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.

 

questions about the missle that hit the pentacon

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
ok, clearly a boeing did not hit the pentagon. now these are the questions that remain unaswered --

they admitted they had that side of the pentagon hardend against attack.
has anyone seen the scope of these contracts, which portion was hardend?

are they the same location...?

after 7 years we still have not seen any other footage of the attack...? why..?

Why were Suits picking up debris, they dont even pick up something they dropped, why on 911 were executives picking up debris...?
where where the enlisted servicemembers...?

why was there white chalk on the lawn just weeks prior to 911...?

and I'm sure there are several thousand other questions but these appear like we can answer them...... and if you have questions please post them here....




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BornPatriot
ok, clearly a boeing did not hit the pentagon.


Agreed.


they admitted they had that side of the pentagon hardend against attack.
has anyone seen the scope of these contracts, which portion was hardend?


I have not. I don't know.


are they the same location...?


I don't know. I can't even determine whether there are SAM sites at the Pentagon, although I did see someone in a documentary video assert that there were.


after 7 years we still have not seen any other footage of the attack...? why..?


If shown, the footage would prove to the American people that 9/11 was an inside job.


Why were Suits picking up debris, they dont even pick up something they dropped, why on 911 were executives picking up debris...?
where where the enlisted servicemembers...?


Even Rummy was outside helping to carry a stretcher. Why? Well, Rummy knew that the nation wasn't really under attack, except by the Bush administration, so there was no need for him to be on station inside Fortress Pentagon, coordinating the national defense.

That fact left him free to be seen in action, along with other suits, helping the wounded, etc. In sappy, syrupy TV land that sort of things garners sympathy and empathy. He can be shown as a guy who, after unleashing worldwide mayhem, is still someone who cares about the little people.


why was there white chalk on the lawn just weeks prior to 911...?


This is a very obscure detail. Some people think it may have been a guideline put in place for some reason, but it is hard for me to believe that anyone involved in the day's events would have needed a line like that.


and I'm sure there are several thousand other questions but these appear like we can answer them...... and if you have questions please post them here....


Is it possible to determine if cruise missiles were launched from anywhere in the western hemisphere on 9/11? Is there an accessible log of all such activities kept by the military?

[edit on 31-3-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Please read this entire article:

There Was No Missile At The Pentagon - But The Plane Did Not Hit.

We have evidence proving a deception.

Please help us focus on this evidence while letting go of speculation that keeps us spinning our wheels.

The time for asking questions is over.

It's time for action.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

I've read the thread you linked to. I don't think there is any doubt that you have proved that the plane flew north of Citgo and therefore could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Before CIT launched it's investigations, there was no evidence that the plane flew north of Citgo. There was just a lack of plane wreckage and a suspicious video and a whole lot of suspicious behavior on the part of the government. Your questions and speculations and hard work led to hard evidence of a false flag operation on 9/11.

If we continue to discuss the possibility of a missile being involved on 9/11 at the Pentagon, we may turn up someone with evidence that a missile was involved.

You can canvas the streets of Washington looking for witnesses to a flyover, but you can't canvas military bases and naval vessels around the US and abroad. If we discuss these possibilities on the internet, military personel with answers may see the discussion and choose their own way to get the information out.

I think all discussion helps. Any screw that can be loosened in the official story should be loosened.

This is a discussion board after all. If you are advocating some other kind of action, throw us a link, although as I recently learned personally, soliciting is against the T&C of use of the site.

In a very new thread someone linked to a video in which a former army officer names a military judge as having authorized 9/11. This sounds off the wall and the video is of low quality as a presentation, however it is the first new thing I've heard on 9/11 in a long time, and it is coming out of the military.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't think the discussion in this thread is a threat to anything you are trying to achieve with your evidence.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I've read the thread you linked to. I don't think there is any doubt that you have proved that the plane flew north of Citgo and therefore could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Before CIT launched it's investigations, there was no evidence that the plane flew north of Citgo. There was just a lack of plane wreckage and a suspicious video and a whole lot of suspicious behavior on the part of the government. Your questions and speculations and hard work led to hard evidence of a false flag operation on 9/11.



Excellent! That's the first step towards what should be a relentless effort on all of our parts to hyper-focus on what we KNOW proves a deception in order to force accountability based on this rock solid evidence.




If we continue to discuss the possibility of a missile being involved on 9/11 at the Pentagon, we may turn up someone with evidence that a missile was involved.


I have to beg to differ.

The evidence we provide proves there was no missile or drone plane on the south side every bit as much as it proves there WAS a massive relatively slow banking plane on the north side that did not hit the building and had to have been manipulated out of the security video.

Missiles are very noticeable.

Out of the dozens of witnesses we have talked with at least one of them would have seen something on the south side.

Nobody saw anything there for a reason and the fact that the ONLY thing that anyone has reported seeing at all is one large jet.

The DoD created the missile theory with a "slip of the tongue" by Rumsfeld and a manipulated security video.

That is the ONLY "evidence" there is for a missile.






You can canvas the streets of Washington looking for witnesses to a flyover, but you can't canvas military bases and naval vessels around the US and abroad. If we discuss these possibilities on the internet, military personel with answers may see the discussion and choose their own way to get the information out.


We didn't canvas looking for witnesses to a flyover. We canvassed looking for witnesses to ANYTHING and they all reported a single low flying rather large commercial looking jet on the north side approach.

All of them.

We had no clue what they would say and we did NOT already have a theory or pre-determined belief that we set out to prove.

But I'm sorry, no military personnel is going to come forward and confess to launching a missile because people are speculating online. They would have done it years ago. The missile theory has been shown to be deliberate disinfo and it has served it's job of keeping us off track of the REAL evidence for too long.

Time to hyper-focus and understand that we have been double-duped when it comes to this missile stuff.




I think all discussion helps. Any screw that can be loosened in the official story should be loosened.


Focusing on false information does not help.

It distracts us and certainly does hurt the effort in exposing the truth which is why counter-intelligence professionals HAVE BEEN utilized as cover for black operations in the past.

It would be naive to suggest this wasn't the case after 9/11 and the biggest candidates would be the most pervasive theories with the least evidence.

There is ZERO evidence for a missile and LOTS of evidence against it.

Yet this false information has been the core focus of Pentagon attack skeptics while the hard evidence and true facts have been virtually ignored.

That is the exact purpose of disinfo and the missile claims have served that purpose like a charm.



This is a discussion board after all. If you are advocating some other kind of action, throw us a link, although as I recently learned personally, soliciting is against the T&C of use of the site.


Yes, in fact we will be laying out a strategy with step by step instructions. Our new website for this will launch next month but we won't be recruiting anyone to join anything. Just providing free evidence and guidance to those who understand the incredible implications of this powder keg we're sitting on here and want to do something about it.

But I know this is a discussion forum.

I personally choose to discuss valid hard evidence and discourage discussion of speculative disinformation.





In a very new thread someone linked to a video in which a former army officer names a military judge as having authorized 9/11. This sounds off the wall and the video is of low quality as a presentation, however it is the first new thing I've heard on 9/11 in a long time, and it is coming out of the military.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't think the discussion in this thread is a threat to anything you are trying to achieve with your evidence.



If it's legitimate then great.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the fact that the missile theory at the Pentagon is harmful disinfo that DOES hurt our efforts in uncovering the operation.

You see I am not trying to stifle all discussion of everything.

I am suggesting that the missile theory in particular HAS been damaging since day one and remains damaging to this day.

Infinitely more so than "NPT" at the towers because it's been fully indoctrinated and accepted.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes, in fact we will be laying out a strategy with step by step instructions. Our new website for this will launch next month but we won't be recruiting anyone to join anything. Just providing free evidence and guidance to those who understand the incredible implications of this powder keg we're sitting on here and want to do something about it.


I look forward to seeing the new website and I certainly hope to see a plan of action. I agree that action is needed.

In the aftermath of 9/11 there were groups of serious legal people trying to come up with a comprehensive strategy to deal with a wide range of actionable opportunities that arose out of 9/11 in hope of getting some form of accountability out of the perps. I don't know where it all went but I haven't heard anything more about those efforts.

As far as the missile theory goes, I just can't attach as much importance to it as you do, as an exercise in disinformation. "We did it with a missile, not with preplanted explosives." . . . ???? I don't see what kind of traction that gives them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that subject.

There is no question that what CIT has done with the Pentagon story is outstanding. The witnesses are there, particularly Lloyd England. In the right political environment, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Everyone owes you a vote of thanks for that.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

As far as the missile theory goes, I just can't attach as much importance to it as you do, as an exercise in disinformation. "We did it with a missile, not with preplanted explosives." . . . ???? I don't see what kind of traction that gives them.



They are much too psychologically manipulative and cunning to simply say it outright like that. Remember this was a psychological operation/deception more than anything. You have to take yourself back to the first few months after the attack during all the initial hysteria and anger.

The missile disinfo gave them plenty of traction because while that dubious french conspiracy author Thierry Messan (possible cointelpro operative?) got the rest of the world immediately talking about missiles, hundreds of witnesses in Arlington saw a big plane!

(Where is Messan now that we have conclusive evidence? Silent.)

The "conspiracy theories" immediately looked extremely kooky as all kinds of reports of witnesses to the plane were trotted in the media and by the "debunkers".

Then the fraudulent and ambiguous security video was leaked (in Feb 2002 while the nation was still barely licking its wounds) FUELING the missile theories but also getting people to hyper-focus on SOMETHING hitting the building while ignoring the real smoking gun which we now know was the true flight path of the plane.

So all those plane witnesses were still there and they kept getting trotted out over and over smacking down the missile theorists, dividing the movement, while inspiring a very effective campaign to ignore the Pentagon attack all together even by influential movement "leaders" like Alex Jones.

They are so spooked on touching the Pentagon attack that they are too afraid to cover the conclusive north side approach evidence or even the important findings of Pilots for 9/11 Truth regarding the fatal anomalies in the NTSB data.

Think about THAT!





There is no question that what CIT has done with the Pentagon story is outstanding. The witnesses are there, particularly Lloyd England. In the right political environment, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Everyone owes you a vote of thanks for that.




Thank you man.

I know you get it and I know we are on the same side.

Please think about what I am saying here and understand why I am being so vocal about letting this missile stuff go.

It's gotten us nowhere in all these years and we are running out of time.

Believe me if we had turned up ANY evidence for a missile or drone we would have been the first to report it.

The fact that you understand how the cab and pole scene was staged should be a strong indicator for you that there was no missile or small plane over there.

The fact that nobody we talked with saw ANYTHING at all over there should be the clincher.

We have given you guys a very deep look into what people saw that day and it was not a missile or 2 airborne objects at all.




top topics



 
0

log in

join