Hoax of the Century

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

And to invade countries.
 
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.
Click to expand...

And why is there no wreckage from flight 93 in Pennsylvania? That would be the first time ever an airliner crashed and just disappeared.
 
Jon88 said:
And to invade countries.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

They had to manufacture an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

There would still be wreckage. All we have is a hole in the ground in the shape of a plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom