Piano World Home Page Forums General Discussions 9/11 - - Never Forget Fahrenheit 9/11

Do people believe this documentary? I kinda do, in a way. The movie definitely proved it's point. Also, for those living in England, had a chance to see it on TV on Channel 4. This was a terrible attack and I doubt anybody would ever forget this. New York will never be the same.

Not only do I believe the movie Fahrenheit 9/11, I believe a lot worse.

You see, immediately after 9/11 it was considered unpatriotic, indeed even evil, to suggest any of the following opinions:

1) The wtc disaster was not orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden

2) Iraq had no connection with Al Quaeda or the 9/11 disaster.

In my heart of hearts, with an intimate familiarity as a veteran with my country, with what I have done in its name, and with what it has continued to do around the world since I left the military, I did believe the above opinions were true, and as a result I suffered humiliation, verbal and physical hostility, and loss of friends. I was threatened that my home would be burned down if I did not remove a sign that showed that I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Reluctantly I removed it for the safety of my family. I was forced to admit that I did not live in a free country. And it’s not just me. I'm no hero. But look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks and what they did in response. And who do you think is right today?

Immediately following 9/11 Americans believed they were attacked, and they wanted revenge. In true American style they didn’t even care to whom that revenge was directed. They just wanted blood, John Wayne style. There was no reasoning. Almost all Americans blamed the Muslim world, which they called evil.

As the years passed, most Americans have realized that at least one of above opinions (the second one) was very true all along. Iraq and Sadam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 disaster or with Al Quaeda, and the government knew it. I predict that a time will come when most Americans will also realize and admit that the first above opinion was also true all along.

I am not young. I remember Kennedy’s assassination as if it were yesterday. That was the first time in my life that I realized I lived in a country that was so evil that would murdered its own president in broad daylight because he was viewed, not by the public, but by certain powerful individuals in both government and industry as not acting in the best interests of America, which of course was the best interests of themselves. No, Oswald did not do it. Yes, there was a security stand-down ordered from the highest levels of authority in the country. Yes the vehicle was fired on from multiple directions. And finally, yes, the evidence is staring at you right in the face.

So too today with 9/11, the evidence is staring at you right in the face. There were explosives placed in the World Trade Center prior to 9/11, these explosives were systematically detonated to make it appear that aircraft driven by Islamic terrorists took the buildings down, and yes, there was a milirary stand-down in order to allow these things to happen. I recommend that you go beyond Michael Moore’s film, which just scratches the surface, and look at documentaries like “Loose Change”, “Painful Questions” and many others which are all viewable on YouTube.

The good news about your post is that it was made almost two months ago and you have not been hit by a deluge of extremists calling you a commie, terrorist, or just unpatriotic. Perhaps no one has really noticed your post, or perhaps it means that America's period of insanity and irrationality may be passing and people are beginning, just beginning mind you, to realize that everything that Michael Moore said in his film has turned out to be true. Sadly, even more than that is true.

It is impossible to keep such a large scale operation secret for all this time under such scrutiny, without anyone talking. That is what is staring me in the face.

You'd think so. However there are simply too many examples in history that contradict that. Before rejecting out of hand the idea that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, why not look at the photographic evidence that exists online. I don't think it takes a demolition expert to see that the buildings, especially building 7, are falling as a result of controlled demolition.

And even if you are unwilling to consider that, what about the explosions that occured in the lower basement that blew the windows of the lobby out a few seconds before the aircraft actually hit. And if you don't believe the timing evidence, answer how an aircraft slamming into the building at the 85th floor could blow the windows out in the lobby on the ground floor, and not blow out any windows in between? There are plenty of documentaries that show the destruction in the lobby and that show people who were injured by flying glass, people who had been walking outside the building near the windows at the time of the explosion. The evidence of a very large explosion occurring at the base of the building independent of the aircraft crash is overwhelming. It's staring at you in the face! Then ask yourself, "Who is more likely to plan and implement the simultaneous events of a plane crashing into the 85th floor and a very large explosion at the base of the building, some guy living in a cave on the other side of the world, or the CIA?"

Sometimes I think that the reason such operations succeed is the unwillingness of most people to even consider that their own government is not only capable, but very willing to conduct such evil operations. The evidence that 9/11 was a false flag is not a secret. The photographic evidence is all over the internet. However, people's fear keeps them from acknowledging the evidence. And those few people who do have real knowledge won't talk for the simple reason that they themselves are guilty of playing a part in it.

The very same was true of Kennedy's assassination. There is photographic evidence that the president's vehicle was fired on from the front. Yet, the official story ... well, you know the rest.

Since you are in the UK, are you aware of the fact that your media in your country announced the falling of Building 7 a full 23 minutes before the event actually happened? The irony is that as the anchor woman announces it live from New York with the skyline in her background, you can see Building 7 behind her and it is still standing. That video is also on the internet. Of course someone at the time who was familiar with the New York skyline realized it, informed the right people, and the circuit was cut just in time so the collapse of the building would not be viewed live on British television occurring after it was announced, which would bring to people's attention the fact that someone knew ahead of time that the building was going to fall. How could that even happen if it was not planned in advance? Who cut the circuit? This also raises a question about the heavy scrutiny that you mention. It turns out that the British newscast went completely unnoticed for two years. Although it was broadcast on British television on the day of 9/11 for everyone to see, no one noticed it. It took two years to be recognized. It was eventually discovered by a researcher looking at archived news videos. No matter how many times we look at something, often our internal fears of the evil truths in this world prevent us from seeing the obvious.

The US government orchestrated the 9/11 disaster in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, which it had previously planned, in order to gain control of the world's oil supplies. Of course some people of muslim decent were used as unsuspecting actors in the operation to help make it seem like a terrorist attack, just as how Oswald was used as an actor for the assassination of Kennedy.

If you question whether the US government is capable of evil, false flag operations, remember how the invasion of Vietnam war was authorized. President Johnson orchestrated a false flag operation in the Bay of Tonkin, which convinced Congress to authorized and finance a large scale invasion. It turns out that the incident never occurred. It was a complete and outright lie. Fifty thousand American lives were lost in a war that had no basis other than supporting the military industrial complex. This of course was the whole reason Kennedy was assassinated in the first place. Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam. But now, even after the recent release of documents that prove that the Bay of Tonkin was a false flag, no one seems to care. Fifty years from now no one will care about the over 1,000,000 Iragi lives lost and 4,000 American lives lost (so far) in the immoral invasion of Iraq that was justified by the false flag operation that we call the 9/11 disaster.

By the way, one of the best ways to keep a false flag operation away from the attention of the general public is to kill anyone who even threatens to disclose it. Ever wonder why many of the eyewitnesses to Kennedy's assassination met with mysterious deaths shortly after the event? Check it out. A country that is capable and willing to murder its own president in broad daylight is certainly capable and willing to orchestrate the 9/11 disaster.

When I was in the military we had a saying, "Before you die you will realize that everything you were rasied to believe about God and your country is an outright lie." It was a lesson that I realized the day Kennedy was assassinated. It was a lesson that remains with me to this day.

I just saw an ABC news report where forensic scientists claim that there were multiple shooters and RFK’s assassination. More evidence staring at you in the face! It never ends.

With regards to the evidence of the use of explosives in the towers, I imagine that you`ve already heard the rebuttals I could offer so there`s no need to cover old ground.
I am quite willing to believe that governments are capable of this sort of thing but not if their security is so tight that foreign news anchors are in on it

I don’t think the British press was “in on it” at all. They simply received a report, from whom I do not know, that Building 7, which the British refer to as the Solomon Building, had collapsed when in fact it was still standing. Here is a link to the broadcast:

British Broadcast

My hunch is that during the approximate twenty minutes that the broadcast was being made, someone, either in England or here in USA, noticed that the building was still standing behind the commentators head and advised the media. From there it probably traveled up the management chain to some point where an order was issued to cut the circuit. It doesn’t even prove that whoever ordered the circuit cut had any knowledge of any organized military operation to destroy the World Trade Center in progress at the time. It’s quite conceivable that they simply did not want to suffer the embarrassment of reporting the news out of sequence with the time in which it actually happened. Perhaps such details will never be known for sure. It’s also possible that a CIA agent in England noticed the error and reported it to higher command. But it doesn’t really matter how the error was reported. My nagging question is, “Who the heck reported to the British press in the first place that the building was going to fall a full 23 minutes before the event actually happened?” That information had to have come from somewhere.

Incidentally, there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people at the crash site knew ahead of time that Building 7 was about to collapse. Many firefighters were videotaped warning people to clear the area because the building was about to fall. These videos are posted on YouTube.

The real problem with the Building 7 aspect of the World Trade disaster is that if Building 7 was in fact destroyed by control demolition, there had to have been a plan to do so well in advance of the actual aircraft attack. It takes weeks to set up all the proper explosives to pull down a building like that. So who set those explosives? Certainly that is something that is beyond the capability of some Arab living in a cave on the other side of the world.

A very similar media error occurred at the time of Kennedy's assassination. There was a newspaper, I believe it was in the Phillipines - but I'm not sure, that announced Kennedy's death a short time before it actually occurred. These kinds of logistic mistakes are common in such false flag, military operations.

I actually have not heard any legitimate rebuttals against the theory that explosives were used in any of the buildings. Well yes, there is the pancake theory, but I don’t accept that as a legitimate explanation. My personal experience with this subject is that most people I mention it to do not actually look at the evidence. They simply become enraged at me for raising the subject. But if you do have some rebuttals that explain how the glass windows in the lobby at the ground floor were blown out, or how Building 7 collapsed, as well as a wide variety of questions that documentaries like “Loose Change” and “Painful Questions” raise, I would certainly like to hear them.

With regards to explosions at the towers themselves, here are a couple links:

Explosive Video

Another Explosive Video

This second link starts by showing a firefighter talking on the phone and suddenly you hear a large explosion. The evidence that an explosion occurred is indisputable. What could explain that explosion?

You mention the main argument in your post above - enough explosives to fell an unweakened building would have created a HUGE blast. Weakening the building for demolition involves cutting major structural members and could not be accomplished on an occupied building without it collapsing, I can find no qualified testimonial that indicates otherwise.
With regards to the windows being blown out at the base of the tower, I don`t think that means anything when the whole structure is coming down. Vibrations perhaps? Air pressure from the piston effect of the upper floors descending?
Finally, the fact that the firefighters knew of the collapse in advance really means nothing either - they are trained to recognise the signs.

The total explosive power may be HUGE, but when distributed around the building it is not noticeably so, especially where the supporting structure is in the center of the building. The collapse of Building 7, which you can view on the internet, appears exactly like the controlled demolition of similar buildings that you see often on the news.

The windows were blown out a few seconds BEFORE an aircraft hit and about 40 minutes before the building collapsed. I wish I could dispense with this aspect of the event as flippantly as you do. But I cannot. I am reminded of a popular documentary about 9/11 (I believe I saw it on NPR) that contains interviews with Mayor Guliani. In it he states how when they entered to lobby to set up a command center, they were puzzled by the type of destruction that they saw. His words were, “Obviously a major event had occurred in the lobby.” The documentary showed video taken from inside the lobby. It was clear that a massive explosion had occurred in close proximity. That’s what I mean when I say the evidence is staring at you in the face! Despite the fact that the mayor has spoken of this event in a documentary, and the despite the video evidence of the event, the official 9/11 story does not even recognize that any event ever took place at the base of the building. But the Internet contains lots of evidence. Indeed, there is even a janitorial person who experienced the blast and survived, and has spoken openly about it. Of course his experience in not considered in the official 9/11 story.

There were no signs that Building 7 was going to collapse. It was relatively undamaged and contained only minor fires. There is photographic proof of that. Again, it’s staring at you right in the face.

Why would they detonate an explosive at the base of the tower before the `plane hit? Why would they expose themselves so? Why would they even use explosives instead of just crashing the `planes into the towers? Are you seriously suggesting that every individual involved in the clean-up was involved? What about the British news broadcast? Do you think that after all this s00per^5ekrit planning they would be so stupid as to accidentally tell some journalists that the building had collapsed just before they blew it up?

I assume you wanted to say “What about…” not “What above…”. Well, did you see the video that I provided showing the British news commentator announcing the collapse of the building with the building clearly visible in the background?

To me that broadcast demonstrates that someone knew that the building was going to collapse before it actually did. If someone knew that, and because the building was under no physical stress at the time to cause such an event, it would have to mean that someone was going to intentionally take it down using controlled demolition, just like they take down all such buildings when they need to. Can you give me a believable explanation that would convince me otherwise? Please do so if you can. And I guess it also means that yes, they were stupid enough to tell someone about it before they actually blew it up. Indeed, that is typical of such false flag military operations.

It just seems like a ridiculous idea to me.

What do you find ridiculous, looking at the video that proves that the British media found out about the Building 7 (Solomon Building) collapse before the event actually occurred, or blowing up the building in the first place?

I don’t think it’s ridiculous to look at the video. I think everyone in this world has a responsibility to themselves and to their country to be aware of and to interpret world events. For example, in your country there is the famous “Downing Street memos”. You must have some thoughts about that?

Concerning blowing up the building, yes, it is a ridiculous thing to do. But history shows that governments consistently do ridiculous things. Tony Blaire in your country supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq. That was clearly a ridiculous thing to do. Although that is easier to say that now in hindsight, it was clear to many before the invasion. I heard that in England there was massive demonstration against the war before the actual invasion. Is that true? If so, what do you think about that? Also, considering the Downing Street memos, it was also dishonest for Tony Blair to support Bush’s invasion.

Perhaps what you think is ridiculous is the whole idea that the World Trade Center disaster is a false flag operation, false flag being a terrorist military operation performed by a government towards its own country and blaming it on some outside country or group in order to justify some action, like perhaps the invasion of another country, or to gain more authority over its own population? Well, I would agree with you that it is ridiculous, but it routinely happens in many countries and particularly here in the USA. The assassination of President Kennedy, the Bay of Tonkin (leading to the Vietnam war), and the World Trade disaster are most prominent. There are others as well. Sometimes they actually accomplish their intent for some people, as in the assassination of President Kennedy for the FBI, the CIA, Vice-President Johnson (I will never acknowledge him as a president), and of course thousands of people throughout the military industrial complex. Sometimes false flag operations lead to disastrous wars, as in the Bay of Tonkin. Since the Iraq war is still in progress I suppose you could argue about whether the World Trade disaster as a false flag operation was a success or a failure, but personally I consider it to be a massive failure, perhaps the worst in our nation’s history. Of course neoconservatives, the Bush administration, the oil companies, and companies like Halliburton and Blackwater think differently than I do. They think I’m ridiculous. But they are all part of the power structure, and I am not. So their opinion prevails. And so the world turns.

By the way, you have not given me a reasonable explanation for the British media finding out ahead of time about the collapse of Building 7, or for the numerous examples of explosions occurring at the base of the buildings at the World Trade Center. Of course, you don’t really have to. Although I admit your replies have encouraged me to write more, I’m not writing these long postings because of you, really. You see, I am in the very later stages of my life. I am now completely bed ridden and I require the services of visiting nurses to keep me alive. That is soon to end. This series of postings has helped me pass some idle time as well as form my last final personal thoughts and judgments about the world and the miniscule part that I have played in it during my lifetime. You should know though that these thoughts are far more encompassing than the very few aspects of only the one world event that we have been discussing here.

Since you were not impressed with my previous links, here is one from the CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

CBC Documentary

This may not convince you yourself of anything, but at least it should make you aware that there are a great many people, some prominant intellectuals, who believe that the World Trade Center disaster was a false flag operation orchestrated by the United States government.

I think the conspiracy theorists should focus on trying to prove that the government knew there would be a large scale act of terrorism and did nothing, a plausible hypothesis in my opinion but there just isn`t the evidence to suggest direct involvement. It`s all just seeing-patterns-in-the-clouds and bullshine.

The windows weren`t blown out just before the `planes hit, they were blown out AS the `planes hit which is not in the least bit surprising. In a collision with such enormous energy involved anything could happen.
Why would they crash the `planes when they`d already placed explosives? Why not save time and effort by just setting them off one lunchtime?

All the British news report `evidence` suggests to me is that a reporter mixed up in the most staggering event imaginable made some mistake or jumped the gun and misreported the event. Is that really surprising? Perhaps the firefighters were warning people that the building was in a state of imminent collapse and that information was mis-interpreted by the time it reached the anchor.

Why did Al-Qaeda take responsibility if they didn`t do it?

I don`t think it`s ridiculous because I believe that governments are incapable of this sort of thing, I just think it`s ridiculous to claim that these three buildings were rigged for demolition, in secret, without anyone knowing anything about it. There`s nothing to suggest it was anything but what it appeared to be: an act of terrorism perpetrated by some uncivilised middle-eastern people.

Since my last post I have read through page after page of conspiracy websites and such until my brain went runny and I was disappointed. I did enjoy the South Park 911-truth episode though

luapparc,

You're free to believe whatever you wish. But, you're theory about what actually took down those buildings... I have to ask, where were you when it happened? I was about two blocks away, and anyone who tries to tell me that jets did not slam into those buildings... is less than retarded. Like i said, believe what you will, but don't blame me for seeing the TRUTH with my own eyes. I must admit, i do not have the type of FIRST HAND knowledge that can only be obtained by watching a movie, but maybe someday i'll be as ENLIGHTENED as you. As for michael moore, anyone with a sixty inch waist is a glutton, and therefore should not tell ANYONE what to think, or how to behave.

I agree with your opinion, although not your choice of words (I tend to refrain from calling people retarded). I never said that planes did not crash into the buildings, and there is plenty of photographic proof that that did occur. I have never heard it suggested by anyone that planes did not crash into the buildings. Although, you never know. For example, years ago my father thought that the US landing on the moon was faked as a strategy in the cold war. Perhaps there are some individuals who feel that no planes struck the building, but I am not one of them.
You have no idea how much I envy you. Not because you were witness to a great tragedy and the resulting pain that you may feel, but because had I been there I might have seen something that might help suppress this aching feeling in my heart that my government played a role in orchestrating the tragedy, and is getting away with it. But who knows, if I had been there I might have seen something that may have made my heart ach even more.

I envy you in the same way that I envy those who happened to be at Dealey Plaza in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963. Hopefully I might have seen something to help suppress this aching feeling in my heart that my government just murdered its own president in broad daylight, and has gotten away with it. But who knows, if I had been in Dealey Plaze I might have seen something that may have made my heart ach even more.

The many, many questions I have about 9/11 are simple, and I am not alone in asking them. Below list only a few:

Is the collapse of the towers due to the plane crashes, or were the plane crashes orchestrated in order to disguise how they were really brought down? There is much photographic evidence to suggest that the crashes did not cause the buildings to structurally fail. There is much photographic evidence to suggest that the resulting fires were not hot and could not have weakened the building. There is much photographic evidence to suggest that the speed of collapse of the buildings was too fast to be explained by the “official” pancake theory.

Why were there explosions at the base of the buildings, one even occurring several seconds before the plane hit the building?

Why were the windows in the lobby blown out? Could a plane crashing into the building at about the 85th floor blow windows out in the lobby and not on any other floors in between?

Why didn’t the mayor use his special command center built in building 7?

Why did Building 7 collapse? The official enquiry did not even investigate it.

Why is there photographic proof that the British announced on their television network that Building 7 collapsed more than twenty minutes before the event actually occurred?

Why was all the building material, and hence the evidence, carted away under high security? So it could not be analyzed for thermite? Indeed, some photographs of the towers show the possibility of thermite being used.

Why was there no aircraft debris at the site of the Pentagon crash?

Why do the only published photos of the Pentagon crash show no aircraft?

Why did the Bush administration resist an investigation.

Why were families who were compensated required to promise to never take legal action against the government in this matter?

Going back to the Kennedy assassination, I was not there. However, it was evident to any observant citizen that the vehicle had been fired on from the front and the government went out of its way to conceal that fact. Similarly in the 9/11 disaster, any observant citizen can see from the public record that the government is hiding a great deal.

As a witness to the event, what are your feelings about the event and what are your reactions to my questions? Surely not all my questions are, to use your words, “retarded”?

But since you were a witness to the event, I would like to ask you one question. Why is it that most witnesses do not approve of people asking legitimate question about it? Is it because it is too painful to think about?

Like most citizens of any country, I do not like to harbor thoughts that my government does such evil things as destroy it own buildings and in the process murder its own citizens for the sake of getting congressional approval to wage war around the world for corporate greed and oil. However, I see no way to feel otherwise.

To me the most likely scenario is that the so called terrorists were taking part of a much more extensive military operation conducted by the US government to destroy the World Trade Center. The terrorists may have been patsies in the same way that Oswald was a patsy in President Kennedy’s assassination. I would love to think otherwise, but I cannot.
I never claimed to be ENLIGHTENED in this subject. Indeed, I cannot seem to find any legitimate answers to any of my questions. Indeed, why does the fact that I ask questions cause you to sarcastically accuse me of considering myself more enlightened than you? I certainly don’t feel that way.

And if you know the TRUTH, as you say, can you please help me and answer some of my questions?

I must admit, whenever I speak to people like yourself they seem to think that because they were witnesses to the event that I should, perhaps out of respect, not ask any questions at all.

There is an old saying, “You don’t have to be a plumber to know that there is something wrong with your kitchen sink” Similarly, I do not have to know what really happened to know that the story I have been fed by my government is very flawed.
You may have a lot of dislike for Michael Moore, but in order to refute anything that he presents in his documentary films you would have to analyze deeper than the fact that he is overweight. Did you know that 60% of Americans are overweight? Do you think that 60% of Americans are gluttons? No, on second thought, don’t answer that.

Lol really if the government did it, I don't think we'd know. They'd have eliminated the guy who came up with the theory 6.3 seconds after he posted it.

Michael Moore is more than a little bit looney.

His "facts" are dubious at best, spurious usually, and generally used out of context.
In his films, you only get "his" mutated views.

His works are reviewed far and wide. Have a look. His works just don't stand up to scrutiny.

I can kinda agree with the facts. My godmother thinks that the 9/11 thing is a bit of a conspiracy. She says, "Did you notice how the first building fell? it fell straight down like when construction crews destroy buildings, like whoomp. But I think it should've toppled sideways at a diagonal from the way the plane hit it." I can see that, but I dunno...*she's kinda wierd occassionally..* But the whole movie talked about how Bush had business ties with the Bin Ladens, I believe it.

But yes, I believed the movie very much, none of it would surprise me. I think the government is corrupted for the most part. It really sickens me.

I am on the same boat as luapparc