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: 9
266
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Well, now trying to find out when those missiles could be secretly being salvaged I tried to figure out by watching the video.
When the giant arrived, holes were already drilled by the Russians, Norwegians, and English .


The 18-strong team of Russian, British and Norwegian divers are using underwater blow-torches to cut two holes through the Kursk's tough double-steel hulls 108m (355ft) below the surface, in cold Arctic waters


It has to be before Mammoet arrived, if it all happened I mean..





edit on 0b20America/ChicagoSun, 19 Feb 2017 15:08:20 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoSun, 19 Feb 2017 15:08:20 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

No,it doesn't. There is still Congressional oversight of the black projects, which means that they have to account for,and report the money. They don't have to say what the program it's going to is. They simply say that it's for R&D, or procurement, without giving program names or numbers.


why would you ever consider what you mentioned above to be an example of "congressional oversight"? what exactly are they overseeing? numbers going towards something they know nothing about?

how is that wielding the power of oversight in your opinion?
edit on 19-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigLes
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.


And a Source:



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: firerescue

Listen, nothing is going to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon. For a myriad of reasons I didn't mention because that wasn't the point of the thread.

And unless you have better credentials than this Army Intelligence General, I don't care what you have to say on topic.



AAC


He might be ok when it comes to Military info but he has NO idea about structures, my first job working in the design drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company then on site testing components sometimes to destruction 20+ years on the technical side dealing with STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS and Architects I know a damn lot more than him about the buildings and their construction.

HE hasn't got a clue



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Thank you for this well put together thread.


It does give one something to think about, considering all the holes in the OS narratives of the Pentagon attack.

I have always thought something else happened at the Pentagon other than a plane hitting it.

The office narratives of the Pentagon can't stand up to scrutiny and lack of evidence.

Too many strange coincidences happened that day, and what are the odds of that happening again?

The government wants us to believe it was all incompetents that allowed this event to unfold, yet not one government official was held accountable for being incompetent.

How convenient this "incompetents" helped the alleged terrorist carry out their attack on the most secured Nation on this planet.

I agree with many others on here, no plane hit the Pentagon, something else happened at the Pentagon.
edit on 19-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
the OP has gotten a lot of the facts wrong on this speculation. One of the major facts being the speed and range of the missile. If it's range truly was less than 400 miles where was it launched from? Who maintained this Russian missle? Who built and erected the launch system? No one saw this 14,000 pound missle launch or fly? Serious issues.

I'm not certain that it was an aircraft but this Russian missile nope.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

I didn't say anything resembling that. I said there were aircraft on the east coast that were armed. I said OTHER aircraft, beyond those 4, two at Cape Cod, and two at Otis, would have been 1-2 hours getting armed, which by the way, was the comment of one of the Wing Commanders involved.



Just a point of correction, Cape Cod and Otis ANG are the same. Otis ANGB is in Falmouth MA on Cape Cod, the 102 fighter wing.

The fighters there did escort a hijacked aircraft, early to mid 90's, as I recall it came in from Europe and landed JFK, Lufthansa flight.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: firerescue

Listen, nothing is going to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon. For a myriad of reasons I didn't mention because that wasn't the point of the thread.

And unless you have better credentials than this Army Intelligence General, I don't care what you have to say on topic.



AAC

He might be ok when it comes to Military info but he has NO idea about structures, my first job working in the design drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company then on site testing components sometimes to destruction 20+ years on the technical side dealing with STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS and Architects I know a damn lot more than him about the buildings and their construction.

HE hasn't got a clue


Stubblebine is a crackpot. He's where 'the men who stared at goats' came from. Remote viewing and walking through walls. He has zero credibility with me on any subject.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Wasn't it already determined a long time ago that it was aerodynamically impossible for a large commercial aircraft to fly that close to the ground due to some word I can't think of right now? Like the plane would have simply crashed into the ground before it could have made it to the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The OP has done some decent research, but needs to find some accounts of sonic booms to further back up the Russian Cruise Missile theory.

For use at low level the missile would still be supersonic, add to that it has a rocket assisted launch. Therefore a loud launch and sonic boom would have likely been noticed somewhere within range.

Sonic Booms from fighters on QRA would be expected from the two East Coast AFB's after the twin towers were hit. Were any others reported elsewhere within approx 600km of the Pentagon? 757 Airliners don't go supersonic...



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork






The piloting skills of one Hani Hanjour are also rather questionable.

Also, didn't that section of the Pentagon house a certain budget office who was tasked with trying to straighten out a serious accounting error, which Rumsfeld made mention of the day previously.

So many unanswered questions about that day - no real investigation.


Hanjour may not have been a perfect pilot ,but was good enough

He was not tasked to carry out a difficult landing at night, in bad weather

Instead was to hit one of the largest buildings in the world, in broad daylight, and perfect weather

Hanjour had practiced flying in a jet simulator at JET TECH in Mesa Arizona . One of things practiced and checked
off by instructor was "TIGHT TURNS" Nothing was noted about taxiing or landing

www.historycommons.org...

Long section on Hanjour - one of things noted was "poor command of English"

Secondly you then state that hijackers hit a specific section of the Pentagon

So what is it ...?? Was he a lousy pilot ? So why did they target a specific point in Pentagon??

Cant have it both ways.......
edit on 19-2-2017 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Thank you. I was trying to do a couple things at once and missed that. It was Otis and Langley.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
3 missiles missing, 3 explosions on 911. This pretty much explains how steel can melt from jet fuel. There was extra sauce mixed in. Chenney, you Dick.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you ever question authority ?? Superiors ??

Cause every military man I have met that DOES, disagrees with you entirely.

The ones that are obedient slaves always defend, funny how that works huh.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

No,it doesn't. There is still Congressional oversight of the black projects, which means that they have to account for,and report the money. They don't have to say what the program it's going to is. They simply say that it's for R&D, or procurement, without giving program names or numbers.


In other words, zero oversight.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Probably out at sea in the hurricane that was literally never reported on despite coming within 100 miles of the coast that day ???



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: firerescue

Listen, nothing is going to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon. For a myriad of reasons I didn't mention because that wasn't the point of the thread.

And unless you have better credentials than this Army Intelligence General, I don't care what you have to say on topic.



AAC

He might be ok when it comes to Military info but he has NO idea about structures, my first job working in the design drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company then on site testing components sometimes to destruction 20+ years on the technical side dealing with STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS and Architects I know a damn lot more than him about the buildings and their construction.

HE hasn't got a clue


Stubblebine is a crackpot. He's where 'the men who stared at goats' came from. Remote viewing and walking through walls. He has zero credibility with me on any subject.


Hahaha, you don't think its possible do you, you got some serious surprises coming.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Dude, I just explained why people think the truth movement is a joke. Its because the truth movement is so desperate for a "smoking gun" it has abandoned any sense of logic, evidence, or technical sense.

I thought the 9/11 forum was to get to real truth, and not notoriety by science fiction.

People would buy a missile before ever trying to steal a missile with no idea how damaged and contaminated the missile was from being sunk in a nuclear submarine. A sub sank by a defective torpedo that blew off the front end of the sub. Why take a chance with a salvaged Russian missile?

What struck the light poles outside the pentagon, how did the right jet wreckage end up on the lawn of the pentagon, how did the right jet wreckage end up in the pentagon. I think the highjackers had enough skill to nose crash the jet into the pentagon. Radar and eyewitness accounts back the physical evidence flight 77 fight the pentagon.

You don't get to the truth through science fiction hero roll playing.

People taking seriously the idea the government would steal a sea salvaged Russian missile based only on innuendo and no foundation in reality are why the majority of people rightly ignore the truth movement.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Zero PUBLIC oversight.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

So they disagree that there were 7 bases on alert?

Just because they are military doesn't mean they have their right to their opinion removed.



new topics

top topics



 
266
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join