Has the video: "9/11 Ripple Effect" by von Kleist & Lewis Received the Attention It Truly Deserves?
Colombo Mon, 02/11/2008 - 12:27pm
"9/11 Ripple Effect" full version is a 96-minute video packed with info demonstrating that 9/11 was surely an inside job!
Near the beginning, it explores the taboo subject of pod(s) underneath UA-175 that struck the south tower. IMO, it presents the pod theory in a very credible way, with commentary from several experts. (IMHO, it seems possible that the white-hot object being ejected from the aircraft/tower was supposed to impact WTC-7 and rip a huge hole in it, as a pretext for WTC-7's implosion.)
After the pod theory, the rest of the video is a solid indictment of 9/11 as being an inside job.
Website: http://www.911rippleeffect.com/
- Colombo's blog
- Login to post comments
I also agree
I also agree that this has not received its due. I had discarded the pod theory after reading critiques of it by people like Jim Hoffmann, etc. In "In Plane Site," the pod theory seems to be a personal pet theory of Phil Jayhan and Dave Von Kleist. However, in Ripple Effect, we have Glen Stamish (founder of pilots for 911 truth) and Col. George Nelson (and at least one other pilot I believe) who give the pod theory their credence.
This is a very good film which has been overlooked.
Thanks. (btw, Jim Hoffman always insists that AA-77 struck
the Pentagon, and I don't understand why. The evidence just doesn't support AA-77 hitting the Pentagon.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321
One of the very worst 9/11 films
One of the very worst 9/11 films... rehashes many of the same debunked arguments seen in the first version (In plane site) and invites Fetzer into the mix.
The missile/pod theories are completely bogus. These kinds of fraudulent physical evidence arguments are extremely useful in the 9/11 cover-up. They can never be proven, and any evidence offered to contradict it is considered "bogus" or "faked". And then they can be used in never ending straw-man debates to waste time when the evidence for complicity in 9/11 is overwhelming and factual.
"No other plane fits the hole as precisely as a 767, down to the narrow grooves created by the wings on either side of the impact hole, especially visible on the right. Attempts at overlaying diagrams by no-plane advocates, such as Stefan Grossmann and the German Engineers, are flawed, using inaccurate diagrams of 767s, aligning those diagrams incorrectly and/or using photographs from angles that appear to show debris where the engine holes should be."
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
Nothing about "no planes" at WTC in 9/11 Ripple Effect, so why
do you imply that there is!?
Furthermore, since many people believe that drones were utilized on 9/11, the alleged "UA-175" could well have had extra equipment on it! (Drones & modified planes have never been debunked, btw.)
Fetzer says nothing truthers will find controversial or offensive in this video.
There is great footage of Silverstein & WTC-7.
I recommend that everyone watch this video for themselves & make their own determinations, & not trust your shill-like bashing of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321