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

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

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.

It doesn’t matter, there is no physical proof a missile hit the pentagon. The pentagon would have exploded out, instead of having its facade pushed in? Can you dispute the cited sources or not! Get over it. All physical evidence indicates a jet hit the pentagon. Please list the physical evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

911 was an inside job without a doubt. This theory about Olson might be true, probably not, nevertheless the fact of the hoax of 911 doesn’t depend on this side theory.


It also doesn't matter how they bombed the Pentagon, the reality is 911 may be the biggest crime in history equivalent to the Reichstag fire and other historical crimes

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

The river might have listening devices to detect subs too. If the river is deep enough, and not so filled with plants, mud, and trash it would plug seawater intakes and foul cooling exchangers.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I'm guessing the satire went over your head.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
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.

And only NORAD has radar so this theory is super plausible now.

a reply to: anonentity

Oh sorry, you are going with the debunked jets in the air after impact argument. First off, cite from the actual radar data of the actual jets tracked to the towers, the pentagon, and shanksville to show they didn’t disappear after impact.

Is this a badly worded reference to the transmitted call signs and the confusion of such during 9/11?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then I apologize, sorry for any confusion.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

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.

It doesn’t matter, there is no physical proof a missile hit the pentagon. The pentagon would have exploded out, instead of having its facade pushed in? Can you dispute the cited sources or not! Get over it. All physical evidence indicates a jet hit the pentagon. Please list the physical evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

Can you do me a favor Neutron? Since you're such a prolific poster in the 9/11 forums, can you please post the photographic evidence that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

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.

It doesn’t matter, there is no physical proof a missile hit the pentagon. The pentagon would have exploded out, instead of having its facade pushed in? Can you dispute the cited sources or not! Get over it. All physical evidence indicates a jet hit the pentagon. Please list the physical evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

Can you do me a favor Neutron? Since you're such a prolific poster in the 9/11 forums, can you please post the photographic evidence that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

A lot more plausible than an ICBM
Please research ICBMs and how they operate. There you would see the impossibility.

a reply to: neutronflux


Many Jets in the air, one jet flies close to another jet, and takes over its flight path, the original jet resumes the course of the other jet. Switch the transponders off and they have effectively switched positions. Now a drone is flying a commercial airliners course and as far as radar is concerned it doesn't know the difference.The only way to detect is with a visual by a military jet, then this doesn't happen because the military jet isn't given the coordinates .The speed of the impact was about 150knots above., the maximum rated speed of the plane. Which means as far as the commercial planes were concerned, they would start to break up. If a Commercial plane hit a solid object, it would act like a shock absorber with the nose telescoping back into the body of the craft. Leaving a lot of identifiable debris. Outside the building . The Pentagon would have been a hardened structure simply because it would be the main hub that an enemy would want to take out first. Their would be no way an airliner would do that amount of damage.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

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.

It doesn’t matter, there is no physical proof a missile hit the pentagon. The pentagon would have exploded out, instead of having its facade pushed in? Can you dispute the cited sources or not! Get over it. All physical evidence indicates a jet hit the pentagon. Please list the physical evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

Can you do me a favor Neutron? Since you're such a prolific poster in the 9/11 forums, can you please post the photographic evidence that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

A lot more plausible than an ICBM
Please research ICBMs and how they operate. There you would see the impossibility.

Thanks for your concern, but that's not what I was requesting.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

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.

It doesn’t matter, there is no physical proof a missile hit the pentagon. The pentagon would have exploded out, instead of having its facade pushed in? Can you dispute the cited sources or not! Get over it. All physical evidence indicates a jet hit the pentagon. Please list the physical evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

Can you do me a favor Neutron? Since you're such a prolific poster in the 9/11 forums, can you please post the photographic evidence that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

Think I have posted links in other threads to the analyzed surveillance video frames that captured a jet flying around 500 miles an hour. Is that false?

I think you have been part of threads in which different sources have been cited the filing of freedom of information requests resulted in all fight 77 related video being released. Is that false.

I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.

The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction.

It has been explained over and over again in threads you were part of the security cameras for a glorified office building cheaply built during WWII where designed for ground surveillance. Is that a false statement?

Camera angles to monitor doors, foot traffic, monitor entrance check points to capture license plate numbers, and drivers faces. Is that a false statement?

Please list a camera at the pentagon that was controlled by radar with a snowballs chance in hell of capturing a clear frame of a jet flying over 700 feet a second?

Nice try to create a false argument.

Now, cite the physical evidence that shows something other than a jet hit the pentagon to warrant bothering with the few captured frames of flight 77 video.

a reply to: anonentity

One: from the radar data, please show the jets ever flew close enough to a another jet that multiple radar tracking stations would ever be “confused”.

Two: any jets that crossed perpendicular would not confuse the radar because passenger jets cannot turn on a dime.

Three: if the jets were flying at the exact same altitude, they would crash into each other. Hint, radar tracks on direction of travel and altitude.

Four: cite from the radar data other jets that flew roughly parallel with the 9/11 jets at the same altitude for a long enough of a duration to “confuse” the radar.

Now, the truth of the “hardened pentagon”

The Pentagon was designed by American architect George Bergstrom (1876–1955), and built by general contractor John McShain of Philadelphia. Ground was broken for construction on September 11, 1941, and the building was dedicated on January 15, 1943. General Brehon Somervell provided the major motivating power behind the project;[5] Colonel Leslie Groves was responsible for overseeing the project for the U.S. Army.

Break

From 1998 to 2011, the Pentagon underwent a major renovation, known as the Pentagon Renovation Program. This program, completed in June 2011, involved the complete gutting and reconstruction of the entire building in phases to bring the building up to modern standards, removing asbestos, improving security, providing greater efficiency for Pentagon tenants, and sealing of all office windows.[40]

As originally built, most Pentagon office space consisted of open bays which spanned an entire ring. These offices used cross-ventilation from operable windows instead of air conditioning for cooling. Gradually, bays were subdivided into private offices with many using window air conditioning units. With renovations now complete, the new space includes a return to open office bays, a new Universal Space Plan of standardized office furniture and partitions developed by Studios Architecture.[41]

The pentagon was built as a office building. Stop the false arguments!

a reply to: anonentity

Contrary to popular belief, an aircraft can exceed its maximum speed without instantly breaking apart. The aircraft on 9/11 were all in descents from higher altitude. They could, and did briefly exceed their speed before impact.

The Pentagon was being rebuilt to withstand a car bomb almost touching the outer wall. That's a lot different than an aircraft weighing over 200,000 pounds when empty, at several hundred miles an hour. There is no structure built that could withstand that impact.

a reply to: neutronflux

Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.

And btw, this quote:

I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.

The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction. 

Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anonentity

Contrary to popular belief, an aircraft can exceed its maximum speed without instantly breaking apart. The aircraft on 9/11 were all in descents from higher altitude. They could, and did briefly exceed their speed before impact.

The Pentagon was being rebuilt to withstand a car bomb almost touching the outer wall. That's a lot different than an aircraft weighing over 200,000 pounds when empty, at several hundred miles an hour. There is no structure built that could withstand that impact.

Or if a aircraft does start to break apart, it does not instantly stop dead in its tracks, and fall straight down to the ground.

Only a conspiracist would claim a jet flying at 500 miles an hour could not crash into the pentagon because it would crash?

Flight 77 exceeded set safe operating speeds, so the momentum caused it to crash into the pentagon? What more do they want?

a reply to: neutronflux


The last five minutes of that last vid I posted, shows the targets being met by other targets.

a reply to: anonentity

The last five minutes of the last video you posted is some guys in Star Trek costumes singing.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: neutronflux

Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.

And btw, this quote:

I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.

The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction. 

Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.

You are saying there are not photos of the wreckage on the internet? Photos submitted at the Moussaoui trial of the wreckage? No video and photos of bits of wreckage on the lawn? Do you research anything?


Here is a link to a video of a P-51 hitting a runway at high speed.

Reno Nevada P-51 plane crashes into crowd on camera

m.youtube.com...

Nothing recognizable as a P-51 without picking up the book size wreckage? Is that false?

How are the videos and the photos of flight 77 wreckage on the internet not constant with a high speed jet pushing through three rings of a large building? Not constant with a high speed crash where momentum carried the wreckage in to and through a building over 20 acres in size?