who were behind 9/11?

[andyfox]

It starts out with a reporter who said the second plane didn't look like a commercial plane, because he didn't see any windows on the side. Where was the reporter that he could see the side of the plane? If he was on the ground, how could he see the side of the plane?

Everyone saw the second plane hit the tower on TV. It was a commercial flight.

I only watched 2 minutes of your video. Please tell us the ending. It was teh alienzorz!!!111!one!!! that did it, right? We never should have screwed with them at area 51!!!one!!!11.

[Cumulonimbus]

If anybody cares, here's the link to the original thread. If you have a question regarding the 9/11 conspiracy, chances are somebody already asked it in that thread. And chances are that I or SpearsBritney answered it. Check it out if you got some time.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
If anybody cares, here's the link to the original thread. If you have a question regarding the 9/11 conspiracy, chances are somebody already asked it in that thread. And chances are that I or SpearsBritney answered it. Check it out if you got some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you get a cut of that video's profits or what?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

He makes the same mistake as many other documentary film-makers. He exaggerates a few claims which are not correct and thus bring down the overall credibility of the film. I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I remember seeing something about this both from the conspiracy theory side and the reality side. The conspiracy theorists said that the fire couldn't have melted the steel support beams, but the real firefighters and engineers said it wouldn't need to melt, just become distorted from the heat and that would compromise the structural integrity.

[MelchyBeau]

I really don't want to watch an hour long video so summarize please so I can rip apart your claims. Thank You.

Melch

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't want to watch an hour long video so summarize please so I can rip apart your claims. Thank You.

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't want to watch, fine. Im not claiming anything, just that the video made me think about the whole event again and that it cast doubt on what I thought I knew what happened on 9/11.

I have no clear judgement on the issue and would rather not believe the claims in the video. I also have serious doubt about the methods they use, and find some of the issues they adress bogus. Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint). Cause and effect don't seem to correspond very well. This is one of the issues adressed in the video.

Anyway, I will not summarize the claims of the video as Cumulonimbus refered me to a thread that had discussion on most of them, i'll read that first.

Marnix

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another of the conspiracy theorists' claims that I haven't understood. If it's so illogical that the buildings would collapse this way, why wouldn't the gov't rig the building to collaps on surrounding buildings and cause more damage? Obviously they aren't concerned with lives or $'s of damage since they're doing it anyway. So if they're so smart that they can rig this entire scheme to go off without a hitch, why finish it in some illogical fashion and blow their credibility? Is it totally outside the realm of possibility that what happened is naturally what would happen if a plane crashed into such a building?

Shouldn't a computer program be able to show what happened in virtual reality and be able to repeat this and adjust for the variables involved?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
He makes the same mistake as many other documentary film-makers. He exaggerates a few claims which are not correct and thus bring down the overall credibility of the film. I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was shot down, it would have broken apart in the air. The impact crater is consistent with a nose-dive at a high rate of speed (most crashes are glides into the ground at a slower rate).

I don't think it's unreasonable to think it would have been shot down if it was airborne much longer.