Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
09-26-2009, 12:05 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-26-2009, 03:01 PM by MrScratch.)
#1
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
The Pentagon, only minutes after the strike..

[Image: ipent891.jpg]

No sign of a plane at all!

[Image: enginerotor459.jpg]

An engine rotor recovered at the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls

This video shows a cruise missile strike the building at +25 seconds, ask yourselves if it resembles the cruiser pictured below, and whether the nose cone highlighted in the small pic, which is the first frame in the only officially released footage of the Pentagon strike..

[Image: cruisemissile.jpg] [Image: cruiseratpgon.jpg]

Resembles both ..I reckon it does.

[Image: tu160ch55hj2.jpg]
Above is a shot of an aerial launch of a Russian CH 55 cruise missile, from a TU 160 aircraft.

Now we must consider whether the plane climbing above the Pentagon, similarly launched the missile that hit that building.

[Image: pentagonplanehd3xx.jpg]

It seems it did.

[Image: tomahawkani.gif]

A cruise missile on the test range... looks exactly like the Pentagon strike.

[Image: n644aa2flght77ptgn.jpg]

Above N644AA2 Flght 77, the aircraft "they" say struck the building.

[Image: themysteryplane.jpg]

This is the latest mystery plane, it is thought to be the same aircraft seen climbing over the Pentagon making its approach!

Quote:The previous mystery plane pictured here, is no longer a mystery..

[Image: naoc01.jpg]

9:44 am correspondent John King, who was standing near the White House, reported that there was "a white jet circling overhead," in the area over the White House, which is restricted air space. Shortly after, another CNN correspondent, Kate Snow, also reported having seen a plane, "circling over the Capitol Building," at around the same time.

[Image: doomsdayplane.jpg]

The "white jet," was in fact an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane, a highly modified Boeing 747, that acts as flying military command post, it was mission control for the attack on America!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c

911 Commission member says missile strike, then quickly corrects himself.

Quote:Further reading: go to http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/ for: September 11th 2001, A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon: by Peter Wakefield Sault
Reply
09-28-2009, 10:47 PM,
#2
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Wow man... you need to get your photoshop goggles inspected.
Reply
09-29-2009, 12:10 AM,
#3
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Quote:Wow man... you need to get your photoshop goggles inspected.
Seconded.:LOL:

How did the cruise missile knock down all those lamp posts in a huge zig-zag?

And here's what happened to a SLOWER Phantom hitting a concrete block. "Microspheres"!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RZjhxuhTmGk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RZjhxuhTmGk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

And the NOSE peeking out from the side of the street furniture also has a TAIL. A BIG one...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

All this "lying for Jesus" really sucks...
Reply
09-29-2009, 03:11 AM,
#4
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Anyone who has looked into this and still thinks it was an airliner that hit the pentagon really have some impediment stopping their brain functioning well.

I think the deployment of the missile from the plane that was seen to veer up away from the Pentagon just before the explosion is possible but it wouldn't explain the downed light poles which were at roughly 45´NE or so and about 1/4 km away from where the multiple witness statements pinpointed the path and direction of flight of the lowflying airliner, I think.

The 'case study' computer sim video is strictly for buffoons imho

Be that as it may, I am going to look into the downed light poles aspect again anyway - Although, what IS established beyond doubt is that is was NOT the airliner that was guilty of knocking them down.

I may have banned him for being a dick but i totally agree with him on that point - that it was a guided missile strike - and anyone who had actually spent a bit of time on it wouldn't surely wouldn't claim otherwise unless they were either starkly unintelligent, for some reason masquerading as such to appear as imbeciles, just after banter for no real aim or following a script with aims.
Reply
09-29-2009, 04:18 AM,
#5
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
What does it for me is the fact that the commercial plane that were supposed to have the Pentagon should have been loaded with fuel and created a very significant fire. Yet when you examine pictures (not included here) showing the insides of the building you can see wooden furniture, phone books and so on. Am I to believe that jets hitting the towers were hot enough to melt the buildings structure yet upon hitting the Pentagon the fire wouldn't even burn paper??? And where's the luggage, bodies, titanium engine parts. Pooooffff!!;)
Reply
09-29-2009, 10:18 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-29-2009, 12:18 PM by JazzRoc.)
#6
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Pripyat:

it wouldn't explain the downed light poles which were at roughly 45´NE or so and about 1/4 km away from where the multiple witness statements pinpointed the path and direction of flight of the lowflying airliner, I think.
If you cannot explain the light poles your theory is BUSTED.

The 'case study' computer sim video is strictly for buffoons imho
It doesn't seem "humble" to me. If your theory's busted, then it is YOU who is the buffoon. That realization should have gone down in seconds. How come it's taken you years?
There's also the neat scoop taken out of the kerb (fitting the right engine cowling), and the pushing aside of the generator (which would have set the missile off externally to the building).
And a cruise missile would make a real small hole in the Pentagon, and also not show a LARGE FIN poking out above the car barrier enclosure.


Be that as it may, I am going to look into the downed light poles aspect again anyway - Although, what IS established beyond doubt is that is was NOT the airliner that was guilty of knocking them down.
Good luck with your cognitive dissonance between the two. No, I don't mean that. If you were in my company I'd beat you over the head with a plucked chicken for your obtuseness.

Slerikson:

"Am I to believe that jets hitting the towers were hot enough to melt the buildings structure yet upon hitting the Pentagon the fire wouldn't even burn paper?"
The towers fell because their outside structures were softened exactly where they were damaged (the softening of building steel occurs at around 1100 degrees F), and they then buckled. Once buckled past an inch or two, they had only one way to go.

All three of the Trade Centre buildings were highly unconventional in construction, with significant non-redundancies.

Typical steel structures are highly redundant; you can knock bits out of them and soften them in places, and the increased loads will be spread around the damaged areas.

It is said, WRONGLY, that the towers fell at freefall speed - 9.2 seconds. The first (struck lower down, with a greater load pressing on the failing structure) fell in 14.5 seconds, and the second fell in 22 seconds.

The heat to melt some of the steelwork came from the potential energy of the towers themselves. This was, in each case, equivalent to twenty-five "Hiroshimas". Most of which went straight upwards, of course.

The conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy (falling) meant that the uppermost parts of each tower approached the speed of the F4 Phantom in my previous video. If brought to a sudden stop, the material is forced to VERY HIGH (plasma) temperatures. There would have been FLASHES OF LIGHT and the production of - microspherules. You can SEE this in the Phantom video... ...have a look at it again... ...the impact flashes show up in the videos of the two planes striking the towers as well...

Poooffff!

When you go to your doctor, he's a professional, and you believe him. Somehow you can't accord the engineering profession the same respect, can you? Ask yourself why that is.


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K89coc88Hrs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K89coc88Hrs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTNRkb7AaQk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTNRkb7AaQk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bMqgFaNvoP8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bMqgFaNvoP8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

There's much, much more.

This is a great resource:

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
Reply
09-29-2009, 12:42 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-29-2009, 01:02 PM by rsol.)
#7
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
if only they had included walls in their simulation:) Nothing like a million dollar simulation to add authority to a lie

Quote:When you go to your doctor, he's a professional, and you believe him. Somehow you can't accord the engineering profession the same respect, can you? Ask yourself why that is.

Hardly. feeling a bit upset at how the world is? you must need anti depressants. here take this highly addictive drug. it ok its been approved. doctors, as engineers only know what they are taught. some things are true. however institutions have said the earth is flat. institutions have said that we were created by a god and have used scientific reasoning to uphold these claims.

If you see the simulation for example. you see that the wings go through the walls of the building and very far inside. however where is the hole created by those wings?

[Image: l-3_2.JPG]

[Image: impact.jpg]

The same principle of the WTC7 simulation. Its like concrete has no load baring properties. its just some stuff to be disregarged. that jet fighter "vaporises" however a non armoured comercial jet manages to punch a hole through the most over-engineered section of the pentagon. Coincedentally the exact part of the building where a small amount of ppl were at the time. with a plane flown with a very small amount of passengers by a guy who used to work in the pentegon a year before doing various simulations including flying a plane into the pentegon. Its all just a coincidence.
Reply
09-29-2009, 02:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-29-2009, 02:30 PM by JazzRoc.)
#8
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
rsol:

if only they had included walls in their simulation
You know they didn't? Ah, I see, you assume if it isn't displayed, it isn't calculated for...

Nothing like a million dollar simulation to add authority to a lie
And was nothing like one baseless assertion following another.

feeling a bit upset at how the world is?
More so than a moment ago.

you / claims.
Babelfish.

If you see the simulation for example. you see that the wings go through the walls of the building and very far inside. however where is the hole created by those wings?
You see the Phantom, for example. You see the wingtips fly onwards past the concrete block.

Where is the hole created by the Phantom? The 757 was flying FASTER than the Phantom. That's your logic...


Coincidentally the exact part of the building where a small amount of ppl were at the time. with a plane flown with a very small amount of passengers by a guy who used to work in the Pentagon a year before doing various simulations including flying a plane into the Pentagon. Its all just a coincidence.
I don't think so. I believe "they" DID know of this possibility, and using a "man inside" placed the idea of striking that face in the enemy's mind precisely because it was hardened and underpopulated, for the plane took a most circuitous route to arrive there...

Ooo lookit pretty picture. Look how they managed to paint up a scrap of aircraft in AA colors and dump it on the Pentagon lawn before they'd even finished fighting the fire! (And before the structure had collapsed.)


[Image: WreckageofFlight77Pentagon.jpg]

Best stop talking out of yourself, eh?
Reply
09-29-2009, 03:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-29-2009, 03:40 PM by triplesix.)
#9
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Debunkers always have a great little explanation for point by point 'debates' within the 9/11 conspiracy, but they always choose to ignore the most glaring facts about the event.

#1) Condoleezza Rice stated "I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that." George W. said "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." The 9/11 Commission even goes so far as to state:
Quote:The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction.
This is patently false, which can be proven, not by the least, from sixteen pages earlier in that same document, the 9/11 Commission:
Quote:NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
[1a]

Of course, there is plenty of other evidence that this concept was already in the imaginations of many people, inside and outside of government. An example outside of the government, the Lone Gunmen pilot episode, aired six months before 9/11, which eerily mirrored the events of 9/11. An example within the government, the September 1999 US Intelligence document which stated ""Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House." [1b]

Another example, the USA Today article "Is Terrorism Threat Overblown?" quote: ". . . crashing planes into structures is not new. The Israelis shot down a Libyan jetliner they said was headed for a building in Tel Aviv in the 1980s. A Cessna 150 fell 50 yards short of the White House in September, 1994. French commandos prevented a jumbo jet, hijacked in Algeria by the Armed Islamic Group, from crashing into the Eiffel Tower the following December. In the mid 1990s, terrorist Ramzi Yousef plotted to have his friend Abdul Hakim Murad fly a light plane loaded with chemical weapons into CIA headquarters at Langley, Va., or to have him spray the area with poison gas. A Turkish hijacker attempted to crash an aircraft into the tomb of former Pres. Kemal Ataturk in Ankara in 1998." [1c]

#2) We all know the US military has a no-bullshit scramble and intercept policy with all non-communicative aircraft. So why was there such a failure to follow standard operating procedure on 9/11? It wasn't like it was a failure to follow it for one plane. There were multiple confirmed 'off flight path' planes in the air on 9/11, even post tower impact, yet there was a severely inadequate response from the military. Furthermore, no one was disciplined, not even as a formality. [2]

#3) Explain how a cave-dwelling terrorist could pull off flight maneuvers considered impossible by ace pilots with thousands of hours of flight time? [3]

#4) Explain why no other concrete high rise in history has collapsed from simple combustion. The twin towers burned for hardly an hour to just over an hour and a half respectively before they collapsed. Some steel skyscrapers have burned for twelve hours and more. Many buildings have taken the impact of aircraft and have remained standing. Yet these two towers are unique. As a scientist and lover of the scientific method, and as a logician and adorer of Occam's razor, we have to ask ourselves, in what likelihood is it that two buildings, on the same day, shall collapse from fire in a short time, when other buildings have burned for far longer and experienced no collapse whatsoever? In what likelihood is it, on the same day, that two identical buildings, hit by two very similar planes, burning for very different times (one more than 1.5X as long as the other), in different structural locations, should have two identical collapses? Surely the likelihood of such an event being coincidence is prohibitively lilliputian? And if you would like me to compound more coincidences of that day, and unique occurances, and mysterious happenstances, to further enhance the unlikelihood of the official conspiracy theory, I could endulge you. Instead I think it is quite clear that a much, much more simple explanation is at work here. [4]

#5) Explain why the US government has never formally accused Osama of the 9/11 attacks. [5]

#6) Furthermore, explain the United States' released fake video of Osama taking credit for the attacks. [6]

#7) Also consider we are dealing with individuals who have already been caught red-handed in a variety of conspiracies involving all sorts of felonious criminality and treasonous exploitation of positions of power and are also admitted members of elite secret societies. For the latter matter, on secret organization, see Skull and Bones, for an example of the former, being caught red-handed in conspiracy and deceit, consider the build up to the war in Iraq.

Explain how selling the Iraq war on obviously bullshit 'intelligence,' was anything but a highly orchestrated, organized, multi-member conspiracy to deceive the public? With collusion between members of the government, military, private intelligence apparatus, corporate entities as well as the mainstream media, as can be easily attested to over a long period of mainstream and international media, explain how a shadow organization capable of a conspiracy to bring the United States to war with Iraq at a cost of billions of dollars and millions of lives is not capable of remote flying a couple of planes into a couple of buildings and killing a couple thousand people just to get the ball rolling. [7]

Wake up, you're slaves.
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply
09-29-2009, 05:31 PM,
#10
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Nice Post triplesix. I agree completely.
Its a shame "debunkers" like Jazz Roc feel the need to resort to the same bullshit tactics of putting words and theories into people's mouths instead of just addressing the points made.
For example...
Quote:Ooo lookit pretty picture. Look how they managed to paint up a scrap of aircraft in AA colors and dump it on the Pentagon lawn before they'd even finished fighting the fire! (And before the structure had collapsed.)

Real lame.

"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research"
~William Cooper

DTTNWO!
Reply
09-29-2009, 10:07 PM,
#11
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Quote:Pripyat:

it wouldn't explain the downed light poles which were at roughly 45´NE or so and about 1/4 km away from where the multiple witness statements pinpointed the path and direction of flight of the lowflying airliner, I think.
If you cannot explain the light poles your theory is BUSTED.

Either that or you completely misunderstood me in efforts to fortify an untenable position..but that's your perogative.

What I actually said was that ALL of the MANY eye witness testimonies INDEPENDENTLY are UNAMINOUS in placing a VERY LOW FLYING AIRLINER heading TOWARDS the PENTAGON on a DIFFERENT path AWAY and NOT NEAR the downed lightpoles.

These witnesses imclude SECURITY GUARDS employed BY THE US GOVT. who had not heard each others testimonies previously.

These AND MANY OTHER witnesses who are verifiable ALL GIVE AN IDENTICAL ACCOUNT.

Ergo, the plane THEY are talking about which VEERED away from the Pentagon before colliding with it COULD NOT BE WHATEVER IT WAS THAT DOWNED THE LIGHT POLES.

SO, if we put that into the context of the THEORY you are AGRESSIVELY PURORTING AS IF IT WERE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FACT(which it is not)...THEN you are reasonably in the position of pretty much claiming there WERE TWO JET LINERS HEADING IN TOWARDS THE PENTAGON.

NOT EVEN taking into account the impact damage...not the literally flimsy 'evidence' on a few scraps of shiny alu on the lawn:rolleyes:YOU are still left with something WHICH LOOKS RIDICULOUS in comparison to the idea that a drone was deployed in the scenario.

JMFO :LOL:

got more youtubes??:geek:
Reply
09-29-2009, 10:43 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-29-2009, 11:36 PM by JazzRoc.)
#12
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Triplesix:

Debunkers always have a great little explanation for point by point 'debates' within the 9/11 conspiracy, but they always choose to ignore the most glaring facts about the event.
Well, NO. I have just shown you crucial evidence that debunks the proposition of the thread, and you are talking about something else - which ISN'T the subject of this thread.

The thread is "a cruise missile struck the Pentagon". Hadn't you noticed?


One of your other perceptual failures was to not notice this statement of mine: "I believe "they" DID know of this possibility, and using a "man inside" placed the idea of striking that face in the enemy's mind precisely because it was hardened and underpopulated, for the plane took a most circuitous route to arrive there."

Your paras #1) through #7) you should address to someone else.

For instance:

"Explain how selling the Iraq war on obviously bullshit 'intelligence,' was anything but a highly orchestrated, organized, multi-member conspiracy to deceive the public? With collusion between members of the government, military, private intelligence apparatus, corporate entities as well as the mainstream media, as can be easily attested to over a long period of mainstream and international media, explain how a shadow organization capable of a conspiracy to bring the United States to war with Iraq at a cost of billions of dollars and millions of lives"
is something I could have written myself.

"is not capable of remote flying a couple of planes into a couple of buildings and killing a couple thousand people just to get the ball rolling",
on the other hand, wasn't necessary because they knew it was coming.

Your paranoia is running on and on. While you are doing this REAL criminality is being carried out somewhere, but YOU - you have your head in the sand and up your ass.


"Wake up, you're slaves."
NO. YOU are. I'm on a nice warm volcanic island in the Atlantic, thanks.
Reply
09-29-2009, 11:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-29-2009, 11:38 PM by JazzRoc.)
#13
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
[Image: chomsky.jpg]

Quote:Nice Post triplesix. I agree completely. It's a shame "debunkers" like JazzRoc feel the need to resort to the same bullshit tactics of putting words and theories into people's mouths instead of just addressing the points made. For example...
Quote:Ooo lookit pretty picture. Look how they managed to paint up a scrap of aircraft in AA colors and dump it on the Pentagon lawn before they'd even finished fighting the fire! (And before the structure had collapsed.)
Real lame.
You too seem to be talking about something else. Is the topic too hard for you?

I raised FOURTEEN separate important points and NONE of you rebut ANY of them.

No-one in this forum has a rebuttal of them. It seems that no-one in this forum has the grace to see sense.

The above statement by Noam Chomsky makes sense. Can YOU see the sense in the statement?

This vid, Pripyat (it's all you're getting by way of an answer by the way) summarizes my position EXACTLY:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f-mYoJed3SE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f-mYoJed3SE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Reply
09-29-2009, 11:19 PM,
#14
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Quote:[Image: chomsky.jpg]

Quote:Nice Post triplesix. I agree completely. It's a shame "debunkers" like JazzRoc feel the need to resort to the same bullshit tactics of putting words and theories into people's mouths instead of just addressing the points made. For example...
Quote:Ooo lookit pretty picture. Look how they managed to paint up a scrap of aircraft in AA colors and dump it on the Pentagon lawn before they'd even finished fighting the fire! (And before the structure had collapsed.)
Real lame.
You too seem to be talking about something else. Is the topic too hard for you? NOPE

I raised FOURTEEN separate important points and NONE of you rebut ANY of them.

No-one in this forum has a rebuttal of them. It seems that no-one in this forum has the grace to see sense.

The above statement by Noam Chomsky makes sense. Can YOU see the sense in the statement?

This vid, Pripyat (it's all you're getting by way of an answer by the way) summarizes my position EXACTLY:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f-mYoJed3SE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f-mYoJed3SE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Thanks for the link, I'll watch it now. As it goes...I HAVE MADE ONE POINT so far, which you haven't addressed either...irrespective of the forum and your 14 points...one point is easier to address than 14 surely...and yoar not the OP either !!!!!!!

As far Noam, I defer to Michael Parenti's opinion, for I think it is about as lucid as it gets in refrence to him.
Reply
09-29-2009, 11:30 PM,
#15
The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!
Hey, that video is about as blatant a hit piece as could be...I particularly liked the 'subtle' scrolling background saying 'no planes' and 'repitialian shape shifters'..not to mention the overly long shot of the pentagon on fire which obviously was used as it had a piece of shiny alu from a cargo bag or something right in the centre of the frame..haha pretty lame...let's see him come on concen and get away with his nonsense:rolleyes:

Who ever said Al-CIAda weren't involved??

I wonder if this guy has actually ever even heard of the ISI.

Thanks for clarifying your position Jazz...you are no doubt welcome here and your knowledge base and intellect is formidable on numerous occasion if inexplicably myopic on others:)

For one who likes to think himself aware of the potential ramifications of present tech, your two airliners theory...three if you airforce one...seems incredible to me.

I hear they are deploying more drones to Afghanistan to help lower the mortality rates of soldiers in the news.

[Image: a680_pentagon_hole_2050081722-18055.jpg]
"don't talk out your ass,buddy" The 'exit hole' at the Pentagon.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Feds: US man planned to blow up Pentagon Easy Skanking 1 646 09-30-2011, 01:22 PM
Last Post: Dunamis
  The Pentagon Crash wokensheep 8 2,938 06-20-2011, 04:21 AM
Last Post: onceon
  Anwar Al Awlaki Terrorist? Or Pentagon / CIA Asset? drummer 1 704 10-21-2010, 06:34 PM
Last Post: dicktater
  Official story of building 7 brought down by controlled demolition h3rm35 3 998 06-03-2010, 02:07 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 Hans Olo 5 1,336 04-27-2010, 07:24 AM
Last Post: Hans Olo
  9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT --- 8 1,546 01-17-2010, 07:49 AM
Last Post: Hans Olo
  WTC's 4, 5 &amp; 6 appear to have been impacted by a guided missile MrScratch 4 1,567 10-18-2009, 10:01 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Researchers Release 9/11 Pentagon Attack Report mexika 5 1,269 09-27-2009, 02:16 AM
Last Post: hilly7
  The Pentagon Suspends Military Cooperation with Honduras mexika 0 612 07-04-2009, 09:27 PM
Last Post: mexika
  Suspected US missile strikes in Pakistan kill 8 mastermg 0 420 06-18-2009, 10:54 PM
Last Post: mastermg

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)