candycorn
Diamond Member
Yes...that is called wreckage. And wreckage was found inside the building as well. All of it matches AA77. And they all have something else in common, you can't explain how it got there .That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.
The official conspiracy theory lives on and America goes on living the lie!
The only one living a lie is you.
You still can't account for physical evidence of plane wreckage on the Pentagon grounds as well as the light poles being knocked down. All of the accusatory passages and self serving commentary won't save your lame assertions.
Sorry, we're dealing in facts, you're dealing in dreams.
Sorry, the fact is there is no plane wreckage visible on the front lawn, just a couple of pieces laying about.
You're revealing just how little you know.I've referred you to a real plane crash into a much less substantial building but the plane did not penetrate all the way through and the airframe and the passengers and their luggage are all easily visible.
For one thing, SOP of a crash is to dump what fuel you have on board to minimize any fireball that would be created from the crash. That didn't happen with AA77.
For another thing, SOP of a crash is to slow the plane down by creating drag. You lower the flaps, landging gear, whatever you can. That didn't happen with AA77.
For yet another thing, SOP of a crash is to attempt to land the plane instead of crashing it. That didn't happen with AA77.
Wreckage was found both inside and outside the building. Nobody saw anyone planting one piece of wreckage. Try again.So which is it, did the plane penetrate all the way through the steel reinforced concrete exterior wall, folding back the wings and dragging them AND the tail section through and then plowing through the support columns and then punch out the 'C' wall or did it get completely obliterated on the exterior?
Yes.Are you saying the ONLY thing that could have knocked down light poles was an airplane?
As I pointed out we both agree their was a conspiracy
and if as I'm saying yours is wrong then whoever was behind this mass murder was certainly motivated to fool the gullible by knocking down a few light poles.
[/quote]
So, let me get your story straight and you can no longer seriously contend that you're not saying anything;
There was no plane that crashed at the Pentagon....someone planted the wreckage in side the Pentagon and outside the Pentagon. Witnesses? None.
There was no plane that knocked down the light poles outside of the Pentagon. Someone brought down the light poles in broad daylight. Witnesses? None.
There was no plane that knocked down the light poles outside the Pentagon. Someone planted a cab at the scene--in the middle of rush-hour traffic--with a smashed in windshield right next to one of these light poles. Witnesses? None. Other than the cab driver who said the light pole hit his windshield.
Lets leave the wreckage alone...
You contend that someone added to their inbox....
Planting five light poles
Planting a cab with a smashed in windshield
Blowing a multi-ton generator off of it's moorings
Damaging the multi-ton generator
All as a rouse...and with no eye-witnesses who saw any of it.
We all know you won't explain anything--the moment you write anything down it will sound like you're koo-koo--but that is the scenario you've created.
Time for you to go into denial mode.