Interesting September 11 video

AARRRGH

Not sure if this has been posted before... but it's quite interesting! Some of it makes sense. Basically, they are poking holes in what happened on 9/11.

http://streaming.reopen911.org/video/PainfulDeceptions_french.html

marshmallow

Watching it now. Interesting alright, makes you think about it. What really happened..

Shabadu

Link is very borked for me.

lodgepole

Shabadu wrote:

Link is very borked for me.

Open it in IE, or with the IE Tab extension for Firefox.

Riamfada

americans :rolleyes: dont know who is more thick, the public or the administration

Eoin

There's actually a dedicated conspiracy theories forum on boards.

Here's another video (120 minutes long). Probably has much the same content (your link didn't work for me either). http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Interesting to watch, but doubt there is much behind it - I'm sure there are enough "experts" out there to prove both sides right or wrong.

lodgepole

Alternatively the file that the page streams is here...

http://streaming.reopen911.org/video/PainfulDeceptions.wmv

It's 186mb.

ferdi

holy ****!!

Binomate

Quite interesting indeed. It seems pretty water tight.

Fast_Mover

ya food for thought indeed..one wonders..

connundrum

Hmmm... it does make ya wonder what the hell was goin on?! I remember looking at it when it happened and wondering how each building fell straight down and not to the side, and there was more than 2 buildings destroyed in NY?! First time I heard that now.. feckin mad!

andrew163

It always seemed a bit strange to me that they showed the big gaping hole in the side of the pentagon but there was never any sign of an aircraft there..

That was a weeird day..

drdre

i'm watching this and its very very very interesting.:D thanks

Kersh

This whole story is going ages. have a look in the Conspiracy forum of boards.

Nunu

I just watched it. It's very detailed and believable.

The released security footage of the Pentagon being hit is dated September 12th

CountryWise

I noticed that date thing too??
Still have my doubts though, like why would they kill all their own people!
No floor of a building could support 30 floors of a buliding once it gave way above so no matter how strong they were i believe this actually happened!
As for the 7th building, there is no benefit to knocking it for anyone and the foundations were probably ruined anyway from the other 2 collapses, lets remember that when the 2 towers fell it caused such an impact it caused cracks in river the wall at the Hudson river so to say that its impossible this building was weakend majorly too would be just stupid, lots of building had to be PULLED!

connundrum

Nunu wrote:

The released security footage of the Pentagon being hit is dated September 12th

Yeah saw that as well, wtf?

el rabitos

i doubt bush had any idea what was going on tbh

SpAcEd OuT

you know the video of the 'plane' hitting the pentagon?

why does the date of the video say september 12th ????????????????????????

edit: been noticed

Ruu_Old

Very interesting, who knows what happened on that horrible day and i dont think we will ever know , its all lies from the bush administration anyway, dont believe anything they say at this stage.

snickerpuss

This is really interesting.

SpAcEd OuT

can anyone explain why the date on the pentagon video says september 12th, im sure theres a logical reason behind it as it would have been mentioned in the video, just wondering why?

Pompey Magnus

Wow, that was an interesting watch. I really wouldn't put that kind of thing beyond the shower that is in power at the minute. I do love a good conspiracy.

Binomate

http://www.gallerize.com/9-11_Hole_Science.htm

Interesting website. The claim that trying to fit a boeing 767 in to the hole it suposidly made in one of the towers is like trying to fit a square through a circular shaped hole.

Lirange

Yep mystify them with a bunch of pseudo-science and esoteric terms to float the grand perfidious plot.

If somehow ... some way it were true it could only mean that the Illuminatus axis is alive and well. I'd rank this conspiracy well down the ladder of plausibilty. Several rungs below the Moon landing hoax and the goat-sucking Chupacabras.

Guy:Incognito

Is this an advertisement for the global hawk?

How many times does he say the words "global hawk", he must like the name.:)

jimmycrackcorm

CountryWise wrote:

I noticed that date thing too??
Still have my doubts though, like why would they kill all their own people!

Imagine the prize of control of oil reserves - 3000 lives is a small price.

No floor of a building could support 30 floors of a buliding once it gave way above so no matter how strong they were i believe this actually happened!

I think the whole point of the video is to show that the design was such that floors did not support floors. When the top of one of the buildings fell over the side it did not hold that it would cause the collapse. Indeed the comparison with controlled demolitions is a very strong argument.

As for the 7th building, there is no benefit to knocking it for anyone and the foundations were probably ruined anyway from the other 2 collapses, lets remember that when the 2 towers fell it caused such an impact it caused cracks in river the wall at the Hudson river so to say that its impossible this building was weakend majorly too would be just stupid, lots of building had to be PULLED!

Apart form it being having a control and command centre. A very insignificant quake would also have resulted in the river wall cracks - after all the walls weren't designed to withstand anything at all.

yawn - OP shoudl have said that this would be 1 and half hours - just finished going through it.

I do think that it is very easy to fool people. Is it not possible that the september 11 the scenario is only a little more sophisticated than orwells original broadcast of the war of the worlds or do we really belive that we are less gullible than people 60 plus years ago?

AARRRGH

You know, when I was in college I had the e-mail address osamabinladen@hotmail.com (this was 1995)

I wonder would anything have happened to me (contacted by the Gardai or whatever) if I had of had it after 9/11?

kyodatsu

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Imagine the prize of control of oil reserves - 3000 lives is a small price.?

And if the US government were planning this how on earth would they have known that only 3000 would die? I recall initial estimates on the day being 50,000.

I don't believe a word of the conspiracy theories. Plane loaded with petrol crashes into building, steel melts, supports collapses. How can one disagree with basic science like that?

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I think the whole point of the video is to show that ?

I think the whole point of this video is to show that some people are utter idiots and will believe anything as long as it fits in with their anti-bush stance.

I think theories like this are an insult to the people that died.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I do think that it is very easy to fool people. Is it not possible that the september 11 the scenario is only a little more sophisticated than orwells original broadcast of the war of the worlds or do we really belive that we are less gullible than people 60 plus years ago?

Yes, it is easy to fool people judging by the fools on this thread who believe this was done by the US government.

And Orwell didn't broadcast War of the Worlds. Get your facts straight.

p.s. IDIOTS

Hobbes

dublindude wrote:

You know, when I was in college I had the e-mail address osamabinladen@hotmail.com (this was 1995)

I wonder would anything have happened to me (contacted by the Gardai or whatever) if I had of had it after 9/11?

Funny you should mention that. There are reports of people being dragged away just for looking at the wrong webpage. Having the wrong email address would certainly be flagged.

And Orwell didn't broadcast War of the Worlds. Get your facts straight.

Yes you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_%28radio%29#Broadcast

R0ot

watched that google video one, feckin class!

Archeron

kyodatsu wrote:

And if the US government were planning this how on earth would they have known that only 3000 would die? I recall initial estimates on the day being 50,000."
>>>Good point. But 50,000 lives are worth little more than 3,000 when you;re about to pull the guts out of New York. Lets not forget the planes hit before working hours began, so they were far from full. Bit of an oversight on behalf of the terrorists considering the planning that must have went into this.

I don't believe a word of the conspiracy theories. Plane loaded with petrol crashes into building, steel melts, supports collapses. How can one disagree with basic science like that?

>>>Aside from the act that the towers were initially designed to wthstand the impact of a passenger plane, albeit a smaller one; quite easily. The NYFD has already dismissed the 9/11 comissions report as utterly farcical. For many reasons. The vast majority of airline fuel was burnt in the initial fireball. The thick black smoke is a sign of an oxygen starved fire which is NOT capable of reaching the temperature required to melt those struts. On top of that; fire, has NEVER before and NEVER since brought down a steel framed structure. The towers themselves had stablilized within minutes of the impacts. Skyscrapers have burnt for days on end, and stood strong and endured damage only to the exterior of the building, and obviously the combustable materials within. The fires in the WTC were tiny in comparison. Video footage shows people inside the tower peering out through the hole where the plane hit. This goes to show that the inside of the towers was not a raging inferno. Not to mention that every single item in those buildings was up to code for fire retardancy, so after the plane fuel burnt, there was nothing in the buildings to fuel the fire.
Fire engineers, architects and structural engineers all agree that something very very strange happened that day.


I think the whole point of this video is to show that some people are utter idiots and will believe anything as long as it fits in with their anti-bush stance.
>> I couldnt give a damn whether it was Bush, Clinton, Blair or Bertie who was running America when this happened. The fact is, is has got to be fully investigated.

I think theories like this are an insult to the people that died.
>> I think believing what we're told without arguing or questioning is an even bigger insult to those who died. We know that we've been lied to before, and we all know we'll be lied to again.

Yes, it is easy to fool people judging by the fools on this thread who believe this was done by the US government.
>>Really? And do you find it easy to believe that a young man who was classed as "never making a pilot" by his flight teacher was able to fly a packed commuter plane about 20 feet from the ground, at 450 miles an hour, up a busy main street and into the pentagon while avoiding hitting gas stations, lights, vehicles, houses, shops? And that he then magically made all the wreckage disappear? Do you really believe that the most secure building in the world can be attacked like this and there is virtually NO cctv footage to show what happened? Do you really believe that something like this could have been organized so perfectly in the most secure country in the world? Do you really believe that the jets that should have intercepted those airliners just happened to off on training missions, way too far away to react? Wow, thats a lot of coincidences. I'm not saying i believe it WAS the American government who done this, but I dont think it happened as we were told.

And Orwell didn't broadcast War of the Worlds. Get your facts straight.
Cant argue this bit. It was a cool radio broadcast though.

p.s. IDIOTS

>> Personally, I call no-one idiots. Everyone is entitled to their opinions either way. If people believe what they hear from the US powers that be, then fair enough. But if other people want to question what happened and rightly look for evidence and proof, then thats their God given right too, and no-one should be able to insult them for wanting to know what really happened. A lot of people were affected by that tragic day, and those people deserve to ask questions. I personally consider that day to be an attack not only on the US, but on the whole western world. Those buildings were icons of their age that stood for everything the west holds dear. OK, some people hate capitalism, consumerism etc, but we all damn well deserve to know what actually happened.

WhiteWashMan

kyodatsu wrote:

And Orwell didn't broadcast War of the Worlds. Get your facts straight.

p.s. IDIOTS

actually, Orson wells did broadcast the war of the worlds in the US.

Youre thinking of HG Wells who wrote the book, who lived in Woking, Southern England, where the martians landed in hosell common.

my house overlooks horsell common.

and dont be so abusive. especially when you have your facts wrong. id expect some people would like an apology....

seamus

kyodatsu, calm down. Regardless of your feelings on the video, you should be capable of discussing it without getting all hot and bothered.

CountryWise

I have to take some things the guy says in the video very lightly though, firstly that date on the CCTV is dated wrong....by the way Americans arent going to want to show their Pentagon being hit over and over again on news reels it makes them look vulnerable which the government would hate, also families of the victims dont need to see CCTV footage of ther loved ones dying, the reason that their is so much footage of the towers is because of news crews,tourists etc.

Also the guy says that stories of people ringing loved ones before the planes struck are false as their is no signal at that height, this is not true, i have been up the tallest building in the world and phones have signal and the towers are even shorter than this and they also hit lower down on the towers, im not saying im an expert but as previously stated, its what you want to believe, lets not forget these attacks cripled the American economy and the governemnt came in for alot of criticism after it

Dave!

I've seen videos on this before -- should I gather this is a new one?

Eoin

CountryWise wrote:

Also the guy says that stories of people ringing loved ones before the planes struck are false as their is no signal at that height, this is not true, i have been up the tallest building in the world and phones have signal and the towers are even shorter than this and they also hit lower down on the towers

I think they were talking about the people on the planes making the phone calls, not the people in the towers. Though, I don't know if it is possible or not for mobiles to work at that height (I'm pretty sure I have heard mobiles go off on a plane before though?).

Ri_Nollaig

is it really true that 40million was spent on investigating clintons sex life and 600,000 on 9/11 investiagation

Binomate

CountryWise wrote:

I have to take some things the guy says in the video very lightly though, firstly that date on the CCTV is dated wrong....by the way Americans arent going to want to show their Pentagon being hit over and over again on news reels it makes them look vulnerable which the government would hate, also families of the victims dont need to see CCTV footage of ther loved ones dying, the reason that their is so much footage of the towers is because of news crews,tourists etc.

Also the guy says that stories of people ringing loved ones before the planes struck are false as their is no signal at that height, this is not true, i have been up the tallest building in the world and phones have signal and the towers are even shorter than this and they also hit lower down on the towers, im not saying im an expert but as previously stated, its what you want to believe, lets not forget these attacks cripled the American economy and the governemnt came in for alot of criticism after it

Did you ever consider that the tallest building in the world was probably an antena for all of the phone providers? Most of them are.

Phones work on planes but only to a certain height. My mate rang me when he was on his way to america from the runway. I was talking to him as he took off and he cut out soome time after he was above the clouds. He was still able to ring me from the air after that for about another minute before he completely lost the signal. When planes are taking off they are not flying at 400 mph. I'd say my mate lost the signal at about 4000 - 5000 feet. I'd very much doubt anyone would be able to call someone from a mobile phone from anything higher than that because a) You'd be out of range from the nearest cell and b)The plane would probably be moving too fast in between cells that if you did get one you wouldn't be in that cell long enough to make a phone call or keep the signal. Bottom line is that planes when they are cruising are flying too fast and too high to pick up any kind of a celular signal.

Binomate

DaveMcG wrote:

I've seen videos on this before -- should I gather this is a new one?

Yes. I've seen another flash type presentation about the pentagon plane, but this was a hell of a lot more convincing than that other one.





No inferno.


Woman looking out of the hole made by the plane that's very much alive.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm
Video proof that she's alive.

Eoin

Binomate wrote:

Did you ever consider that the tallest building in the world was probably an antena for all of the phone providers? Most of them are.

Phones work on planes but only to a certain height. My mate rang me when he was on his way to america from the runway. I was talking to him as he took off and he cut out soome time after he was above the clouds. He was still able to ring me from the air after that for about another minute before he completely lost the signal. When planes are taking off they are not flying at 400 mph. I'd say my mate lost the signal at about 4000 - 5000 feet. I'd very much doubt anyone would be able to call someone from a mobile phone from anything higher than that because a) You'd be out of range from the nearest cell and b)The plane would probably be moving too fast in between cells that if you did get one you wouldn't be in that cell long enough to make a phone call or keep the signal. Bottom line is that planes when they are cruising are flying too fast and too high to pick up any kind of a celular signal.

Presumably that applies to GSM phones? I thought a lot of phones in the states were still analogue as they don't have cells everywhere ("cellphone" is a bit of a misnomer for them)?

CountryWise

I was talking about people in the planes making the calls, at the time there were reports that many people made calls as the planes headed for the towers, they would have got a phone signal at this height, but we are all just guessing i suppsoe

Binomate

eoin_s wrote:

Presumably that applies to GSM phones? I thought a lot of phones in the states were still analogue as they don't have cells everywhere ("cellphone" is a bit of a misnomer for them)?

Yeah. But surely the same should apply to analogue only instead of going out of signal they'd have got white noise. I really have no clue about analogue networks and phones in general so what I'm saying is just speculation.

DublinWriter

Lirange wrote:

Yep mystify them with a bunch of pseudo-science and esoteric terms to float the grand perfidious plot.

You just need your own two eyes to see.

I was always about dubious that a 757 hit the Pentagon due to the relatively small size of impact area, but looking at the pictures of the Pentagon debris I'm convinced it was a Global Hawk drone.

1 - Look at the circumference of the engine part in the pic. That can't be any part of a 757 engine. It's only about 2-3 ft in diametre - same engine diameter as the GH.

2 - Look at the picture of the landing wheel found and the particular tear-shaped pattern of holes around the edge. Now look at a picture of the landing wheel of a Global Hawk.

Time Magazine

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

phantom_lord

i have been up the tallest building in the world and phones have signal and the towers are even shorter than this and they also hit lower down on the towers, im not saying im an expert but as previously stated, its what you want to believe, lets not forget these attacks cripled the American economy and the governemnt came in for alot of criticism after it

Do tall buildings like that not normally have phone masts and other equipment on top of them?

Spacedog

Is it true that Bin Laidens family were flown out of the states during the blanket grounding of flights after 9-11?

Eoin

Spacedog wrote:

Is it true that Bin Laidens family were flown out of the states during the blanket grounding of flights after 9-11?

They were flown out of the states very quickly, but I don't know if the timeline in Michael Moore's film is 100% accurate (actually, I don't know if much at all in the film was).

So Glad

When I seen the picture of the Pentagon straight after the enormous "747" ploughed into it I was shocked. Literally: :eek: . It is completely unscathed. No holes like the ones the other "747" airplanes left in the WTC, just burn marks, like a house on fire. I also notices little explosions being set off whilst the WTC was collapsing. Not entirely unlike controlled demolition.

I'm quite sick of people who ignore theories and well known facts that contradict American ways and happenings because they are sick of the "Hating America" dig. I am proud to say that I hate America. I hate their crooked business, false wars, idiotic ideologies, byist news stations, redneck presidents and terrible programs. Hate it. I just want to get that clear.

I never jump to conclusions regarding American conspiracies just to fuel hate. My opinion is based on solid facts. Such as, where is the plane that "crashed" due to passenger struggle? All that was left of it was a convenient crater and a few burning shrubs. NOTHING else was found. A Helios airways flight recently crashed into a hill side in Greece and every part of the plane was found intact. Chairs, cockpit, rudders, tail-fin section, bodies and blood yet not ONE body, or indeed ANY SIGNIFICANT part of the planes were found at the crash site in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon (besides a single engine that was too small to fit a "747" but just right for a "Global Hawk").

Building 7 of the WTC complex collapsed out of the blue and ended up in a nice and neat pile of metal beams ready for removing. This building had gigantic metal beams (much bigger than was needed) holding it up and more than adequate fire protection systems yet a very small fire that lasted only a few hours brought the building crashing down. Every other building that surrounded it stayed in tact, and they were on fire too. Explosions are plainly visible, travelling down both WTCs as the buildings collapse. TWO SEPARATE explosions occured in BOTH WTCs. One where the planes crashed and another in the basements (Many witnesses). When firemen entered the buildings they found the ground floors in tatters as if a bomb hit it. Official explaination: the explosion from the airplane fuel travelled down the elevator shaft and hit the ground floor. How far is that?!

The facts are here (well...the one the secret service released) and it's time to realise what really happaned that day. I hope these videos get good television air-time or the 9/11 commision is re-opened because the given facts don't add up and answers are needed...

Archeron

Good points So Glad. Also, lets remember that all of the rubble was removed before it was fully examined for forensic evidence.
Hmmm.

So Glad

Archeron wrote:

Good points So Glad. Also, lets remember that all of the rubble was removed before it was fully examined for forensic evidence.
Hmmm.

Faster than you can say giant cover up?