911 Clues Everyone Missed (Video)

Wow, so this guy saw two planes fall into the WTC and then watched them burn for over an hour, and he figured out just by some strange intuition that this had something to do with the collapse that followed soon after.

He must be some kind of detective, or something.

I like how the second tool immediately dismissed the idea of bombs being planted inside the buildings. At that point any theory should have been considered and not just tossed aside. It's clear the American people were being spoon fed the idea of fires collapsing those buildings. I doubt there were any interviews that day being broadcast of anyone saying that bombs were used, even though at that point there would have been no way to eliminate any plausible theory of why those buildings collapsed.

reply to post by AwakeinNM

Just like how building 7 could spontaneously collapse with NO explosions an ANY floors, yes?

You official-story kool-aid drinkers always like to omit building 7, don't ya? Why is that? Perhaps because it throws a wrench into your argument?

I also find it strange that building 7 was omitted from the 9/11 commission report.

That said, we can go back and forth on the technicalities of the collapse.. but how did those speakers on the MSM know so much.... in such a short time after the attacks.

It looks like the official story was already cooked up and ready to be broadcast... with "witnesses" and "experts" on stand-by ready with the info. Some guy just "knew" it was due to structural collapse because of fire.

I guess 1 hour after a spectacular event is the best time to implant into the minds of people what you want them to believe. They would be too shocked to think for themselves...and will look to the TV to hear the experts.

I dont buy it.

This video is typical truther grasping at straws. It uses silly and boring repetition to try and make something out of nothing.

If people see airliners crash into skyscrapers, watch them burn and then collapse from the points of impact what does anyone expect rational people to think ? Are they expected to immediately ditch the obvious conclusion in favour of a wildly improbable one ?

So far as Osama bin Laden's name immediately coming up; of course it did. He was already on the FBI's most wanted list for bombings of US embassies and had made no secret of his feelings about US troops in Saudi Arabia and what he would like to do about it :-

www.youtube.com...

Here is a clue everyone missed, British false flag attacks in Saudi pre 9/11 to create a new terror group in order to dissuade the Saudis from funding Palestine to the tune of $1 billion dollars. The MI6 agents were however captured. Shortly after, 9/11 happened, draw your own conclusions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would like to comment to the posters who believe the offical story . If you all can find a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon that actually shows the plane ,then I will join you on your offical story crusade. Ok, I am waiting. Impress me. Let me go ahead and add that the Pentagon has 100's of exterior security cameras and the Hotels across the street had them too. Now , offical story believer , give me a good reason why they will not release the footage at multiple angles over 10 years later .

reply to post by UpLateWakingUp


So you demand evidence which is not known to exist, and which the FBI says doesn't exist :-

www.911myths.com...

while hand-waving away all the other evidence. Why don't scores of eyewitnesses, Boeing 757 wreckage and body parts and personal possessions of passengers and crew recovered, readable flight data recorder recovered, radar tracks and air traffic control tapes, physical evidence of the flightpath, count ?

reply to post by UpLateWakingUp

I would like to comment to the posters who believe the offical story . If you all can find a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon that actually shows the plane ,then I will join you on your offical story crusade. Ok, I am waiting. Impress me.

Do you believe the Titanic hit the iceberg? All we have is eye witnesses so I guess it was really meant to start WW1.

Let me go ahead and add that the Pentagon has 100's of exterior security cameras and the Hotels across the street had them too. Now , offical story believer , give me a good reason why they will not release the footage at multiple angles over 10 years later .

Maybe there really is no footage to release. And please prove there were"100's" of cameras.
But then again we have those eye witnesses. Just like the Titanic.
Perhaps you can explain why some super secret plot would use two planes in NYC but then decide to use a missile at the Pentagon? Doesn't that complicate things a bit too much?

If you were ordered to plan 911 wouldn't you chose to use the same method of destruction for all three buildings? Especially if you were going to blaim it on a bunch of towel heads? Last time I heard towel heads didn't have access to cruise missiles.

reply to post by samkent


Read the link I posted above, it shows the British were perfoming false flag attacks to present Saudi funding for a Palestinian intifada, it failed and they got caught, 9/11 was Americas attempt to do the same, it worked.

Originally posted by UpLateWakingUp
I would like to comment to the posters who believe the offical story . If you all can find a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon that actually shows the plane ,then I will join you on your offical story crusade. Ok, I am waiting. Impress me. Let me go ahead and add that the Pentagon has 100's of exterior security cameras and the Hotels across the street had them too. Now , offical story believer , give me a good reason why they will not release the footage at multiple angles over 10 years later .

Have you seen these pictures before?

cryptome.org...

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

This video is very enlightening, but I doubt it will enlighten the official story believers who have their heads up their asses..

Interesting point about how much they knew about Bin Laden within hours of the attack, isn't it? All the information the news readers had about how he moved three times a week from mud huts and tent cities.. so much detailed information we had on him prior to 9/11 -- YET -- We couldn't find him afterward. Interesting indeed.

Yet there will still be naysayers. At this point, I think they are being paid to spread disinformation just like these "experts" in the video.

What I find interesting is how quickly Bush managed to say "This was an act of war!" He manages to then start a war with Iraq fabricating a connection between Hussein & Al-Qaeda as well as the presence of WMDs within the country. That's like China sending over an airstrike on US soil and to retaliate we go and attack Germany. Do the OS troops really believe the US Intelligence is really that dumb to make a mistake like that?

The same intelligence agencies who claimed to have "missed the signs" of 9/11 are the same ones who managed to provide all the identities of the hijackers in days. Not only that but they were able to completely connect them to Osama bin Laden within the hour and provide that to the media.

I'm not trying to say all these government agencies came together and orchestrated 9/11, but there is definitely something wrong about the official story and how it all went down before and after it happened.

reply to post by homervb

What I find interesting is how quickly Bush managed to say "This was an act of war!" He manages to then start a war with Iraq fabricating a connection between Hussein & Al-Qaeda as well as the presence of WMDs within the country. That's like China sending over an airstrike on US soil and to retaliate we go and attack Germany. Do the OS troops really believe the US Intelligence is really that dumb to make a mistake like that?

The same intelligence agencies who claimed to have "missed the signs" of 9/11 are the same ones who managed to provide all the identities of the hijackers in days. Not only that but they were able to completely connect them to Osama bin Laden within the hour and provide that to the media.

That just goes to show how incompetent our agencies are.

But I find nothing strange about them identifying the culprits so quickly.
They knew who was on the planes.
They knew the names of all people on all the agencies ‘keep an eye on’ lists.
When you have 4-5 match up on each plane it’s a no brainer. Just follow the line back to their group.

Maybe Bush did use 911 to kick ass on Iraq. Maybe that was his only way to justify putting troops on the ground in the middle east. After all you need the troops to get to the culprits no matter which country they were in.

And besides if the big bad government was so good at planning and executing 911 in total secrecy why couldn’t this same government plan a few WMDs in Iraq? They had months and months after 911 to air drop a couple and bury them in the sand.

reply to post by homervb


What you have identified there is a very good reason why 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

This immensely complicated plot was carried out so superlatively that most people don't think there was one but the perps couldn't frame the right guys. Instead of an excuse for attacking Iraq all the links were to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan training camps which necessitated an unwanted diversion before getting around to Iraq.

The interview of the fire crew was the first give away for me, they are innocently filming a fairly insignificant and dull interview, you hear a plane engine and the camera swings away from the firemen and round to the first tower, about 5 or so seconds before the plane is even visible. It is aimed to recrod the first impact, which I believe is why they were positioned in that exact spot at that exact moment. Why choose to focus on the Trade center building and then keep the camera still to both frame the moment and then continue to record it without even the faintest clue that this could, or would happen. A very stage managed event, from the first moment, to the last, a very effective social control exercise and a very profitable one for all of the key actors with associated investments, including arms and re-building contacts and firms. The only loss in it, was the cost of the human lives, which is beyond price for the families and loved ones, the backroom boys find no difference in war losses of life, to losses of life in a power play for control and profit.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by homervb

 

What I find interesting is how quickly Bush managed to say "This was an act of war!" He manages to then start a war with Iraq fabricating a connection between Hussein & Al-Qaeda as well as the presence of WMDs within the country. That's like China sending over an airstrike on US soil and to retaliate we go and attack Germany. Do the OS troops really believe the US Intelligence is really that dumb to make a mistake like that?

The same intelligence agencies who claimed to have "missed the signs" of 9/11 are the same ones who managed to provide all the identities of the hijackers in days. Not only that but they were able to completely connect them to Osama bin Laden within the hour and provide that to the media.

And besides if the big bad government was so good at planning and executing 911 in total secrecy why couldn’t this same government plan a few WMDs in Iraq? They had months and months after 911 to air drop a couple and bury them in the sand.

Okay, so here's where you're wrong already. I specifically said "I'm not trying to say all these government agencies came together and orchestrated 9/11, but there is definitely something wrong about the official story and how it all went down before and after it happened" which you managed to NOT QUOTE or address.

And as far as the WMDs, there were NONE. There were no falsely-planted WMDs either...the US didn't find anything, at all. So in other words, all the evidence that was used to go to war was completely BULLSHIITTT.

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq
October 07, 2004

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War. The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

June 16, 2004 WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection.

Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link

WASHINGTON — There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq. Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

reply to post by homervb


Ah ok! So the evil government under Bush, faked the terrorist attacks on NYC and DC, used missiles and planted evidence and bombs, used a majority of Saudis as terrorists, invaded Afganistan, and then jumped into Iraq under the premise of WMDs, and yet, after YEARS of being in Iraq, they couldnt plant just one lousy nuclear bomb, chemical weapons, etc etc with "Made in Iraq" stenciled on the side?

Did they just run out of ideas after 9/11? It would have been a hell of a lot easier to plant WMDs to justify everything, than execute 9/11 in the ridiculous manner the "Truth" movement likes to drum up as fact, and then tie it all as loosely as possible together with strings so thin that they could barely support themselves.

reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled

Where's your proof that concrete can be particularized from a thousand foot free fall? You can't, it's not possible, deflect all you want but you know it can't be particularized without being blasted apart

I am sorry to tell you, but the burden is on you to prove your statement about what is possible with regard to breaking concrete. You made the absolute statement that it is not possible. I won't get into the fact that you neglect to consider the fact that not only was the concrete dropped from a great height but that it was also subject to force of other, harder material dropping on it, also from a great height.

Here is what I would suggest - first prove what the smallest possible separation can be for a concretion and the means required to achieve that separation.

reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled


So in other words, in a 110 floor building, that has concrete on each floor, it is physically impossible for some concrete to get crushed, releasing powdered concrete that can be scattered around? Really?

It is no wonder the "Truther" camp isnt going anywhere, when people cannot use simple critical thinking skills.

By the way, have you ever even read what the dust clouds were actually composed of?
WTC Dust

Most of it was the drywall and sheetrock. It is no surprise concrete getting smashed by the force of collapse would release small particles. I mean really? You cannot fathom that idea that concrete getting smashed releases dust particles???

As a Brit , I am so suprised to see that anybody in America with more than an atom of common sense can still believe the official story .

The same people who support the official story seem to pop up in every thread concerning 9/11 , as if they are on a mission .

Nice vid's OP

DP

Originally posted by dawnprince
As a Brit , I am so suprised to see that anybody in America with an atom of common sense can still believe the official story .

The same people who support the official story seem to pop up in every thread concerning 9/11 , as if they are on a mission .

Nice vid's OP

DP

Really? So you think that 99.99999% of the American population is without an "atom" of any common sense? Does that seem reasonable to you?