Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse

[Triumph36]

You're insane.

How do you know these pictures are from the crash sites at all? Not to mention that you seem to be representing the cocksure side of the Russell quote you needlessly employed.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know these pictures are from the crash sites at all?

[/ QUOTE ] are you serious?

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're insane.

How do you know these pictures are from the crash sites at all? Not to mention that you seem to be representing the cocksure side of the Russell quote you needlessly employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you're insane. You're a stupid butthead. My dad could beat your dad up...etc... In other words, insults will get you nothing but self-gratification.

With reference to the pictures, one of them is obviously computer edited... that plane is superimposed if youd didn't know. The other one is from a civilian. Two other civilians also got pre-collapse pictures, and actually the whole nation got to see the video footage of before the collapse on national television. You can watch that if you buy probably any 9/11 documentary.

And no, I'm not cocksure in the way that that quote describes. I question everything and I'm open-minded - two traits that many people lack. This is why you don't see me getting mad and acting stubborn and calling people names like some of the other posters. I merely relay evidence the best I can.

[Cumulonimbus]

BTW, I advice everybody to go HERE and download 911 In Plane Site. It is very compelling and fact-based without bias. The other videos are also pretty good, but Plane Site is a must.

[wacki]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

btw, aluminim burns......

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

btw, aluminim burns......

[/ QUOTE ]

Problems with that article...

"the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building"

The grass was not damaged at all. No impact damage, no burns, nothing. That fact alone basically dislodges this whole theory.


"You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon."

OK look at the picture I posted of before the collapse. Wouldn't there be a shape of plane's impact... in other words, wouldn't you see where the wings impacted or the tail section impacted? There's only two scenarios regarding the wings: they either fell off upon impact or destroyed the outer wall, leaving "wing holes" in the building. Well, they didn't fall off, because we could see them if they did. There was no wing holes left either. As you can see, the only hole is about 20 feet wide. Can a 757 fit into a 20 foot wide hole and leave no debris? Let's even assume the wings burnt up. What about the two engines on the wings? Where are they? They wouldn't burn up, and they're large enough to where they'd be visible in the video and the pictures.

"As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane."

Again, wings can't fit through a 20 foot hole.

"In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck."


I love this. I don't know why the author didn't use a clearer picture, because there are pictures without the water and steam blocking the view. Again, where's the damage that the huge tail section would do? Would it break off and magially get pulled in with the wings - which also broke off, but magically did no damage? \

Are we to believe that two wings, two engines and a tail all broke off and all were pulled in through a 20 foot hole without any exterior damage from the impact except for the initial hole? I mean look - when the tail would hit the white area, it would break the windows. THE WINDOWS ARE COMPLETELY INTACT. Come on, use a little of your own logic and quit trusting in other people's arguments.

I wish I could upload the video of the pre-collapse footage - you'd laugh if you saw how absurd the idea is that a 757 caused it.

Like I said before, just watch 911 In Plane Site. Download it or buy it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I watched the movie. It is interesting to say the least, and I agree it came across as unbiased.

[Cumulonimbus]

That's good, I hope everybody follows your lead. Checkout 911wasalie.com, infowars.com, and thepowerhour.com for additional info, because there's a lot of stuff that wasn't in the video (like the fact that Silverstein, the owner of WTC, took out a huge insurance policy right before 9/11, and ended up making over $900 million, that's $500 million in profit.)

[ThaSaltCracka]

the brief part about the OK city bombing was completely new to me as well.

[Cumulonimbus]

Here's the hole made by the 757 *cough* cruise missile. Try and refute it.