If that is the one about the idae that there was no plane involved in the Petagon incident, I have to say that I am skepical at best to accept that idea. I am not saying it is not possible so please bear with me and stray from calling me a conservative or right wing extremist becasue you know nothing of my views.
There are two ideas that people get from that film:
1. Somehow the government was involved in the destruction of the Pentagon.
I cannot say that this is no possible. Let's face it, any moron who think that the government cannot do something is fooling themself. "Oh no, they could never arrest me without a warrent." Well, sorry to burst you bubble, but the goverment can do anything really. Do I like that? Not really. Is it possible that some black op has been reponsible for our safety? Sure. Some less then legal deeds done? Of course, and that is not something I like either.
However, the reason I find it ulikely that #1 is correct is that I do not see what the government could gain from doing it. The destruction of the WTC would have been easily enough for the public to allow action in Afghanistan.
Second, contrary to what some people would want to make you think, I don't think the current administration would had done that at all. I don't like Bush, but I'm not quite sure if any president would do that. That is like saying FDR had the USS Arizona sunk, during Pearl Harbor in order to make us go to war with Japan.
Number 2 is the more logical conclusion I think we can reach:
It is highly possible that the plane that struck the Pentagon was NOT a 747, but still a plane. It is possible for a smaller plane to do less damage, right? Let's look at this further, prehaps this plane had explosives? That could have destroyed a majority of the plane. Even the impact into the Pentagon and the resulting explosion from the jet fuel, plus and time the fuesalage spent in open flame could allow it's destruction. The plane that hit the WTC were almost completely vaporized on impact to the building. It's not a strech to assume that the same thing happens on a smaller scale too.
The other possiblities are a possible bomb or missle. The bomb is ulikely, because the securtiy at the Pentagon, even Pre-911 was tight.
The missle idea is highly unlikely. One, we'd either have to assume it was an American strike, which I've stated that I find personally unlikely. Otherwise we'd have to think that a terrorist got a missle launcher onto our soil. No easy task. Otherwise, we are assuming the terrorist had access to an ICBM. Unlikely, but not impossible. If they had intercontinental missile, they why not strike on a high scale. Furthermore, an ICBM would have bee more liekly to destryot the entire building.
Do I like Bush much? Not really. But do I think that he had it in him to oversee a massive coverup about some kind of American caused attack on the Pentagon in order to ensure support? No. Nor do I think he's smart enough. We're talking a bout a man behind such famous quotes as "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." and the famous "Fool me once, fool me twice" crap.
We're talking about an idiot.
We're also talking about a film made on the internet, where bias run wild.
Maybe we're not being told the whole truth, but I doubt Bush (an idiot)is involved in a huge coverup like that.
Truth be told the government does alot of questionable things behind our backs. Any governemnt does. But do I think it possible that an administartion run by a relativly dumb man could and would do this and find a a way to cover it up? No.
There are two ideas that people get from that film:
1. Somehow the government was involved in the destruction of the Pentagon.
I cannot say that this is no possible. Let's face it, any moron who think that the government cannot do something is fooling themself. "Oh no, they could never arrest me without a warrent." Well, sorry to burst you bubble, but the goverment can do anything really. Do I like that? Not really. Is it possible that some black op has been reponsible for our safety? Sure. Some less then legal deeds done? Of course, and that is not something I like either.
However, the reason I find it ulikely that #1 is correct is that I do not see what the government could gain from doing it. The destruction of the WTC would have been easily enough for the public to allow action in Afghanistan.
Second, contrary to what some people would want to make you think, I don't think the current administration would had done that at all. I don't like Bush, but I'm not quite sure if any president would do that. That is like saying FDR had the USS Arizona sunk, during Pearl Harbor in order to make us go to war with Japan.
Number 2 is the more logical conclusion I think we can reach:
It is highly possible that the plane that struck the Pentagon was NOT a 747, but still a plane. It is possible for a smaller plane to do less damage, right? Let's look at this further, prehaps this plane had explosives? That could have destroyed a majority of the plane.
Even the impact into the Pentagon and the resulting explosion from the jet fuel, plus and time the fuesalage spent in open flame could allow it's destruction. The plane that hit the WTC were almost completely vaporized on impact to the building. It's not a strech to assume that the same thing happens on a smaller scale too.
The other possiblities are a possible bomb or missle. The bomb is ulikely, because the securtiy at the Pentagon, even Pre-911 was tight.
The missle idea is highly unlikely. One, we'd either have to assume it was an American strike, which I've stated that I find personally unlikely. Otherwise we'd have to think that a terrorist got a missle launcher onto our soil. No easy task. Otherwise, we are assuming the terrorist had access to an ICBM. Unlikely, but not impossible. If they had intercontinental missile, they why not strike on a high scale. Furthermore, an ICBM would have bee more liekly to destryot the entire building.
Do I like Bush much? Not really. But do I think that he had it in him to oversee a massive coverup about some kind of American caused attack on the Pentagon in order to ensure support? No. Nor do I think he's smart enough. We're talking a bout a man behind such famous quotes as "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." and the famous "Fool me once, fool me twice" crap.
We're talking about an idiot.
We're also talking about a film made on the internet, where bias run wild.
Maybe we're not being told the whole truth, but I doubt Bush (an idiot)is involved in a huge coverup like that.
Truth be told the government does alot of questionable things behind our backs. Any governemnt does. But do I think it possible that an administartion run by a relativly dumb man could and would do this and find a a way to cover it up? No.
-Alex Mac
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment