Ted Olsen and flight 77 the phone calls that never were.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Then explain the explosion on the video at the toll booth.... Lane 13...that was NOT stabilizer separation...there was NEVER a failure like that prior to 587. All 6 points of the stabilizer broke? BS....if that was the case they should all have been grounded.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Nickn3

Well, if your wife’s first cousin says so......

Yep, his name is Craig. He's a man of good character that I have known for over 40 years.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Remember that day their were loads of exercises Cheney had control of air defenses and told them to stand down. Even the luggage people at LAX were told to go home before anything happened. So most of the actors would have thought they were on an exercise. It was to big an exercise to plug all the gaps.

a reply to: Irishhaf

All broad sweeping conspiracies are logistically ridiculous...

If more than a handful of people are required to be “in the know” and to have done something truely horrific. Then it is almost certainly fake or exaggerated.


So how exactly do you consider yourself a conservative. When conservativism is basically based on broad sweeping conspiracies that don’t make any sense..


The cia , fbi, exc are all in a vast conspiracy to set trump up, FOR THEIR OLD BOSS.. aka someone who can no longer protect them.. trump is their new boss..


95% of the worlds scientists are in a vast conspiracy to fake climate change..


All the worlds media, scientists, unions, intellectuals, teachers, college professors, exc are all in a vast conspiracy to discredit the gop...


It’s all the same thing.. all logistically ridiculous..

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Roughly 100+..


You need a pilot to fire the missle, all the plane crew, all the radar people, enough bigwigs to coordinate those vastly different operations..


Our present world is way to interconnected and such for a handful of people to orcastrate that kinda thing..


AND THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A MOTIVATION!!!

A motivation that could not be achieved easier and cheaper with less risk..

For example...


So someone has the ability to shoot a missle at the pentagon on the down low, but not the ability to walk in and shred whatever files were meant to be destroyed?!?!


Or fake a fire..or whatever..

a reply to: matafuchs

The explosion was caused by the engines separating from the wing. The engines aren't stressed for a horizontal stress, such as a flat spin. Both engines separated from the aircraft prior to impact, and after the aircraft went into a flat spin.

The failure occurred in the composite material of the attachment points of the fin, after suffering extreme lateral force from excessive rudder input. You don't ground all aircraft because of pilot error. There was no structural defect found, and the composites were found to still be at their required strength. That means they they were over stressed, in a way they weren't designed to handle the strain.

The faster the aircraft was traveling, the less rudder input was required. The First Officer flying had been repeatedly counselled on using excessive rudder inputs, prior to the accident flight. If, at any point prior to the failure of the vertical fin, he had stopped the rudder input, the aircraft would have recovered and continued on.

Just because an accident had never happened before doesn't make it terrorism or impossible.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I actually consider myself a normal American I swing left on some subject and right on others.

Its other people that have labeled me a conservative many times over the years, I personally think I am much closer to a classic liberal or possibly a libertarian.


But basically just a normal average American before we got obsessed with identifying ourselves by our differences.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Roughly 100+..


You need a pilot to fire the missle, all the plane crew, all the radar people, enough bigwigs to coordinate those vastly different operations..


Our present world is way to interconnected and such for a handful of people to orcastrate that kinda thing..


AND THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A MOTIVATION!!!

A motivation that could not be achieved easier and cheaper with less risk..

For example...


So someone has the ability to shoot a missle at the pentagon on the down low, but not the ability to walk in and shred whatever files were meant to be destroyed?!?!


Or fake a fire..or whatever..

First of all, you're assuming that a missile has to be fired from a plane. It doesn't. Submarines are completely capable of doing this far beyond radar detection.

You're also assuming this military action would follow traditional standard operational procedure and require the usual chain of command and documentation. Black Ops simply don't adhere to that.

And finally, the idea that the Pentagon attack was done in order to destroy files is plain silly. The false flag had very clear cut benefits from an agenda that still has implications that're felt today. Destroying some files in the process would've just been a fringe benefit.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Submarines are completely capable of doing this far beyond radar detection.

Did this sub sail up the Potomac? Maybe they fired it from the reflecting pool near the Washington Monument since we all know the New World Order loves obelisks.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Submarines are completely capable of doing this far beyond radar detection.

Did this sub sail up the Potomac? Maybe they fired it from the reflecting pool near the Washington Monument since we all know the New World Order loves obelisks.

Or from a million different locations in the Atlantic ocean. ICBM's have a range of well over 3000 miles.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


A) You act like it comming from a sub or land instillation would take ANY less people lol..


It wouldnt.. it would still require 100+ people and plenty of red tape..

B) no I am not..

If it were done by the book. It takes thousands to orcastrate..

It only taking a hundred or so. Would be a skeleton crew..

You have radar instillations everywhere.. some civilian. Most Specifically meant to track missles and airplanes..


C) there is no motivation you can list that my trailer park @$$ can’t think of an easier way to do it..

Start a war??

Blow up a couple daycares..


Destroy files??

It’s way easier to shred them, or fake a fire..


Why do you think those pushing it are forced to fall back on obscure motivations like “control..”


Because it doesn’t make sense with ANY REAL LIFE MOTIVATION..

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Or from a million different locations in the Atlantic ocean. ICBM's have a range of well over 3000 miles.

So a sub launches an ICBM at the Pentagon that goes undetected by radar? Seems plausible.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There is no proof a missile hit the pentagon. If a missile was used as a fuel filled kinetic weapon, the entrance hole into the pentagon was way to big. If the missile detonated, then the interior of the pentagon would have exploded onto the lawn. Windows in the pentagon would have exploded out.

The entrance hole in to the pentagon is constant with a large commercial jet plowing into the pentagon.

People like you that ignore the overwhelming evidence the pentagon was solely hit by a large commercial jet are killing the credibility of the truth movement?
Keep putting nail in its coffin.

I think this has been posted in threads you were part of?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John Wyndham
911truth.org...


Conclusion

Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

More in there is no credible evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Conclusion
Clearly, the main theory, that a large plane such as a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, is by far the most plausible theory compared with the alternative theories. The main theory still has some unanswered questions, but it is much stronger than any of the alternative theories.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


When you look at the radar for that particular day. It's fairly obvious that some thing very fishy was going on. The planes that allegedly hit their targets , were still in the air afterwards. The few military jets available were misdirected, it a strange one.

originally posted by: neutronflux
People like you that ignore the overwhelming evidence the pentagon was solely hit by a large commercial jet are killing the credibility of the truth movement?

I would think the 'sub firing it from the reflecting pool' comment would have been somewhat of a give away as to where I stand on the issue.

Unless there's a secret portal into the pool that permits ballistic missile submarines to gain entrance covertly.

a reply to: anonentity


Who cares what some wackadoodle on YouTube thinks? Commercial airliners hit three buildings.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Or from a million different locations in the Atlantic ocean. ICBM's have a range of well over 3000 miles.

So a sub launches an ICBM at the Pentagon that goes undetected by radar? Seems plausible.

I didn’t know a ICBM could fly side ways? I thought their fuel load was to take it stright up to the edge of space, where their multiple warheads are released to hit numerous targets.

Sad the person doesn’t realize a sub can carry a tomahawk type missile. But none of the damage at the pentagon is indicative of a missile strike.

Like the items in the construction lay down yard outside the pentagon pushed towards pentagon. A detonation would have pushed the the items away from the pentagon.

I do believed this persons has taken part in threads where this has been explained over and over again?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Or from a million different locations in the Atlantic ocean. ICBM's have a range of well over 3000 miles.

So a sub launches an ICBM at the Pentagon that goes undetected by radar? Seems plausible.

NORAD is a government agency. Given the magnitude of 9/11, is it entirely implausible that what appeared on their screens wasn't an accurate radar depiction of what was truly occurring?

During wargame exercises, false radar data is used as a training mechanism.

a reply to: anonentity

Please define fishy? As in the jet had to drop below Radar to hit a building on the ground. Only a conspiracist would label a logical event fishy. Numerous persons attest to a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon. An account is given in real time by an inflight pilot from a cargo plane. The jet hit items on the ground before it impacted the pentagon.

And you have this....

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge
www.journalof911studies.com...

Stop falling for charlatans that are killing the little remaining credibility of the truth movement. Sale outs for likes on YouTube.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

And a missile launch is going to sound alarms everywhere that has any kind of early detection system, including other countries. Especially an ICBM.