9/11: Who dunnit????

yeah....................

Makes you think - if by "think" you mean "engage in wild unfounded speculation contrary to rational thought".

It's an hour and 55 seconds.

The guy who makes it contradicts himself at the end. 

Russians

Someone used a remote control while standing on the grassy knowl.

Alex Jones.

Infowars.com

Go. Read. Watch. Know.

To .Ryan of course if it turned out to be true most people would refuse to believe, it's their nature.

Bango wrote: The guy who makes it contradicts himself at the end.

Yeah, he does so a couple of times. He spends time refuting people's claims that a plane flew over their cars across from the Pentagon by arguing that it would have blown the cars off the road. Later he uses a lady as one of his supporters after she says that Flight 93 flew no higher over her car than the Pentagon witnesses claimed.

Also, as Bango mentioned, he spends time arguing how it wouldn't have been possible for the people on Flight 93 to make those calls, because cells phones don't work at cruising altitude and the voices could be faked, meaning that we can't know what happened, and then uses their story of rising up against their attackers to try and stir anti-government action at the end.

I don't buy much of his evidence. I think there's a good chance Flight 93 was shot down, but that there was no need to detract from the passengers trying to take back the plan. People needed some heroes that day. I believe they still fought back and would have taken the plane.

Edited by reifidom

The main points of his that I disagree with:

1) The explosions he reports in the towers as they collapse, but ahead of the debris.

Compression. I'm surprised the force of the decending building didn't blow out more, or all, of the windows ahead of the body of debris falling. Air would have been forced through stairwells and elevator shafts with incredible force.

2) Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

The steel support structure didn't have to melt, it only had to soften, and with much of the fireproofing blown off, it had that much less protection.

3) The second tower to be hit was the first to fall.

Pressure. Pressure creates heat. The second tower was hit much lower, and the added pressure, on top of the fire, would have put much more stress on the support structure. That would lead to a faster collapse.

4) Several of the highjackers are still alive.

He offers no evidence of this at all, merely asking us to take his word for it. And if the government was willing to kill nearly 3,000 Americans in this attack, they would very likely make sure the people they said flew the planes were also dead.

and 5) His various "Isn't that convenient" moments, such as Rumsfeld being "safely" in his office on the other side of the Pentagon, or that if the government lied about one part of the attack they must be lying about all of it.

I admit it, I just personally don't care for this type of argument. The mention he made about how the passport could have been thrown free of the plane, fire, and tower, but the flight recorder was destroyed. Well, strange things happen. The flight recorder was also fixed in the plane, while the passport was not. Ripley, eat your heart out.

I will readily admit that I can't say for sure what happened that day, but the evidence I've seen, even after this documentary, still side more on the terrorist end of things. The debris found at the Pentagon is strange and brings up some awkward questions, and I can't explain what happened to the rest of the plane, figuring it was a plane.

Right from the start, when I saw the debris of flight 93, I figured it had been shot down to prevent it getting to a target. I also believe that the passengers were going to take that flight regardless, and couldn't have known they were about to be destroyed. Like I said before, there would be no need to detract from what they were doing for the sake of admitting we shot down a hijacked flight. It needed to be done.

There may be some very outlandish explanation for all of this, such as the government planning to attack the Pentagon and then finding they were right behind terrorists attacking New York. Or the government knowing about it beforehand and allowing it to occur, ala Pearl Harbor conspiracy. Or maybe it happened to work out completely in favor of the terrorists.

Edited by reifidom

That's another bit I can't adequately explain, I admit it. I'd like to see much more detailed evidence.

Altough, I wonder what it would sound like inside if the upper part of the building collapsed even a few inches.

Edited by reifidom