There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 12:15 AM by Ligon

Originally posted by Insolubrious...I have little reason to doubt their testimony and I do believe they saw 'something' that looked exactly like a plane, lots of people did. But how can you be sure that 'whatever' was flying in the pentagon airspace wasn't a missile dressed up (modified ) to look like a plane?...I still felt that after watching your presentations as it never really cast any doubt on the modded missile theory for me but only re-enforced that idea.

[...]

Also, just because I or anyone else says a 'plane' didn't/couldn't punch through 3 rings of the Pentagon does not mean that person can only conclude that it 'flew over'. If i recall you only have one witness who claims that he thought he saw a fly over. One witness? Or am I wrong there too?

Why would the fact that all of the witnesses independently describe having seen a large, twin-engine commercial airliner re-enforce a modded missile theory for you?

The missile in the video you linked to looks and behaves nothing like what they describe.

But regardless, you are completely missing the main point. Hypothetically speaking, even if it was somehow a "modded missile" that scores of people with front row seats mistook for a commercial airliner with large engines, it still could not have hit the building.

Over a dozen witnesses independently place the plane on the Over the Navy Annex (ONA)/North of Citgo (NOC) flight path from multiple excellent vantage points. This flight path is completely irreconcilable with the physical damage.

*That* is why it had to be a flyover. It has nothing to do with anyone's speculation as to whether or not a plane, or missile, or anything else could "punch through 3 rings of the Pentagon".

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. did see a large commercial aircraft flying away from the scene seconds after the explosion. Another witness (Dewitt Roseborough) has recently been identified who seems to have seen the same thing. These only serve as confirmation for what we already knew based on the unanimous placement of the plane on the ONA/NOC flight path by the witnesses who saw it as it approached Pentagon.

Undoubtedly there were more who saw the plane after the explosion, but, as CIT has meticulously documented, an elaborate 2nd Plane Cover Story was put forth to placate them. This is in addition to the fact that low flying commercial airliners flying near the Pentagon are an extremely common site since it is right next to Reagan National Airport.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Ligon]

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 06:53 AM by Insolubrious

Originally posted by Ligon

Why would the fact that all of the witnesses independently describe having seen a large, twin-engine commercial airliner re-enforce a modded missile theory for you?

And I ask you why would they have any reason to think it was something other than a commercial jet? If it looks like a commercial jet, painted up like a commercial jet and similar size to a commercial jet then it must be a commercial jet, right?

The witnesses ARE NOT going to say "oh yeah, i saw a missile that looked exactly like a commercial airliner" No, they will say "i saw what looked like a commercial airliner" because they wouldn't know the difference. Nobody would!! Which is why my money would be on a missile modification, because something was in the air and witness describe it hitting the building. That means getting a large missile, changing the shape of the body, adding some fake engines to the wings and painting it up like a UA flight.

Pick and choose, mix and match. The technology isn't new..

911exposed.org...

The missile in the video you linked to looks and behaves nothing like what they describe.

I disagree. Besides such missiles/drones can fly almost horizontal. There's really no indication the missile/plane ascended at any point. It was a constant descent. Why would it look like a missile if it was modified to look like a plane?! The engines were probably fake anyhow. I expect the only purpose the engines on the wings would serve is to convince people it was a regular plane. Duh..

YouTube Link

Only missiles can punch through walls and fly like planes.

But regardless, you are completely missing the main point. Hypothetically speaking, even if it was somehow a "modded missile" that scores of people with front row seats mistook for a commercial airliner with large engines, it still could not have hit the building.

Why not? Sure it could, and most likely did. Again, how the hell would people tell the difference between a real plane and a missile made to look exactly like a real plane, or a plane modded into a missile?! The only way of telling would be to open it up and look inside! Even people on the 'front row seats' wouldn't be able to tell.

Over a dozen witnesses independently place the plane on the Over the Navy Annex (ONA)/North of Citgo (NOC) flight path from multiple excellent vantage points. This flight path is completely irreconcilable with the physical damage.

Yeah I will agree with you there - it went over the Annex. The testimonies fully support that. But now you're dissing CIT theory by saying the planes path doesn't match the area that got damaged or is inconsistent? So how does that mean it can't hit the building from that approach angle? According to the fly-over theory the plane still went over the impact hole so the flight path (imo) IS consistent with the damage (minus the altitude), even if it did fly over the Annex, it still flew over the impact zone of the Pentagon, so why couldn't it hit the wall?

*That* is why it had to be a flyover. It has nothing to do with anyones speculation as to whether or not a plane, or missile, or anything else could "punch through 3 rings of the Pentagon".

So your main point is that it had to be a fly-over BECAUSE of the approach angle?

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. did see a large commercial aircraft flying away from the scene seconds after the explosion. Another witness (Dewitt Roseborough) has recently been identified who seems to have seen the same thing. These only serve as confirmation for what we already knew based on the unanimous placement of the plane on the ONA/NOC flight path by the witnesses who saw it as it approached Pentagon.

Perhaps they saw this plane:

YouTube Link

Just to add, if you have looked at any of the leaked Eastern convert ops you maybe surprised to learn how they like to modify unsuspecting, innocent looking vehicles. Remember the Cole bombing? That wasn't a boat packed with explosives, it was a boat modified to carry a missile in the hull. When the boat got close enough to the Cole the missile fired out of the damn hull! No one saw that coming. I've seen common trucks and cars you wouldn't batter an eyelid at, open up and have a dozen hidden rocket launchers packed into a convertible trailer! Like something out of a James Bond movie. Seriously. If I can find the video I will post it up.

Oh, and let's not forget what happened to the twin towers steel facade.

Looks like a plane to me, so it must be a plane. Right?

Hmm... Why does the military have to spend millions on missile research and development, when a flimsy passenger plane can do the same job?

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Insolubrious]

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 09:18 AM by SPreston

posted by Ligon
Why would the fact that all of the witnesses independently describe having seen a large, twin-engine commercial airliner re-enforce a modded missile theory for you?

posted by Insolubrious
Which is why my money would be on a missile modification, because something was in the air and witness describe it hitting the building. That means getting a large missile, changing the shape of the body, adding some fake engines to the wings and painting it up like a UA flight.

Pick and choose, mix and match. The technology isn't new..

Surely you are joking. The largest UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) in your link has a length of 32 feet and a wingspan of 30 feet. Some aircraft can carry two of these; one slung under each wing.

external link

How would these dinky little things knock down five 337 pound light poles which are separated by 100+ feet of distance? How could these dinky little UAVs be modified to support 60 foot long wings and be expected to fly without dropping out of the sky? How could you place a 44 foot tall tail stabilizer on a 32 foot long fuselage? Hanging something the size of 6 ton Rolls Royce RB-211 turbofans on those flimsy wings even if they were lightweight fake engines, would rip those wings right off.

Of course they could still get their mainstream media shills to read their same scripts; and of course the FBI could still confiscate all the videos and photos and silence the big mouths not going along with the program. But . . . . How would YOUR 9-11 perps explain the falling off large parts along the flight path?

I don't recall any of the eyewitnesses testifying to the aircraft Over the Naval Annex or North of the Citgo gas station reporting that the fuselage was a teensy little 5 foot diameter which a passenger could not even stand up in. Do You?

Besides from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, your weird looking unflyable 'missile' could not possibly get back to the official south flight path through the light poles and through the official damage path inside the Pentagon 1st floor, any more than an aircraft could.

Nobody saw a missile. A missile looks nothing like a large commercial aircraft with heavy engines slung under the wings. Missiles sound and fly nothing like commercial aircraft. The eyewitnesses are not stupid and missiles cannot be modified to look like commercial aircraft. The entire concept is ludicrous. Instead of a few hundred feet; the eyewitnesses would have to be many miles away to be fooled, and that fantasy would end quickly when the tail or wings or engines fell off.

The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead and I don't see why you need to help them out with an even more ridiculous new 'missile' OFFICIAL STORY replacement.

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 09:51 AM by SPreston

posted by Insolubrious

Yeah I will agree with you there - it went over the Annex. The testimonies fully support that.

But now you're dissing CIT theory by saying the planes path doesn't match the area that got damaged or is inconsistent? So how does that mean it can't hit the building from that approach angle?

According to the fly-over theory the plane still went over the impact hole so the flight path (imo) IS consistent with the damage (minus the altitude), even if it did fly over the Annex, it still flew over the impact zone of the Pentagon, so why couldn't it hit the wall?

Because it could not.

Because it would have been coming in at a different angle. The damage pattern inside the Pentagon 1st floor would have been angling dramatically more to the south and many feet away from the official Exit Hole (Punch Out Hole).

From Over the Naval Annex, the angle of damage would have been approximately through the word NAVY on the above US Defense Department official diagram. But it was not and the 9-11 perps have presented us with the actual damage path which lines up with the five staged light poles and the official flight path south of Columbia Pike and south of the VDOT yard and antenna and far south of the Naval Annex.

The actual decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex flight path completely misses the staged light poles and would have created a completely different damage path through the Pentagon 1st floor than what was presented to us in REALITY and in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY..

It is doubtful also that the decoy aircraft from Over the Naval Annex could have dived down to hit the 1st floor without also hitting the building foundation, after overflying the light poles and overhead highway sign, which it did not knock down along its flight path. The FBI/Secret Service would have needed to stage another set of light poles and to hire another taxi driver to stand idly by his damaged taxi to the north.

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 01:34 PM by Ligon

Originally posted by Insolubrious

...Yeah I will agree with you there - it went over the Annex. The testimonies fully support that. But now you're dissing CIT theory by saying the planes path doesn't match the area that got damaged or is inconsistent? So how does that mean it can't hit the building from that approach angle? According to the fly-over theory the plane still went over the impact hole so the flight path (imo) IS consistent with the damage (minus the altitude), even if it did fly over the Annex, it still flew over the impact zone of the Pentagon, so why couldn't it hit the wall?

[...]

So your main point is that it had to be a fly-over BECAUSE of the approach angle?

Yes, that is my main point and CIT's. I can only conclude that you haven't really watched CIT's presentations, because it is impossible to miss this. The plane has to approach from south of the Navy Annex and south of Citgo in order to hit the light poles, or to cause the observed damage to the Pentagon because of the angle of this damage. If the plane hit the building from ONA/NOC it would have caused completely different damage, as SPreston explained above.

Please familiarize yourself with this obvious fact that even "debunkers" readily admit. It is the crux of the entire matter.

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 06:38 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:
*They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
*The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
*The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
*The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
*One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
*A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
*The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
*The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
*A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,
The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 07:03 PM by Lombardy Inn

Ok, so ive watched most of the videos on CIT's site, and i must say they are very good. Just to clear some things up, Id like to ask a few questions.

First, Im wondering if Im getting the main point the videos are trying to prove. Basically they are saying, whatever (explosives) caused the damage to the Pentagon made inconsistent damage in relation to the witnesses flight path, forcing "them" to stage another flight path to match with the damage. Right?

Or maybe "they" already had a flight path set to make consistent damage with the buildings and poles, but at the last minute the pilots went off course causing witnesses to see the north side flight path.

Another question I have, and its probably been asked a million times...But, if the plane did fly over the pentagon, where are the plane and passengers? Did they go crash it out in the Atlantic? I mean, Im sure records of all the passengers on board can be found, along with the death records right? Did "they" also stage families of the victims on the plane? Are there any theories on this?

I most recently watched the video about Lloyde and his taxi cab. Im still trying to figure that guy out. He sure is a character, and his changing of stories seems VERY strange. The pictures SHOW where he was CLEARLY, yet he denies ever being there....I just cant understand that.

This isnt a poor attempt to "debunk" the videos in any way...Just curious.

I hope we learn the truth some day.

BTW, I live in the outskirts of DC and i have a friend that is always listening to scanners with a big antenna on his roof. He lives about 5 mins away from Andrews AFB, and he could pick up signals from them. He swears to this day he heard what really happened on 9/11, but he has never told me and says he wont talk about it.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Lombardy Inn]

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Lombardy Inn]

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 12:15 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Lombardy Inn
Ok, so ive watched most of the videos on CIT's site, and i must say they are very good. Just to clear some things up, Id like to ask a few questions.

First, Im wondering if Im getting the main point the videos are trying to prove. Basically they are saying, whatever (explosives) caused the damage to the Pentagon made inconsistent damage in relation to the witnesses flight path, forcing "them" to stage another flight path to match with the damage. Right?

No not really.

More like the damage was staged to depict a certain flight path but the actual flight path of the plane did not match.

Or maybe "they" already had a flight path set to make consistent damage with the buildings and poles, but at the last minute the pilots went off course causing witnesses to see the north side flight path.

Yes this is more accurate but we have evidence proving that the ENTIRE flight path is COMPLETELY different from not only the physical damage but all official reports and data. So we think this was very deliberate.

Familiarize yourself with the evidence we present for the 2nd plane cover story and this will all make sense.

They wanted to be able to maintain plausible deniability so they can write off the flyover jet as a "2nd plane" to anyone who might have seen it fly away from the building immediately after the attack. People like Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

I highly recommend you watch our other full-length presentation The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off as this goes into all the complex information in detail.

In fact this one should be watched at least twice.

Another question I have, and its probably been asked a million times...But, if the plane did fly over the pentagon, where are the plane and passengers? Did they go crash it out in the Atlantic? I mean, Im sure records of all the passengers on board can be found, along with the death records right? Did "they" also stage families of the victims on the plane? Are there any theories on this?

I have no theories about this nor am I interested in any unless there was hard evidence to back them up.

I don't believe that any evidence will ever be uncovered in this regard and that the answer to this question is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence we DO have proves that something entirely different from what we were told is what really happened.

I most recently watched the video about Lloyde and his taxi cab. Im still trying to figure that guy out. He sure is a character, and his changing of stories seems VERY strange. The pictures SHOW where he was CLEARLY, yet he denies ever being there....I just cant understand that.

This isnt a poor attempt to "debunk" the videos in any way...Just curious.

I hope we learn the truth some day.

Thanks for watching.

It should speak volumes that this KEY account is so extremely dubious and physically impossible particularly in light of the fact that the evidence proves the plane was nowhere near light pole #1.

BTW, I live in the outskirts of DC and i have a friend that is always listening to scanners with a big antenna on his roof. He lives about 5 mins away from Andrews AFB, and he could pick up signals from them. He swears to this day he heard what really happened on 9/11, but he has never told me and says he wont talk about it.

Tell him to watch what we present and contact us.

Maybe seeing this evidence will inspire him to speak out.

Peace!

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 12:22 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Argument from incredulity.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.

Please brush up on your critical thinking skills and let us know if you ever come across any independent verifiable evidence to refute the north side approach.

Thanks.

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 03:39 AM by ragman

Dumb question -- I here all this stuff about stuff not blowing up this way or that in real life and trajectory of plane...this that and the other.

I actually have reasonable experience with rotary wing aircraft and extensive experience with various explosives through my occupation. I would be lying if I claimed I had enough expertise to tell anyone how a plane crashing into the WTC or Pentagon would look-- In fact, I doubt dedicated explosives experts, you name it, could predict what happened without it happening in real life.

So my charge is, how do random 9/11 Truthers seem to be so sure about how the explosion would go about. From watching Die Hard and True Lies? Seriously. Find me one expert, not Joe on the street, a legitimate scientist, military officer (current or retired in good mental health), or foreign government official who will even give your theories an ounce of credit, and I will consider them.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), there aren't any. You might as well start claiming it was reptillian alien in Britney Spear's body posing as a plane crashing into a model of the WTC since they never really existed, and all those people inside really didn't die, and we really aren't fighting a very real enemy in Afghanistan. You mock the victims of that tragedy and all those serving oversees everytime your perpetuate this bull about controlled explosions. You also lose all credibility with anyone instantly. Just throwing that out there.

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 07:04 AM by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by star in a jar
Could the plane have launched a missile or plowed a bomb into the Pentagon, or the bombs inside the Pentagon exploded as the plane neared?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The plane was off course with the physical damage so it could not have launched a missile.

Plus out of the dozens of witnesses we have spoken with somebody would have seen it launch a missile if that happened.
same as what happened at the WTC.

Real planes used as psychological tools of deception while the actual destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

Craig... I'm in agreement with 99% of CIT and what you're saying on nearly every aspect of the conspiracy including your data, evidence, research and "theory" specifically about no missle etc, however I have two comments/questions/thoughts i'd like to pose which elaborates on what STAR IN A JAR is saying about a missle being launched.

1. what is your "theory" as to how the neat little HOLE punched out through the C ring etc? To me thats the only aspect that doesn't seem to
agree or fit/make sense fully with the evidence of no missle. the HOLE is the only piece of the puzzle that doesnt fit (no pun intended) in the no impact/no missle theory. Thats also not to say i don't believe pre timed explosives weren't or couldn't have been planted as well. But what explosives could have been PUNCHED that type of HOLE?

2. so In regards to the entire debate about flight paths... While i 100% agree the NOC/ONA is PROVEN, could not there have been a missle/drone launched from the FLY OVER plane NOC PATH at a certain point as it approached? That means in essence, BOTH the NOC and SOC path may potentially have some merit which would account for the IMPACT of the SOC and also then still validates NOC... so in a sense, BOTH are right if its plausible that the NOC plane had launched a missle prior to passing the CITGO?

So Looking at the images below again and each of the 2 flight paths, is there any possibility that a missle could have been on the SOC and the PLANE on the NOC? i agree the poles were probably still staged as a missle couldn't have struck them due to the size of a missle, but could not the missle/drone have flown the SOC in between the poles?

if it was launched after citgo pass or prior to, then that launch wouldn't necessarily have been seen right? or they just weren't in a POV to see it?

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by Insolubrious

it went over the Annex. The testimonies fully support that. But now you're dissing CIT theory by saying the planes path doesn't match the area that got damaged or is inconsistent? So how does that mean it can't hit the building from that approach angle? According to the fly-over theory the plane still went over the impact hole so the flight path (imo) IS consistent with the damage (minus the altitude), even if it did fly over the Annex, it still flew over the impact zone of the Pentagon, so why couldn't it hit the wall?

So your main point is that it had to be a fly-over BECAUSE of the approach angle?

Yes, that is my main point and CIT's. I can only conclude that you haven't really watched CIT's presentations, because it is impossible to miss this. The plane has to approach from south of the Navy Annex and south of Citgo in order to hit the light poles, or to cause the observed damage to the Pentagon because of the angle of this damage. If the plane hit the building from ONA/NOC it would have caused completely different damage, as SPreston explained above.

[img]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/img

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 07:12 AM by matrixNIN11

Or to add, in other words,,,, the NOC plane would have had to launch around or prior to the Navy Anex? That seems to be where the paths may have converged/crossed? So POL (point of Launch)

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 10:38 AM by SPreston

posted by matrixNIN11

So Looking at the images below again and each of the 2 flight paths, is there any possibility that a missle could have been on the SOC and the PLANE on the NOC? i agree the poles were probably still staged as a missle couldn't have struck them due to the size of a missle, but could not the missle/drone have flown the SOC in between the poles?

if it was launched after citgo pass or prior to, then that launch wouldn't necessarily have been seen right? or they just weren't in a POV to see it?

Here is a small missile launch from an aircraft. Very visible. A larger missile launched from the decoy aircraft would have been even more visible. If it was launched back to the west at very low altitude over the golf course near the original official south flight path, why was there nobody in Virginia who saw the highly visible launch?

If it was launched Over the Naval Annex or past the Citgo; why was there nobody who saw the highly visible launch? Besides from that point, the damage path would have been from the wrong angle, and it is unlikely the missile could have armed in less than 2 seconds flying time. Also assuming the aircraft flew over the point of impact, the decoy aircraft and missile would have arrived at the same time, destroying the aircraft.

Nobody saw a missile. The small circular holes in the E-Ring exterior wall and the Exit Hole in the C-Ring wall, could have both been created with Military Rapid Wall Breeching kits.

Rapid Wall Breeching kit

There was no missile nor did an aircraft impact the Pentagon.

[edit on 3/1/09 by SPreston]

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 12:25 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

1. what is your "theory" as to how the neat little HOLE punched out through the C ring etc? To me thats the only aspect that doesn't seem to
agree or fit/make sense fully with the evidence of no missle. the HOLE is the only piece of the puzzle that doesnt fit (no pun intended) in the no impact/no missle theory. Thats also not to say i don't believe pre timed explosives weren't or couldn't have been planted as well. But what explosives could have been PUNCHED that type of HOLE?

My main point here is that we should avoid ALL theory as much as possible and hyper-focus on the hard evidence that we DO have proving a deception.

That being said many have postulated that this strange hole could have been created with a "rapid wall breaching kit":

YouTube Link

If I were to take the speculation a bit further I would say that the very purpose of creating this strange round hole in the first place was to help fuel the missile counter-intelligence operation that they already planned.

This hole and the fraudulent security video were major contributors to this predominant missile belief and both were 100% government controlled.

2. so In regards to the entire debate about flight paths... While i 100% agree the NOC/ONA is PROVEN, could not there have been a missle/drone launched from the FLY OVER plane NOC PATH at a certain point as it approached? That means in essence, BOTH the NOC and SOC path may potentially have some merit which would account for the IMPACT of the SOC and also then still validates NOC... so in a sense, BOTH are right if its plausible that the NOC plane had launched a missle prior to passing the CITGO?

Absolutely not because there is no evidence for this.

SOMEBODY would have seen or heard SOMETHING on that south side path in front of the citgo yet NOBODY did!

This is the point.

There is no evidence for a missile at all and all of the evidence we do have points to one airborne object, a plane, on the north side flight path.

It was relatively slow moving too and in a significant bank.

Any missile launch would have been noticeable at least by some of the people who were there yet nobody reported this.

Bottom line we are BEGGING people to stop speculating!

We don't need to speculate anymore because we have PROOF!

It's time to hone our argument and hyper-focus on the hard evidence that exists because as long as the speculation and theories continue this will forever remain in the realm of "conspiracy theory" and we'll get nowhere.

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 06:38 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Argument from incredulity.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.

Please brush up on your critical thinking skills and let us know if you ever come across any independent verifiable evidence to refute the north side approach.

Thanks.

Please, before you attempt to swim in the deep end, countering with argumentative fallacies, at least understand what they are and how they are used. It’s ironic; you counter with a incorrectly argued argumentative fallacy and then follow with one of your own.

Since I am ‘arguing from incredulity’ and using faulty logic, when will you be presenting your 'smoking gun' evidence elsewhere? You know, some place other than internet forums? Meaning, with your superior logic and your ability to overcome arguments from 'incredulity' you will have no problem convincing a DA to bring charges?

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 06:45 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by SPreston
Nobody saw a missile. The small circular holes in the E-Ring exterior wall and the Exit Hole in the C-Ring wall, could have both been created with Military Rapid Wall Breeching kits.

Rapid Wall Breeching kit

There was no missile nor did an aircraft impact the Pentagon.
[edit on 3/1/09 by SPreston]

Or alternately, they could have been created with Pixie Dust and beer.

Rapid Wall Pixie Dust Breeching Kit

Rapid Wall Beer Breaching Kit

Absurd? You bet.. There is as much proof pixie dust and beer was used as there is for a "breeching kit". Sheesh. How long can you guys keep up the ‘just asking questions’ bit on internet forums before you possess the convictions of your stated beliefs and actually do something about the crime you have so much smoking gun evidence for?

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 08:53 PM by matrixNIN11

Never heard of a breeching kit... hmmm interesting... well yeah, plausible then i suppose which somewhat puts the hole question to rest for the moment. Thats what i was looking for. Its not proof either way, but since it appears to be something within military tech and use, one has to consider the possibility imo.

I guess i just don't fully understand yet the reasoning behind why they'd
actually implant a deception/cover story for a missle. I'm trying to understand its purpose. It seems like a logistical nightmare scenario when it would less messy and easier to keep it to the plane fly over and time explosions. The missle hole throws me and others off. it creates a PARADOX wouldn't you agree?

Won't continue hashing the issue anymore but i have one final question then regarding this launch theory. you're assuming the launch would have to be CONVENTIONAL missle launch. So there's only these questions to think about and i'll leave it at that...

So final comments on this...

1. could there have been an unconventional type launch of an unconventional missle? Or IOW, does a DRONE behave like the MISSLE in the pic below? Perhaps the drone not a "missle" as most perceive was

2. you're saying that no one saw or would have seen this "launch"... that assumes A) it came from the fly over NOC plane and B) that it couldn't have come from another UAV or plane in the area and C) that the NOC plane couldn't have launched long before it approached citgo.

No one would have been looking at this AREA of launch until it came near the CITGO.

right?

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by matrixNIN11

So Looking at the images below again and each of the 2 flight paths, is there any possibility that a missle could have been on the SOC and the PLANE on the NOC? i agree the poles were probably still staged as a missle couldn't have struck them due to the size of a missle, but could not the missle/drone have flown the SOC in between the poles?

if it was launched after citgo pass or prior to, then that launch wouldn't necessarily have been seen right? or they just weren't in a POV to see it?

Here is a small missile launch from an aircraft. Very visible. A larger missile launched from the decoy aircraft would have been even more visible. If it was launched back to the west at very low altitude over the golf course near the original official south flight path, why was there nobody in Virginia who saw the highly visible launch?

If it was launched Over the Naval Annex or past the Citgo; why was there nobody who saw the highly visible launch? Besides from that point, the damage path would have been from the wrong angle, and it is unlikely the missile could have armed in less than 2 seconds flying time. Also assuming the aircraft flew over the point of impact, the decoy aircraft and missile would have arrived at the same time, destroying the aircraft.

Nobody saw a missile. The small circular holes in the E-Ring exterior wall and the Exit Hole in the C-Ring wall, could have both been created with Military Rapid Wall Breeching kits.

Rapid Wall Breeching kit

There was no missile nor did an aircraft impact the Pentagon.

[edit on 3/1/09 by SPreston]

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 09:42 PM by SPreston

posted by matrixNIN11

2. you're saying that no one saw or would have seen this "launch"... that assumes A) it came from the fly over NOC plane and B) that it couldn't have come from another UAV or plane in the area and C) that the NOC plane couldn't have launched long before it approached citgo.

No one would have been looking at this AREA of launch until it came near the CITGO.

right?

I assume you mean somewhere along the final western leg of the alleged OFFICIAL Flight 77 descending loop southwest of the Pentagon, which nobody in all of Virginia witnessed. There were no videos and no photos of the alleged aircraft along this loop with Hani Hanjour grinning from the cockpit. In reality, the actual decoy aircraft was witnessed across the Potomac on the eastern side and over DC and crossing back across the Potomac, and as you can see this OFFICIAL loop is nowhere near the Potomac.

Below this loop were hundred of thousands of residents of Virginia, and not one of them reported a missile launch above their heads on 9-11-2001. A missile launch from an aircraft descending above their homes would have been quite unmistakeable.

This scripted loop is another aspect of the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY which never happened, with no eyewitnesses and no supporting evidence. However the actual decoy aircraft crossing the Potomac and circling around Reagan National Airport was also descending as it approached the golf course southwest of the Naval Annex, and nobody reported a missile launch from it either. Steve Chaconas did not report a missile launch. Nobody.

Nope, there was no evidence of a missile at the Pentagon, and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.

[edit on 3/1/09 by SPreston]

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 10:50 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by matrixNIN11

matrixNIN11,

I know your intentions are honorable here but you are completely missing the point of the article in the OP.

The point is that we have risked our lives at a considerable amount of personal sacrifice to seek out and provide for you independent verifiable evidence.

As it turns out we were wildly successful and the evidence now exists in the public domain for ANYONE to use.

While speculation and theorizing was necessary before this evidence was revealed it's no longer necessary and it is detrimental to our efforts because it reduces the 9/11 operation to conspiracy theory when we can prove that it is conspiracy fact.

This is why they want people endlessly theorizing over missiles, A3 skywarriors, or small painted up drones, and all kinds of things that simply didn't happen.

It keeps our focus off proof.

The fact remains that there is absolutely zero evidence for a missile but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the north side approach which proves 9/11 was an inside job.

People aren't convinced by speculation and speculation can never be proof.

People can most certainly be convinced by evidence especially when that evidence has been unanimously corroborated to the point of being proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

All I am calling for here is for people to stop speculating and start focusing on ways to get the hard evidence that exists in front of the media and authorities and demand action.

So in a way I agree with "slightly above par" on this.

We need more action and we need your help.

CIT can't do it all alone.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]