Topic: Something to think about....

[UNBREAKABLE]

I found this on the web the other day. It really makes you think(and kinda worry too)

http://www.question911.com/links.php

here is the 1st part
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%20-%20A%20Documentary%20on%20911%20Part%201.wmv
here is the 2nd part
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%20-%20A%20Documentary%20on%20911%20Part%202.wmv


and 1 more (this one is shorter than the others but has to do with just the pentagon)
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/




This is eye-opening and requires thinking. Tell me your thoughts on it........The first 2 videos are long but well worth it.

[lilbuddy]

Those videos are crazy! I didnt watch any of those particular ones, but I did get a copy of one from my dad who got a copy from somone at work. Its insane and it really makes you think. The pentagon was the more weird one but the one about the WTC and how theres a flash of light in the front of the plane was just insane. Even on like 7 differnet angles.... Ill have to find out the name of the movie I got. Its like a documentary. Interesting stuff............

[David]

www.rense.com
A lot of information you won't find in the mainstream media. This site really makes you think...

[BLACKDOG]

I haven't had a chance to watch the 2nd video, but I have seen many huge flaws in the 1st one that UNBREAKABLE posted.

1. The video creator used different high rise examples that burned, for long periods of time, but didn't fall.  I was also impressed by his throughness of what the buildings were constructed of.  HOWEVER, the creator did not go into detail on HOW the buildings were constructed.  The twin towers were built using an "outer support" design.  The outter walls were the structural supports of the buildings.  Those buildings could have burned for days, and not fallen down, had they had a fire start from the inside.  But take away the stuctural supports?  its going down.  The tearing of the plane through the walls  caused rifts in the structural supports, causing them to come down.

2.  I was EXTREMELY unimpressed by the creator's lack of reference in the video.  he showed us pictures, and design models, and drawings of engine components, yet they never have a reference, we are left to believe what he says.  I am mainly talking about the photos concerning the design schematics and such of the turbojet "found" in the pentagon. (15:10) (15:38) (15:49)

3.  (12:23) IS a shot of a man holding debris from the crash.  This debris looks to be of a plane, due to the riveting, and the sheetmetal design.  The "actual" plane, according to the creator, the a-3 skywarrior, does not appear to be built out of the same design, accorsding to the photos seen here  http://www.a3skywarrior.com/index.htm . 

4. at minute 13:21 A short paragraph is highlighted, indicating why boeing would not send its schematics, designs, and so forth to the creator.  He states that it was due to the 9/11 attacks.  However, his highlighting does not indicate that.    IT just states they are not able to give out their design stuff, which I can understand. 

5. starting at  (18:44) there were multiple witness acounts stated.  Of course, these all disagreed, but I thought it was interesting that the ones that thought it was a missile said it "sounded" like one.  All the eyewitness acounts stated they saw a plane, not a missile. 

I'm not going to say that I understand everything, or can explain everything, because I can't.  To me this video is pretty suspicious, and hard for me to buy.  Its too sporadic, and seems to have a lot of conjecture, not proof.

[Lady Di]

I haven't had a chance to watch the 2nd video, but I have seen many huge flaws in the 1st one that UNBREAKABLE posted.

1. The video creator used different high rise examples that burned, for long periods of time, but didn't fall. I was also impressed by his throughness of what the buildings were constructed of. HOWEVER, the creator did not go into detail on HOW the buildings were constructed. The twin towers were built using an "outer support" design. The outter walls were the structural supports of the buildings. Those buildings could have burned for days, and not fallen down, had they had a fire start from the inside. But take away the stuctural supports? its going down. The tearing of the plane through the walls caused rifts in the structural supports, causing them to come down.

Have not seen any of this but what BD has posted here, but I think I know what this is about. Another point to this particular point I would like to add is that jet fuel was poured into the structure to add... fuel, as it were, to the fire.

[jimbo74]

and how many peopel actually nkow what a missile sounds like, sure we hear missiles on tv... but then again, most peopel think fire you can see flames, like in the movies, which is untrue, a friefighter going through a working structure fire is wearing an air mask and crawling on the floor through pitch darkenss.... movies can only make so much interesting, actually knowing how it

im with blackdog, some of it could be true, some of it probably not... but i call :bs:

[wa4x4]

See, I dont buy into this stuff. But I watch it anyways it is good entertainment for me just to see what some people think. I also love in the first overview video, the speech quotes talking about the servant of evil. I never knew about the skull and bones secret stuff but idk, it does seem weird in the video it looks like charges going off every few floors.