New! Operation Terror - 9/11 Conspiracy Dramatization Film

page: 3
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by hgfbob
 



leaving 240 intact fireproofed vertical support remaining....


What supports were those....?


the ones remaining after impact according to the official scientific investigation... we can see 33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14% and using the three scenarios, NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged..... 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.....leaving about 240 on the impact floor that MUST globally fail to have occur what we all see.



The fireproofing was knocked off the support columns by the aircraft impact


again....not according the the official scientific investigation..only if you visit so-called, 'debunking' sites one might think that....but NIST found the only damage to fireproofing was on the steel member involved with impact....14.5%...NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"



Unless you are claiming that the fireproofing can resist the impact of an aircraft at 500 mph and the blizzard
of secondary missiles from the impact


the ENTIRE structure survived impact...just as designed to do......duh!



The fireprrofing was very friable and frequently dislodged by building motions from the wind - every spring had
to reappply fireproofing which had come off by the building being rocked back and forth by wind from winter
storms


lol...I see YOU visit....'debunking' sites......dude, they were in the beginning process of a COMPLETE renovation to get RID of the ASBESTOS fireproofing throughout....at a cost of millions.....problem solved!




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 


I know, its counter-productive.

My brother in-laws best friend, who was the best man at my sisters wedding died on 9/11. I also knew other people who lost someone, met people who lost them that day.

just blindly saying no one died on 9/11 makes everyone diving into 9/11 CT's look crazy.

Tired of it...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I apologise, however, considering that MSM constantly said "cell phone" when talking about the calls made from passengers, is it that hard to believe that people still believe that. Either way, that doesn't explain a perfect demolition style implosion of the towers and building 7. I know it's hard to believe that the government would do something like that, I still have trouble with it myself. All we want are answers that make sense.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I apologise, however, considering that MSM constantly said "cell phone" when talking about the calls made from passengers, is it that hard to believe that people still believe that. Either way, that doesn't explain a perfect demolition style implosion of the towers and building 7. I know it's hard to believe that the government would do something like that, I still have trouble with it myself. All we want are answers that make sense.


Listen, I am also a person seeking truth, but you can't jump the gun and say the government did it. This is the problem with other truthers out there...they're not looking for truth they're looking for a 100% government based inside job. There's so many possibilities out there. Al-Qaeda having the assistance of a foreign intelligence agency, or the CIA willingly blocking the intelligence allowing it to happen or a foreign intelligence agency orchestrating it and leaving blame on Muslims. The list goes on and on. I use to be the "it was a 100% inside job by all parts of government" kind of guy, but you need to step back from that a bit. Consider other possibilities. As corrupt as CERTAIN elements of the government are you can't say everyone in the government is. Look at Senator Bob Graham, he's blowing the whistle on the Saudi connection to 9/11. A majority of us know that Al-Qaeda hijackers could not have done this on their own, I mean you have CIA veterans, special ops veterans, and former government officials coming out and saying "the official story is so corrupt, this couldn't have happened the way we were told it did". There's certain people like Vipertech and GoodOlDave who cannot fathom the idea of the official story being flawed (even though the 9/11 Commission told the public it was) but don't start pointing fingers at everyone in the US government & military because it greatly takes away from any and all credibility.
edit on 6-11-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


There was nothing "perfect" about any of the three buildings that came down that day. They ALL damaged every building around them....some badly enough that they had to be torn down. Controlled demolitions, do not do that.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dave_welch
 


There was nothing "perfect" about any of the three buildings that came down that day. They ALL damaged every building around them....some badly enough that they had to be torn down. Controlled demolitions, do not do that.


Well if there is a conspiracy going on I don't think they'd want a perfect demolition to happen because that'd be even more shady. Priority: Bring down buildings with as little collateral damage as possible. The way these buildings came down it's like they'd have to be damaged exactly the same which they weren't. Bottom floors on both buildings apparently just gave away without any resistance as if they were both damaged exactly the same. Not only that but the second tower fell first in which the plane clipped the corner of the building. Not only that but coincidentally the second building began collapsing the exact moment the firefighters made it to the impact zone and reported the fires were controllable. All coincidence to you but to me it raises my eyebrow in suspicion.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


The second tower, falling first, is just confirmation that there was not a controlled demolition. Think about it. The second tower was hit much lower than the first tower. There were hundred of tons more weight stressing the structure of the second tower. It fell first.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Unmanned planes? People taken off them and "disposed of"?

Tell me, if you're going to destroy the twin towers on the morning of a busy work day, and thousands of lives in NYC are going to be sacrificed, why would you care about a couple of hundred people on those planes?

This is what gets me about many of the conspiracy theories, they are too elaborate, too full of holes, too much nonsense and noise.

None of this would be required. They would just need to "let" the right people in to do the job for them. The CIA would have intel on a plot, perhaps even encourage it (as we know they like to do when it suits their goals) and then just make sure it happened.

There is no need for a grand conspiracy, most of this could have been achieved through inaction rather than elaborate action.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


The second tower, falling first, is just confirmation that there was not a controlled demolition. Think about it. The second tower was hit much lower than the first tower. There were hundred of tons more weight stressing the structure of the second tower. It fell first.



And how do you explain the North Tower falling in the same exact fashion when it was hit way higher and in a different part of the tower? They literally both collapsed in the same exact fashion when suffering completely different damage.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


The collapses, above the impact zones were different. Below the impact zones....same construction, same materials, why wouldn't they fall the same?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


The collapses, above the impact zones were different. Below the impact zones....same construction, same materials, why wouldn't they fall the same?


Why would they fall the same? They might have the same construction but that still doesn't mean they should fall in the same exact fashion. Both collapses were nearly identical in that all floors from the impact zone and below gave away..ALL floors, though both impacts were completely different. Both towers are constructed equally the same, but are damaged in 2 completely different spots. North tower is hit between 92nd floor and 98th floor. South tower is hit from 78th floor to 84th floor. Flight 11 hit the North Tower almost dead center while Flight 175 hit the very outter edge. You have two very different variables resulting in almost identical outcomes. The fireball from Flight 175 was massive due to the fact the most of the fuel was burned up on impact. This means that fires in each tower were uniquely different, spread differently and had different intensities but still yielded in the same exact outcome. Doesn't flow with me son.
edit on 9-11-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
If anyone sees this film, let us know what you think ok?

Going by the trailer, it looks like it is showing the people on those flights being landed and taken somewhere.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I ordered the DVD and just saw the movie. Here is my review posted on the IMDB message board for the film:


* Warning: May contain a few spoilers. *

I ordered the DVD and just saw it.

Not bad. Very interesting. But at 90 minutes, it felt rushed. A lot more things could have been expanded upon and developed more.

I'm also disappointed that they weren't able to use real stock footage from the news broadcasts from 9/11, probably due to legal reasons.

I don't understand some of the plot though. So those black drone planes replaced the real flights? What happened to the real flights then? We saw what happened to the passengers of one flight. But what about the other three?

* Warning: Spoilers *

It also seems far fetched that they would put all those involved in the remote controlled planes project onto one plane without everyone getting suspicious. Immediately, they would have deduced that they were going to be disposed of. Yet only one guy found it odd, but did nothing.

I didn't understand the plot behind Flight 93 though. Why were they going to crash it into that hole? What would be the point of that? I thought it was supposed to hit Building 7? They should have went with that plot instead.

Also, it was not explained why they wanted to take down Building 7. Did I miss it?

Why did the guy who detonated the WTC want to detonate early without receiving the order? That wasn't explained. Was he supposed to wait for the building to be evacuated first?

I'm also not clear which character played George W. Bush and which played Larry Silverstein. Their names weren't used so it wasn't clear who was playing them.

The film also has some minor bugs. The words describing the time and location at the bottom were too small, smaller than they are supposed to be in movies. The ending credits were also too small too. And the DVD menu was weird. You could barely see the yellow selector line, it was broken and uneven and vanished under certain chapters.

It was obvious that this was made on a low and limited budget with many restrictions. I wish someone like Oliver Stone would make this. It should be at least 2 hours too, so more details could be developed and explained.

But it's a good film nonetheless, even though it felt rushed. The directors and actors must have had a lot of guts to be willing to do a film like this regardless of the consequences.

It's a pity the mainstream media and movie critics don't want to acknowledge the existence of this film.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
I ordered the DVD and just saw the movie. Here is my review posted on the IMDB message board for the film:


* Warning: May contain a few spoilers. *

I ordered the DVD and just saw it.

Not bad. Very interesting. But at 90 minutes, it felt rushed. A lot more things could have been expanded upon and developed more.

I'm also disappointed that they weren't able to use real stock footage from the news broadcasts from 9/11, probably due to legal reasons.

I don't understand some of the plot though. So those black drone planes replaced the real flights? What happened to the real flights then? We saw what happened to the passengers of one flight. But what about the other three?

* Warning: Spoilers *

It also seems far fetched that they would put all those involved in the remote controlled planes project onto one plane without everyone getting suspicious. Immediately, they would have deduced that they were going to be disposed of. Yet only one guy found it odd, but did nothing.

I didn't understand the plot behind Flight 93 though. Why were they going to crash it into that hole? What would be the point of that? I thought it was supposed to hit Building 7? They should have went with that plot instead.

Also, it was not explained why they wanted to take down Building 7. Did I miss it?

Why did the guy who detonated the WTC want to detonate early without receiving the order? That wasn't explained. Was he supposed to wait for the building to be evacuated first?

I'm also not clear which character played George W. Bush and which played Larry Silverstein. Their names weren't used so it wasn't clear who was playing them.

The film also has some minor bugs. The words describing the time and location at the bottom were too small, smaller than they are supposed to be in movies. The ending credits were also too small too. And the DVD menu was weird. You could barely see the yellow selector line, it was broken and uneven and vanished under certain chapters.

It was obvious that this was made on a low and limited budget with many restrictions. I wish someone like Oliver Stone would make this. It should be at least 2 hours too, so more details could be developed and explained.

But it's a good film nonetheless, even though it felt rushed. The directors and actors must have had a lot of guts to be willing to do a film like this regardless of the consequences.

It's a pity the mainstream media and movie critics don't want to acknowledge the existence of this film.


I bet the news stations wouldn't let them use stock footage because they wanted no affiliation with the movie lol And I've talked to the director on Facebook and he said the budget was about $100,000. If they had more money and resources they would have definitely been able to go deeper into the story. You should upload the movie to a torrent site so we can all watch mwahaha



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Ill wait for a big budget movie to try this. Low budget movies just urk me the wrong way. The obvious phot shop green screen stuff hampers suspension of disbelief. No offense to those involved but if truthers want people to wake up with the help of hollywood, they need a big budget movie, not something with a lower budget then that of a lifetime movie.





top topics
 
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join