What I believe happened...in photos

The Pentagon:





The ONLY ever visible entry from the projectile that struck the Pentagon is below. Again, this is the only entry point EVER produced.



Whatever hit the Pentagon is was NOT an airliner. As airliners would produce a much larger entry point than what is shown above as well as if it "skidded into" the building as some ignorant minds claim, where is the skid marks and where is that MUCH larger entry point? Answer: There aren't any.

Much of the American public has been successfully conditioned to abandon independent thought at the cue of the corporate media whenever a talking head on TV labels someone a "Conspiracy Theorist." For independent thinkers this presents a challenge when attempting to carry on an adult conversation about topics where possibilities for conspiracies must be considered.

source unknown



The World Trade Center Towers and Building 7:


Ummm, wonder what that is? Maybe a welder?...I think not.




And the molten slag that was supposedly cause by jet fuel and the fires.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes has given perhaps his most dire warning yet, saying that the Obama administration is preparing to stage terror attacks, declare martial law and cancel the 2012 elections, which is why they are demonizing their political enemies as criminals and terrorists

And below we have some more metal flowing out of the building.






The WTC Towers I believe were not just rigged with massive amounts of explosives. Rather they were precisely placed at critical points to initiate the beginning of the collaspes. I believe people get the wrong idea when they ask "well how did all those rig the towers and..." when that isn't really required at all. Even in the case of the big towers. One would not need a crew but only a team. We already know that WTC Security has stated many many workers in the previous months & weeks prior to the day of 911. Just like in OKC many people stated they saw people they did not recognize. These people were the ones who work there day in and day out so they know who is and who isn't normally present. I do not believe that there would need to be a massive team of people to rig both towers. I think many people think on a grand scale because of the magnitude of 911 when to get things going it wouldn't require many at all.

The plans for the towers have been in the public domain for decades and would have been easily accessed in order to plant what I call, "motivational explosives" combined with the aircraft and confusion would make the job pretty easy despite what some may think otherwise. For WTC 7, I realize that it was damaged more so than many may even know and more than some pics show also. But the manner in which it went down later on, that was a controlled demo without any doubt just like it's two big twins.


And what happened to Flight 93:




The Shanksville site is only one debris site and not the primary crash site either. The other two sites were mentioned on national television brielfy but were never mentioned again due to the government led herding of the MSM to the field in Pennsylvania.

Many of you may recall hearing this during the first hour or so on national TV:

"The crash site is located in the woodlands of Pennsylvania and is very difficult to get to...A resuce effort is being put to together as we speak." source: My notes during 911.

The Shanksville site is NOT the one they were talking about because that site has roads leading to it and on it. The locals were on scene before rescuers. The site the media was referring to was one of three that never was divulged to the public because if they were, it would common knowledge now that Flight 93 was shot down.

There are MANY circumstancial evidence based references to it being shot down. More so than any other other aspect of 911. George, Dick & Don know full well what happened to Flight 93 on that day. And they know it was shot out of the sky by either a military pilot doing what he believed in and was right that day (which I'll never dispute) as the order was given to "protect the house at all costs" or someone else giving the order that they thought was coming but actually never did. Then it was covered up either way.

Why cover it up?...

* Too much liability despite that the country might have full well been OK with the decision. They simply didn't wish to find out afterwards.

* One hand didn't know what the left hand was doing that day. The order was given but done so prematurely. But nevertheless carried out.

* It was shot at as one of the fighter jets that day had only training missiles and once hit, didn't explode but lingered on airborne and was forced down. Explaining why witensses saw another aircraft.

So if a jet was shot down then wouldn't it leave a lot of debris?

No it wouldn't as many on here have claimed. That claim is based in movie scenes and hype. This isn't always the case, in fact they unless its a direct hit (to the fuel tanks, oxygen supply/recirculator or arms bay depending on what type of aircraft) an unarmed missile could indeed "hole the plane" then suck out some debris but still fly for several miles. especially if hit in the fuselage where the passenger compartment is and didn't strike anything critical. Anything is possible as real life is often more strange than fiction.





Whatever was at the "hole in the ground" in Shanksville was not there when photographers arrived. The plane vanished story is just ignorant and even more so, are the folks who believe it and defend it. otherwise probably good well meaning people, but ignorant. Nothing about this site is a plane crash site. In my career I have attended 4 crash sites of varying severity and I can state that airliner crash sites do not look like this. This site was roped off, guarded, policed, picked over, cleaned up to a certain degree then released for photographer's inspection as well as the media.

One thing to consider:

Two airliners crashed into two steel structures in NYC. They left debris for sure despite the fire melting steel theorys & the impact. Yet this airliner crashed into some soft dirt and it vanished leaving little debris?

Mike Lee

Remember, there were two other sites. This one was just the "Oswald site" as I call it.

“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”

Final thoughts:

The passengers of Flight 77 and whatever happened at the Pentagon hold the key to 911 in my opinion. It is the golden egg that if resolved will shed light on the rest of the day's events. If the government would release ALL camera footage in order to put down claims of conspiracy as the current adminsitration says they wish to do, then why not just release it and make us all go away? The reason is that it more than likely was not an airliner and the government would then have to come up with the real whereabouts/fate of the passengers. In addition they would also have to back off of the Al Qaeda claim that was and has been the battle cry for us to invade Iraq. Which has already been proven was an agenda of the Bush admin well before 911.

The events of 911 were and still are the motivation for going to war, those who profit from war are those who make war possible in the first place. With no war the military becomes a non proftable entity then they are considred obsolete along with the intelligence apparatus and the support structure that is established to keep it all informed. No country can ever sustain a fighting force on land, sea or air without justifying it's purpose and from time to time, use them to prove their worth. It would be like a car dealership employing a bunch of mechanics who work for a car company that makes vehicles that never break down.

America is different. More so than when I was born and growing up and more so with every changing day. There are less & less freedoms with the laws now being passed in secret or closed door sessions or, by events such as 911 that invoke patroitism on the citizen's part so much so that they willingly give up their freedoms at the request & pleas of those who strive for such striffe. In exchange for no more than living in a state of control even though many never realize it at the moment.

The elites are using the tree to water their own reveloution and grow their agendas by exchanging it's citizens freedoms under the cover of protection from enemys that were created in the intelligence board room by people who have no issue using the blood of Americans to do their dirty work. If the tree needs blood in order to survive then thats one thing. But to water the tree with the blood of innocents for the sake of making it grow just so that elites can benefit from it's fruits without any regard for those it is originally for. I say we string up those in that tree for the sake of showing others who come along after them, that we are the people, for the people and by the people. - Mike Lee

Good post.. to tired to comment more, on my way to bed, thought I would read it before I leave.... so sorry for the one line

should be an interesting thread once i wake up...

[edit on 14-4-2010 by MilzGatez]

Interesting.

I can say a definate maybe on their maybe being a cruise missle on the pentagon. I dont think it was a "bomb laden" drone.

Cruise missle would be easier. Its already got the goodies in it. Why go to the trouble to modify it?

WTC "cruise/drone"?

Nope. Not gonna bite on that. Planes hit it? Yes. Planes caused ALL of the damage? Oh hell no.

1 for 2. You did better than some .

Originally posted by mikelee
The Pentagon:

That doesn't work:

Global Hawk: Length: 44 ft 5 in (13.54 m), Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Boeing 757-200: Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m), Height 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)

The object's subtended angle from the camera is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, NOT a Global Hawk, so right off the bat a Global Hawk is eliminated from consideration.

The ONLY ever visible entry from the projectile that struck the Pentagon is below. Again, this is the only entry point EVER produced.

Whatever hit the Pentagon is was NOT an airliner. As airliners would produce a much larger entry point than what is shown above...

Fortunately, we have the photo of the real entry hole, far wider than you claim:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4af757b05ec2.jpg[/atsimg]

www.oilempire.us...

Here is a photo of supposed wing impact on the Pentagon.

Problem is with the angle of the wing the other wing would have been dragging the ground if it was as long as a 757 wing and there are no signs of where a wing was dragging the ground.

reply to post by REMISNE


I've not delved into the Pentagon crash too deeply , so pardon my ignorance.

If that is a wing impact , wouldn't the wings have sheered off , from the looks of this photo ?

If so , where did they go ? They clearly weren't on the lawn .

[edit on 14-4-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by okbmd
If that is a wing impact , wouldn't the wings have sheered off , from the looks of this photo ?

If so , where did they go ? They clearly weren't on the lawn .

Correct, i have been asking the same question for years.

If you look at most aircraft crashes you will notice that ther are usually 3 things left over after a crash.

1. Wings, they usually shear off.

2. Engines, they can withstand heat and impact.

3. Tail, it is normally last to impact thats why voice and date recoreds are placed in tail.

reply to post by felonius


Cruise missile does not have enough "punch" to it. However, the Global Hawk is big enough to confuse unsuspecting people to think they saw something they actually didn't as seen below...





In addition to having enough room to pack it full of enough explosives to get the task accomplished.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by okbmd


When asking that question one must consider that perhaps there were none. But many people simply make excuses as to why they are there instead of considering what in any other incident would be plausible.

Let the international community investigate 9/11

I must say you've all done some great work in researching this I personally like the picture with the drone painted up I think that is a good theory!

reply to post by REMISNE


To me, it looks like if that were an impact of a wing that the rebar grid would also be damaged. But it isn't. In addition to thats a tight photo that shows only two purported impact points. However there is still no wing part pics around those supposed points. Just pointing out what I see there. or don't that is.

Originally posted by mikelee
However there is still no wing part pics around those supposed points. Just pointing out what I see there. or don't that is.

Yes i agree, but i was also trying to make the point about the angle of the wing.

reply to post by howie82788


At 500 mph flying past unsuspecting civilians, it would difficult to recognize it. It was a play into the psycological aspects of human recognition & remeberence factors. Moving that fast and not knowing it was coming, the paint scheme alone would lead many to deduce it was an AA flight. When it actually wasn't. The Global Hawk is a big craft.

reply to post by REMISNE


I know. I wasn't "knocking you" at all. It makes your point well I'll add. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by felonius

 

Cruise missile does not have enough "punch" to it. However, the Global Hawk is big enough to confuse unsuspecting people to think they saw something they actually didn't as seen below...

Except I just showed you why it couldn't be a Global Hawk. And no eyewitnesses saw a missile. They described a twin-engine passenger jet.

And we know that no "conspirator" would go to the trouble to disguise a Global Hawk to look like an airliner when a 757 would do the job just fine.

reply to post by jthomas


Well then, you have your theory and I have mine. Respected both ways as there is plenty of room to allow that type of mutual disagreement here.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas

 

Well then, you have your theory and I have mine. Respected both ways as there is plenty of room to allow that type of mutual disagreement here.

I'm helping you by showing how your theory doesn't stand up to the evidence. Theories, remember, do not automatically have equal validity.

reply to post by jthomas

I'm helping you by showing how your theory doesn't stand up to the evidence. Theories, remember, do not automatically have equal validity.

neither do photos and statements to the contrary without conrete, verifiable evidence. And even then, some will disagree with it then.

reply to post by jthomas


And besides, what are the odds that the only camera still/footage released would nicely outline a Global Hawk in the frame?


I think thats too much of coincidence to simply dismiss in favor of the flawed official explanation. Just my opinion.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by mikelee]