:
a)i'm male
b) i NEVER said that airplanes are called airplanes because they're full of air. what i said was that their being full of air is what allows them to fly (with the assistance of engines and the laws of physics).It's a matter of density. The poster said that there wouldn't be that much debris because a plane is mostly air, and you seemed to think that notion was ridiculous. A plane is hollow. I don't know its exact dimensions, but i'm fairly sure that an airplane has more air than metal, when you consider the volume of the entire interior, cockpit, tires, cargo area, space between sheets of metal, etc.
c)don't patronize me

[Sterling]

113. I thinks it's funny too.

Airplanes are very big and made with heavey stuff. If they were "mostly made of air" (why you would say that I don't know) We could lift them easily, right?

Just a bad analogy thats all.

[lanparty]

125. With respect to their volume ...

... airplanes are VERY LIGHT and contain pretty lightweight materials to hold such a structure together.

Tell you what, why don't you buy a balsa wood airplane, soak it with a mixture of 50% gas and 50% kerosese. Then set it on fire. See how much of it remains.

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. I wonder???

Whatever happened to all of those SEATS on the plane? Are they air too? Those seats just miraculously disintegrated too? wow. amazing. Pentagon magic!

[Comicstripper]

86. No....

Seats are foam and cloth. A lit match could melt a hole through their surface. Imagine what a passenger jet exploding on impact could do.
I ordered "In Plane Site" from eBay today, b/c I'm curious. I love conspiracy theories, although most I don't actually believe. I'm not attacking any of your opinions, or any of you personally, just playing devil's advocate here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. Foam and cloth ONLY???

I don't think so. They must have a metal frame for that foam and cloth to go around. I'm not buying it. Those seats did not just disintegrate. That's a crock.

[Comicstripper]

89. not ONLY

but you're telling me that a speeding jet which bursts into flame wouldnt damage metal frames that can be smashed with a hammer? Not to mention, we're talking about reinforced concrete walls here. Not WTC-type windows and steel beams. That's gonna do some damage.

[lanparty]

126. Seats are made largely of ...

... cloth, vinyl and plastic with a bit of metal to provide rigidity.

[Jester_11218]

20. Are you kidding?

They can usually reconstruct the entire aircraft after a crash. They reconstructed the space shuttle for Pete's sake!

The Pentagon is the least suspisious when you look at the other oddities. I saw the DVD (That is my site that this thread linked to). I was stunned and I am a 9/11 researcher.

The big unaswered question is the huge explosion at the foot of the towers BEFORE the collapse! It was nowhere near the crash site and yet there was a 60 story musroom cloud.

The other thing was building 7....way suspisious. See the vid.

[veracity]

21. point is... that is was physically IMPOSSIBLE

...for a 757 to make a hole that small. The amount of heat in a plane that size that had just taken off a short while back, would have caused a fire that burned for days. That's from the experts, not me. Again....check out the film. Then let's talk. I don't think anyone can be prepared for what the film shows. I'll listen to anyone who saw the film and can refute the evidence shown...or the questions raised.

The most serious question came at the end....WHO CAN YOU TRUST? That was the scariest part of all.

[Beam Me Up]

41. PICTURE: "Magic Boeing" #1

Edit: typo in subject

[ArkDem]

96. How does a facade remain in tact?

[Beam Me Up]

42. PICTURE: "Magic Boeing" #2

Edit: typo in subject

[Beam Me Up]

43. PICTURE: "Magic Boeing" #3

[Beam Me Up]

45. PICTURE: "Magic Boeing" #4

[Beam Me Up]

46. PICTURE: "Magic Boeing" #5

[Beam Me Up]

47. PICTURE: "Magic Boeing" #6

[Beam Me Up]

50. PICTURE: Undamaged items in stories above impacat area.

I'm undecided how important these photos are but it clearly shows that the fireball did not damage flamable items on upper floors above blast area.

[liberalpragmatist]

63. This Was Debunked on SNOPES

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

If you want to believe the conspiracy theory, fine. But while I can believe plenty of more plausible conspiracy theories, I'm sorry, it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[info being]

80. OK, Snopes has just lost credibility in my book

How can they possible claim to know for certain what happened. They present a theory that is no stronger than anyone, yet nobody else claims to know for certain.

[Sterling]

106. Yes snopes also said no Michael Moore was lying about the flights out of t

For OBLs family and friends. The are not an authority on anything.

[lanparty]

127. It depends on the strength of the building ...

The building was a limestone facade backed with spiral steel reinforced concrete columns.

When you can break a brick with an envelope, I'll believe you.

[veracity]

28. No bodies? no bones, - nothing....

and the building was not burned. Much of the inner 'hole' was not even singed. Not a single body part... but, oh yeah, Mohammed Atta's passport floated down from the fireball of the plane that hit Tower One.
(that's not in the film - but part of the story we got). Trust no one.
At least see this and ASK the questions.

[Chelsea Patriot]

61. I Saw That 60 Story Mushroom Cloud.

I was out with my dog.

I felt tremors.

I knew an explosion had just occurred.

No one will ever be able to convince me otherwise.

[Jester_11218]

67. Not in the report

That explosion was never addressed in the report.

[veracity]

94. That's in all the photos....everywhere

And has never been explained. You can see it in all the magazine photos as well as the video. Point is....if there were only one or two discrepancies.... okay....there might be explanations somewhere. But there are soooooooooo many. And more than that, why were these video clips supressed? Why did no one from the media agree to be interviewed for the film? Why did no news network or paper investigate the strange things in the film....like NO WINDOWS, and the obvious attachment on the belly of the plane that went into Tower Two.....on and on and on.

[stavka]

32. Why has all the footage of the Giant Ape disappeared?

What happened to that actress/girl?

Why haven't we heard from her?

[bpilgrim]

33. what happened to wtc7?

and it wasn't even HIT by any planes...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf
betcha don't see that on your teeVee

peace

[veracity]

110. The building was 'taken down:????

Silverstein, had just bought the buidings..and had insured them for separate incidents (which he last in court). He is shown explaining that bldg. 7 was so hot it had to be 'taken down' by the fire dept. That's something that is done by setting up explosives at strategic places to make the building collapse safely. It's done all the time when buildings are demolished - but that takes MONTHS, not hours, of planning. go figure

[KurtNYC]

132. Rudy's Bunker was in WTC7

An unusual place for a bunker and generator and diesel fuel

In a related move, in 1999, Giuliani opened a $15 million emergency management center at 7 World Trade Center. The city boasted that the command center's walls could withstand 200 miles per hour winds, and the ventilation system was designed to blow out chemicals or germs. Although it was on the 23rd floor, critics assailed the center as "Rudy's bunker." Michael Daly of the Daily News likened it to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's shelter. "Of course, the mayor's inner circle will not have the cozy security of the traditional underground setting. They will be in the first-ever aerie-style bunker, a 46,000-square-foot expanse on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/background/gothamgazette.html

[The Straight Story]

34. Artist's impression of 767 tanker

The 767 tanker

[veracity]

51. look at the photos I posted

And consider that the eyewitness said there were NO windows...that the video shows what easily could be the opening for the fueling area. This is not a coincidence...and there is a remote controlled model of the plane in use.

[Comicstripper]

88. You guys have said yourselves

"Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable, even in large numbers."
So...I guess that only counts when it's convenient?

[Sterling]

107. That looks more like the planes that hit the WTC.

I could never see any windows on the WTC planes. Iat first they looked like the were painted black. I have yet to see detailed enough photos that show it was an AA airliner and not some other plane of the same model.

[The Straight Story]

35. For the really paranoid...

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
March 28, 2001

NTSB INVESTIGATING CONTROL PROBLEM ON BOEING 767 ON APPROACH TO PARIS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an apparent flight control problem that occurred on a Boeing 767 yesterday.

On March 27, 2001, American Airlines flight 48 from Dallas, Texas, a Boeing 767-300, experienced pitch control difficulties while on approach to landing at Paris Charles de Gaulle International Airport (CDG). The airplane was descending through 6,000 feet. The flight crew indicated that the airplane did not respond as expected to control column inputs, and that horizontal stabilizer trim was used for pitch control. The flight landed at approximately 1132 local time (0932 Z). There were no injuries to the 124 passengers and 13 crew aboard.

The French Bureau Enquetes Accidents (BEA) has delegated the investigation of the incident to the NTSB.

The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR) were removed and initially read out by the BEA’s investigative authorities. The BEA transferred preliminary data electronically to the NTSB yesterday. The FDR and CVR have been sent to the NTSB’s laboratories in Washington for further examination. The CVR contained no useful information because sounds recorded at the time of the event were overwritten on the 30-minute tape.

Interviews with the flight crew are being coordinated. NTSB, Boeing, and American Airlines specialists are currently examining the airplane in Paris. Initial examination of stabilizer components, including the power control units, pushrods, bellcranks and shear rivets revealed no discrepancies. Further testing and examinations are being planned.

NTSB Press Contact: Terry Williams, 202-314-6100

[veracity]

38. Photos of plane as shown in the film.....

LetsRoll911 Determines 'Flight 175' a Highly Modified Military Retrofitted 767-200ER Tanker, possibly a Protoypte KC767 Fuel Tanker, or Cargo aircraft: Also, 'Flight 175' Discharges 2 'Jet Fuel Sprays' from it's undercarriage prior to impact. Also noted, is that the plane also shows no passenger windows, and shows a blemish where the Refueling Boom was possibly removed.

No windows.
Blmish is very clear in the video
Jet fuel sprays are clearly shown as flashes of light

Go figure.

[ContinentalOp]

114. How can you even tell from those photos?

How can you say there are no passenger windows based on those photos? The first picture is of the bottom of the plane and the second is so blurry it's totally indistinguishable.

I'm also wondering about the estimates here regarding the size of the Pentagon hole vs. the size of the plane. The only reasoning I saw was based on estimating the size of the windows yet the Pentagon is an enormous building. Who knows how big those windows are. And if the plane was flying so low, isn't it possible that it crashed into the ground a bit, began to disintigrate, the wings came off and only part of the burning nose actually crashed into the building?

[doodleysquat]

64. The Lone Gunmen

were amazingly prescient.

http://propagandamatrix.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_lonegumen.html

[genius]

66. Good documentary. Some people don't want to see t he truth.

[Corgigal]

69. I looked

at the clips and I see nothing in it that worries me. The only part that worries me on 9-11 was the complete lack of any response once we knew what we were dealing with. When someone puts all those facts together and releases a video then I will watch it.
However it's a much harder video to make because the people who know aren't talking.

Forget all this did a plane hit where and how. Just focus on the response that should be enough to make anyone worry.

[CanIgonow]

71. You may be right.I think we can make a strong case against the

Bush administration based on circumstantial evidence alone.The total lack of response from US agencies responsible for air defense, along with the total absence of the Bush honchos like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Meyers etc. from their duties should raise suspicion right away.If, in addition, you examine their motive a la the PNAC to create a New Pearl Harbor,the opportunity and the assets for them to execute such a massively coordinated project, I would say a good lawyer can build a very effective case even without any physical evidence.In fact, their efforts to hide or destroy evidence could themselves be part of this pile of circumstantial evidence one could cite.

[veracity]

73. You have no clue...

When you see the graphics showing it was IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to make the 14 foot hole in the Pentagon...(newsreel feels corroborate) - and that the airliners that hit the Towers were without windows...and both had flashes of light emanate BEFORE the impact... you'll change your mind.
This stuff has been withheld....and no one from the media would come forth. This is not voodooo, it's there for you to see and conclude. But, denial, as the diretor says in the film, is the first response of many.

[CanIgonow]

76. Could you answer the following questions for me:

1.Who made these pictures in the first place?
2.Who decided to withhold them?
3.How did you get a hold of them if they were withheld?
4.How would we know if they are authentic?

[veracity]

77. I repeat myself

1. The photos (I got them from Letsroll) come from news network coverage of the first day of the attacks. They were never shown after than first day, but were available in archive. The stills were shown on hundreds of magazines all over the nation and the world. They were from the shots made by the French film company doing a documentary on the Fire Dept. at the WTC area. They were the only ones to film the first tower being hit.
2. The news networks, simultaneously, never again showed the films. They claimed it was 'out of respect' for the dead and their families.
3. The producer of the film shows the actual news broadcasts....with the films. I suppose they're around, but NO ONE INVESTIGATED the oddities. That's the main thrust of the film
4. No one disputes their authenticity. They are from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and other networks.

Please, check out the film. It's a small price to pay for understanding that you've been had. We might never know the truth, but what we've been told is hogwash.

PS. The add-on on the DVD shows news broadcasts from half a dozen stations in Oklahoma and that area... on the day of that explosion. They talked and showed how THREE bombs were defused at the site and taken away. No one ever showed that information again, or talked about it. No one I know was aware that there were other bombs in the building. Did you?

[CanIgonow]

81. Please do not get me wrong.I certainly don't buy into the official version

of the story.There are many gaping holes in the story.I was trying to make the case that even in the absence of any physical evidence whatsoever it is possible for a good lawyer to build a strong case against the Bush administration on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.The physical evidence on the DVD is certainly devastating.

[veracity]

84. that's the point.. there IS physical evidence.

This is not conjecture...nor does the film absolutely come to a conclusion. They offer the evidence.. in the form of multiple film sources and eyewitness accounts...and leave the rest to you. The more upsetting thing is that NO ONE has investigated the discrepancies. Duh!

[veracity]

78. I repeat myself

1. The photos (I got them from Letsroll) come from news network coverage of the first day of the attacks. They were never shown after than first day, but were available in archive. The stills were shown on hundreds of magazines all over the nation and the world. They were from the shots made by the French film company doing a documentary on the Fire Dept. at the WTC area. They were the only ones to film the first tower being hit.
2. The news networks, simultaneously, never again showed the films. They claimed it was 'out of respect' for the dead and their families.
3. The producer of the film shows the actual news broadcasts....with the films. I suppose they're around, but NO ONE INVESTIGATED the oddities. That's the main thrust of the film
4. No one disputes their authenticity. They are from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and other networks.

Please, check out the film. It's a small price to pay for understanding that you've been had. We might never know the truth, but what we've been told is hogwash.

PS. The add-on on the DVD shows news broadcasts from half a dozen stations in Oklahoma and that area... on the day of that explosion. They talked and showed how THREE bombs were defused at the site and taken away. No one ever showed that information again, or talked about it. No one I know was aware that there were other bombs in the building. Did you?

[sffreeways]

82. I've been out of the loop

I've been trying to follow you here but I looked at the link and I just don't get it.

I can probably consider myself someone that firmly believes there was a conspiracy but I have a gut feeling that these stories about the planes not being the planes we were told they were is a disinformation tactic being used to throw off people like yourself that are passionate about finding out what really happened.

I haven't looked at the theories in the other forum so I am not up on exactly what people think may have really happened. The question that's bugging me as I read these posts is where are the planes then ? Where are the people that were supposedly killed ? I feel kinda stupid here because I just don't get it.

I had a personal experience with a wealthy employer (I was a housekeeper when this happened) that really affected the way I viewed the attack. I truly do believe there was a conspiracy but my experiences with the observations I made regarding the attack and who knew what have lead me to believe that this event was purely a power grab, a really serious power grab that is terrifying in it's implications for this country. A power grab that was planned and that involved some very wealthy people that knew what was coming and hedged their bets on the stock market for financial gain. The things I witnessed would probably not make much sense to anyone but me and the other people that were working with me but it scared the hell out of me so much I quit and moved out of town. I'm generally not impulsive especially with my entire life at stake so I really do believe in the conspiracy but I wish I could understand how the notion that the planes weren't what we were told they were and the pentagon wasn't even hit by a plane changes what I know.

Bush knew, the CIA knew, some very wealthy investors connected to people in the CIA and to Bush donors knew. I suspect there was a very clear threat that after some evaluation it was decided to ignore it, let it happen because it would change everything and Bush and a small group of the uber rich would control us and the rest of the world permanently. Simple really and no need for fake planes.

[veracity]

83. I don't really agree.

This film does not explore any of the conspiracy 'theories' - which abound. What it does is present real film clips and testimony from eyewitness (including firefighters in the building who survived) and other experts to question what we were TOLD in light of what is clearly the EVIDENCE on film.

For example....the day before the attacks (first hand info here) the FBI were all over Towers One and Two....with bomb sniffing dogs. Then, right after the attack, (according to the firefighters) - the explosions took place on floor after floor as the building accordioned. Then, there's film (from many sources) of a simultaneous explosion going UPWARD from the bottom of the building...minutes after it was hit.

Then, of course, there's the Silverstein claim that Bldg seven was 'taken down' by the firemen....when such plans take months....not hours.

But the Pentagon photos are the most troubling. It's the evidence that terrifies me... not the theories.

[ProfessorGAC]

85. sffreeways! Long Time!

Welcome back!
The Professor

[veracity]

90. I'll drink to that...

Welcome..

[Sterling]

109. That is a common argument and you may be right.

I always consider that when looking at any of this stuff. Also there are groups who use the 9-11 cover up to advance their racist hateful agenda. It does not have to be the Gov to be disinfo.

I do think there are legit questions about the DC attack as well as the WTC. I don't think looking into these things with an open but skeptical mind is a bad thing. Whatever the explanation is for the holes in the story I am sure it is part of whatever the actual truth about 9-11 is. Nothing should be ignored.

[Comicstripper]

91. JUST READ THIS

It answers some of your questions, and reinforces some of my ideas...
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
(For you virus freaks, this is just a news site. the article is about a computer simulation of the pentagon attack.)

EDIT- Some pics:

Here(despite what one pic here mentioned about no damage to light poles) is a damaged light pole. (The other pic didn't even SHOW THE ROAD...)


The car whose driver was killed by a light pole:


And some debris from the plane:


More Here, and I'm looking for still more!
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

[veracity]

92. source of photos?

If you see the video, - you'll see the entire front of the Pentagon that was supposedly hit by the plane. The firefighters are all there,...before the facade collapsed...and there is not a single piece of debris.

Where did these pics come from? Where are the bodies. ...the luggage, the seats, the wings.... Why didn't the intense heat of airplain fuel in a full tank cause a huge fire that left nothing unsinged. Please see the video.

Just watch the preview.... for a small idea of what they show. Then refute.

[Comicstripper]

95. The link is right there

The photos are also available elsewhere, including here:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Snopes is reputable people.

The article also explains where the debris is and the other questions you asked.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm playing devil's advocate, and a lot of reputable sources are backing me up.

I ordered the DVD and it's on the way.

I'm open to any new idea, as long as there are facts to back it up. And frankly, nothing I've seen here, or any other conspiracy site (and i love 'em, so i've been online ALL DAY), has even remotely convinced me of y'alls' tale.

Go to the Snopes link. It clears some things up.

[veracity]

134. I saw snopes and saw the film

do the same. draw your own conclusion...on all the discrepancies. All of them.....check out the newsreel photos of the front of the Pentagon immediately after the crash..but before the collapse of the facade. Please. Then you'll see.

[ArkDem]

97. Is an airplain an unusually bland airplane?

[veracity]

99. not clear...

what do you mean?

[Sterling]

112. He means you misspelled airplane.

lol

[veracity]

117. lol

airliner.

[rman]

129. actually there are *a few* pieces a debris, but not nearly enough.

-

[rman]

128. no-one claims "no damage to light poles"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2258359&mesg_id=2260243&page=

"...we do see downed street lights.."

[Rabelais]

93. thats an interesting website

thanks.

[veracity]

130. for the record.... it's selling out

Whatever people may think of the premise in the film....they're certainly interested. TVNL editor says he's on his third order and going fast. There must be something here that people are talking about....
I haven't stopped reacting to it. It's that disturbing...

[Jester_11218]

131. The explosion at the base

before the collapse...what was that?

[veracity]

133. no one asks...

...that's the problem The explosion that emanated from the base of the building (yielding pure white billows) was on the opposite side of the building that had the impact. Someone explain. At least ask.