It's great.   I posted it on my blog, too.
 

same here! 
 

and it's gone...hmmm funny how that works sometimes.
 

My favorite part is how the pictures of the Washington Monument and the Capitol Building kept changing positions in the background of the Pentagon through many of the later photos, .. I mean, some of the changes were subtle...  but that was some obvious photo manipulation.  
 

HOW WOULD GETTING A FULL TIME JOB IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED?

 

Wow victor, i live in NY too u dumbass, and i was late for school that day and when i saw something about it on tv, i saw all this shit too  thats in the video.  its true, its real, theres no questions, if ands or buts.  its straight up facts, no1 was paid, our government betrayed us!  i was planning on joining the marines until i saw this video.  I believed America stood for justice, global peace, and what america used to stand for during WWII, but now its just made of greed, hate, and revenge!  There is no more justice.  We are sacraficing our troops for a pointless cause so Bush can finish what his father started.
 

 

ok so you checked it out and whats your reasoning for it being bogus?
 

I didn't buy all of it either.

The author's issues with the whatsits and the perspective for example.  I can see what he means, but then I can also say that if you look East from the debris, you won't see the fire truck.

If you look South, you'll see the fire truck.

I don't see the problem with that, especially since the distances from the debris were different.

But that just means he's looking for more - more than he needs to.

He could stop at the size of the hole and the supposed path of the incoming plane, and his point is made.

 

Victor, either you're being paid by the US to say that, or you're just a complete fucking retard.  I'm moving for the latter.
 

I agree with Kyle...I'm so sick of people being in denial of the obvious.  While there's nothing wrong with being patriotic, I sometimes feel that there are those who are so gung-ho about their patriotism that they fail to see the fact that our country's "leaders" can indeed be responsible for some unbelievably evil things.  BTW I say "leaders" because I really hate calling them that...to me a leader is one I would look up to and perhaps be inspired by, not be disgusted with.  Now excuse me while I go vomit a bit over this....

 

I used this information in one of my history classes as an opportunity to look at "alternative situations for the events of 9/11" and I believe that it opened a few eyes.....

All I can say is that there is a definate difference between perception and reality, and sadly enough, most are not even willing to question the possibilities...

 

Before you start throwing names my way, know that i am an avid supporter of any thing that is anti-Bush.  But i have to say, i find no credibilty whatsoever in that website.  Unfortunately, so many people have been so polarized by this administration that few think clearly.  Feel free to discuss politics with me anytime, but dont waste my time with far reaching conspiracies.

-these photos have no timestamp

-these photos are taken at convenient angles

-who's to say these photos werent photoshopped by the author (tell me if i'm wrong here, seriously, i have never seen these anywhere else)

-far too many assumptions made by author

Look, i could be wrong...and feel free to send any legitimate arguments my way, but its about time we stopped bitching...these sites dont help our cause.  They just continue to polarize our nation.  If any of us have any chance of making a difference (and hopefully impeaching Bush), its through educating your peers...vote...tell your friends to vote....make your friends vote...make them understand how important it is...just dont scare them off with conspiracy theories

 

Good points Don.  As I said up there, he tried too hard.

 

You only need to prove 1 thing shady and the whole thing - everything - comes down like a house of cards.

I suggest:

The improbable / impossible cell phone calls

The miniscule hole in the pentagon coupled with the 5 frames of nothing hitting it

Finding out who put the "put options" on the airlines.

 

Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Besides, to carry out such a massive conspiracy would require an impossible effort, smarts, and brilliance..... that, frankly, this inept administration is just not capable of pulling off.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEFbdYKl9s&search=penn teller



Enough is Enough, Get A Life, Please.


Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

The Lies Are Out There. Told by those with too much time on their hands, looking for a paid speaking engagement, to sell some book, movie script, movie, TV show, or website hits- it's usually done for some bucks. Suckers are a dime a dozen- born by the multitudes every second of every day. There are those who just like to lie, it is what they do best, and they wish to pull as many people as they can into their web of lies. They are creative and convincing...... they are also pathetic.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

It has been 3-1/2 years since the September 11 attacks. In that time, the American people have questioned why we were caught off guard and have demanded to know the whole story behind the events of that terrible day. But as a society we accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us.

Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists. A few of these skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of information, but most ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories. In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, yet happily embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions: that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States with help from the CIA; that the hijacked planes weren't commercial jets, but military aircraft, cruise missiles or remote-control drones; that the World Trade Center buildings were professionally demolished.

These 9/11 conspiracy theories, long popular abroad, are gradually--though more quietly--seeping into mainstream America. Allegations of U.S. complicity in the attacks have become standard fare on talk radio and among activists on both the extreme left and the extreme right of the political spectrum.

Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.

Fortunately, facts can be checked. For our special report, PM compiled a list of the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists, assertions that are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. These claims all involve fields that are part of PM's core expertise--structural engineering, aviation, military technology and science.

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.

Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

----------------------------------------------------------------


http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000


------------------------------------------------------
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad

Theories that the U.S. government aided or engineered the 9/11 attacks aren't just horribly misguided -- they distract from the nefarious deeds our leaders actually do perpetrate.

Please stop sending me those emails. You know who are. And you know what emails I mean ... Okay, I'll spell it out -- those forwarded emails suggesting, or flat-out stating, the CIA and the U.S. government were somehow involved in the horrific September 11 attacks.

There are emails about a fellow imprisoned in Canada who claims to be a former U.S. intelligence office and who supposedly passed advance warning of the attack to jail guards in mid-August. There are emails, citing an Italian newspaper, reporting that last July Osama bin Laden was treated for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and met with a CIA official. There are the emails, referring to a book published in France, that note the attacks came a month after Bush Administration officials, who were negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban, told the Afghans "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

Get the hint? Washington either did nothing to stop the September 11 attacks or plotted the assaults so a justifiable war could then be waged against Afghanistan to benefit Big Oil.

One email I keep receiving is a timeline of so-called suspicious events that "establishes CIA foreknowledge of [the September 11 attacks] and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution."

I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try.

It's a mug's game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories. Who can really know if anything that bizarre happened at a Dubai hospital? As for the man jailed in Canada, he was being held on a credit card fraud charge, and the only source for the story about his warning was his own word. The judge in his case said, "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations." But a conspiracy-monges can reply, wouldn't you expect the government and its friends in Canada to say that?

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.

Are there enough people of such a bent in all those agencies? That's doubtful. CIA officers and American officials have been evildoers. They have supported death squads and made use of drug dealers overseas. They have assisted torturers, disseminated assassination manuals, sold weapons to terrorist-friendly governments, undermined democratically-elected governments, and aided dictators who murder and maim. They have covered up reports of massacres and human rights abuses. They have plotted to kill foreign leaders.

These were horrendous activities, but, in most instances, the perps justified these deeds with Cold War imperatives (perverted as they were). And to make the justification easier, the victims were people overseas. Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms.

I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career. Which brings us to....

Not gutsy enough. Think of the danger -- the potential danger to the plotters. What if their plan were uncovered before or, worse, after the fact? Who's going to risk being associated with the most infamous crime in U.S. history? At the start of such a conspiracy, no one could be certain it would work and remain a secret. CIA people -- and those in other government agencies -- do care about their careers.

Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry&..39;s interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoner's claim and cites the Toronto Star as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the Star did not confirm the man's account, that the paper reported some observers "wonder if it isn't just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the Star subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. There's still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So I'm not expecting a check.

Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with X Files-like nonsense. Examples? There's the intelligence services's failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of fifteen to twenty local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation not be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte.

There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or twenty or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What's a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?)

Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it.

------------------------------------
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.


Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the planes engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the planes size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon Americas largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. Its not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.


Question No 2
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.


Question No 3
The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If youve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?


Question No 4
The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You dont have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I cant find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.


Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If youre going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.


Question No 6
The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: Theres a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel hes not directly answering the reporters idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?


Question No 7
The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it cant be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think its a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement ..1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didnt bother to look at enlargement ..2.
 

http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm


And here is a rebuttal to the bullshit of the Popular Mechanics article...
 

This is merely in response to the comments that people were making about whether our government was not only capable but willing to pull off an act of treason against its own people of the magnitude of 9/11, would our president be willing to be known as the most evil man in history, cause now all of a sudden 9/11 compares to Nazi Germany or Stalinistic USSR, please americans are too pompous as it is don't compare the deaths of a few thousand people to deaths of MILLIONS. Or the arguement that our administrations is somehow to inept to pull off the fake hijacking of some planes and the bombing of some buildings. OUR GOVERNMENT DOES THAT SHIT EVERYDAY, they just don't do it IN america. But I digress, the fact that 9/11 is on the up and up because the US governmet/military wouldn't do something like that is naive and simple, look back a generation or two, do you know how many americans died in Vietnam, do you know that the intial conflict that bolstered american support for the war was the Gulf of Tonkin, which was a staged military conflict you can even see the special on the history channel and listen to the phone call when some military general was told it didn't actually go down the way the rest of the world thought. The way cops find out who dun it is by looking at who had the most to gain, I personally don't know nor have I formed an opinion on the whole 9/11 conspiricy, but I like to consider myself intelligent enough to not just sit back and eat the bullshit that governemtn likes to feed us. Our military, our governemt, the Israeli government all gained a substantial amount from 9/11 so even if they feel it was a horrible awful tragedy they are still smiling on the inside that it happened cause it gave them all a reason to go to war with ANYONE for ANY REASON. Its like the new cold war, instaed of a the red scare its the islamic scare, and they managed to spin it so that no one even stopped to question, why did this happen, why are these people so angry, why is our culture so subversive to them, and why is it so important to the people who run our country that everyone in the world be and do as we. I am not saying our government staged or set up 9/11 but I would never be stupid enough to put it past them.

 

Are you people serious? That was the worst "photoshop investigation" I have ever seen. Most, if not all of his claims can be de-bunked. Seriously, don't be so gullible people. You all need to stop looking for a reason to be "pissed off" at the world. Go hang out with your family and have fun, life is way too short to be worrying about this kind of stuff.
 

Hey man, if it's not photoshopped then how the hell did a fire truck that got damaged move 40 feet and even spray water/foam or whatever?  Also, how did the cars change color and move 20 feet or so?  Look, the photos are fake or there's something up, and also, there was no debris, but from the size of the hole there should've been wings on the ground, so explain that.
 

first off nicholas, youre an idiot...if we dont worry about "this kind of stuff" now our family wont be able to have fun with us in the future. look around you man, cant you see the world is on the eve of change.

secondly, that supposed photo expert is a fucking quack. that is photoshop circa 1985, a blind amputee midget eating cotton candy couldve made those pix. i say that as an active member of the truth movement so dont start with me about being naive or brainwashed. but at the same time lying to people (ie those photos) to get them to believe the truth kind of defeats the purpose, dont you think?

 

Looks like all of you guys would have something more important to do than to sit around and look at doctored photographs and say it was something the US did. Hell, we all know this administration isn't smart enough to pull off a stunt or scam that big! They can't even pull troops out of the middle east, yet you believe they put on this little scenario and pulled it off and everyone else in America hasn't a clue what really happened? I think YOU have no clue what REALLY happened and your energy could be used for so many better things. All of you people who think 9/11 was just something done by the government to screw with everyone, why not go and join one of the millitary forces and see how fake the Iraq war is. I'll guarantee you wouldn't last a day before crying for your mommy to come and get you so you could go home and play with your computer and doctor some more photos to get attention. DAMN get a life!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Wow Dana ~ you are by far one of the most, how do I say this, ignorant people I have heard try to speak so far.   Yes, our government “Made it Happen”!  Not to screw with us, but to just plain screw us.  The Iraq war was justified because of this attack. Hmm, who’s making all the money off that? The patriot act and several bills have been passed stripping our civil liberties so that the government can control us and prevent us from finding out the truth.

 

I don’t’ want to presume you haven’t done much research on this subject, but doesn’t sound like you have.  How do you use the point that our government can’t even get our troops out of the Middle East to prove that they are too stupid to “pull off” a travesty on the U.S. people.   The goverment wants us in the Middle East, and they don’t care what the people of America think.

 

I haven’t even looked at these photos, just wanted to see this discussion, and it’s quite sad.  Those that have done their homework and spent some time on this subject and question the facts are labeled “conspiracy theorists”. Those who watch the mainstream news and America’s Next Top Model every night are the ones who don’t think there’s anything going on. 

 

 

Print it, copy it, get it out!

To repost this, copy and paste the text below:
<center>Print it, copy it, get it out!<P><img src="http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4852/911factsheetmh3.gif"><P><br><P>

--------------------

 

Has ANYONE else here noticed that every single comment on this blog, "disproving" the "conspiracy theorists" display not ONE shred of credible evidence to support their claims?  I believe 9/11 was the result of our Government, and our Government alone.  We provide:

Physical evidence
Seismic evidence
Photographic evidence
Video evidence
Physics evidence
and to top it off -
COMMON FUCKING LOGIC.

You mean to tell me 19 arabs, shouting ALLAHU AKHBAR and screaming about a Jihad the night before can overtake FOUR planes and crash them with military precision?  Are you on drugs?  ANYONE on those planes, even an old lady, would stand up and kick the Allah-worshipping shit out of those jihadist morons, box cutters or not.

Is it so unbelievable that the good ol' US of A would do this?  Not at all.  It's called a False Flag Operation, and governments throughout history have done it any number of times.

So in response to the morons buying into the REAL conspiracy theory - the "official story", I ask where the hell is YOUR proof?

How do you explain WTC 6 COMPLETELY DESTROYED?
How do you explain the trillions of dollars "lost", as Rumsfeld put it so eloquently?
How do you explain the tiny little hole punched in the Pentagon's walls?
How do you explain the lack of ANY wreckage, the distorted "rubble piles" surrounding the shapeshifting, moving disabled cars?
How do you explain the perfectly intact Pentagon lawn?  Do they use some sort of Government-grade Miracle Gro that we don't have access to, coating each blade of grass in invisible titanium?  I think not.
If a 757 DID approach at that angle, one of the wings would have had to drag along that lawn which would produce either one of the two things, if not both:
1. a HUGE scar
2. the wing itself

Both of which are nowhere to be found.

Those that buy the official story should be shot.

PERIOD.