| Quote: | |  | |
| I'll start:
whilst I believe that the two movies do carry some interesting material, I have to ask myself certain questions....
Against the conspiracy:- this would have to be the best-kept secret EVER; too many people would have to know something and be involved - is that possible?
- the loss of life. If this was from the Bush administration, that is taking Friendly Fire to a new level
- I saw the second plane hit live on CNN. That will stay with me for ever
For the conspiracy:- the collapse of WTC1 and 2 with reports and visible explosions make no sense to me given the facts and my underlying knowledge of what I would "expect"
- WTC7. Again, how and why? It seems a valid question
- Pentagon: you have to say what hit it.
- Cellphone calls - some accounts of course hearsay but those accounts do hint at scripted conversations
- Flight 93 - did it go down, did it land?
- Why not release the CCTV footage from the hotel and gas station near the Pentagon?
I have also discounted the mixtures of eye witness reports - with the associated trauma, speed of events and other factors, the reports of small passenger planes, windowless planes and so-on do not add clarity for me.
More to come; I'm editing and reading Wiki! | |
| | |
Wow - we all seem to have watched this around the same time .. I watched it on Monday. Very interesting stuff, some of it is clearly stretching things to fit a viewpoint and apparently there are factual errors
but it raises lots of questions.
I agree - the Pentagon incident has a LOT of unanswered questions and things that don't seem to fit. Also, even at the time, the "Flight 93" 'crash' struck me as very weird.
As you say, the differing eyewitness reports are pretty much standard whenever there's a violent event. People remember things differently than others, get the wrong impression at the time, get influenced by stuff they heard later etc. So I wouldn't put too much credence on the reports that there was a small passenger jet involved, cargo plane instead of passenger plane etc. either. The multiple reports of explosions in the WTC are interesting. Of course, they could have been secondary explosions as there may well have been lots of material in the building which was explosive in the case of a raging fire.
Additional things that stuck out were the presence of a large white plane around Washington at the time of the Pentagon attack (seen and caught on camera) .. what was that about, why hasn't it been accounted for? Why were there so few fighter jets available (only FOUR fighters protecting the NE of the USA)? Not mentioned in the film was the way that the White House resisted all attempts for a full enquiry, then restricted it's scope and refused to hand over evidence demanded by it.
My own impression: The attacks on the towers were 'real' but certain figures in the intelligence community had foreknowledge and allowed them to go ahead.
The Pentagon was a staged attack, designed to heighten the overall sense of fear and the notion that "America was being attacked" rather than just a one-off, albeit spectacular, act of terrorism.
The passengers of Flight 93 recovered control of the plane from the hijackers but it was shot down because it was always 'meant' to be shot down - they weren't going to crash something into the White House but they could claim that the plane was destined for it, had it not come down (allegedly having crashed because of a struggle between passengers and hijackers).
I never thought I'd question the official line on what happened, but with all the strange stuff and goings on that have been uncovered in the time since the attacks plus the way in which the Bush administration has exploited them to push their own agenda, I'm willing to believe that it was more than just a totally unexpected act of terrorism excuted with a 100% element of surprise.
Gav