video.google.com — This is the best video on the collapse of the 3 World Trade Center buildings that I have seen. Has video, photographs and interviews that I have not previously come across. Most notable being video of the damage sustained by WTC 7 (maybe the pics the PM guys claim to have seen). Professionally done.
Oct 14, 2006 View in Crawl 4
technopunditOct 15, 2006
The real mystery (and probable conspiracy) is:How could so many people have been stupid enough to elect George W. Bush in the first place?
texasmojoOct 15, 2006
Good questions Farrellj!#1 has a few good answers. Just look up "Project For A New American Century", penned by our pals like Wolfowitz and Cheney. They talk about a need for American hegemony but how it will take a long time without a "catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor". It may be a coincidence, but even the Official Supporters will have to admit that its a doozy of a coincidence. Basically it comes down to power and control, something our government's been tiptoeing towards for decades. The frog in the boiling pot and all that. Look at Eisenhower's warning about the Military/Industrial complex. Its been coming a long, long time now.#2 I can only conjecture. We didn't find WMD in Iraq for the same reason Hitler never bothered to prove that Poland had invaded Austria. There's simply no need at that point. It was a pretext and the need for the pretext is over. Remember Bush promising that he would use the entire resources of the American military and law enforcement to ensure that those responsible would be brought to justice? 5 years later and we still don't have Bin Laden. Bush got what he wanted and even asking questions nowadays makes you a moonbat or a terrorist.
texasmojoOct 15, 2006
The only choice we had was who was less distasteful. I couldn't stand Kerry after what he did to his fellow Vietnam vets after he came back from the war. He accused them of crimes that would make Pol Pot look like a piker. He lied repeatedly about his service. He's no different than Bush. A privileged blue-blood who can no more relate to the common people than can any other member of royalty. Both were members of the Skull and Bones society, the so called "elite" of our society. Socialists and Neocons both make me ill.Give me someone who shows they actually understand the Constitution, limited Federal government, personal liberty and responsibility. That comes out and says "Government cannot solve every problem for you. We'll do what we can within the confines of the law, but basically you're on your own."That's the person I'll vote for.
mrpeachOct 16, 2006
Trolls, the lot of ya.
phredoOct 16, 2006
I would like an "official story", "gravity collapse" person to explain why videos of the WTC (I forget if it's 1 or 2) collapse clearly show the part of the building *above* the plane impact area exploding, especially the large pieces of steel arcing upwards and hundreds of feet outwards. Compressed air? What compressed air: it was *above* the plane hit, fires, etc.? It looks like a pyrotechnics display on the 4th of July. What caused it? It obviously wasn't a "traditional" demolition, but what was it?
phredoOct 16, 2006
Thanks, Shank2001, for the explanation. But even before I read redpoint's comment, I wondered at your saying it was like a sealed bag, since there was already a big hole punched in the side of the building, at the very least. Also, do you think it's likely that any remaining air pressure would not be relieved enough by punching out the windows on the upper floors but would have to break steel girders into pieces and hurl them hundreds of feet? And why did all the concrete, I'm still talking about the area above the collision, explode into powder? Seems like you're asking for a lot of mileage out of, what was at that time, a small area of "collapse". And since the NIST report says that pancaking did not occurr, I'm not even sure what pressure producing event we are talking about -- something to do with sagging floors pulling the risers inward and eventually leading to some kind of failure, I think.I know I'm not great on "basic science" -- I'm just a humble civil engineering technician and those "A's" I got in physics and chemistry classes were years ago -- but it still doesn't seem to add up.By the way, tizz66, many students have determined that not really very many people would have to be involved -- perhaps fewer than 100, perhaps as few as 15 or 20. There are many examples of secrets being kept for years, decades, and centuries. If you consider that the people involved are zealots who probably think they are on the right side of a war to save civilisation that coincidentally lines their pockets and that the revealing of the truth would be unhealthy for their families, careers and pocketbooks, it's not so hard to understand. Consider also that our government sacrifices American lives every day for the noble cause of bringing democracy to Iraq. Of couse, the soldiers enlisted, for the first tour, anyway.
knife720Oct 17, 2006
It may seem like most of the united states citizens believe in the 9/11 conspiracies from the way the survey reads, but they way it is worded is extremely vague. I do not believe the conspiracy theories, yet I would be listed in part of the 53% of "Hiding something," simply because it makes sense that they have not given out 100% of their information. However, "something" gives no clue as to how much I suspect they are hiding, and I don't believe it to be anywhere near the magnitude as what conspiracy theorists think.In all probability, the 53% are the smart ones with a healthy bit of skepticism, the 16% are too trusting, and the 28% are probably paranoid.
jibbityjabOct 17, 2006Submitter
RE: tizz66Instead of telling everyone what the "central argument to the conspiracy theorists theory" is, please point out something stated in this film that is incorrect. There are enough comments in this thread both for and against conspiracy theory. This movie however, never makes that claim -- did you even watch it? It merely states the shortcomings of all of the official reports on the 3 collapses and makes it known that, to this day, we do not have an explanation (official or unofficial) that can account for the collapse of these 3 building based on the available evidence. There are over 200 comments in this thread and no one has been able to explain the collapses or provide a link to an explanation. If you don't want people to think some form of demolition was used, please provide an alternative explanation or help get a new investigation started. If you don't care to know, that's fine but don't assume other people should not care.
phredoOct 18, 2006
Thanks, again, Tizz66, for telling me about the "chief fireman [that] was heard to say 'pull it'", but I guess I'd kind of like to keep focusing on why the top of the building exploded into dust and flying girders for no apparent reason. They say it's "hard to prove a negative", but, on the other hand, when an explanation of phenomena is absolutely inconsistent with a persistent fact, that pretty much kills the explanation, doesn't it? So why did that upper part of the tower explode? It wasn't air pressure, it wasn't softening steel, it wasn't from a diesel fire, it wasn't from the impact of the plane. What caused it?
gerrylazloJan 18, 2010
lol. Why are you dugg down? People don't want to hear it or they disagree, but they have absolutely nothing logical to say that counters it, so they just bury you. It's this sort of behavior I love most about the conspires. When they get up to the brink of actually presenting their case, they never address any of the flaws in their theories with any logical defense or explanations once they are pointed out. Logical arguments are just ignored, never addressed.