9-11 in Plane Site
GoldenWords
Posts: 32
Has any one seen this video?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=911+plane+site
Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower, in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=911+plane+site
Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower, in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change
i see they are both pretty long...
is it worth the hour and a half?
It is very interesting and asks some very important questions I have had since 2001.
None of it makes sense. Not the way the Federal Goverment wants us to believe it happened.
Everyone in the videos accumilated during the day --- talk about explosions coming from within the building. You can see some of the sparks, and see the other secondary explosions.
It is scary --- all over again --- from a different perspective.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
The central supporting beams melted from the heat of the fire because they were not properly insulated for this kind of fire.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
I've seen a lot of the 9-11 conspiracy websites before...this is a pretty good documentary.
LOL. Good one. Here's another good one:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
There are some discrepincies found in the second one......but still interesting. Just found another one that is more journalistic in approach.
What does NOT make sense to me -- is all the fires -- if the jet fuel ignited on impact.
**************************************************
September 11th Revisited is perhaps the most riveting film ever made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is a powerful ... all » documentary which features eyewitness accounts and archived news footage that was shot on September 11, 2001 but never replayed on television. Featuring interviews with eyewitnesses & firefighters, along with expert analysis by Professor Steven E. Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, MIT Engineer Jeffrey King, and Professor James H. Fetzer. This film provides stunning evidence that explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=september+11th
I found so many interesting questions asked in the video's. I learned a great deal about some things.
* I didn't know that President Bush's little brother was security at the Twin Towers and Boston International.
* The Twin Towers was recently sold to a private investor. The person who owned Tower 7 -- got the lease to Tower 1 and 2.
* Tower 7 was definatly a demolition job - admitted to by the owner.
* There was massive drills in the weeks leading up to 9/11 and then the security was called off.
* In the video's -- tons of people report hearing explosions going off in the building prior to the planes stricking them -- and leading up to the fall of both buildings.
* That many of the witnesses at the scene including reporters stated the plane looked like a miltary cargo plane.
* That black smoke is an indication of a low tempeture fire - that is at the end of burning itself out.
* Where was the 7 tons of wreckage in Philediphia? All I saw was a hole in the ground. What happened to the wreckage?
*How several passports of the supposed hijackers mysteriously survived the twin towers and pentagon -- but the black boxes were destroyed.
* How --- two weeks prior to 9-11 -- plans were already waiting for the signature of the President -- for the invasion of Iraqi?
* How there were miniture explosions prior to the implosion of both buildings that followed a downward spiral as the buildings came down.
*How much damage was done in the lobby -- just from the impact of the planes -- 80 stories high.
* How witnesses reported hearing explosions in the basement just prior to impact and afterwards.
So many questions.
Who to believe?
Of course -- our Goverment has it all under control -- and chasing after a rag tag team of vagabonds hiding out in caves in some poor country overseas.
Thank God --- our borders are safe and we can all sleep safe and sound tonight knowing the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines are out and about in the world doing their job.
God Bless America.
Sincerely,
DKing
the world trade center was an inside job.....
and this is a video of the guy who piloted the first plane....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJIMbBcZgwc
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
on sept 8 and 9 the power was shut off on floors 48 and up, meaning the security cameras and such were off as well as the port authority performed a cabling upgrade. 9/8-9 was the weekend, as well.
i would really like to believe the official story, too...but things don't add up like how no jets were scrambled until after the pentagon was hit...some of these planes were KNOWN to be hijacked for over an hour...including a long time after the first plane hit. why did it take NORAD, the military, anyone to get any jets up? i guess it couldn't have anything to do w/ 2 months before 9/11 the power to make these calls were taken out of NORAD's and the military's hands and given to rummy, who gave it to cheney, who waited until right before the pentagon was hit to make a decision <and shouldn't bush have been the one doing htat, or at the very least consulted???>
you want to believe that KNOWN hijacked plane was able to fly through a no fly-zone in dc, turn around, come back and hit the pentagon? how far away from dc to it turn around? it was known to be hijacked for like an hour...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here.
Mitch Hedberg
naděje umírá poslední
Tower 7 collapsed because a huge part of one of the other buildings fell into it, and caused significant damage to the lower floors. It burned for a few hours before it collapsed.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6uFNBpjZCI4
I don't wanna go through everyone's questions here again, but you have got to start accepting reality. We were attacked by terrorists due to our policies in the Middle East. We were attacked for the same reasons in 1993, in 1998, and in 2000. We have to start working on changing those policies, and stop trying to explain mysterious flashes of light. If we don't change these policies, we will be attacked again. You can count on it. I'm not trying to play on anyone's fears or anything (I'll leave that to the government), but this is reality.
Also, planes being flown into buildings like this had never happened before. Years after, we've had a chance to digest the events and people create their own claims. But people throwing out panicked claims minutes after the attacks just can't be used as good evidence. So much is going through their minds, they aren't just focusing on what kind of plane it was or anything like that.
Could the flash have been cause by a steel airliner going hundreds of MPH colliding with another piece of steel in the form if the WTC? That's what I'm thinking and he doesn't have clear and concise video evidence either way.
Read this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
But was it allowed to happen is the big question, america needed it to do what it wanted in the mid east, get attacked then attack everyone else.
I feel that both israel and america had a hand in allowing it, I'm not interested in talking about bombs in the towers or rockets whatever, my concenr is with how could something like this not of been stopped unless it had a green light from people in the government.
Remember getting people scared is the best way to get them to follow you.
The question is why didn’t this happen with flight 11? Not even an attempt, which is a routine action, that happens more than a hundred times a year.
Even though no one knew it was going to hit the tower, at least an attempt should have been made.
But what about flight UA175, which left Boston at 8.14 am, right about when FAA started to realize flight 11 was hijacked (at 8.21 the stewards confirmed that the plane was hijacked)? At 8.42 all radio contact was lost and the plane left its course (same as what happen with flight 11). NORAD was supposedly informed around 8.43 am. Flight 11 hit the tower at 8.46.
Nothing happened, 9.03 am flight 175 was going in direction of the WTC.
But even more strange is how 35 minutes later a hijacked plane was able to hit the pentagon...
naděje umírá poslední
Incompetence and bad communication. There are some good documentaries out there that clearly show this (the history channel recently aired one). The 9/11 comission hearings show this. Just listen to the timeline of conversations between all the people in charge of air traffic. Information wasn't passed to the right people quickly enough and accurately enough to stop what was happening. They were still searching for flight 11 long after it crashed. They didn't know what was going on.
And on top of all that, so what if the government "allowed it to happen"? Would it really change your view of it? It wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. I already know the government is shitty, and I don't need one more atrocious story to convince me. Nothing that's been brought up in this discussion changes what we have to do now to ensure we won't be attacked again.
he he he, you said "inside job" !!!!!!!
So what? we know the government is shitty, we know how the system works, most americans don't, unless they should be kept in the dark?
If america allowed this to happen so they could expand it's empire, this is not a good thing and justice needs to be done.
So it does matter.
If israel knew and allowed it to happen (mossad aganest caught on 9/11) something should be done.
Ok, I guess in the sense of justice, you're right there. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence, that I can say is even close to being credible, that they knew enough to stop it. I really think the evidence that points to incompetence with air traffic control is just overwhelming.
That being the case, I think it's a waste of time looking at flashes of light and pods until we see something that's credible. It's always good to question, but the more critical question is why were we attacked, and what can we do to prevent it in the future?
I know right, I don't really concern myself with bombs and such in the towers and things like that, not that I don't believe it could've been the case, it's just that I know of other issues going on right now that know one can argue, like the israeli occupation of palestine, settlements, america in iraq, these are right now going on, live. we see these problems and that's what I like to focus on.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/10_15_w1.htm
Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir offered Sunday to surrender bin Laden for trial in an unspecified third country if Washington stopped the bombing and provided the Taliban with evidence of the Saudi dissident's guilt. Bush said no.
``We know he's guilty. Turn him over,'' the president said in Washington.
Bush rejected a similar offer aired by a lower-ranking Taliban official before he began the military strikes, now in its ninth day.
*********************************************************
We????
America -- the land where a man is inocent until proven guilty -- refuses to offer a man a fair and impartal open and public trial based on solid evidence?
That is what scares me.
I haven't seen the evidence to convict one man - or any group for the attacks. I think it would have been fair to hand him over to a neutral country and get a fair trial. Then I would have been convinced of the evidence presented.
I don't think a man should be tried in the newspapers.
Then again -- that almost happened to me once.
You all know that George Bush Jr. was the District Attorney for the city of Abilene in 1980.
He almost got me convicted in the newspapers --- KNOWING that I was totally inocent. Lucky for me - there was a couple of homicide detectives who had a conscious and wouldn't go through with the scheme. Then again - he was only a DA in a small city. What the hell would he have done to me if he or his Dad would have been President back in 1980?
You know what he told me afterwards?
"People believe what they want to believe. I just try and help them see things my way."
I don't think 21 years has changed his thinking much.
Where is the evidence either way?
Sincerley,
DKing
Yes, Bush turned down the offers from the Taliban. And there's a very simple explanation for that, and it's not because there was no evidence against Bin Laden to provide. It's because there IS plenty of evidence against people from his group (Atta and company being seen at the airports and getting on those flights, and all kinds of stuff), and there was a good chance that the Taliban would've turned Bin Laden over to us. In fact, there's a good chance they would've turned him over regardless of the evidence. However, Bush did not want Bin Laden turned over, and he doesn't want him now. Bin Laden is no good to the U.S. if he's not at large. The Bush administration didn't want to take a chance that the Taliban would turn him over, because then we would have no reason to invade Afghanistan and Iraq later on.
If you really don't see any evidence against al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, read the 9/11 Commision's report. I'm not going to go through all the evidence in a web forum, but it's been extremely well-documented. Bin Laden's group has attacked before 9/11, on 9/11, and they'll do it again unless we change our policies in the Middle East.
"In Plane Site" and "Loose Change"
films pretending to expose 9/11 that promote a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) using phony evidence (pods, dust clouds, flashes, no planes, no windows and other hoaxes)
parts of these film are true, but that also discredits by association
related pages:
Loose Change: a second edition of In Plane Site
Hoaxes Hidden In Plain Sight
A list of films with best evidence of 9/11 complicity is at http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html
"there's a lot of 9/11 speculation that’s out there that is based on video footage - in some cases altered photographs - we have no way of knowing what the chain of custody was of that evidence to prove that it has not been tampered with"
- Michael Ruppert, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, “The Party’s Over”
In Plane Site, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a compilation of most of the red herrings surrounding the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes hoaxes, misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly fraudulent.
The video clips that can be proven to be authentic are plagiarized from other films, such as the WTC 7 collapse, the firefighter sequence, and the footage from Oklahoma City.
In Plane Site only promotes the "Letsroll911" website (the loudest promoter of the "pod" claim), which means that "In Plane Site" is probably a "Webfairy" production (the video operation still churning out "new" video footage of 9/11 years after the fact).
The most revealing aspect of this fake film is that the cover graphic shows the same photo of a Boeing 757 that was posted to the "911truthalliance" list in May 2004 pointing out that the "pod" was merely an illusion. In other words, the manufacturers of "Plane Site" put a photo showing the "pod" is a fake claim on the cover of the DVD -- a bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
to sum up.... fuck In plane site. fuck loose change. fuck http://www.prisonplanet.com. fuck all the stupid shit. and most of all, fuck the entire bush administration.
"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event." -- Howard Zinn
Hey,
Actually, -- it was through Wikipedia pointing toward a news release by the US Goverment that got me to question the verifable proof of Osama Bin Laden's guilt or innocense. US urged to detail origin of tape.
So -- in actuality -- it wasn't the nuts or crackpot conspirarcy theorist that got me interested in the subject. It was our own US OFFICIAL release of a confession tape -- that I started questioning a conspiracy theory.
Sincerely,
DKing
Hey Kenny,
Apreciate this the link with the movies. I will check them out as I have time. I just finished watching 9/11 Eyewitness and liked it best of the ones I have watched. I agree -- some of them go over board in their presentation and there seems to be some misinformation destorted out of proportion. I liked 9/11 Eyewitness because it records the sounds of the explosions.
I do recall watching all the news coverage on 9/11/01 and everyone was talking about all the explosions. A year later on the anniversary when the French Film of NYFD was presented as a tribute to the fallen Firefighters -- I do recall you could hear the various explosions going off in the building, as well as the many firefighters commenting about all the explosions.
Too many unanswered questions for me.
I don't think we are going to get an honest look at the evidence -- until the war in Iraq is solved -- or maybe when a Democrat takes the House.
Thanks again for the link.
Sincerley,
DKing