Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
PuPP's Theories Forum > 9/11 DECEPTION > A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon


Posted by: Mark Mar 11 2005, 11:31 PM
QUOTE
THE WISDOM FUND News & Views
SLIDE SHOW, sources, etc. at
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html


It appears unlikely that a Boeing 757, piloted by an Arab hijacker, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11

by Enver Masud
Founder and CEO
The Wisdom Fund - www.twf.org


        It appears unlikely that a Boeing 757, piloted by Hani Hanjour -
the alleged Arab hijacker, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
Photos and videos held by the U.S. government could very well refute this
conclusion - I would welcome that because the alternative is much more
disturbing.

        The Pentagon crash may be the only commercial airline crash in
modern history for which photographs of the wreckage have not been shown to
the public. Five video frames from Pentagon cameras raise more questions
than they answer - no Boeing 757 is visible.

        I'm an engineering management consultant, and live less than a mile
from the Pentagon. The first question that I asked other onlookers as we
viewed the crash site was: "Where's the plane?"

        In the photos publicly available, the hole in the Pentagon wall -
prior to the collapse of the roof - appears much too small to accomodate a
Boeing 757. If only the fusealge penetrated the Pentagon, then the wings
would have remained outside. But no large debris - anything resembling the
wings and Boeing 757 engines - is visible on the Pentagon lawn, and the
lawn itself shows no sign that a Boeing 757 skidded across it or struck it.
Indeed early reports claimed that a truck bomb had exploded, and that the
damage was similar to that inflicted on the USS Cole in Yemen.

        Also, how does one reconcile the relatively minor damage to the
Pentagon by a Boeing 757 (the Pentagon's reinforced conrete walls are 18
inches thick), with the total destruction of the World Trade Center by two
Boeing 767s (each tower was built with 236 exterior columns, and 47 core
columns - all made of steel and connected to each other by steel trusses)?
By suspending the laws of science in either one or both locations?

        Eyewitness accounts offer conflicting testimony, and they are a
poor substitute for scientific investigation - physical evidence must take
precedence over eyewitness accounts. One eyewitness account, however, takes
precedence over those of passersby.

        Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher - at a Dept. of Defense
News Briefing with Assistant Secretary Victoria Clarke on September 12,
2001 - when asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" said:
"there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections
and that sort of thing."

        Didn't Chief Plaugher see the plane's engines? The engines would
have survived the impact and heat. An engine from a plane that struck the
World Trade Center was shown on network television, and so was an engine
from American Airlines Flight 587 which crashed shortly after takeoff from
New York on November 12, 2001. Photos from the Pentagon crash site show
what looks like an engine rotor about 30 inches in diameter - a Boeing
757's engines are about nine feet in diameter.

        Another question put to Chief Plaugher at the briefing was: "Chief,
there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the
highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded
on impact due to the fuel..." Plaugher responded: "I'd rather not comment
on that."

        How did "small pieces of the plane" end up "out over the highway"
when the plane is reported to have disintegrated inside the Pentagon after
it crossed the highway? If it disintegrated outside the Pentagon why is
there nothing that looks like a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon lawn?

        It is curious that at this News Briefing, held approximately 24
hours after American Airlines Flight 77 departing from Dulles airport is
said to have crashed into the Pentagon, the words "Boeing," "Dulles,"
"flight," and "passengers" were not even mentioned. The word "plane" was
mentioned once, but Chief Plaugher would "not comment on that."

        It is even more curious that national news media failed to follow
up on Chief Plaugher's comment that "there's no fuselage sections and that
sort of thing" when dozens of onlookers, relatives, and firefighters were
interviewed on network television about the planes that crashed into the
World Trade Center.

        Photos and videos of the Pentagon reveal yet more curious sights:
one shows 8 or 10 men in office clothes carrying a large box covered with a
blue tarpaulin while firefighters look on; another shows about "50 FBI
officers" walking shoulder to shoulder in line apparently looking for small
items; yet another shows office furniture and a computer monitor which
survived the fire that is alleged to have vaporized the Boeing 757 (highly
improbable, if not impossible).

        As for the 19 alleged hijackers, their names do not appear on
Associated Press' September 17, 2001 "partial list of victims" on the
hijacked flights - the final list has not been made public. On September
23, 2001 the BBC revealed that four of the hijack "suspects" were alive.
The BBC added: " FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that
the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."

        The conspiracy theory set forth in "The 9/11 Commission Report"
offers no explanation for the hijacker's identities, and it contradicts
publicly available evidence regarding the Pentagon crash site.

        The issue of whether or not a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon
could be settled by examining the photos and videos taken between 9:35 a.m.
and 10:15 a.m. on September 11, 2001 by cameras located inside and outside
the Pentagon, the cameras at the nearby gas station and the Sheraton, and
the Dept. of Transportation cameras. These have not been made public.

        And we would still require an explanation for the "complex
maneuver" made by the alleged, Arab pilot of the Boeing 757 - Hani Hanjour.
It was reported by the New Times on May 4, 2002 that "He could not fly at
all."

        CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral,
turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in
two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's
clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver
suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators
first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a
minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the
Pentagon at 460 mph."

        Since September 11, 2001, about 5,000 foreign nationals have been
detained by the United States and denied basic constitutional rights in the
name of "wartime" expediency even though Director Mueller said in a speech
at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002: "In our investigation, we have
not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States,
or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan
and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."

        On March 4, 2004, a German court "overturned the world's only
conviction" in connection with the September 11 attack on America "because
the U.S. withheld crucial evidence."

        For a detailed analysis of deficiences in "The 9/11 Commission
Report," I recommend highly David Ray Griffin's "The 9/11 Commission
Report: Omissions and Distortions."

        Lastly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that a Boeing
757, flown by Hani Hanjour, crashed into the Pentagon - it is not necessary
for those who question that claim to disprove it.


--------------
NEED A SPEAKER? Write to wisdom@twf.org -- put "911SPEAKER" in SUBJECT line.

FREE DOWNLOAD "THE WAR ON ISLAM" at http://www.twf.org/Library/woi3aL.pdf
MORE about the book at http://www.twf.org/Library/WaronIslam.html

REPLY TO wisdom@twf.org -- to ADD or REMOVE your name from our mailing list
put "ADDtwflist" or "REMOVEtwflist" in SUBJECT line.

The Wisdom Fund
http://www.twf.org


I thought the above article gave much food for thought and soon I shall add to this thread my presentation of:
"What really hit the Pentagon that day?"

But we really could clear it up quickly if we were able to view the video tapes from the security cameras of the local businesses located around the Pentagon that had a clear view of what hit the Pentagon and which were all confiscated by the FBI later that day on 9/11.

Currently, all we have are 5 doctored???, spaced out, selected frames from the Pentagons security camera.

















user posted image

Posted by: Signer008 Mar 13 2005, 03:21 AM
Check out this shockwave video file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf

Transcript from the clip:
QUOTE

From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.



Posted by: Mark Mar 13 2005, 04:44 AM
Here's the Pentagon Strike Flash Presentation.

It could be so much better, but it has a few good points.

http://www.puppstheories.com/forum/images/pentagon.swf - 3.1 MB

(Right Click on Link and Save Target to Disk or Click to View Online)

Posted by: Ganesh2005 Mar 13 2005, 07:29 AM
Hoy PuPP, (2nd try at this, my hard drive froze up earlier)

Saw a doco the other night on ATN7 Sydney,(didn't catch the name of it) it was the full spin doctored job, fancy graphics etc.

Totally glossed over the missing frames from the surveillance tape. Didn't mention the confiscated tapes from the gas station and the Sheraton. Mostly it focused on the wonderful construction of the Pentagon & interviews with staff about their lucky escape from the abandoned wing.

Also claimed that the wings of the 757 did shear off on impact, but were buried under the rubble....anyone seen photos of this ?

I'm assuming this doco is on full rotation in the States

There's two scary aspects to this, if 9/11 was a total snow job

All the personnel involved in the cleanup and body retrieval must know what's going on here, and if so, then it involves fairly mind-boggling 'debriefing'

If all the planes involved in 9/11 were substituted, then what happened to the original planes...and more importantly, the passengers ?

Creepy stuff, dudes

Peace to all......don't buy in to the fear

Posted by: Ganesh2005 Mar 13 2005, 08:10 AM
Hey PuPP,

Are you on drugs or something?....you made a spelling mistake in the first post !

it's CONFISCATED...not CONFISGATED !!

Still, I suppose one mistake per 50,000 words is pretty good going !

But go and fix it immediately so I can edit this post !

The other interesting thing about that doco was that it showed
a controlled crash test of a passenger jet

Which PROVES that these planes can be remote controlled

Looking forward to your theory on what REALLY hit the Pentagon, PuPP

Peace

Posted by: Signer008 Mar 13 2005, 01:40 PM
An interesting analyses can be found at:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

It's shows a piece of the landing gear that I hadn't seen on any other picture. Could it be that in order to debunk the story a picture is used that was taken from somewhere else?
Other than that the starter of that thread has quite a convincing story to tell, showing damage near the windows where the wings would have impacted, which I cannot explain otherwise.


Posted by: Ganesh2005 Mar 13 2005, 03:45 PM
Hi Signer,

That Pentagon thread on ATS, was the reason I ran a mile from there, never to return.

There was an admin (Sceptic Overlord) buttin' in ev'ry 3rd post, tellin' people they were idiots for questioning the official version

I wouldn't worry about this guys convincing story....just ask yourself

Where did the wings go after they hit that wall ?

oh, that's right...they got buried in the rubble

See that bit of plastered on concrete that fell off near the window ?

That's what buried the 757 wing....simple innit ?

NEWS FLASH....Electrical fault at FBI Headquarters causes devastating fire....vital 9/11 video evidence goes up in flames......

Peace, dudes

Posted by: Mark Mar 16 2005, 12:47 PM
Hoy Ganesh, I fixed my post. But you don't have to edit yours. I'm human and I make mistakes too ya know. Thanks for letting me know.
Now how do you spell yauht? (a large boat) LOL

It will be a while, but I will eventually post several photos for analysis of the damage to the Pentagon and well as my speculation.

Definitely some type of aircraft or missile hit the Pentagon and blasted thru several 18 inch reinforced concrete walls.

But if it was a large airliner, there should have been more evidence than the "movie" prop piece of wreckage we have all been shown.

Where's the burn damage on this piece?

user posted image

IMHO, if a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon, there would be pieces all over the place.

But what is also disturbing is that everyone working on the site afterwards had to know what did or did not hit the Pentagon that day.

Were they all of the alien hive mind and kept silent for the good of the Queen?

Possibly... or were they threatened into silence?

Posted by: Mark Mar 16 2005, 12:56 PM
P.S.
Remote controlled planes have been around at least since WWII.

JFK's older brother was supposed to pilot a plane toward one of Hitlers mountain bunker/factories, bail out and then it would be remote guided to its destination.

Remember, Nazi Germany also had many advanced saucer flying craft.

The bottom line is... America and other nations governments have been hijacked by a small minority.

starofdavidspin.gif

The base of a Statue of Mary
user posted image

The back of the US dollar bill.
user posted image


The truth shall be found in what is not allowed to be discussed or debated.

Posted by: Mark Mar 12 2006, 08:33 PM
Some people scoff at those of us who do not buy into the govts tale that a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon that was piloted by unskilled Arabs.

I look at the evidence of the impact and to me, it appears to be caused by a missile or smaller object which was able to pierce through several reinforced concrete walls.

How convenient that the area that was hit in the Pentagon was holding records regarding the 2.3 to 2.6 TRILLION missing dollars from the Pentagon budget which was 'coincidently' announced by Donald "Aspartame" Rumsfeld on Sept 10th 2001.

I smell a rat... in fact I smell a whole rats nest!


user posted image

user posted image

user posted image



QUOTE
Scholars for 9/11 Truth - A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
QUOTE
To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely.

The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls ‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹ before exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

IMAGES ADDED By PuPP
user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? With an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station (Citgo) and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,
Michael Meyer

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html


user posted image

Posted by: uggliozzi May 17 2006, 09:53 PM
The three frames from the last item of the previous post have been shown on Oz TV with the blurb that the images have been released by the PTB to debunk conspiracy theorists.

A white blur to the right of one of the frames is such that no one can postively identify it as an airliner or that it is not an airliner. From an evidenciary point-of-view nothing has changed.

What has changed is that the spin-doctors have released "evidence" which the mindless majority will not question or even watch a second time. Simply because the MM have been told, "this proves that it was a passenger craft", by a government spokeperson, they will believe.

The PTB have so much control that they can resort to this obvious vacuous ploy and get away with it.


Posted by: Mark May 17 2006, 10:16 PM
I waited with anticipation for the NEW news release of more video images of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

I almost laughed, but wanted to cry as we were shown images on our tv screens that were grainier and blurrier than the original 5 frames released on the internet almost 5 years ago.
(as shown in my original post above)

Why not just show us some CLEAR IMAGES from the other locations -- like the Citco gas station located across the street from the Pentagon who, along with many other businesses, had their security camera surveilance videos confisgated by the criminal organization known as the FBI, immediately after 9/11 and were never shown to the public.

user posted image

This article below sums up my opinion quite well.

QUOTE
Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op
Intended to create a circus of interest around 'no plane' theories to later debunk them
Paul Joseph Watson
Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
May 16 2006
QUOTE
user posted image

Grainy video stills showing what is claimed to be the nose cone of Flight 77 will only result in an increased circus of debate around the issue of what happened at the Pentagon in preparation for a future release of clear video footage that 'debunks' people who question the official version of 9/11.

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.

At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

user posted image

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein?

Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen.

Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down?

Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.

While intelligent questions need to be asked about what really happened at the Pentagon we feel that research in this context should come with the proviso that a potential trap is being laid to discredit all 9/11 research at a later date, and that today's story is part of that process.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

Posted by: uggliozzi May 17 2006, 11:20 PM
Yep, the populace is being played like a Stradivarius.

After the Oklahoma bombing, the police spent six days investigating and could find nothing to implicate McVeigh. Along comes the FBI which confiscates the same documents investigated by the police and lo! a paper trail leading to McVeigh appears seven days later. After four years, how much trust can be placed in ANY evidence released by the PTB? Four years is long enough to take any footage and doctor it up enough to prove that the Pentagon was actually attacked by Godzilla, the underpants Gnomes or anything they fancy.

Fuel does not explode but rather burns catastrophically. Compare the way the flames occurred on the towers and the pentagon. The towers were struck by aircraft (indisputable) which penetrated the structure before the flames appeared. The pentagon was struck by something which exploded at the moment of impact. Whatever hit the pentagon was tipped with high speed explosives.

Posted by: Mark May 17 2006, 11:39 PM
You would think that after 4 years, TPTB would have produced a CLEAR image of what hit the Pentagon.

Yes, we are all being played for fools.

I can only imagine the amount of arguing and bickering that is taking place on govt (TPTB) controlled forums.

What makes me question the "official version" is the lack of plane debris in front of the Pentagon --- BEFORE the wall fell down.

Here's an image of the Pentagon BEFORE the wall came down --- Where is all of the plane wreckage?

user posted image

Did it vanish into that small round hole in the Pentagon walls?

Other than the one infamous piece of wreckage on the lawn, I have only seen images of old aircraft parts that were stored in the Pentagon.

Does this piece of aircraft resemble something that was just blown up and burnt to a vapor?

I see no fire, smoke or burn marks on it... it must be a miracle!

user posted image

Or does it more closely resemble a Hollywood prop, placed on the lawn for photo opportunities?

user posted image

When you realize that the beings who control our government and also control the USA news media and Hollywood, you get a clearer picture of the deceivers.
starofdavidspin.gif

Posted by: Guest May 18 2006, 06:05 AM
crime syndicate

http://miltbasilica.netfirms.com

read the kratzer report & conclusions
custer is a strange dude
but, he sure does not like the bush clan.

spacie.

Posted by: spacie May 19 2006, 05:39 AM
so many links...
so little time..
or maybe we have been given all the time we need ????
i hope so.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

spacie i am.


Posted by: Mark Oct 23 2006, 10:37 PM
Pentagon Security? Camera Video from 9/11
3 Minutes 12 seconds
At minute 126 in the Google Video, you can see a speck of white for 1 frame.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+9%2F11+video&hl=en

Here's 11 frames I put together from the Google link of the new government released video from the Pentagon security? camera.
It appears to be a slightly different view than the original 5 frames.

Note: The video contained more than 256 colors so my animation lost some image quality, but the video is extremely poor quality to begin with.
(intentionally of course!)

user posted image

The newly released video contained no more evidence to show what actually hit the Pentagon that day than the original 5 frames that has been online for 4-5 years. In fact the quality is even poorer than the original 5 frames.

Also, I see evidence of tampering as I assembled the animation frames.

Here's the original 5 frame animation so you can compare.
user posted image

Here's an enlarged version of the original 5 frames.
user posted image

Posted by: Mark Oct 24 2006, 12:34 AM
Donald Rumsfeld stated, during an interview with a reporter from Parade Magazine, that the Pentagon had been hit with a missile and the "Let's Roll" plane had been shot down over Pennsylvania.

QUOTE
"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon"
~ Donald Rumsfeld speaking from the Pentagon in an interview with Parade Magazine Oct 12, 2001

Posted by: tyciol Nov 5 2006, 08:40 AM
Wow, I always just assumed there had been pictures, it's good to know...

Even so, who would have fired a missle? I think if the wound was self-inflicted they could have easily went to the trouble of using a plane to provide pics.

Posted by: Mark Sep 21 2010, 10:34 AM
Here's a good video I just watched....

Government Confiscated 84 Camera Tapes

The implications are frightening indeed... we've been had!

Eyewitness Missile hit Pentagon on 9/11, No Plane,
Government Confiscated 84 Camera Tapes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY-gmzxnaVs

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 19 2010, 09:13 AM
I've actually done some studying of the situation and have also been on both sides of the fence concerning this issue. Did or didn't a plane hit the Pentagon? And if one did, where's the wreckage? Wreckage? Well what most people fail to realize is that a 757, 767 or just about any other airliner is nothing more than a flying beer can. It's mostly aluminum... Aluminum melts. Put a beer can on the barbi or torch it. It burns rather nicely. Put Aviation fuel or even gas in that can and it's gonna burn really good... Ain't gonna be nothing left of it but maybe some white powder that's gonna blow away in the wind.

What would it look like if a jet crashed into a brick wall? Well I can show you what a military jet crashing into a wall would look like... Watch this...

Jet crash into wall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4

Images of Jet Crashing Into Wall

Now you see it...
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_1.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_2.jpg
Now You Don't!!!
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_3.jpg

Looks kind of similar to what was seen in the famous security camera animated gif that I will reference a little further down...

Images from this site:

ERROR: 'Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

Not much left of the jet was there? And in the case of the Pentagon, everyone says that there was just a 13 foot hole and that a jet could not of made it. What they fail to consider is that a 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. The length of it is 155 ft 3 in and is like a giant missile... It has some reinforcements since it carries a payload and has a weight of 255,000 pounds with the majority of the weight being in the main 12 ft x 13 ft x 155 ft body. But still it is mostly aluminum so there ain't gonna be much of it left when it burns...

Not sure, but I think that it would have been carrying a full load which would have been 11,489 us gal. And where is that fuel located? In the main body of the jet. So now you got a 1 thousand gallon beer can crashing into what is basically a stone wall... Not a concrete wall... Oh wait a minute... The Pentagon wall was a reinforced concrete wall... But it wasn't as thick as the one in which the fighter jet crashed into so there was some penetration which was a rather nice 13 foot hole and there were also two 52 inch diameter markings, that for some reason, they tried to conceal which meant that something about the size and shape of a commercial jet crashed into the wall.

What seems odd to me is that a lot of the evidence was covered up... There was a gigantic scrape mark that was on the ground which was immediately disturbed and covered which indicated that the object was sliding on its belly across the lawn... The landing gear would of been up... Some of the wreckage was purposely covered up by tarps or mysteriously moved. But there was evidence... In one of the photos there were pieces of metal which had a certain color scheme with paint and primer that matched what would have been used in the construction of a 757...

Photo Exhibit One
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg

Yes members of Above Top Secret did their own investigation as I and also a few of my hard core government conspiracy expert colleagues did and most of us came up with similar conclusions... We also saw evidence of this with flight 800, but in that case, they were just covering up the evidence of a missile impact, which was either a purposeful downing of a commercial jet, which would have been a case of mistaken identity, since another jet, which was delayed, was supposed to be on that same flight path...

The jet that was supposed to be there was one that was carrying French diplomats...

The other scenario that I used was that 800 wandered into a restricted military missilte test area and was impacted by a NAVY missile that was intended to shoot down a drone and that 800 simply got in the way, between the missile and the drone...

Both scenarios would have been plausible and easy to defend, but since the Olympic Games were coming up very soon, the government chose to blame the whole thing on a short in the fuel tank... With that said, I'm no stranger to conspiracies. 800 was over a 1 year investigation for me and I still check any new data that pops up.

I did find it very suspicious that all the military ships did immediately leave the area and were assigned to locations as far away as possible from the area. where the crews could not be questioned...

Don't forget that there is more than one Illuminati family and not all are friendly with one another... WWI, WWII and many other full scale wars were simply little squabbles between some of these families... They're all power hungry, but not all of them were evil, just as not all of the fallen angels were necessarily evil... Some just went along for the ride and were just given the same sentence as the really evil ones were. They would rather play chess with us than just beating up on one another directly so one side sending a plane or two after one of the other families ain't so unimaginable, for lack of a better word.

OK enough of that...

Back to the wreckage. I did say that there were certain paints and primer colors that were used. The primer used on the inside parts was green. Here's a famous piece of wreckage that was found on the lawn, Notice the green primer...

Photo Exhibit Two
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010911-N-6157F-001.jpg

This is cool... I helped to distribute the famous ainmated gif from the images of the security camera, but never actually tried to break down the gif and try to match up the object pictured in it with a 757, but luckily someone did...

Animated Gif Comparison
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/camera1b.gif

One thing that I did do was show that if you carefully watch the original gif, you will see one of the wheels of the object bounce around... I had a little program called the microsoft gif animator which was a very useful tool that I actually used to discect and build quite a few animated gifs so I could break down the image frame by frame...

Well anyway... Let's take a look at the engine or one of them anyway...

Photo Exhibit Three

QUOTE
Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, one of the pumps remains partially attached, some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps (to the right of the main ring) and some of the Boeing yellow primed support structure is lying beside it (left, with rivets - again: note the yellow primer, we'll cover that further down).


http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg

OOPS!!! - Green and Yellow primers were used...

The engine was positively identified as a RB211... Not sure but I think it was an RB211 535 which was used in 757's... Yeah that's right... The 747's used the 211-524.

RB211-535 Engine Image
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/largeaircraft/rb211_535/

RB211-535 Engine Schematic
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-535_4.jpg

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Here's another piece of one of the engines...

Photo Exhibit Four - Damaged Engine Part with Comparison Image
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-comparison.jpg

Photo Exhibit Five - Exploded Engine Schematic View
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-535_3.jpg

Photo Exhibit Six - Another Engine Part
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-engine5.jpg

And here is one of the dents that one of the engines made in the side of the Pentagon

Photo Exhibit Seven - Engine Dent
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg

Well that's enough on the engines...

Break time...

cheers2.gif

Posted by: Mark Nov 19 2010, 09:31 AM
It would be easier for THEM to simply show us some of the video tapes from the over 80 cameras that captured the event.

I still believe it was a missile and not a large plane.

Here's a video released from a lawsuit...

Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=player_embedded#at=32

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 19 2010, 10:07 AM
Back to flight 800 for a moment...

One of my colleagues just sent me this...

Check this out...

QUOTE
August 25, 1996 Times of London

U.S. officials are investigating reports that Islamic terrorists have
smuggled Stinger ground-to-air missiles into the United States from Pakistan.

Senior Iranian sources close to the fundamentalist regime in Tehran claimed this weekend that TWA flight 800 was shot down last month by one of three shoulder-fired Stingers of the type used by Islamic guerrillas during the Afghanistan war.

The sources said the missiles arrived in America seven months ago after being shipped from Karachi via Rotterdam and on to the Canadian port of Halifax.

They claimed an Egyptian fundamentalist group backed by Iran was responsible for smuggling the weapons across the Canadian border into the United States.

The group, the Gama'a al-Islamiya, comprises followers of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric jailed in the United States over the 1993 New York World Trade Center bombing.

A senior White House official responsible for counter-terrorism told The Sunday Times this weekend that he had seen a report that a Stinger missile had been smuggled into the United States from Pakistan. The official, who is involved in collating intelligence relating to the TWA inquiry for the White House, said investigators were aware of reports that Stingers may have been smuggled into the country.... If a Stinger was the cause of this, our first theory would be that it came from Afghanistan."

The official was commenting on reports from Tehran that claimed several groups funded by the religious authorities in Iran are active in the United States.

The reports claim one previously unknown underground group called Falakh may have as many as 50 highly trained terrorists in the country.


http://www.twa800.com/news/timesoflondon-8-25-96.htm

I was also told to look at this particular line...

QUOTE
If a Stinger was the cause of this, our first theory would be that it came from Afghanistan." 


Hell let's just blame 800 on Assganifstan or maybe even Iraq... Are we ready to go invade them yet... No NOT yet... Too early... Damn Olympics would have to be now!!! - Let's just say that it blew itself up... Are You Nuts? Yeah... Faulty wiring... Don't some fire marshals or arson investigators blame some house fires and crap like that on faulty wiring when they don't want to investigate it? Sure they do... So do it!!! angryNEW.gif

Just a little internal dialog...

There was also a book or novel out at the time that had a scene in it of a man in a boat or something like that and he supposedly shot down a jet with a stinger missile. Not sure when the book came out but it was sometime around the time of the event which was an impossible scenario because stingers just don't have tthe range... Had to be a ship or sub launched one... Much bigger.

Oddly enough there was an episode of a TV show "Lone Gunmen" or something like that which was a spin off of the X-files with the three brainiacs that had the scenario of a smalll plane being remote controlled that was being guided to crash into , believe it or not, the World Trade Center... This episode came out about a year or two before 911.. So there is evidence that they kind of send messages to one another about doing nasty things to people like let us crash something into some buildings or shoot a jet down with a missile... Of course some psychic people could also be picking up on some of these events subconsciously and writing them down in their story lines and novels.

Here it is!!!

Watch this!!!

It's the most important 10 minutes of video that you'll ever see...

The Lone Gunman, Pilot Episode (Air Date: March 4, 2001)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384CCzUKHtA

So it came out a few months before 911 and not a few years before it...
My take on it was that it was a very clear warning, but unfortunately... it was ignored...

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 19 2010, 10:37 AM
QUOTE (Mark J. Harper @ Nov 19 2010, 12:31 PM)
It would be easier for THEM to simply show us some of the video tapes from the over 80 cameras that captured the event.

I still believe it was a missile and not a large plane.

Yes it would be easy if they showed us the footage if they had it... Not sure if the good guys confiscated it or the bad guys did. I fully explored the missile scenario and there were just too many holes in it especially the type of launch vehicle that would of had to be used...

There are some rather hostile factions of the government, including the families themselves and what I see here is that the Rothchilds or some of their relative off-shoots went after the Meravingians going so far as to not only cover-up the truth of the event, but also add incriminating evidence or twist it up so much as to make that family look like the ones that were responsible for it... The situation was so bad that we were a heart beat away from coming under martial law if the one family didn't knock it off. Thanks to the stupidity of that one family, there now exists an executive order that gives the President of the United States sole authority to institute martial law which means that if someone sneezes on any President, that President can immediately put us under a state of martial law. That's why everyone is being so cautious around Obama... Obama does belong to one of the rival families of the Meravingians or whatever they're called. The Meravingians were basically the royal family line BTW... House of Windsor, etc...

It was basically let us in or we'll blow you all into little bitty pieces and do worse things than we do in other countries under our influence... They're basically the uncivialized knuckle-dragging extremeists... Power and respect through Violence and Intimidation types and not the Bread and Circus types that we've been being manipulated by...

I know it because I feel all their emotions and it's in my blood... I could of gone down the path of destruction, but I was awakened to the light. I still have the urges, but have basically become civilized...

Though sometimes I must admit that I would just like to... EmoticonHulkMorph.gif and just see how much damage that I could actually do, but I have something that most of them don't...

A EmoticonSpinningHeart.gif and a soul...

Another break...

cheers2.gif

Posted by: Mark Nov 19 2010, 11:58 AM
We are all blessed with certain gifts in life - one of mine is to be able to see through someones lies, or to be able to look into their eyes and tell they are lying. I make a bad juror, according to the judicial law.

If I believed the 'Official' tale of 9/11 -- this PuPP's Theories website would not even exist and I would not have lost my free stuff site 8 years ago.
http://puppsfreestuff.com
I got it back in April and I created a thousand animated gifs
http://puppsfreestuff.com/files/animgifs.htm

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 19 2010, 01:24 PM
Flight 800 was a dress rehersal for us...

Here we go...

Missile scenarios...

Sub based...

QUOTE
The Cannister Launch System: Missiles from submarines.

Submarine Launched Missiles.

The Submarine Cannister Launch System.

Why Develop And Test An Aegis Guided Sub-launched SAM?

Prior to the present time, ASW aircraft have enjoyed a one-sided game. They get to take all the shots at the sub, and the sub has no choice but to run and try to hide.

Mounting a credible defense against ASW attack from the air presents serious difficulties for the submarine. Even when surfaced, the submarine's shape limits both the effectiveness and range of air-search radars. Surfacing immediately presents a target for a kill from the air in any event. Staying deeply submerged provides the greatest safety for the submarine, but means that the submarine cannot locate and track the attacking aircraft. But the Aegis radars, operating from a safe distance away, provide that function, painting the attacking aircraft, and signaling the cannister launch via VLF or ELF radio.

The advantage of the cannister system is twofold. Launched via conventional torpedo tube, the system can be retrofitted to existing submarines without vertical launch tubes (such as the older 688 boats), and the delay in the cannister's rise to the surface allows the submarine to clear datum, so that the actual missile firing does not reveal the submarine's true location.

Is A Sub-launched SAM Useful For Offensive Tasks?
Clearly a missile that is launched from a direction other than the vector to the Aegis radar greatly complicates the air defense problem of the enemy, by masking the threat direction. Launched from closer in, a sub-launched missile also cuts the reaction time of the enemies air-defense system.

These are two real tactical advantages that the Standard missiles, launched from the Aegis ship itself, do not have.

Submarine VLS.

Meanwhile, its worth noting that the enhanced type 688 submarine includes 12 vertical launch tubes forward of the sail which are admitted to handle Tomahawk and Harpoon. The Mark 41 surface launcher handles Tomahawk and Harpoon and Sea Sparrow and Standards with the same sized tube.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/SYS_CANNISTER.html

MISSILE TYPES

The Sea Sparrow Missile

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Air-to-air and surface-to-air radar-guided missile
Contractors: Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics
Power Plant: Hercules MK-58 solid-propellant rocket motor
Thrust: Classified
Speed: More than 2,660 mph (4,256 kph)
Range: More than 30 nautical miles (approximately 55 km)
Length: 12 feet (3.64 meters)
Diameter: 8 inches (20.3 cm)
Wingspan: 3 feet 4 inches (one meter)
Warhead: Annular blast fragmentation warhead, 90 pounds (40.5 kg)
Launch Weight: Approximately 500 pounds (225 kg)
Guidance System: Raytheon semi-active on continuous wave or pulsed Doppler radar energy
Date Deployed: 1976
Unit Cost: $165,400
Inventory: Classified
Aircraft Platforms:
Navy: F-14 and F/A-18;
Air Force: F-4, F-15, and F-16;
Marine Corps: F-4 and F/A-18 http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-spro.html


Tomahawk Missiles
General Characteristics
Primary Function: long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, Ariz.
Unit Cost: approximately $600,000 (from the last production contract)
Power Plant: Williams International F107-WR-402 cruise turbo-fan engine; CSD/ARC solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Range: 870 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1609 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Guidance System: TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS (Block III only)
Warheads: 1,000 pounds or conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.
Date Deployed: 1986 - IOC; 1994 - Block III; 2003 - Tactical Tomahawk® http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-toma.html


The Harpoon missile

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Air, surface, or submarine launched anti-surface (anti-ship) cruise missile.
Contractor: The Boeing Company
Power Plant: Teledyne Turbojet and solid propellant booster for surface and submarine launch.
Thrust: 660 pounds (approximately 299.38 kilograms)
Length: 12 feet, 7 inches (3.8354 meters) – air launched; 15 feet (4.572 meters) – surface and submarine launched.
Weight: 1,145 pounds (519.372 kilograms) – air launched; 1,385 pounds (628.236 kilograms) – submarine or ship launched from box or canister launcher.
Diameter: 13.5 inches (34.29 centimeters)
Wing Span: 3 feet (91.44 centimeters) with booster fins and wings.
Range: Over-the-horizon, in excess of 60 nautical miles.
Speed: High Subsonic
Guidance: Sea-skimming cruise monitored by radar altimeter, active radar terminal homing.
Warhead: Penetration high-explosive blast (488 pounds/224 kilograms)
Unit Cost: $720,000
Date Deployed: 1985 http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-harp.html

That's sub based missiles... Could they have been used against the Pentagon... Nope... All too small... The missile would have to be 13 feet in diameter... I might be going out on a limb for saying this, but as far as I know, there isn't any type of missile launched by any platform that would punch a 13 foot diameter hole in a building.

Any sub based or even ship based missile would have made a small hole as seen in this flight 800 image that shows the hole made by what we consider to be a missile with clear traces of explosive residue... The hole is marked in red.

Side of Flight 800 image
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CHART/lineup.gif

The largest missiles that we have are the cruise missiles and none of them have a 13 foot diameter. I think that the largest one is about 2 feet in diameter. And if we did have one that big, there wouldn't be nothing left of the Pentagon...

The evidence for a jet hitting the Pentagon and not a missile is that whatever hit the Pentagon slid into it on its belly... Some people say that there was no evidence of a skid mark...

Well here it is...
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image039.jpg

Not only that, but the object in question had wings that took out 5 light poles. Bear in mind that if you backed your SUV up hard enough into one of these poles, they would break rather easily... So not a lot of force is required to knock one down...

Light pole 1
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image035.jpg

Light pole 2
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image036.jpg

Some people also think that it was an Air Force A3 jet that crashed into the Pentagon, but they've all been accounted for... And besides, there's the Pentagon video gif that I really took a good look at and pointed out the Jet shaped object sliding into the Pentagon on its belly...

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats...57/camera1b.gif


It would of looked something like this...
http://www.physics911.net/images/c-pentagon_montage.jpg

Diagram of scenario
http://www.physics911.net/images/a-diagram.gif

This is the animated gif that I worked with made from the Pentagon security camera:
http://www.physics911.net/images/e-pentagon_animation.gif

Look on top of the colum-like object and you will see the tail of the jet... and you will also see in the last frame what appears to be a wheel near the left side of the image.

Here's one of the wheels and it was definitely from a 757...

Pentagon 757 Wheel
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_C_vdDiXm0H4/R_JxduVW_FI/AAAAAAAACqo/iKAzXgcFX4s/s1600/pentagon-wheel-03.jpg

757 Wheel Comparison Photo
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/b757-main-wheel-01.jpg

Both wheels are identical.

QUOTE
The key features that help to identify the wreckage are further highlighted above. These include:

The shape of the rim around the edge, most of which has been destroyed by the violent impact (highlighted in blue)

A central hole through which a shaft, or hub, attaches the wheel to the rest of the gear (highlighted in green)

Three screw hole projections equally spaced around center hole used to attach a cover over the central hub (highlighted in purple)

A series of 16 bolt holes along the edge of the wheel, note that eight holes are visible over half of the wheel while those on the symmetrical half are obscured (numbered in red)

Eight oval cutouts, six of which are visible while the final two have been covered by surrounding debris (numbered in yellow)
That brings us to the specific comparisons brought up by these questions. Jack Wilson sent a link to the following picture that also included text stating:
"... Government apologists claim the shape of the spokes is the same as that on the 757, and therefore presumably couldn't have come from any other aircraft. Evidently, however, they neglected to notice the fact that the wheel found at the pentagon has only 8 spoke holes, while the wheels used on the pictured 757 have 10. ..."


10 spoke wheel
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/b757-main-wheel-01.jpg

QUOTE
This photo was originally posted on an aviation photography site that has since gone defunct, so we have been unable to determine whom the photographer was or the specific aircraft model it comes from. However, it does appear to be a photo of a Boeing 757. Nevertheless, it is not clear why the author claims this wheel has ten cutouts instead of the eight on the Pentagon debris. Parts of eight equally-spaced cutouts are visible on the closest wheel and it seems unlikely that any additional cutouts are hidden behind the protrusion from the center hub. Perhaps the perception of additional cutouts may be due to the angle at which the photo was taken since the lower corner of the wheel is obscured. A better comparison can be found in the following two pictures that provide a clearer view of the main landing gear wheels on the Boeing 757-200.


8 spoke wheel 757-200
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/b757-main-wheel-02.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/b757-main-wheel-03.jpg

QUOTE
Both of these aircraft not only have eight cutout holes but also 16 bolt attachment holes, three center screw holes, and an outer rim matching the Pentagon debris in every detail. According to the official story of what happened on September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by five terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon. The aircraft flown on Flight 77 was a Boeing model number 757-200 with the registration number N644AA. Numerous photos of N644AA were taken while the plane was in service, including the following shot taken just one month before its loss. This picture captures the aircraft shortly after takeoff with its landing gear deployed. Zooming in on the gear, we can see that the main gear wheels of N644AA do indeed have eight cutouts just like the debris found at the Pentagon.


Jet taking off image
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/b757-main-wheel-04.jpg

Another 757-200 Wheel Comparison Image
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg

I wish I could remember where my colleagues had posted the Pentagon crash information. In my first post I was pretty much doing it from what I remembered...
I actually supported the missile theory at first, but reconsidered it after looking at the actual evidence to the contrary. And it is as I said, there was a cover-up by one faction of the government to frame the other and proposed some pretty intense scenarios which included the missile theory. If Obama releases the missing security videos then it means that the family that he works for or is a part of were the ones who confiscated them in the first place, leaving the Merivingians with nothing much to prove their innoscense in the matter...

Posted by: Mark Nov 19 2010, 01:45 PM
When I saw the lawn right after the impact, there should have been debris, lots of debris carried in by the low flying LARGE airliner, but there was not.

The piece of UNCHARRED wreckage, I have the famous photos of it, was not evidence to me that a plane was there, just a piece of uncrumpled uncharred airplane fuselage.

It's ok if you believe what you do - that is our creator given right -- and I've learned that no one can change our minds - except ourselves. Usually upon reflection and re-examining the events, we may come to a different conclusion.

We all know, the bottom line was something smelled bad and it was coming from our govt.

You know I respect your opinion, as you respect mine - Thanks Darmon Ving

But hey --- What did you think of that 'dirty' missile that was launched off of my So Calif coast last week?

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 19 2010, 01:46 PM
QUOTE (Mark J. Harper @ Nov 19 2010, 02:58 PM)
If I believed the 'Official' tale of 9/11 -- this PuPP's Theories website would not even exist and I would not have lost my free stuff site 8 years ago.

It's still a conspiracy that was perpetrated by a faction of the ruling class or as Bush called them... His people... and us "The American People...

QUOTE
"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants, and in so doing, we not only freed the American people, we made our own people more secure."—Crawford, Texas, May 3, 2003


Or So He Thought...

It could still be an "Inside Job", but there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't use jets to achieve their objectives and kill thousands of what would seem to be their own people...

More easier to believe that the international bankers were responsible for 911, than some idiotic terrorist cell and even if a cell did it, someone bigger was definitely calling the shots. jam.gif

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 19 2010, 01:53 PM
QUOTE (Mark J. Harper @ Nov 19 2010, 04:45 PM)
But hey --- What did you think of that 'dirty' missile that was launched off of my So Calif coast last week?

Now that one I'm not sure of yet. Been keeping that one at a low simmer, but it's very possible that a sub from most likely China snuck in as close as they dared to come and fired a missile off over their shoulder as a warning to us... It's something that I would do. That was kind of in the back of my mind when I posted the missile sub launch data...

Posted by: Mark Nov 19 2010, 02:37 PM
I was wondering if you were thinking about that, which is why I asked

Posted by: Mark Nov 19 2010, 02:45 PM
There's a you tube video showing a UFO in the CBS news video before it was edited out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP68zsCIHc

When I saw the video on CBS news of a plume rising from the ocean off of my so cal coast, I could tell it was a missile.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/tech/main7038238.shtml

I do not know if it was China flexing its muscle or not.

Posted by: DarmonVing Nov 22 2010, 06:21 AM
Not sure about a UFo. Might have been a large helicopter according to ane report, but it seems that there is some talk about the missile being Chinese.

QUOTE
Experts: Mystery contrail was from Chinese missile

'Muted response' was decision 'made by the president himself'

Posted: November 19, 2010
8:00 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Although the U.S. Defense Department and North American Aerospace Defense Command have speculated publicly that the unidentified contrail of a projectile soaring into the skies off the California coast – and recorded by a KCBS television crew – came from a jet and posed no security threat to the U.S., several experts are raising provocative and disturbing questions about the government's official response, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Two governmental military experts with extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems have examined the television video and conclude the mysterious contrail originating some 30 miles off the coast near Los Angeles did not come from a jet – but rather, they say the exhaust and the billowing plume emanated from a single source nozzle of a missile, probably made in China.

They further suggest the missile was fired from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine off America's coast, and point out that the timing of the alleged Chinese missile shot coincided with an increasing confrontation between the U.S. and China, and was likely meant to send a message to Washington.

Indeed, the Federal Aviation Administration documents that there were no aircraft flying in the area at that time, the night of Nov. 8.

"The question that still must be answered is why NORAD's muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail," said retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash.

A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures.

"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said.

Even more ominously, cautioned Cash: "We must question the timing of this shot across our bow. The president was abroad being diplomatic, which means trying to placate China which is becoming overly concerned with our handling a totally out-of-control deficit in spending."

Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer who has worked at the National Security Agency and the Naval Data Automation Command, said the inability to pick up what he described as a Chinese Jin-class submarine-launched ballistic missile isn't the first time U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare sensors have failed.

Madsen, who today is an investigative journalist, said the Pentagon is working "overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon's version of events ... over the skies west of Los Angeles."

Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki of Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC, said the contrail incident off the Los Angeles coast is "fraught with peril" due to the defense systems and protocols in place that should have detected the alleged submarine.

"The decision to officially announce that North America was not threatened," he said, "and all the excitement was due to an aircraft leaving a contrail is a decision that reaches beyond the four-star general level and goes directly to a decision made by the commander-in-chief."

G2Bulletin calls to the Pentagon and NORAD for comment beyond previous official statements were not returned.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=230425

Posted by: Mark Jul 4 2013, 03:52 AM
Nah, there's no conspiracy!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)