I don't know if any of you have seen this, but I found it fascinating. On the date of the actual attack I can remember alot of what this documentary was pointing out, but I was too young at the time of the actual attacks and easily manipulated by the government and press so I didn't acknowledge any of this as fact. I found that the movie brought out into the open what people have been insinuating all along. It's a very powerful, inflammatory, and engaging movie (although I will admit there is a point in the middle which goes on for 20 minutes trying to convince you that the Twin Towers were not brought down solely by airplanes, while it took less than 3 minutes to fully convince me). It has also convinced me how corrupt and terrible the Bush regime has been. I think you guys should see it (or possibly already have, and I am way behind the times). I think it sparks some interesting debate, as well as a general hatred for Neo-cons, Bush, and the republican agenda! What are you waiting for, watch it!

Actually, all government officials are very corrupt. I can't remember which president said it, but said your governments are what is corrupt, it is the CORPORATIONS behind the government that is.

And I was talking to a demo guy that does tall buildings, and he said that the building came down too nice and neat for a plane to have destroyed it. He said it had to be an inside job.

Exactly what the movie was saying. They even played back the destruction of the twin towers slowly and zoomed in. You can actually see explosions on the floors below. That coupled with the thousands of eye witness accounts of multiple explosions, and it becomes pretty clear.

please be careful what you say. I personally am fairly Republican in my views. I have not yet had an opportunity to watch the movie, but I gotta say that



sounds incredibly like the people who say "my dad sexually abused me, I just cant remember any specific incidents or details about it, and all my siblings got abused too, they just dont remember"

while there is certainly some manipulation going on, it may not be coming from who you think.

I said the movie sparks hatred, not myself. Also, you really have to watch the movie. I understand what you are saying about how that sounds like my daddy sexually abused me, but I do remember hearing specific reports that day, and there is television evidence supporting this. The movie's not based on a bunch of theories from people today; rather, it's based on textual, news report, quotes, recordings, and other evidence from the time of the attack as well as reports released afterward. Don't crticize the movie before you see it

is sparking hatred ever a good thing? debates are good, but hatred is not.

Sorry. I was a little extreme in my wording, but I had just finished watching it, and I was more than a little annoyed at the government!

*Sigh* You poor, gullible fools. You're ignoring the OBVIOUS evidence in favor of implausible conspiracy theories. The people who made this are not engineers, they are not demolitions experts, they are not aviation experts, they are just idiots playing to people's love of conspiracy theories. Their evidence is sketchy, based on speculation or a scant news article or two, and not verified by experts as it is presented (they had to resort to Wikipedia for info on Marvin Bush, I noticed). Little to none of it is credible from a skeptic's point of view (or at least my point of view). On the other hand, I am prone to believe the facts. The fact is that 2 jumbo jets packed with fuel flew into two tall buildings, which exploded, burned, and eventually collapsed. End of story.

How about this. They showed how all of those other buildings in other countries had massive fires. Yet not a single one collapsed entirely. The twin towers and the other world trade center building were the only skyscrapers in history to collapse because of a fire. I realize that they themselves aren't experts, but I still believe that they have some excellent points. For one thing, why hasn't the government released the video tapes from the building monitoring the highway? Why weren't fighters scrambled sooner? Why were we so unprepared? What's the deal with all the put options? Why can explosions on lower levels of the world trade centers be seen in the footage? Why did many demo experts say that the towers fell like they were demo'ed? Why did Bin Laden deny responsibility and then magically admit to everything? Why is there evidence of the "terrorists" still being alive? Why weren't there marks on the Pentagon lawn? Why did the guy that bought the trade centers explicitely pay for terrorist protection? Why did that guy (defense secretary or something) say we needed a new pearl Harbor? Why was the bush administration so quick to accuse Bin Laden? Why are many of the phone calls on that flight that crashed in Pennsylvannia so weird? Why hasn't our government given full disclosure? What was up with all of the gold found?

Now I realize that many of these acusations are probably false, but I believe there's some truth in here, too. Something about that day just doesn't add up, at least not to me.

i wouldn't be so hasty...

As of yet, i don't go either way, as i have no reason to make up my mind. I am not a voter, and while it is good to know information, being devoted to one side or the other is irrelevant and just restricts the ability to be open minded

The video brings up valid points, asks valid questions, yet it is not irrefutable.

Kllrnohj, I could not agree more

These are also the only buildings ever to have MASSIVE JUMBO JETS FILLED WITH KEROSENE SLAM INTO THEM AT FULL SPEED.

They are questions that are easily answered. They present them in a manner that invokes feelings of conspiracy, when there really isn't one.

Because they don't want to reveal security flaws with the Pentagon that would give terrorists pointers for another attack.

Because no one knew what was going on.

NORAD only scans the borders of the country -- it wasn't meant for internal problems because they had never been anticipated.

Because air had to escape the building, and so exited through those floors.

The towers were designed to pancake in the event of a collapse -- they're taking those quotes out of context.

That's what he decided to do -- he is a terrorist after all.

I'd like to see that evidence.

Because it didn't crash on the lawn.

Because the towers were bombed in 1993. Regardless, you'd have to be an idiot not to get terrorist insurance on such a large terrorist target.

Because 9/11 advanced the neo-conservative agenda enormously. That doesn't mean the government was involved in the attack, it merely shows that there may have been a grain of truth to the whole War on Terror (initially at least).

Because Bin Laden bombed the WTC in 1993.

What would you say if you were on a hijacked plane?

See my above answer.

Not sure what you're talking about.

We don't know everything down to the most minute detail, but the big picture sure as hell makes sense to me.

Alright, I will concede many of those points. But, one that stands out is

If I remember the phone conversations correctly the flight attendant was as calm as could be. One guy called his mom and the conversation went something like this:

"Hi...Mom, this is Mark Stevens" (I forgot the actual name but let's just pretened that this is it)

"Mark, you never have introduced your self by your last name to me before"

Pause

"Mom, I am calling you from a phone on a hijacked airplane. You believe me don't you mom?"

"Of course I do"

Interrupted by another man in the background

"Mom, you believe me don't you, you believe its Me, Mark right?"

"You sound strange"

Now there was other dialog in there, and none of that is a direct quote, but you get the idea. In a moment of crisis, I don't think I will be introducing myself to my mother as Patrick Stetter and constantly asking her if she believed that it was really me. This doesn't sound fishy to anyone?

Wrong. If you watch, they show another building that was hit with a jet that survived just fine. Kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel used anyway



that is probably the worst excuse i've ever heard



The air towers tracking the planes knew what was going on as soon as it happened. Maybe not exactly that it was hijacked, but a loss of comms and a rogue jumbo jet flying off course is definitely going to raise alarm



again, worst explanation i've ever heard. The building is not sealed (elevator shafts were, however), meaning the air would not get focus-released at the bottom.



actual damage to the buildings from the plane impact would damage only that side. At least half the building (if not more) was still completely structurally sound. Therefore, only the part above the planes crash would have fallen off, if any part were to fall at all. it would not have folded in on itself



piss-poor explanation



The "evidence" is there still walking and talking body - various news sites have this info, look it up



According to the report from the U.S. government, it did



you DO realize it is near impossible to actually MAKE a phone call from a plane at 32,000 feet? success rate is less than 1 in a 100, even the airline companies admit this as that is the reason they have started installing mobile cell phone access points in the planes

These had enough fuel for a cross-country flight -- that's A LOT of fuel. Bedies, the fact that one building didn't fall down when hit by a jet doesn't guarantee that no building will. Also remember that the kerosene wasn't what burned the building down, it was what was in the building. The kerosene merely started a massive fire.


I'm not here to make excuses for the government, but that is a routine thing for them to do. Anyway, they did release one (very poor) tape that showed the jet crashing into it.


Yes, but what were they going to do? They weren't anticipating hostile action, they probably just thought it was off course or what-not.


I'm not a demolitions expert, but that's the explanation I've heard. Those "explosions" could have been anything -- air escaping, equipment exploding, other exploding parts of the plane. There's no reason to think that it was an inside job.


But it damaged the core of the building, meaning not just the side was blown up. Once the top started pancaking, the floors below it couldn't resist the weight.


How is that piss-poor? No one is inside the mind of bin Laden; we don't know what he's thinking.


I'm not going to believe it until you present evidence that proves or at least suggests that may be true.


Well then I'm sure the lawn was damaged according to the report.


No it's not...

@Chipmaster: The callers obviously were able to keep their heads on their shoulders. They most likely believed it was a traditional hijacking, in which the terrorists hijack the plane, land it, and relase the hostages after a while. They probably figured out that if they called their loved ones and screamed their heads off, nobody would know what was going on and it would just cause their family members undue stress.

Do you conspiracy people even have a coherent theory? You're starting to sound like creationists desparately throwing arguments out to support a bullshit theory.

ouch....now Ive been dissed by both sides in this argument....first republican bashing, now creationist bashing....

That's why they call me Jon "Mericless Debater" Pezzino.

bah, i call you Jon "avoids the big issue and focuses on solely the small details" Pezzino

Participating a debate is putting your views up to be hit, although for Jon to bring creationist into this was wrong...it deserves its own section and I really don't think too many will step up to participate in a civil one...

@kirb & elprince: I deleted your pointless, offtopic posts. Don't hijack this thread. --Jon

Yes, yes it is. A notable scientist conducted an experiment, as shown in the film. It conlcuded that the likely hood of a successful phone call goes down exponentially as the height of the plan increases. I think I remember the chance of a successful phone call being made was less than 1%. I think you can agree that the chance that all of those were successful were quite low. Now I know you aren't going to take my word for it so take these:
http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

There are many others but I would like to point out a few key lines:



I would also like to point out some more information that I have found in my popular science magazine this month. Cell phones constantly monitor their psition when you turn them on. When you attempt to call someone the phone sends its data as well as the number you dialed to the carrier's nearest tower which sends it to the MTSO. Now these MTSO's are not located at 10000 feet. They are very limited in range. In my town we have terrible reception. You normally have to walk outside to get a signal. AND the nearest MSTO is less than a mile away. Now you are going to tell me that people were able to make calls from within an alluminum tube, much further from an MSTO than me, while traveling over 200 mph, and all of them have perfect connections? To me that's seems a little unlikely.

Edit: @Jon if they thought it was a traditional hijacking, THEN WHY DID THEY GO TO THE TROUBLE OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE TERRORISTS?!?!? I remember watching a show on these calls on the History channel a while back. Many of the callers mentioned that they knew of the attacks earlier and they weren't about to become the next victims of a suicide attack.