Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, I'm not saying 2 aircraft hit the Pentagon. You said that, not I.So now you’re saying 2 aircraft hit the building?
What would be the purpose of the second aircraft? Why would it be necessary to take down light poles?
The wingspan of tgat aircraft couldn’t hit the poles that were taken down. You’re about 50 feet (and about 100 IQ points) short.No, I'm not saying 2 aircraft hit the Pentagon. You said that, not I.
I'm saying some sort of aircraft hit the Pentagon, but it was NOT an airliner.
Possibly an A-3 turned into a drone. Douglas A-3 Skywarrior - Wikipedia
I really don't give a damn about what took down the light poles. It is possible that the perpetrators of the event put small charges in the bases of the frangible light poles, but my hunch is that whatever the flying object was hit the poles.The wingspan of tgat aircraft couldn’t hit the poles that were taken down. You’re about 50 feet (and about 100 IQ points) short.
So, again what took down the light poles and damaged the generator?
You have to account for them though. Sucks to be you.I really don't give a damn about what took down the light poles.
Flight 77 is what took down the poles.It is possible that the perpetrators of the event put small charges in the bases of the frangible light poles, but my hunch is that whatever the flying object was hit the poles.
Not even remotely true.What is certain is that no airliner struck the building.
No lady, I don't have to account for anything at all. What happened that day has nothing to do with me. I didn't plan it, I wasn't there, and you've painted yourself in the rhetorical corner by defending the official narrative that is contradicted by all facts and evidence. You're simply in denial, and that's a personal problem for you. Go get a job with NBC so you can repeat endless fictions on the TV.You have to account for them though. Sucks to be you.
Flight 77 is what took down the poles.
Not even remotely true.
Again…you have to account for the evidence. Saying “I don’t care” doesn’t get the job done.
Yes you do. Photographic evidence shows the poles being down. So you have to account for them. Unless you want to be seen as an unhinged lunatic. Which is currently the dunce cap I’m making you wear. Fits perfectly too.No lady, I don't have to account for anything at all.
What happened that day has nothing to do with me. I didn't plan it, I wasn't there, and you've painted yourself in the rhetorical corner by defending the official narrative that is contradicted by all facts and evidence. You're simply in denial, and that's a personal problem for you. Go get a job with NBC so you can repeat endless fictions on the TV.
Yes you do. Photographic evidence shows the poles being down. So you have to account for them. Unless you want to be seen as an unhinged lunatic. Which is currently the dunce cap I’m making you wear. Fits perfectly too.
Awww…your feelings are hurt.
You have a theory on what happened.
You posted it here.
People comment on your theory.
For a theory to have any veracity, it has to account for the known facts..such as the photographic evidence.
Your theory can’t account for it so it has been demolished and you look like a fool for continuing to stand by it.
My feeling is that you’re desperate for attention.
Am I right?
And that's a demonstrable lie.I'm saying some sort of aircraft hit the Pentagon, but it was NOT an airliner.
Such stale old claims you and Faun offer. These matters were settled years ago. There was no Boeing at the Pentagon.A flying object that was NOT a Boeing, not AA77.
I'm not certain whether it was a drone-modified A-5 or a missile of some sort, It was recorded on the parking lot camera, but the quality is so poor that one cannot tell exactly what it is. But what it was NOT is painfully obvious. It was NOT an airliner.
There is a reason the FBI seized so much surveillance camera footage from civilian buildings in the area, and that reason was secrecy, to hide the fact that AA77 did not hit there.
Correction candycorn , A-3 was the type some theorize struck the Pentagon, not A-5
Douglas A-3 Skywarrior - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I really don't give a damn about what took down the light poles. It is possible that the perpetrators of the event put small charges in the bases of the frangible light poles, but my hunch is that whatever the flying object was hit the poles.You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content
You cannot prove your story sir, that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I know that and many other people know you cannot prove it because for 20+ years all the facts and evidence show that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. No Boeing hit the Pentagon and no Boeing was in the field at Shanksville, just as the local coroner stated to the cameras when he came out of that field 23 years ago.And that's a demonstrable lie.
False.You cannot prove your story sir, that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I
pesky facts like that are something the official conspiracy theorists cant comprehend,if they tried,they would have to go into the ER room trying to decipher the logic you brought up that there was a reason the FBI illegally covered up the 85 24 hour pentagon suvelliance videos along with the survillance camera at the gas station across the street.A flying object that was NOT a Boeing, not AA77.
I'm not certain whether it was a drone-modified A-5 or a missile of some sort, It was recorded on the parking lot camera, but the quality is so poor that one cannot tell exactly what it is. But what it was NOT is painfully obvious. It was NOT an airliner.
There is a reason the FBI seized so much surveillance camera footage from civilian buildings in the area, and that reason was secrecy, to hide the fact that AA77 did not hit there.
Correction candycorn , A-3 was the type some theorize struck the Pentagon, not A-5
Douglas A-3 Skywarrior - Wikipedia
candycorn
Such stale old claims you and Faun offer. These matters were settled years ago. There was no Boeing at the Pentagon.
A flying object that was NOT a Boeing, not AA77.
I'm not certain whether it was a drone-modified A-5 or a missile of some sort, It was recorded on the parking lot camera, but the quality is so poor that one cannot tell exactly what it is. But what it was NOT is painfully obvious. It was NOT an airliner.
There is a reason the FBI seized so much surveillance camera footage from civilian buildings in the area, and that reason was secrecy, to hide the fact that AA77 did not hit there.
Correction candycorn , A-3 was the type some theorize struck the Pentagon, not A-5
Douglas A-3 Skywarrior - Wikipedia
I really don't give a damn about what took down the light poles. It is possible that the perpetrators of the event put small charges in the bases of the frangible light poles, but my hunch is that whatever the flying object was hit the poles.
What is certain is that no airliner struck the building.
No lady, I don't have to account for anything at all. What happened that day has nothing to do with me. I didn't plan it, I wasn't there, and you've painted yourself in the rhetorical corner by defending the official narrative that is contradicted by all facts and evidence. You're simply in denial, and that's a personal problem for you. Go get a job with NBC so you can repeat endless fictions on the TV.
You cannot prove your story sir, that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I know that and many other people know you cannot prove it because for 20+ years all the facts and evidence show that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. No Boeing hit the Pentagon and no Boeing was in the field at Shanksville, just as the local coroner stated to the cameras when he came out of that field 23 years ago.
It's likely you KNOW you cannot prove it, and are simply in denial of the truth.
Launched from where and by whom?No,it was a missile
Mark Fuhrman?
NOSimple question. Yes or No.
I already know who won't be answering. This is a public poll. I will even give the idiot response of I don't know.
