It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 4
267
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thats why you attach them to the vessel underwater out of sight out of mind...




posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

[snipped]

What has already been discussed is that I never meant to insinuate that the Nuclear reactor video was to authenticate the Pentagon. Further more, that is actually the least consequential point made on this thread.

And that's how you chose to enter the ring?

[snipped]

AAC
edit on 2.19.2017 by Kandinsky because: Removed ill-mannered comments instead of auto-banning.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

The two weakest parts of your fantasy?

One: Why not have evil HALLIBURTON make a missle instead of a naval op to steel a Russian missle.

Two: probably be easily, more cost effective, and more secretive to give Halliburton a tomahawk missle and a special op's boat than conducting a full blown sea salvage mission to steel a Russian missile from under the Russian noses.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Except the Russians were watching the divers on camera. They were advising the divers on where to work and what to watch for. Now either they totally missed a separate dive crew working in the missile area, or were asleep the whole time.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: neutronflux

[snipped]

What has already been discussed is that I never meant to insinuate that the Nuclear reactor video was to authenticate the Pentagon. Further more, that is actually the least consequential point made on this thread.

And that's how you chose to enter the ring?

[snipped]

AAC


I am sorry you only resort to ranting with no ability to recite facts.

You would rather practice intellectually dishonesty by trying to convey the incorrect notion the pentagon is built like a bunker?

Very telling of your motives and how you would rather be biased and dogmatic than research facts.

So you cannot believe a jet could punch through an office building with a simple brick wall and walls perforated with numerous windows?
edit on 2.19.2017 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

The two weakest parts of your fantasy?

One: Why not have evil HALLIBURTON make a missle instead of a naval op to steel a Russian missle.

Two: probably be easily, more cost effective, and more secretive to give Halliburton a tomahawk missle and a special op's boat than conducting a full blown sea salvage mission to steel a Russian missile from under the Russian noses.


[snipped]

If Halliburton made their own missile it would have a finger print of parts used and technology. For 9/11 to be a real plan it must have had Plan B if this happens, plan C of this happens, etc. Using the Russian missile distances the blame if people found out it wasn't a plane that hit and it was a missile. If someone got real proof and got it to a network no in the loop and showed it was a missile. Then they could say, yeah, we know, it's a Russian P-700.

But that's just a suggestion. Not saying it's true. But when you consider something with an open mind, you consider and not just find ways to prove it's wrong without consideration.

Your second point, that I just read for the first time, really shows your lack of creative thought.

Goodbye forever.

AAC
edit on 2.19.2017 by Kandinsky because: Removed ill-mannered comments instead of auto-banning.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Didn't one of the WTC jets punch through two outer WTC tower walls? Like an entrance and exit hole?
edit on 19-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Tried to add clearity



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Except the Russians were watching the divers on camera. They were advising the divers on where to work and what to watch for. Now either they totally missed a separate dive crew working in the missile area, or were asleep the whole time.


They were watching during the 8-12 hours the Russian team left the site? How do you know that?

AAC



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Gotcha

Well it would be dark... bad field of view... I think the possibility to elude them existed...

The 8 hours left alone mentioned is a large window of opportunity...
edit on 19-2-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: Pyle


A plane did not punch through those 9 brick, concrete and steel reinforced walls. Just to leave that perfect circle that was smaller than the nose of the plane.




First let me say that I really enjoy this thread. It's so nice to see good information presented on a very curious subject. But, I did want to respond directly to this statement.

The outer wall of the Pentagon wasn't, and still is not, entirely uniform. The exterior columns were 21 inch square steel reinforced concrete covered with 6 inches of limestone facade. But the outer wall itself varied(s) structurally per panel. In panels with windows it had the 6 inch limestone facade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh. In panels without windows it was 8 inches of brick and 10 inches of concrete.

As far as renovations after the attack, whatever it may have been, it seems that the vast majority of panels removed for repair were panels with windows, ie the panels which had the least amount of structural backing. What I find the absolute most intriguing about the incident, is why the 2 panels without windows were removed. They were on the outer edges of the impact zone and were supposedly impacted by the weakest structural part of the "plane".



Let me add that I do have my questions and doubts. I just wanted to clear up the materials and structure of the pentagon walls(they were largely brick reinforced limestone).

A2D
edit on 19-2-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Except the Russians were watching the divers on camera. They were advising the divers on where to work and what to watch for. Now either they totally missed a separate dive crew working in the missile area, or were asleep the whole time.


They were watching during the 8-12 hours the Russian team left the site? How do you know that?

AAC


They have this thing called satellite monitoring.

I am sure the is no Russian obligation to monitor the lost reactor core either?
edit on 19-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed they



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Do you really think ANY nation is going to let foreign divers have free reign over a submarine that has their communications codes, missile launch codes, and all kinds of military secrets, while they went home? Submarine operations are some of a nation's most closely guarded secrets. If they just went home, the divers could have looted anything they wanted, including missiles.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

So it was easier to steel an old missle potential corrupted by sea water through a full blown sea salvage mission with USA written all over it than just go by a foreign missile?

You have no logic!



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Never doubted that what hit the Pentagon was a missile, but it's something else to actually pinpoint the exact type! Your theory makes a lot of sense and is probably correct.

It would be interesting to know from where this P-700 missile was launched. I mean, does it have to be launched from a submarine? If so, then there must have been quite a lot of Navy people on a submarine somewhere aware of this launch.

From Wikipedia:


It comes in surface-to-surface and submarine-launched variants, it can also be used against ground targets.


soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Interesting thread, I'd just like to try and clear up a couple of facts that the OP and others have mistakenly taken a couple of liberties with.

1. The Kursk carried Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles, not ICBM's. Do not confuse the two they are very, very different.

2. The photo the OP used of a cruise missile is a P-500 (SS-N-12), not a P-700 (SS-N-19), it is however a cruise missile of similar type and likely shares similar avionics etc. The P-700 however has a different airframe with the air intake on the nose rather than underneath.

Now I might be coming across as a pedant but it is important to get facts like this right. ICBM's and cruise missiles work very differently. Cruise missiles lack the range and speed of an ICBM - and a P700 could indeed be shot down if detected.

If it is flying low it would only travelling at no more than approx Mach 1.5 and would needed to have been launched from no more than about 500-600km away, maybe less if flying the whole way at low-level. To put that in perspective the launch-site (if on land) certainly couldn't have been any further than Boston or Cincinnati - less than 1 hours flight for the missile.

How a P700 could target the Pentagon I don't know, anti-ship missiles like this are radar guided and designed to look for a metal box floating on the ocean, not a brick/concrete structure surrounded by other brick/concrete structures. These types of missile can be guided to target by Operators in an aircraft however - I believe the Russians have some of their 4 engine turbo-prop Bears equipped for this task...

Anyhow I am not sure how this helps or hinders the conspiracy the OP is thinking about here, but important to get the facts right all the same.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Do you really think ANY nation is going to let foreign divers have free reign over a submarine that has their communications codes, missile launch codes, and all kinds of military secrets, while they went home? Submarine operations are some of a nation's most closely guarded secrets. If they just went home, the divers could have looted anything they wanted, including missiles.


This is all just strange viewpoint discrimination. Where did I say this is what actually happened? Where did anyone claim they knew what happened? The only people claiming they know anything are you and a couple others who claim they know what did not happen. That's just as irresponsible.


Did you really assume that the launch codes, communication codes, etc, were still on that sub? Russia had the immediate ability to wipe the computer servers on board clean. And if for some crazy reason there was a binder on board with the codes in print, Russian divers were the first divers on scene before anyone. They would have recovered those items prior to anything.

Which probes the bigger question, why are you putting forth effort at implausible deniability when you haven't even research the subject enough to know that Russians were the first divers on the scene?

AAC



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

So it was easier to steel an old missle potential corrupted by sea water through a full blown sea salvage mission with USA written all over it than just go by a foreign missile?

You have no logic!



Potentially corrupted by sea water. You are funny. You have no clue what those missiles can withstand, do you?

AAC



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

A submarine based missile can just as easier be retrofit to a silo based missile system. It could have been launched from anywhere within 300 miles. It could have been lunch from a wooded treelike in Virginia as an example.

AAC
edit on 19-2-2017 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: soulwaxer

A submarine based missile can just as easier be retrofit to a silo based missile system. It could have been launched from anywhere within 7,000 miles. It could have been lunch from a wooded treelike in Virginia as an example.

AAC

Thanks for that clarification!

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BigLes

Thanks for those clarifications. I googled P-700 images and pulled that image from. I thought it look different but I thought it was the nice paint job.

Yes it wasn't an ICBM but it does travel ICBM speeds at up to mach 2.5.

And finally, the distance is not that of ICBM either, it can only travel, like you said, up to 600 KM.

AAC




top topics



 
267
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join