pentagon missile

[iceni tribe]

EWO

were is the tail section inpact on this image and further more the image you are using is a composite photo.........more rubbish from journelof911studies.

[Axman]

So my question is was it true that where the damage was done is where all the files for the 2 billion? in lost money was.

Just wondering

The Axman

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
EWO, I think I can help keep a few folks from thinking you're a disinfo agent.

On 9/11, the three skyscrapers (towers # 1 and 2, plus building #7) all "fell down" at a speed that was 100% impossible by simple physics. (Near free-fall speed for the towers, and the building #7 fell for at least the first 2.5 seconds - over 100 feet - AT free-fall speed, or free-fall acceleration, to be more exact: 32ft per second per second.) This is 100% impossible, and could not have happened if the buildings were made of cheese or Popsicle sticks - much less steel and concrete. Anything in the way of the collapse with ANY structural integrity would have slowed the descent.

Nothing slowed the descent.

Nothing.

For this to occur, 100% of the structural members beneath the roof would need to lose 100% of their structural integrity, simultaneously.

The ONLY way that the roof line of building 7 could have fallen at free-fall acceleration speed was if every support column was simultaneously destroyed by explosives (or some esoteric device, but let's not go there right now.) Explosives residues (nanothermite) and iron spheres proving extremely high temperatures far far beyond office fires were found.

This is 100% proof that explosives, not fire, brought down the World Trade Center skyscrapers. It would take a large crew of demolitions experts at least a "man-week" (smallest estimate) to wire up any one of the skyscrapers, proving the explosives were planted before 9/11, proving it was a conspiracy and not a sequence of failures to respond. The evidence is clear, simple, and only by dumbing down Americans so that .005% have ever even taken a high school physics class, coupled with a concerted and deliberate disinformation program fed to shell-shocked US citizens by the mass media (propaganda wing of the CIA/NSA) could obscure the clear facts. The facts are so obvious that it is 100% impossible that NIST "scientists" sincerely believe what they wrote or said, they are deliberately lying as part of a grand conspiracy. The conspiracy (which may or may not include agents from other nations), absolutely MUST include US government personnel. So, 9/11 was indeed an "inside job" and the US government (or factions therein) conspired and covered-up the 9/11 event.

Agree, or disagree?

(I'm assuming that you agree with all of this, and that you are simply expressing some doubts about how the Pentagon event went down.) I would expect your agreement to allow a number of people that may wonder about your motives to see you in a new light.

Dennis

Agree 100%.

OK, folks, I'd say EWO is no disinfo agent. I have run into situations like this before, where someone is looking at the mountain of information and disinformation that is out there, and they come to some conclusion(s) that make them appear to be deliberately pumping out disinfo.

There were 3 separate crime scenes on 9/11, and what has to be the most sophisticated disinfo operation of all time. We also have well-meaning people not involved in the planning, execution, or cover-up that are interpreting either data or false data or testimony or false testimony - often blended with emotion - that offer an analysis of part of the operation at one crime scene, and are sincere but incorrect.

Though EWO declares that the official narrative at the WTC crime scene is pure lies (from his 100% agreement with my synopsis), I think EWO is attempting to see the physics of the Pentagon crime scene the way the official story was laid out.

I'd say, take EWO at his word, he currently thinks/believes that a Boeing 757 was used in the Pentagon crime, and if you are interested in discussing this crime scene and its evidence then hop in.

Me personally, well, I'm surprised to find myself in this thread. It popped up and I popped in. I generally am not spending much time investigation 9/11 any more, because I believe that the conspiracy is so huge and so diffused through all areas of government that a new investigation would be a soul-crushing sham. I also think that the prosecutors and federal judges currently in power would simply find everyone who is guilty "not guilty", if it did come to court. Besides, we already have enough forensic evidence to know how (at least some of it) was done - the only way to know who was in on the planning and execution is to start convicting the obvious perpetrators one-by-one and getting them to turn on the rest. (I don't really want Larry Silverstein or Rudy Giuliani or Dick Cheney to be waterboarded - because I don't believe in torture - but I'll bet those cowardly weasels would start singing pretty easily.)

EWO, do you think there was an Arab hijacker flying a jet into the Pentagon, or was the jet electronically/remotely controlled? The fighter-pilot skill-level 270° turn, getting the jet's targeted area away from Rumsfeld and pals, and on-course for a direct hit on the remodeled wing where (supposedly) the investigation for the missing $Trillions Rumsfeld announced on 9/10 was taking place, was a nice touch.

Here's what I'll say about the Pentagon crime scene, and then I'll probably just leave this topic behind.

I suspect all of the jets involved in 9/11 had remotely-operated nerve gas that killed everyone aboard after takeoff. (The very very sparse passenger lists included Raytheon employees that evidently needed to be silenced.)

A "gyro chip" installed in all the jets made them easy to remote control, and they all were.

My father-in-law (who was a fighter pilot in the Korean war) flew commercially, and flew 757s. I knew they were not only capable of remote flight, but that pilots were instructed/ordered to periodically allow the jets to fly themselves, in remote control mode. For example, in a flight from Chicago to Denver, the pilot would type-in ORD and DEN, sit back and watch. The jet would take-off, fly from Chicago to Denver, and land in Denver. The pilot had to just sit and watch. My father-in-law also took one look at the photos of the Pentagon and said, "that was not a 757 crash."

No maneuvers had to be done by amateur pilots, instead, experienced "drone pilots" - or a computer program - flying the jets remotely could precisely maneuver them, and they did. (I suspect that something went wrong with one jet, maybe they could not precisely control it, and for some reason they shot down the one above Shanksville - but I was trying to concentrate on the Pentagon right now.)

There is a video I can't locate right now that showed all of the flight patterns for East Coast air traffic on 9/11, and the flight 77 path was met and synced/duplicated by another jet - and after that, the paths diverged. That could have been the "switcheroo" or there may have been a flyover at the Pentagon by flight 77. Only the dozens of confiscated surveillance cameras and the perpetrators and cover-up team know for sure.

Some of the people who planned 9/11 were in the Pentagon, so the strike on that building was not left to any chance whatsoever. It makes no sense to use a 'droned' commercial jet, forcing it to maneuver (quite possibly beyond the parameters of physics) an impossibly perfect path that didn't scratch the lawn and didn't hit high enough to tumble across the building endangering Rumsfeld and other perpetrators. That, and the photos of the damage (especially compared to a 757) that appear to show a small jet or missile hit, possibly with planted explosives as insurance, make the 757 hit beyond unrealistic. I suspect that, as usual, we all tend to complicate things more than we need to.

Again, that's about it for me on that subject. For me personally, "debate" about the particulars of the 9/11 US government/US black ops/Mossad crime spree is not a good use of my time. It really wouldn't change anything if I knew for sure they did use a drone 757 or an F-16 or something else (I have no idea how many different missiles and small jets they have hidden away at air force bases.)

So, EWO, if you have some photographic evidence that is really convincing that it was indeed a 757, I would look at it, but again, at this point it would be merely a curiosity (and make me wonder why they pushed that jet beyond what many would consider the capabilities of flight physics.)

Peace, out.

Dennis

Some interesting info here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/...jetliners.html

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by iceni tribe (here)



EWO

were is the tail section inpact on this image and further more the image you are using is a composite photo..........

Yes, Its a composite photo. Whats the problem with that? Joining photos togther to gain an overview does not change the damage to the pentagon. It just gives a clearer picture. Not sure what your argument is here?

Reagrding the tail section and indeed wings, I can see why the lack of impressions of the plane's extremities is perhaps the strongest single piece of evidence that there was no plane. However, this is not evidence that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon. Rather it is evidence that no intact 757 crashed into the Pentagon's facade. If the extremities of a 757 were shredded just before impact, they would have failed to make impressions in the facade.
This is not as far fetched as you would imagine.
Have you ever looked into the "Bart Theory"?
Bart's theory, fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade.
Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories.

According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by charges on the aircraft a split second before impact.
It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports (Here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ses/crash.html - None of whom see a missile) of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building. Its worth looking into this scenario as it best fits ALL the evidence. Look at this for more evidence of explosives: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...explosion.html

I think a remote controlled 747 hit it and was detonated just before impact. The missing Pentagon fram would probably show this. A missile doe not fit the evidence and logisticly, why do it? Plus there are mnay who saw the plane. Apply Occams Razor.

[Oouthere]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by iceni tribe (here)



EWO

were is the tail section inpact on this image and further more the image you are using is a composite photo..........

Yes, Its a composite photo. Whats the problem with that? Joining photos togther to gain an overview does not change the damage to the pentagon. It just gives a clearer picture. Not sure what your argument is here?

Reagrding the tail section and indeed wings, I can see why the lack of impressions of the plane's extremities is perhaps the strongest single piece of evidence that there was no plane. However, this is not evidence that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon. Rather it is evidence that no intact 757 crashed into the Pentagon's facade. If the extremities of a 757 were shredded just before impact, they would have failed to make impressions in the facade.
This is not as far fetched as you would imagine.
Have you ever looked into the "Bart Theory"?
Bart's theory, fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade.
Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories.

According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by charges on the aircraft a split second before impact.
It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports (Here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ses/crash.html - None of whom see a missile) of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building. Its worth looking into this scenario as it best fits ALL the evidence. Look at this for more evidence of explosives: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...explosion.html

I think a remote controlled 747 hit it and was detonated just before impact. The missing Pentagon fram would probably show this. A missile doe not fit the evidence and logisticly, why do it? Plus there are mnay who saw the plane. Apply Occams Razor.

Don't forget that Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw an airliner overflying the parking lot directly after the explosion, remember only one plane was seen, and finally the flight path did not fit the destruction path.

Rich

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Thanks for your reply. I am pretty sure you got your information from C.I.T who made the pentacon video. They are liars IMO. I am glad Richard Gage and others have PUBLICLY withdrawn their support of them.

Reagrding Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts, please watch this:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg

It points out how CIT change date to fit their needs. I recommend watching parts 1, 3 and 4 as well.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Also watch the wings at the 2:10 mark: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LWL1hwPQFoo
They are almost compleatly shredded.

[Oouthere]

Ok, I watched the above CIT Deception video....that is not what was stated by Roberts on the full phone call and getting times incorrect is not that uncommon (9/11/2001 for me was about 72 hours long it seemed). The only way you can make such assumptions in that video is trying to prove he does not know how to communicate. IMO you are doing exactly what CIT is accused of. And Boger's verbal testimony is not what is typed on the report. So who are we to believe, the first hand witness verbal testimony or something typed on a paper that cannot be verified?

I don't remember the pilot's name, but he stated he saw the plane fly into the pentagon stating he saw the windows, passengers, etc. CIT did an excellent job by going to his location and proving it was impossible for him to have seen this without having a high speed camera since his view was only about a plane length long....at 530mph (almost a mile in 7 seconds) that would be difficult. Sometimes people lie and when it is proven it should be brought forward. Do I believe the taxis was staged....no. Do I believe the light poles were staged....no.

Also, the black box data showing the radar altimeter's last record at less than 1 second out is 273' but the one video shows the aircraft almost dragging the ground? The black box data shows the cockpit door was never opened after take-off, so Muslims with Allah's blessings had them walk through the closed doors? The video also shows a fireball rolling over the Pentagon, a direct hit and the Purdue University's impact simulation shows the fuel would have entered the building....but yet April Gallop is not burned nor smells jet fuel? I know the rotor and diffuser section in the pentagon photos are from a RB-211 engine....I've counted the turbines and looked at the parts breakdown. The simplest solution is that a 757 did hit the pentagon, but so many other facts weight against it.

I do not agree with CIT on a major part, something(s) did impact the pentagon (the generator proves this). Just like Susan McElwain's mysterious cruise type missile, perhaps there is technology not made readily available to the general military or Jane's.

Rich

[Oouthere]

I'll just throw this out there.....what would make sense imo is a pair of cruise missiles were mounted under the wings of the fly over aircraft, being released a few miles out from the pentagon. If they are painted about the same as the sky then it would be difficult to see. That would account for the light pole and generator damage but still leaves the turbine parts issue.

There was also one witness that stated he saw a craft shadowing the C-130....can't remember his name though. This is such a mess....lol

Rich

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Oouthere (here)
Ok, I watched the above CIT Deception video....that is not what was stated by Roberts on the full phone call and getting times incorrect is not that uncommon (9/11/2001 for me was about 72 hours long it seemed). The only way you can make such assumptions in that video is trying to prove he does not know how to communicate. IMO you are doing exactly what CIT is accused of. And Boger's verbal testimony is not what is typed on the report. So who are we to believe, the first hand witness verbal testimony or something typed on a paper that cannot be verified?

I don't remember the pilot's name, but he stated he saw the plane fly into the pentagon stating he saw the windows, passengers, etc. CIT did an excellent job by going to his location and proving it was impossible for him to have seen this without having a high speed camera since his view was only about a plane length long....at 530mph (almost a mile in 7 seconds) that would be difficult. Sometimes people lie and when it is proven it should be brought forward. Do I believe the taxis was staged....no. Do I believe the light poles were staged....no.

Also, the black box data showing the radar altimeter's last record at less than 1 second out is 273' but the one video shows the aircraft almost dragging the ground? The black box data shows the cockpit door was never opened after take-off, so Muslims with Allah's blessings had them walk through the closed doors? The video also shows a fireball rolling over the Pentagon, a direct hit and the Purdue University's impact simulation shows the fuel would have entered the building....but yet April Gallop is not burned nor smells jet fuel? I know the rotor and diffuser section in the pentagon photos are from a RB-211 engine....I've counted the turbines and looked at the parts breakdown. The simplest solution is that a 757 did hit the pentagon, but so many other facts weight against it.

I do not agree with CIT on a major part, something(s) did impact the pentagon (the generator proves this). Just like Susan McElwain's mysterious cruise type missile, perhaps there is technology not made readily available to the general military or Jane's.

Rich

This is one of the best posts in the thread. Open and honest and free of bias and paranoia.

For me, I don't trust CIT because of their attacks on others.
There is no need for it.
They should not need to do this.
They also manipulate and ignore evidence.
If anyone wants examples, I can provide them but I don't want this thread to become a slagging off match.
I would much rather it continue in the vain of the excellent post above.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Oouthere (here)
I'll just throw this out there.....what would make sense imo is a pair of cruise missiles were mounted under the wings of the fly over aircraft, being released a few miles out from the pentagon. If they are painted about the same as the sky then it would be difficult to see. That would account for the light pole and generator damage but still leaves the turbine parts issue.

There was also one witness that stated he saw a craft shadowing the C-130....can't remember his name though. This is such a mess....lol

Rich

We also have Henry deacon saying it was a small Navy jet. So many contradictions. That is why I believe it is way more productive to concentrate on the fact that something was allowed to hit the Pentagon rather than what hit.

[iceni tribe]

EWO

have you considered the plane parts from the pentagon crash site , could be from here........

American Airlines Flight 965, a Boeing 757 registered N651AA, was a scheduled flight from Miami International Airport in Miami, Florida to Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport in Cali, Colombia, which crashed into a mountain in Buga, Colombia on December 20, 1995, killing 151 passengers and 8 crew members.

Aftermath

Scavengers took engine thrust reversers, cockpit avionics, and other components from the crashed 757. The scavengers used Colombian military and private helicopters to go to and from the crash site. Many of the stolen unapproved aircraft parts re-appeared on the black market in Greater Miami parts brokers.[9] In a response, the airline published a 14 page list stating all of the parts missing from the crashed aircraft. The list included the serial numbers of all of the parts

speculation of coarse but is it not possible to have crashed 757 parts in what ever hit the pentagons pay load.
also is it true ,only one engine was ever recovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_965

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Interesting idea. No way to prove it either way however.

[iceni tribe]

hi EWO

here is the link to Dennis Cimino and his verdict on the FDR interpretation as you asked , 5 pages and well worth the read .

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...9&st=0&start=0