The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: fleabit

the fact that you won't even care to mention the eyewitness testimony about explosions before and after WTC impacts is truly interesting to me. we're talking about 9/11 in this thread, and have touched on the WTC towers several times.

what's your take on the eyewitness accounts of explosions? i can lay them all out here for you if you'd like.

EDIT:

and to backtrack for just a moment - i'd like to state something very bluntly. i'm basing what i'm about to say specifically on the flight mechanics described by the 9/11 commission report and NIST. i'm basing what i'm about to say on the OS.

no hijacker with limited knowledge of aviation is going to hijack a commercial boeing airplane and fly it at upwards of 500mph just a few feet off of the ground, only to slide on the lawn, right into the pentagon.

correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what the OS narrative wants you to believe. i find this notion amazingly absurd. clear footage of the crash would clear this up in a heartbeat.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

the grass was green all the way up to the wall, which is another marvel,

I dont claim to have all the answers to every aspect, but I know that the grass around those lightpoles would be ground into dirt/mud by the time dozens of big strong burly construction men were out there in work boots with heavy tools, equipment and building materials.

That entire highway scene would have literally become a construction site for the entire duration.

Maybe if you had a impact gun crew per pole, basically a dozen guys per pole working like clockwork maybe it could be done in 20 minutes. That is if they had been practice drill rehearsing at a mock replica site for a couple weeks, and if somehow the logistics of getting all those men, trucks and equipment in and out of there amidst all the choas, witnesses, first responders, traffic jams.

Then, in addition to the grass being all disturbed around this construction site, there would be the threat of other visual evidence of tampering on the pole mounts, along with accidentally forgot a tool or a nut on the ground.

So while all that above is going on then there be something like a dozen plus special effects people out there handling the rest of the scene up on the highway pavement. And they'd have to be able to get in and out with their tools and effects.

a reply to: neutronflux

i don't care one iota to talk to you about the truth movement. you're having conversations with yourself.

a reply to: Psychonautics

Right. If it were bunker busters then there'd be a small entry hole and then however far in it managed to get then the blast damage would all be found there.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

hey, so i've been thinking about this.

there might be a really simple solution to this problem (and of course the below is just me thinking out loud).

what if the aviation on this plane was controlled much like an unmanned drone?

considering that someone can fit a drone to appear like a commercial boeing airliner, it'll look like a plane, act like a plane, and ensure results in the event that the hijackers were susceptible to human error.

thoughts?

a reply to: firerescue

I watched the T.V. crew interview those campers. To a man, they all said that the little military jet was hot on the tail of Flight 93. Obviously they had been told, by then, that the smoke rising five miles away had been Flight 93. When you look straight up, at any drone or jet, they won't show any cockpit canopy. Too bad that you didn't see this one time only clip. But there were about a dozen campers. Three or four were speaking and the rest were standing behind them nodding their heads in the affirmative. That business jet story would have come much later, if it even happened. There was a lot of fuss over whether any small planes were in that immediate area, for a week or so. When I e-mailed KDKA about getting a copy, they wouldn't answer me.

a reply to: facedye

Anything is possible, per se.

If it were a plot, those light poles coming down like that are what seal the deal, so ensuring they got hit no that might be something worth exploring, but I've beaten to death this light pole thing with the best of them in this site in the old days and never seen this explained worth a lick.

a reply to: facedye

What do you mean, loud bangs? Such as elevators crashing down because jet impacts cut elevator cables. Loud noises as the floor trusses bowed downward, causing the sheeting and concrete on the floors to buckle and crack?

Do you have physical evidence of a demolition device setting off? Witnesses with permanent hearing damage. Persons close enough to witness an "explosion" hit by distinctive demolitions shrapnel? Victims or remains recovered with embedded demolitions shrapnel? Any proof of an over pressure event such as broken windows from demolition charges setting off with a resultant pressure wave capable of cutting steel columns?

The truth movement narrative is a top down CD using cutting charges floor by floor. (except those that push thermite, nuke bombs, lasers or missiles with holograms, or Dustification.) What context are your explosions in the floor by floor setting off of charges. Or the use of thermite, nukes, lasers, missiles, Dustification?

How in the heck did a sophisticated floor by floor cutting charge system requiring precise timing remain operational after the jet impacts and fires that cut elevator cables, cut the fire water mains to the sprinklers, and rendering building systems useless?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: firerescue

you think i was deflecting? i was showing you a clear example of a plane ramming into a building and leaving noticeable wreckage behind.

can you show me any bodily remains found at the pentagon?

yes, if flight 77 rammed into the pentagon, it was definitely traveling faster than 350mph, however the size of the aircraft is exponentially larger, with way more materials.

and.. don't you find this funny? that you and i both have bits and pieces of information to provide each other? whereas nobody can conclusively prove that a plane slammed into the pentagon?

i find that exceedingly interesting and to the point.

I find it funny that you're blatantly ignoring my posts.

a reply to: Psychonautics

sorry, from my point of view i've explicitly addressed your objections.

what do i seem to be ignoring? i truly don't mean to.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

i don't care one iota to talk to you about the truth movement. you're having conversations with yourself.

Funny? I hear that a lot from individuals that claim no ties to the truth movement, but stick to truth movement talking points. People who seem threatened enough to call the skeptics of the truth movement names, and spend more time trying to belittle skeptics of the truth movement than addressing facts. People so threatened, it's obviously they never spent time on the debunking forums because they act like the same arguments have not dragged on for 15 years.

Spending some time at metabunk and skeptics international would help you debate better?

The one thing I have found which is more true of skeptics vs the truth movement, the skeptics answer question to the best of their ability, are transported, and provide information that can be trusted. No so much for those that stick to truth movement talking points.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

sorry, from my point of view i've explicitly addressed your objections.

what do i seem to be ignoring? i truly don't mean to.

Please explain how the CCTV footage shows an explosion consistent with a large airliner crash? (I.E. A large, slowly rising orange ball of flame.)

Surely you must admit it looks absolutely nothing like a missile detonation, Bunker Buster, or ICBM... There is plenty of footage of ordinance and plane crashes on the Internet...

If a missile hit the pentagon, the damage would have been much more extensive, and the explosion would have looked completely different.

There is much evidence of the plane, such as the poles, debris and eye witness testimony.

There is NOTHING supporting the missile theory...

No witnesses, no massive concussive blast...

Where would it have been fired from? How could it have traveled from where it came to the Pentagon, without a single human being noticing a MISSILE rocketing over their heads?

You're postulating a missile hit the pentagon, and that's it. You give literally zero evidence to support the theory other than, "it could not have been a plane".

a reply to: neutronflux

so i'm assuming you consider yourself a skeptic, therefore you "answer questions to the best of your ability, are transported (whatever that means), and provide trusted information" while i'm doing the exact opposite of this?

i can't believe your comments haven't been removed by a moderator so far in this thread.

a reply to: Psychonautics

when did i specifically postulate that a missile hit the pentagon? please quote the exact passage you're referring to so we can take this exchange from here.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

when did i specifically postulate that a missile hit the pentagon? please quote the exact passage you're referring to so we can take this exchange from here.

Oh boy, here we go.

Okay, so what exactly are you postulating? An aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, pretty sure you said that right?

This thread is about missing ordinance, and the attack on the Pentagon...

You say it wasn't a plane, plus the content of this thread, lead me to believe you agree with the missile theory.

So, what exactly are you saying happened? A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but you have no guess as to what did?

a reply to: facedye

considering that someone can fit a drone to appear like a commercial boeing airliner, it'll look like a plane, act like a plane, and ensure results in the event that the hijackers were susceptible to human error.

thoughts?

This idea has come up before in a few discussions on ATS, and there were eyewitness that claimed they saw a small white plane instead of a jetliner.

My father was in the Air Force over 25 years and told me our military was flying planes to europe and back with no pilots on board back in the 1960's.

Can you imagine how advanced remote control technology has gotten since then and up to the 911 events.

Of course we have no evidence that the planes where hijacked by the use of remote control technology, however the statement alone cannot be dismissed, seeing how so much evidence was hid from the public.

Can you imagine if evidence was discovered, there would be a war in this country, and I surely would not want to be a government official, if there was such a discovery.

Also remember who gave us the OS of 911 that day, it was mainstream media that has now been officially proven as properganda fake News. So what the media says cannot be trusted any longer.

Also remember the 911 Commission went on record that they had evidence that the Pentagon, White House and the FAA were lying to the 911 Commission during the Commission inquires and wanted the Justice Department to do a criminal investigation in all three departments.

Enough circumstantial evidence proves these three departments couldnt keep their stories straight and proves they were hiding something, whatever it was, they did not want the public to find out. That alone opens a door to a conspiracy.

a reply to: Psychonautics

Oh boy, here we go.

what do you mean by that? what exactly are you implying?

An aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, pretty sure you said that right?

maybe i'm not remembering this well - please, when did i say that "an aircraft did not hit the pentagon"?

You say it wasn't a plane, plus the content of this thread, lead me to believe you agree with the missile theory.

again, forgive me if i'm not recalling this properly - when did i say "it wasn't a plane"?

looks like you were misled. i enjoyed the work, effort and interest the OP put into this thread to lay out his ideas and observations. i felt they were concise, informative and utilized deductive as well as inductive logic very well.

i agree with a lot of OP's perspectives. but where did i say a missile hit the pentagon?

So, what exactly are you saying happened? A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but you have no guess as to what did?

i have my guesses as to what hit the pentagon. i could tell you, but it looks like you might imply 10 things about me before i finish my thought.

"oh boy, here we go."

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: charlyv

P-700 Granite Missiles do not have landing gear and wheel housings.
Unless, of course, you think someone threw those in the building....

Can you show us who took these photos and where, when?

How do you know that these photos are not bone yard debris? Since there was no investigation done on any of the alleged four plane crashes according to the FBI.

Can you prove to ATS members that rim in above photo belongs to said aircraft, and that is the correct rim for a boeing 757?

The data comes from 911Research
No, I cannot prove anything except the quality and noted accuracy of the web site. The pictures were verified by witnesses, but that conjecture is certainly the subject of what people believe or do not.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

Oh boy, here we go.

what do you mean by that? what exactly are you implying?

An aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, pretty sure you said that right?

maybe i'm not remembering this well - please, when did i say that "an aircraft did not hit the pentagon"?

You say it wasn't a plane, plus the content of this thread, lead me to believe you agree with the missile theory.

again, forgive me if i'm not recalling this properly - when did i say "it wasn't a plane"?

looks like you were misled. i enjoyed the work, effort and interest the OP put into this thread to lay out his ideas and observations. i felt they were concise, informative and utilized deductive as well as inductive logic very well.

i agree with a lot of OP's perspectives. but where did i say a missile hit the pentagon?

So, what exactly are you saying happened? A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but you have no guess as to what did?

i have my guesses as to what hit the pentagon. i could tell you, but it looks like you might imply 10 things about me before i finish my thought.

"oh boy, here we go."

You're clearly just here to argue with people....

Funny thing is you aren't good at it.

Easiest way to tell someone is full of it? Every time you ask them a question, they answer with two questions.

Edit: I might have completely fudged user names and am replying to you accidentally... I need to go back and read through a few pages but I'm going to pre-apologize now LOL

a reply to: Informer1958

Can you imagine how advanced remote control technology has gotten since then and up to the 911 events.

Of course we have no evidence that the planes where hijacked by the use of remote control technology, however the statement alone cannot be dismissed, seeing how so much evidence was hid from the public.

Can you imagine if evidence was discovered, there would be a war in this country, and I surely would not want to be a government official, if there was such a discovery.

what i do know is that it's safe to say our military technology, since the industrial complex, has been about a decade or 2 beyond what the general public is privy to at any given moment.

Since 1917, United States military services have researched and employed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).1 Over that time, they have been called drones, robot planes, pilotless aircraft, RPVs (remotely piloted vehicles), RPAs (remotely piloted aircraft) and other terms describing aircraft that fly under control with no person aboard.2 They are most often called UAVs, and when combined with ground control stations and data links, form UAS, or unmanned aerial systems.

...

The military use of UAS in conflicts such as Kosovo (1999), Iraq (since 2003), and Afghanistan (since 2001) has illustrated the advantages and disadvantages of unmanned aircraft. UAS regularly make national headlines as they perform tasks historically performed by manned aircraft. UAS are thought to offer two main advantages over manned aircraft: they eliminate the risk to a pilot’s life, and their aeronautical capabilities, such as endurance, are not bound by human limitations.

US Unmanned Aerial Systems

we would be shotgunned into a 21st century american revolution the moment any tangible piece of evidence outright contradicting the official story becomes public knowledge.