Jon88
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 356
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.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.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 why is there no wreckage from flight 93 in Pennsylvania? That would be the first time ever an airliner crashed and just disappeared.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.
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.And to invade countries.
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.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.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.
If so, they had an extreme way of doing it.They had to manufacture an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not well at all. We basically have no rights anymore after the Patriot Act.How would people react to how intrusive the Government is being had it not been for this?
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).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.
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?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).
That has been my take.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.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.
No, there was more found that a hole in the ground.There would still be wreckage. All we have is a hole in the ground in the shape of a plane.
Have you really looked at every picture shown?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.