The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

I am not writing this thread to convince anyone of anything. I simply present a theory from a Russian Nuclear Scientist and the coincidental evidence that I found supports what he says. Other than that, I just want to see what ATS thinks about this coincidence against accusation.

Dmitiri khalezov a former Soviet Nuclear scientist, made a public claim that what hit the Pentagon was a P-700 Granite Missile.

This got me interested, so I looked into it.

This is a P-700 Soviet era Granite Missile. It's an ICBM that can travels at Mach 2.5.



To me, a missile impact explains much more than a plane impact. Here's why I say that...



I find it absolutely impossible that an aluminum nose and fuselage can penetrate reinforced concrete through three sectors of the Pentagon. This is literally what these missile are meant to do, not airplanes.

Then leaving this perfect impact three levels deep into the Pentagon.



The first thing I thought was, how did a Soviet era ICBM hit the damn Pentagon. That's where things took off. As I was researching the P-700 Granite Missile I stumbled on the sinking of the Russian submarine The Kursk in 2000 where all 131 men on board died.

To learn about the Kursk sinking

I'm sure many still remember the Kursk sinking because it was a very bad public relations incident for Putin. He was on holiday and said he'd deal with it swiftly when he returned from Holliday. Additionally, reports surfaced that they heard knocking from within the sub 48 hours after sinking, insinuating men were still alive.

But that story was soon buried and it came out that those knocks are automatic timers in the mechanism.

Putin promised that he would raise that Submarine immediately. But the family members of the dead petitioned him not to do it because they feared more would die in the recovery. Needless to say, Putin ordered the salvage.

During the bid submissions for the contract to salvage the sub, additional details started to leak.

Here is full details of the disaster

There were public stories that there were two explosions under water, one actually measured a 3.6 on the Richter Scale. Putin first claimed that a foreign sub rammed the Kursk causing the first explosion, then an onboard torpedo cause the second explosion.

Here is the explosion:



It proven that there were actually two American subs in the area monitoring the Russian war games.

So when word got out that USS Memphis and the Los Angeles Long Sub was in the area, the Pentagon was forced to make a statement. They stated that The Kursk was destroyed by an errant torpedo fired by one of the Russian Battleships. War Games Torpedoes never hit target. The stop before impact and float to the surface to retrieve.

Putin under a lot of Pressure from the incident was willing to let the story bury itself. Until the satellite images he had previous ordered came in. Not only did Russians intercept a message from The US Memphis that it needed to emergency port in Norway for repairs, but the satellite photos actually confirmed the docking on Norway.

Here is a picture of the US Memphis and was is shown as damage to the front of the sub. The US Memphis stayed in Norway for repairs for 8 days. Before limping into Britain.



It's important to mention that people in Russia still claim US and Britain sank the Kursk

What's weird is that the Pentagon claimed that the US Memphis didn't check in for 4 days after the Kursk sinking.



Here's the damaged to the Kursk. Look at the hole entry point circled in green. Might be torpedo? Kind of matches the idea of the US Memphis's front damage if they did in fact collide. But that's just speculation.

This is where the story gets weird.


Putin wants to raise the sub to the surface. Because on board there is a Nuclear reactor and 22 P-700 Granite Missiles on board.

Guess who got the contract to salvage the bodies of the Kersk from the bottom of the ocean?

HALLIBURTON

That's right. The company that Dick Cheney was the CEO. Not to mention, the first company that had already had a contract mysteriously bowed out of their obligation allowing Halliburton the job. Conventional ways to enter the sub were blocked so Halliburton literally cut off the nose of the Sub, giving it access tot he missile silos.

Source

If that is not weird enough, Russian, supported by Dmitiri khalezov claimed that there were 3 missing P-700's. Now if the story is true and one was fired during exercise, then that would mean that two were missing.

Which leaves me with the question: If people think it's impossible for a plane to breach 6 reinforced concrete walls and it was more likely a missile. This makes this story much more interesting.

But that is not all. On the morning of 9/11. NORAD picked up energy displacement on radar that looked like a ICBM. These missile are too fast for NORAD to shoot down and often they fly below radar. Which is why they use energy displacement to see them. That morning, they are on record speaking about "something coming."

Testimony for ICMB missileer on 9/11

Look how cavalier Porter Gross is as you can ear the Pentagon being attacked.



As you can hear he tells reporters that "THEY" had always considered airplanes flying into America Buildings. Later that day both GWB and Rice went public saying, "we never ever, in my administration, or anyone else, thought they'd fly planes into buildings."

Anyway, that's all. Love to hear your thoughts. Is this Cheney connection to Kersk Sub sinking and salvage and missing P-700's just in time for September 2001 intriguing or nah?

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

And this is why I still look at every new topic bravo.

Always question.

Now that's what ATS is all about!

Thank you so much for the mind fu*k and thank you for a great post well done!

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Interesting as well that the Office of Naval Intelligence was the location of the attack.

Excellent post!

It does raise some interesting possibilities. One thing I want to mention is a CNN video that was shown on cable that clearly showed a missile come in streak towards the pentagon, and then a few minutes later that video was never shown anywhere again, and when people mentioned this video days later on national TV, they were treated as if they were delusional and nuts for suggesting such a thing. The ridicule was poured on heavy to anyone mentioning it. When a caller a week later on coast to coast radio with Art Bell mentioned this CNN video, he scoffed and hung up on the caller immediately.

I know quite a few folks who clearly remember this video being shown on CNN and maybe ABC news but only one time and never again. When asked about it they pretended not to know what the person asking were talking about.

Nice , explains very well a few more pieces of the puzzle .

Best thread on ATS in a while. I am absolutely convinced that the pentagon was hit with a missile. 911has kind of fallen by the wayside as a buried narrative, though it took many years.

We never did really find out who did it, who was behind it. Sure there were theories, some more likely than others, and the official story was bs, but we never really figured it out. One of the largest events in US history and it remains a mystery.

What if the key to all the crazy now actually goes back to 911, and maybe it would explain some government actions over the years.

Who did it. What was it really about.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I find it absolutely impossible that an aluminum nose and fuselage can penetrate reinforced concrete through three sectors of the Pentagon. This is literally what these missile are meant to do, not airplanes.

Reinforced concrete...??

Walls of Pentagon are made of ordinary brick. The outermost or E Ring had a façade of cut limestone to simulate marble

"When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.

Which leaves me with the question: If people think it's impossible for a plane to breach 6 reinforced concrete walls and it was more likely a missile. This makes this story much more interesting.

One more thing - the 2 lowest floors have no internal walls between them . Thus the E ring merges into the D Ring and
into the C Ring

Only normal sheet rock walls which don't offer much resistance to a jet airliner traveling at 500 mph +

If look at picture of hole punched into C Ring by pieces of landing gear - can see the brickwork covered by layer of plaster
and white washed.

a reply to: pirhanna

But we do know for certain the Saudis play a big role on this and that's no conspiracy theory since it has been confirmed by multiple sources.

a reply to: pirhanna

Trump did promise to investigate 911, remains to be seen if he will truly do that.

a reply to: D8Tee

If Trump did that, he'll probably be silenced by the masters who are way above even the Military Industrial Complex, the Clintons, the Bushes, Soros and other visible TPTB.

This makes total sense. Thank you for the thread, and for your research.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Hmmm, seems that was fake news that he promised to investigate...
I was going from memory, upon revisiting the subject, it appears to have been a hoax, he never said he would reinvestigate.


www.metabunk.org...

This story appears to be almost entirely fake. Trump did give a rally speech in Richmond, Henrico County, on Oct 14th 2015. However the speech makes no mention of 9/11 and Trump does not answer questions from the crowd.

a reply to: pirhanna

A missile? Hmmm. Okay, Launched from where? Please say the airport.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I find it absolutely impossible that an aluminum nose and fuselage can penetrate reinforced concrete through three sectors of the Pentagon. This is literally what these missile are meant to do, not airplanes.

Don't think an aircraft can penetrate a masonry wall...??

Example - July 1945 Empire State Building B 25 lost in heavy fog strikes ESB at 79th floor tearing huge hole in side of
building

www.youtube.com...

Even better - aircraft penetrating solid steel side of ship

www.navsource.org...

Both aircraft weighed a fraction of the Boeing B 757 which struck Pentagon . They were also travelling at 1/3 speed
of the Boeing

It is the speed which determines the impact forces as energy produced is determined by the SQUARE OF THE VELOCITY

Double the velocity, increase energy by 4 times, triple it, energy is 9 times the original

a reply to: firerescue

The entire Pentagon was constructed with Reinforced concrete except for the outer exterior wall which was limestone.

However, months before the attack, that area of the Pentagon was refurbished with new reinforcements.

AAC

a reply to: firerescue

Are you really saying you think the plane would travel through 6 concrete walls of the Pentagon?

Aluminum planes will atomize at 500 MPH into concrete.



AAC

originally posted by: IamALWAYSright
a reply to: pirhanna

A missile? Hmmm. Okay, Launched from where? Please say the airport.

Ask Bill Clinton. Even Bill has publicly stated that the Pentagon was BOMBED. Research and learn for yourselves that believing the mainstream BS is only going to lead you to a mental manure lagoon.