If you are going to invalidate the credibility of an author or website because of a single mispelling, you are going to have to invalidate the credibility of a lot of authors and websites.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 11:34:56 AM

That's not a mispelling, that's a serious error which indicates the author doesn't do research. Just like you wouldn't use a book that claimed Columbus was the first president of the US (they have printed such text books) so I would not trust a site that can't look up the word Czech

1/12/2004 12:12:21 PM

There is a big difference between simply mispelling a word and making a false claim. One suggests that research has not been done, while the other merely suggests that the author made a typo or did not know how to spell a word.

Like I said before, if you apply this irrational standard, you are going to have to discredit nearly all authors and websites because I'm sure you can find some sort of spelling mistake on nearly all websites.

By the way, where is this supposed mispelling of "Czech" on the website?

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 12:21:23 PM

No, this error does indicate the author did not do any research into the matter and instead was going on hearsay. If he had done actual research with real documents, he would have found Czech spelled out properly.

And the mispelling can be found in the quote which you posted to this message board, and even bolded for us:

Quote :

""AJ:...I have AP, Reuters, CVC, Washington Post - this sounds so crazy, this is not my opinion. Just like the incinerators or torturing kids, I mean they are saying all this. It is in my film, “Road to Tyranny” and “Masters of Terror,” both of them, where they say - they have signed deals to bring Dutch, Check Republic, Mexican, Canadian, British, and yes Israeli, all of these people here. I’ve been to training ops where they train to put us in camps. They have signed the deals to bring them in to “deal with American terrorists.” Mr. Hilton, have you heard about that? SH: Yes, I have. I think, I’ve heard from the person that I mentioned before that was from FEMA. There is definitely an agenda here. I mean this is something that is truly I think of world historical significance with what’s down the line here. I mean this is not a minor thing. This is not about finding who caused 9/11, we know who did, he’s sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania. That’s where he is. I mean, we know who did it. But this is all about this larger entity, what they are trying to do. This is - if you look again from the historical perspective, there have been others in history who had similar goals. This one (garbled) has high technology and they are pulling the wool over Americans’ eyes with the media axe, the mass media axe as they call them. http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report_031403_hilton.html""

Which once again suggests to me you don't actualy read the sites you link to.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 12:47 PM. Reason : adsgfasg]

1/12/2004 12:44:15 PM

Quote :

"No, this error does indicate the author did not do any research into the matter and instead was going on hearsay. If he had done actual research with real documents, he would have found Czech spelled out properly. "

This is a transcript of an interview. The "author" here is probably not a "researcher." The "author" of this transcript likely is not Alex Jones or Stanley Hilton. This mistake is probably that of some low-level employee (or a computer that translated the interview to text) of the website who mispelled "Czech" when typing up the text of the interview.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 1:09:33 PM

On the "hijackers" and the claim by the Bush Administration that they "had no idea" planes could be used as weapons:

Quote :

"Airports have extensive surveillance, yet we've never been shown any video footage of a hijacker boarding a plane along with the victims. All we've been shown is Mohammed Atta getting on a plane in MAINE - not Boston. [footnote] The passenger lists don't contain a single hijacker name [footnote]. Many of the named 'hijackers' are still alive [footnote (BBC TV)]. At least seven of them were trained on our OWN military bases! [definite footnote here]. And all of the 'pilots' Bush said did this were recent flight school graduates (didn't some of them flunk out??) -- way too inexperienced to carry off such a scheme -- especially the fancy fighter-jet maneuver just before hitting the Pentagon, a move even highly trained military pilots have said is EXTREMELY difficult. [footnote]. Why should we believe him? Bush's NSC Adviser said she and the President had 'no idea' planes could be used as weapons before 9-11 (footnote). If so, why was the military practicing THAT VERY MORNING what to do in case a civilian airliner crashed into a Tower? [footnote]. It doesn't add up. http://3d17.org/viewdocument/911911"

1/12/2004 2:59:09 PM

so wait, now a plane did hit the pentagon?

1/12/2004 3:05:45 PM

I never claimed a "plane" didn't hit the Pentagon. I have said the evidence shows that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

The website above is merely saying that it is highly unprobably that these "hijackers" flew a 757 in the manner that the object flew that hit the Pentagon. Apparantly, we know of the flight path of the "plane" or flying object that hit the Pentagon. It would have taken expert pilot skill to fly a 757 in that path and manner.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ..]

1/12/2004 3:15:21 PM

you have contradicted yourself many times in this thread

you are a worthless piece of Christian Shit.

1/12/2004 3:17:10 PM

Quote :

"you have contradicted yourself many times in this thread --nutsmackr"

Show me where I have contradicted myslef. Give me one example.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 3:18:51 PM

first you say pane didn't hit

then you say a plane did hit

I mean seriously, do you even read what you copy and paste?

1/12/2004 3:24:21 PM

The handling of the "investigations" into the attacks of 9-11 by the government shows that the government is trying to conceal evidence (and guilt), not attempting to let the evidence and truth come out.

Quote :

"...they carted off the remnants of the steel [from the WTC] before anyone could examine the evidence [footnote], and wouldn't let fire investigators near the site. [footnote] ...Bush tried to kill ANY investigation of 9/11 [footnote]. When courageous Victims' Families FORCED him to have one, he put a business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law -- Thomas Kean -- IN CHARGE of the 'Kean Commission'. Kean, a cousin of Bush, is not requiring testimony be under oath and is not calling the President or any other high level officials. How 'independent' is that? Bush then stonewalled it, withheld vital documents, and demanded censorship 'deals'. He's still doing it.[footnote] This Kean Commission SAYS it's investigating the 9-11 attacks, but it's NOT. It just takes Bush at his word, that it was Islamic terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks. It is simply investigating why we didn't protect ourselves better from these Islamic terrorists - even though we have no proof that it was Islamic terrorists in the first place! The Kean Commission is just like the Warren (JFK) Commission was, PART of the coverup. http://3d17.org/viewdocument/911911"

Examine these facts in the light of the fact that the FBI confiscated the security camera videos that captured the "plane" that hit the Pentagon from the gas station and Sheraton Hotel near the Pentagon after the attack. These videos have not been released to the public.

The clear pattern here is one of obstruction by the government into investingating the events of September 11, 2001.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ..]

1/12/2004 3:32:08 PM

Quote :

"first you say pane didn't hit then you say a plane did hit I mean seriously, do you even read what you copy and paste? nutsmackr"

Wrong. I have NOT said "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon."

Show me where I said that. It seems that you have either misunderstood what I have said or are misrepresenting what I have said.

I have said that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Finally, if I quoted someone else as saying that "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon"....that is not the same as me saying it. If you quote another person, that does not mean that you necessarily agree with every single thing that person said. It is obvious that I am quoting people on this thread that I agree with most times, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything they may have said in a given quotation (for instance, I may agree with the vast majority of the content in a certain quotation but disagree with part of it....but opt to include the part I disagree with rather than edit it out of the quotation).


[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 3:34:17 PM

Here's an interesting fact to consider:

Quote :

""The 2 million-square-foot building, 7 World Trade Center, had suffered mightily from the fire, and had been wounded by beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." -Chicago Tribune (11/09/01) http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7.html"

Quote :

"In the over one hundred year history of steel high-rises and skyscrapers there has never been a single one, which has collapsed due to fire. On September 11, 2001 there were three such structures, which fell, World Trade Center Buildings Numbers One, Two and Seven. http://www.911timeline.net/"

So, the question is....did fires alone really cause these 3 buildings to collapse?

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 10:43:45 PM

No, which your own site answered, and I quote:

Quote :

"7 World Trade Center, had suffered mightily from the fire, and had been wounded by beams falling off the towers."

Now granted, I'm no architect or structural engineer, but I would guess that steel beams falling from the hights of the twin towers would tend to do quite a bit of damage to the structural integrity of a building.

1/12/2004 10:52:22 PM

The website I referenced and you refer to (http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7.html) does not believe that any "falling beams" caused WTC 7 to collapse. And it does not believe that the fire in WTC 7 caused it to collapse. It suggests that the building was demolished by explosives.

The quote I referenced from the website is a quotation from an article in the Chicago Tribune. You hear me? It is from the Chicago Tribune. It may be the opinion of the Chicago Tribune that falling beams caused the collapse of WTC 7, but it is not the opinion of the author of the webiste. Read the website if you don't believe me.

Another source I read suggests that it is highly unlikely that beams from the North Tower (the closest tower to WTC 7) fell on WTC 7 because WTC 7 was located too far away from the North Tower. The twin towers collapsed straight down...substantial portions of the towers did not fall onto the surrounding buildings.

[Edited on January 12, 2004 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 11:27:34 PM

I dont' care what the author of the website agrees. Here's what we have:

FACT: According to the "experts" that Chicago Tribune got their info from, no building like WTC 7 ever collapsed from just an uncontrolled fire.

FACT: There is an exception to every rule, including this one.

FACT: Steel beams did wall from the twin towers, and did strike WTC 7 causing damage.

assumption: Given the hight the from which these beams fell, we can assume that they cause some considerable damage

assumption: There haven't been many uncontrolled fires in buildings like WTC 7

assumption: There has never been an uncontrolled fire under the same conditions that WTC 7 was under in a building like WTC 7

conclusion: WTC did not collapse from mere fire, but there is no evidence to suggest that explosive were what caused the collapse.

1/12/2004 11:41:41 PM

Quote :

"FACT: Steel beams did wall from the twin towers, and did strike WTC 7 causing damage."

I haven't seen any evidence that proves that beams from the twin towers did in fact strike WTC 7. They may have , but all I have seen that supports that claim is the statements of government officials.

There were several other buildings closer to the twin towers than WTC 7 that did not collapse. The only non-WTC building to collapse was a small Greek Church.

As shown here, http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7.html, a building beside of WTC 7 called the "Verizon Building" was apparantly hit with debris from the North tower. Yet, the Verizon Building did not collapse.

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2004 11:52:11 PM

Quote :

"I haven't seen any evidence that proves that beams from the twin towers did in fact strike WTC 7"

If you are going to trust the Tribune's sources that no building like WTC 7 has fallen due to fire, then it's only reasonable that you trust their sources that beams fell on WTC 7.

Quote :

"There were several other buildings closer to the twin towers than WTC 7 that did not collapse. Did these buildings have damage from falling debris from the towers? "

It's very likely they did (infact, I would say it's certain), but damage does not imply that it would collapse.

1/13/2004 12:00:28 AM

Quote :

"If you are going to trust the Tribune's sources that no building like WTC 7 has fallen due to fire, then it's only reasonable that you trust their sources that beams fell on WTC 7. "

Collapse due to fire or due to falling debris are not our only options. WTC 7 could have collapsed due to explosives placed in the building.

1/13/2004 12:10:00 AM

With the exception of the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that. There is evidence to suggest that a combination of fire and falling debris took the building down.

1/13/2004 12:13:18 AM

Yes there is evidence to suggest that explosives brought down WTC 7. First of all, it is of note that fires do not typically bring down modern steel high-rise buildings. Secondly, it is unlikely that any falling debris caused the collapse of WTC 7 because WTC 7 was too far away from the North Tower (the closest tower to WTC 7). If you look at video of the collapse of WTC 7 it looks like a building that is being brought down in a demolition.

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 12:21:23 AM

Quote :

"Secondly, it is unlikely that any falling debris caused the collapse of WTC 7 because WTC 7 was too far away from the North Tower (the closest tower to WTC 7). "

Why is it unlikely? Look at the very pictures on the site which you linked to:



Note the number of buildings that were damaged. Note in particular the ones with extreme structural damage, including the one next to WTC 7. Given this, how is it unlikely that WTC 7 suffered sever damage as well?

Quote :

"If you look at video of the collapse of WTC 7 it looks like a building that is being brought down in a demolition."

I looked at the video, and it looks to me like the center part of the building begins to collapse and is followed up by the rest of the building. Look at how int he controlled demolition, the roof on the building stays almost completely level untill it hits the ground. Then look at WTC 7 and notice how th eroof collapses inward at the center. Just because it has similarities to a comptrolled demolition does not mean it was one. Most buildings when they collapse do collapse in on themselves and within their confines. Very few of them topple over. Go watch some videos of fires.

1/13/2004 12:43:54 AM

Quote :

"I looked at the video, and it looks to me like the center part of the building begins to collapse and is followed up by the rest of the building."

I don't know if the center of the building collapses first in the collapse of WTC 7 or not (can't tell from the video I have seen). I read that WTC 7 was similar in design to the twin towers (it had its primary support collumns in the center of the building). If the building was brought down in a demolition, those central columns would have been weakened by explosives. That may explain why the center of the building collapses before the rest of the building.

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 12:57:13 AM

show me proof that wtc7 came down BEFORE the twin towers did

1/13/2004 4:28:24 AM

I have never said WTC 7 came down before the towers. WTC 7 came down around 5:20pm on September 11, 2001.

1/13/2004 9:53:41 AM

Two good websites related to exposing the truth about the events of 9/11/01:

1.

Quote :

"911review.org was set up by a group of academics and former academics living in Canada, that have been on the forefront of 9/11 research. The site was started on Sept. 11 of this year. In creating the site, we hope it will provide a succinct summary of the current research and conclusions, that can be used as a point of reference for people in the media or decision makers. ...On 911review.org, we collect and store for safekeeping all the documents we can find related to 9/11. Right now we have 50,000 web documents stored and full-text indexed, with thousands of images, and hundreds of video clips, all available to everyone on the Internet. ...It has become the number one site for 9/11 research on the Internet today. http://www.911review.org/"

2.

Quote :

"Physics911.org is an independent initiative which inter alia presents the work of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven. Applying scientific principles, SPINE aims to cast light on the true nature of the dramatic events of September 11th 2001. http://www.physics911.org/net/"

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 10:17:07 AM

On the Patriot Act:

Quote :

"The War on Freedom may have been the main goal of 9/11: Patriot Act magically appeared just days after the massacre, and was passed without even being read by a Congress Under Attack - by coincidence, the Democratic Senators who were opposing the rapid passage of the Patriot Act were amongst the targets of the Anthrax Attacks. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/911ReviewFaq.shtml"

The Patriot Act is a large document. No doubt, it would have taken considerable time to draft and write it. Yet, it was introduced in Congress just days after the attack. Is it not most likely that this document was drafted well before September 11, 2001?



[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 10:31:17 AM

We may never know the truth in time for justice to be had.

1/13/2004 10:41:20 AM

British Parliament member Michael Meacher wrote an article in the British press showing that 9-11 was a pretext for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This article has been ignored by the U.S. mass media.

Quote :

"Michael Meacher is a veteran Member of British Parliament having been elected to consecutive terms for more than 30 years. He was Minister of State for the Environment and Privy Counsellor in the Cabinet of Tony Blair. This September we wrote an influential article in the British press... in which he demonstrates that the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination. His conclusion is that: The "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/911ReviewFaq.shtml"

Here is the text of Meacher's article: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/BogusWarOnTerrorism.shtml

Quote :

"This article raised a firestorm in Europe when it was published (see Links below). In Canada, the USA and Australia, it was blacked-out by the media;"

This makes sense in light of the fact that Iraq has enormous oil reserves and Afghanistan is a strategic location for an oil pipeline.

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 12:10:21 PM

I don't agree with all of these, but here is a gallery of political cartoons: http://www.bushspeaks.com/gallery.asp?did=153

One sample:




[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 12:29:02 PM

Bush doesn't believe he has to answer to anyone apparantly:

Quote :

"I'm the commander, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.... ---George W. Bush http://argument.independent.co.uk/podium/story.jsp?story=353858"

This coincides nicely with the administrations' stance on the public's questions regarding the official government story on what happened on 9-11 (ie, their stonewalling of a true independent investigation).

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 12:36:06 PM

Perhaps you should get the whoe quote, the right quote and the context huh?

Quote :

"Woodward says the president told him that when he chairs a meeting he often tries to be provocative. When Woodward asked him if he tells his staff that he is purposely being provocative, Mr. Bush answered: "Of course not. I am the commander, see?" President Bush: "I do not need to explain why I say things. — That's the interesting thing about being the President. — Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/17/60minutes/main529657.shtml

Nore does he say he doesn't have to answer to anyone, just he doesn't have to explain why he says certain things to his cabinet. And he's right, he is the president, and he really doesn't have to explain to them why he tells them to do anything. Should he do that when they ask? Yes, but he doesn't have to.

As for the PATRIOT act, stuff like that has been kicking arround congress for years. After 9/11 it was probably all pooled together and slammed into one bill.

As for Mr. Mecher's article, if the war was about control of oil, why are we giving control of Iraq back to the Iraqis, why is Afganistan under UN control, and WHERE THE FUCK IS MY 50¢ GAS!!!

And if you're going to resort to internet "political cartoons" this thread is over.

1/13/2004 1:29:26 PM

Bush is stupid and has too much power. Will you re-elect him?

1/13/2004 3:05:00 PM

This thread is stupid and has too much power.

1/13/2004 3:44:51 PM

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight77.html

1/13/2004 3:56:54 PM

Quote :

"The press often act me, well, is this the -- is the evil one hiding from us in Afghanistan, the ones who have done this to America? I said, I don't know. ---George W. Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011026-9.html "

hmmmm

1/13/2004 10:30:16 PM

This is very interesting (includes videos of plane crashes and of the second "plane" that hit the WTC):

Quote :

"Real planes explode immediately on contact with a hard surface. This is one of those self-evident facts that was accepted without question pre-911. These crashes show exploding flames within two frames of contact with a solid object. They do not wait 45 frames like the Second Hit "Plane" managed to do. http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/crashflash/crashflash.htm"

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 10:53:25 PM

"plane" in, missile out?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/missileout.wmv

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/index.htm

1/13/2004 11:05:32 PM

Shockwave as tower collapsed?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/shockwave.wmv ---a video from a helicopter of the first tower that collapsed...suggesting a shockwave shook the helicopter

Quote :

"A collapsing building does not generate a shockwave - only explosive in a building will do that. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Grable,Rosalee.shtml"

[Edited on January 13, 2004 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2004 11:20:52 PM

Quote :

"In this picture by Daryl Donley taken minutes after the attack at the Pentagon, the intense fireball is seen as coming from inside the building, and no wreckage of an airline crash is apparent. The light-grey smoke is indicative of a DU warhead strike, and not jet fuel. ...The first photos of the Pentagon Attack Fire show it's too hot to be a kerosene fire. ...The Pentagon Attack Damage to the interior is too deep and too collimated to be from the liquid fuel of an airliner. Only a shaped-charge warhead can cut a circular hole in a wall after going through 3 m. of poured concrete. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttack.shtml"

1/13/2004 11:28:17 PM

Quote :

"hmmmm"

hmm what?

Quote :

""Real planes explode immediately on contact with a hard surface. This is one of those self-evident facts that was accepted without question pre-911. These crashes show exploding flames within two frames of contact with a solid object. They do not wait 45 frames like the Second Hit "Plane" managed to do. "

Real planes do not explode immediately on contact with hard surfaces, especialy mass transport aircraft are built to be as survivable as possible. You want people to be able to walk away from a crash if at all possible. They explode immediately if the fuel tank and engine is ruptured and the fuel ignites, otherwise, it may take a few moments. And I don't know what video that site is watching but I count 10 frames before I start seeing an explosion. Just because you don't see the flames outside the building doesn't mean something hasn't exploded.

Quote :

""plane" in, missile out?"

No, plane in nose out, look at the still frames.

Quote :

"-a video from a helicopter of the first tower that collapsed...suggesting a shockwave shook the helicopter "

I see no evidence of a shockwave anywhere in all the falling dust and debris, what I do see is a cameraman shaking the camera, and the helicopter shaking a bit, which seems more likely explained by turbulance, given that it was a decent ammount of wind that day.

Quote :

"In this picture by Daryl Donley taken minutes after the attack at the Pentagon, the intense fireball is seen as coming from inside the building, and no wreckage of an airline crash is apparent."

No wreckage huh? What does he call the shit all over the lawn? A tea party?

Quote :

"The light-grey smoke is indicative of a DU warhead strike, and not jet fuel. "

And the (more abundant) black smoke is indicative of a petrol fire, like for example, jet fuel. BTW, grey smoke is indicative of a lot of fires, including paper and wood products (of which I'm sure there was quite a bit in the pentagon)

Quote :

"The Pentagon Attack Damage to the interior is too deep and too collimated to be from the liquid fuel of an airliner. Only a shaped-charge warhead can cut a circular hole in a wall after going through 3 m. of poured concrete. "

And what sort of expert is he to know the type of damage created by a jet eploding? And remember, fire damage isnt' the only thing, as explosions tend to send objects flying which then act as projectiles.

1/14/2004 1:53:24 AM

I see nothing out of the ordinary in the pic.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 4:31 AM. Reason : ss]

1/14/2004 4:30:17 AM

Quote :

"There are 8 foot tall cable spools for fiber optics that were just in front of the point of impact: they weren't even knocked over! http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDebris.shtml "

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 9:52 AM. Reason : ..]

1/14/2004 9:51:30 AM

Quote :

"No wreckage huh? What does he call the shit all over the lawn? A tea party? --1337 b4k4"

Sure, there is some debris on the lawn, but not very much...certainly not enough debris to be that of a 100 ton Boeing 757.

Quote :

"There is some debris from an aircraft, but nothing like what the crash of an airliner. --The original Pentagon press conferences said there was no significant sized debris from an airliner. --There is insufficient debris on the lawn of the Pentagon for it to have been the crash of a Boeing 757. --The upright cable spools are independent proof in their own right that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. --The debris is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757. --The debris is consistent with the crash of a small jet aircraft, or possibly an unmanned AV if it were capable of launching a "bunker-buster" missile. --At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris. --The sole piece of crash debris purporting to be from a Boeing 757 was probably planted as it comes from the wrong side of the plane. --Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDebris.shtml"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 9:56:21 AM

^ they look fairly fucked up to me

1/14/2004 9:56:25 AM

Sure they are blackened from the explosion, but they are not turned over. They were standing upright like that before the "plane" hit and they remain as they were after the "plane" hit. If a 757 had really hit, it would have impacted those spools and turned them over or driven them into the building.

1/14/2004 9:58:38 AM

dude, youre a fucking idiot, youre not convincing anyone, nor is your flood of 'information' changing anyones mind.

Get a fucking life.

1/14/2004 10:02:25 AM

Quote :

"dude, youre a fucking idiot, youre not convincing anyone, nor is your flood of 'information' changing anyones mind. --Lokken"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 10:03:52 AM

Quote :

"Also worrying is that some of the photos of the debris removal work at the Pentagon long after the attack indicate that they are taking against contamination, perhaps because of the presence of Depleted Uranium. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDebris.shtml "

Quote :

"Kerosene fires do not burn hot. Only high explosive and shaped charges generate huge amount of heat, and depleted uranium (DU) is a incendiary that is added to warheads to increase their penetrating ability. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/DepletedUranium.shtml"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 10:07:28 AM