This video kinda makes you think.

I personally think this Alex Jones guy is another democrat that hates Bush and likes to edit video images and information. That's just me though.

Watch it if you haven't seen it already. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

Russians

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly during high stress events.

On 9/11 I heard the planes described by eye witnesses - including cops, firemen, reporters, and tourists - as small Cessnas, fighterjets, airliners, and several things in between.  I heard people say they say missiles and other airplanes.  I heard trained pilots say that the planes were obviously flown by amateurs and obviously flown by professionals.

Just because somebody says they saw it doesn't make it so.

But the biggest flaw with this goofy movie is the same flaw that underlies every conspiracy theory out there - a failure to honestly pursue, present and evaluate contrary evidence.  This is a fatal flaw, and renders the entire presentation fundamentally unbelievable.

Take the picture of the underside of the plane, where there appears to be "something" that shouldn't be there.  Did they ask Boeing what that was?

Take the sequences of the buildings collapsing, making it appear that the towers were demolished.  Did they ask a demolition expert what he thought? 

Take the apparent missile explosion before the planes hit.  Did they consult with an engineer to hear if there were alternate explanations (like the pressure posited above)?

Take the statement that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel.  Did they consult a structural engineer to evaluate the result of that burning fuel on a building like this?

The answer to all of those questions, and every other one of its kind, is a resounding "NO".  The authors of this crap pretend to be encouraging "critical thinking", but what they are actually doing is presenting wild unfounded speculation as fact, and asking you to blindly and uncritically accept their presentation.

Regardless of the possibility of any truth underlying these accusations, their methods reveal these people as crooks and charlatans.

Ok, I watched it. Notice how grainy the video is compared to what you would normally see on TV. You can get a high quality TV feed from alot of places. Yet the Author has lowered the resolution very low. I think this was done to cover up video editing that was done.

Next. The video supposedly says that a second before the Second Aircraft hit the WTC it fired a missile. Why would a JET fire a small missile, most likely less than a ton. Why would a 100 ton Jet fire a missile that has an explosive warhead of less than a ton into the building that it is about to crash into?

Then the video moves to the pentagon. They supposedly prove that a 757 aircraft did not fly into the pentagon, and it was a Tomahawk Cruise Missile that hit the pentagon or it was a small military jet. So which event are you claiming happened, the cruise missile, or the Jet?  They then show quotes from civilians that saw the event. The people are describing specific types of aircraft in their quotes. Three Quarters of Civilians that I know don’t know the difference between a 737 and an A600. I think that even if these quotes are real, (which is unlikely) that they are not at all reliable. They then claim that there was a smaller military aircraft, and an C130 directly overhead minutes after the crash and suggest that one of these aircraft might have launched the Tomahawk cruise missile. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe when the aircraft refused to land with the grounding of all flights was announced NORAD just might have sent up aircraft to see what the deal was? Not to mention that there where always 2 fighters in the air over DC at any given time. As for the theory that the aircraft launched the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Tomahawk is a Ship Based Platform that is fired from Submarines, and Naval Vessels. It would be very difficult, and pointless to modify this missile for Aircraft use.

Then the movie claims that the first 3 buildings ever to be destroyed by fire where the Twin Towers, and Building 7. However they were not destroyed by fire, they were destroyed by a lack of structural integrity caused by the impact of the aircraft. Then he says that burning fuel tanks caused building 7 to collapse. Fuel Tanks don’t burn, they explode therefore causing SI failures. If you look at the video images you can see where he edited it to make it look like a controlled demo.

Then he said that flight 93 was being trailed by a military aircraft.  Of course it was! A fighter can fly mach 2, easily catching up with a subsonic jet.

They then show a quote from Osama that say he is outraged about the attack, and would never hurt innocent people. That is right, he said he would never hurt innocent people. Then why did Osama authorize the ’93 attack then?

Most of his “evidence” is from “eyewitness” accounts, and come from written quotes, and obviously edited low resolution video footage. Also most of his sources are The American Free Press. This is about the most liberal news source I know of. So In conclusion, it is truly pathetic.

.

Hella Cool wrote: Who gains more by fabricating the story? Some dude with a video on a website or the entire Bush Administration with all their new powers and the major corporations like Halliburton with their billion dollar contracts?

I'd have to go with the film-maker. 

The cost-benefit analysis clearly does not favor Bush or Halliburton arranging 9/11 (cost:  tens of thousands of innocents murdered, billions of tax dollars spent, guaranteed life/death penalty if caught, guaranteed to be compared with Hitler for all eternity; benefit:  political gain and marginal economic gain).  While it's possible, it would require a lot of people to be complete maniacs.  It would also require a massive secret conspiracy - and conspiracies can be massive or secret, but not both.

The cost-benefit analysis for the film-maker, on the other hand, clearly favors making the fake movie (cost:  $250 in editing gear, 35 hours of weekend work, labeling as a conspiracy theorist; benefit:  internet fame, perhaps future economic opportunities).

Pretty much a no-brainer.

Reifdom, don't consider what I said proof, it's just something to consider.

Rambino, let's imagine that they are just after money and power. Maybe they don't care that thousands of Iraqis have died. The billions of dollars that have been spent wasn't their's, it was taxpayer's. No loss there either. Who cares if you're compared to Hitler if it doesn't get exposed and you gain tons of power and billions of dollars?

Who gains more, Rambino?

Film maker gain: Potential internet fame (kind of like pb125's internet fame)

Administration/corporations gain: Re-election in 2004, lots more executive power, billions in no-bid contracts   

chronic future wrote: Where'd all the wreckage go from the plane that hit the pentagon?  Or the skid marks on the ground leading up to the building? i'm missing something

There is no skid marks... The Plane didn't land before hitting the building. Carbon Fibers, which is what most of the aircraft is made from will burn up at the temp of the fire.

Hella Cool wrote: Rambino, let's imagine that they are just after money and power. Maybe they don't care that thousands of Iraqis have died.

And the thousands of Americans?  I'll bet that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all knew many of the people that died in the twin towers and in the Pentagon.  Investment bankers and military officials - that's THEIR people.

The billions of dollars that have been spent wasn't their's, it was taxpayer's. No loss there either.

Au contraire.  Bush is taking VAST amounts of political flak for his spendthrift ways.  His spending has caused a major rift within the Republican party.

Who cares if you're compared to Hitler if it doesn't get exposed and you gain tons of power and billions of dollars? ... billions in no-bid contracts

First off, it's not as many billions as you think.  It's not like Halliburton would have been twiddling their thumbs without the war.  They would have had other work.  Even if these contracts were more profitable, the gain is still fairly marginal.  And the profit margin on this type of contract is usually in the 5-10% range, so it's not like Halliburton just pockets $80 billion.

Moreover who do you think gets those billions?  Cheney?  No.  The CEO of Halliburton?  No.  Halliburton is a publicly traded company.  The money goes to shareholders (and nobody in the administration owns any stock).  The top executive will get big bonuses and probably make a few extra million, but certainly not billions. 

And who are the shareholders in Halliburton?  According to http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HAL - public filings , only 0.3% of the shares are held by insiders (executives and directors).  Halliburton is mostly owned by institutions - 85%.  That means mutual funds and retirement trusts.  I would wager that practically anybody in the entire country with a 401k owns some Halliburton.  I am confident that the teachers' retirement fund does.  So 85% of the benefit from these no-bid contracts goes to regular working folk.  Zero goes to Cheney.

Does a couple million dollars provide motivation to go to war?  For some people - sure.  But if you have a lucrative job, already making 10 mil a year, and if you get caught you lose everything and spend the rest of your life in jail, why would you start a war for an extra 2 mil?  Even apart from moral concerns?

I'll stand by my statement.  It would be absolutely insane for anybody to rig 9/11 based on some expected political or monetary gain.  That's just a really dumb theory.

Rambino wrote: Hella Cool wrote: Rambino, let's imagine that they are just after money and power. Maybe they don't care that thousands of Iraqis have died. And the thousands of Americans?  I'll bet that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all knew many of the people that died in the twin towers and in the Pentagon.  Investment bankers and military officials - that's THEIR people.

Some will fall for the ultimate goal, I guess.

Rambino wrote: Hella Cool wrote: The billions of dollars that have been spent wasn't their's, it was taxpayer's. No loss there either.  Au contraire.  Bush is taking VAST amounts of political flak for his spendthrift ways.  His spending has caused a major rift within the Republican party.

Au contraire? All I said was the he spent billions of dollars and it was taxpayers money.

Rambino wrote: Hella Cool wrote: Who cares if you're compared to Hitler if it doesn't get exposed and you gain tons of power and billions of dollars? ... billions in no-bid contracts    First off, it's not as many billions as you think.(some of your stuff here about Cheney not getting $.)

I consider the $7 BILLION dollars that Halliburton alone got a lot. Another example is Bechtel. They invested millions in campaign donations to Republicans and received over $1 billion in no-bid contracts in Iraq. It's not Cheney getting this money, although he is still getting paid by Halliburton, it's the Republican elite, Bush's "base." 

Dude - you're reaching.  Seriously.

If a lil ol' lesbian like me can tell you're reaching, you're in trouble.