911 In Plane Site

[DavidM]

So I watched the documentary 911 In Plane Site. A very convincing conspiracy theory about September 11. 2001.

After watching, it's pretty obvious:
-that no plane ever hit the pentagon (instead all looks like a missile)
-that the planes that hit the towers had huge explosives attached to their 'belly' and can not be commercial airliners and no osama bin laden could have attached those.
-that the towers were brought down by a chain reaction of bombs



And when someone who seems to know the truth and was about to meet for an interview, the interviews have always been canceled 1 day before.
And the tape of the surveillance camera of a gas station, pointing at the pentagon, was confiscated so you don't see that there is no plane.

Anyway
It's obvious that it's all a lot different than ost media make us believe. But why is the US government obviously lying about so much there?
What are they trying to hide?
The movie isn't talk about that, it's really only touching facts.



The movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4660559722

Another movie:
Loose Change
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

[meep98324]

Heh, as much as I hate the radical right in america, the radical left is just as bad. It's stuff like this that rallies people behind the idiots in office

[DavidM]

the movie is clearly pointing out that it has NOTHING to do with left or right, with democrats or with republicans.
watch it first, stfu before. thank you.

[BunnyS]

I might have a look at that later, I did see a news report not too long ago suggesting that the "plane" that flew into the pentagon was being disputed. As you said the conspiracy is, it was infact a missle, the footage of the "plane" was only realeased to the public a while ago, which again makes it seem a bit suspicious. Cant' say much until I watch this thing really

It all seems very inconsistent, even before the "attacks" happened the USA were said to have intelligence about them. But ofc I only know what the media and news tells

edit : I had some trouble with the download link but I think I have found it on google video

[DavidM]

Also check http://letsroll911.org/
Scroll down to this:
CLICK HERE FOR PART 1 - Loose Change
CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 - Loose Change

2 videos.

[DavidM]

Oh, the google movie link by bunny, there are all those movies.

[BunnyS]

Ah so it's the right one o/

Just going to watch it now

[DavidM]

the one on google movie is even an extended version.
but it doesnt show all.
in the other one you see the bombs in the world trade center, how they bring it down, and there is nothing about there not being a crash at all in pennsylvania. well, have to watch a lot of movies

[snackbar]

I've seen that before...or a similar loooong one.
It's interesting. I don't put it behind the U.S gov. to pull some kind of cover-up at all.

And now that canada has a PM newly elected that was suckin georges nuts the second he got in office, canadian troops are being pushed deeper into this war and soldiers being attacked.
(there was even that plot in toronto a bit ago).

[BunnyS]

Right, I have just watched it, all of the info given has been seen by me for the first time today .... and quite frankly it has raised more questions in my mind. It's also (imo) pretty hard to go against some of the things they have brought to the viewers attention. Sure you can dispute some small things but over all, there is sooooo many inconsistencies with "official statements", a lot of "evidence" and each "story". It seems you can go back over it, again and again bringing up things that do prove the conspiracy. There are still many questions I find myself asking, such as; if the USA government where behind these things and had these so called reasons for doing so..... How does that explain other "terror attacks" that the same groups (or new groups fighting the same cause) have owned up to ?

Hmm thinking about it I can already imagine the answers

Anyway I'm not 100% decided either way, but from a list of evidence for and against .... I would have to say there is more evidence to say that, the story the media told wasn't in fact the full/true story !

[Cenotaph]

I really think ppl shouldnt pay attention to conspiracy theories that arent even reaching to any conclusion.

That's just propaganda, tbh...

[meep98324]

@DavidM

While it may not be put forward by the left or the right, (though, living in New York, I see people from leftist organizations on the street promoting these websites) Bush and the right wing spin things like these (and Michael Moore) to hurt Democrats. That's why they're so annoying to me, because they're not true, and they hurt the cause that they're trying to help.

[Apphex]

OK DavidM,

I really hope you're joking about this. I saw the same "documentary," and as a physicist with a minor in structural engineering, the whole premise of the movie is completely absurd. And it doesn't take a degree in physics or engineering to see that.

Their premise, that one tank of jet fuel was insufficient to bring down one of the towers (one planer per tower) is inane. It IS painfully obvious that the initial explosion of the plane's fuel caused almost NO structural damage to the main structure of the towers. It was, however, enough to instantaneously raise the temperature inside the upper 1/3 of the building over 1100 degrees celsius. And those towers were absolutely stuffed chock-full of a completely different type of fuel altogether.

Paper, wooden desks, drywall, copy machines, and even people will easily incinerate, combust and begin to radiate their own heat when subjected to that much thermal energy. This literally created a box of fuel burning at a rate that only accelerated as the moments went by.

But do you know what doesn't burn, even at 1100 degrees celsius? Steel. Steel conducts heat quite well though, and then it melts when it gets to about 1537 degrees celsius. The long steel supports of the building conducted this tremendous heat (that started out at around 1100 degrees celsius) all the way up and down the building. The "bombs" people claim to have seen lower in the building just before the towers went down were actually fires caused by the steel beams (then at about 1500 degrees celsius, almost molten) burning all of the non-steel materials around them.

The furnace in the upper 1/3 of the building continued to heat the steel beams, which were such good thermal conductors that the temperature of the beams in the lower 2/3 of the building was not much lower than the temperature in the upper 1/3. By the time the beams in the upper 1/3 melted, the lower beams were so hot that they were incredibly weakened and unable to bear the force of the top 1/3 of the building crashing down upon it.

Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Anyway
It's obvious that it's all a lot different than ost media make us believe. But why is the US government obviously lying about so much there?
What are they trying to hide?
The movie isn't talk about that, it's really only touching facts.

[DavidM]

I have no idea about the heat stuff anc collapsing physics etc! And obviously nobody really does.
But in the loose change video you really obviously see the chain reaction of the bombs as the building collapses.

Anyway.... the true story is far away from what media and government want people to believe.
So the question is if they are trying to hide that
a) they did it by themselves
or b) that people could install bombs and fire missiles without being noticed.


meep, the movie is nothing like that at all. join the discussion when you are beyond your personal likes and dislikes. thats useless.

[DavidM]

I really think ppl shouldnt pay attention to conspiracy theories that arent even reaching to any conclusion.

That's just propaganda, tbh...

this is EXACTLY what bush (etc) want you to believe, and thats what they keep telling without any proper backing up.