posted by QweeQwa
Don't have enough posts to start my own thread but why fly an airplane into a building that is already rigged with explosives?
Won't waste too much time with a troll. QweeQua has committed ZERO
time to research and ZERO
time to look over what we have already
researched for the past 4-5 years, which is easily available at multiple other forums which we have linked to and really good material at this ATS
forum going back years.
QweeQwa has been here 4 days, started out in attack mode, and never entered learning mode, has only one friend, already has 2 warnings, has
ATS points, 1 thread, and 43 posts not one of which makes the teeniest bit of sense. QweeQwa is well on his way to
finding a new forum to infest.
Susan McElwain witnessed a strange aircraft apparently on a reconnaissance mission. The Pentagon and WTC may have had similar reconnaissance missions.
QweeQwa is curious about the Pentagon. QweeQwa needs to take the thread off-topic like most pseudoskeptics do
. Perhaps those are standard
pseudoskeptic training measures.
Flying an aircraft into a building
such as the Pentagon with a steel reinforced wall, when a certain amount of damage is required and a limited
amount of damage is required is a risky venture
Bounce the aircraft along the lawn and the aircraft may not penetrate into the interior and create the required amount of death and destruction.
Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned destruction can be exact
Pull the aircraft up too far due to pilot error or ground effect and there is a danger of crashing the aircraft into a much more vulnerable
non-steel-reinforced area and creating ten times the death and destruction. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned
destruction can be exact
Pull the aircraft up too far due to pilot error or ground effect and there is a danger of missing the Pentagon all together creating a need to fly
around and make another attempt. This might create great suspicion in a wary American public already sick of Pearl Harbor, JFK, RFK, MLK, Ruby Ridge,
Waco, the Liberty, Oklahoma City, WTC 93, Flight 800, and multiple other US engineered events. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and
the planned destruction can be exact
Blow the Pentagon West side up without the simulated aircraft
and suspicious Americans might ask how terrorists could possibly get inside or
even near what was supposedly the most secure building in the world. How would terrorists get past Secret Service security setup at the Pentagon to
specifically protect the President and plant explosives inside? Am I using too much simple logic and common sense for your tastes QweeQwa?
The same precautions apply to the WTC. The towers could have stood there for years, heavily damaged and unusable until billions were spent to take
them down piece by piece. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned destruction can be exact
We don't really know for sure why Flight 93 was where it was. If Flight 93 was shot down as QweeQwa assures us
, then the government
deliberately set up a paper trail of lies concerning Flight 93, including sending a C-130 all the way from the Pentagon, and including faking a crash
site in a strip mine, and including planting an engine piece and black boxes in that strip mine, and including planting body parts and DNA in the area
around the hole in the strip mine. But falsifying evidence is A-OK with QweeQwa, because falsifying evidence is what governments do
If Flight 93 was shot down as QweeQwa assures us
, then the government deliberately falsified flight paths from the very beginning. Then the
government deliberately invented an entire drama script of passengers versus hijackers within the aircraft. QweeQwa believes that it would be OK for
the government to lie about Flight 93, because if Flight 93 was actually shot down, somehow within the strange logic patterns within QweeQwa's brain,
that means that Usama bin Laden did it. Logic 101 QweeQwa and 9-11 style