"Capt. Rob" wrote:

Show a link to the CEO of Boeing making that statment Robert.
Never happened.

Sorry, Joe. I already posted a link to the Loose Change video, which
you can watch for free. It has comments from Boeing and also Rolls, who
said the engine found was not from a 757. Watch it and then comment.
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonPlaneRotor.shtml

Joe, I don't have the answers, but why do you believe your government
and mainstream media in the face of so much evidence?

RB
35s5
NY

Could you tell me how a plane can make more landings than takeoffs, (ten
takeoffs, fourteen landings)?

Cheers
Marty

I think we need to keep an open mind... no not about Robert... :-) I don't
think there's any doubt that two planes hit the towers, but there is doubt
about what caused the towers to collapse. I have serious doubts about what
hit the pentagon. There are two many inconsistencies to just dismiss them
out of hand. We shall see.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Following the collapse of the WTC, nothing of the crew, planes or much
else is found intact. Yet a passport of one of the terrorists shows up
magically lying amidst the rubble. The passport looks undamaged. Uh
huh.

I guiess no one can explain where the plane that hit the Pentagon went.
You might want to look into Boeing's CEO who said that the recovered
engine parts weren't even from a 757. This was published in the
Washington Post. The 757 punched small neat holes through the pentagon,
which is not consistant with a 757 hitting a building and loaded with
fuel.

Shortly after 9/11, when a plane crashed here in NY in Rockaway, every
newsfeed had interviews with witnesses saying they saw the plane on
fire prior to the crash. A few hours later these interviews were cut
and the official cause of the crash was deemed pilot error. That was
done before ANY study of the wreckage was made. Uh, okay, except it was
my job to monitor those newsfeeds on that day.

Bubbles, you are totally, completely nuts.

Max

Bob Crantz wrote:
"katy" wrote in

God, I hope that's true....ever been in a bathroom at a 7-11? Rank...

You realize that at the end of the movie Babs Johnson and her family move
into a gas station restroom in Boise, Idaho.


Yes...but it was not a 7-11.....

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bubbles, you are totally, completely nuts.


You can keep saying that, but it really doesn't answer any questions
about the Pentagon, noow does it.
Where is the plane?

Oh, and witnesses claimed that the plane disintegrated on impact.
Problem: No witness actually ever said that. It was something released
to the press.
Number of planes that disintegrated on impact: 0

It was also released to the press that the impact from the 757 took out
two floors. But the hole is only 16 feet wide and windows on the second
floor remain intact.

Sorry, Maxi....when the head of Boeing questions the crash, I take
notice.

I don't know where you're getting your info, but an airliner did hit the
pentagon. I saw films of it today on TV and there is little doubt about
what impacted the building.

Your hatred of Bush and anything to do with this administration has caused
you to put blinders on, Bubbles. You'll believe anything that discredits
the current government, even if the "evidence" you cite is far-fetched and
downright erroneous. The left wing is pulling out the stops in order to
slam the Bush administration, and some folks--you--are gullible enough to
buy into it. Ergo, you're nuts.

Conspiracies make great Hollywood movies, but reality is seldom so insidious
or fascinating.

If you really believe our government is so devious and dishonest, why do you
remain in this country? Certainly the black helicopters are going to come
looking for you any day now.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think we need to keep an open mind... no not about Robert... :-) I don't
think there's any doubt that two planes hit the towers, but there is doubt
about what caused the towers to collapse. I have serious doubts about what
hit the pentagon. There are two many inconsistencies to just dismiss them
out of hand. We shall see.

You, too, are nuts.

Max

Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think we need to keep an open mind... no not about Robert... :-) I don't
think there's any doubt that two planes hit the towers, but there is doubt
about what caused the towers to collapse. I have serious doubts about what
hit the pentagon. There are two many inconsistencies to just dismiss them
out of hand. We shall see.

You, too, are nuts.

Max

You'll believe anything that discredits
the current government, even if the "evidence" you cite is far-fetched
and
downright erroneous. The left wing is pulling out the stops in order
to
slam the Bush administration, and some folks--you--are gullible enough
to
buy into it. Ergo, you're nuts.


I seriously doubt Bush has anything to do with any possible conspiracy,
but the sad fact is that any such talk drives the narrow minded to
assume that it's an attack on a republican or democrat. Still worse, I
find it quite funny that you made suce an assumption or any belief that
Bush is a republican or conservative. Bush has his own party and he has
nothing to do with republican values.

If you really believe our government is so devious and dishonest,
why do you
remain in this country?


Good lord, Maxi. Are you 18 years old?


RB
35s5
NY

Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?


Yep, Maxi thinks it's a specific attack on Bush somehow. I guess this
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think we need to keep an open mind... no not about Robert... :-) I
don't think there's any doubt that two planes hit the towers, but there
is doubt about what caused the towers to collapse. I have serious doubts
about what hit the pentagon. There are two many inconsistencies to just
dismiss them out of hand. We shall see.

You, too, are nuts.

Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?

Not at all. But there is something seriously wrong with being so
anti-something that you're willing to jump into bed with any half-baked
conspiracy theory that comes along to discredit it.

Healthy skepticism is the backbone of science. There's nothing healthy
about this left-wing conspiracy BS. This is the same sort of crap that the
black helicopter, tri-lateralist, ultra right-wing militia types engaged in
during the Clinton administration. Fanaticism, pure and simple, with no
basis in reality.

Consider this: we all saw the second airliner hit Tower number two. And
later we saw the film of the first plane hitting Tower number one. And
based on the info we now have, we can safely conclude that this was, indeed,
an al Qaeda act of terrorism against the USA. And we can also safely
conclude that it happened virtually without warning. (This is not to say
that signals weren't ignored--they were, but the attack itself was not
expected at that particular time on 9/11/01.) We also know that four
airliners are now gone, along with their passengers and crew. And we also
know that something hit the Pentagon--something with a huge amount of fuel
onboard. Yesterday we saw films of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it
clearly looks like an airliner. So what other theory of what hit the
Pentagon will possibly hold water? A missile? Fired at what, and by whom?
An F16 fighter--why would the Pentagon deny that? **** happens, and flying
fighters is no picnic on the beach, especially when scrambled. The military
branches have all been absolutely forthcoming when dealing with aircraft
accidents. So why would they lie? And how would they get everyone else to
go along with such a lie in such short order, especially when the country is
in disarray following and unexpected attack of the magnitude of 9/11?

What is your theory of what happened to the Pentagon, and upon what do you
base that theory? Simply being skeptical isn't enough--you've got to have
an explanation to support an alternative to what the government is claiming.
Are you simply believing something because you *want* to believe it, or do
you have some solid evidence upon which to hypothesize such a belief? So
far Bubbles hasn't come up with anything beyond paranoid conjecture.

Max

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?


Yep, Maxi thinks it's a specific attack on Bush somehow. I guess this
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong. And nuts.

Max