Has anyone seen this movie about 9/11? I don't go along with the grand conspiracy theory, but it raises some interesting questions especially about the Pentagon damage, e.g., why was such a small area of the building damaged, why couldn't they find the two engines which should have survived the crash, and instead only one engine which could not have been on that plane found??

I have not seen it. I guess I will wait til it comes to dvd.

quote:

Originally posted by rockhead:
Has anyone seen this movie about 9/11? I don't go along with the grand conspiracy theory, but it raises some interesting questions especially about the Pentagon damage, e.g., why was such a small area of the building damaged, why couldn't they find the two engines which should have survived the crash, and instead only one engine which could not have been on that plane found??

Nothing in that "movie" is correct. Check out the new book by Popular Mechanics.

btw the guy that made this movie is an asshat - he accused a guy from the pentagon of having prior knowledge of the attack and playing golf that day. The pentegon dude's son was on the plane that hit the pentagon. Nice, huh?

quote:

Nothing in that "movie" is correct.

Have you seen it?

They show the relatively small hole where the jet is suposed to have hit the Pentagon and ask "Are we supposed to believe that the 757 disappeared into that hole, without leaving any debris behind?" The hole is very small compared to the plane, and there is no place for the wings to have gone into the building. There is also an "exit" hole which is clearly defined. Why would a passenger jet leave an exit hole; their front end is relatively soft and is usually destroyed in a crash.

There isn't any plane debris at Shanksville; when PSA flight 1771 went into a nosedive in 1987 after a disgruntled employee shot his boss, the pilots an dhimself, it still left debris at the site.

The movie claims that a study showed that .006 % of cell phone calls from a plane at 32,000 feet would actually go through; why were the Flight 93 passengers able to all make calls to their friends and family? The movie shows that an airline in 2004 spent considerable money for equipment that would enable passengers to make cell calls, but that equipment was not aboard Flight 93.

The only plane engine recovered at the Pentagon is much smaller than the 757 engines that should have been recovered-they weigh 6 tons each, according to the movie. Why weren't those engines recovered, and why was another engine that didn't come from a 757 recovered?

I don't agree with their theory that there were bombs set off in the WTC that caused the building to weaken and fall, although there were numerous news and firefighter reports of explosions after the planes hit.

I'll get the Popular Mechanics magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by john1520:
I have not seen it. I guess I will wait til it comes to dvd.

Coincidentally, CNN has a short spot on it on AOL today.

The filmmakers are 3 kids in their 20's; they spent two thousand dollars making the movie at their houses. Kind of surprising to me.

It isn't a major studio motion picture, it won't be coming to Blockbuster, unless there is a huge demand for it. My son got it from the Internet.

quote:

Originally posted by rockhead:

quote:

Nothing in that "movie" is correct.

Have you seen it?

No, and I won't. Not because of blind faith in the government, but because I have heard eye witness accounts that tell of a plane hitting the building. I have heard eyewitness accounts from people that picked up bits and pieces of airline uniforms (complete with body parts still in them) at the scene.

btw, the mystery hole is on the inside of one of the rings, and was made by the landing gear.

If the wings of an airplane can penetrate the bomb-hardend walls of the pentagon, then some builder really screwed up. To paraphrase the book from PM - real life is not a cartoon. Planes don't just make cutouts of themselves when the hit a building.

I'd suggest that these kids are stupid or paranoid, or both.

"btw, the mystery hole is on the inside of one of the rings, and was made by the landing gear."

The hole takes out a round shape that is the size of the entire wall-this from a landing gear?

No doubt something hit the Pentagon, but if it was a 757, where are the engines? Parts of them are built from titanium, whihc should not melt in a jet fuel fire. Why is there only one engine at the site, and it isn't from a 757?

I agree, the wings would not have punched through teh hardened walls-but where are the pieces of the wings? I didn't see any in the pix shown by the movie.

These kids are amateurs, for sure, but I believe that they are honest-I don't believe that they doctored any photos or otherwise made statements that aren't true.

The military released 5 pix from a security camera which were supposed to show a plane hitting the Pentagon, but none of them showed a plane. There are no scrape marks on the lawn outside the hole, like you would expect-there were 5 sheared off lightpoles on the road outside the Pentagon. What hit the light poles but didnt' scrape the lawn-a plane?

Here's a rebuttal to Loose Change:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html#debris