Most disturbing 9/11 video about a conspiracy.

[Labrocca]

This is one google and it's incredibly disturbing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

It's 1 hour 20 minutes long but it's very captivating. I have to watch if a few more times but would like others to watch it and give their opinion on it.

[FucangLong]

I saw one on the Pentagon. It was actually pretty cool. I'll try to find it for you.

[FucangLong]

Man, I just finished watching this video. It is amazing. It raises so many questions to be asked.

[Labrocca]

It's very disturbing to me and I want to find out how much of that video has been debunked. It's very convincing imho and that bothers the shit out of me.

[FucangLong]

Pentagon one: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Most the facts are repeated from the movie you posted.

What would drive our governent to do these things?

[KrAzY3]

Pentagon one: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Most the facts are repeated from the movie you posted.

What would drive our governent to do these things?


It took me all of 15 minutes to disprove some key parts of that "video" (I bet my brother I could and he conceeded in that time period. Keep in mind my brother and I once argued with years over which shortstop was better, Ozzie Smith or Cal Ripken Jr.). A dead giveaway that you are watching propaganda is the whole Hitler in the background part.

Watching this stuff, to me is like enduring scratching on a chalkboard. Hard for me to tolerate such illogical drivel. So, if anyone wants to hear logical explanations from a far more tolerant person check out this article:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Basically though, this is yet another example of why we have to use our heads. Neither video really provides a logical or factual argument. All they do is try to play on our emotions and confuse us into thinking we are not watching propaganda. It is clear they started out with a desired result and then just inserted what ever they felt would serve that goal best.

As far as the google video goes, I have to say that Operation Northwoods apparently was proposed and I was able to find some information including a Wikipedia entry (for the record Wikipedia is a notorious flawed source of information though, but the arrogant kid doing voice over cites Wikipedia as though it is irrefutable) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Our government has done a lot of messed up things, but we're not very good at keeping them secret as documentation of that proposal verifies.

What is key, however is that this video exists to mislead and misdirect. Take for instance, the repeated mention of terrorist threats, the Twin Towers shown targeted, etc... Well, this was not the first time the Trade Center was attacked. We knew it was a target and had known it was a target for a long time. Likewise, I for instance had been going nuts about the Taliban and Bin Laden prior to 9/11. Does that mean I was part of a conspiracy? No, it means I was one of many people that saw the warning signs and knew that we faced a inevitable attack.

This video tries to suck you in emotionally, it mixed irrelevant footage with 9/11 footage and throws together related and unrelated information in a propagandistic video. If you take thousands of quotes, thousands of snippets of video and a eternity of documentation yes, you can provide a argument for almost anything. To give a example, take the practice of taking snippets of audio and having people say something new. To me, this is essentially what is being done here.

How about the mention of light posts. What are we to believe hit them if not a 757? They point out that a smaller craft would be torn apart, so what are they saying hit it? They argue it had to have been something smaller, like a missile but how could a missile rip through five light posts and stay on course? Then I have to sit through quotes from anonymous people or random people that are in no way experts in the field.

The idiocy of this piece of demonstrated when the guy doing the voice over says "The second identifiable piece of debris was allegedly a piece of the fuselage. Sceptics have claimed that this debris is proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon".
Umm, how confused is this guy? Doesn't he know he's the sceptic?

There is a mountain of evidence that leads up to believe that terrorists committed these acts. Including admissions from the terrorists themselves. In order to disprove what is commonly accepted as reality, you have to do a lot more than provide quotes and speculation. I haven't seen a bit of "proof", I have only seen speculation.

Confused accounts? Sure, did anyone watch the news that day? No one knew what the hell was going on. Same thing happened during Katrina. I could as easily argue that over ten thousand died in New Orleans during and in the aftermath of Katrina based entirely on quotes and reports. In fact, I could make a much more convincing argument and cite various studies that concluded that very thing had happened. As we now know, that wasn't the case. Oh wait, may be it was all a conspiracy! Weird security measures? Airports and airlines doing weird things? Uhh, yeah they grounded ALL airplanes, remember?

In the end, people will believe what they want. But, anyone can do what this video did. Speculation is easy to do, nitpicking is easy to do. Providing a factual, logical argument is much more difficult and that is what either video failed to do.

I'm listening to this guy mock people for not being in a panic and screaming (would you yell and scream while being hijacked?). Or how dare they get the row of the hijacker wrong? The FAA says it was 8 and they said rows 9 and 10! They said there were four but we're told it was five! He specifically mentions someone talking on a Skyphone (Bell System's "Skyphone" air-to-ground public telephone service), then goes on to say that conversation couldn't take place because it is hard to get cell phone service. He also questions the length of the real cell phone conversations for being so short, then cites the fact that it is incredibly hard to get cell phone service on a airplane. It is like he's disproving his own arguments. Then he tries telling us that Bin Laden doesn't look like Bin Laden.

Anyway, I took up far too much of my time listening to a condescending presumptuous jackass and I feel stupider for it. I in turn took up far too much time for anyone that read this so in the least I shared the misery.

People far more knowledgeable than I, and this irritating kid have looked into this issue. Take for instance Popular Science, a reputable and knowledgeable source. He shows their cover, but of course skips the part in which they do the debunking. I believe our government is more than capable of and on occasion willing to attempt cover ups. But, do not forget who we are dealing with here. They couldn't even keep the prisoner abuse photos secret and yet we are to believe that something this massive, something that required coordination from almost every branch of government and cooperation from hundreds if not thousands of people has been kept secret?

/rant

[FucangLong]

How about the mention of light posts. What are we to believe hit them if not a 757? They point out that a smaller craft would be torn apart, so what are they saying hit it? They argue it had to have been something smaller, like a missile but how could a missile rip through five light posts and stay on course? Then I have to sit through quotes from anonymous people or random people that are in no way experts in the field.

True, but they do not need to prove what hit it. All they need to do is prove a 757 didn't hit it.

[KrAzY3]

True, but they do not need to prove what hit it. All they need to do is prove a 757 didn't hit it.


They did not do that though. In fact they made the argument for it being a 757. The arguments (that vary from suggesting it was a missile to a military plane) all argue that it was something smaller than a 757. Now, using simple logic one can easily conclude that if a smaller object would be thrown off course by hitting the poles, only a significant amount of mass travelling at a significant speed could possibly knock down the poles and continue on course. If they were inferring that the poles were not hit at all (sometimes interpreting the video was difficult because it was so random), they would have to explain how someone could cut down the light poles in the middle of rush hour without being detected. Basically, it was one of many examples in which their own arguments made the case for it not being a conspiracy.

They raised a few decent questions and if they took the time and effort to be objective it could be interesting. I found myself watching it, with a need to fact check practically everything they told us. While they reached conclusions, often the conclusions were clearly contrary to the very information they provided (like the line about the Skyphone conversations not being able to take place because it was hard to get cell phone service in air, I'm thinking this kid has never even flown on a airplane or else he'd know what a Skyphone was and that it is not a friggin' cell phone).

It was clear that who ever made the video, had no interest in being honest or objective. As such, one has to question everything and to also question their conclusions. I could, while listening to the video in the background debunk a few conclusions that they reached. If I had the time and willingness I'd be able to debunk quite a bit more of their conclusions. That would leave no more than a few random quotes and observations which do not prove, and more importantly don't disprove anything (unless of course, like the light pole and cell phone parts they support the commonly accepted explanation).

[Churchel]

From my Professional standpoint (citing the fact that I used to handle 6 tons of turbine) I will give you an undisputable fact that if a 757 hit the pentagon the nose would have crumpled and the engines would have punched holes through. Also the fire would have been spread across the front of the building, since the fuel is carried in the wings.

My cousin is a recently retired 757 pilot and over the next few weeks I am going to make a point of asking him if he could have pulled a 270 and dropped 7500 feet to skim into the pentagon @ over 500 mph. At 500 mph that bank and descent took less than 15 seconds and had to be perfect not impossible but highly improbable.

The PA state legislature is trying to rename SR219 to "Flight 93 Memorial Highway". I would like to reinterview the county coroner because according to the somerset tribune he found no bodies. A few years prior we had US Air Flight 427, and saw extended coverage from that. Bodies were strewn in the trees, and big peices and parts were all over. Look up and look at the images.

[KrAzY3]

From my Professional standpoint (citing the fact that I used to handle 6 tons of turbine) I will give you an undisputable fact that if a 757 hit the pentagon the nose would have crumpled and the engines would have punched holes through. Also the fire would have been spread across the front of the building, since the fuel is carried in the wings.

My cousin is a recently retired 757 pilot and over the next few weeks I am going to make a point of asking him if he could have pulled a 270 and dropped 7500 feet to skim into the pentagon @ over 500 mph. At 500 mph that bank and descent took less than 15 seconds and had to be perfect not impossible but highly improbable.

The PA state legislature is trying to rename SR219 to "Flight 93 Memorial Highway". I would like to reinterview the county coroner because according to the somerset tribune he found no bodies. A few years prior we had US Air Flight 427, and saw extended coverage from that. Bodies were strewn in the trees, and big peices and parts were all over. Look up and look at the images.


In terms of the plane that hit the Pentagon, I think they had a massive target and that they took a shot at it and hit it. If you look at it thinking they hit the exact point they wanted to, wow yeah it is a impressive shot. If you look at the Pentagon thinking they tried to hit part of it and succeeded. We're talking about a target that is 34 acres. Also, if you start saying oh a 757 couldn't do that, you have to ask yourself what could. Are we to believe some sort of unmanned plane or the like was able to do all those things as well? If you try to dismiss one thing (improbabilities or not) you need to present something more probably or else the argument is simply that it would be very, very hard to do with anything. Yet, clearly something did do it. Common knowledge said that the Twin Towers could not be brought down by a airplane. We now know they could be, we just didn't fully understand all the factors. When you look at a collision that occurs at several hundred miles an hour, one has to expect the unexpected. Weird things happen, that's how it works.

Also, once again one needs to fact check before listening to these conspiracy theories. I have already, in a short time found several either blatant falsehoods or inaccuracies. So, for us to look at their assertions and "proof" and go wow, that really does make sense is put a lot of faith into a obviously unreliable source. Likewise, I wouldn't rely on any of their information to determine what could and couldn't happen. I in the least beg people to look up for yourself and try to find information from reputable sources before you try making your conclusions on what could and couldn't happen.

As far as the bodies question, once again this puts me in fact check mode.The videos I watched made claims of no bodies or body parts being found in respect to the Pentagon crash and Flight 93. Yet in a few minutes of searching I found this (from the PM article):
" Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

So, what proof is there that there are no body parts again? They quote a few people, mostly anonymous yet here you have a reputable person from a reputable source literally demolishing many of the claims that this video made.

By the way, I found the Popular Mechanics story about the conspiracy theories. While it can't debunk everything (some are not worth addressing and PM isn't going to lower itself to just answering the idiocy any internet know-it-all says) it clearly explains quite a few things. Between this, the first article I linked to and my own ability to poke holes in some silly assertions, there is not much left to built a conspiracy with...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Popular Mechanics sums this while issue up best:
A few of these skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of information, but most ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories. In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, yet happily embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions

[KrAzY3]

By the way, I decided to do a quick check about the bodies from Flight 93:
No bodies were recovered here, at least not as we normally think of bodies. In the cataclysmic violence of the crash, the people on Flight 93 literally disintegrated. Searchers found fragments of bones, small pieces of flesh, a hand. But no bodies.

In the grisly accounting of a jetliner crash, it comes down to pounds: The people on Flight 93 weighed a total of about 7,500 pounds. Miller supervised an intensive effort to gather their remains, some flung hundreds of yards. In the end, just 600 pounds of remains were collected; of these, 250 pounds could be identified by DNA testing and returned to the families of the passengers and crew.

Forty families, wanting to bury their loved ones. Two hundred fifty pounds of identifiable remains.

"There were people who were getting a skull cap and a tooth in the casket," Miller says. "That was their loved ones."

The rest of the remains, the vast majority, will stay here forever, in this ground.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/3972571.htm

[E-Z-B]

Oh, not this again. When will this "government conspiracy" on 9/11 ever go away? The most the government was involved was Dubya refusing to read a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States" the summer before 9/11.

[Deacon]

I just want 9/11 to be left alone, not totally to forget the tradgey, but to leave the victims families to rebuild their lives, without opening these wounds of pain over and over.

[lax111]

I have not done much research on the 9/11 conspiracy, but I figured I may as well consider alternative viewpoints regarding this topic, so I perused this sight, as well as several other conspiracy sites.

I suppose I only have one question (there are several that trouble me) that is particularly confusing. If, in fact, commercial airliners did not hit WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon, then what happened to those flights? Naturally, family members and friends were expecting to pick up passengers from those flights at some point in the day. What happened to those passengers assuming commercial airliners (which has been proposed) were not used in the attacks? Did those flights crash in undisclosed locations if we assume that commerical airliners were not used in the attacks?

I have yet to find a site that addresses these questions. Any theories are welcome.

Thanks.

[operator kos]

There are a number of decent videos about a possible 9/11 government conspiracy other than Loose Change, which I think is crap.

In this order, I would recommend:
9/11 Press for Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=9%2F11+Press+for+Truth)
Terrorstorm (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=Terrorstorm)
911 Mysteries (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+Mysteries)