TinWiki: 911 Ripple Effect

911 Ripple Effect is a documentary film about September 11 that questions the official version of how the attacks of that day happened. The film is presented by Dave vonKleist, and is a follow-up to the influential 911 In Plane Site.

The film looks at the incidents at the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7, and the incidents at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. Witnesses and experts are heard, and the film also takes a look at how journalists and talk show hosts in the so-called main stream media have dealt with investigating the facts of September 11.

Produced, Edited & Directed by William Lewis



References

The 911 Ripple Effect Has Begun - A Synopsis of 9/11 Ripple Effect.



External links

911 Ripple Effect - Now Available on DVD- official movie homepage

reply to post by WikiEditor



Thank you for pointing people to this new film, "9/11 Ripple Effect". May I take a moment, after having looked at the link to the film's synopsis page, and keeping in mind that I have not, of course, seen the film yet --- I noticed a reference, from the synopsis, that appears to be an obvious error, with a resulting 'theory' proposed.

I am talking about a snippet with a still photo showing the bottom of UAL175 just prior to impact at the WTC.


If I am following the allegations the film will be making, it appears they will claim that there were some sort of external "pods" or "devices" on the belly of the airplane. I say this is a misunderstanding as to how the airplane was painted, originally.

Here is a United Boeing 737 fuselage bottom, using the similar paint scheme design as UAL175, a Boeing 767:

www.airliners.net...&sid=2fd5095a701462c9f5a5497abb4b2989

I did not, after a short search, find a representative B767 fuselage bottom photo, but my observations of similar paint schemes on other United Airlines jets shows that it is common to leave a rectangular portion of the belly either bare alumiinum, or painted gray. (This does NOT apply to their commuter/partner subsidiaries).

I point this ONE example out in order to suggest that, whilst this film may have many valid points to stimulate thought and discussion, I would caution at taking ALL at face value, and to investigate all claims for oneselves.

Thank you for your indulgence.

[edit on 8 July 2009 by weedwhacker]