Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

9/11 was a lie

Recommended Posts

My friend sent told me about this documentry and then sent it to me and I watched and I want to get some other peoples opinions. I don't want any posts until people have watched the full video. It is 1 hour in length so set aside sometime to watch it with out distraction. It will change your mind. This statement is also coming from a person who voted for bush and one of my friends that watched this who very conservative and he was blown away by this documentary. At like the 45min mark or so the sound goes really low so turn up your volume but it gets lowder slowly. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...&q=loose+change

Link to comment
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've only watched about the first 8 minutes so far (my internet is being super lame right now, I intend to watch the rest), but I'm not at all convinced. It's been all random quotes from people who aren't named and who very well may have no credentials whatsoever and video analysis which you can't make out at all with this particular copy of the documentary because of its quality.

Link to comment

Hell, I've thought that since 9/11. This is nothing new.

*Puts on a t-shirt that says "I thought 9/11 was a government hoax before it was cool."*

I don't know if "hoax" is the best word to use for it. Most hoaxes don't end with over 3,000 people dying.

Government: "Haha, we got you good you fuckers!! Oh... shit. Oops."

Link to comment

I'm left unconvinced, but hey, what else is new?

I've got a few problems with the video, ignoring the evidence. First, he continually switches between Celsius and Fahrenheit and on numerous occassions doesn't specify which he's talking about. Second, rarely does he specify whether his quotes come from laymen or experts, niether of which can be trusted fully in such a situation. Third, he never mentions where those quotes are stated as opinion or fact, a big thing to consider.

As for the evidence, even if he is 100% right about what happened, he almost goes out of his way to contradict himself on occassion. At one time we see a bunch of firemen, one saying "we had hardly gotten a block away-" and is inturrupted by another saying "We had to have been at least two blocks away." (or something to those effects). Really, such a thing just goes to show how unreliable witness testemony can be, at no fault of the firemen. They were stressed and in an odd situation, and thus can't recall things exactly. Basicly, such tetimony isn't trustworthy. Another thing was the witness accounts on what happened at the Pentagon. It's clear which side of the story he wants us to believe, but that still doesn't change the fact that there were two very different stories as to what happened. Third, you've got the supposed Bin Laden video, where the person on the video "looks nothing like Bin Laden". You want me to believe that the government can pull off this entire scheme, pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire world (except you, of course), but can't some up with an actor that looks like Bin Laden? This is a small point, but honestly.

Fourth, he needs to clearly answer the questions "who benifits?" and "why?". He ends telling us that we're being lorded over by "a group of tyrants", but who are they? Bush? Please. Not ten minutes before this guy heard about the attacks I'd wager he'd have said Bush was too stupid to tie his own shoes. So then Bush is just a pawn? Then who, might I ask, is pulling the strings? Rumsfeld, who just happened to be in his office on the opposite side of the Pentagon (the exact place he ought to be)? And how do we know this guy isn't being paid by the "tyrants" to make a film like this?

And finally, what was probably the worst part of the movie: he claims that the actions by the people on flight 93 were faked, but then goes on to call them heros all Americans should strive to be like... Did I miss something there?

Frankly, I'd have failed him if this were debate class.

Link to comment

As I continue watching, all the pictures and videos are WAY too blurry for me to see anything he's pointing out. I mean I see the larger things, but when he says "OMG watch teh missle come out from inside the plane LOL" I see nothing.

Concerning the missile thing, I find that to be an incredibly flimsy argument when trying to convince someone that the attack was a government conspiracy. If they're going to go through the trouble of making this look like a terrorist attack using commercial airliners why would they shoot missiles at the towers? Come on... Common sense will tell just about anyone that crashing a fully fueled commercial jet into a building will probably do enough damage in itself to bring it down.

Link to comment

Hahahahahaha.. That trash is still around?

That movie's old news, long debunked. I'll have to look for the links, its been a few years.

One of my favorite parts was about the fires.. All I could think as I listened to the idiot was, wtf is this some kind really sad joke?! I just wished I could tell him that the WTC's weren't built like other buildings you fucking retard! And all those other buildings weren't hit by planes full of jet fuel... I mean god, how desperate do you have to be to use something like that as your argument..

Then there was the "it didn't sound like a plane." Yeah because I really trust joe jackoff to know the difference between a plane and a missile... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

There are so many problems with this video I can barely scratch the surface in one post, but the main one is this guy telling us "If blah blah blah was true, then so-and-so would have happened." And he knows this how? Where did he get his physics degree?

Regarding the pentagon attack-

The intense heat from the burning fuesalage DID vaporize the majority of the aircraft. The reason Boeing won't give out information is (gasp, could it be?) that they want to PREVENT a similar attack from happening, by giving terrorists as little information as possible about the construction of their aircrafts. It's all well and good that he thinks it's scientifically impossible that the engines were vaporized, but there are probably a number of factors he's not taking into account. I'd be much more inclined to believe it if a chemist or physicist was telling me, not a conspiracy theorist.


"The mark left on the world trade center left a very clear outline of a commercial airliner."

Wait a second. Wasn't he arguing earlier that it WASN'T a commercial airliner that hit the WTC?

"It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane." Yeah, so many people have heard airplanes flying low and slamming into buildings before.

"These buildings burned for <x> hours and didn't collapse." Something tells me that none of those buildings had giant commercial jets slamming into the sides of them. Also, the twin towers were more than twice the height of many of the buildings described.

Even if there were bombs in the WTC, that has nothing to do with whether or not it was a government conspiracy.

Where the hell did he get all these eye-witness accounts from? He has closeups of magazines, newspapers, etc. but for all I know he could be filming the Weekly World News.

"There was no trace of Flight 93." My parents, who both worked at airlines for many years told me when this happened that in many cases a plane slammed directly into the ground like that does leave very little debris and is almost utterly destroyed.

Is it possible that 9/11 was a government conspiracy? Yes, and I've considered it before, but this video presents very poor evidence for that theory. The annoying rap music playing for much of it didn't help it much either. (By the way, Bush is not a good president and I disagree with the vast, VAST majority of things he's done.)

Edited by Samurai Drifter
Link to comment

I saw something like this a few years back, and questioned the government’s explanations. But that one seemed to focused mainly on the pentagon crash. All and al I think that this was a good documentary, and I would recommend that every one that hasn’t finished it really should do so.

If the video doesn’t convince you that the thing was staged, then consider this. In 9/11 bush seemed to be an informed and competent leader, despite the fact that he shouldn’t have had any prior warning about what was going to happen. Yet for the hurricanes that hit the gulf last year, which even I know about more than a week in advance, he, and his entire administration, seemed to be not only uninformed and incompetent but, in this sate of pure disbelief that that could happen. But supposedly, on 9/11, bush was reading at a school, was informed of the plain crashes, and sprung into action belief.

And in all honesty, who can believe that if al-Quaida wonted to that they couldn’t have completed another attack on the US by now? Even if you wont to argue that security has gone up in airports, that shouldn’t stop anything other than a hijacking…

The fact is that if I wonted to, I could get on a train here (south western Connecticut) with a large bag full of explosive pretty easily, and be in grand central station (New York city) in a few hours… and blow the place to hell.

And even if it was impossible to hit a larger target, and if they were the thoughtless killing machines that we have been lead to believe, then they should have no problem hitting a school, because I think that that would have just as much, if not more psychological damage than another attack in New York…

I personally have little trouble seeing this as a possibility, and that scares me. This is the same government that we have in trusted our security in, and it seems that most of us find it easy to question it. But in a way, it’s a good thing that we do question it. Because if we don’t question the governments actions, them we allow it to do what ever it wants, and that the worst thing that can happen. Because then the land of the free becomes the land of the blissfully oppressed…

But then again … I look for any reason that I can to prove that the government is evil…so my opinions are extremely bias, just like the movie…

Link to comment

OK but really, after watching the first 16 minutes, I can't understand WHY they would do this. Was Bush like "Hahahahyuck let's all dun go get us a reason tot invade the middle-east by slamming our planes into our own military buildings and places of business!"

Kind of. See America's entering into WW2 for references.

So then Bush is just a pawn? Then who, might I ask, is pulling the strings?

Government is like this strange ominous thing, it's hard to tell. Most people blame the president though, because it's easier and he (perhaps she, but logically speaking, he) is the figurehead of a government.

African rhinoceros, or asiatic?

…it may be logical, but are we going to stand for our cats being run down under our very eyes by one-horned rhinoceroses or two, whether they're Asiatic or African?

Because if we don’t question the governments actions, them we allow it to do what ever it wants, and that the worst thing that can happen. Because then the land of the free becomes the land of the blissfully oppressed…

Yeah, but there is rarely ever retribution or punishment for ill government deeds, so the questioning doesn't help too much.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...