We're moving forward and onward bobby,

This investigation is not linear and there are no rules to free speech. We are doing well.

So it's hit and run then? Hit us with a bizarre theory and run away when it starts to fall apart, but then in two years hope we've forgotten so you can do the same thing over? Forward? Call it what it is, side stepping.

Sorry bobby but the conversation has taken a turn,

Where are the planes?

Sometimes things get boring so I present things I think are interesting to people, and myself at that moment. I'll get back to the rest when it motivates me. You can attack me for it but I won't be able to make you happy right now. In the mean time we're having a conversation and your kinda ruining it for us.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I'm confused.

I'm not confused... ;)
.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

We're moving forward and onward bobby,

This investigation is not linear and there are no rules to free speech. We are doing well.

So it's hit and run then? Hit us with a bizarre theory and run away when it starts to fall apart, but then in two years hope we've forgotten so you can do the same thing over? Forward? Call it what it is, side stepping.

Sorry bobby but the conversation has taken a turn,

Where are the planes?

Sometimes things get boring so I present things I think are interesting to people, and myself at that moment. I'll get back to the rest when it motivates me. You can attack me for it but I won't be able to make you happy right now. In the mean time we're having a conversation and your kinda ruining it for us.

Just so long as I understand the rules, none when it comes to your assertion of "no rules to free speech", or requesting further details from me, but you may choose to move the discussion at tangents whenever you please overlooking that prior to your doing so others had requested further information. When I ask for answers it's "boring" and ruins it for others, when you do it's "interesting". My apologies, perhaps that comes from entering into a debate with an "expert" (though I make no claim to be).

If I don't answer a question it's called side stepping, when you don't it's moving the conversation forward, maybe Jeffrey is right and we are living in an Orwellian world of doublespeak. Pity that the masters of this new language are the ones trying to show us the "Truth".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Fickle,

Your obviously not going anywhere and I'm not here to please or be directed by you. This is a civilian discussion and bound by no rules. It's course is it's own and will not be side tracked on command.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Fickle,

Your obviously not going anywhere and I'm not here to please or be directed by you. This is a civilian discussion and bound by no rules. It's course is it's own and will not be side tracked on command.

In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, you can't make this stuff up, folks.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Where are the planes?

Simple question for those hard set on the "official" story.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

maybe Jeffrey is right and we are living in an Orwellian world of doublespeak.

Two + Two = Five ... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

maybe Jeffrey is right and we are living in an Orwellian world of doublespeak.

Two + Two = Five ... ;)

Nice one Jeffrey!


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Where are the planes?

I told you: Two were shattered to bits as they flew into the World Trade Center. One was destroyed as it cratered into a field, the other was destroyed as it smashed into a bomb-resistant, reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows.

Simple question for those hard set on the "official" story.

And the answer is so simple that even those with reading comprehension problems can figure it out.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Sorry Rush but planes don't lose all their mass when they crash,

They spread it. They want us to believe fuel fires caused the towers to fall but the plane that crashed into the field didn't even leave a camp fire?

In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, "You can't make this stuff up, folks."

Or can you?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Sorry Rush but planes don't lose all their mass when they crash,

No one said they did lose all their mass because they didn't. The planes, as a result of deliberate and intentional destruction, suffered catastrophic disassembly, i.e., they were shattered something like glass.

You have to remember, these four planes didn't just crash. They didn't have the benefit of the cockpit crew fighting like hell to save it, and by extension themselves and the passengers. Au contraire, these four planes had idiots using as much speed and power as the plane could muster in order to compound the damage and destruction as much as possible. For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall.

Why is it any surprise that planes that were intentionally destroyed in such ways are broken into much smaller pieces than usual? I mean, look at that Swissair(?) MD-11 that crashed into the ocean in 1997(?). Those pilots were trying to save it and all it hit was water, and it was STILL virtually shattered.

They spread it. They want us to believe fuel fires caused the towers to fall but the plane that crashed into the field didn't even leave a camp fire?

Wow, you mean thousands of pounds of JP(4?) concentrated in a relatively small area inside a building full of flammable debris will do significantly more damage than that same amount of fuel blown out and diluted over who knows how much open field?

Why is that any surprise?

In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, "You can't make this stuff up, folks."

Or can you?

I don't know if you are making it up, but it is interesting watching you stumble around to find a theory.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

planes has flown to the mountains and they have been in much bigger pieces,
i don´t know or care what happened in pentagon or field somewhere, but aluminium
does not shatter like glass.

No one said they did lose all their mass because they didn't. The planes, as a result of deliberate and intentional destruction, suffered catastrophic disassembly, i.e., they were shattered something like glass.

No "glass" in the impact crater?

You have to remember, these four planes didn't just crash. They didn't have the benefit of the cockpit crew fighting like hell to save it, and by extension themselves and the passengers. Au contraire, these four planes had idiots using as much speed and power as the plane could muster in order to compound the damage and destruction as much as possible.

Same with the supposed vertical dive into the field. Yet no fuel residue or burn mark?

For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall.

Show us the video.

Why is it any surprise that planes that were intentionally destroyed in such ways are broken into much smaller pieces than usual? I mean, look at that Swissair(?) MD-11 that crashed into the ocean in 1997(?). Those pilots were trying to save it and all it hit was water, and it was STILL virtually shattered.

Your rusty on your fluid dynamics. But do you mean this crash into the Atlantic?

Swissair MD-11 111







They had enough to make a jig saw puzzle left and retrieved the pieces from the ocean?

Wow, you mean thousands of pounds of JP(4?) concentrated in a relatively small area inside a building full of flammable debris will do significantly more damage than that same amount of fuel blown out and diluted over who knows how much open field?

Why is that any surprise?

Burning fuel diluting? And leaving no evidence of fire? No bodies? No chairs? No polymers?

I don't know if you are making it up, but it is interesting watching you stumble around to find a theory.

I'm examining the "official" story. If it looks made up... it not my fault.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

No one said they did lose all their mass because they didn't. The planes, as a result of deliberate and intentional destruction, suffered catastrophic disassembly, i.e., they were shattered something like glass.

No "glass" in the impact crater?

No, read carefully. "...shattered something like glass." It's a simile as evidenced by the word "like."

You have to remember, these four planes didn't just crash. They didn't have the benefit of the cockpit crew fighting like hell to save it, and by extension themselves and the passengers. Au contraire, these four planes had idiots using as much speed and power as the plane could muster in order to compound the damage and destruction as much as possible.

Same with the supposed vertical dive into the field. Yet no fuel residue or burn mark?

I'm sure there was fuel residue all over the place. I don't know how much burn there was or wasn't.

For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall.

Show us the video.

Jeebus. It doesn't get any easier than this. First hit on Google. The narrator notes it "atomizes."

Why is it any surprise that planes that were intentionally destroyed in such ways are broken into much smaller pieces than usual? I mean, look at that Swissair(?) MD-11 that crashed into the ocean in 1997(?). Those pilots were trying to save it and all it hit was water, and it was STILL virtually shattered.

Your rusty on your fluid dynamics.

No, I was making the point that the plane hit WATER, and NOT concrete, and it STILL shattered.

But do you mean this crash into the Atlantic?

They had enough to make a jig saw puzzle left and retrieved the pieces from the ocean?

Sure, because, like I said, the pilots were fighting like hell to SAVE the plane, not trying like hell to do as much damage as possible.

Here: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w19980902.htm is a pic of the cockpit, note that those pieces were shattered into bits.

Wow, you mean thousands of pounds of JP(4?) concentrated in a relatively small area inside a building full of flammable debris will do significantly more damage than that same amount of fuel blown out and diluted over who knows how much open field?

[quote][quote]Why is that any surprise?

Burning fuel diluting? And leaving no evidence of fire? No bodies? No chairs? No polymers?

Sure. Look here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html. No evidence of fire, bodies, chairs at a number of those sites.

Notice, some of those planes are PULVERIZED even though their pilots were doing all that they could to save them. Is it any stretch that the damage to the planes (bodies, seats, "polymers" (heh)) is substantially greater when the pilot is doing all that he can to DESTROY the plane?

I don't know if you are making it up, but it is interesting watching you stumble around to find a theory.

I'm examining the "official" story. If it looks made up, it's not made up by me.

Like I said, it is funny to watch.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Wow...

Causing confusion is your middle name.

Note the quotes I responded to and what they were referring to. After all... you made them...


I meant show us one of the 80 something videos the FBI confiscated and round filed of the "plane" hitting the 'Pentagon'. Your first hit on google was for not. Much like your argument.

Lawsuits to Obtain Videos

At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the second case are distinguished with dates colored gray.

* October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel.
* November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request".
* November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist.
* December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce:
any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects:

(1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001.

(2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

(3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001.
* March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did possess records responsive to the request but that it could release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings."
* January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).
* March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal."
* April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
* April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
* June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.
* August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.
* August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment.
* September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
* September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.
* September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.
* October 20, 2005: The DOJ sends a letter to Hodes claiming that the requested material is exempt.
* October 24, 2005: Hodes appeals the DOJ's October 20 claim that its material is exempt.
* February 22, 2006: Judicial Watch, Inc. files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Defense for its refusal to disclose records sought under the FOIA request.
* May 5, 2006: Judge Friedman orders the defendants to show cause on or before May 26, 2006 why their motion for summary judgment should not be denied as moot, noting that the criminal proceedings against Moussaoui have ended.
* May 16, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains two videos from the DOD, and posts them on their website. The site is down for about half of the day due to demand.
* September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.
* December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. 4

You proved my point for me on that last link. lol.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Why is that any surprise?

Burning fuel diluting? And leaving no evidence of fire? No bodies? No chairs? No polymers?

Sure. Look here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html. No evidence of fire, bodies, chairs at a number of those sites.

Notice, some of those planes are PULVERIZED even though their pilots were doing all that they could to save them. Is it any stretch that the damage to the planes (bodies, seats, "polymers" (heh)) is substantially greater when the pilot is doing all that he can to DESTROY the plane?



none of those planes were "pulverized" as you can see from pictures, even couple which were taken from kilometers up, you see still many parts of plane
which are really big pieces of plane, on some of pictures you should see more if the picture would have been taken from different angle.

Nice finds, Rush.
If MrGray wanted videos that the FBI supposedly confiscated, he should have said so to begin with. No, he just said, vaguely, show us the video.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Let's look at the instant replay:

Rush said ->

For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall.

I said ->

Show us the video.

Scroll down 3 posts to see lawsuits for the "supposed" videos, Sarge...


Do I need to make a Power Point presentation for you guys?

:D



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

See emphasis.

Let's look at the instant replay:

Rush said ->

For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall.

I said ->

Show us the video.

Scroll down 3 posts to see lawsuits for the "supposed" videos, Sarge...


Do I need to make a Power Point presentation for you guys?

:D



.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Fickle,

Your obviously not going anywhere and I'm not here to please or be directed by you. This is a civilian discussion and bound by no rules. It's course is it's own and will not be side tracked on command.

You are so funny MrGray, fickle

likely to change, esp. due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable

Could not have described your behavior any better in this thread. Let me see how many unanswered questions I made where your response was to change the subject.

We seemed to do well until we started talking about thermite, when I asked for evidence of its use in controlled demolition, after a little too and fro you changed the subject to a discussion about my background. When I tried to steer it back, you persisted with questioning my motives.

We then moved on to the planes that flew into WTC 1 and 2 perhaps being something other than passenger aircraft. When I posted a link to a very clear picture, you suggested I was suffering from "cognitive disonance", again turning the subject onto me. I asked you to speculate where the idea of something other than passenger planes would lead, and you pretty much refused.

After a little back and forth with Rush, I asked about Larry Silverstein's involvement, no direct response, but a side step into a discussion about a hassle free zone.

You posted a link to the latest Loose Change video, I responded with a couple of criticisms. Rather than address the criticisms you suggested it was my pain that lead me to feel the way I do. You say I missed a lot when I talked of one fireman in the Loose Change video, when I ask for time offset details, no response.

Then you accused Sarge and myself of side-stepping into denial and I posted and reposted several of my previously unaswered questions, following which you quickly to change the subject to the attack on the Pentagon and United 93.

Rather than be deflected again, I've tried to keep on the previous track, even though doing so may be "boring". There was plenty of discussion regarding the Pentagon and United 93 two years ago, when you started a 9/11 thread. I have no issue in talking about them again, but I would rather you address the points I've raised than ignore them and move onto other issues. Is it so much to ask? If there are "no rules" then surely I am at liberty to do so. Or are there only rules for what I can post and none for you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...