| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: Controversial “911 Ripple Effect” To Be Released Mid-July |
 |
|
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/911_ripple_effect_announcement.htm
| Quote: | Controversial “911 Ripple Effect” To Be Released Mid-July
Columbia, MO June 27, 2007 Dave vonKleist and William Lewis, the truth-seeking duo that released the notorious “911 In Plane Site” announce the release of their newest documentary. Entitled “911 Ripple Effect,” this new endeavor promises to be more controversial and revealing than its predecessor. The latest collaboration is guaranteed to ruffle more than a few feathers as the team continues to expound on, and expose, the inconsistencies in the official “9/11” cover-up using the video and photographic evidence presented to all of us throughout the day of September 11, 2001.
VonKleist and Lewis traveled the country to bring powerhouse interviews to the table conducted with experts from all fields. Guests for this production include September 11, 2001 World Trade Center survivor and eyewitness William Rodriguez, Retired Air Force Colonel George Nelson, Pilot Glen Stanish, Investigative Journalist Jim Marrs, former ABC-TV Military Correspondent Major Glen MacDonald, Scholars for 911 Truth Founder Jim Fetzer, and United Pilot Russ Wittenberg, just to name a few. Along with these and many other compelling guests, this documentary includes more images, as well as leaked footage from Pentagon insiders, telling the world a totally different story.
Pioneers in what has now become known as the 911 Truth Movement, the diligent team of vonKleist and Lewis were the first to acquaint both Americans and the world, via documentary, with an actual analysis of the images we all saw on this fateful day in recent American History. Bringing into question one of the most controversial pieces of evidence, and taking heat from within the 911 movement for doing so, “911 Ripple Effect” offers a no-holes-barred investigation into the anomalies surrounding the actual planes involved in the crashes.
Anyone interested can get a sneak-peak at clips from this newest release by vonKleist and Lewis by visiting http://www.911rippleeffect.com. Remember while visiting to sign up for an e-mail announcement of the official release of this explosive new documentary. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zabooka
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| why has Vonkleist returned to the Pod Theory? When he retracted from it? It does not seem to show any substantially new evidence for it either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh whinge. Not again.
This film will unfortunately reel in the gullible, turn off the critical thinkers and keep the debunkers busy for aeons.
Jayhan, von Kleist et al really should learn when to give up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FindOutTheTruth
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 32
Location: Chester, uk
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do you think this guy is disinfo or somthing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
<double post edited out>
Last edited by coconut on Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd be more likely to consider him an irrational psychotic.
I say irrational psychotic because he clings to the pod theory like someone would cling on to a cliff for dear life if they were about to fall. He has little concept of reality.
However, I won't dismiss the possibility that he's disinfo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My red flag immediately went up when I saw Fetzer’s name associated with it. It is interesting that out of all of the credible 9/11 truthers out there it was the ‘Power Hour’ that managed to earn a time slot on XM satellite radio. And we know how the corporate, ownership class, elitist media tends to purposely emphasize the most far-fetched of alternative 9/11 theories Popular Mechanics style. There are a multitude of reasons to be suspicious of the motives here. Right-wing hack Glenn Beck had Von Kleist on once as well.
It seems to me that the more the media tries to ignore or discredit you, the more relevant you are. It’s bizarro world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doesn't the available photographic evidence suggest that whatever hit the south tower didn't have a standard B767 underside markings? Have the pre-impact impact point flashes been fully explained? my theory is they were something to do with the homing mechanism used as it was of course imperitive those aircraft hit the towers and at the pre-ordained collapse points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FindOutTheTruth
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 32
Location: Chester, uk
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree and they flew within 400miles of every base along the way so they could be controlled to there targets.
I support the pod therory but have no idea on the flashes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Doesn't the available photographic evidence suggest that whatever hit the south tower didn't have a standard B767 underside markings? Have the pre-impact impact point flashes been fully explained? my theory is they were something to do with the homing mechanism used as it was of course imperitive those aircraft hit the towers and at the pre-ordained collapse points. |
Since when does a simple autopilot situation require fancy flashing effects?
What are the standard 767 underside markings?
The planes, I submit to you, did not have to hit the buildings at any specific point. You'd think, if it had to be so precise, that flight 175 would have hit the South Tower at a better angle. You know, one which would actually let its fuselage plough straight into the core instead of probably avoiding core columns altogether and coming out the other side.
The demolitions could easily have been sequenced to commence from wherever the planes hit after the impacts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coconut wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Doesn't the available photographic evidence suggest that whatever hit the south tower didn't have a standard B767 underside markings? Have the pre-impact impact point flashes been fully explained? my theory is they were something to do with the homing mechanism used as it was of course imperitive those aircraft hit the towers and at the pre-ordained collapse points. |
Since when does a simple autopilot situation require fancy flashing effects?
What are the standard 767 underside markings?
The planes, I submit to you, did not have to hit the buildings at any specific point. You'd think, if it had to be so precise, that flight 175 would have hit the South Tower at a better angle. You know, one which would actually let its fuselage plough straight into the core instead of probably avoiding core columns altogether and coming out the other side.
The demolitions could easily have been sequenced to commence from wherever the planes hit after the impacts. |
As I understand it the standard Boeing 767 fuselage underside is smooth apart from where the wings connect, whatever hit the south tower, according to the photographs, was not smooth, some sort of lengthways ridging was casting shadows.
The impact point pre impact flashes were just to the upper right of the nosed cone impacts in both towers, are we expected to believe it was yet another 9/11 coincidence that the terrorists should fly straight into the lower left of explosions going on on the towers facias? That's why I speculate they were something to do with the homing mechanisms used, I further speculate these devices could have detonated at the point of greatest polarity to destroy the evidence,
but as I say that's just speculation.
They could possibly have had the technology to initiate a collapse at any point in the towers but there would have to be impacts in the first place.
Dave Von Kleist, I recall, wrote to Dick Cheyney about the mystery flashes. Cheyney referred him to the 9/11 commission report, did zelikow include this in his little whitewash? Weren't the flashes airbrushed out of some government videos? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marndin
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 216
Location: West Sussex
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just for your info. I have had quite a lot of correspondence with Dave VonKleist and William Lewis as my song www.911building7.co.uk is being used for the credit section of the DVD.
In my opinion he is a VERY good radio presenter and puts over a strong case for a new investigation in to the events of 9/11.
http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm Here's a link to The Power Hour and maybe the fact that it's a part of the GCN network explains why Dave appearred on the XM satellite radio show.
I had a good chat with William Rodriguez (who appears on this DVD) and he's good friends with them and actually advised them on the final edit. I don't know what Williams view is about the pod theory, but thought I should report what I know.
Before slating it we should watch it in order to make informed comments!
Martin Noakes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | As I understand it the standard Boeing 767 fuselage underside is smooth apart from where the wings connect, whatever hit the south tower, according to the photographs, was not [smooth, some sort of lengthways ridging was casting shadows. |
I've already argued with Phil Jayhan over this a million times. That "object" is part of the fuselage. The fuzzy frames makes it look as if it's a separate object but what you're looking at is just the fuselage and fairing. United Airlines planes have white stripes going down the centre of the underneath of the fuselage - this is the white line that is seen in the middle.
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html
Two images I created in Paint highlighting what is seen.
I realise these are very crude; I didn't bother opening up GIMP to do a flashy edit. However, I think they illustrate that there is nothing anomalous about the plane. The "lengthways ridging" is part of the fuselage.
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | The impact point pre impact flashes were just to the upper right of the nosed cone impacts in both towers, are we expected to believe it was yet another 9/11 coincidence that the terrorists should fly straight into the lower left of explosions going on on the towers facias? |
The flashes can be explained by the impacts, as I believe the claim that they occured before the impacts is a mistake.
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | That's why I speculate they were something to do with the homing mechanisms used, I further speculate these devices could have detonated at the point of greatest polarity to destroy the evidence,
but as I say that's just speculation. |
I hold that this scenario is unrealistic. Not only is it unnecessary, due to the sufficient capabilities of a 767's autopilot computer, but having flashes as part of the "homing mechanism" would give too much away.
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | They could possibly have had the technology to initiate a collapse at any point in the towers but there would have to be impacts in the first place. |
No argument here, although I will point out that it would be simple to write a program which would wirelessly detonate in any sequence input.
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Dave Von Kleist, I recall, wrote to Dick Cheyney about the mystery flashes. Cheyney referred him to the 9/11 commission report, did zelikow include this in his little whitewash? Weren't the flashes airbrushed out of some government videos? |
No, the grand whitewash didn't mention the pod theory, I don't think, but it's easily debunkable anyway.
I don't know if they were, but if that's the case, perhaps they were airbrushed out to throw people off and fuel the pod theory, in the same manner as the Pentagon CCTV videos, which show very little, fuel the incredibly divisive "no-757" theory.
Anyway, you could hardly expect a proper reply from Cheney, Arch-Puppet of the so-called shadow government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
