You know, considering the complete destruction of the outer ring, with a hole punched in ring number 2, it would take more than just one cruise missile to do that kind of damage. And, if there were 2 or more cruise missiles fired, there would be multiple explosions. There weren't.
Don't forget y'all, the Pentagon is made from reinforced concrete, is 5 stories tall, and those rings are wide as well.
So, this hijacker was able to fly just off the ground sans one wing (as that is the official story)
Dude, Why in the hell would a gas station have their cameras pointed at the pentagon or the sky? Their cameras were pointed at their places of business. You're *assuming* that for no particular reason.....a gas station would have its security camera pointed not at their gas pumps or at their merchandise inside the stores. But at a building across the freeway, or pointed uselessly into the sky.
Your explanation of events is, as always, stupidly complicated, wildly elaborate, and doesn't make a lick of sense.
The 'cruise missile' explanation is just awful. Again, why wouldn't they simply crash the plane? They clearly had no problem killing people. It would inflict horrific damage. And it wouldn't require your insanely complicated, horrendously improbable conspiracy cover up.
Cameras at the Pentagon would be focused for building security. Their purpose is to thwart anyone trying to illegally enter the building perimeter
They would not pick up an aircraft flying at 500 mph until the last instant
Planes can't fly at 500 MPH at low altitude without breaking up which is why planes start their descent 30 minutes before landing.
time to hand out the crying towel for him to cry like the baby he always does when he he gets owned on this.LOL
LA RAM, I wrote this awhile back and all I got was crickets.........
"Can I ask you an honest question??? Do you consider yourself an open minded, critical thinking person? If you are....then how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven't even done 10 minutes of research into the matter? That's kind of ignorant don't you think? Not everything is a conspiracy, but nor is NOTHING a conspiracy either. Wouldn't you agree that we should evaluate each case independently and with an open mind?
The question I get all the time by naysayers is "If this is a conspiracy then explain to me how they managed to do x, y, and z?"
My response?? "I don't have every missing piece of this puzzle. But I have enough pieces to KNOW that the government-media version is false...... Imagine if I gave you a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, and told you that the image is of a beach in Hawaii. But after snapping 30 pieces together, you notice polar bears, snow capped mountains, and men covered in furs. Although there are still 70 missing pieces, you already have enough to KNOW that the image is NOT that of a beach in Hawaii. It's the same with solving conspiracies. I may not have all of the details, but I have laid out enough pieces to know that the official story is a lie. Does that make sense to you?
THEN I get this reply....."So what? Just because "x" happened, or "y" said this, it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. You're taking a few coincidences and making a conspiracy out of it. "
My response.... "If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomalies, the law of statistics PROVES that they can't all be just coincidence. For example, if we're playing dice, and I roll a "7" to win. That doesn't mean that my dice are rigged. It's just a 1 in 6 coincidence. But if I roll a "7", eight times in a row, then that's a 1 in 150,000 "coincidence". You would have to be a fool not to question the integrity of those dice. You do understand probabilities don't you?"