Very, very interesting.
- Thread starter anarchy
- Start date
- Status
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm that website has a pretty good theory on what MAY HAVE happened . . .
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
there is no way that was a 747 that crashed into it, the 747 is the bigger plane that can carry 350 passengers, and has a distinct 'hump' on its back - the 747 is currently the biggest airliner used
the 737 is one of the smallest, the 777 is roughly the same size as a 767 (prolly a bit bigger) and is designed to go longer distances (by carrying more fuel, which is why the terrorists used it on the twin towers)
what crashed into the pentagon would not have been much bigger than a Learjet
I believe it was flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon, as the plane was about the same size as what crashed into the pentagon
now for what I think is the key question, if it was flight 77, why are they trying to hide it?
the 737 is one of the smallest, the 777 is roughly the same size as a 767 (prolly a bit bigger) and is designed to go longer distances (by carrying more fuel, which is why the terrorists used it on the twin towers)
what crashed into the pentagon would not have been much bigger than a Learjet
I believe it was flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon, as the plane was about the same size as what crashed into the pentagon
now for what I think is the key question, if it was flight 77, why are they trying to hide it?
FireFox said:
Well, you could say that the wings fell off on impact and that 16 ft hole was the body of the plane. But now another question arises...where did the wings go? We know the Pentagon is capable of things we never imagined, but eating planes isn't one of them.
Ken Masters
In Runtime
- Messages
- 354
Ok so say there was no plane? Then what was it? If it was a missile, where did it come from? I just can't see who would launch a cruise missile at the pentagon. Couldn't have been terrorists.
Well look at it this way, one of the biggest nationalistic motivators for a society is war, it rallies the people and gives the military something to do.The US spends about $450 billion/yr on defense, even more during wartime, without a war every once in awhile the military starts shrinking, it has to.The pentagon is the biggest bureaucracy on the planet, lots of inertia and momentum.The federal govt is also one of the nation's biggest employers.Notice shrub recently anounced a ten yr plan to bring troops home from europe, that should have happended the day the berlin wall started coming down.Same with our troops in south korea, they arent needed, if north korea has nukes then the troops in south korea are no longer a deterrent.The US govt spends $$ like its water, and about 80% is on stuff thats basically just wasted effort.But its been going on for so long, its standard way of doing things, that isnt gonna change overnight.
NeoNemesis
In Runtime
- Messages
- 217
how does that tie along with this theory though?
It provides the underlying motivation for the govt to stage an attack on its own people, its happened before.Its been done many times thru history, usually works too.
We have an energy crisis, it isnt bad now, but it will be.The countries we depend on for oil are unstable politically, a war on terrorism is an excellent excuse to use to move in and take control.Look at Iraq, ya saddam was a real SOB, but from a military standpoint he wasnt a threat, never was either.The economic sanctions really put the hurt on that country, thier military was a paper tiger.Iran will be next, maybe saudi arabia too, problem is with saudi arabia though they control about 1/3rd of our economy and have a 2:1 debt to income ratio and the oil is running out.......that isnt good.
What 9/11 did was provide a never ending excuse to continue to use our military whether its warranted or not, and gives the US an excuse to move into the unstable oil producing nations.
Take serious note that one of the FIRST things the US did when the Iraq war switched into the mop up mode was oil production was a top priority.The war is still raging there, yet the oil fields and pipelines are a big priority.If the US was there to restore some semblance of order and help them regain control of their country and become a peaceful productive nation, that's the last thing you'd focus on.
We have an energy crisis, it isnt bad now, but it will be.The countries we depend on for oil are unstable politically, a war on terrorism is an excellent excuse to use to move in and take control.Look at Iraq, ya saddam was a real SOB, but from a military standpoint he wasnt a threat, never was either.The economic sanctions really put the hurt on that country, thier military was a paper tiger.Iran will be next, maybe saudi arabia too, problem is with saudi arabia though they control about 1/3rd of our economy and have a 2:1 debt to income ratio and the oil is running out.......that isnt good.
What 9/11 did was provide a never ending excuse to continue to use our military whether its warranted or not, and gives the US an excuse to move into the unstable oil producing nations.
Take serious note that one of the FIRST things the US did when the Iraq war switched into the mop up mode was oil production was a top priority.The war is still raging there, yet the oil fields and pipelines are a big priority.If the US was there to restore some semblance of order and help them regain control of their country and become a peaceful productive nation, that's the last thing you'd focus on.
- Status
