HAVE YOU SEEN THIS VIDEO OF 911?

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS VIDEO OF 911? CHECK IT OUT!!

http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS VIDEO? I think the name muchosucko is kinda weird. but the video seems to make its point as to what happen and makes you think!!

Great soundtrack, though...

that points out the obvious deception.

who saw an American Airlines Jet?

Or the fact that it misstates the time of the crash?

Or the fact that the exit hole wasn't through a "steel-reinforced concrete wall"?

Of the fact that their picture of a book on a desk after the collapse (meant to question the intensity of the crash and the fire) was a POST-COLLAPSE picture? Areas that weren't involved in the fire were exposed by the collapse.

We'll start with these four. If this is a "great video" you should have no problems addressing these four issues.

>>>How do you respond to its ommission of the witness statements
who saw an American Airlines Jet?<<<

Physical evidence always trumps hearsay. Since the physical evidence shows no evidence of a 757 crash, the witness statements are considered worthless.

You believe in god......don't you? That explains your acceptance of hearsay over reality. Completely backwards thinking is acceptable to the masses.

>>>Or the fact that it misstates the time of the crash?<<<

It draws attention to the most important time. The time before the neocons collapsed the wall. Nothing else really matters.

>>>Or the fact that the exit hole wasn't through a "steel-reinforced concrete wall"?<<<

So what's the different? The exit hole wasn't done by a 757. The outer wall proves this. NO vertical stabilizer mark. No wing marks equaling 124 + feet. No engine holes.

>>>Of the fact that their picture of a book on a desk after the collapse (meant to question the intensity of the crash and the fire) was a POST-COLLAPSE picture? Areas that weren't involved in the fire were exposed by the collapse.<<<

The picture of the open book on a stool on the third floor is a big tell. The supposed crash didn't knock the book off the stool. Interesting. Fire on the same floor as the book, but not at the point of the supposed impact? Very tellin

1) That's not the question I asked. The video makes a big deal of the few reports of something like a "missile" while failing to present the overwhelming number of reports of an American Airlines jet. They didn't make the point that evidence trumps hearsay...they made a big deal of witness statements while only presenting the minority view. (and no, I don't believe in god)

2) Why is 8:38am "the most important time"? It's an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. I think that matters.

3) The "different" (sic) is that once again, the video makes a misrepresentation to sell its view. The exit hole was NOT made through a steel-reinforced concrete wall. Representing it as such is dishonest.

4) The book and stool were in a room well away from the impact site on a different floor. They were also well away from the fire. They were exposed NOT by the crash or fire, but by the subsequent collapse. Let me illustrate if I may. A bus runs into your house and catches fire. The fire spreads to part of your house. The fire department comes and puts out the fire. Subsequently, part of the roof collapses revealing a portion of the attic that was not involved in the fire. Would you be surprised to see an unburned book through the new hole created by the roof collapse?

The video has the benefit of not being AS deceptive as "In Plane Sight", but it's still full of misrepresentations and inaccuracies.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're selectively ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your theory. "In Plane Sight" doesn't present "facts", it misrepresents data to sell videos. Example? Mike Walters' eyewitness statement:

Here's what Walters actually said:

"I looked off, I was, you know I looked out my window. I saw this plane, a jet, American Airlines jet coming, and I thought this doesn't add up. It's really low. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon, a huge explosion, a great ball of fire. Smoke started billowing out and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards."

"In Plane Sight"'s account of what he said?

"it was like a cruise missile with wings"

That's it. No mention of Walters stating that he was talking about an American Airlines jet. No mention that he saw it hit the Pentagon. Just a partial quote taken out of context that changes the entire meaning of the statement.


How is editing quotes to change their meanings "presenting the physical facts"?

No. I stick with the physical evidence.

All the, he said, she said, is meaningless.

Both videos do a great job of showing the American people the physical evidence that they never were allowed to see.
That's what makes them great!

??

The point isn't their relative value, it's the fact that "In Plane Site" CHOSE to use eyewitness statements (which you consider "worthless") and CHOSE to edit those statements to change their meaning. How is this not misrepresentation?

who made the videos.

maybe a little drama?

Interesting.