Good Video About The Towers Falling

Abookamongstthemany

I'm putting this out there for us to discuss. Could we actually discuss the video and not each other? Even if you disagree with it's theories, it's still very interesting and worth watching.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en

Low_Light03

Very interesting video. I never looked so closely at the way the buildings collapsed. Crazy shit.

hsewif

I haven't finished watching but I'd like to share a thought...

Let's say that there WERE explosives planted in the WTC buildings....the planes alone weren't enough to bring them down.

How can anyone be 100% sure that the bombs weren't planted by terrorists?

No one has stepped up and said "we hit your buildings with hijacked planes AND detonated bombs we had planted".

Instead, a huge chunk of American citizens are believing that their own government is somehow involved.

It's almost funny when you think about it.

bootlegger10

It is an interesting view. I wonder if it is a government conspiracy, who is responsible? You would think if it was the President that he would have had a better plan setup than sitting in a classroom looking like he didn't have a clue. I don't think Cheney and Rumsfeld would care that much about oil to have these buildings blown up. So what group would be responsible for this? Plus, they were in power for 9 months. I would think that this would take longer than 9 months to put together. Who knows. I just think a conspiracy this big would have come out by now.

mca47

You know as soon as all the conspiracy stuff came out about the gov. being behind it I immediately thought..."Not a chance, our government could not pull that off. They'd fuck it up somehow."
To this day I stand by that thought/idea.
They fuck up everything they get their hands on...the conspiracy people give them way to much credit.

enharmonic

All I will say is this. There are too many coincidences here to accept the official explanation. all of the conspiracy theories in the world are all well and good, but the real smoking gun is in the money...look at the number of puts on WTC businesses and the airlines that were affected just days before the attacks. Unprecedented in the history of puts for those companies at that time.

Someone, or a very affluent group of someones, are counting on the fact that the vast majority of American's have no idea what a put is, or what all of that activity meant for the people who invested in what would become 9/11. There are people who made EXTRAORDINARY amounts of money from those puts...people who had to know what was about to happen well enough in advance to invest in it, and then just let it happen.

The money tells the story. It is an irrefutable fact that someone with a lot of money knew what to put their money on, and when, just hours before 9/11.

mca47

Yeah, I am not by any means a conspiracy theorist but I tend to believe that there was def. more to the World Trade Center story then what we've been told.

hsewif

enharmonic wrote:

All I will say is this. There are too many coincidences here to accept the official explanation. all of the conspiracy theories in the world are all well and good, but the real smoking gun is in the money...look at the number of puts on WTC businesses and the airlines that were affected just days before the attacks. Unprecedented in the history of puts for those companies at that time.

Someone, or a very affluent group of someones, are counting on the fact that the vast majority of American's have no idea what a put is, or what all of that activity meant for the people who invested in what would become 9/11. There are people who made EXTRAORDINARY amounts of money from those puts...people who had to know what was about to happen well enough in advance to invest in it, and then just let it happen.

The money tells the story. It is an irrefutable fact that someone with a lot of money knew what to put their money on, and when, just hours before 9/11.

I know what a put is. I know what a call is. I'd love to see a link to more info and/or specific stock symbols. This angle isn't well known.

hsewif

WHile searching for my own stock information, I came across this tidbit:

http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/2001.html

• June 2001 - WTC janitor William Rodriguez claims to have been approached in the building by one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Janitor tells 9/11 panel of brush with WTC thug

"A hero janitor who helped victims escape from the World Trade Center's north tower before it collapsed told the 9/11 panel that he came across one of the hijackers in the building a few months before the attack.
William Rodriguez, 43, of Jersey City met with the commission for the first time last week.
A 20-year Trade Center employee who swept stairwells, he swears he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001 and told an FBI agent in the family center at Ground Zero about it a month after the attacks. He never heard back from the bureau.
Rodriguez said he was working overtime one weekend cleaning rest rooms on the concourse and mezzanine levels when Alshehri approached him.
"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the Daily News.
"Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange," Rodriguez said. "I didn't forget about it."
After Al Qaeda's attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Rodriguez recognized Alshehri's mug in newspapers.
"I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks, the WTC ex-porter said." - New York Daily

Abookamongstthemany

mca47 wrote:

Yeah, I am not by any means a conspiracy theorist but I tend to believe that there was def. more to the World Trade Center story then what we've been told.

There are plenty of smart, wealthy and powerful people with their hands in the government. It isn't as simple as Bush is an idiot and Iraq is a fucking mess. Iraq is a mess because they don't have to spend a dime if they don't want to to make it better. They are getting what they want out of the situation just fine the way things are going now. The things this admin has fucked up is due to negligence not stupidity. They will spend money on what they want to spend money on. It's about what is on and off of their agenda not about how corny Bush is. And everyone in the govt or even this admin is definitely not involved in this, this is a group of powerful people.

LBC1076

Well you see they didn't set this up in just the 9 months of being in office, go back to 1997 when that group formed PNAC. That is when things were set into motion, including the Florida election fiasco to ensure that Dubya and his puppetmasters would take office. There are just too many things that don't add up about a lot of things that have happened since the 2000 election and make it really easy for me to think that the people behind 9/11 were more than just a bunch of Middle East terrorists.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

It's pretty much the same story I've seen over and over again from people who have no apparent expertise in building collapses. It's asking a bunch of questions that don't have obvious answers, and using them to make you wonder if something is fishy.

Lizard

definitely makes you think and no, I am not a building collapse expert. The part about Bush's brother and cousin Being with Securacom and putting in their "Security System" does give you pause. I am surprised though that the insurance companies would let this go and pay for everything that was insured. I mean, ins. cos. are pretty suspect on their own.

Secrets cannot be kept forever.

smobeepj

hsewif wrote:

I haven't finished watching but I'd like to share a thought...

Let's say that there WERE explosives planted in the WTC buildings....the planes alone weren't enough to bring them down.

How can anyone be 100% sure that the bombs weren't planted by terrorists?

No one has stepped up and said "we hit your buildings with hijacked planes AND detonated bombs we had planted".

Instead, a huge chunk of American citizens are believing that their own government is somehow involved.

It's almost funny when you think about it.

If our government did it or just had a part in it, and I believe more happened on 911 than just what has been reported, it would have to be the biggest con in world history.

prytocorduroy

There's a PJ shout out!
40:33

binger

Great video. I posted this in another thread, but I seem to be a thread killer so.... It needed it's own thread. Good job.

I also watched a debate between the Loose Change guys vs. Popular Mechanics editors on democracy now.

from http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/11/1345203

Go to the site and watch or listen to the segment.

EXCLUSIVE...9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"


Today, a debate about 9/11. Ever since the attacks took place, many people across the country have raised a number of questions about what actually happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened.

The most popular of these is a documentary called "Loose Change." The 80-minute film first appeared on the web in April 2005. Since then, it has had at least 10 million viewings and is described by Vanity Fair as "the first Internet blockbuster." As the popularity of "Loose Change" has soared, a book dealing with the questions it and others have raised about 9/11 has been published. It's called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" put together by the editors of the magazine, Popular Mechanics.

Today, we talk about some of the 9/11 theories and the arguments against them.


Dylan Avery, writer and director of "Loose Change."
Jason Bermas, researcher for "Loose Change."
James Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. Part of the editorial team that produced "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."
David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics. Part of the editorial team that produced "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."

Hear what they have to say for themselves before you read the article in
Popular Mechanics and assume that it is truth.

Here's the main point I got out of it:

JAMES MEIGS: "Yeah. We didn't fact check every detail of Loose Change, but what we did do was look at the broad cross-section of conspiracy theories. There are photographs of the plane in the building of wreckage wrapped around reinforced concrete columns, and there is a map of the path of destruction that plane tore through that area."

Every time these guys were backed into a corner (the transcript does not do the interview justice) they said, oh...these conspiracy theorists... They stayed on message. They did not have much to say when presented with specific evidence presented by the Loose Change guys. I'm not too much into reading one person's point of view, but rather taking many pictures of the same puzzle. Makes for a clearer picture. Why wouldn't you want to entertain one of these theories as plausible. When you shut out other opinions, when you accept as truth, knowledge that is offered to you without doing your own research, the only disservice that happens is that you deny yourself from learning/understanding about other people.

If we entertain the idea that there was a conspiracy of some kind, then what is the big picture? That's what I want to know.

Peace

enharmonic

hsewif wrote:

I know what a put is. I know what a call is. I'd love to see a link to more info and/or specific stock symbols. This angle isn't well known.

http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

hsewif

enharmonic wrote:

http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

look at page 499, item 130

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

---

Not exactly a smart business move, is it? American airlines was trading around 29.00 a share on sept 10th. (x 115,000 shares= 3,335,000.00)

and from the link you posted...

“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”

---

Isn't that a loss overall?

bootlegger10

hsewif wrote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

look at page 499, item 130

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

---

Not exactly a smart business move, is it? American airlines was trading around 29.00 a share on sept 10th. (x 115,000 shares= 3,335,000.00)

and from the link you posted...

“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”

---

Isn't that a loss overall?

The Puts make sense. Buying the shares doesn't. I haven't thought it through all that much though. Maybe there is a reason they wanted to take a loss. Who knows.

sonicreducer

49 minutes 50 seconds,...

that is really disturbing,...

Collin

bump.