Jump to content

9-11 documentary


Product of the Cosmos

Recommended Posts

Watching it, I can't see what he's referring to especially in the other shots. The film is too blurry to actually catch anything, much less make it out for certain.

 

Unless there is something very high quality released I can't say anything. FIrst tim e I watched through I did it with no words, to see if there were any automatic things I noticed without him pre-preparing me to see something. Nothing. When he spoke, I likewise saw nothing out of the ordinary.

 

Just my opinion on watching it through the whole thing. I didn't watch the entirety of the video, except those portions that actually had 9/11 footage, and then I checked what he was saying after watching it without audio. Again, nothing noticed on my end. I couldn't see anything "attached" to the plane at all.

 

But considering the planes details weren't well made out with that low quality who knows. Give me something of considerably higher quality if it's supposed to be video evidence.

 

Furthermore, a debunking by people who actually believe that 9/11 was some kind of conspiracy can be found..

 

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite

 

Me, I think both are kinda crazy, but ya know.. it's interesting to have infighting among the conspiracy crowd. One group claiming the other is really the government trying to plant fake conspiracies in order to detract people, the other claiming that it's really the other group debunking them that's at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever watched it without the sound, LOL, you wouldnt really know what to look for. And if you did, you may not even realize how odd and un-explained it really is.

 

You seemed to focus only on the picture of a missile like thing attached the the bottom. If you had a picture of a normal jet of that size, you would realize that black blur the size of a missle is NOT normal. But thats not even a third of his showing.

 

Overview:

 

 

Basically it goes through the pentagons condition first.

 

The plane that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon had 86,000 gallons of jet fuel. Which would burn at 86,000,000 BTUs for many many hours according to experts.

 

If such planes took down 2 towers that were considered very strong buildings, then it would have at least scolded the Pentagon badly. In the pentagon rubble you can clearly see that the rooms exposed by the holes had no burning in them, they even still have books sitting on tables, etcetc, not a mark on them. Plus the hole is 16 feet wide that this plane supposedly made until the building collapsed a bit later. The plane is like a hundred something feet wide and 44 feet tall. It somehow fit through a 16 foot wide hole, and left absolutly no wreckage anywhere to be seen.

 

Also, there are TONS of cameras on, and in the pentagon, not one is released that shows a plane hitting it.

 

Further, a gas stations camera angle DID catch what hit it, and Pentagon officials confiscated the tape before anyone could watch it.

 

Also, 3 firemen were to come on the raio show this guy does, 3 firemen who were at the pentagon putting the fire out. An hour before the show they cancel, he later finds they are put on permanent leave.

 

As for the WTCs. He starts by showing interviews only shown once on 9-11 then thrown in the vaults. Like: NYC Firemen saying they clearly heard/saw numerous explosions before the buildings went down, demolition style floor by floor. As well as firemen IN the buildings who heard explosions going on shortly before they went down.

 

Video evidance, another live shot CNN had, but also threw in the vault to never show agian. WHen the 2 WTCs are smoking, the air is clearly blowing away and right from the camera. Both of the WTCs still standing. But a 6 story tall explosion of smoke bellows out upwind from the buildings.

 

Then, Larry Silverstein(the guy who conveniently bought the WTCs 6 weeks prior to them getting blown up, taking out the largest insurance policy available, as well as 'coincidently' not having to put in hundreds of millions the buildings needed in repairs) is audio'd in saying he opted to the fire department to "pull the building", a demolition term, talking about blowing up builing 7 demolition style. In an interview on PBS he said that. But it takes weeks to plan a demolition of a building. And building 7 fell to the ground in PERFECT demolition style, from what 'officially' went down as a fire that somehow got from WTC to building 7. As well as witnesses saying they saw, and heard explosions coming from the building.

 

Then, there is a missile sized black thing attached to the bottom of the second plane flying into the WTCs. As well as a large light source illuminating right when the second plane hits the second WTC. This light source is seen by every angle recording the collision.

 

Examining the ONLY video of the first plane hitting the first WTC. It ALSO has this light up like a big illumination of a point in the WTC tower, except this time it's easily seen that this happens before the plane even hits the building. So before the first plane hit, there was a blast hitting the first WTC when the plane is about 20 feet from hitting the building, and right when the second plane hit the second WTC, there is also a blast.

 

There are also witnesses(that worked for Fox News actually) saying 'the plane is not like one they had ever seen "no windows", "definetly not what you would see at an airport" etcetc.

 

Also has a lady when the first plane hit "That was not an American plane".

 

Unfortunatly the site is unavailable now :)

Ambrosia3.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, first of all these claims aren't that new. So this has been out there for awhile. The reason I specifically kept the audio off the first time through is so I could look at the video without preconceptions of what I was supposed to be seeing. Then, when looking and listening I looked closely. It should not surprise anyone that mass hallucinations can be pretty common, even warpings of the memory of events when someone uses suggestion well.

 

Another article on this

http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

 

I think, considering the alternative view (that the government just randomly killed hundreds of people for fun on a plan and flew a military plane into the building) that this is pretty nutty.

 

Who would gain from this? Specific individuals? Military contractors? Oh, certainly, but woudl it have been necessary to do that in the first place Something much less than 9/11 could have happened and convinced us to go to war in Afghanistan, and even Clinton was for regime change in Iraq. The idea that something like this was needed for a few people to make money is a little off. Not to mention the fact that there was a great loss of money with the towers falling. Also, if a huge policy was taken out by the owners of the buildings, the insurance companies would still lose out big time, and they would certainly investigate claims like yours. IF this was something presentable in court do you honestly see it not being presented?

 

And yeah, I find it a just a little odd they act like everyone else is in on the conspiracy (the news, etc.) because why would they go after Bush on the national guard crap if that were the case? Oh sure, you can expand the theory more and more. This is how conspiracies work. Eventually so many have to be included that people will start labeling guys like me who disagree government spies (and if you think that's a funny comment, I'll state that it wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone accused of such with these type of things).

 

In the age of easy video editing it's easy to do just about anything, and yeah, I am accusing them of doing some fudging. Why? Because that's much easier to pull off than the one they are making up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quoting that article:"I had heard from other 911 activists who told me that von Kleist had admitted to them in person that the claims he presented about this footage were mistaken"

 

lol. Nice debunking there :).

 

What part of the video do you think was edited!? Or are you just saying that because you can't believe this happened?

 

"It should not surprise anyone that mass hallucinations can be pretty common, even warpings of the memory of events when someone uses suggestion well."

 

LOL!

 

So lemme get this straight, some unnamed people say they heard him in person say he misjudged his video.

 

Then/or, he edited the video personally.

 

Then/or people who are watching are having mass hallucinations!?

 

LMFAO!!!! You crack me up man. Its always funny to see people who have not the capacity to realize some thing scramble to try to explain or debukn them.

 

"And yeah, I find it a just a little odd they act like everyone else is in on the conspiracy (the news, etc.) because why would they go after Bush on the national guard crap if that were the case?"

 

Firstly, the media in the USA is under quite a close guard. They all have personal interests to protect, their book, their job, etc. I guess though if you are threatened to not show footage you have, your in on a conspiracy?

 

And going after Bush on his national guard **** is regular election crap.. Kerry is rather spineless, and so is the supposed 'opposing' media. You can try to think in your own logic about how this can't be true. But the evidence is in the videos. I actually remember watching one of them LIVE on CNN while they were talking with Tom Clancy. I remember it VIVIDLY, I was also what the **** was the explosion coming up wind. But I soon forgot about it, and didnt really think about it as this event was not normal.

 

"This is how conspiracies work. Eventually so many have to be included that people will start labeling guys like me who disagree government spies (and if you think that's a funny comment, I'll state that it wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone accused of such with these type of things)."

 

lol. blahblahblah. The video is proof. All you can say is you don't believe it. But most of, if not all the video, is 100% surely not messed with. As the questions asked show up on EVERY tape of 9-11.

 

"I think, considering the alternative view (that the government just randomly killed hundreds of people for fun on a plan and flew a military plane into the building) that this is pretty nutty."

 

He never said the government did this. He just shows things, that were conveniently looked over, he just gives us video PROOF. Not a conclusion of who or why this happened.

 

"Also, if a huge policy was taken out by the owners of the buildings, the insurance companies would still lose out big time, and they would certainly investigate claims like yours. IF this was something presentable in court do you honestly see it not being presented?"

 

Firstly, not ownerS, OWNER, Larry Silverstein.

 

But your right, under the assumption all these people are honest people, working in the system like you assume. It would be investigated! Since it was not, this also implies something! Just another piece of evidence of foul play on 9-11.

 

 

Silverstein got over 3 BILLION dollars in his insurance policy. And no investigation has happened. Your reasoning is right, which is why their contradictory actions shows more proof of such a cover up. Look into it man, they didnt investigate Silverstein and his sudden gain of 3+ billion dollars from this. And his all so convenient evasion of hundreds of millions of repairs needed on the buildings.

 

More proof of a mass conspiracy.

Ambrosia3.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are convinced.. I'll give you credit for producing an argument I can't deal with right now because I don't know anything, but I think a lot of that information is flawed.

 

I can't prove one way or another but I noticed you didn't actually source anything. Somehow I think the web of sources will probably rely on quite a few people I wouldn't trust but you would.

 

And as for the editing of the material, my claim is that they edited the material and made up some of the audio, etc. I don't honestly believe some of the information they put on the film. And as far as me not believing that it happened (I don't, I admit that bias) you explained nothing of the problems that I actually had. You give me no logic behind why such an event would be required. You give me no placement for the bodies of the hijackers or the people who died on the planes, etc. Do you think they disappeared into thin air? The government killed them to pull off the scheme? You realize that the government loses money from this as well don't you? So there would have to be a specific person/people at fault, and those people would know others that I can't imagine wouldn't mention anything.

 

The web grows as you think through the process. Believe what you will. I don't deny that you have your "reasons" for it, but I don't take it seriously at all, because it's irrational. It doesn't make any sense for the government to have done something like that, and there not to have been anyone willing to say anything. I know, conspiracy theorists are great. It's easy to pass everyone at the top in government as evil or something like that. It's ridiculous though, and your presumptive nature draws you into this kind of garbage IMO. It defies reason. And guess what? I can't prove the negative. That's the position you've put me in. I can't prove that this didn't occur. I could give you evidence/experts to say that it did, but you would say they are hired by the government/media.

 

Also, you don't understand much of my post or are trying to just screw with my statements to make your point. The fact of the matter is there are multiple ways people convince others to believe odd things like this. They can a) manipulate the evidence, or B) inform the person what they are seeing to induce them to a conclusion. I never said that both happened. I am, however, familliar with the practices cults and such use to lure people in and they involve a great deal of mental trickery. It's similar to the techniques used to get terrorists who don't want to talk to give up information.

 

Believe what you will. I don't think you'll get nearly as many others to take it seriously though honestly, not even those who dislike or hate the republicans and the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You give me no placement for the bodies of the hijackers or the people who died on the planes, etc. Do you think they disappeared into thin air?"

 

I have no idea. But 6 of the supposed highjackers are alive and well. 3 of them work for Saudi Airliners! And have reported to US embassies enraged to be called terrorists! Who knows how many more were falsely accused. And assuming this WAS a plan by a government or some group affiliated with, if they had no trouble killing 3,000, I'm sure they wouldn't have much trouble killing a couple more hundred.

 

Not to mention the FAA list of people who got on board the flights is a larger number then the list of WTC casualties from the planes hitting the towers... Maybe some people missed their flights? I dunno. But this is another weird claim(although I havent looked into this particular claim in-depth).

 

 

"The government killed them to pull off the scheme? You realize that the government loses money from this as well don't you?"

 

Which government are you talking about? lol. Do you mean the actual 'bank' of the USA? lol, thats the people's money. And now from this, it is being filtered into private bank accounts much MUCh easier, such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, and thousands of other companies with direct, or non-direct ties to government figures not only in the USA, but worldwide.

 

The financial aspect of 9-11 is ridiculously 'coincidence' as the entire Bush admin & friends gained in the tens of billions from 9-11.

 

The government as in the Bush regime(whether being behind it or not), has profited and benefited ridiculously from this. More then half his cabinet was a high figure in the energy business before they were appointed. Oil of course being well known. Like Halliburton(The corporation Cheney was CEO of until the 2000 elections) has gotten approx 5 billion dollars in the recent war. They get contracts in every country we invade.

 

Bush also gains that much is diverted from his neglegence of our economy. No matter what, if the economy ****s up as his result, he can just point to 9-11.

 

Bush is now the 'war president'. He doesn't have to pay attention to much other then his own war schedule until election time. lol.

 

After 9-11 all questions about the shortcomings of the Bush regime in every area are toned way down.

 

Public figures like Guliani get merit and national recognition a precurser to his white house bid(expect him to be running for President in 2008 or 2012).

 

Plenty of government figures and affiliates gained a LOT from 9-11, whether they knew about it, did it, wanted it to happen, didn't want it to happen, it is undeniable that many parties gained from it.

 

"I can't prove one way or another but I noticed you didn't actually source anything. Somehow I think the web of sources will probably rely on quite a few people I wouldn't trust but you would."

 

The ironic thing is, I have a high amount of distrust for conglomorate media, but they are where I would reference in the first place for this evidence! They were there live, and their own videos are what implicates these things. CNN, Fox News, ABC, etc, are his sources! lol. Video from an event like 9-11 in this fasion doesn't need a reference as much because they are all the **** over, everyone has seen them(minus maybe the pigmies in South America lol).

 

"It defies reason. And guess what? I can't prove the negative. That's the position you've put me in. I can't prove that this didn't occur. I could give you evidence/experts to say that it did, but you would say they are hired by the government/media."

 

Well, all the experts I know that had direct contact were hired by the government or media. lol. Whether they are there to distort or not.

 

But, I would be very amused by an expert who says the fuel in those planes could take down 2 of the strongest structures in our country through ridiculous amounts of temperatures falling flat like they were demolished perfectly crumbling to the ground.

And then about the same amount of fuel hit the pentagon, and not even singe the rooms the holes in the building show! lol. Not to mention supposedly fly through a 16 foot wide hole when the plane is 100sumthin feet wide and 44 feet tall, and not even a SHRED of evidence a plane hit the building is available. No wreckage, not video tapes. Nothing.

 

There simply is not an expert alive that can rationalize that logically in the picture that is widely accepted IMO.

Ambrosia3.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I would be very amused by an expert who says the fuel in those planes could take down 2 of the strongest structures in our country through ridiculous amounts of temperatures falling flat like they were demolished perfectly crumbling to the ground.

 

So, the video didn't convince you. You were already predisposed to thinking this way (which is exactly what I thought).

 

You know, I'm no "expert" on things like this, so I'm not going to "unconvince" you on this issue. Just don't pretend like this is the video to solve all the problems for everyone else. I don't think it's odd that the building fell down or that there was some kind of demolition team in there. I suspect that a lot of people would say something if this were to occur. And ya know.. if you think millions of people are in on the conspiracy (cause that's what would have to be true in order for it to occur) then go on.

 

Here are some more resources btw.. take them as you will. We can go on endlessly posting links at least that way people get to decide between our sources on the issues.

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

 

If the government was willing to do this, why would they leave the claimed hijackers alive? I can keep this up forever honestly. The fact that people have the same name as someone else doesn't make them the same person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, the video didn't convince you. You were already predisposed to thinking this way (which is exactly what I thought)."

 

To tell you the truth, I had a gut feeling something like this was going to happen at the hands of a group.... Unnamable, who the Bushes are part of. This is irelevant to the evidence though.

 

I had doubts in some of the claims, but this video showed comprehensive evidence, stacked on top of what I have become aware of beforehand.. And broke it down very well.

 

"You know, I'm no "expert" on things like this, so I'm not going to "unconvince" you on this issue. Just don't pretend like this is the video to solve all the problems for everyone else. I don't think it's odd that the building fell down or that there was some kind of demolition team in there."

 

I think it is odd how the building fell. I fail to see how it would fall so perfectly straight down, with little to no resistance without some sort of explosion inside. But, the thing is, there are incredible anomalys on 9-11 with the 'planes' hitting the 3.5 structures scenario.

 

If the planes burned so fiercely to take down the huge buildings so perfectly, as well as oddly happen to take down a buidling a city block away that was well based, wide for it's hieght, and also extremely re-inforced, that just makes it even more weird.

 

Building 7 came down demolition style, but oddly enough, it was not struck by a plane! It was a fire in the building not even close to what was in the WTCs.

 

The owner himself(Larry Goldstein) admited to PBS later in September(only to never talk about it ever agian, and have no 9-11 commision report on what he said) he told the fire department to 'pull the building' on national TV.

 

Then theres the pentagon. 2 planes take down 3.3 WTC buildings. As crazy as that is, the pentagon is barely even scorched! Although yes, it is penetrated rather deeply. Showing evidence of something the video shows, as a bunker buster, you know, the things we advertised so well to arms dealers in Afganistan.

 

Your supposed debunking site has some inconsistancies. And since the truth is being distorted there is proof of such distortment in such a widely known and covered event.

 

While the site is rather articulate in their argument: "Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: False."

 

lol/cough/sarcasm

 

I'll point something out to you that furthers my argument that is in your very own debunking site.

 

The details, oh so very overlooked by Americans. And they know it. Or else they wouldn't provide such a blatantly obvious video. lol.

 

Notice in the video the CNN site has that the debunking site links. You wanted references? How about your own debunking link for a reference!!!!!!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.penta...ures/index.html

Here is the link hotlinked from your debunking site showing the explosion. Watch the video.

 

Or you can get to it from the referenced 'debunking' site, its about midway down, to the left of the bottom of the advertisement(lol) with the title hotlink 'damage'.

 

 

First, notice now the DATE on the video, is September 12th. Odd, but who knows, right?

 

Ok, now watch the time, the seconds, they jump from 19 seconds, to 21. The all so important second where whatever hits the pentagon is shown, is taken out!

 

Now there is something very wrong with this picture. The true 20th second of this tape has been edited out. The begining of the 21st second of the tape, is mended with the latter part of the 19th second. Creating the timegap there.

 

Also, a big thing showing evidence of a media cover-up, notice how the tape is not in motion when they move their 'highlight' circle showing the 'plane' supposedly fly acrossed the screen! Did you watch this video without sound!? As you do note the power of suggestion!

 

They move the circle without the video in motion! They just fade into the gapped frames in front of the cut out one while moving the circle!

 

The ****ing media is the one pulling a verbal suggestive ploy to make people think they see something they don't with this tactic. Or else why do this type of editing!? The video does not show the pivitol frame where the 'plane' or missile is in the center of the screen, only a possible tip, and an explosion along with a screwy editing tactic of moving a circle while the tape is not in motion!

 

The burnoff trail from this 'missile' or 'plane' is also a seemingly very centered/concentrated one for a plane that has 2 engines coming in at a 45 degree angle! Although that is not definitive as our camera angle conveniently is from the perfect angle as to not show 1 smokeline, or 2, as a plane would emit..

 

It is also like 2-8 feet from the ground! And it comes in pretty flat, not coming downward as a bigass jet would be. In fact, look at it closer!!!!! The smoke it going up at a low degree angle in a straight line while it flys into the building! Simply amazing this gets by people.

 

I can barely count the red flags, and anomalys involved in all this. As there are ridiculously high amounts. How about a black box from ANY of the planes?!?! Not 1 has been released.

 

Once you equate in the facts that there was 86,000 gallons of jet fuel in this plane. It gets even hairier! The rooms adjacent to the enterance of the building by the 'thing' that hit the pentagon, are not scloded at all! There are books laying open without a singe, there are white walls with no burnmarks! This isn't as odd, unless you count in the fact that this fuel is supposed to burn so intense and hot that it took down 2 incredibly structured buildings in New York! And somehow took down a wide shorter building completely pancaked without even getting directly hit by the fuel!

 

 

This is just amazing to me how sloppy this was done by those who did it, and how people can choose to ignore it! I oculd go into why this was so sloppy, but it's not based on fact. So theres not much use(I would in a PM...).

 

The power of doubt is such a strong thing.

 

You say you won't try to convince me of your side! Please do! I do not like what these facts point to. :)

 

Based on no presumption, there is so much evidence of conspiracy on 9-11, this is the most proven non-accepted conspiracy in world history.

 

Not to mention the biggest scale one ever.

 

"If the government was willing to do this, why would they leave the claimed hijackers alive? I can keep this up forever honestly. The fact that people have the same name as someone else doesn't make them the same person."

 

It does when the person 'with the same name' is also the one pictured! And is ALSO the ones in the flight schools!!!

Ambrosia3.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think its odd that the 2nd plane to hit a tower wasn't shot down. They had plenty of time to get jets in the air before the 2nd plane got to new york airspace.

The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say this much. I am not taking this seriously at all. I'm not really trying to be fecicious either. But really, this seems like nonsense to me.

 

I have no time to learn to be an expert myself in everything that the film discussed here refers to. I absolutely do not. I find it funny that most of the questions being raised to defend the accuracy of the film comes from someone who really is just as ignorant as I am. Yeah yeah, they can make it sound like a really solid case, and I have no doubt of the effectiveness of their presentation. But does that mean I think it's true? No, because if it were true it defies reason. I can think of just too many logical fallacies in a conspiracy this size. They are really too numerous to count.

 

For one thing the word "demolition style" or something to that effect is constantly used. But do I know anything about how a building falls down when a plane hits it? Nope. So saying that to me is pretty meaningless. I'd have to look into it, the physics behind it etc and could probably spend years researching the specifics of how to create a model. Or, I can trust the sources given here. But I can't. Why? Because if this were true I would expect many government and media sources to come forward saying the same thing. The idea that all of them are completely scared out of their minds or are actually in on it is just insane, so that's unbelievable.

 

Ignorance of a subject is no reason to accept just anyone's argument. It's best if you can to sit on the fence until you can learn something at least, IMO, about the subject. Also, if you can find someone unbiased or that you can trust I think you can generally accept what they say about a subject.

 

On the other hand, I think what has occured in this case quite frankly is wishful thinking. While I certainly would never want something like this to be true, I think that to the original poster this is incredibly satiating. One can grab so easily on to just about anything if you already accept a lot of someone elses philosophy. So you hear there were hijackers living? You check google, there are several pages that say so and you believe it. You may give some consideration to the idea that they have the same names, but so many people say it that it must be true. Of course, never forget that if this is actually true, the government killed 3300+ people and then left these guys alive so that it would be easy to discover the conspiracy? That doesn't make much sense at all.

 

Anyway, that is but one example and I have not the time to go through them all, and I will honestly not continue to discuss a subject of which I admit ignorance. I just wish that people would not accept such things simply because they have not had time to research and develop alternative views. I really do think this has happened. Pseudo-science is really easy to push off on people who don't know very much, and when it sounds good or supports some of their beliefs about the evil US government, etc. it will normally be readily accepted. Then it spreads, is put out for consumption on the internet and you have about 100 pages of it, only further producing the idea that it must be true to new converts.

 

All I will say is this. Consider

1) How many people would have to be in on the conspiracy. Try to think of it in terms of minimum and then imagine how each person would be controlled, etc.

 

2) The holes.. why would they kill so many and fail to kill so few?

 

3) The gain.. can it really be proven that the President or Cheney is directly making money off of this? I think one should look to non-biased sources for this kind of information. I believe, for example, when it's said Cheney was in Halliburton that he's pretty much cut all ties to that company now. So no benefit is given him based on their contract. Also it's worth of reference that Halliburton is a company with good connections and this is why they serve the US in many wars, including Bosnia (without bidding for that also).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't really address any of my points.

 

I gave you a link from the source you gave that supposedly debunks the Pentagon case, which in fact it makes the pentagon case I give more credit!! Did you watch the video!!?! Watch it!

 

The date is wrong on the Pentagon tape.

There is a second missing, its skips from 19 to 21. And that second just so happens to be the second where whatever hit the pentagon, would be in the middle of the screen!

 

CNN uses the same type of tactic you thought the video I provided did! They used 2 frames, put a circle on the tip of whatever entered the screen, moved the circle across the screen while they fade between the 2 frames!!!!!!

 

We can sit and argue why would they do it, blah blah.. But I'm sitting here giving you direct facts to base this on. Not some reasonable doubt logic based on a lifetime of assumptions about who runs your country.

 

I am not ignorant as you have provided no counter to my claims to ignore! If you did provide a counter based on facts, I would consider them! So don't try to call us both ignorant. Because that mindset is lopsided in this debate.

Ambrosia3.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

update on the Pentagon crash:

 

Looking further into this(as referenced by a smart mind, that doesnt show my point of view on this) there are a ridiculous amount of witnesses who did see a plane fly by their car(as it flew right by the freeway), and hit the pentagon. Many hundreds actually. As well as they did mention that a plane was heading towards DC on the news prior to it even getting there. If this was a missile they wouldn't have mentioned it on the news as this would be too much of a risk for exposing of what happened.

 

This makes the possibility of something other then a plane hitting the pentagon very small, even when weighed agianst the probabilities of things that happened that are questionable in the crash.

 

But what is odd here, is most all of them saw the plane do an amazing 270 degree loop around, instead of coming at the pentagon straight on, and smack right into the least occupied, recently being renovated section of the pentagon with efficiency of that only the best pilots in history could have done. The skill to pull these manuevers off is legendary pilot skill. And the coincidence of the plane hitting an unoccupied section of the pentagon as result of such manuevers is also sketchy at best.

 

Add in the supposed pilots were not noted to be very skilled in their flight schools. This scenario of hijackers doing this gets even more unbelievable.

 

Which brings us to the cover up evidence of the video I pointed out. At first I thought 'holy ****, are they really this incompetant?!' when I found this video. But it's slowly coming over me that this was most likely a planned revealing of conspiracy theory fuel for spawning multiple claims, only to make the true evidence when exposed barely looked at by any who still have the audacity to even pay attention anymore.

 

Virtually no defense of any kind was made inside the most restricted air space in the US, the P-56(the most guarded and secure airspace in the entire world) area around DC and the Pentagon despite the presence of combat ready aircraft at local bases. Nor were other defense measures, including surface-to-air missiles at the White House and Pentagon deployed. There was a stand-down on 9/11.

 

Information was known about 30 minutes prior to the DC plane hitting the Pentagon that it was indeed heading for DC. The White House, and the pentagon both have ground to air missile systems. These were not used to take the jet down. This was one of the main variables that made me consider it highly possible that a missile hit the pentagon.

Ambrosia3.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also has a lady when the first plane hit "That was not an American plane".

 

makes for little nice conspiracy but just how does the government cover up all the civilians supposedly died in the first plane? or they make up all the relatives who grief over the loss too?

 

Product of the Cosmos, the link does not work for me either, so i can't comment much. but this (or a similar vid. i wont know since i don't get to watch the one you put up) has been brought up in codex and was soundly disproved later.

 

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...