prime examples of how uncle sam handles answering questions about the truth.

www.livevideo.com...

if you have another example of the government answering questions, post them here.

part 5 of jessie ventura 911 conspiracy FBI interview:
www.youtube.com...

John Gross:
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

That is very upsetting to me, and frankly it makes my blood boil. There are proven discrepancies in the offcial story, and there is NOTHING that our Government can do to help us? THEY CANT ELABORATE?!?! Star and Flag to bring this to people's attention.

Actually, the NTSB employee was quite helpful.

By emphasis and repetition, as explicitly as he could manage he provided the following information:

1. Everything the NTSB had was on the website. If you think that one through, the strong implication was that other evidence exists, but they do not have access to it.

2. That's our story and we're sticking to it. Note that at no point did he say that the pilotsfor911.org was wrong, he simply repeated the fact that he was following policy and would answer the same way regardless of how you phrased the question.

3. The report was provided to the NTSB to sign off on, but wasn't done by them.

4. He wasn't officially allowed to connect the dots, but anyone else was free to, and he'd personally probably agree.

Don't know where to go with it, except perhaps a lawsuit to force an accounting of where the report originated, who actually wrote it, why it was signed off on, and who ordered it.

Anyway, what kind of indestructible wing manages to knock down five, count 'em, five light poles without shedding skin, panels, fittings, engines, and then goes "poof" into unidentifiable dust when it hits the Pentagon.

reply to post by apacheman


take another look at those light poles... very closely .... now do you really think a aircraft going 500 miles an hour would leave those poles in such usable condition?

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Hardly.

Never believed the official story for a second, as it was evident to me from the first that the USAF was prevented from doing its job that day, and I've personally seen enough crash sites to know that the Pentagon and Flight 98 sites were bogus.

reply to post by apacheman

Anyway, what kind of indestructible wing manages to knock down five, count 'em, five light poles without shedding skin, panels, fittings, engines, and then goes "poof" into unidentifiable dust when it hits the Pentagon.

The kind of normal wing, with flaps and slats retracted, moving at over 480 knots, and striking poles at well above their bases (they ARE designed to topple over, and absorb the impact energy from a sufficiently fast-moving ground vehicle, AT THE BASE, in order to mitigate the effects, as much as possible, on the vehicle striking them).

The kind of wings with the engines mounted, as they are, fairly close in near the fuselage, and the poles were struck nowhere near the engines' locations.

The kind of wings that, IF after striking the poles the airplane had NOT ht the building, but had landed and could be inspected afterwards, would likely have shown some deformation and bending, maybe fracturing too, on the leading edges. But, still...when striking a solid building, and when the kinetic energies are released, then it's little wonder that they would disintegrate at that point.

"Dust"??? Please show where anyone claims "dust". More distraction from conspiracy sites, maybe? Do those CTs understand that aluminum will MELT in just about any fire, especially when fed by all that fuel?

And, why would "skin panels" fall off in the fractions of seconds between striking the poles, and the impact with the building?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Have you ever actually been around aircraft wreckage? I've been on the site of at least a dozen crashes of birds from KC-135s and C-130s to helos, F-4s and F-105s. If they hit stuff while auguring in, they leave a debris trail, always, and military birds are far tougher than civilian jobs.

I didn't mean dust literally. I've seen smaller birds hit just as hard a target travelling at far higher speeds, thus having more kinetic energy, leave vastly more wreckage than what I saw at the Pentagon. It wasn't hit by what was claimed, period: the wreckage patterns and lack of the requisite high-strength parts that are never, in my experience, destroyed, rather merely broken but identifiable, dictate no other conclusion.

reply to post by weedwhacker


only one major factor weedwacker, no plane hit the pentacon.
the slab was christine ... (they said it plowed into the basement) hardy har har..... there aint no basement under the accounting department. you do know if this was a inside job -- well that means those people were selected for death... contract to strengthen that side of the building...
Sept. 10th Rumsfeld cant find 2.3trillion dollars and Sept. 11th they made sure no one could. the missile\predator what ever ... it wasnt a boeing.


[edit on 30-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
reply to post by apacheman

 

take another look at those light poles... very closely .... now do you really think a aircraft going 500 miles an hour would leave those poles in such usable condition?

Just out of curiosity, what should the poles have looked like? They were heavily damaged by a single fast moving object, not thrown into a car shredder. Another note - they are no longer usable as a light pole.