• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Topic: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6847.htm

    No offense at all intended.

    Just a video about some questions unanswered?

  2. #2

    Re: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    Asking questions about 911, honors the victims. They would want the truth about Bush's involvement to come out.

  3. #3

    Re: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty
    http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6847.htm

    No offense at all intended.

    Just a video about some questions unanswered?
    Interesting video. The Pentagon stuff is pretty convincing. I don't know about the tower stuff. But there are certainly unanswered questions.

  4. #4

    Re: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Asking questions about 911, honors the victims. They would want the truth about Bush's involvement to come out.
    The families have wanted answers from day one. They had to beg and cajole and threaten Bush in order to get a damned investigation going. So the question begs to be asked. WHY was Bush so reluctant?

    One interesting thing in the video: Bush is heard saying he saw the FIRST plane hit while watching it on television and figured it was pilot error.

    But the question is, HOW COULD BUSH HAVE SEEN THE FIRST PLANE HIT ON TELVISION -- when it WASN'T TELEVISED? It was a surprise, remember?

  5. #5

    Re: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    With regards to the Pentagon issue:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...2004/facts.htm

  6. #6

    Re: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    With regards to the Pentagon issue:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...2004/facts.htm
    Interesting article, but it doesn't directly refute a number of points made in the video posted above. Look at the video. The evidence is very compelling.

    I'm not saying it's necessarily true -- we may never know the truth -- but the explanations against the theory aren't very satisfying....

    No matter what side you come down on, there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

  7. #7

    Re: In Honor of the Families of 9/11

    Pentagon photos
    The video claims there are no photos of parts of the aircraft at the site of the Pentagon impact. This may be true that they were unable to find such photos, but such photos do exist. The magazine article I linked to before, in its print version, contained such photographs of very recognizable jet aircraft skin. I’ve also seen photos elsewhere of one of the engines being extracted from the rubble. It’s also interesting that we’re constantly told that there is no damage to such and such area, but then the photos we’re shown have some of the most likely places almost entirely obstructed from view. For instance there are fire engines and streams of water/fire retardant blasting over the first floor, thus obstructing our view of it. So how can we say whether or not there was sufficient damage to that area based on such photos?

    Damage pattern
    What isn’t taken into account is that the fuselage will do a lot more damage than the wings. The wings won’t create a hole in the building as wide as the entire wingspan. The wings would mostly be absorbed by the building creating relatively minor impact damage at their entry point.

    Unburned objects
    This isn’t too hard to figure when you consider that the objects in question were on floors above the point of impact. The Pentagon is a structure built to withstand much more than normal office buildings, including the containment of fire, etc. – all for obvious reasons. What could have happened is the fire began in and around the impact site, but the fire was contained outward from there. Later, the structure finally collapsed, after the fire had been mostly put out, thus exposing objects on other floors that had not be exposed to open flame.

    The bottom line is, if a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, then what did? There’s ample eye-witness testimony that some kind of aircraft impacted the Pentagon, so what was it if not a 757? Some of the suggested alternatives are even less plausible than the supposedly improbable 757.

    Non-commerical Airplanes
    This one is tough to accept. It’s easy to see eye-witnesses being mistaken about whether these planes were American Airlines or not (this type of confusion happens all the time). And with all the photographic and video evidence, it’s tough to imagine we could have been deceived at this level. It’s also tough to imagine, if the American Airlines planes didn’t hit the WTC, then what DID hit the WTC, and what happened to the missing American Airlines planes?

    Demolition of the towers
    Now this part does make some good points. It’s interesting to note also that I recall hearing that morning that only 3 days prior the FBI had, for some reason, taken over security for the WTC. Some of these same issues with demolition charges arose about the OKC Bombing as well, and I’m convinced that this is what happened in OKC. I would therefore not be surprised if the same happened at the WTC. Especially considering some of the same people were involved in both events.

    Building 7, in particular, came down VERY cleanly and evenly. It’s rather surprising that a non-planned and orchestrated demolition could have brought down a building with such precision and symmetry. I’m no expert, but I tend to think the chances of this happening are quite remote.

    Something attached to the 757
    I’m unconvinced that there was anything attached to the bottom of the plane in question. If you look at the shape of the underbelly of a 757, it’s clear to see that the shadowing could, and would, create such an appearance as is seen in the video. Here’s a high-res photo I found of the event:
    http://www.mistakesweremade.com/2ndT...iginalSize.jpg

    Similar bulges can be found in other photos of this type of aircraft:
    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/624026/L/
    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/622595/L/

    These photos, however, do not show the plan at a similar angle, so the bulges are not as pronounced as they would be if the light were to cast a shadow just right. Besides, if it had been a military explosive, as is postulated in the video, there would have been a MUCH larger blast upon impact. If you’ve ever seen military explosives at work, you’ll know that the blast seen upon entry was nowhere NEAR the size of a blast from any military-grade explosive ordinance. In addition, the “flash” captured by the cameras, occurs far IN FRONT of the supposed missile pod, near the nose.

    As for the first plane producing a flash “before” impacting the building, it appeared to me that, according to the shadow, that it did, indeed, make contact exactly when the flash was produced. The shadow appears to meet up with the plan on the face of the building right as the flash is produced.

    At any rate, I do believe there was a conspiracy and government cover-up regarding 9/11. I have little doubt about it. Especially considering they still have yet to pursue Hussain al Hussaini, who is now implicated in both the OKC Bombing and 9/11. Either the guy is being protected for some reason, or he’s a government agent provocateur, or he’s a government informant. Either way, the government is involved, and at best, has been grossly negligent in its duty and less than forthright in its dealings with the American people. This applies equally to both the Bush AND Clinton administrations. Clinton had a chance to bring these people to justice (people like al Hussaini), but instead, he pursued his witch hunt of conservatives and “right wingers”.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •