Laura said:
And you are contradicting yourself. Above you say there is nothing to "substantiate a Boeing plane having crashed into the ground, let alone being shot out of the air", yet you now quote the "evidence" for it having been shot down.
No, you didn't understand what i was saying. I did not say i believe it crashed, nor did i say i believe it was shot out of the air. On the contary, i believe there is nothing to substantiate the plane in any shape or form. The statement of "debry scattered for miles" means nothing to me. Until someone can show me that they collected the majority of the plane and body parts, as far as im concerned, the plane never existed.
A handful of scraps does not equate to a plane, even one which has been blown up. Even if it was shot out the air, there should still be considerable physical evidence lying around, and not just tiny fragments.. and no one has gone to any lengths to show that there was more than a handful of plane parts, which is HIGHLY suspicious!
Laura said:
In the case of the WTC and Shanksville, nothing will ever shake the stories that there were real planes - passenger jets - involved. There is an explanation, no matter how far into the corner research may push them, for what happened.
Again, i disagree. I recently came across the "no plane theory" again.. this is the one theory i had always ignored, but after watching some new videos on the subject, my interest has been peaked. There is alot of evidence to substantiate the idea, despite my preconcieved notions that it was "just a load of bs"..
Im not saying i buy the theory, i still think it has alot too prove, but it definatly goes to show that there may have been more to 9/11 than meets the eye.
But again, in the case of Shanksville, no one has come up with a tangible explanation of what happened, besides the official version. The "shot out the air" scenario is the only other one available, because no one thought to look further than this idea. If you do some research into this specific event, you will find that the eye witnesses, or lack of, and the supposed "photo" of the smoke plume, are all HIGHLY suspect.
Laura said:
You are missing the bigger point here completely. The Pentagon reveals the Big Lie. Whether it is shown to be an explosion or "a missile, drone or otherwise," the PTB STILL MUST EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED TO FLIGHT 77.
So? They still have too explain what happened to the flight which "crashed" in Shanksville, because there is nothing to substantiate any plane there either!
Does it not strike you as suspicious that they have come out with their own Hollywood movie covering the crash in Shanksville, reinforcing the idea that it was passengers who "overpowered" the hijackers, and that the plane was really there? Why the need to make a movie out of it? There is something more to Shanksville than i think you give credit for..
The government can not explain away Shanksville.. they don't need too though, because people, even the conspiracy theorists, have settled for alternative explanations, despite the fact that the images/video show that the plane could not possibly have crashed there.. and then theres no other explanation, because the physical debry does not add up;
If you look at the debry and where the bits landed, it makes no sense. Even if you blow a plane up, 90% of the plane does not just vapourize into nothingness. The hole in the ground is suspicious also, because it has the "wing marks".. yet theres no debry there to have made that mark.
Shanksville and the Pentagon.. no Boeing at either one, no decent explanation to either one. Only, Shanksville is the more suspicious of the two; It has a movie, it has little to no physical evidence, and secondary evidence is very dodgy..
