Why doesn't he just admit what he really thinks!

"once again this is based on what we think a plane crash should look like"

To discredit theory, the theory must be objectively weighed against all the competing theories and the least likely ones may then be 'discredited'. Too bad NIST won't debate so that we can truly discredit one of these competing theories.

EMAIL YOUR THOUGHTS TO O'REILLY HERE!

Oreilly@foxnews.com

Way to go, informed believer. Good letter.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!

The "official story" believers are becoming more desperate than ever to play like they are the ones who are truthful. Shame will come upon them very soon.

Hello all....

Here is what I have written to orliely.

Dear Sir,

I just watched a clip from your show about 9/11 and the interview you had with the Editor of PM.

I am very sorry to say that you and the PM editor really did not provide any evidence to support your stance one bit! You mention about using "science" to determine the "facts", but you have done neither. The concrete from the buildings could not be pulverized to the particle level they were by a simple gravity driven collapse!

The building would have not collapsed completely to begin with. Even if it could, there would have been many stories of the WTC core still standing. After all, if you say the building pancaked then that would require an effect similar to records on a spindle. The records collapse, but the spindle still remains standing!

In regards to your tree analogy! Physics cannot be denied! The top 30 floors of the south tower were falling at a 30 degree angle at the time of the collapse, and Newton's laws says that it is not possible to change it's direction and land like it did. Here is what Newton's 3 Laws says: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Law number one is the one of importance for the moment! With the top of the building at a 30 degree angle, the top would have kept falling over and would have fell into the street and other buildings. It did not! It nicely straightened it's self out and fell down almost completely onto it's own footprint.

Now we get to WTC7, which was not hit by an airplane but collapsed in perfect form a little after 5PM the same day. The debris from the collapse from WTC1 and WTC2 could have been catastrophic to WTC7, but the collapse WOULD NOT have fallen like a perfect demolition. It would have toppled toward the debris fields of WTC1 and WTC2, where the damage was from and not fallen straight down onto its self.

Now finally, for the Pentagon. The idea that 2 eight plus feet engines made of the strongest steel known to man, titanium, would just melt into nothing and "flowed" into the building is absurd. There would have not only been a hole of the body of the plane, but also 2 holes made by each of the engines on either side of the 18 foot hole. Also, a commercial aircraft would not have increased the radiation level in the area of the Pentagon by 10 times, which required the rescue workers to put on radiation suits. Here is an article regarding the high level of radiation at the site. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html

I hope that you will one day review what happened on 9/11 with an OPEN mind, and really look at the evidence that exists which is inconsistent with the official version. Ask yourself why NIST will not supply the computer simulation models showing how the towers fell? Why won't NIST debate what happened, with the available evidence, with scholars regarding the events? Why won't NIST complete the report for WTC7 so that answers can be made of this collapse? Why did they contract it out and stipulate in the contract that the investigation should: "Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven."

Defining the outcome or narrowing the investigation is not proper investigative methods, and is used only to reduce the results possible to the outcome desired. I hope that you will re-think your stance on this matter and do some true investigative reporting on 9/11.

Regards,

I wasn't too diplomatic. Called him a few names and dared him to show the colapse of Building 7.

Will probably get a visit from Fox Security.

Heya truthsearching2006:

Good letter. I'd like to point out one thing though, and that is the common misconception regarding the wings penetrating the towers and the Pentagon.

At the high speed the planes were going and how structurally weak the wings of passenger jets are, the damage was actually consistent for the buildings. The Towers have steel "columns" and the wings would understandable separate and wrap themselves around the columns and straight through the glass into the structure leaving a (cartoon imprint of a sort). This is consistent with what one could expect.

Regarding the Pentagon, keep in mind we're not talking about reinforced concrete "columns". We're talking about reinforced concrete "walls" specifically designed to protect against bomb blast. If a Boeing passenjer jet hit the building at the speeds described, I'm fairly sure the wings would have simply been sheared right off with a bit of damage to the exterior facade. In the case of a military jet like the Skywarrior the wings are closer to the fuselage and would likely have folded up toward the center mass of the body of the jet as it punched its way through.

Incidentally do you all really think letters to O'Reilly will even be read past the first sentence? He's a government shill and purposely ignores the evidence so that he can better support the OFFICIAL LIE to the public. Nothing will change this as long as he keeps getting a paycheck from these thugs.

sweet jesus i hate the man - but don't waste your time writing him.

better idea - make a sign that says 911 = Inside Job and sit outdoors at a Starbucks and prop the sign up so that people walking by will see it.

we need to have guerilla do some marketing for us.

suntimes ran the associated press story today

Traitors!

REMEBER:

Popular Mechanics are the experts the State Deptartment uses too:

LOOK AT THIS RIDUCULOUS Dept. of State site:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html

So I am wathing this segment at my moms house. She is right there, and the only question she had was..

"So who is this guy?(Refering to Meigs from PM) and what credentials does he have to debunk a college professor?"

I just looked at her and smiled.

As they say, the apple doesnt fall far from the tree.

E-mailing the spin master is a complete waste of time I am sorry to say. Mister phone sex is a total a-hole and a NWO shill. Don't worry he will get his when the house of 9/11 lies falls as it most certainly will. Use your energy in a more positive way. Me and a 9/11 truth friend are going to a Pete Starks town hall meeting this weekend. We are going to hit him hard with some 9/11 truth. Starks is the represenative from our district. Doing stuff like this is far more effective than e-mailing shills like O'Reilly.

this interview did damage....i wish they had someone to counter what hes saying.

IMO I think interviews like this actually help 9/11 truth. This weak ass s...hit piece "reporting" does nothing but make our case stronger to the public about how corrupt our institutions actually are.

Don't fall for this propaganda method...

I encourage e-mailing O'Reilly anyways. He may ignore us, or he may comment on it furthur due to the high volume of responses.

No mention of Building 7.

If engineers are uninanimous, then where can we find the official engineering reports... ones with all the technical details? We'll see if this engineer agrees.

o'lieley's audience average age is 70 years old. its a great demographic, old people who buy lots of drugs and vote.

its asking alot of someone at the end of their earth journey to reevaluate the matrix.

Is anybody like Hoffman going to critically review PM's book ?