A conversation between an anonymous friend and me today .. brought about by viewing this

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:31 AM
To: L
Subject: RE: I think you should watch this video .. watch the WHOLE thing, and then think about it.

Your last two questions are those that are the most disturbing ..

From: L
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:56 AM
To: Douglas
Subject: RE: I think you should watch this video .. watch the WHOLE thing, and then think about it.

You know, I’m not an engineer but I agree with everything you’ve said. And I recall thinking at the time that there was ABSOLUTELY no damage OUTSIDE the Pentagon. And even with all the damage, it didn’t seem to be large enough for a plane that big to have made. It’s just mind-boggling that someone planned this whole event – but who?

And, yes, what DID happen to the 757? Remember, soon-to-be-ex Solicitor General Ted Olsen’s wife, Barbara – the right-wing ex-prosecutor – was on that plane and made a call to him – at least allegedly she did – saying they had been hijacked. Not to mention, Doug, that Dulles is so close to the Pentagon that unless it flew considerably AWAY from Washington it couldn’t have gained much height or speed. And yet it went off the radar 45 minutes earlier? How can that be? All the reports said the plane simply got in the air and immediately turned toward, presumably, the White House and the Capitol.

As much as I despise George W. Bush and all he stands for, I can’t fathom – intelligently or reasonably – that as vile as he and his minions are they could have come up with something as horrible as this. So then I ask WHO and WHY?



-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:48 AM
To: L
Subject: RE: I think you should watch this video .. watch the WHOLE thing, and then think about it.

I think that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon. I have always thought that it did not. Being a complete airliner junkie, I have thought since 9/11/01 that something was WRONG.

1. a 757 could not hit the building that low to the ground without first having had some of its low-hanging pieces (engines, for instance) drag into the ground. The dynamics of the "hit" don't make sense.

2. a 757 can't FLY 530 miles an hour that close to the ground. It would start coming apart in mid-air from structural damage

3. There were no "bones" of a dead 757 outside the Pentagon - the engines, for instance, would have been too dense to punch through the outside wall, OR the hole would have been much larger

4. The hole was too round, and extends too far into the building to have been made by a 757 - only something very dense, moving very fast, with a lot of explosive energy could have created that hole

5. They never found the "black boxes" from the 757 (the found them for the 767s that hit the WTC buildings)

Now, this leads to disturbing questions:

· What did happen to the AA 757 and the people on it?

· Why are we being told something other than the truth?

· Did the terrorists get their hands on something like a cruise missile?

Or the biggest question - was the whole thing a scam?

We have already talked about that the WTC buildings' collapse doesn't make common sense

· The WTC towers clearly did not have heat-related structural damage sufficient to cause a collapse of the central cores just minutes before the collapse, as evidenced by the firefighters' radio communications as they were going UP the stairwells in the central cores above the 30th floors right before the collapse

· WTC 7 (the hotel) was neither hit, on fire nor damaged other than superficially, and it spontaneously collapsed into its foundations

· The WTC towers' solid steel "ribs" that were driven deep into the granite by pile drivers were destroyed .. how was that possible?

· In 1991, the WTC survived an underground explosion of tons of TNT, calculated to damage the "ribs" and bring the buildings down. The structures survived with minimal damage. How can we assert that airplanes hitting above the 40th floor caused the buildings to totally collapse structurally?

· WTC 2 - the first building to collapse - burned less than an hour, and the airplane clearly hit the building at an angle to the corner - most of the destructive force AND the fuel blew out through the other side of the building. How, then, did the building collapse first with less damage and less time for the building to be damaged than WTC 1?

Given that the physical structure damage and the lack of airplane parts outside the Pentagon, we can only conclude that we're not being told the truth. Since we're not being told the truth about two different events in two different parts of the country, it seems only logical that we are being lied to in an organized and pre-arranged fashion.

It's a scam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: L
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:45 AM
To: douglas
Subject: RE: I think you should watch this video .. watch the WHOLE thing, and then think about it.

Hmmm. That was very thought provoking. I need to watch it again because a telephone call interrupted me. What do you think about this?

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:59 PM
To: drdivo
Subject: I think you should watch this video .. watch the WHOLE thing, and then think about it.



I've been saying this for nearly three years. If you want to tell me I'm nuts afterward, go for it. But only after you've watched the WHOLE thing and taken in the information. (Some of you won't need to be so open minded)