A plane definitely hit the pentagon. While I believe the wider conspiracy of something shonky happening and the towers being demo'd etc there's a few things to consider.
1-Most cctv are pointing at ground not the sky, if you ever run your own system you'll find what a major PITA and camera destroyer sunlight is if pointed that way. Plus most of the footage is crap even when offenders are close unless itsa high end system so how the hell will you id a plane on one.
2-The perps couldn't risk someone filming a 'cruise missle' coming in or even worse it failing before impact and being recovered semi intact etc.
3-there were other deliberate diversions around 911 like the controlled assets of Alex jones and that loose change guy with the plane pod nonsense. All of this is because they want to draw away from the main point that would have people scratching their heads, how did the towers fall so cleanly...
BTW the so called cruise missle fan is actually same siz e as the APU power unit in planes tail...
![]()
I think the major difference between the two opposing sides of this argument is that one side has accepting minds while the other side have enquiring minds.
I simply will not believe what the gooberments state as fact.
My son told me a few years ago that his friends dad got a fast new car and they drove to Auckland in 2 hours from Taupo. I asked my son if he believed his friend. He said absolutely. I then went through the basic speed averages, and again asked him if he still believed his friend. He said how could I, it's impossible. It simply can't be done. It then occured to him that his friend was lying his ass off. He confronted him, and his friend admitted he was making it up.
So why exactly should we believe the governments version of 9/11 events?
Is it still beastiality if ya fuck a frozen chicken??
And the other thing that people need to keep in mind is that even if there is only one aspect of 9/11 (e.g. Building 7) that doesn't make any sense to them, then the whole series of events of that day have to be viewed with skepticism.
Sorry but that is easily acheiveable albeit in a law breaking and license risking fashion. All these road legends depend on where you call "Auckland" or "taupo" ie akld central, manukau or bombays etc after fueling up and taupo are we talking wairakei or stag park etc... But even in a truck Manukau to Stag park was acheievable in around 2hr 45min speed limited to 102kph... according to a friend of course.
Looking at google maps it gives the distance as 258km and 3hr drive time which is 86kph avg, to do in 2hrs would be 129kph avg...
There's a lot of BS trip times out there, legends in their own lunchtimes etc but your friends story is plausible.
Without going into a full blown story, the distances and times coupled with the fact his mother (a foof) and young sister were in the car also, and it was raining..... the whole thing was shit, and his friend admitted it. Just stating that you should never believe exactly what you're told....
Is it still beastiality if ya fuck a frozen chicken??
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks