lepeep Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 anyone seen this documentary yet?it's quite frightening, and so well argued...basicall, the US government are alledged to have executed 9/11...so many scary events leading up to , and after 9/11...not to mention too many, as you should see it to make up yer own mind, but, there is footage of the floors "blowing out" (like demolition charges) WELL BELOW the point of impact...and the fact that the two towers are the only sky scrapers that have ever fallen, from fire (with plenty of large scale / high buildings used in example of towers that have NOT fallen because of fire (biggest being a 93 storey, 13 hour burn in south america)).http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=40check it out if you can, and see what you think....far too many interesting points raised to mention here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 and the fact that the two towers are the only sky scrapers that have ever fallen' date=' from fire[/quote']Well, that's a bit misleading - A plane hit each tower first, and that's going to cause considerable structural damage to a building which an ensuing fire could weaken, speculated here:http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtmlIt does seem to tally with the official investigation, the findings of which are here:http://wtc.nist.gov/I'll have to watch the documentary, though, sounds interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I saw a documentary that said one of the main factors for them falling was that corners were cut in their construction. There's also speculation that when the plane hit the spray of fuel washed away the fireproofing foam surrounding the girders supporting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted December 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well' date=' that's a bit misleading - A plane hit each tower first, and that's going to cause considerable structural damage to a building which an ensuing fire could weaken, speculated here:[url']http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtmlIt does seem to tally with the official investigation, the findings of which are here:http://wtc.nist.gov/I'll have to watch the documentary, though, sounds interesting.there is an update to the Documentary now, and, (in the trailer), it shows that a B52 once hit the empire state building in fog, and it's still standing.the points he raises, are all well layed out, and if you do have any questions / doubts, somewhere in the Documentary, they are addressed...I was thinking things like "but there must have been gas canisters / build ups / surges of gas / fuel , from the building itself..."...but, one interesting fact was, that 2 months prior to the attack, floors 47 - 68 (or something like that), were all powered down, for "routine server / power upgrades"...in this time, NON of the floors had security video / power etc...and, these were the very floors that "seem to" have been blown out.I think it's the firemen saying "ot sounded like a seriese of controled explosions, like when they demolish buildings"....and they'd know!anyway, Like I said, all amazing (and very scary to believe) points of view, that seem to be backed up by hard facts.it is disgusting to think that any government could do something like that...but, think of how bush had won his election, and think of all the times that the Bush administration had used 9/11 to justify the things it has done since...nasty indeed, but not so far fetched that it couldn't be true?.............(and a few more dots......) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted December 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I saw a documentary that said one of the main factors for them falling was that corners were cut in their construction. There's also speculation that when the plane hit the spray of fuel washed away the fireproofing foam surrounding the girders supporting it.go watch the footage of the (aleged) blow outs...is that from "downwards pressure" ?all interesting stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootray Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 You have to wonder why the Bush administration would even bother with such a plot.He'd not long come into power, and I suppose it made him look like some sort of hero afterwards, and of course gave him a reason for the War on Terror.But I can't see these theories being true TBH, but I'd still like to see the documentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 there is an update to the Documentary now' date=' and, (in the trailer), it shows that a B52 once hit the empire state building in fog, and it's still standing.[/quote']I've heard this before, and as I remember it was actually a B-25 that hit, which is considerably smaller than a B52.EDIT - A quick Google and here's some pictures: http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htmhttp://www.onwar.com/chrono/1945/jul45/28jul45.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Further reading to the contrary:http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=yPage 4 & 5 discusses the 'controlled explosion' angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted December 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I've heard this before' date=' and as I remember it was actually a B-25 that hit, which is considerably smaller than a B52.EDIT - A quick Google and here's some pictures: [url']http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htmhttp://www.onwar.com/chrono/1945/jul45/28jul45.htmah..a lot smaller, indeed!thanks for all the links...one compelling argument to win the case that there was a plane crash into the Pentagon, would be to release the footage from the Gas Station, showing a whacking great plane slamming into the side, as is, they only release 5 frames of an explosion, and even then, NO PLANE!there are a lot of fishy things uncouvered by this Docco...it's making me think harder about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MKII Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 "With legs held down by two newsmen, photographer Ernie Sisto crawled out on a harrowing ledge and took the historic photo. It ran on page one of the New York Times."Crazy, the things photographers do to 'get the picture'!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Crazy' date=' the things photographers do to 'get the picture'!!![/quote']read Bang, Bang Club or John Steele's autobiography War Junkie and you'll read about some hideously stupid things photographers and cameramen do to get the shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 one compelling argument to win the case that there was a plane crash into the Pentagon' date=' would be to release the footage from the Gas Station, showing a whacking great plane slamming into the side, as is, they only release 5 frames of an explosion, and even then, NO PLANE![/quote']Over to good ol' Snopes for that one (plus I believe there was an old Aberdeen-Music thread the Pentagon rumours were discussed in too) :http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htmthere are a lot of fishy things uncouvered by this Docco...it's making me think harder about it.I guess I should make it clear that I'm no supporter of the Bush administration, but conspirary theories over 9/11 sit uncomfortably in my stomach - Luckily, there's countless reasons to still think Bush is a c*nt without them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biz Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Apparently confessions obtained during torture are not allowed to be used in court.That's Bush and Blair well and truly fucked then,we pay for their money making schemes with our rip off taxes,and they fill our media with lies- it's always been like this,we are pawns-they are pricks-nothing we can do about it-just fill your mind and time with worthwhile things and help those you can.Life is far too short to take our supposed leaders seriously- the greedy lying money grabbing cunts.What about that flag on the moon waving in the wind? he he he have we ever been in Space or was Johnny Vaughn also on the go in the 1960s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lollerskates Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 and the fact that the two towers are the only sky scrapers that have ever fallen' date=' from fire (with plenty of large scale / high buildings used in example of towers that have NOT fallen because of fire (biggest being a 93 storey, 13 hour burn in south america)).[/quote']I haven't read all the linked pages, but come on. Fire didn't make the buildings fall down. Big planes slamming into the side of them made a big hole in the buildings. Then the top of the building fell. And took out the remainder of the building with it's momentum. Twice.I mean, if I set your house on fire, it would end up all burned, but still there. But if I flew a plane into your house, it would be like, what house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_1903 Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Okay...I don't think it was a conspiracy - but I do think Bush is glad it happened because it gave him another tool to flood the states with fear.If the planes were not commercial airliners - then how do they explain the loss of 'passengers' and the pan-am airliners (they were pan-am right?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 I believe they were American Airlines planes not Pan-Am.Pan-Am was Lockerbie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.