Good point
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
In all honesty, I don't know if 9/11 is all that easy to see through. The only reason I consider the theories about it here is that Q indicated inside work, at least in regards to financing it, and Q is right about so many things, but one cannot really believe some of what Q states without seriously considering all of it. On the surface to normies, it really does appear a straightforward attack on America by radical Muslims.
You cant be that naive surely.
You cannot fly a commercial plane that low at that speed.
Even more so for the Pentagon height. Veteran Air Force pilots said it is impossible.
Aluminium cannot cut through steel and concrete like butter. Experiments prove it.
Everything destroyed but the terrorists' passport survived.
Insider stocks transferred weeks before. Insurance taken out for terrorist event weeks before.
All the trillion dolar black budget audit docs conveniently destroyed in that specific part of the Pentagon.
Building 7.
Thats not even the half of it yet you think a few guys trained in a cave can pull this off in the richest most developed country in the world?
THEY EVEN DID AIR DRILLS FOR EXACTLY THIS EVENT THAT VERY MORNING TO CONFUSE EVERYONE.
Fuck me. Why are you even here if you are so asleep?
A lot of fancy stuff is not required for 9/11 to have been an inside job. There are plenty of radical Muslims who are more than willing to fly into a building, their groups may have been fomented and funded by the CIA, but many willing to take it up. Insider trading and funding is plausible. The only problem I have with the theory of using aids to maximize the explosions and damage is why wait until most people are out? You want to maximize the attack, you bring the buildings down soon when there are 50,000 people in them.
Willing has nothing to do with it. It's been proven impossible.
You are talking about the fuel fires, while hot, not being hot enough to melt the steel structure. I haven't subscribed to that argument because you don't need to melt it. You just need to soften it. However, this is not needed for the inside job theory to be correct. I do wager though that all the funkiness surrounding the 9/11 report will continue to fuel these speculations, which I do not discount, by the way. People should learn it is just better to be straight up.