9/11 video

[Dante2004 0]

it is not, im sorry... but... I beg to ask the question, about the first document, why would the government "unclassify" that doucument (about staging a cuban terrorist situation) and secondly, the govnerment declassifys documents, they do not unclassify.  Could this doucment be fake?  Who knows... I shall keep watching...

A document could be stamped "Unclassified" if it was not classified to begin with. But, if the document WAS classified, in the future it would be stamped declassified...as in, the "classification has been removed".

Confidential

Secret

Top Secret

[Vapor 0]

why would you stamp something unclassified? It just wouldnt have a stamp...

[mrusse01 0]

Those documents are real. Get over the 'unclassified/declassified' semantics.

Do you really think someone with a fair amount of credibility would write an entire book on the basis of some documents that he made up? Such a massive 'mistake' as improperly stamping unclassified on them wouldn't make it past the publishing house, and they wouldn't publish the book.

Check the link I provided, I don't think the National Security Archieve at George Washington University would post pdf's of false government documents.

[Vapor 0]

im confused... theres no link... and what book are you talking about? And yes, people would write a book full of crap and lies if it got their point across, or even a movie... hey Farenhieght 9.11

[Vapor 0]

sorry, now i see it now.... Its a school, they have no obligation to post truth. This is not comiing stright from the government. This is from George Washington University (a very liberal school, what, huh??? ;)).

[Vapor 0]

A Nazi official once said (something along thse lines) Keeping a country constantly at war abroad keeps the citizens of that country peacefull and patriotic. Lines such as United We Stand Divided We Fall shall be used. It is a great way to have complete control over your people.

[Kovy_Ribs_Fedo 3]

A Nazi official once said (something along thse lines) Keeping a country constantly at war abroad keeps the citizens of that country peacefull and patriotic. Lines such as United We Stand Divided We Fall shall be used. It is a great way to have complete control over your people.

and I don't think he was wrong.

[mrusse01 0]

sorry, now i see it now.... Its a school, they have no obligation to post truth. This is not comiing stright from the government. This is from George Washington University (a very liberal school, what, huh??? ;)).

Who does have an obligation to post the 'truth'? The government? Hmm...never heard of any lies coming from those guys before, everyone knows politicians are trustworthy and genuine

Still looking for those WMD in Iraq though, guess that was another intelligence failure.

Trust me, those documents are real. If they were fake don't you think someone would have pointed it out before GWU put them in their National Archieve? The entire world of academia is based on peer review, where you get several of your peers to fact check a publication before it is released. I could make up something resembling an old government document saying Elvis killed JFK, but I couldn't write a book about it cause someone would point out in about 2 seconds that it is clearly fake.

[Vapor 0]

LOL... the government lies?! YOU ARE IGNORANT ;)

That begs the question though, if enough people think something is true, does that become fact?

[freq019 0]

I am not saying they do not. I just have never seen a document stamped unclassified, it has always been declassified.

Unclassified documents are noted as such when they are contained in a larger document that is classified, its not uncommon, but its not used to declassify documents as far as I know.

[mrusse01 0]

That begs the question though, if enough people think something is true, does that become fact?

No.

Anyways, get over the whole 'are these documents real' line of thinking. The important thing to consider is that the US Govt. has been willing in the past to at least CONSIDER killing innocent Americans to further a political agenda. Such operations are called 'false flag' operations, where you attack your own people under the disguise of an enemy, and are counter intuitive to the thought process of a regular person.

You can see that thought process in this thread with the notion that it is insane to think the US Govt would kill innocent Americans for any reason. But if you step back to think, it is not insane at all, in fact there are many cases were it would make perfect sense to kill innocent people. All you have to believe is that the end result of killing those people is advantageous in the long term. But the problem is that you cannot explain this to the vast majority of people, so it has to be covered up.

And that Popular Mechanics article just proves my point even further. The US Govt didn't consider planes originating within America to constitute a threat to national security? Perhaps a reasonable statement for the average person, as I'm sure not many people here thought of such a scenario. But do you honestly believe that NOBODY in the entire intelligence community prior to 9/11 thought (or heard about) for a second that someone might hijack an airliner and crash it into something important? I guess somehow Osama Bin Laden and his posse thought up a plan that had never crossed the minds of the best and brightest at the CIA and NSA.

[gavin 0]

K I'll be frank. When all that went down, I was a freshman at a college in the USA, and I thought it was a joke when I got out of 2nd hour english and people were running around yelling about the world trade centre going down. I regret making light of what turned out (a couple hours later) to be a very sad thing.

But my head was FULL of questions all that day. It didn't make any sense. Flight 93... it was weird I kept expecting them to show it on the TV but, I remeber them just showing a field. No plane wreckage. Like... surely if an airliner crashed in Pennsylvania, it would make more of a mess than that.

I'm just saying ... it didn't look real at all. I remember my good friend Amber Bloom scolding me for being seemingly irreverant. I remember thinking that the ONLY possible way that Flight 93 could have looked like it did in a field was if they piloted it into a TOTAL nosedive and it obliterated, burying itself in a hole no wider than 20 feet. I really don't know and being Canadian, it's not my job to find out. But I'm just saying that things looked fishy from the beginning.

[MissConduct 1]

Funny how they now release a "new" footage from the pentagon.. and to me still looks to small to be a big aircraft.

LINK

[Vapor 0]

I think its easier to believe that flight 93 was shot down

[Vapor 0]

i dont even know whatyou guys are looking at. You can barley even make out that it is a plane. I do find it hard to believe that The Pentagon dosent have better video survallence. I sure as hell know that the cameras that took the video were capable of taking video faster than the framrate shown. In the second video look how slowly the cop car drives away, and how many frames it is in, and then look at the crash shortly after. I know the plane was going pretty fast, but I am sure we would see more than just a tiny bit of the nose... maybe some frames were removed?

[MissConduct 1]

thats a good point wouldn't a HUGE plane be seen in those frames? but if it was small and very fast you wouldn't see it as good. Why don't they just release all footage from everywhere every angle. MAKE ME believe :P

[mrusse01 0]

It's tought to picture in your mind what a 767 hitting the Pentagon would look like. We do not have an adequate frame of reference to be able to visualize such an odd event. Remember when the first plane hit the WTC CNN was reporting it was a small aircraft?

That video is a joke, I could set up higher quality video watching the outside of my house for like $100. You don't think a higher quality image exists anywhere showing this plane?

[Guy Incognito 0]

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but the nose of that object looks to be a fighter plane or missle. I agree with those of you who say that can't be a commercial airliner.

[gavin 0]

K frame of reference... lemme see. Let's compare the plane hitting the Pentagon with the ones hitting the Towers. If it was going fast enough to slam straight into the Pentagon, like the ones at the WTC did, they the fireball should have knocked out several floors and maybe even knocked the roof off (try and think about the supposed fireball in the middle of the WTC). BUT if it had skidded across the freeway, not really having enough momentum to go into the Pentagon and blow it sky high (which it didn't) then shouldn't there be a whole lot more damage/debris on the lawn? Instead you have NEITHER. There is way too much shady stuff going on with both the Pentagon and the Shanksville stories. (Speaking of which, ever since 9/11, Shanksville has been for me and my friends, missing an open net. Particularly when the game is on the line)

[Vapor 0]

it didnt hit the freeway, itwas low, but it didnt hit the lawn, it hit some power cables. the towers didnt fall right away, and there was never fire retardent material sprayed on it. the palne was most likly going at a slower speed, and crashed into a recently renevated bulding made of soldi steel and concrete, not just steel and glasss, they are two totaly different structures.

you dont think the gvnt would have thought all of this through before they did this?

[gavin 0]

You don't think that they did and realized that they didn't have to make it THAT GOOD. Because no one questioned it. The media was too busy to report any weird stuff going on around, any of the peherphrial things. And yeah people that make their living off of propoganda and politics said "we can do this and most people will not suspect anything for a while. And then it will be too late to investigate"

I've read the Popular Mechanics article, and it is hardly scientific. Most of it is like "that really doesn't look like a pod to me, and I'm an expert photograph-looker-at-er." I'm wondering ... do guys that are addicted to porn qualify as professional photograph-looker-at-ers? And plus, the very premise of the whole article was "we don't think that such a hoax is possible, that's just crazy and people who are crazy enough to dream up such stuff are dishonouring the people who died that day." Which is countralogical. If anything, investigating the cause of someones death would honour them more, give the innocent victims a voice that they no longer have. I'm not saying that such a hoax happened, it's just that Americans think it is dishonourable to even consider it. And it's not dishonourable: it's noble.

[shnuggs 0]

Its incredible that one mans opinions made to look like facts and some good movie producing skills can have such an effect on other peoples opinions.

Its funny that the american goverment were supposedly able to orchestrate this whole conspiracy - with such precision and zero fault-- yet to plant a nuclear bomb in Iraq to justify the war -- something so minute and simple in comparison--- they werent smart enough -- or capable enough to do.

Please.

[Vapor 0]

you say a nuclear bob is a big bowling ball with a fuse on it. Its not like you can put it in a fed ex package and overnight it to baggdahd. Oh yeah, lets take a bomb, sneak it into an enemy country, and hope nobody finds it?? Come on sir. Its not that easy.

[mrusse01 0]

That's an excellent point shnuggs. I've often wondered why they didn't plant some WMD in Iraq, it seems like it would sure be a pretty easy thing to do, and probably would have saved a lot of headaches.

I think the whole 'it was a missle that hit the Pentagon' theory is pretty far out there. Where did the plane that was supposed to hit it go then? Where are those people? I suppose its possible that they were somehow rerouted and killed or something, but now you are getting into a really complex plot. And what would be the point of hitting the Pentagon with a missle instead of a jumbo jet? I haven't heard a single theory yet that poses a decent answer to that question.

People like to get into a conspiracy theory and think that the government did this and did that. But if you stop to think, it is much easier for them NOT to do something, such as not acting on intelligence that an attack might be coming. Why would they go through the trouble of orchastrating this enourmous mission when they could just turn their head the other way and let a bunch of crazy terrorists do it all for them?

[Vapor 0]

That's an excellent point shnuggs. I've often wondered why they didn't plant some WMD in Iraq, it seems like it would sure be a pretty easy thing to do, and probably would have saved a lot of headaches.

Moving Nuclear material is not easy. Moving it into an ememy state is harder. Be realistic.