The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Are you talking about the Russian sub that sank because the font end exploded due to a hydrogen peroxide leak in a torpedo?

Not knowing how long the missiles were in salt water? Not knowing if something like condensate buildup inside the missile made it useless?

I didn't know curies missiles were made to be submersible? Something about being released in a big gas bubble so the don't get wet during launch?

I am sorry you don't understand how unlikely your fantasy really is! How the sea salvage op would have been a bigger liability to secrecy than if they just used a tomahawk?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

There are always binders with codes. I know there were Russian divers on scene, i also know what they couldn't have removed easily, that a dive team unattended could have taken their time to remove. There are a lot more than codes that could tell a foreign nation a lot about how your subs work.

I never once said, i know what happened. But i know that there's no way the Russians would have left foreign divers alone with one of their subs. Everything behind the bow was almost completely intact, and would have been a gold mine to the intelligence community.

a reply to: soulwaxer

What is the point by point evidence a jet did not crash into the pentagon?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Can you cite a source on if, how, and when divers went into the sub before the sub was winched to the surface by a Dutch recovery barge?

a reply to: neutronflux

A joint Russian and Norwegian team entered the sub about October 24th, to recover what bodies they could. They were only able to recover 12 of the 118 on board.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: Zaphod58

You are acting like I presented this theory.

A Russian Nuclear scientist is who claimed US stole P-700's from the sub.

Am I to think that your naysaying should trump a Russian Nuclear Scientist that worked with the Government?

It obviously that you are just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive.

I'm cool with that. But no need to pretend otherwise.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

And there are other ways the missiles could have not been there besides divers secretly stealing them. They could never have been loaded in the first place, or someone misreported two missiles being missing. Unless he physically was involved in loading them, or unloading them, this is nothing but a theory, and I don't see a nuclear scientist being involved in loading missiles.

I'm not being dismissive to be dismissive, I'm being dismissive because the chances of this happening are remote.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sure. All those things could be true. In fact, operatives could have infiltrated Russian salvage divers and they working against Russian interests.

At the end of the day. I was just a bit blow away how Dick Cheney has his fingerprint on so much of the BS that was 9/11.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

To recap?

Whoever carried out the false pentagon missile narrative wouldn't build a special purpose missile because their "finger prints" would be all over it?

Yet.......
You claim it was more secretive for the USA to conduct a special sea operation to steel a missile from a wrecked and monitored Russian submarine. A missile the USA took a chance on being deranged from the Kursk explosion pressure wave? A missile that might be damaged from the Kursk sinking? A missile made inoperative from sitting in a cold, wet, corrosive environment, with no operative tending systems. A missile with a risk of being damaged and contaminated by radiation?

The USA was able to refit the Russian missile, system check the Russian missile, program the proper ignition code, launch the missile, and program the missile to hit the pentagon?

Some how the missile was able to simulate the wingspan of a 757 to hit five light poles while on the crash course to the pentagon?

The relatively small missile some how penetrated 3 of the outer rings instead of just blowing up on the first outer wall. Note: how is a missile of less mass more likely to go father into the pentagon than an object with more mass, momentum, and energy?

Then somebody ran out on the pentagon lawn to spread jet wreckage around?

[snip]

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Great thread! I have one question. Why would they need to use a Russian missile? You would think that any missile would do. There wouldn't be anything left of the missile anyway.

originally posted by: neutronflux

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?

Come on man. Did you just say they had satellite monitoring in real time to watch divers at night going 300 feet under water?

I don't know where to go from here with you.

AAC

a reply to: neutronflux

Many have a problem with the fallen light poles...

The film makes its case with several apparently credible witnesses, including two Pentagon cops (Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks) who were at the Citgo gas station across from the Pentagon. These two, along with an employee of the station, explained unhesitatingly that the plane they saw was to the left (north) of the station. This would mean that it could not have hit the light poles.

truthandshadows.wordpress.com...

##Attention Please##

In case anyone's forgotten, accounts can be banned for posting insults in the 9/11 Forum.

Read this please: All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

Don't gamble on the kindness of staff and keep your discussions amicable.

Do not reply to this PSA

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

It's not censorship. You can present information all day long. It very clearly says for posting insults... (it also very clearly says do not reply)

Let me say that again. Presenting information is fine. Calling names is not. Don't get all bent out of shape over "censorship" when nothing is actually being censored except your rudeness.

A2D

Nice to see a good thread again. I must say I am a tad intrigued and I am from the camp that a missile hit the pentagon and not a plane.

With that said I am curious about the timing of this. This sub sank in August. It seems like a lot of hoops had to be gone through before any actual salvage work was done for it. How long did that all take anyway? I'm just trying to figure out if they would have had the "Time" to actually accomplish this. After jumping all the hoops, actually stealing the missiles and getting them where they need to be, just seems like it would have taken longer than the time there actually was to accomplish this.

I also think 911 was something that had been planned for a long time. I would think by August of 2000 they would have pretty much had all their ducks in a row by then just waiting for the date they wanted.

Now I can see Cheeny wanting those missiles, and we may very well have them, but I don't see how the sinking of that sub would have fit into the original plan. Seems more like that whole incident just happened to also happen around that time.

Anyhow, these are just my questions and my thoughts on it...

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Thanks for posting this OP. I think the theory has great merit and seems more plausible than the official story. I have always thought the pentagon was more of an eye-opener than WTC7.

Kudos to you for sharing the info and responding to the questions.

S&F

now this is interesting.... the Halliburton link got me. after all, they were also referenced in some great investigative journalism into the "art" assignments done by the Israeli student group Gelatin in the wtc buildings prior to the event

youtu.be...

now we have a link to Halliburton on the wtc buildings and on the pentagon

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Great thread! I have one question. Why would they need to use a Russian missile? You would think that any missile would do. There wouldn't be anything left of the missile anyway.

I would think that there could have been a possible doubt of a remnant found that indicated the origin of a missile. If you had the option, why take the chance. Any piece found of this missile would now give plausible denial, associate it with enemies of the US.