pentagon missile

[dark skies]

this might seem strange but bear with me on this


the hole in the pentagon wasnt big enough for it to have been a plane so must have been a missile right.

now last night i was watching 7 days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Days_episodes

the sci fi series from the late 90's where the NSA can send someone back for 7 days to undo something that happened

now in the second episode of the second series which aired in october 1999 had someone fly a missile into the pentagon,

now ive also noticed the in the pilot episode terrorists fly a plane into the white house,

its food for thought that somethings can be blatently put out right infront of your nose and not realise it till a lot later

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Pretty sure it was a jet.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Pretty sure it was a jet.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

How come the vast majority of your posts are 9/11 rebuttals?
Where exactly do you stand on the whole thing?
Can you explain your theory on the topic please?

[mojo]

I checked out the article from the link above. It is written by Jim Hoffman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman

He is critical of the offical explanation to the Twin Towers collapse.

[modwiz]

Posted by dark skies (here)
this might seem strange but bear with me on this


the hole in the pentagon wasnt big enough for it to have been a plane so must have been a missile right.

now last night i was watching 7 days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Days_episodes

the sci fi series from the late 90's where the NSA can send someone back for 7 days to undo something that happened

now in the second episode of the second series which aired in october 1999 had someone fly a missile into the pentagon,

now ive also noticed the in the pilot episode terrorists fly a plane into the white house,

its food for thought that somethings can be blatently put out right infront of your nose and not realise it till a lot later

Unfortunately this will be a lot of finger pointing and he said, he said until some of the perpetrators and/or enablers go to prison and have to deal with some 'missiles' of their own. Not until then will the real story will come out.

This was the crime of the century. JFK, and the allowed bombing of Pearl Harbor, were technically last century. A lot of people were murdered at the crime scene and the continuing cover-up, as well as the bogus wars that were the intended product of the crime. Although technically they may not be murders because the government commissioned them. Murder is a legal term. In this case we have to use the more legally correct term of killed.

BTW. EWO. You are on my ignore list and anything you say will be invisible to me. You might want to put me on yours. What a gift the ignore list is.

[RMorgan]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Pretty sure it was a jet.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

As far as I know from my researches, there´s no possibility that it was a airplane that hit the pentagon. There are hundreds of articles about his subject on the web. Just do some research and see for yourself.

I remember that the official statement was that the plane was "vaporized" on impact, which is literally impossible and ridiculous, because burning plane fuel isn´t hot enough to "vaporize" an entire plane! They had said that, because there was not a single piece of such "plane" left on the location of the impact.

[modwiz]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Pretty sure it was a jet.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

As far as I know from my researches, there´s no possibility that it was a airplane that hit the pentagon. There are hundreds of articles about his subject on the web. Just do some research and see for yourself.

I remember that the official statement was that the plane was "vaporized" on impact, which is literally impossible and ridiculous, because burning plane fuel isn´t hot enough to "vaporize" an entire plane! They had said that, because there was not a single piece of such "plane" left on the location of the impact.

I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person. That eliminates a lot of people in America. The you have those who are afraid of where a finger might point. It is clear whoever did The Towers did the Pentagon. I will include a little clip from FOX and you might be able to connect dots and find some issues. There might even be some dual citizenship issues as well.

Here is a link to the overall article:http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11...-much-to-hide/

Here is a quote below the video:
"You heard it, didn’t you? “Israeli citizens (many thousands worked in the WTC) were told by their government to ‘take the day off’ on 9/11.” The ADL said the rumor came from an antisemitic group.
Here you saw it, it came from a Fox News report, owned by Newscorp, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who holds Israeli citizenship. Is what Fox reported true? I don’t know but I do know that the ADL lied. What does that mean? You know what that means, I think we all do. But, today, our issue is NYPD and their inexplicable role in the greatest conspiracy of the century."

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

[QUOTE=modwiz;361489]

Posted by dark skies (here)

BTW. EWO. You are on my ignore list and anything you say will be invisible to me. You might want to put me on yours. What a gift the ignore list is.

I realise modwiz wont be reading this but just thought I would post my reasons for not ignoring anyone. I prefer not to stick my fingers in my ears and instead listen to what everyone has to say. Shutting down discussions makes it seem that one cannot argue ones point and instead relax with the knowledge that they wont have to defend their arguments.
I have not offended or been rude to modwiz so I can see no other reason for him ignoring me other than willful ignorance.


My position on 9/11 is that I think it was an inside job and we must study the facts and observations using the scientific method without bias no matter how appealing a certain scenario may be.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Pretty sure it was a jet.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

As far as I know from my researches, there´s no possibility that it was a airplane that hit the pentagon. There are hundreds of articles about his subject on the web. Just do some research and see for yourself.

.

I spent the last 4 years looking into this topic. I too for a long time thought that it was a missile but I don't think that was the case at all.

[RMorgan]

I´m not sure if it was a missile as well. Possibly not. I think they might have used some kind of explosive device.

[Eagle]

why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated), of course this was in inside job in prep for the Iraq and Afghan invasions. here again the plane in pennsylvania didnt really crash but was shot down. There is a method to the madness, Turn the Page!

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Pretty sure it was a jet.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

How come the vast majority of your posts are 9/11 rebuttals?
Where exactly do you stand on the whole thing?
Can you explain your theory on the topic please?

Please see this post that covers the movement as a whole as well as the destruction of the towers:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...truth-movement

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

[QUOTE=modwiz;361497]

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is one of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Who will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

[Eagle]

[QUOTE=EYES WIDE OPEN;361552]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

I can create a paper on how to bake a cake but it dosent mean that I can actually bake.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[QUOTE=Dig;361555]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

I can create a paper on how to bake a cake but it dosent mean that can actually bake.

What convinced you it is an unsound paper? What did it get wrong?

Do you know who Kevin Ryan is?

[Eagle]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

airspace against a plane yes, but not a missile(low flying) and as far as the damage on the street goes it to could be cause by a missile.

[RMorgan]

[QUOTE=EYES WIDE OPEN;361552]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

This document is very technically concise indeed. However, it doesn´t explain how there were no visible pieces of the airplane at the impact location. I still don´t buy the official explanation that the plane was vaporized on impact.

[Eagle]

[QUOTE=EYES WIDE OPEN;361557]

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

I can create a paper on how to bake a cake but it dosent mean that can actually bake.

What convinced you it is an unsound paper? What did it get wrong?

Do you know who Kevin Ryan is?

what it got wrong is that even after all these years it is still trying to convince us that it was a plane

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

airspace against a plane yes, but not a missile(low flying) and as far as the damage on the street goes it to could be cause by a missile.

There is no way you could have read the paper I posted in under 4 mins. Have you already dismissed new ideas before you have read them?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[QUOTE=Dig;361565]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

I can create a paper on how to bake a cake but it dosent mean that can actually bake.

What convinced you it is an unsound paper? What did it get wrong?

Do you know who Kevin Ryan is?

what it got wrong is that even after all these years it is still trying to convince us that it was a plane

Which part of the science is wrong? If you dont want to get into specifics, can you show me what evidence convinced you it was not a plane please.

[Maia Gabrial]

The damage was a perfectly shaped hole. What can make that? Explosives set in a perfect circle? If that's the case, then maybe our perpetrators wanted to leave a clue behind, hinting at an inside job..... Maybe that's why the wall didn't come tumbling down from such a huge impact either.... Wouldn't a plane have made a different type of aperture?

The official story is as much of an insult as it SUCKS.... That's why people will continue to find new reasons to question the official lies.... And sooner or later someone is going to figure it out....IMO it's because when people suspect a lie, they'll keep on digging for the truth....
As you can see Avalonians are still digging....

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

[QUOTE=RMorgan;361563]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

This document is very technically concise indeed. However, it doesn´t explain how there were no visible pieces of the airplane at the impact location. I still don´t buy the official explanation that the plane was vaporized on impact.

These links should answer your questions:
bodies and wreckage;
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/index.html
explanation of debris scattering:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ns/debris.html