no7rosman

It's not looking good for these guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1MaC7_tgJQ Fucked up demonstration here in Cheney's home state. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVTuTWe75yA

I read it...It is good and I believe it... My question is...why would a news paper in Ohio, and Mayor, etc...publish the article? And where did they get their data?

I didn't think this one had been beat to death. It was only released 4 months ago on YouTube...And with all my searching had never seen or heard of this before.... My apologies for making everyone so mad... However it is funny more and more shit keeps coming up our great Bush Administration and Cheney. I hope you are all right!!!

If you don't like it...Don't read it. It's just a debate.

I beg to differ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sueAQB3fjqo This could possibly explain why there was no wreckage at the crash site.

There's a good chance it was overstressed and was shedding pieces before its final impact. Having people fighting for control can easily overstress an airframe. >>> The government report has given no indication of this. They say the aiplane crashed into the ground. Not came apart in the sky due to people fighting for control. I agree this is a possibility, but that isn't what has been reported. >>> I didn't post a picture of an engine part. I posted a picture of a hole one of the engines made and some debris found inside the building. And Rolls-Royce didn't build the airplane; Boeing did. >>> One of those pics is a picture of an engine part. That pic has been used to show people everything "didn't disentigrate". Only problem is that engine part is not part of a Rolls Royce engine...That is on the Boeing 757. Boeing didn't build the engines Rolls Royce did. Ever seen an entrance wound vs an exit wound? >>> What I am saying is "the engine" was a solid enough mass to make that perfect hole in a brick wall...Then just disappear into nothing. All things considered, if the engine made it that far and made that nice hole in the wall, It would be mostly in tact on the other side. Like I said, they collapsed upon impact, and from that point on were pursuing their own trajectories. Here is a link to an airliner making a much softer emergency landing on the ocean - note how quickly its wings are ripped off. http://www.broadcaster.com/clip/789 I have seen that video. And if they wings came off the plane that easy, I would expect there to be some type of damage on the building where they hit (which there isn't...You would have to look at a pic from before the collapse to see this) and also expect to see some of the remaining wings and engines to be in the yard. There is also pictures showing trucks and spools of wire and all kinds of stuff that would have been in the path of the wings as it was coming in. This stuff is all unmoved and not damaged other than from fire coming from the building. The picture is from above, showing horizontal (not vertical) scale. >>> My point is that picture proves nothing since it was taken so long after the crash. If you want to see actual damage, look for pictures before the collapse. There are reports of multiple explosions being heard after the crash. And oddly enough all the firefighters in WTC heard explosions just before the buildings came down too. Except the government put a gag order on them so they couldn't talk about it.

Steel does not have to come anywhere near its melting point to weaken. When you weaken a building that's already been perforated by tons of debris, chances of it collapsing go up. >>>> Agreed. >Let me know if you think it is a crater or maybe just a hole. Uh, a crater is a hole. What do you mean? Like it wasn't deep enough to be a crater? >>> Yes...The hole or crater looks like it could have been made with a couple of M-80's or maybe a well done pipe bomb. I would have expected it to be much larger I guess. >Most say it was spread over 8 miles. Not two football fields. Right - the debris THERE was spread over two football fields. They found other pieces (like the engines) miles away. >>> I don't believe at all that an airplane crashed into the ground, and the engine was found "miles" away. In fact I don't believe that any pieces except paper (which should have burned) should have been found miles away. My opinion is the fact the wreckage is spread out over 8 miles is a pretty good indication it wasn't in one piece when it hit the ground. >Show me the holes where the wings and engines entered the Pentagon. The aircraft struck the ground before impacting the Pentagon. Usually, such an impact (taken primarily by the engines) destroys the wing spars, causing the wings to collapse backwards and trail behind the aircraft. A picture below shows the relative sizing. Also shown is a hole in the inner ring where an engine passed through a wall, and an interior shot of the Pentagon showing debris inside. >>> The picture of the engine was sent to Rolls-Royce and they (RR) concluded it is no part of their airplane. This was announced publicly. Since it is clearly an engine part, the question is what did it come from? Also are we to believe that it was in a solid enough chunk or object to make a perfect circle in that brick wall, then completey disentigrate just on the other side? The other pic with a drawing of an airplane...The actual picure is after the "collapse" of the front of the building. There are pictures that show the Petagon before the collapse and there is a lot less damage. I attached one. Where are the engine holes in this pic? Or the wings? Also...Since you stated it hit the ground first...And the drawing of the airplane in that pic seem to match pretty close to the damage, why is it pictured 3/4 of the distance to the roof instead on the ground? Can't do an attachment from here --- The website I got the pics from is http://www.rense.com/general64/911et.htm

Good point...The first thing that comes to mind is the person they say was flying the plane that went into the pentagon couldn't land a C-172. Was that person really skilled enough to nose dive a 757 with almost extreme accuracy? I don't know...as I haven't flown a 757, but it seems unlikely.

>1. 2 Skyscrapers collapsed due to fire.(First time in history). Other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire weakening the structure; this is why structural insulation is now required on steel-framed buildings. The WTC collapse was merely the tallest. >> I have nothing to say here yet...I have to do some more investigation. >2. 1 Building (WTC 7) collapsed for no apparent reason. Other than being hit by tons of debris, and having thousands of gallons of fuel (for a generator) burn for hours. >> It has been proven by the UL that the burning fuel would not have adverse affects on the steel and would not come close to bringing it to its melting point. I also think "thousands of gallons" is a overstatement. Most of the fuel can be seen exploding, and burning outside the buildings when the airplanes hit the other towers. Also many say the many "thousands of gallons of fuel" is what brought down the other two buildings too. How many thousands of gallons of fuel were there? >3. 2 Airplane crashes with no wreckage. There was plenty of wreckage. From witnesses: Flight 93: ----------------- There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long. >>>>> Take look at the "crater" in the following video. Let me know if you think it is a crater or maybe just a hole. It can be clearly seen in this video.>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc . . . Spallone said the plane was still smoldering at 12:30. >>> In the above video you will also hear from an eyewintess who said there was no smoke and no fire repeatedly in the interview. >>> He said officials were trying to keep people from scene and confirmed that there are no survivors. He said the "debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields." >>> Most say it was spread over 8 miles. Not two football fields. >>> The impact of the crash was so severe that the biggest piece of debris he has seen there is no bigger than 2 feet. . . . . State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site." "It appears to be the whole engine," he added. >>> Where are the pictures of a whole engine. This is a good quote but there is no evidence to support it. Unless you point me to a link that shows a picture. >>> Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase." --------------- Flight 77: Among debris that was scattered as the plane crashed, he found a "scorched green oxygen tank marked 'Cabin air. Airline use'" on the road. . . . Pieces of fuselage were found some 30 metres (90 feet) away from the crash site. "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it." "After about 15 minutes shoveling up chunks of carpet and brick, I found a piece of circuit board, and a chunk of the plane. When I say a chunk of it, I mean a piece that was about 3 oz of twisted aluminum. The biggest piece I've seen so far is about the size of a refrigerator." >>> Show me the holes where the wings and engines entered the Pentagon. Photos of the crash site before the collapse show a round hole with no evidence of wings or engines. If the Wings and Engines went inside the building then disentigrated, there would be holes where they entered the building. If not they should be on the yard. >>>

Ever looked into what makes up an airplane? There are far more materials than AL. How about the engines? Ever looked at the hundreds of plane crashes posted on the internet? They all have wreckage...

You forgot these... 1. People with no idea what they are talking about suddenly become structural engineers and determine that two high rise bulidings collapsed and the large aircraft that flew into them had nothing to do with it. I would ask how and why did BBC announce it before it happened? How do you explain this quote by the owner who just purchased a 861 million dollar insurance policy specifically covering terrorism for the World Trade Centers? Silverstein: "and I said...'maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it'...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." So it was all wired and ready to be "pulled"? He seems to openly admit this was a controlled demo. Unfortunately all the pictures and videos are still available on the internet. I don't see WTC-7 severely damaged in any way. Two buildings hit by planes, and one hit by nothing...yet they all collapse on top of themselves in exactly the same manner. 3.Not content to be self-proclaimed experts in structural demolition, they now title themselvs as FAA investigators. Having done this they can claim a fourth building was hit by a cruise missle despite multitudes of eyewitnesses who say it was an airliner. But, in a jesture that confuses all those who still have control of their faculties, the uneducated selfproclaimed experts can't agree on whether a fourth aircraft that went down in PA spread wreckage and debris over an 8 mile path....or if there was no wreckage or debris at all. *** There were also multitudes of people who saw and heard something else. Unfortunately main stream media only showed on TV the ones who saw a jetliner. Outside of that there were numerous video cameras that caught the whole thing on tape. Why have we seen only 8 frames of one tape? (Which BTW shows no sign of a jetliner) Good point on the debris. Find me another airplane that crashed into the ground in an open field that spread debris for 8 miles and left nothing larger than a phonebook. And why does Rumsfeld say it was shot down in a public speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

Here are 40 more questions in case you needed more. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 We had some amazing stuff happen that day. 1. 2 Skyscrapers collapsed due to fire.(First time in history). It happened here twice in less than 2 minutes. 2. 1 Building (WTC 7) collapsed for no apparent reason. It was not hit and had small fires. BBC apparently knew it was coming down as they announced it before it happened. 3. 2 Airplane crashes with no wreckage.

What is going to happen when mainstream media starts proving some of the facts in Loose Change? Or Michael Moore by investigating them deaper? Will everyone say that is old news....We knew that all along...I saw a post a few days ago where someone specificlly stated..."That whole movie is bullshit" and it has been stated here 100 other times.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260 I would say this is a Win for all those people who have continually called bullshit on the so called facts of the Iraq War. And for the stupid conspiracy theorists who never believed that crap. It won't be long, and the media will be asking themselves "how could I have ever believed a fucking airplane crashed here." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0 -------------------------------------------------- The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again yet Moyers points out, "the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses." ----------------------------------------------------- Of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news in the six months before the war, almost all could be traced back to sources solely in the White House, Pentagon or State Dept., Moyers tells Russert, who offers no coherent reply.