Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job

page: 1
65
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+44 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
That is the title of the latest documentary I found on youtube and i think it is worth sharing.
It talks and shows different aspects and shows the infamous flashes in the buildings.


I hope you enjoy it!






posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Just the other day a friend tried to sell me on the occult sacrifice side to the story.

What does ATS think?

1. The Pentagon, on impact, was a flaming pentagram.

2. The two WTC towers could also be symbology of the Solomon columns.


3. World Trade Center building 7 which later fell the same day is also known as the Salomon building.

Now was it some kind of religious sacrifice I don't claim to know. Just something I never put together before. Some weird similarities you have to admit.
edit on 13-2-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: corrected salomon building spelling. Thanks Alfie1.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Sorry to rain on your theory but WTC 7 was actually known as the Salomon building.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Interesting approach


They say that Solomon's temple has to be destroyed for the new one to be build so that the antichrist can thrown in it. Although that would be the al aqsa mosque..


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Just the other day a friend tried to sell me on the occult sacrifice side to the story.

What does ATS think?

1. The Pentagon, on impact, was a flaming pentagram.

2. The two WTC towers could also be symbology of the Solomon columns.


3. World Trade Center building 7 which later fell the same day is also known as the Solomon building.

Now was it some kind of religious sacrifice I don't claim to know. Just something I never put together before. Some weird similarities you have to admit.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Nice find. Star and flagged for bringing it to us!



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Not raining on any theory. I was here asking for opinion. Not stating fact.
Salomon or Solomon
Regardless of the spelling it's still weird.
edit on 13-2-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I've seen many YouTube videos on 9/11 and this one was particularly impressive. Thanks for sharing.

Looking forward to the next part in the series that was mentioned at the end.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
A video to fuel more debat about the collapse dynamic and no talk about the players involved or what whistleblowers had to say.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
 


Not raining on any theory. I was here asking for opinion. Not stating fact.
Salomon or Solomon
Regardless of the spelling it's still weird


OR, it might sound weird because the PROPER name was the Salomon brothers' building, named after the bank started by the brothers Arthur, Herbert and Percy Salomon, and those damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing these inane theories are deliberately withholding the fact the building was named after actual people specifically to trick people into thinking there's something weird about it.

In the future I would suggest that you refrain from inflammatory statements like PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, because this isn't even remotely proof. It's simply more of the same "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping those damned fool conspiracy web sites have been shoveling out since day one.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, you need to break your conversations up. I didn't say anything about this being proof. Yes I do call Salomon and Solomon a weird coincidence. I never said they named them for that purpose but maybe chose the building due to the name similarities.
Your next rebuttal may be that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires and wasn't an intended target but I believe that it was a target the whole time and that the Shanksfield Penn. plane was intended to hit there before our military shot it down. Not the White House as thought. This is only my opinion.

I asked for ATS's opinion, never stating anything to be fact.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Just as a matter of interest. If you think the target of UA 93 was WTC 7 why was it on a bee-line for Washington when it came down ?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





Just as a matter of interest. If you think the target of UA 93 was WTC 7 why was it on a bee-line for Washington when it came down ?


Ahhh it was just a false flag with in a false flag.

They were just going to circle Washington before they headed up the coast.

There is no end to the depth of conspiracies inside the 911 conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Just as a matter of interest. If you think the target of UA 93 was WTC 7 why was it on a bee-line for Washington when it came down ?



Aw, shucks, you beat me to it.

As the details of the plan died with the hijackers we can only make educated guesses on how it went down, but one thing we can estimate safely is that the hijackers would have followed the exact same plan on all four planes. From the flight 77 black box recovered from the Pentagon we know the hijackers dialed Ronald Reagan airport into the automatic pilot and turned it on, which allowed them to navigate the plane automatically to their target area before turning it off. Since UA 93 was heading toward Washington rather than NYC it's a good bet they did the same thing with their own automatic pilot.

I'll be the first to admit this is speculation only, but at least I'm basing my speculation on the tangible facts rather than abject paranoia. Let's face it, basing speculation on the religious significance of the building's name is pretty desperate straw grasping.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


None of the planes bee lined toward there target. Have you seen the flight routes the planes took? For example the flight that hit the pentagon. flight 11 flight path


Next....
edit on 13-2-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
15:50 made me exclaim ''WTF''.

It'll really make it easier to argue with ''sheeple'' in the future.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Alfie1
 


None of the planes bee lined toward there target. Have you seen the flight routes the planes took? For example the flight that hit the pentagon. flight 11 flight path


Next....


According TO YOUR OWN SOURCES flight 77 made a beeline toward Washington D.C. until the autopilot was disengaged in the vicinity of the target, which only confirms my point and only refutes yours. UA93 was heading toward Washington, not NYC.

Of course, as this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of this thread, I have to presume you're introducing this nonsequitor in an attempt to win the debate by proxy. You know the OP's claim is untenable so you introduce this alternative claim in the hpes that succeeding in this debate will give the appearance of winning the original debate by association.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 

Just as a matter of interest. If you think the target of UA 93 was WTC 7 why was it on a bee-line for Washington when it came down?

TheLieWeLive makes a good point. None of them were bee-lines. Here's the flight path for UA93 (from Wikipedia):

From points F-H I can buy GoodOlDave's speculation that autopilot was programmed for Washington DC, but from points H-I I can see the possibility of New York as the final target. Regardless, it definitely isn't anything I would call a bee-line.

My gut feeling is that UA 93 was headed towards DC. But I do think it's possible its intended target was WTC 7.

Anyway, this is all off topic. I'm looking forward to watching the video in the OP - thanks for posting it, Hellas, and I'll try to remember to come back and share my thoughts after I've had a chance to see it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yea if your "bee line" is like watching an actual bee fly all over the place. The "bee line" I took it to mean was the shortest route to one object. Much like as the crow flies. None of these flights went straight to their target. Never mind. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just take what I wrote here and misconstrue it again.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


While watching the videos from 9/11, I usually look for those things which kind of jump out as anomilies. That is things which don't quite fit or otherwise seem out of place.

In this one I noticed something at 16:53 - 16:54 - 16:55, which I need someone to explain to me.

The blinds in the corner windows move rather eradically in an upward pattern just before the collapse begins.

This may be due to the building moving before falling or is it because of some very strong air currents inside the building. If it is the latter, would that not indicate the results of some forces at work beside the fires burning ?

I am not real strong in physics so I would ask for any explainations to be kept very simple. Thank You.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Alfie1
 


None of the planes bee lined toward there target. Have you seen the flight routes the planes took? For example the flight that hit the pentagon. flight 11 flight path


Next....
edit on 13-2-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


You referred to Flight 11 but your link was to AA 77 and then only for the final turn to lose altitude before hitting the Pentagon.

The flight path for UA 93 is shown in this article :-

911research.wtc7.net...

It is quite obvious that ever since the flight turned back on itself it was heading towards the south east, i.e. Washington and not New York.

You might also usefully consider how easy it would have been for an aircraft to hit WTC 7 while the Towers were standing.





top topics
 
65
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join