2
I only watched the first 5 minutes or so.

First off, claims that there is something "unusual" on the fuselage or that you can see a "missile" launching form the second plane are kind of silly--the images are so grainy that you can't really determine anything. Second, WHY would an aircraft launch a missile 1/100th of a second before impact?? the whole thing's gonna blow up anyway.

I tend to believe that this government is capable of some pretty heinous things but this theory lacks credibility, to me.
http://www.vectortrio.com

3
the bad hip-hop and 5 year old narrator certainly help their credibility :)

but seriously, 9/11 has always seemed fishy, and there are some observations in the doc that deserve further inquiry, but none of it is investigated scientifically or objectively unfortunately.

4
There's a lot that is very fishy about 911. I'd go so far as to suggest that some in the government knew it was going to happen and LET it happen.

There's another theory by a French writer that no plane hit the Pentagon--it was a missile. I know people who were in what was then the USA Today building and saw the plane hit! I personally saw the smoke, fire, and wreckage as I evacuated the city...it was a plane.

Links between the Saudi royal family and Bush et al. need to be investigated. Moore started this but it needs to go further.

And even if there was NOTHING fishy about 911 subsequent Bush actions make him a criminal in he should be charged with treason.
http://www.vectortrio.com

5
harmo wrote:I'd go so far as to suggest that some in the government knew it was going to happen and LET it happen.
And there's a precedent for this, of course, with Roosevelt and Pearl Harbour which seems to be pretty much acknowledged and accepted these days. I wonder what they will be saying about 9/11 in 100 years time...

The pentagon-hit-by-a-cruise-missle stuff seemed the most convincing part of that documentary, funnily enough.

6
harmo, please watch the section on the pentagon in this "doc" and speak to it, as you say - you were there (in the area).

edit: 11m-22m mark pls.
Last edited by TC on 05/01/06, 11:13:03, edited 1 time in total.

8
you may also want to have a look around this site.

anyway, i think this is probably the most well put-together documentary on the subject, as it uses exclusively published reports, eye-witnesses, interviews from people on the scene, and covers other media as well - thermo photographs, seismic activity, etc., as well as piecing together parts from various other docus on the subject. it doesn't "make up" its own facts, it uses what is already there for the looking.

this should be mandatory viewing for everyone. sensationalist and biased? perhaps. but bias weighted on this side of the scale so heavily can only attempt to balance out the mass media that we've all been forced to swallow for four years now....

9
Oh for pete's sake, that video reminded me of those grassy knoll yahoos who think they can see the second shooter in the shadows and bushes on the picket fence. It doesn't even rise to the level of Oliver Stone Logic.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

11
Yeah, he was carrying Jack Ruby's lost WMD's.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

13
she was? i'm sorry to hear that. did she die in the accident? did he get to view remains? oh, and where is the plane?

14
O-dot wrote:Oh for pete's sake, that video reminded me of those grassy knoll yahoos who think they can see the second shooter in the shadows and bushes on the picket fence. It doesn't even rise to the level of Oliver Stone Logic.
what? what'd you watch, like 30 seconds of it? how can interviews from firefighters that were there on the scene and liberal use of actual laws of physics not "rise" to "...oliver stone logic"?

i requested you view the first 3:30 to perhaps raise some inner questions and make you want to watch the rest, not to represent the definitive parts of the film.

15
"did he get to view the remains"


You know, I haven't asked him, and I don't think I will. But if you actually believe this theory...how do you explain the fact that the passengers boarded the plane, their loved ones saw them do so, and then they crashed? As I say, people in the USA Today building saw it happen! how does one engineer a conspiracy so detailed that they actually fake witnesses and apparently suquester entire rosters of passengers?

it's ludicrous. you don't have to get to this point to know the government is rotten.
http://www.vectortrio.com

16
TC wrote:did she die in the accident?
All 64 people aboard the airliner were killed.
TC wrote:oh, and where is the plane?


This was a plane loaded with jet fuel. It hit a reinforced concrete structure at a high speed and exploded, and a fire ensued, basically incinerating the plane. Only small pieces of aircraft were visible from inside the Pentagon.
how can interviews from firefighters that were there on the scene not "rise" to "...oliver stone logic"?
You're going to have to do better than that. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Example: Many of the doctors who saw Kennedy in Dallas described an exit-type wound at or near the back of his head. But the autopsy photos and X-rays show that the exit wound was in fact on the top of his head. The Dallas doctors were wrong.

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, TC, then what happened to Flight 77?
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

18
That "doc" is a laughable mix of nonlogic and uninformed mush.

And you guys still haven't explained what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

19
according to the doc, the planes that hit the towers shot missiles 1/100th of a second before impact :lol:

Since we KNOW planes hit the Towers, why is it such a stretch to believe that one hit the Pentagon?

That's what I don't get about some of these more...ambitious conspiracy scenarios. They are very good about minutia...for example, trying to prove that a wheel found in the Pentagon could not have come from the plane that hit it, or using physics to show that such-and-such could not have happened the way we think it did. And then they blow the big picture: Planes WERE used, and we know that.
http://www.vectortrio.com

20
harmo wrote:...how do you explain the fact that the passengers boarded the plane, their loved ones saw them do so, and then they crashed? As I say, people in the USA Today building saw it happen! how does one engineer a conspiracy so detailed that they actually fake witnesses and apparently suquester entire rosters of passengers?
no no no, i'm not saying the plane wasn't crashed and everyone killed, without seeing anything resembling a plane in the wreckage, on the news, and all the local cameras that would have captured it confiscated, i'm saying maybe it wasn't crashed there.
harmo wrote:you don't have to get to this point to know the government is rotten.
well duh. :)