Originally Posted by Crazy Hades

Never noticed that.

1. The frames don't take into account the speed of the plane and whatnot. I'm thinking that the frames themselves are too primitive to capture the sight of a 500+ mph plane in 5 frames. You might see a blur.
in which case, its funny how the only footage released is a) from the worse possible angle, and b) 5 frames not running very smooth at all and of low quality, basically making it extremely hard to notice theres no plane... i mean surely if u had nothing to hide and also show the citizens what happened youd release better footage... i know i would as would many many many others(probably u included)

2. Of course you're going to confiscate the tapes, it's called evidence. Not evidence to conspiracy theory, evidence that should be reviewed so that an official report could be filed. It's quite obvious they'd want all the information they could get.
i do agree, but all confiscated videos were of better angles and better quality cameras, so.....[read the above comment]


3. The security wasn't lowered beyond belief. Actually, a bomb threat was called in and dogs were brought in. They didn't detect any thousands of pounds of bombs inside of the building, and thus were removed. Tell me, do you think there was enough of a period for "them" to secretly implant the necessary bombs, seal up all evidence, and move out? That's really stretching it.
thats my point, they were removed and security staff were taken off duty.. and as i said, the only person who could do that was bush's brother, not only is it funny who could do it, but also funny about the damn timing.


I can understand where you're coming from, but there are explanations. It may seem shady they're confiscating tapes, but there is a legitimate explanation to that (even though it may not be true, and they were actually disposing of incriminating evidence). But tell me, does it make any fucking sense they're going to have eye witnesses that see it? Why would they fabricate the lie of a plane crashing into it? Why not hi-jack one of their own planes and crash it into the building, instead of going through the rigorous, unrewarding process of emptying the building of all its employees and systematically inserting explosives? And by the way, the entire destruction of the WTC resembles a demolition in pretty much no way. Even if the Towers didn't come down, they'd be killing less of their employees while still having the justification of a terrorist attack. They made sure to kill about 99.9% of their employees by planting bombs, when they could've simply built off the original story and crashed their own planes?
the more people killed, the easier it is to make people listen to your words, especially when pointing the finger... the collapse follows a demolition in every way, a fire based on the plane fuel alone would be nowhere near hot enough to mealt the metal structure, therefore no collapse.... look how many buildings have had fires much worse than the ones when the plane hit, none of them have collapsed, and the trade centre was meant to be an awfull lot stronger than any of them, yet it collapsed so easily??? have you ever watch a demolition??? let me put it like this... blow out the bottom completely, it falls to the side... if the building collapsed just cos the top section gave in, itd stop collapsing half way for atleast a limited time, but it didnt... blow out certain floors at the right time, and you have a building falling in on itself exactly like the trade centre did, the exact words from a fire fighter that i remember being on the news that exact day "it was as though somebody is sat there pressing buttons in co-ordination just *bang, bang, bang, bang*" i allways remember that interview cos that was the first thing that got me thinking, then i started noticing many things by myself and then these video's enlightened me even more as did doing my own research.

Not buying it.