[Jackalope]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801

kinda long though

[superlinuxman]

i saw that a week or so ago
its worth the time

[superman]

yeah i've seen it and it's really good

[Jackalope]

well i guess im just all kinds of behind then

but anyway from what i have seen so far it is a very very well put together documentary. hella better than anything moore has put out.

[Scrubbin_Bubbles]

I seen this yesterday, The guy has some strong facts on his video of Bin Laden and how it isnt him, its creepy, and Im guessing the CIA is looking for this guy right now

[El Sid]

Wow. These guys did their homework. Definitely casts shadows over the "official" version.

[Torx]

yea ive been meaning to get this video..
thanks bud..

i cant really keep up with the video, too much information for me to comprehend..
imma have to watch this again

[Chainblade]

wow, that's all I have to say...i'll have to watch it again to really understand it better. these guys did do there homework...although it all just seems so obvious ya know...

[Alex B]

wow is right. i saw that it was over and hour and i was about to turn it off but it just sucked me in! i watched the whole thing and they make some extremely valid points. i always thought it was weird how the WTC towers could collapse on themselves like that...

[lostintheUSA]

as with any story, theres always grains of truth. Heck, even if half the stuff is real, then its still f**ked up.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

[Cr@cKpiPe tE@sEr noOb!]

ya, i saw that a couple weeks ago. I showed it to my friend and he got angry and asking how i can beleive such bullshit. I dont say it's completely true but i dont say it's false either. It'd be better if maybe they got some more funding to do it a bit more professionally. I'm sure more people would listen.

[Goofus Maximus]

As to the "strangeness" of the Towers collapsing... read the Engineer's perspective, or the Structure of Metal The twin tower part of the report is simply bogus.

It's interesting how they string together a long list of facts and speculations that may or may not be related to each other at all, and how the renewal of an "anti-terrorist" insurance is listed as strange, despite the previous attempt on the WTC.

The majority of the airplane is made of Aluminum, rather than steel and titanium. It's not vaporisation, but simple shredding, by the steel and concrete walls, that is the culprit in destroying the plane that hit the pentagon. Comparing this to a crash on the ground is useless, since there was no steel rebar to shred the Greek plane's tail section...

Eyewitness accounts mean nothing. I've yet to hear any two witnesses who agree in ANY event. My goodness, ammunition couldn't POSSIBLY have been stored in a military building! *shock* A tarp-covered object is so strange, coming from a building full of CLASSIFIED ITEMS! *double-shock!*

This entire thing just shows that any event can be obfuscated into just about any interpretation one wishes...

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon strike

[CHEDaddy]

I sorta got sucked into it, too. I kept thinking I would watch for a few more minutes and it was making some sense so I wanted to keep watching and see if there could be anything to it.

But then when the authors started deconstructing the Pentagon impact it started to fall apart for me. At first, I was a little bothered by the authors' observations of the basic facts of the scene because the pictures they provided did not show what the authors were trying to point out. But I was willing to suspend a little disbelief because I thought they were making sense. But then, even if I agreed to the basis provided by the author, I found myself disagreeing with at least 80% of the scientific comparisons and conclusions presented, which were presented as either immutable facts or impossibilities. By the end of the Pentagon crash analysis (after about 25 minutes of vid I think) I decided there was nothing to this and I shut it off. I certainly didn't see any one thing that I agreed could not be explained except by the conclusions of the authors (most of which with which I disagreed).

I'm going to have to guess (if you choose to believe all of the information that was presented in the first place) that this was a lot of coincidences and statements cherry-picked from all of the facts and statements available (in an event as grand as this you have a large pool of circumstances and statements from which to fish for stuff that supports your position) coupled with some pretty poor scientific and engineering analysis. Fortunately, because the thing did have me a little worried for at least a couple minutes LOL

[smirnoff]

Head to head (official story vs this movie) I find this movie's explaination of events more plausible. And where this movie asks questions to which there is no official answers, well, in this case not having an answer to me justifies more than a little suspicion.

This is this kind of story I wish professional journalists were working on. Instead I have to get it from google.video. I've gone to the goat's house for wool, but what choice do I have!

[Wedge_]

If anyone wants a better quality copy: http://ts.searching.com/torrent/5065...Edition_DVDRip

Originally Posted by CHEDaddy

But then when the authors started deconstructing the Pentagon impact it started to fall apart for me. At first, I was a little bothered by the authors' observations of the basic facts of the scene because the pictures they provided did not show what the authors were trying to point out. But I was willing to suspend a little disbelief because I thought they were making sense. But then, even if I agreed to the basis provided by the author, I found myself disagreeing with at least 80% of the scientific comparisons and conclusions presented, which were presented as either immutable facts or impossibilities. By the end of the Pentagon crash analysis (after about 25 minutes of vid I think) I decided there was nothing to this and I shut it off. I certainly didn't see any one thing that I agreed could not be explained except by the conclusions of the authors (most of which with which I disagreed).

I'm in no position to judge the accuracy of a lot of the things they said, but the one thing that stands out as suspicious is the near-immediate confiscation of the various CCTV tapes from the buildings near the Pentagon, which have apparently still not been released. If everything happened according to the official story, then I'd like to hear a plausible explanation for this. If all the tapes show is the American Airlines 757 hitting the Pentagon, what possible reason is there not to release them and end all of the speculation and conspiracy theories?

[Goofus Maximus]

The parts I saw that I know they got wrong, make me doubt all the rest of what they say that SOUND plausible, because a properly edited report, stringing together unrelated items as if they go together, and adding fringe accounts while making much of changes in the story as the confusion of the immediate situation recedes, can make anything sound plausible, while being simultaneously bogus in every detail.

[mistawiskas]

one thing that stands out as suspicious is the near-immediate confiscation of the various CCTV tapes from the buildings near the Pentagon, which have apparently still not been released.

Ummmm....to possibly prevent terrorists from studying them to figure out why/ where they went wrong and didn't cause all that much damage to the pentagon. In vids like these, I have to ask myself....self: What's the motivating factors behind the claims? Do terrorists stand to gain more from promoting doubt or does the government have more to gain by a cover up? Conspiracy theories are popular, they have been ever since
JFK. I liken them to the populations need for drama and mystery, as in the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot or OgoPogo.

[Wedge_]

Originally Posted by mistawiskas

Ummmm....to possibly prevent terrorists from studying them to figure out why/ where they went wrong and didn't cause all that much damage to the pentagon.

Is that really the best you can come up with? Why not also confiscate and suppress all the film of the other two planes hitting the WTC?

[JimSmith]

this gets funnier with each new version...

it seems that half of their "sources" come from the national enquirer. Make sure you pause for some of the articles posted to see where it comes from. Many are articles based on what 1 person saw, yet they state this as fact.

There was a study done once where they put a group of poeple in a classroom and staged a burglary on the teacher(nobody knew what was happening). Guy had no mask and it took about 10 seconds or so. Then they asked everyone what they saw and to describe the person, it ranged very widely to the point where you could not get close to an accurate description of the person from the eye witnesses.

Then we see other articles, but only get to see 1 small section taken out of context. Too many times in this thing, he takes an obscure opinion of 1 person and states it as fact to prove another fact.