Hoax of the Century

Jon88 · Jun 27, 2014

http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=1890

There are 5 parts and I just started part 4. Very interesting.

Clay_Allison · Jun 28, 2014

Looks like we have another Shane on our hands.

Kbrown · Jun 28, 2014

"I am going to read some wackadoo's five walls of 9/11 truther text," said no sane person, ever.

Jon88 · Jun 28, 2014

Just look at the evidence. It will change your mind.

boozeman · Jun 28, 2014

Not saying I believe a lot of the truther theories, but I have zero question that we are not told the entire truth and the entire event was strategically used politically to reenergize the intrusive powers of the government.

Simpleton · Jun 28, 2014

boozeman said:
Not saying I believe a lot of the truther theories, but I have zero question that we are not told the entire truth and the entire event was strategically used politically to reenergize the intrusive powers of the government.

Yea, I mean common sense tells you that if a huge airliner were to fly into a building only a couple stories high like the Pentagon there would be more wreckage found, and it would be obvious where the wings had made impact.

Why is that not the case at the Pentagon?

All you have is one, relatively small hole with no apparent damage done by the wings, or any apparent wreckage whatsoever.

Jon88 · Jun 28, 2014

boozeman said:
Not saying I believe a lot of the truther theories, but I have zero question that we are not told the entire truth and the entire event was strategically used politically to reenergize the intrusive powers of the government.

And to invade countries.

Jon88 · Jun 28, 2014

Simpleton said:
Yea, I mean common sense tells you that if a huge airliner were to fly into a building only a couple stories high like the Pentagon there would be more wreckage found, and it would be obvious where the wings had made impact.

Why is that not the case at the Pentagon?

All you have is one, relatively small hole with no apparent damage done by the wings, or any apparent wreckage whatsoever.

And why is there no wreckage from flight 93 in Pennsylvania? That would be the first time ever an airliner crashed and just disappeared.

boozeman · Jun 28, 2014

Jon88 said:
And to invade countries.

We have always done that...didn't need to blow up an iconic building to do it. Invasion wasn't as big of a goal as it was to pad the coffers for companies like Haliburton and to strengthen the intrusive powers of the executive branch.

Simpleton · Jun 28, 2014

boozeman said:
We have always done that...didn't need to blow up an iconic building to do it. Invasion wasn't as big of a goal as it was to pad the coffers for companies like Haliburton and to strengthen the intrusive powers of the executive branch.

Makes you wonder when this particular event is the watershed moment that literally dominated the direction of public and foreign policy for the past 13 years, and for Lord knows how many years going forward.

Government officials have quite literally said in the last few years that their focus is more on domestic terrorists than foreign, what ramifications does that have?

How would people react to how intrusive the Government is being had it not been for this?

Jon88 · Jun 28, 2014

boozeman said:
We have always done that...didn't need to blow up an iconic building to do it. Invasion wasn't as big of a goal as it was to pad the coffers for companies like Haliburton and to strengthen the intrusive powers of the executive branch.

They had to manufacture an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

boozeman · Jun 28, 2014

Jon88 said:
They had to manufacture an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

If so, they had an extreme way of doing it.

Jon88 · Jun 28, 2014

Simpleton said:
How would people react to how intrusive the Government is being had it not been for this?

Not well at all. We basically have no rights anymore after the Patriot Act.

jeebs · Jun 28, 2014

Simpleton said:
Yea, I mean common sense tells you that if a huge airliner were to fly into a building only a couple stories high like the Pentagon there would be more wreckage found, and it would be obvious where the wings had made impact.

Why is that not the case at the Pentagon?

All you have is one, relatively small hole with no apparent damage done by the wings, or any apparent wreckage whatsoever.

common sense tells me that the wings would be the first to sheer off on impact and to have the biggest explosion (leaving the least parts).

Simpleton · Jun 28, 2014

jeebs said:
common sense tells me that the wings would be the first to sheer off on impact and to have the biggest explosion (leaving the least parts).

So you're telling me you think the wings, along with the rest of the plane, were completely destroyed with barely even a shred of wreckage?

Because that's exactly what it looks like in every picture ever shown.

Clay_Allison · Jun 28, 2014

I think that it matters that the Pentagon is a military building that was built to withstand attack. Probably not surprising that it took less damage.

My own theory about the Pennsylvania flight is that it was shot down and the wreckage was dispersed, they just didn't want to admit afterwards that the Air Force (or ANG) fired on a civilian airliner.

jeebs · Jun 28, 2014

Clay_Allison said:
I think that it matters that the Pentagon is a military building that was built to withstand attack. Probably not surprising that it took less damage.

My own theory about the Pennsylvania flight is that it was shot down and the wreckage was dispersed, they just didn't want to admit afterwards that the Air Force (or ANG) fired on a civilian airliner.

That has been my take.

Most conspiracy theories start with a government coverup, it is just rarely covering up the crazy shit the theorist come up with. Take the JFK assanation, there was a cover up. LBJ thought re Russians did it and didn't want a nuclear war over it, so he whitewashed. Now we have 20 theories about who killed JFK

Jon88 · Jun 28, 2014

Clay_Allison said:
I think that it matters that the Pentagon is a military building that was built to withstand attack. Probably not surprising that it took less damage.

My own theory about the Pennsylvania flight is that it was shot down and the wreckage was dispersed, they just didn't want to admit afterwards that the Air Force (or ANG) fired on a civilian airliner.

There would still be wreckage. All we have is a hole in the ground in the shape of a plane.

Jiggyfly · Jun 28, 2014

Jon88 said:
There would still be wreckage. All we have is a hole in the ground in the shape of a plane.

No, there was more found that a hole in the ground.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Jiggyfly · Jun 28, 2014

Simpleton said:
So you're telling me you think the wings, along with the rest of the plane, were completely destroyed with barely even a shred of wreckage?

Because that's exactly what it looks like in every picture ever shown.

Have you really looked at every picture shown?

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Hoax of the Century

Banned

Old Bastard

Not So New Member

Banned

28 Years And Counting...

DCC 4Life

Banned

Banned

28 Years And Counting...

DCC 4Life

Banned

28 Years And Counting...

Banned

Brand New Member

DCC 4Life

Old Bastard

Brand New Member

Banned

Banned

Banned