Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, Apr 5, 2006.
This one has a lot more apocryphal support than the 9/11 nonsense. I still have to ask the question "why?"
Why would the government or the NTSB or whoever cover up a missile attack on an American airliner?
If it were to keep terrorism from working. In other words, to prevent terror. Also, an accident could feasibly be covered up, if there were compelling enough reason.
I believe there are quite a few terror acts that have been covered up because the government didn't want to alarm American taxpayers. When 09/11 happened, the acts of terror could not be covered up. I also believe that plane that was downed right after 09/11 was another terror act.
But I thought that 9/11 was an inside job. What about Charlie Sheen ?
09/11 was an inside job & an outside job. Terrorists planted charges inside the building so it would implode when the jetliners crashed into them. That's not to say they didn't have help. That's my take on it, anyway. And that's not to say the government hasn't covered a lot up, which I've no doubt they have, so as to cover up their incompetence and corruption and failure to protect this Republic. IOW, they KNEW it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it. And, of course, the friends making money off of the whole tragedy.
The other flight was Flight 587, by the way.
Actually, Charlie Sheen had trained at an Al Qaeda camp in Quackistan, where he learned to conduct subversive acts against America. He then attended flight school at MS Flight Simulation Academy, where he learned to fly the planes into the buildings. He jumped out with a parachute just before impact at the WTC, because he still has a TV show to do. His original target, the White House, was changed, since Sheen didn't want to hit the place where his dad lives on "The West Wing".
Come on folks, get with the program. The vapor contrails from the airplanes are what caused the buildings to collapse, except the one that made a crop circle. (The planes didn't actually HIT the buildings, the government just made it look like they did.)
Hmmm. It appears that your theory has just been thoroughly debunked by MP's judicious use of facts probably gained after much deliberate and laborious study into all the available 911 evidence LE.
Even Phillip has shown how ridiculous your argument is through his own skillful use of the facts that I assume were also gained after much arduous study into all the available 911 evidence.
But, more infidels could have been killed, if they just blew up the buildings, with no airplanes. No warning, you know ? Just blow 'em up.
Could it be that "Hot Shots Part Deux" was a cleaver cover for that al Qaeda training...
Terrorists planted charges in the buildings to bring them down?
Sorry, but puh-leaaase.
WTC's construction, burning jet fuel, and spray-on insulation were the contributing factors.
All I can say is...........
Got any links or documentation to back this theory up?
The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
Click Here To Read Letter
[ April 07, 2006, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]
Back on topic:
By typing in--- physics911 public site--- in your search window you will find a lot of information about what took place that September morning called 911.
Got any links or documentation to back this theory up? </font>[/QUOTE]The Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel. In other words, real sources, not a buch of tinfoil-helmet links.