Docmentary: 9/11 truths?

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 27 Sep 2006 00:11

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... nd+Edition

1 hour 29 minutes.

Maybe something to have a look at.

[edit: I just finished watching the whole thing through. Super interesting.

Phil Morrison was saying to me, "don't believe everything you see on the internet."....but you know, you gotta wonder.]

Aleksandr · Post by **Aleksandr** » 27 Sep 2006 03:57

If video is 9/11 conspiracy video it is false.

conspiracy explained

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html

jon · Post by **jon** » 27 Sep 2006 08:42

That video has more holes in it than a cheese grater. There was even a recent article about that video in Time Magazine. The video is interesting but has little credibility.

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 27 Sep 2006 09:15

I agree that a lot of the details of 9/11 are sketchy and our government may have indeed set it up or at least let it happen. I definitely dig the Alex Jones Infowars (http://www.infowars.com) stuff and I think there's a lot of shady stuff that's going on that's being hidden from us.

However some of the shit this video proposes such as it was actually a rocket that hit the Pentagon or the WTC was pre-rigged with explosives? That's a straight up pipe dream. I have a degree in mechanical engineering and it appears these guys don't have beyond a 4th grade science education, except maybe shit they thought they learned from reading too many Tom Clancy novels or watching reruns of Stargate on FX. I can refute most of their "Mr. Wizard" logic pretty easily, but don't have time for a long post since I'm just on my lunch break at work.

Nice try conspiracy theorists, next time consult real scientists and engineers.

Bander87 · Post by **Bander87** » 27 Sep 2006 17:51

Hmmm, you can't believe anything at first anymore. The book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" seems a little iffy too. They claim they have something like 300 experts. In reality, there are sometimes 1 so called "expert" explaing one aspect of some of the myths. The book does explain some legit arguements though. The whole thing is messed up if you ask me.

SlashC · Post by **SlashC** » 27 Sep 2006 20:06

Iron Clad Ben wrote:I agree that a lot of the details of 9/11 are sketchy and our government may have indeed set it up or at least let it happen. I definitely dig the Alex Jones Infowars (http://www.infowars.com) stuff and I think there's a lot of shady stuff that's going on that's being hidden from us.

However some of the shit this video proposes such as it was actually a rocket that hit the Pentagon or the WTC was pre-rigged with explosives? That's a straight up pipe dream. I have a degree in mechanical engineering and it appears these guys don't have beyond a 4th grade science education, except maybe shit they thought they learned from reading too many Tom Clancy novels or watching reruns of Stargate on FX. I can refute most of their "Mr. Wizard" logic pretty easily, but don't have time for a long post since I'm just on my lunch break at work.

Nice try conspiracy theorists, next time consult real scientists and engineers.

As an award winning wizard and possessor of 3 to 4 human souls, I respectfully disagree. My wizard staff can do all kinds of things that your "science and engineering" can't even sneeze on. How bout a quantitative example to ease your troubled mind: example... and that's only the beginning. *transforms into a cuban cigar*...

morsecode · Post by **morsecode** » 28 Sep 2006 20:18

Nice try conspiracy theorists, next time consult real scientists and engineers.

Actually, they have. Scholars for 911 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/) is a group of 300 or so scholars who are "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11." These include:

Steven Jones - Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University
Doyle Winterton - Civil Engineering Structural Engineering
Jean-Pierre Petit - Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
Ted Elden - Architect, Communicator
Andreas von Buelow - Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years

Not to mention lots of government folks who have voiced their questions about the official story of 9/11:

Ray McGovern - CIA Analyst who briefed several different Presidents.
Morgan Reynolds - Chief Economist during W. Bush's first term.
David Schippers - the attorney who impeached Bill Clinton.

Not that they are smarter than the rest of us. Just thought you should know there are a lot credible people who want to look into 9/11 deeper.

Loose Change is fragmented. They basically took every questionable circumstance of 9/11 and brought it up in this film, which is fine, but it lacks a "why" element, which is really the most important question about 9/11. And yeah, some of their conclusions are a bit speculative, mainly the Flight 93 section, which is based largely on an article that came out in the media frenzy right after 9/11 and was retracted by the publisher.

BUT, many have brought into question the legitimacy of the Popular Mechanics article linked to above. For one, the article was penned by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of former Assistant Attorney General and current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Benjamin Chertoff is listed as the lead reseacher on the project. Fishy as hell, but that's not really why I have a hard time with it. It spends a lot of time on things like pods on the planes, the idea that it was not the hijacked commercial jets that hit the towers, Flight 175's windows (who cares), and the white jet near the Flight 93 crash site; I've been looking into 9/11 since a year after it happened and I've never heard of most of these claims, and the ones that I have are not at all fundamental or significant. It fails to cover the whole saga of the FBI agents tracking al Qaeda who were silenced, or the fact that the lead hijacker received $100,000 right before 9/11 from the leader of Pakistani intelligence, who happened to eating breakfast with CIA higher ups on the morning of 9/11. The important issues it did address (the unprecedented NORAD failure, and the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7) are only covered in a limited scope.

And the explanation for the twin towers' collapse, the "pancake theory" of floor collapse offered by Popular Mechanics, has been refuted by many including Kevin Ryan formerly of Underwriters Laboratories who certified the steel used in the towers. Also, it is common sense that if it collapsed floor by floor, it wouldn't have fallen at 90% free fall speed. Not to mention tons of other bits of evidence. Not to mention WTC 7; Popular Mechanics gives a convoluted explanation of how it fell due to "unusual design," even though it's leaseholder admitted that he "pulled" (demolished) it on PBS. By far the strangest circumstance surrounding 9/11.

With NORAD, they mention that they had a hard time identifying which planes were the actual hijacked planes, but they omit the fact that there were drills being conducted that day where pilots would intercept fake hijacked commercial airliners over the northeast (!), thus confusing NORAD and slowing their takeoff. It also talks about how the intercept of Payne Stewart was the only successful NORAD intercept, which may be true, but the fact is that it is the default NORAD action to scamble jets when an aircraft a) doesn't respond, b) turns off its transponder or c) is flying over restricted airspace. I've heard interviews with interceptor pilots on this subject at length. In fact, just this week, one of the seargents was in the CENTCOM command bunker on 9/11 went public to describe some of the unusual things he saw that morning (http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260906_centcom.html)

I can feel myself beginning to ramble. The reason I felt compelled to write all this is because the tone of the Popular Mechanics claims to be the final word on the 9/11 issue, which we should all recognize as ridiculous. In my opinion, if you aren't at least confused as hell about what happened that day, you haven't really looked into it, and you should. Nobody can prove it one way or the other I don't think. I don't expect anyone to be convinced by seeing Loose Change. The research on 9/11 is dizzying; there's so much uncertainty and conflicting information surrounding it. That's all I want to emphasize. I suggest everyone look at it as objectively as you can. No real fair investigation has been done into it (the 9/11 Commission doesn't count), and sadly, there probably never will be one. Yet it has been the foundational event for our foreign policy since that date. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have occurred without 9/11. No Patriot Act would have been passed.

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 29 Sep 2006 12:12

Cody, you need to post more often, that was great.

I agree, way too much noise and smokescreens being thrown up on the issue. Loose Change has loose facts IMO, and yes everyone should think for themselves and not believe everything they hear or see.

Matt K · Post by **Matt K** » 30 Sep 2006 18:18

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

Bander87 · Post by **Bander87** » 30 Sep 2006 21:42

Matt K wrote:http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

Holy frick, excellent links at the bottom. Thanks.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 05 Oct 2006 12:08

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 11 Oct 2006 21:59

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... torm&hl=en

Again, really interesting. There's a lot more than Loose Change had to offer.

Just take 2 hours and watch it.

Why aren't you watching it yet?

GO.