The Most Controversial Documentary About 9/11 Airs On Australian Tv Network

100

Big B
CECash.com

Here is a thorough debunking of the '5 frames' that supposedly shows the pentagon attack. It is such an obvious forgery it's laughable.

link

The real pentagon:



No small bricks, many windows at ground level.

The moron conspiracy pic:



Small bricks, no windows at ground level, different color, totally different building structure.

Yup, we are dealing with mentally challenged people here.

A comment on this whole thread:

There are clearly details to 9/11 that are not available in the 'official' story - it is doubtful however that these details are as nefarious as the conspiracy theorists would have you think. Those who do question the 'party line' should keep in mind that the more 'crackpot' conspiracy theories may be an effort to discredit those who do question the official story. That is why when some moron really believe the outrageous claims and stories that it makes them even more tremendously stupid.

There are many valid questions to ask about 9/11 - as mentioned earlier, skepticism is more likely to be correlated with intelligence. However, the theories which fly in the face of the obvious and are clearly INSANE, are not valid. Anyone who believes these crack-pot theories suffers from some kind of mental deficiency, perhaps relating to some major trauma experienced early in their life.

these windows? photo by the Popular Mechanics



or this hole?







"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

Wtf are you talking about moron.

No, not those windows. Those are windows from a different building as this photo is of a different building. You'll notive that the pentagon has ground-level windows of a diffrent shape and size. You are not that stupid, are you?

try harder..that pic is cut off..and the windows are just above the part you are showing...the windows are clearly seen in other pics that have not been managed to show a different story.


you= obtuse

this photo with the small hole is just a tiny bit of all the facts and evidences gathered about what really happened...

Phoenix, please take a few seconds to look at the 2 pics i posted few posts above.

Its not the same building, not just small details but its like totally different. Just the bricks alone give it away. The pentagon doesnt have small bricks.

The windows are different.

On the hole pic there arent even windows on the sides while on the Pentagon pic you can clearly see there should be windows. The whole building structure is different. I dont understand how you cant see that. Even a 10 yr old kid could show you the differences.

Dude, the pic is NOT off the fucking Pentagon, are you fucking born retarded or just acting retarded. If that pic is fake, how real is all your other 'evidence" then. Fucking idiot! Jesus, this is insane.

fuck that stupid pic, look at the other FACTS!

1. NO SCRAMBLED MILITARY JET INTERCEPTORS

From the first official notification of a hijacking until the last
hijacked plane crashed, one hour and forty-six minutes elapsed.
During that time no serious attempts to scramble fighters to
intercept the known four hijacked airliners were made.
Prior to 9-11-2001, it was standard operating procedure to
scramble or redirect already airborne military fighters to assist air
traffic control when an aircraft, even small civilian aircraft, is off
ithahaha8217;s flight plan, and non-responsive radio contact. At that time, the
average number of military sorties scrambled to intercept various
airplanes reported to be off course was between 90 and 100
annually, yet on September 11th, four hijacked passenger
airliners were flying in the most restricted and protected airspace
in the world, and there were NO INTERCEPTIONS.


2. NO STEEL BUILDINGS HAVE EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE

In the over one hundred year history of steel high-rises and skyscrapers there has never been a single
one, which has collapsed due to fire. On September 11, 2001 there were three such structures, which
fell, World Trade Center Buildings Numbers One, Two and Seven. Since that time, there have been no
others.


3. FIRES WERE ALMOST SELF-EXTINGUISHED
The smoke billowing from the towers deteriorated into a slow thick black pall, indicating an oxygenstarved
fire. Smoke of this color and consistency is a product of a fire that is being deprived of an
essential component, and consequently must be a relatively hahaha8220;coolhahaha8221; fire.


4. NO EVIDENCE OF HIGH TEMPERATURE STEEL-MELTING INFERNO

People, soon to be victims of the collapse, were seen standing at the jagged holes in the towers,
waving for help. How could they stand there if an inferno capable of melting steel was raging behind
them?


5. ALL FOUR AIRLINERS CARRIED MUCH LESS JET FUEL THAN REPORTED

All reports stated the hijacked airliners as starting out with a full load of fuel (23,980 US Gallons max
capacity, max range 6,600 nautical miles). The reality is they carried only enough fuel to reach their
scheduled destination, with an additional nominal amount for safety. Fuel is extremely heavy, and
needless added weight results in added expense. Airliners are never hahaha8220;over-fueledhahaha8221; beyond the trip
requirements. This fact further compromises the hahaha8220;steel melting infernohahaha8221; theory of the collapses.


6. TOWER COLLAPSE SPEED DEFIED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

The towers, as they collapsed, actually fell at the
speed of an object falling with zero resistance, as if
in complete free-fall. It is physically impossible for
any structure falling down upon itself to achieve this
tremendous rate of fall.
Even if the tower fell at two floors per second, an
incredibly fast rate, it would have taken over 50
seconds to complete the fall.
WTC Tower One actually completed its collapse in
10 seconds, with WTC Tower Two in just 9.5
seconds.


7. UNEXPLAINED COLLAPSE OF BUILDING SEVEN

Building Seven (WTC7) collapsed in exactly the same
hahaha8220;controlled demolitionhahaha8221; style as the 2 main Towers, although an
airliner did not strike it. Official reports determined that fire
caused the collapse, as in WTC1 and WTC2. The construction
design of WTC7 was completely different from WTC1 and 2,
and did not rely on trusses from a central core, but was a more
standard construction steel frame covered with brick.
WTC 7 was actually designed and built far stronger than a
typical building of its size because it straddled a pre-existing
electric plant. Yet WTC7 fell in the exact hahaha8220;controlled demolitionhahaha8221;
type collapse as WTC1 and WTC2. The 9-11 Commissionhahaha8217;s
Report did not even mention Building Seven at all, and when a
representative of the commission was directly asked why WTC7
was omitted from the massive report, he replied that they did not
think it was significant enough be to included
The photo of Building Seven at the left is the largest visible fire
at any point before the collapse. Does this look like a steelmelting
towering inferno?


8. WTC OWNER ADMITS TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF BUILDING SEVEN

There is an incredibly self-incriminating video interview with Larry Silverstein wherein he stated that he
decided Building Seven would have to be hahaha8220;pulledhahaha8221; to prevent any further loss of life, and so they hahaha8220;pulled
ithahaha8221;. Pulling a structure is common industry terminology for a controlled demolition. A copy of this
interview video available on request. This hahaha8220;pulledhahaha8221; 47-story building then collapsed exactly as WTC1
and WTC2 had. Mr. Silverstein has since refused to comment on this issue.

TRANSCRIPT:
hahaha8220;I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull
and we watched the building collapse.hahaha8221;
Video Clip: www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
- Larry Silverstein
- CEO Silverstein Properties, Inc.

The lease of WTC1 and WTC2 was purchased by Larry Silverstein, an extremely savvy NYC real
estate mogul, three months before the attack for a cost of 3.2 billion to be paid to the NYC Port
Authority over 99 years. Silverstein was the original owner of WTC7, and is the current owner of the
soon to be completed Building 7. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/management.htm)


9. LEASING THE WTC COMPLEX SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL DISASTER

Larry Silverstein leased this property even though it was well known within the industry that the WTC1
and WTC2 had been constructed with asbestos fire retardant coating on the internal steel structure.
Asbestos coated all columns up to the 64th floors, only switching to a less effective and non-toxic
product in 1971 when New York City banned the use of asbestos as a building material. Asbestos is
now known to be an extremely toxic carcinogen, and would eventually have to have been remediated at
a cost that would surely have exceeded the buildings resale value.


10. HOWEVER, LEASING THE WTC COMPLEX BECAME A FINANCIAL WINDFALL

After signing the lease, Larry Silverstein promptly increased the insurance on these buildings to $7.2
billion; double their purchase price prior to the attack. After their destruction, the potential white
elephant complex became an instant double-your-money windfall to the tune of a 3.5 billion in pure
profit to Silverstein. A wise sage once said, always follow the money trail.


11. CONTROLLED DEMOLITION PREPARATION PROCESS

Preparing a structure like the 47 story WTC7 building for controlled demolition requires specially trained
demolition experts, complete building blueprints, specialized explosive charges, remote control
detonators, and many weeks to plan and actually install the explosives and wire them. This is no spur
of the moment project that can just be thrown together in a few hours - and a few hours was all that
expired from the initial attack to the demolition of WTC7. There is no doubt WTC7 was destroyed by a
controlled demolition, so the question that remains glaringly unanswered is, when was this building
wired for destruction, by whom, and for what purpose. Video Clips:
Real time video of WTC collapse: https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...7_Collapse.wmv
With Dan Ratherhahaha8217;s comments: https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...ocked.down.wmv


12. EVIDENCE OF FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE COLLAPSE

During an interview on 9/11 with Rudy Giuliani, he claims that he was advised by an authority to exit
the lobby of one of the towers because the tower was about to collapse. How could ANYONE have
known the towers were going to collapse? Absolutely no steel structures had ever collapsed before.


13. NYC FIREFIGHTERS RADIO COMMENTS FROM WITHIN THE TOWERS
There are radio recordings of NYC Firefighters that had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower, in
different stairwells. An excerpt of these recordings is as follows:
Ladder 15: hahaha8220;What stair are you in Orio?hahaha8221;
Ladder 15: hahaha8220; Chief, What stair you in?hahaha8221;
Battalion Seven Chief: hahaha8220;South stairway Adam,
South Tower.hahaha8221;
Ladder 15: hahaha8220;Floor 78?hahaha8221;
Battalion Seven Chief: hahaha8220;Ten-four, numerous
civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.hahaha8221;
Ladder 15:hahaha8220;Alright ten-four, wehahaha8217;re on our way.hahaha8221;
Battalion Seven Chief: hahaha8220;Ihahaha8217;m gonna need two of
your firefighters Adam, stairway to knock down
two fires. We have house line stretched. We could
use some water on it, knock it down,kay?hahaha8221;

Sadly, this was just eleven minutes before they were killed in the demolition. Their conversation
indicates they believed they could knock down the fire with standard equipment, contradicting the
hahaha8220;raging steel-melting infernohahaha8221; theory. A copy of these radio communications available upon request


14. EXPERT WITNESSES SAW AND HEARD MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS

NYC Firefighters, trained and experienced in critical observations during cataclysmic events report
hearing multiple massive explosions, going off in a sequence that they actually attribute to what a
controlled demolition sounds like. Since that time, all Firefighters and Police actually witnessing these
events have been slapped with a government-mandated gag order.

--- What did we do? We made it outside.
--- We made it at least two blocks and we started running.
--- Floor by floor it started popping out...
--- It was as if they had detonated - as if they were planning
to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom...
--- ...all the way down. I was watching it and running.
VideoClip: https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I..._firehouse.wmv

I disagree on the angle of my argument, I would say it's quite acute... in fact if you put three of my arguments together they might form a triangle, perhaps isoceles. Although even If I am obtuse, perhaps Im a parallelogram.. I dont know.. its hard ot say at this point. We should debate. Anyway...

It is quite obvious that this is not the same building. Plese refer your eyes and brain to the actual pictures of the pentagon - notice the shape and location of the windows, notice how the facade is stone-like and the complete absence of bricks. The burden of proof is not on me.

Maybe if I use bold font it will sink in The Pentagon is not made of bricks. The Pentagon has ground level windows. This is not the Pentagon,

Im sorry. It's so painfully clear that this is not the Pentagon that it hurts me to even have to write this post. Please refer to post numbers 102 and 104 for my further comments on this thread.

Oh god the irony. Inquiring minds question the validity of the 'facts' and 'evidence' you present and then you say 'Oh forget that tiny little fake pic.. look at all the OTHER fake and make believe evidence'.

You call US blind to the REAL story.. you say that intelligent people should QUESTION the presented facts.. yet when someone challenges the facts you present, you say 'oh ignore that inconsistency!'

You are as stupid and hypocritical as those you seek to expose. Get lost, loser.

Dude you are getting your evidence from sites that show non relavant pics as evidence...did it ever (now you know that pic story is bs) occur to you for a second that if that pic is "fake" the other evidence might be BS as well?

Youre getting your info from sites that are built by complete idiots who will do anything to make you sheep believe their nonsense. This includes placing fake pics and fake stories and whatever else they need.

Jesus, dude, you are fucking totally completely retarded. Get a fucking clue, wake the fuck up from your fantasy world!

Isnt it unbefuckinglievable? Someone should bitch slap the stupidity out of his head. This is simply insane!

"Oh wait, maybe you are right and that pic is not off the Pentagon. Eventhough that was a HUGE piece of evidence till 3 mins ago it now is a minor detail which we can forget about. Now please look at the OTHER FACTS listed on the site the fake pic came from!"

well then the media is showing fake pics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1861977.stm

Give it up already, dude... You've been owned. Just accept it.

Franck, posts #102 and #104 cover this point.

But I think you are forgetting that the internet makes everything valid, it is automatically true. Please dont fault our friend.. I mean, every knows that everything on the internet is 100% accurate.

How do I know this? Because I read it.. on the internet!

Nope.. those are real pics. And it says right there in black & white that it's a plane hitting the building, NOT a missle! Fuckin dipshit...

Chshkt, what does it feel like to be completely owned on a public board? In a thread that will be read by 100's of people who all will see what a total retard you are. 100's of people who are like "jesus, this guy is insane!". Honestly, i would feel quite bad and keep quiet for a while.

The media is in the business of selling newspapers and attracting eyeballs, not necessarily posting accurate information.

Dude, sometimes media outlets are not very thorough in their research of sources. The desire to print a story that will attract alot of attention outweighs the value in validating the source. Because something is published - whether it be on the internet, in a book, a newspaper or a magazine DOES NOT MAKE IT VALID OR TRUE.

You need to accept your own advice, and not believe everything that you hear from the media - whether mainstream or not. Dont just apply your skepticism in one area, to reinforce your biased beliefs.

If you think you are such a champion of 'the truth' then your goal should be to question everything, not just question the things that dont support your beliefs.

prove it then

as i see many photos of the building and low and behold they do have small bricks there....it was a brand new construction.

I hate to break it to all you people that don't think those were airline jets but they were. For each flight, there is an Aircraft Dispatcher who plans the route to be flown for each flight, the required fuel load, and is resposible to monitor the progress of that flight while it is en route (kind of like ATC but different). This person share responsibility for the safe operation of that flight with the Captain of that flight. If either person doesn't think the flight can be operated safely, for any reason, the flight does not go.

Anyway, I know the Aircraft Dispatchers who where responsible for monitoring the American flight and the United flights (the same guy was watching both United flights). Needless to say, they were a wreck after this happened. The United Dispatcher never went back to work. I can assure you they were not military planes, there were people on them and they did in fact crash despite what anybody says about it.

Prove it then? Dude look at the 2 damn pictures. They were taken at the same time period. What else do you need? Fucking look at it, its right under your nose!

You arent blind are you?

Phoenix, in the real Pentagon photo, do you see small bricks?

Yes or no.

http://www.dod.mil/photos/Sep2001/01...4692S-002.html

i'm done arguing with people that are just refusing to open their eyes...

Wait, if thats the same pic, which i cant see, you just claimed no official site would place that pic because theyre hiding it??

YES


CHAR !@#

Please point out exactly where on this picture you see bricks as the outer sking of this building. Also point out any place where there is a 20ft gap between windows. Also point out an area where there are no ground level windows.


that is all.

the point here is you guys are hopping on anything and declaring that top be your proving point.

small bricks...fuck if the glove dont fit you must acquit


live in ignorance then...im done

Where exactly? The should be at the same hight/place as the pic with the small hole. I cant see them.

Not before you point out the bricks.

noitce all the small bricks where the outer layer has peeled away along the top ridge

wellin other photos similar to his one with the firetrucks and all the other shit in the way, you can see the small bricks in them as well...right at the bottom


oh and since it such a closeup crop of the building you dont see anything else..as thre is no room in the pic for it


r u guys that easily led?

Where its peeled away yes. Correct. Now the hole pic. Does it look peeled away or like the whole building is built that way???

the hole pic has been peeled away as according to you a whole fucking plane smashed into it

which would break apart the outer layer of bricks which are only cosmetic mind you

The bricks you speak of are red and not painted. you still dont account for the lack of windows and the 20ft gap.

Also, After looking at the other pic posted, I think the answer may be this:

The picture may in fact be from somewhere at the pentagon site, but that it is not a picture of the point of impact. There was extensive damage that penetrated through 3 rings of a massive building and its clear the the damage around the whole (the charred bricks) is from an internal fire.

I maintain vehemently that this is NOT a picture of the impact site at the pentagon.

I am not the one who is easily led. Sometimes the truth is not as 'glamorous' as some crackpot conspiracy theory. A weak mind loves conspiracy.

u guys need to stop smoking crack

learn to think for yourselves and seriously you should question anythign that has half the world up in arms


your steadfast belief that old george would never do you wrong is insane.



get off crack....and open a book once in your life instead of watching CNN

And i totally agree, it indeed may be another place on the Pentagon, i dont know that but certainly NOT the place of the plane impact. And once again all the evidence you need is right here, right under your nose.

Why have you connected my refuting the "there-was-no-plane-at-the-pentagon" theory to "my steadfast belief that old george would never do anything wrong"

This is not a question of politics, and dont make it one. I am arguing that:

- Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon
- The picture posted is not of the impact site at the pentagon

This has nothing to do with the politics. Also, please don't play some intellectual trump card, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between people who believe conspiracy theories and intelligence. Please refer to my other posts for further comments.

flight 77 was shot down like a pig in the sky..it disapeeared from radar 45 minutes before the crash....radar can pick up a duck farting in the artic.
so i think a huge plane would not have been able to escape notice for more then a few moments.
almost an hour? impossible.

Cause you read this on the internet or in some book? You know, just saying somthing doesnt validate it, and yes that works both ways.

even the pentagon says that is a picture of the impact

so you are sifding with them on it? or against them
they know they have apic of the real pentagon or they would try to refute it.....so instead they tell you this is what a crashed plane hole looks like.
in the many years following this i have seen alot of pictures from plane crashes, and there is one commmon factor....debris...debris everywhere...there is no debris

what they moved it out of the way? for an accident like this..forensci experts should have been called in...but for that photo to be of a plane hitting the building theyd have had to clean all the debris away.

not liekly


getting the picture yet?
how about wondering how to cover up a 2.3 trillion dollar investigation?

i know you keep the files in the WTC and also in the pentagon....so lets blow that shit up.

dude...it is really no different then cowboys and robbers...but with people who dont balk at the thought of being caught..they know the game and how it plays out.

that is my own theory..but one that was passed around by everyone the day of 9/11

Actually, they dont say its a picture of the impact site, they say:

"Rescue workers take a breath of fresh air near an entrance to the crash site at the Pentagon on Sept. 14, 2001...."

From the link posted earlier.

'entrance to the crash site' and 'point of impact' are very different things.

As I said in post 104:

I am not as 'obtuse' as you would like to believe. One important thing that I think anyone who might have planned sept 11th would know is that when consructing a lie, simple is better. Conspiracies dont need to be complicated, and the more complicated they are, the more unlikely they are to succeed. It is possible for a conspiracy to exist with the events happening just as they have been reported - with hijacked planes crashing into targets.. it doesnt need to me any more complicated!

Ok, two can play the stupid game (or three, in this case). We don't have to prove anything. YOU have to prove it was a missile that hit the pentagaon. Seriously.. have you ever seen a missile in real life? It's only a few inches in diameter. The hole you showed is like 15 feet in diameter! Did they use some super missile that is 15 feet in diameter or something? And if it was a missile, where are the holes in the wall where the fins on the missile would have carved slots? The pics from the security video show no missile either... and if it was a missile, howcome the traffic cones a few feet away are still standing?

Chshkt quietly left the thread to avoid even more owning. Smart choice.

And a missile can take out street lights on both sides of the street? WTF? hahah