MrShades

My post on this in the Fahrenheit 911 thread seems to get lost amongst all the arguements and noise, so I'll try under its own thread.... Has no-one else seen this????

Really - rather than Fahrenheit, you should watch "911 in plane site" and then decide what may have happened at the Pentagon and the twin towers.

This stuff is factual rather than Michael Moore's waffling. It includes mainly newsreel footage that has been shown ONLY ONCE and then (for some reason) never been shown again, or been made available again. The Pentagon evidence is as clear as day - the Twin Towers stuff is slightly less clear, but still a great deal in it.

Just why are there no photos or video footage AT ALL of the plane hitting the Pentagon? And why was there no wreckage of a Boeing aircraft found on the lawn of the Pentagon? Why did Secret Service agents take the CCTV video tape from the gas station across the road from the Pentagon shortly after the strike? Who knows....

Download it here:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/08-media/A-audio-video/01-government/2004/911_In_Plane_Site.zip
(108Mb Divx5.1 movie - about 50 mins long.)

Much more worthwhile viewing than Fahrenheit 9/11.....

Oh, and for the sarcastic one on the 911 thread (can't remember who it was) that mentioned the bbs that talked about exocet missiles strapped to the bottom of the planes "just to make sure" - watch the video first and then comment.

Shades

TheBigMan

Sorry, where exactly is it?????

Patt@firstime

Isn't this the film that was made by a french guy who is mega anti America?

MrShades

Have you watched it?

How can the Pentagon evidence be disputed?

The twin towers stuff is slightly more dubious - but the Pentagon footage makes it plainly obvious that an airliner didn't strike the Pentagon.... no way, no how.

TheBigMan

iT'S A BIG PAGE - WHERE DO i ACTUALLY DOWNLOAD FROM??

Damn Caps Lock!!

Dracoro

There's plenty of website that PROVE that this conspiracy theory is false. Look OJECTIVELY at the evidence provided and you'll realise that a plane DID crash into the pentagon. Next you'll be saying that Neil Armstrong didn't set foot on the moon. There's 'proof' that says that they didn't and it seems convincing at first glance but once you delve into the topic (like the pentagon crash) you realise that man really did set foot on the moon.

Do a search here too, this topic has been covered many times before.

MrShades

Sorry - the link doesn't go direct to the video for some odd reason.

Scroll down to the 17th August 04 "911 in plane site" in bold, take that link and then from under the title in the next page take the "Download and watch the video" and then half way down there are two tables, one for Windows and one for Mac with direct download links.

MrShades

Dracoro - Where did the tail hit then? Where are the wings? Where are the engines? What happened to all the aviation fuel?

If you can explain to me now what happened to the tail section, and the wings, then I'll accept that it may be incorrect - but as far as I can tell there is a single (rather neat) hole in the outside of the Pentagon, circa 16ft across (with intact windows above it), and that isn't what happens when a jet liner (with wings, big engines and a big tail) plows into a building. It's there in photographic and video evidence....

Patt@firstime

you sound like a quote from the film

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

The trouble with conspiracy theories is that most people are far too ready to dismiss the evidence of a conspiracy

Isn't that EXACTLY what the conspirators want?

Myself, I think THAT'S a conspiracy

Alcazar

TheBigMan

It was a plane.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

StickyMicky

i persoanly have doubts about a plane myself

i think it might have been a SIAP

johnfelstead

the biggest problem with that film is the complete disregard of the 4th flight, where passengers onboard contacted relatives by cell phone and told them about the hyjacking of their plane. Thats where the "lets roll" wording comes from, as the passengers attempted to take over the plane before it crashed in PA.

The most interesting thing on that film isnt the pentagon at all, its the footage of building 7 at the WTC complex apearing to have a massive explosion well before the towers come down, i hadnt seen that before. I can understand how people explain how the twin towers looked and sounded like a controlled explosion, because they failed exactly as a controlled explosion is designed to fail a building, you dont need explosives to cause that when you understand its contruction and the way it failed, which has been covered in some detail by the architect.

So there is a question or two to be answered, but nothing like what that film sugests IMHO.

Dracoro

MrrShades - As I said, do a search. Did you look at the link posted by TheBigMan? You convinced now?

That's how these conspiracy theorists play their game by making the evidence sound 'obvious'.

mj

if thats how planes are put together, its little wonder there was no substantial wreckage outside the pentagon. It's not all bad though, thinner and lighter planes mean they can squeeze more people on board for £20 flights

Personally, I reckon Bruce Willis has something to do with it

another good one...

PG

Right, I have downloaded it...WTF do I use to watch it ??

GaryK

And how many crash sites where a similar thing has happened have you seen and more importantly been there? Do you work for the NTSB and are you qualified to judge? All this conspiracy stuff itself makes *alot* of assumptions, sure there are questions but *nothing* that categorically proves it was anything other than a plane.

elgordano

this is what happens when a plane hits a solid object like a wall.

Link

Chris L

Spot on John. I was never totally convinced by the missle theory for the Pentagon, but the pictures of WTC 7 is something totally different. I'd never seen that before either. There is clearly a separate explosion - a huge explosion in WTC 7 when the main towers are still standing.

You could argue that the more of these theories that are banded about, the less likely it is that the truth will come out. I wouldn't be surprised to find that certain government agencies are behind some the conspiracies - the spreading of mis-information is a well tested and proven tactic for intelligence agencies.

There is certainly a lot more to this story than the government is telling us.

Jap2Scrap

I'm not sure about the official story on the Pentagon to be honest. Too much conflicting eye-witness evidence; Some people saw a missile, some saw the jet liner, some claimed to see both! There's also the small matter of the conflicting reports from the first official on the scene. In his first statement, during the clean-up, he was asked was it definitely Flight 77 and he replied that the plane had been seen going in but there were no large pieces left, no wings, engines or wheels. Then later, after the clean-up he said all those things were there. It was also claimed that the infrastructure of the plane was destroyed and melted by the burning aviation fuel and yet they later said it was definitely Flight 77 as the passengers could be identified by fingerprinting - What sort of fire burns metal but doesn't burn flesh? Finally, as in the clip on page one of this thread, yes the plane can be said to have been disintegrated on impact, that video certainly shows the plane almost disintegrating under the forces, but what then doesn't make sense is that the hole penetrated all three rings of the pentagon, not just the outer. This evidence would certainly fit with the impact of a uranium tipped missile than the carbon-fibre and aluminium nose of a 757 filled with electronics and not much else.

I'm not one for believing the 'conspiracy theory' at face value, I just think that the conflicting evidence means a truly independant investigation MUST be undertaken.