It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Griff
Question for Jack and everyone else who thinks the plane flew over the pentagon.
Why would "they" sacrafice 2 planes for the WTC attacks but go through this elaborate flight paths and missles and flying over the building so a missle could hit? There are two many variables in that scenario that could be a slip up IMO. I do agree that the flight path is wrong though.
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.
That's actually a good guess. I hadn't thought of it that way before. So, do you think that the missile was the thing that broke the light poles and hit the pentagon while the plane flew over the pentagon?
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The light poles had to be staged in advance.
(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.
That's actually a good guess. I hadn't thought of it that way before. So, do you think that the missile was the thing that broke the light poles and hit the pentagon while the plane flew over the pentagon?
Oh no no no.
That couldn't have happened.
There was no missile.
That is dis/misinfo.
The light poles had to be staged in advance.
(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)
Originally posted by CameronFox
Then again... this is the SAME guy that posted LASER GUIDED PLANES at the WTC! (which turned out to be pieces of paper)
Originally posted by Essedarius
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The light poles had to be staged in advance.
(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)
And they did this all in broad daylight?
"...simultaneously with the explosion..."
What you are explaning is one of the most complex operations in the history of thought, and to what end?
The only reason to undertake such an outrageous plan, and to assume such a monumental level of risk, is for a very significant benefit.
What was the benefit of all this?
What was gained?
You are implying that a large number of government employees committed the most intricate and heinous act of treachery EVER...
...because WHY?
It makes no sense.
I don't care if you're flipping burgers at McDonalds or the President of the U.S., no one would attempt something with such a massive risk / reward gap.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
OK I need some affirmation here folks. Please help.
Am I being totally paranoid in thinking that Jack is avoiding my question regarding whether the eywitnesses were compensated for appearing in his movie?
If they were not, doesn't it seem reasonable that he would have said as much after I asked him twice?
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
They were not.
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
So you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Why do you think the government orchestrated this elaborate hoax?
Why an elaborate daylight slight-of-hand instead of a simple bomb and a well written speech for the president?
What was gained by the intricacy of the plot?
Permanent global war on a shadowy uncatchable enemy requires a pretty significant pretext.