Did the US pay the Wagner mercenary group over 6 billion dollars?
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
"Do" we? Time will tell. But we did 50 years ago, if that is any consolation.
By the way (duh), the video confirms the fact that the airplane was obliterated. Just because the reality does not conform to how ignorant people think a plane should crash does not mean that their ignorance supersedes reality. "Oh, it couldn't do that!" is an all too-common exclamation from the ignorant, who have no expertise in what could or could not happen. Or who, in any case, prefer their imaginations to reality.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6GN9txdjdSeq/
This image is nothing but blurs. The airplane is mainly a fuselage (polished aluminum) visible as a streak, the wings having the same brightness as the ground background and therefore not particularly visible. (Matching background sky brightness was an Army Air Force research project for airplane invisibility in World War II. It worked perfectly, but was effective only in the direction it was designed for.)
How stupid are you? Pretty damn stupid, because there is no way in the world a Scud missile could fly such a trajectory. (I would happen to know, because I have modeled those trajectories.) And anyone who knew anything about Scuds would also know that. Tell me then why Flight 77 was radar-tracked from takeoff to crash? And why no one noticed a Scud launch? You are a category of person who will deny the facts in front of your face.
You don't even know what are you talking about. We have the photo of the original hole and was 8 feet max. How your theory can survive a little hole of 8 feet? https://www.bitchute.com/video/44fhZo2ZiEZ1/
More blurs. You really think fine detail (wing outline) will be discernible when the entire fuselage is a blur? Who says the wings were able to penetrate into the Pentagon? Or even all the fuselage? The main deck was probably the only major structure that wasn't obliterated. About the size of the hole.
The image of the ALCM cruise missile is a hoax. Those were all military deliverable product and no airline livery would ever be painted on them. (I worked next to the building where they were manufactured.) It is altogether the wrong size for the hole, far too small (the fuselage diameter is only 2 feet).
I don't need to have a theory when I can refer to the facts. Your theory somehow requires a missile 20 feet long and 2 feet in diameter to make an 8-foot-diameter hole by collision. But you don't have any evidence beyond blurry photos and a very inaccurate assessment of dimensions. An AGM-86 would barely be visible in the video, being MUCH smaller than a 757.
And how does your theory explain the radar track of Flight 77 from takeoff to the Pentagon? How does it explain the loss of people? How does it explain the multitude of people who saw it arrive and identified it as an airplane? How does it explain the airplane wing being observed clipping off a lamp post?---which would have caused an AGM-86 to auger into the ground at that point. How does it explain the airborne observer who watched it approach and identified it as an airplane? It doesn't...and it can't. It is bunk, and you are deliberately denying all the factual evidence. It is easy enough to get confirmation of wreckage and debris of an airplane. I am sorry that you think it is more important to nurse your pet obsession than it is to understand the truth.