9/11
- Thread starter Busman747
- Start date
Watched a great program on National Geographic last night called inside 9/11 have a look at some of the interviews and watch some of the videos you never know you may belive it actually happened.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/
mani said:
Well said Mani, ----but there must have been room on the T.V. coverage for both. The majority of members on this site DO remember that there was little said about the attack on the Pentagon,but because of the enormity of the twin towers, the attack on the Pentagon was "over-looked!"
I still do not know whether this is factual or a "mock" conspiracy film, but you have to admit, it is convincing. I would LOVE to have the American Government pull these "facts" to pieces,......But I don't think that will happen!
grego said:
Was the plane that crashed into a field not brought down over Pennsylvania after passengers over powered the hostage takers? ............... I may be wrong ... I frequently am
i remember the footage of the pentagon been shown on bbc news and the pictures in that clip match what what was shown to my memory to both the bbc news and the film footage in 911/farenheit
although in the film 911/ farenheight some of the facts seemed to be stretched to suit micheal moors purpouses if not true he would have been sued and the film not allowed to be released one would think
ime not saying every theory about 911 is true but somthing stinks about the whole thing in my opinion and i thought that long before that clip was shown on here
each to their own i suppose lol
although in the film 911/ farenheight some of the facts seemed to be stretched to suit micheal moors purpouses if not true he would have been sued and the film not allowed to be released one would think
ime not saying every theory about 911 is true but somthing stinks about the whole thing in my opinion and i thought that long before that clip was shown on here
each to their own i suppose lol
gary did you not realise it was me and mands and less of the greasy thank you! your hot dog was grilled!garinda said:
High velocity impact by an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 would all but disappear. Speed at impact (the aircraft was in a dive) Weight x Ballistic force = terminal velocity + fuel load = partial evaporation, fragmentation and compression.
The cable drums showed where part of the refurbishment programmes in that that quadrant. The area of impacted was recently completed; otherwise the death toll would have been for grater
I once had the misfortune to see the impact of an RAF Phantom after it hit a hill side in Germany. 82% of the aircraft that was recoverable was. Not one piece was bigger than the hand that carried it. grim, very grim.
The cable drums showed where part of the refurbishment programmes in that that quadrant. The area of impacted was recently completed; otherwise the death toll would have been for grater
I once had the misfortune to see the impact of an RAF Phantom after it hit a hill side in Germany. 82% of the aircraft that was recoverable was. Not one piece was bigger than the hand that carried it. grim, very grim.
no hte point isnt to make people angry
the point is that if they see a civvy building being hit they have an inate fear that they may be next. their workplace, school or home.
even most americans know that they'll never work in the pentagon or a high target military building. but then chances of them workin in a high rise office block?
by focusing on th twin towers its playing on that fear of the possible attack. americans as gullible as they are fall for it and are angered that the terrorists hit innocent civilians and thus are prepared to back the prezy to do as he may.
its like this. what would anger u more? what would evoke more powerful emotions in u - images of the london bombings or images of some brit military base in iraq where a similar number of soliders died?
the point is that if they see a civvy building being hit they have an inate fear that they may be next. their workplace, school or home.
even most americans know that they'll never work in the pentagon or a high target military building. but then chances of them workin in a high rise office block?
by focusing on th twin towers its playing on that fear of the possible attack. americans as gullible as they are fall for it and are angered that the terrorists hit innocent civilians and thus are prepared to back the prezy to do as he may.
its like this. what would anger u more? what would evoke more powerful emotions in u - images of the london bombings or images of some brit military base in iraq where a similar number of soliders died?
Of course 9/11 never happened really. It's all an American conspiracy to get everyone in the western world to hate muslims. GWB had Hollywood mock up the plane crashes and then he commissioned magician David Copperfield to make the twin towers disappear. They're still there really, just can't be seen. Everybody's in there going about their business.
Last edited:
maybe the pentagon was not shown as much because very few died compared to the hundreds who died in the twin towers
i know it sounds crude but the news companies wouldnt be able to carry the story for the weeks which they did if they just focused on the pentagons death toll but because of the huge amount of deaths at the twin towers the news companies had many more story to run and many more witnesses than would be true of the pentagon therefore this gives greater impact to the watching public and then they news companies receive higher viewing figures! cause face it how many of you sat there on 9/11 and watched the news in shock for the evening,
i know it sounds crude but the news companies wouldnt be able to carry the story for the weeks which they did if they just focused on the pentagons death toll but because of the huge amount of deaths at the twin towers the news companies had many more story to run and many more witnesses than would be true of the pentagon therefore this gives greater impact to the watching public and then they news companies receive higher viewing figures! cause face it how many of you sat there on 9/11 and watched the news in shock for the evening,
JohnW said:Of course 9/11 never happened really. It's all an American conspiracy to get everyone in the western world to hate muslims. GWB had Hollywood mock up the plane crashes and then he commissioned magician David Copperfield to make the twin towers disappear. They're still there really, just can't be seen. Everybody's in there going about their business.
Well said John, you may well be right!
Check out the WASHINGTON TIMES!http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the WorldTradeCenter on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at
the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor
emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three
steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate
the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of
the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either.
The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
I don't think I believe in these conspiracy stories - - but obviously, a lot of Americans DO!
Yeah 1.Busman747 said:Well said John, you may well be right!
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
I don't think I believe in these conspiracy stories - - but obviously, a lot of Americans DO!
Busman747 said:Well said John, you may well be right!
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the WorldTradeCenter on 9-11.
I don't think I believe in these conspiracy stories - - but obviously, a lot of Americans DO!
It makes for good reading and debate. But did I not see those planes smash into the twin towers and the collapse of same?
We all saw the planes fly into the towers, come on, let's not start disputing that. I suppose if it was possible to bring down the towers in a controlled demolition collapsing in on themselves as they did, that would be preferable to them falling over their whole length and bringing down God knows how many buildings with them and perhaps killing thousands more people. However, there was certainly not enough time for some demolition crew to come in, plan the charge locations, set the charges and bring down the buildings. So, the only way this could have been accomplished, as far as I can see, was if the charges were put in when the building was constructed in order to facilitate such demolition. Does anyone seriously consider we are constructing buildings with built in charges?