this is important.

[jessimocha]

seriously.

if you have not yet seen loose change, or any other documentary outlining the exact truth about 9/11 you have to.

i'm mostly talking to american friends. but everyone needs to see this movie.

it's just over an hour long. but it's free.watch it. tell everyone you know to watch it

Comments

Re: We're not talking about Michael Moore here, Tommy.

[pelagicboreas]

(Continuing on, then.)

2) Large aircraft do not disintegrate nor evaporate. This is the shit I always found the most suspicious about the story of 9/11 from day one, and when I saw the actual photos from the Pentagon and Shanksville in the papers on September 12th, I wasn't satisfied. The official story included an eyewitness account of Flight 93 flying inverted overhead at low altitude, then diving into a wooded area and exploding. When recovery teams and coroners arrived on the site shortly thereafter, absolutely zero evidence of an aircraft strike was found. Flight 93 allegedly passed at a low enough altitude to be recognized right down to the registration number and rivets. At this altitude, especially with its speed, trajectory and flight dynamics, Flight 93 would have struck the ground, bruned, broken into several pieces, and rolled as heaps of twisted, mangled wreckage for hundreds of feet, but not before leaving a long, black, body-strewn scar in the earth-- as airliner crashes do. Flight 93 apparently lolled to the earth from its inverted flight and vanished into a tidy, twenty-foot crater, and with very little fire damage spread to the surrounding area as you'd assume a flight fueled for a transcontinental journey would.

Yet, in spite of this, we've been told that Flight 93 was instantaneously consumed by the heat of its own impact, as was Flight 77, despite the fact that neither the impact sites nor actual, legitimate science support this claim. Explosions are primarily kinetic force, with a flash-burn of liquid and gas in an uncontrolled reaction, burning too fast to consume steel and titanium. Furthermore, both Flights 11 and 175 struck the Twin Towers with greater speed and more fuel than Flights 77 and 93, while leaving actual debris in the wreckage of the towers and the streets below. Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe that the crashes in Shanksville and Washington, D.C. left none whatsoever? Unicorns eat carrots, Tom. I can prove it.

Politics have so very little to say in this matter, Tom, save for the U.S. government's reasons for perpetrating this PSYOPS campaign. I'm going to contradict you as outright as I can, for the sake of open debate. "The casual observers lack of detail in regard to the events surrounding 9/11" is, I'm afraid, giving the casual observer too little credit for his or her own suspicions regarding what is a very poorly-spun story on the part of the Bush/Cheney Regime. Most people who have honest reservations about this story are certainly not as ignorant as that sentence seems to suggest.