|
I've been lurking this thread for a couple of days, and I suddenly feel the need to contribute. I'll do my best to try to avoid being patronizing.
I just want to make sure that I have the theory correct. From what I understand, here's what you guys are saying:
Something obviously damaged the Pentagon, we can all agree on that. The damage doesn't appear to be what someone would assume a large passenger jet crashing into a reinforced structure would look like. Why any of us would claim to know what a passenger jet crashing into a reinforced structure SHOULD look like, I'm not sure. However, since the damage doesn't meet our expectation, we look for an alternative solution as to what happened. Here's what we have come up with:
The government shot down a hijacked passenger jet and killed hundreds of people. Now, instead of blaming the crash on the hijackers (easy scapegoats in my mind) they decide that they need to come up with a cover story about what happened to this jet and the people aboard. Someone comes up with the idea to crash something into the Pentagon to explain the missing plane. So.... the government decides to fly something that is NOT a passenger jet into the Pentagon....and then brainwash people that witnessed the event into believing that they saw a passenger jet and NOT the actual object the government decided to use.
And because I choose not to believe this string of events, I am being "close minded"?
|