You've Got to Get Mad
 

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.


RB
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

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.


RB
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

Airliner debris http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

punch a small hole? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pentagon.jpg

Robs fallen for a French who

Origins: The
notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked
American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the
military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the
U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan
in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation
for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only
that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and
that "the American government is lying."

Read all about it and see the pictures.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Show a link to the CEO of Boeing making that statment Robert.
Never happened. You are dumber than dirt to fall for such bull****
Mysterry.

You should be ashamed to call yourself a NY'er.

Capt Suzy
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

I believe and respect the efforts of the victims familys.
They know all to well what really happened.

Capt. Suzy
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

Ponder this


Warning From Pakistan today

This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of
Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military
action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut off America's
supply of convenience store managers. And if this action does not yield
sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by Dell customer
service reps.

It's getting ugly

Capt. Suzy
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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 de plane?

Calm down Tattoo, it's coming.

You've Got to Get Mad
 

SUZY wrote:
Ponder this


Warning From Pakistan today

This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of
Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military
action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut off America's
supply of convenience store managers. And if this action does not yield
sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by Dell customer
service reps.

It's getting ugly

Capt. Suzy
35s5
NY

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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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.

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

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.....

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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've Got to Get Mad
 

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've Got to Get Mad
 

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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

LOL!!! What would you know about republican values? Bush has varied from
conservative values of late, and that has cost him his own base. And it
will probably cost the GOP both the House and Senate this fall. He's a
stupid man, blatantly beholden to special interests (read: those who put
him in office with their checkbooks) rather than to those who voted for him,
all at the cost of his party and his honor.

Ask yourself this: if Gore or Kerry were POTUS, would you be so quick to
get in bed with such left-wing, half-baked conspiracy theories about what
happened to the Pentagon? As Jimmy Buffet said, I think the cosmic bakers
took you out of the oven a bit prematurely.

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?

That's an answer to my question? Since you seem to have a comprehension
problem, I'll rephrase it: If you believe our government is really no
better than the lying, treacherous Communist governments of the former
Soviet Union and its satellites, why do you remain here? Aren't you in fear
for your life? If a government can accomplish a conspiracy of the magnitude
you describe, what prevents them from eliminating dissidents--like you--at
will? Have you listened for black helicopters hovering overhead lately.
Have you checked the fuel lines or the propane system on your boat lately?

We'll miss you, Bubbles. G
Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

I seriously doubt Bush has anything to do with any possible conspiracy,

Really? Ya think?

Gosh, if *I* were conspiring to keep a historically
important deadly secret, I'd really want to bring in a guy
who's not very bright and who has speech problems...
especially if he's a public figure with a huge spotlight on
him every day.

.... Bush has his own party and he has
nothing to do with republican values.


Maxprop wrote:
LOL!!! What would you know about republican values?

"Win at all costs."
"Money trumps morality."
"Democrats are the enemy."

... Bush has varied from
conservative values of late

???

Bush was never a conservative. If you think that he ever
was, then you really weren't paying attention.

... And it
will probably cost the GOP both the House and Senate this fall.

Possible, but not really probably.

... He's a
stupid man, blatantly beholden to special interests (read: those who put
him in office with their checkbooks) rather than to those who voted for him,
all at the cost of his party and his honor.

In this day & time, *every* politician is beholden to
special interests. There are more lobbyists than there are
legislators & their staff... lobbying has been the nation's
biggest 'growth industry' and that's our biggest economic
problem IMHO.



Ask yourself this: if Gore or Kerry were POTUS, would you be so quick to
get in bed with such left-wing, half-baked conspiracy theories about what
happened to the Pentagon?

Your insistence that any questioning is a partisan-motivated
attack on President Bush really tells a lot about you.

If Gore had taken office in 2000, or if McCain had been
elected, the history of the last five years would have been
VERY different... and much better for the U.S. I believe.



.... If you believe our government is really no
better than the lying, treacherous Communist governments of the former
Soviet Union and its satellites, why do you remain here?

Oh, I believe that our current government is lying &
treacherous, but still slightly better than those... and I
agree with you that it's due for a change.

DSK

You've Got to Get Mad
 

also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong.


Oh really? Can you show us ANY poll showing Bush approval rating that
could, in ANY way hint that republicans are happy with Bush?


RB
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

Yesterday we saw films of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it
clearly looks like an airliner.


What???? It doesn't look like anything. It's very small. No one
anywhere (except you!) said it looks like anything but a small white
blur. Meanwhile the damage and wreckage are not consistant with a crash
of this type and that's according to a LOT of experts and pilots. Maxi,
if you do some real research you'll see that quite a few people (with
far greater understanding of jet crashes) have some very serious doubts
about the Pentagon hit. This has nothing to do with laying blame since
we can't even be sure of exactly what happened. But it seems rather
doubtful to anyone with eyes that a 757 hit the pentagon. Where is the
757? Where are the passengers? All good questions. But that doesn't
make the doubts into nonsense. Most witnesses saw NO 757 hit the
Pentagon, describing a missile or small plane instead. The damage to
the Pentagon makes no sense at all, since it's impact point is much
smaller than a 757. The lack of wreckage is also a factor, some of
which did not match the 757 according to Rolls and Boeing.

RB
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3868860.html

They say it's the plane.

Your local newspaper says

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/68649.htm
'CONSPIRACY' GROUNDED

May 17, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Horrific videos of the 9/11 airline attack
on the Pentagon were officially released by the Justice Department
yesterday in a move to quiet conspiracy theories that the military
brass faked the atrocity.
Two graphic tapes, taken from Pentagon security cameras, were released
under the Freedom of Information Act to Judicial Watch, showing
American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

The jerky and grainy tapes, which were produced in half-second
increments, show a long white blur speeding toward the Pentagon.

Then a huge fireball erupts followed by a massive plume of gray smoke.


"This ought to put to rest the conspiracy theories out there that
American Airlines Flight 77 was shot down and that a missile hit the
Pentagon," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told The Post.

The attack killed 125 military and civilian people inside the Pentagon
along with 53 passengers and five terrorists.

Washinton Post
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1748-1168r.htm

"Video dispels conspiracy"

NY1 News

"The Defense Department has released images on the attack at the
Pentagon from the morning of September 11, 2001.

A Pentagon security camera captured the images of American Airlines
Flight 77 crashing into the building on 9/11.

The video was released after the group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom
of Information Act. The president of the group says they believe it's
important to "complete the public record" on the September 11th
attacks.

The video has already been circulated on the Internet.

The Pentagon attack killed 184 people inside the building and on the
plane. "

And you claim to be a media monitor?

Joe

You've Got to Get Mad
 

Max, I don't think that at all. But, there's nothing wrong with being a
skeptic. Something isn't quite right about the events as described.

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

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

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

I'm not so anti Bush as you think. I think he's a stupid person with no real
sense of right and wrong. That said, I like his position on immigration.

It's not totally clear what hit the Pentagon. I would still like to see some
questions answered, questions that are being ignored.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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

You've Got to Get Mad
 

Suzy posted this :

Read all about it and see the pictures.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

What else would you like to know?

Joe

You've Got to Get Mad
 

The CIA reported finding many Whitworth fasteners strewn about the
wreckage. The FBI concluded that it was a BSA 440 that rocketed into
the Pentagon.

BBob

You've Got to Get Mad
 

Where are the huge engines?

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Suzy posted this :

Read all about it and see the pictures.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

What else would you like to know?

Joe

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong.


Oh really? Can you show us ANY poll showing Bush approval rating that
could, in ANY way hint that republicans are happy with Bush?

About half the GOP still likes the guy, for whatever reason I can't fathom.
And about half aren't pleased with him. That isn't "most."

You're also wrong about my opinion of Bush.

In other words: wrong on all counts.

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Binary Bill" wrote in message
ups.com...
The CIA reported finding many Whitworth fasteners strewn about the
wreckage. The FBI concluded that it was a BSA 440 that rocketed into
the Pentagon.

LOL.

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yesterday we saw films of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it
clearly looks like an airliner.


What???? It doesn't look like anything. It's very small. No one
anywhere (except you!) said it looks like anything but a small white
blur. Meanwhile the damage and wreckage are not consistant with a crash
of this type and that's according to a LOT of experts and pilots. Maxi,
if you do some real research you'll see that quite a few people (with
far greater understanding of jet crashes) have some very serious doubts
about the Pentagon hit. This has nothing to do with laying blame since
we can't even be sure of exactly what happened. But it seems rather
doubtful to anyone with eyes that a 757 hit the pentagon. Where is the
757? Where are the passengers? All good questions. But that doesn't
make the doubts into nonsense. Most witnesses saw NO 757 hit the
Pentagon, describing a missile or small plane instead. The damage to
the Pentagon makes no sense at all, since it's impact point is much
smaller than a 757. The lack of wreckage is also a factor, some of
which did not match the 757 according to Rolls and Boeing.

So what happened to the fourth airliner--the one that was tracked by ATC all
the way to Washington whereupon it disappeared from radar?

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

What???? It doesn't look like anything. It's very small. No one
anywhere (except you!) said it looks like anything but a small white
blur.
snip
Most witnesses saw NO 757 hit the
Pentagon, describing a missile or small plane instead.

Easily explained. While watching a spot on the track at the last Indy 500 I
attended--about 20 years ago--I was impressed with the fact that when cars
entered and exited my field of view, I could not discern any features of the
vehicle other than a very brief, colorful blur. Those cars were doing
around 225mph at that point.

Now take an airliner, seen from a distance which might make it appear about
the same size relative to the observer as the cars I watched, but increase
the speed to double that number: 550mph. It's not possible to see the
airliner beyond a similar, if faster, blur if one is gazing straight ahead.
Eyewitnesses, unless they watched the airliner descend from the sky and
proceed into the building, would not be able to discern what they'd just
seen.

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I'm not so anti Bush as you think. I think he's a stupid person with no
real sense of right and wrong. That said, I like his position on
immigration.

I don't.

It's not totally clear what hit the Pentagon. I would still like to see
some questions answered, questions that are being ignored.

The overriding question I'd like the skeptics to answer is: what happened
to the fourth airliner that descended into Washington and disappeared from
the radar screens and ceased to exist? There is only one possible answer:
it collided with the Pentagon.

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

The overriding question I'd like the skeptics to answer is: what
happened
to the fourth airliner that descended into Washington and disappeared
from
the radar screens and ceased to exist? There is only one possible
answer:
it collided with the Pentagon.


Is that the only possible answer? I can think of many, some improbable,
but no less so than what was reported.

RB
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:22:18 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong.


Oh really? Can you show us ANY poll showing Bush approval rating that
could, in ANY way hint that republicans are happy with Bush?

About half the GOP still likes the guy, for whatever reason I can't
fathom.

Cites, please.

Bush's approval rating fell from 38 to 35% in the last poll, following his
immigration speech. Statistically conservatives comprise about 42% of the
general voting-age population of this country. If 35% of the people polled
still approve of the guy, and that poll is representative of the general
population, it could logically be reasoned that more than half the
republicans (or at least conservatives) still like him. It's a sure bet
that democrats or liberals don't like him, and it's my suspicion that very
few middle-of-the-road types like him either.

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
The overriding question I'd like the skeptics to answer is: what
happened
to the fourth airliner that descended into Washington and disappeared
from
the radar screens and ceased to exist? There is only one possible
answer:
it collided with the Pentagon.


Is that the only possible answer? I can think of many, some improbable,
but no less so than what was reported.

*Most* improbable, I think. But for the record, let's hear a few.

Max

You've Got to Get Mad
 

, it could logically be reasoned that more than half the
republicans (or at least conservatives) still like him.


100% since 20% of such polls are commonly comprised of votes that are
party based. That means that Bush gets quite a few positive votes from
people who don't like him as president. They just vote the party.
Bush may end up as one of the worst presidents in history and I'm not a
democrat by the way. Shame on anyone who was dumb enough to vote for
Bush twice...or even once.


RB
35s5
NY

You've Got to Get Mad
 

I heard the poll numbers were in the low 30s... 32, 33. Worst in 25 years.
Bad news for the US, since it's even worse overseas.

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

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

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:22:18 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
roups.com...
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong.


Oh really? Can you show us ANY poll showing Bush approval rating that
could, in ANY way hint that republicans are happy with Bush?

About half the GOP still likes the guy, for whatever reason I can't
fathom.

Cites, please.

Bush's approval rating fell from 38 to 35% in the last poll, following his
immigration speech. Statistically conservatives comprise about 42% of the
general voting-age population of this country. If 35% of the people
polled still approve of the guy, and that poll is representative of the
general population, it could logically be reasoned that more than half the
republicans (or at least conservatives) still like him. It's a sure bet
that democrats or liberals don't like him, and it's my suspicion that very
few middle-of-the-road types like him either.

Max