Uh, well...building's generally don't fall straight down when planes crash into them...and where were the engines (or anything else) from the 757 that supposedly hit the pentagon? Keep watching. It all make sense when Larry (?) Silverstein comes into play.
And look up the papers that were written by several physicists, etc, on how plane fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken the kind of steel those buildings were made from. (And how some of them were released from prestigious positions for just that) And why did building 7 fall? It was taken down intentionally. Silverstein admits this, though what he doesn't know is that setting up a building to 'pull' it takes weeks, not hours...
And I looked into some of this on my own. The guy who was the CEO of the company that wrote the insurance policy on the towers (and only months earlier...and the policy paid double...when does that EVER happen) was a contributor to Bush's re-election campaign. Interesting, at least.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Mark Smart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Whoah. I just got to the 9/11 part. What a bunch of crap! He lost me.
There is a lot of fast editing of news reports and interviews without
any indication of the context. Yeah, the planes caused EXPLOSIONS when
they hit the buildings. The way it's presented implies they are all
talking about intentional demolition of the buildings by the CIA or
whatever. Jeez. I've only watched the first couple of minutes!
An alternative view:
This says that they were aware that it was going to happen, and let it. This is different from the thought that it was planned and pulled off by the American govt.
Keep watching zeitgeist. You'll see how it all comes together.
And Penn and Teller....THAT'S what you use to refute this? That's not much to refute anything. What does that firefighter have to say? That the planes hit the towers? Ok, we know that.He doesn't refute anything. These are not disparate facts. They seam together quite well. Keep watching. And do some real research on how hot jet fuel burns in an uncontrolled manner, what temps it takes to bring down steel contructions, how many fires had burned in steel constructions before and the building's not collapsed (in SA several years ago, a hotel burned for over a day and didn't fall...), how planned implosions work, how they're setup, how they look, what they smell like (from firefighters at GZ that day), etc. Yeah, in that P&T clip they interview a guy who 'knows' why they fell...does he know why there was so much sulfur at ground zero? I've heard it's because it helps cordite cut support beams. And cut support beams can be seen in pics of ground zero immediately after the attacks. Why did they cover any and all evidence at the pentagon within hours by laying down stones all over that side of the lawn? Shouldn't it have been investigated first? Why did bush wait over 15 months to appoint a head of an investigating committee? How can anyone make a phone call (in 2001) from a plane going that fast that high up? The one call they do have recorded, the guy is trying to convince his own mother that it's him. These guys made too much money off of this...from the insurance, from
the gold stored in the basement of the towers (as they were
repositories), from their buddies building war materials and military
bases, from the put plays on the airlines in the stock market prior to
9/11, etc. And how did this lead us into Iraq? Is anyone aware that Al
Qaeda was originally setup and supplied by the CIA (to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan)? That's a known
fact, not up for dispute. How is it some of the 'hijackers' are still
alive?This isn't all just kooked up stuff. Penn and Teller address next to, if not simply, nothing at all.
Forgive my overt passion on the subject. I've been researching this since it happened. Zeitgeist covers a lot of it in a short period of time, but there's a lot more information out there.
On 8/3/08, Mark Smart <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/08, Dave <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> One thing they did leave out of the astronomy stuff is that the pyramids
>> laid out the same as Orion's belt, size and position-wise.
>> How do you think they're stretching it? I think they're just explaining
>> the archeoastronomers saw it. I suppose without peripheral lighting, the
> The archeoastronomers didn't think the stars in Orion's belt pointed
> perfectly at Sirius, as shown in the diagram in the video. Why doesn't
> he just shown an accurate star diagram?
> It suits his purposes better to move the stars a little bit.
> The ancients also knew that the stars stayed in the same positions all
> year long, and the (almost) alignment of Orion's belt with Sirius was
> constant, not just in December. The facts have been BENT. It makes me
> wonder what else is being bent.
> But I still found this enlightening, I had never heard of the
> parallels between Jesus and these other religious figures.
> Mark Smart
"The Universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent to the concerns of such creatures as we." - Carl Sagan, from "Cosmos"