It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Ripple Effect; up to date 9/11 documentary.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Hello,

I'd like to share the following Video:

9/11 Ripple Effect

Source: 911rippleeffect.com

LurkerBeast

``````````````````````
Mod note;

Every time a thread is started, this notice appears as you type it in...

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.





[edit on 12/7/07 by masqua]




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I thought this was one of the better documentaries I've seen so far. I really like Dave vonKleist's work as a narrative, for the most part very precise and to the point.

Check it out for your self.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Are you serious? This is probably one of the worst documentaries on 9/11 i've ever seen!

The POD theory and the "flash" is misinformation..

Thermite being offered as the only explanation for collapse.. is misinformation.

A globalhawk/skywarrior crashing into the pentagon.. is misinformation.


This entire documentary is just a joke, and really does not deserve any truth seekers time. Infact, it really is on par with "Loose Change".. infact, the similarities between them is quite striking... is that coincidence?

No. This documentary is damage control, based upon bs research and analysis, and really provides nothing new, let alone any conclusions that people can take away and hold up against the official story.

Poor show.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Are you serious? This is probably one of the worst documentaries on 9/11 i've ever seen!

I don't agree.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The POD theory and the "flash" is misinformation..


How so? There really does appear to be something there. If it can be proven that there is an anomaly on the plane that hits the WTC that should not be there, then that proves that it was not an ordinary airliner. We don't have to make any conjecture or try to prove what it actually is, just that it's not supposed to be there.

I don’t quite understand how this is misinformation.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Thermite being offered as the only explanation for collapse.. is misinformation.


It is offered as one possible explanation. Just because the documentary does not cover all available theories, it does not mean that it suggests Thermate taking down the building is the only possible scenario. It would take a lot of time to cover everything.

I my self can’t say I’ve heard a more plausible theory as of today. I’m not even that concerned with exactly how it was demolished; just that it was in fact demolished. Care to fill me in on what other plausible theories there are as to what brought the building down?


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
A globalhawk/skywarrior crashing into the pentagon.. is misinformation.


Again, how so? I must say this sounds reasonable given the available evidence. Personally, I’m not very concerned with what exactly hit the pentagon. However I don’t think it is very likely that a Boeing 757 did hit.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
This entire documentary is just a joke, and really does not deserve any truth seekers time. Infact, it really is on par with "Loose Change".. infact, the similarities between them is quite striking... is that coincidence?

No. This documentary is damage control, based upon bs research and analysis, and really provides nothing new, let alone any conclusions that people can take away and hold up against the official story.

Poor show.

I did not like Loose Change that much my self. I don't see the glaring similarities, I'm sorry. Perhaps you can clear up my questions above...



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The POD theory is misinformation because it does not deal with whats easily observed in the very same images.. the fact that the plane melts into the building, nothing being shed off on the outside..and also the fact that somehow the laws of physics have changed, allowing an aluminium plane to puncture neatly through steel girder box columns of tremendous strength.

It is designed to draw your attention away from the simple fact that the plane should not have done what it did. The planes are not real. They are not even there. TV is an image, it is not real.

Again, with the thermite theory, it is designed to draw your attention away from the simple observational fact that the towers crumbled into powder. No one needs to do any mathematical calculations to realise that the amount of energy involved in pulverizing the entire towers is mind boggling.. and requires some serious demolition methods, involving high energy devices.

And finally, the Pentagon crash..

There is nothing to substantiate a 757, i fully agree. But there is also nothing to substantiate that anything else crashed there either! Nothing hit the Pentagon. Nada.

Theres a reason why the CCTV has not been released.. not because it will show a globalhawk or missile.. but because it will show NOTHING, just an explosion on the outside of the Pentagon.

No planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. Its the only explanation that fits all the evidence.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This is a decent documentary. Asks pertinent questions, and I found the part about "thug journalism" towards the end very interesting. That part was spot on, the talking heads in the mainstream media tend to paint those who prefer to think a little differently to the herd as complete nutcases. I wonder why they do that...

Also, IMO, the "no plane" theories are complete BS.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
IT is a good documentary. I actually thought they were putting up a good defense for their POD THEORY and the Flash before impact, although I haven't decided myself what is going on there.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
Also, IMO, the "no plane" theories are complete BS.


In your opinion, or "in your opinion" formed by the "truth movement" itself..

The no plane theory is the only one which makes any sense, despite it being branded as being "crazy"..

No planes crashed in Shanksville or the Pentagon.. you get praised for saying that, yet you get slandered for saying that none hit the towers..

This documentary does nothing to piece the puzzle together, and is nothing more than a stab in the dark. Sorry, but it is a great attempt at misinformation.. do some more research and you'll see im telling you the truth.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Ah yes, I forget that in this forum, if you offer an opinion, it's immediately assumed that you are an agent working for the "other" side.



In MY opinion, the "no plane" theories are BS. I've never been, but I understand that New York can be a very busy place. Lots of people out and about on the streets, in the buildings, using their eyes to observe a life outside of the television. It is my understanding that many of these people have testified to the fact that they saw two planes hit skyscrapers on the morning of September 11, 2001. Am I to understand that these people didn't know what they saw until they went home and asked their television? Am I to understand that they were duped by some magical alien projection technology? Maybe David Copperfield was in town?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
It is my understanding that many of these people have testified to the fact that they saw two planes hit skyscrapers on the morning of September 11, 2001. Am I to understand that these people didn't know what they saw until they went home and asked their television?


"Many of these people"..

You state what everyone else does, and even what i did when i was in your position.. do you actually know of anyone personally who actually saw the planes with their own two eyes, on the day, in NY?..

I think you'd be very lucky to know of, let alone know, anyone who saw them actually hit the towers.

If you have been to NY, you would understand why saying "thousands saw the planes" is BS in itself.. NY is like a forest, and you'd be very lucky to see a plane travelling at over 500mph from a viewpoint down on the street.

Watch the videos. There are CGI errors in all of them. The planes are animated...

Since when can a flimsy plane wing puncture through steel box columns?..



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
great video.
my father saw the second plane hit(from a distance, he was driving a semi).



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The Naudet brothers film was NOT some doctored piece of bogus anything. It was an opportunistic capture of the first plane hitting the Tower. No doubt about it. However, I do think it very odd that the planes entered the buildings the way they did, very curious, especially the second one.

The powderization of the concrete and virtually everything else inside the Towers says that exotic weapons were used, for sure. Only some type micro-nuke or energy beam could turn steel beams and concrete into a flour like consistency from the top down, in front of us. The films of the ' collapse ' show to any unbiased observer that the buildings are being brought down with quite a few different means ; there is evidence of thermite compounds, there is evidence of explosives of a rather normal nature, and there is evidence of extreme temperatures, so high that exotics are quite likley.

I am not well versed on the science as lot of others on this forum are, but to me, as a simpleton just examining it, it looks like some very radical heat producing blast(s) took place at bedrock or at least very lower levels; reports of eyewitness and pools of molten metal mean extreme temp's caused by something. Also, some extreme heat was needed to dustify the steel; the photos of the remaining ' spires 'at the end of the ' collapse ' of that Tower show the steel structure simply ' dustify ' right in front of us!! What in the hell can make steel ,standing up and megastrong, suddenly turn to dust? It has to be extreme heat.

That is why the nuke theory sounds good; the exotic technology that the government, the obvious perpetrators of this event, had at their disposal makes one consider that a nuke type or fission or whatever, thats where you lose me..CAN produce millions of degrees of heat, and if somehow we can explain how that heat could be transferred to the steel support structure, steel being an excellent conductor, without showing the effetcs of such masive heat in other ways, like floors bursting into flame prematurely or seeing the heat effect from the bottom up..know what I mean ?

It just seems like too many anomalies within anomalies to be able to easily figure out. Of course, that is because it was designed carried out by people who do exactly that for a living , make things so complicated and exotic and with obvious factors lacking and obscure one's multitudinous.

My best overall guess is this, so far:

A combination of fission/fusion/nuke whatever at the lower levels, conventional explosives at the upper levels at or near the aircraft damage points, well known in advance as the trajectory was in the computer, as was the flight controls. Remote all the way, no doubt. Not ONE highjack code being sent was a dead giveaway on that; mathematically beyond belief.

Then, thermates used to weaken sections at the damage points so the tops could start tilting ( with the fulcrum points then turning to dust with the rest of the top!) and dropping so there would be ' weight ' to ' crush or pancake ' the rest of the buildings, or so they wanted us to believe. Then, some exotic beam weapon or such, I am not sure, had to be used as what else could account for the effects we see of the buildings just turing to dust with the consistency of FLOUR? That is telling, yes? Flour.

Not may energy sources have the potential to turn steel and concrete to dust, at a rate that is as fast, or faster, than free fall speed. I tend to think exotic here; conventional would turn it to chunks, this was pulverized and that means heavy dutyvibrations of the structure to the molecular level. Only a beam or wavelength with massive energy could account for that.

But another mindbender is the fact that the PEOPLE inside were not affected by any noticeable effects until the very end, when they too turned into dust, or at least extremely small pieces. Have you guys seen the video's on YouTube of the ' cloaked ' aircraft around the Towers and the 'orbs '? Some of those video's are rubbish, and birds, etc. But there are a few that seem to really show 'something 'VERY ODD and perhaps partially masked craft using those exotic weapons. It need not be space based, although that is possible too.

Whatever it was, it was done masterfully but not perfectly. No operation that complex can go just right; there are hundreds of anomalies but by means of a complacent or controlled press and an uneducated and apathetic public, for the most part, and constant refusal to address any questions at all, and high level pressure and political chicanery, the perp's just smile and wave and seem to be getting the world to argue minor points so much that the biggest get lost.

there are probaby 10 top ' anomalies ' that unanswered make the case for an inside job. Since those ten cannot be accounted for intelligently or officially, one can assume that the official story is false. You have your 10 and I have mine, but anyones top ten qualifies I am sure for a closed case on the fact of an inside job all the way. here is mine:

1. Nt ONE highjack code was sent from FOUR airliners. This simple fact is impossible to explain away. It only takes a second to do, yet we are supposed to accept that on four occasions, all cockpits were breahced so fast and overtaken so fast, that not ONE pilot was able to push a button before they were dragged out of a small and confined area? Only the deluded could believe that. It cannot be explained unless the systems were remotely overtaken and the planes flown by remote.

2. Total lack of major airplane parts at the Pentagon:No luggage, no bodies, no serial numbered parts to display, no nothing except typical missle damage. Despite many cameras, no proof of the plane hitting.

3. The pulverization of the Twn Towers. Since gravity CANNOT account for the energy needed to dustify steel and concrete, it is obvious that they were demolished purposefully.

4. The implosion of Bldg. 7 and the facts surrounding it. No ned to expound here.

5. Telephone calls supposedly made from airplanes are strange and sound like a script. technology did not allow such calls from such heights. The Barbara Olsen story reeks to high heaven, collect calls, no credit cards, cell phones, no proof from the phone records,etc.

6. Norman Mineta's testimony is a smoking gun. It means that Cheney can be placed at the heart of the conspiracy, no othet way to explain it.
7-10 soon



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
eyewitness86, is it not more likely that explosives where built into the building, which is why it pretty much pulverized like it did? Why jump to conclusions and start to speculate about “exotic weapons” (whatever that is)? Don’t you agree that for the average Joe such theories will sound too far out there?

And the NO PLANE theory seems like an effort to discredit and derail the truth movement. Really, every single media corporation involved in filming on 9/11 would have to be “in on it”. There would be dozens of individuals within the media companies that would know of this fraud. Not one single media individual have come forward. This is a much more complicated explanation than to say that 2 airplanes where RC’ed into the buildings. What about amateur video? I’ve seen a few of those as well (capturing the second plane), have they been ‘faked’ as well?



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerBeast
eyewitness86, is it not more likely that explosives where built into the building, which is why it pretty much pulverized like it did? Why jump to conclusions and start to speculate about “exotic weapons” (whatever that is)?


Putting explosives into the structure is a silly idea. Explosives degrade over time, and also the most simple fact that having them there 24/7 increases the risk of something going wrong, such as a premature detonation, or worse, someone finding them..

Exotic weaponary is the only way to account for the observed evidence. Normal explosives and/or thermate can not do it. You have two 110 story buildings melting like a sand castle on the shoreline, leaving nothing but dust and molten metal in the basements..


Originally posted by LurkerBeast
And the NO PLANE theory seems like an effort to discredit and derail the truth movement. Really, every single media corporation involved in filming on 9/11 would have to be “in on it”. There would be dozens of individuals within the media companies that would know of this fraud. Not one single media individual have come forward. This is a much more complicated explanation than to say that 2 airplanes where RC’ed into the buildings. What about amateur video? I’ve seen a few of those as well (capturing the second plane), have they been ‘faked’ as well?


So your settling for the theory which "seems" to be more convienient for your own conspiracy theory viewpoint.. you've just admitted your own error. You've just written down evidence that your not being honest to yourself, least not that you know of yet. Please take the time to reconsider the no-plane idea. You will know the truth in the end, and i offer this to you to save you time.

The no-plane theory has been slandered from the start because it is the truth.

You think no-planes is more complicated than setting up two remote controlled planes, having them take off, not involving people at an airstrip, or many others involved in getting the planes airbourne, monitoring them (FAA, NORAD) etc..

No-planes is by far the most simple explanation, and the only one which fits all the evidence.

Few people would be in the know.. only those who are creating the animation, and helping insert it into the live feeds for the media channels, rather than dozens if the planes were actually real and piloted.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
So your settling for the theory which "seems" to be more convienient for your own conspiracy theory viewpoint.. you've just admitted your own error. You've just written down evidence that your not being honest to yourself, least not that you know of yet. Please take the time to reconsider the no-plane idea. You will know the truth in the end, and i offer this to you to save you time.


I’ve what now?

I’m not settling for any theory, I’m just using common sense and evaluating what is more likely. I don’t claim to know for sure that the TV imagery has not been faked. I’ve checked out the no-plane theory, however, and I’ve not found anything conclusive that would lead me to believe no planes hit the WTC towers.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The no-plane theory has been slandered from the start because it is the truth.

You think no-planes is more complicated than setting up two remote controlled planes, having them take off, not involving people at an airstrip, or many others involved in getting the planes airbourne, monitoring them (FAA, NORAD) etc..


Yes, I do think this is a far more believable scenario. Theoretically you’d only need a small covert-op group to ensure the remote controlled airplanes took off and then continue to fly them by remote control. There’s no need to involve external parties.

This fits together with the fact that the military was running exercises that involved the exact same scenario, thus causing confusion for FFA /NORAD.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
No-planes is by far the most simple explanation, and the only one which fits all the evidence.

Few people would be in the know.. only those who are creating the animation, and helping insert it into the live feeds for the media channels, rather than dozens if the planes were actually real and piloted.


What about the amateur video? What about other eye-witness accounts? Granted I don’t pay much credit to eye-witnesses, however just imagine if someone caught the WTC just blowing up on video without any plane impacting it and released it online? There were plenty of people with their cameras locked on the WTC towers after the first plane hit. Do you really think NOBODY would have noticed if it just exploded without an airplane actually hitting?

Do you think whoever planned this operation would have risked something like this happening?

The no-plane theory goes against my sense of common sense.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerBeast
I’m not settling for any theory, I’m just using common sense and evaluating what is more likely. I don’t claim to know for sure that the TV imagery has not been faked. I’ve checked out the no-plane theory, however, and I’ve not found anything conclusive that would lead me to believe no planes hit the WTC towers.


OK, im glad that you say your not settling for any theory
Honestly, i would not say what i do if i didn't think it wasn't true. I know im testing your faith in me, someone you don't even know, but i wholeheartedly feel that the no-plane theory is the truth.. i know it seems the most "out there" and most "unlikely", but when you've eliminated all other possibilties, the truth is what remains, no matter how improbable. Please have another look at the idea, aswell as thinking about the physics of a plane crashing through a steel wall of columns..

(reverse it, what would it look like in your mind if you slammed a grid of steel into a motionless plane at 500mph?)


Originally posted by LurkerBeast
Yes, I do think this is a far more believable scenario. Theoretically you’d only need a small covert-op group to ensure the remote controlled airplanes took off and then continue to fly them by remote control. There’s no need to involve external parties.

This fits together with the fact that the military was running exercises that involved the exact same scenario, thus causing confusion for FFA /NORAD.


The "wargames" is not really a cover, but a diversion. If there were no wargames, jets would have been on the tail of all those planes within minutes.. no joke. Don't forget that the US military is incredibly precise and machine like, and they don't make exceptions.. if your plane goes off course, or something looks wrong, they WILL send a jet to investigate.

What contains less risk.. using real planes, or using animation? If you use real planes, you run the risk of an accident, and blowing the entire scheme wide open. Obviously with a scheme like 9/11, nothing would be left to chance. And by using animation there is no risk, other than people becoming aware of the fact that planes don't slice through steel columns, don't melt into buildings, and don't have a nosecone come out the other side of the tower! No physical evidence, no risk.

And they know eventually the truth will come out anyway. The most effective and long lasting scheme is an ILLUSION.. it lasts so long as the observer continues to participate in it (accepting the planes are real).


Originally posted by LurkerBeast
What about the amateur video? What about other eye-witness accounts? There were plenty of people with their cameras locked on the WTC towers after the first plane hit. Do you really think NOBODY would have noticed if it just exploded without an airplane actually hitting?


You are going to trust word of mouth of people you don't even know? People get mocked for trusting in an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do... yet blindly accepting the word of someone on the TV is OK?

People on Manhattan island would have a VERY hard time seeing an imcoming plane, travelling at over 400+mph, given how tall and dense the buildings are.

If there were "plenty of people with their cameras", then why do we have such a small amount of recordings of the impacts, given the thousands who would have been around at the time? Proportionally speaking, 9/11 was the WORST covered event by media in our history.

Oh.. and some people did not see a plane hit the towers, and just saw an explosion.. inluding one news crew, who were getting the unedited feed, aswell as the corresponding news reporter in Manhattan himself.

Ask yourself why there are no planes at the Pentagon and ESPECIALLY Shanksville..

The only evidence we have of planes are fragments and isolated parts, which could easily be placed, and TV images.

2 of the flights weren't even listed on the day of 9/11



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon


but i wholeheartedly feel that the no-plane theory is the truth.. i know it seems the most "out there" and most "unlikely", but when you've eliminated all other possibilties, the truth is what remains, no matter how improbable.


Shruken...your entire post is misleading, false, and filled with lies. Please back up your post with a least SOME proof. My guess is you can't.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Great documentary!
Thank you for posting this.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
This documentary is brilliant.
Instead of presenting a complete hypothesis, like the posters above, it assembles in a very concise manner, the conflicts between the available evidence and the official report.
The producers are merely expressing some glaring errors with the official report and only suggest re-opening the investigation, based on some overwhelming evidence.

I was particularly shocked by the MSM's treatment and "interviews" of field experts; O'Rielly really has nothing useful to say and has no place in a public forum, let alone a debate or journalistic interview.

Personally, I have not formulated an opinion on the specifics of the 9/11 event, however, I do know that there are enough discrepancies in the official story to warrant a massive re-investigation.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join