they lied about 9/11

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-15-2003
they lied about 9/11
11
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 8:35am



Now we know for sure they lied about 9/11

By John Kaminski

skylax@comcast.net

I challenge anyone to watch the new "911 In Plane Site" video and

still believe the government's story that a jet airliner full of

passengers hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It simply can't be

done. I'll bet anyone any amount of anything that they just can't do it.

Utilizing footage from TV networks — often stuff that was shown only

one time and never seen again — the Power Hour radio show's Dave Von

Kleist methodically provides proof positive that the government lied

about what happened in Washington on that fateful day, an event that

was the culmination of the greatest sneak attack in American history.

The damning images of flames raging inside the Pentagon behind an

unbroken wall with many unbroken windows and an unbroken roof line

clearly demonstrates that whatever caused the explosion and fire

inside America's most secure building, coupled with no significant

trace of airplane wreckage at any time during the disaster, was no

giant airliner.

It wasn't until long after the fire began that the roof finally

collapsed, and even then, the hole that was created in no way

resembles the ghastly imprint two other jets left when they struck the

World Trade Center towers in New York City mere minutes before.

What this means for the American people is that the story President

Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and all those other government

officials told the world that day is a lie, a gigantic and bald-faced

lie.

A hijacked airliner never hit the Pentagon, and this film proves it.

As VonKleist, who both wrote and produced this masterpiece, asks in

the film, "How does a plane 125 feet wide and 155 feet long fit into a

hole which is only 16 feet across?"

Since day one, the only thing that every single, skeptical 9/11

researcher has ever wanted during all the research they have

undertaken during the past three years is one single, irrefutable fact

that could disprove the government's blatant lie. Because proving one

lie means their whole story is false. One provable lie means 9/11 is

not what they said it was.

This is the film that does it. And this is a development in the 9/11

story that no one in America or the world can afford to ignore.

Indictments and arrests should begin immediately based on this film

alone. Top members of the government lied about what happened. This is

a statement that can no longer be challenged as false. It is now up to

American law enforcement officials to act in this matter, or the

American people will realize our leaders are allowed the break the

law, and the laws no longer apply to them.

And the Pentagon revelation is only the start of this remarkable film,

a 70-minute documentary that delves into only four major aspects of

Sept. 11.

Having viewed this film with two relatives who did believe the

government's story prior to viewing, I interpreted the ashen looks on

their faces as a valid testament to the movie's power. Before seeing

it, they basically believed what they'd heard on TV about what

happened on 9/11. Afterwards, they both told me that they no longer did.

After the Pentagon segment, Von Kleist turns his attention to the

plume, a giant puff of smoke that rises from the base of the Twin

Towers PRIOR to their collapse. Although Von Kleist doesn't say so

(and doesn't really make any conclusions in his objective presentation

of film fact), the viewer is left to contemplate whether this was the

explosion that brought down the towers. A great clip of firemen

describing how the buildings were demolished leaves viewers with that

distinct impression.

The most controversial aspect of the film, one which led me and other

potential reviewers to express reservations about the film before we'd

actually seen it, was the inclusion of material from Phil Jayhan's

letsroll911.org website, the most astounding aspect of which is

footage that shows both jetliners appearing to fire missiles at the

towers in the instant before impact.

It simply sounded too preposterous. It sounded as untenable as the

hologram theory. Many of us worried it was deliberate disinformation,

designed to destroy the 9/11 skeptics movement.

You need to see it. Four different people with four different cameras

recorded it. I am no photographic expert. I can't tell you when a film

has been tampered with or when it hasn't. I can only tell you what I

saw. It looks real, and the patient pacing of Von Kleist's explanation

will make it most difficult for you to deny what you are seeing.

But my initial fear that the 9/11 truth movement could be hurt by this

footage was completely erased after I saw the Pentagon segment,

because if people watch that, they will have no alternative but to

realize that their leaders are criminals — liars, traitors and mass

murderers — who have covered up the truth about 9/11 because they were

involved in it.

This is not a conspiracy theory. These are facts recorded on film. See

it for yourself. You can't afford not to. After all, what is at stake

is the future of freedom, and that's not an exaggeration.

And all the subsequent carnage that Bush and his criminal friends have

inflicted on the world is predicated on this one colossal lie.

No jetliner hit the Pentagon. This film proves it. This film proves

the government lied — big time — about what happened on 9/11. Think

about the people who are involved in this lie. Everybody on

television. Everybody at the major newspapers. Everybody in the

Congress. Thousands of people.

Think about all the lives that have been needlessly thrown away as a

result of this lie.

Think about America. It's a lie. This film proves it.

I talked with Phil Jayhan last night. I told him that I was not a film

expert, but that the missile footage looked real to me. And I

congratulated him on the tireless outreach he's done on this project.

More than any other 9/11 researcher, he has contacted more people and

produced more results than anybody else.

We had argued about this issue in the past. I worried if the missile

footage were proven to false or tampered with, the whole movement

could be hurt.

I no longer believe that the missile footage — should it somehow be

proven false — can hurt the 9/11 skeptics movement, in large part

because the Pentagon footage was so masterfully presented that no one

in their right mind can deny that no hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon.

I have previously advocated that the time the towers took to fall was

the smoking gun of 9/11, because that indicated the WTC buildings had

been demolished, since they fell at the same speed as debris off to

the side. Jayhan responded that Twin Tower demolition could one day be

explained away as a way to prevent more deaths than actually happened.

I had to agree the perps could do that, if their demolition scheme

were ever to be revealed to the public.

But, Jayhan stressed, there can be no alternative reason for a plane

firing missiles at the towers just before impact.

See the film. Make your own decision.

Writer/producer Von Kleist, director William Lewis and Power Hour

Productions deserve all the credit possible for bringing this

presentation to the world. This could in fact be the one item that

finally overturns the coverup.

Every American should see this film. And every cop, too. And perhaps

if there is a prosecutor remaining in America with a scintilla of

honesty and integrity, he should consider this video as prima facie

evidence in the greatest crime in American history, and maybe do

something about that.

To order the film, go to http://www.thepowerhour.com/

To see clips of the missile firing, check out http://letsroll911.org/



John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a

collection of his Internet essays seen on hundreds of websites around

the world. More recently he has written "The Day America Died: Why You

Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11,

2001," a 48-page booklet aimed at those who still believe the

government's version of events on that fateful day. A second

collection of his essays, titled "The Perfect Enemy," is in press and

should be available in September 2004. For more information see

http://www.johnkaminski.com/

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 9:26am
When that clown learns something about the physics of moving objects, the different construction methods and materials involved in the buildings in question and the manner in which aircraft can react to violent contact with the ground and other obstructions along with a couple dozen other issues he can't explain, *maybe* I'll bother to see his work. Until then he's just another conspiracy fan without a shred of hard proof about the non-existance of an aircraft not hitting the Pentagon, a 737 firing a missile at the WTC, etc.

He doesn't KNOW a plane didn't hit it the Pentagon, he doesn't KNOW we've been lied to. He merely suspects one didn't and that we have. There's a difference, and someone needs to point it out to him.



~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 9:39am


Bush KNEW Iraq had WMD's before the invasion. Bush KNEW there was a link between Sadaam and al-Quaida. Bush KNEW that after the Iraqi war Iraq would be safe and loving America. But the fact remains, all of the above was just his opinion not fact and none has proved true. One person's opinion can be read and judged accordingly, the other opinion has costed many lives and money and hopefully his job. So explain to me the difference between the clown you are referring to and the clown in the White House.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 9:45am
" But the fact remains, all of the above was just his opinion not fact and none has proved true."

Bush's sentiments on those issues were based on intelligence reports he was given by US intelligence agencies and which he trusted, not just "his opinion" on the subject. The movie in question on the other hand is merely absurdities collected by other conspiracy theorists and promoted as objective fact.

Another difference is that we knew that Hussein had WMD's at one time, and that we STILL to this day don't know what happened to them... the definately existed previously, and many reports indicated that they still did. By contrast, the guy who made those claims/movie about the Pentagon has zero hard, historical proof to support his theories.

That's some of the differences between the clowns in question.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 9:51am
So what you are saying is that even with "proof" or "facts" it still can be untrue?? If this is the case, then why are insisting that this person gets some facts? Bush had facts but they were not true, no matter how much you try to defend them THEY WERE NOT TRUE!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 10:16am
Context applies here as always. There is physical proof of WMD's existing at one time, and claims that they did exist are not untrue or inaccurate. The intelligence reports in question started from there, and extended through the period when we lost track of them and where they were. Claims that they STILL exist may or may not be true, as we haven't found any there and have no evidence that they do in fact exist. It all depends on how you apply the facts in question to the context of a statement.

"If this is the case, then why are insisting that this person gets some facts?"

Because he's in dire need of them as indicated by the questions, claims, and assertions he's making. All he's got is a lump of unanswered questions and theories, inaccurate assumptions and not a single shred of physical proof to back up his claims. At least we KNOW for a fact that Iraq's WMD's existed at one time, the maker of that movie has exactly zilch.

"Bush had facts but they were not true, no matter how much you try to defend them THEY WERE NOT TRUE!!"

They "appear" to not be true, again, there's a difference. To this point we still haven't found in WMD's, that's correct. But that in itself doesn't mean that they won't be found later, or that they don't exist. They certainly did at one time. Bush's statements were based on that fact and intelligence reports generated by US intelligence agencies during the Clinton and Bush Administrations and which Bush accepted as being both accurate and truthful.

We know the WMD's did exist. We know Bush was given various intelligence reports about those WMD's which haven't been substantiated on the ground in Iraq. What we don't know, contrary to the movie in questions maker, is that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon, or that we've been lied to about that event.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 10:38am
:-) whatever you say. It just seems that you are saying alot in defense of something that costed alot of money and a lot of lives. Bush was in a rush to get into Iraq, that is all. I am not saying that I beleive what the other person was saying, I haven't seen the movie they are speaking about. But one thing I have noticed when it comes to Bush followers, they use arguements to defend him but when those arguement are used against Bush, it is either lies or a conspiracy. It is just hard to beleive that so many people buy into Bush's justifications and accept them as truths. If Bush just wouuld have waited for the inspectors to do their job, then maybe things would have turned out differently. Yes, Sadam had to go, but the ends do not justify the means.

I always remembered soomething my father told me, there is always some truth to all conspiracies. It is just finding the truth within the junk. why do you think the enquirer or star is still around?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 10:46am
It wasn't my intention to defend Bush. What I'm defending are his statements regarding WMD's, and along the way contrasting the basis for those claims with the claims of the guy who made the film noted in the OP.

"But one thing I have noticed when it comes to Bush followers, they use arguements to defend him but when those arguement are used against Bush, it is either lies or a conspiracy."

I'm not a Bush follower. I'm simply someone who values objectivity and rational discussion or debate of the issues. That being the case I have little patience for nonsense like the movie in question which almost exclusively relies on questionable knowledge of all the various factors involved, with a fair helping of paranoid delusion and wild theories thrown in for taste.

"I always remembered soomething my father told me, there is always some truth to all conspiracies. It is just finding the truth within the junk."

Speaking for myself, I don't buy that. There are those conspiracy theories which are simply too far out to have any reasonable or measurable degree of truth to them... not all of them perhaps, but enough to make that truism somewhat questionable.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 08-29-2004 - 6:15pm
Does this mean that no one died on that plane either? What is this persons explaination for the people that where on the plane that reportedly crashed into the pentagon and have never been heard from by their relatives again? What's the conspiracy behind that? Some people are shameless.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 1:23pm
Sounds like this guy is off his meds big time....

If anyone truly is buying into this, that is pathetic.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 2:22pm
Sorry, I lived in DC at the time, I know people who work in the area, I know people who work in the Pentagon, I know a person who was on the highway and saw the plane hit the building. There are plenty of eyewitness acooutns of the plane hitting the building. What a load of garbage from someone who obviously is hoping to become the next Micheal Moore.

Pages