The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation


Outstanding research. Five stars.


So did the missile misfire because of what Halliburton did to salvage the submarine?

Someone tell me one logical explanation as to why they would use a Russian missile thats been sitting on the seafloor....

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That says it all right there.

a reply to: D8Tee

a reply to: theruthlessone

I can't be bothered once I saw the message about no new 9/11 threads can be created..

For the record 4chan are still deleting SOME alien pics..I dunno if it's a psyop or what's going on

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Look inside the engine it's been gone over many times on here.
Cruise missile my ass.

Boeing 757 my ass....

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Just wanted to say I don't post here much but did so to tell you that I read your whole story. VERY interesting theory! Loved it.

Let me start by saying great thread OP! Lots of stuff in here I had never seen or heard before. Intriguing thread indeed. It is wonderful to see ATS returning to normalcy.

I am on the fence about 9/11 so to speak, 9/11 is what woke me up to pay attention to the world, that everything is not always as it seems. That those we trust, sometimes, cannot be trusted.

That being said, I apologize if I miss something. I have been scouring this thread in all of my free time for the better part of two days and am only somewhere around page 30. There are a few things I could no longer wait to say, and the further along I got in the thread, more and more things jumped out at me that I would like to comment on.

1. The OS... This poses so many problems. I have honestly seen very little of the OS other than what is copied and pasted among various ATS threads on the subject. However, I ask anyone who cares to answer, how much validity can be given to the OS? Given it was created by people, employed by people many no longer trust. The governments credibility as been questioned many many times over the years, and not just for 9/11 truth. Let's face it the government has been caught red handed lying in the past and we would be absolutely naive to think they no longer try to pull the wool over our eyes if the occasion calls for it. Can this source be trusted?

2. The "documented evidence" that has been posted and re-posted and posted some more.... Documented FAA data, documented DNA, documented evidence. Is it possible? At all? For "documents" to be doctored, falsified, fabricated? How much validity comes from a piece of paper created by someone who has lost the trust of so many people?

3. Lloyd and his cab... IMHO at this point is completely invalid. All this proves to me is this man is extremely easy to persuade. He was either persuaded to lie that morning to fit the narrative, or he was persuaded to lie during his later interview when the narrative changed. To me that makes him a liar, no matter how you roll the dice. I don't give liars any validity. Sorry I just don't.

4. The light poles... OMG the light Poles! If you believe a plane could have struck the light poles en route to the pentagon, then why can't you believe a missile struck them en route to the pentagon? I'm not sure why the light poles are the icing on the cake. I guess I'm missing something. A large, airborne, destructive SOMETHING hit the light poles and then the pentagon, this much we know.

Being on the fence I honestly don't think this will ever be a closed case no matter which way you're leaning. We are basically at the mercy of the United States Government and their Offifcial Story. That's all we currently have, they hold all the cards. Free thinkers are very aware that we have to take what the government says with a grain of salt. Let's face it the government controls so many things on so many levels we have absolutely no idea what they are truly capable of. It is also common knowledge that the media can no longer be trusted( some of us knew this years ago). So what evidence to we honestly have? The documents, theories, videos, and photographs of that day ALL have to be questioned considering the source! Eye witness testimony when the government is involved is questionable at best. Let us pretend they had a payroll for some 3000 co-conspirators to help fill in the blanks that day. With ONLY the amount of money we know was unaccounted for that would be like $1 billion each? You don't think people will absolutely, without a doubt, lie, cheat, and steal for a slice of that pie? Really? "Here is a nice big fat cheque for you, and your family, and your family's family. All you have to say is......"

I have no doubt that many innocent lives were stolen that day for terrible, unthinkable, nefarious reasons. That is why it is so important to find out why? Who? What?

The problem is we may never know.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Dragoon01

because the simplified and clearly tailored description you just gave does not accurately describe the day's events.

NTSB contradicts the 9/11 commission report, which contradicts NIST, which contradicts the Pentagon Report.

the past 38 pages is why there is a debate. please read through them.

Except it IS that simple.
You just refuse to believe that it could be so simple.
I of course shortened the account of the events of 9/11 in the interest of keeping the post short, that does not change the fact that 19 hijackers did do something very simple.
Tomorrow anyone reading this thread could board an aircraft and hijack it. They dont even need a weapon. They just need to profess they have a bomb in their luggage and its controlled by an ap on their cell phone. They demand to be taken to some place other than their intended destination. Now even if there is an Air marshal on that flight, that plane is going to that other destination. Once its on the ground they will sort out all the consequences, but they are not taking any chances that the person is making the whole thing up.
Its really that simple.
Prior to 9/11 it was easy to travel with knives and other things on aircraft. A person with the will to inflict harm was not going to be stopped if they wanted to push everyone to the back of the plane and take over the cockpit.
It was simple.
With a minimum of training once that is done a person can easily fly an aircraft. Landing is the trouble, but if your intention has nothing to do with landing then you dont have to worry about that.

So yes it is a simple plan.

Truthers refuse to believe it was possible because they cannot understand that will and intent play a huge role in it, or they ascribe a power to the government that it does not actually have.
Government is organized incompetence.
The sheer number of people that would need to be involved to "fake" the event would each be a point of failure.
Any time we design a system or network we must be cognizant of points of failure. The conspiracies dreamed up by truthers ignore this principle and define all manner of detailed, precise, covert and complex procedures that would be required to work flawlessly to "fake" something like this.
Its very simple to execute this plan the way the hijackers did it, it would be impossible to execute it as a multi-layered conspiracy AND keep it secret for this entire time.

Now if you want to talk about WHO the hijackers were and WHO paid them and WHO set them in motion then thats a different story. Plenty of discussion and possibilities in that regard.

As to why there are inconsistencies in the investigations that's again a simple answer. Multiple groups working on them. Many different hands in the pot produce different results. Remember I just told you about big groups and multiple points of failure? The reports of the investigation are proof of that principle. All the different investigators have different perspectives on the evidence. It should surprise no one that two people can look at evidence and come to different conclusions. Thats the point I made in my first post. All things are a potential cause of the evidence, what we have to look at is what is the most likely, most probable and most plausible. Even then two people will have slightly different versions of the events.

Its possible that an asteroid hit the pentagon on 911 and it was purely a coincidental event to the other strikes.
That however is not the most likely cause of the event. The evidence when taken in totality says that it was just as simple as the other strikes.
Hijackers took control of the aircraft and drove it into the building.

There are multiple witnesses that saw an aircraft hit the building
There are multiple photos and videos showing aircraft debris around and in the site
There are multiple witnesses that were in the building recovering the dead and wounded who saw airplane parts all inside of the pentagon
There are multiple....blah blah. Its all there you just refuse to believe it.

You asked for a video.
Its there, its just not been released.
You proclaim that its not been released because it does not fit the official account.
Did it ever occur to you that its being withheld because it would detail security information about the Pentagon that they do not want to be public knowledge? Its entirely possible that the video is of really poor quality because the security cameras are really old and cant really see very much detail. They dont want people to know how easy it would be to get pass those cameras. Its also possible that many of the cameras are actually fake and dont even produce a recording. This is the government we are talking about.

Thanks for the fresh meat OP! This is good stuff!

originally posted by: D8Tee
Someone tell me one logical explanation as to why they would use a Russian missile thats been sitting on the seafloor....

There is no logical explanation.
Especially when you combine it with the WTC strikes.
Lets assume for a minute that there indeed was a conspiracy within our government to carry out 9-11.
Ask yourself what is the easier more secure and more logical process.

Recruit 20 middle Eastern terrorists via a covert cut out organization,
Pay them
Bring them into the country on false documents
Have them go through flight training
sit back and watch them carry out the attack that we all saw on TV happen (many people saw it happen live and in person).

OR

Insert any truther conspiracy theory here ranging from holograms to missiles to remote controls.

Given the history of the WTC which had already been attacked by middle eastern terrorists in 1993 using a truck bomb, which theory sounds more logical?
If you were going to not follow option 1, why would you not just utilize a bigger truck bomb?
If you have access to all these sites to set up nukes or thermite or controlled demolition charges, then you should be capable of just putting 25000 lbs of c4 into a truck and getting into the garage of the WTC and setting it off.

No logic at all.
These people have been watching to many James Bond movies.

a reply to: Dragoon01

You asked for a video. Its there, its just not been released. You proclaim that its not been released because it does not fit the official account. Did it ever occur to you that its being withheld because it would detail security information about the Pentagon that they do not want to be public knowledge?

LOL, my work here is done.

It just gets more and more entwined for example why was Canada even bringing this to the table P700 ???

Was 9/11 just part 1.............

Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Then, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we expanded our horizon to include defence of North America against terrorism. Both of these subjects will be engaging the attention of the Canadian government.
Then the bomber threat became overtaken by ballistic missiles. This included ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, and submarine-launched missiles.

Well, once the missile was launched, yes, it would. But if it's a short-range missile, its time of flight is only about eight minutes. And if it's come closer to shore and it's aiming at closer targets, it's much less than eight minutes. To keep the whole of North America on a sort of eight-minute trigger is not an easy thing to do.

Also, you'd use up quite a few of the eight minutes asking, what's that hot thing there where ship so and so was--it's moving, it's moving. You would realize it was a short-range missile within a few minutes, but it would require really rapid and remarkably precise operation of the system, and there wouldn't be time for somebody to phone the president or look in a book. And then, if they did know it was a missile, providing defence against short-range missiles all up and down the coasts of North America would be a very heavy undertaking, one that I think would not be practical to do.

www.parl.gc.ca...

THOUGHT IT WAS PLANES ERM..........

Central Bank ? Deal?

The historic breakthrough in U.S.-Cuban relations began in spring 2013, when President Barack Obama authorized secret talks with Cuba, the same tactic he used to open nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Months of talks in Canada and at the Vatican, involving one of Obama's closest aides, culminated on Tuesday, when Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro spoke by phone for nearly an hour and gave final assent to steps that could end a half-century of enmity and reshape Western Hemisphere relations.

Obama believed that "if there is any U.S. foreign policy that has passed its expiration date, it is the U.S.-Cuba policy," said a senior Obama administration official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity.

The official said that Pope Francis played a key role in the rapprochement between Washington the last bastion of communism in the Western world. In early summer 2014, the pontiff - who is from Argentina - sent separate personal letters to Obama and Castro, urging them to exchange captives and to improve relations.

www.businessinsider.com...

“Both sides are playing the long game,” said Reardon. “The Vatican has a long history of dealing with totalitarian and authoritarian countries such as China, but has taken steps to compromise, such as they had done with Vietnam. Xi Jinping might want to resolve this part of the 1949 Civil War, but not at the cost of control of foreign churches.”

qz.com...

Very early in his papacy, he authorized "Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran" at the Vatican for the first time ever. And as I documented in a previous article titled "In New York, Pope Francis Embraced Chrislam and Laid a Foundation for a One World Religion," during his visit to St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan, he made it very clear that he believes that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. The following is how he began his address:

I would like to express two sentiments for my Muslim brothers and sisters: Firstly, my greetings as they celebrate the feast of sacrifice. I would have wished my greeting to be warmer. My sentiments of closeness, my sentiments of closeness in the face of tragedy. The tragedy that they suffered in Mecca.

In this moment, I give assurances of my prayers. I unite myself with you all. A prayer to Almighty God, all merciful.
In Islam, one of Allah's primary titles is "the all-merciful one." If you doubt this, just do a Google search. And this certainly was not the first time that Pope Francis has used such language. For example, check out the following excerpt from remarks that he made during his very first ecumenical meeting as Pope:

I then greet and cordially thank you all, dear friends belonging to other religious traditions; first of all the Muslims, who worship the one God, living and merciful, and call upon Him in prayer, and all of you. I really appreciate your presence: in it I see a tangible sign of the will to grow in mutual esteem and cooperation for the common good of humanity.

The Catholic Church is aware of the importance of promoting friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions – I wish to repeat this: promoting friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions – it also attests the valuable work that the Pontifical Council for interreligious dialogue performs.

www.charismanews.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Prime Minister David Cameron was the driving force behind the repeal of the Act.

UK... If the queen cooperates with the Papal agenda, the government will move heaven and earth....

Brexit European dishevelment... MOTHER RUSSIA.. Russian Orthodox...Atheist China ... Christian AMERICA.. VATICAN..

www.reformation.org...

hmmmmm

Confused ? me to something ..strange ...going on? !!!!!! ATS

originally posted by: Dragoon01

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Dragoon01

because the simplified and clearly tailored description you just gave does not accurately describe the day's events.

NTSB contradicts the 9/11 commission report, which contradicts NIST, which contradicts the Pentagon Report.

the past 38 pages is why there is a debate. please read through them.

Except it IS that simple.
You just refuse to believe that it could be so simple.
I of course shortened the account of the events of 9/11 in the interest of keeping the post short, that does not change the fact that 19 hijackers did do something very simple.
Tomorrow anyone reading this thread could board an aircraft and hijack it. They dont even need a weapon. They just need to profess they have a bomb in their luggage and its controlled by an ap on their cell phone. They demand to be taken to some place other than their intended destination. Now even if there is an Air marshal on that flight, that plane is going to that other destination. Once its on the ground they will sort out all the consequences, but they are not taking any chances that the person is making the whole thing up.
Its really that simple.
Prior to 9/11 it was easy to travel with knives and other things on aircraft. A person with the will to inflict harm was not going to be stopped if they wanted to push everyone to the back of the plane and take over the cockpit.
It was simple.
With a minimum of training once that is done a person can easily fly an aircraft. Landing is the trouble, but if your intention has nothing to do with landing then you dont have to worry about that.

So yes it is a simple plan.

Truthers refuse to believe it was possible because they cannot understand that will and intent play a huge role in it, or they ascribe a power to the government that it does not actually have.
Government is organized incompetence.
The sheer number of people that would need to be involved to "fake" the event would each be a point of failure.
Any time we design a system or network we must be cognizant of points of failure. The conspiracies dreamed up by truthers ignore this principle and define all manner of detailed, precise, covert and complex procedures that would be required to work flawlessly to "fake" something like this.
Its very simple to execute this plan the way the hijackers did it, it would be impossible to execute it as a multi-layered conspiracy AND keep it secret for this entire time.

Now if you want to talk about WHO the hijackers were and WHO paid them and WHO set them in motion then thats a different story. Plenty of discussion and possibilities in that regard.

As to why there are inconsistencies in the investigations that's again a simple answer. Multiple groups working on them. Many different hands in the pot produce different results. Remember I just told you about big groups and multiple points of failure? The reports of the investigation are proof of that principle. All the different investigators have different perspectives on the evidence. It should surprise no one that two people can look at evidence and come to different conclusions. Thats the point I made in my first post. All things are a potential cause of the evidence, what we have to look at is what is the most likely, most probable and most plausible. Even then two people will have slightly different versions of the events.

Its possible that an asteroid hit the pentagon on 911 and it was purely a coincidental event to the other strikes.
That however is not the most likely cause of the event. The evidence when taken in totality says that it was just as simple as the other strikes.
Hijackers took control of the aircraft and drove it into the building.

There are multiple witnesses that saw an aircraft hit the building
There are multiple photos and videos showing aircraft debris around and in the site
There are multiple witnesses that were in the building recovering the dead and wounded who saw airplane parts all inside of the pentagon
There are multiple....blah blah. Its all there you just refuse to believe it.

You asked for a video.
Its there, its just not been released.
You proclaim that its not been released because it does not fit the official account.
Did it ever occur to you that its being withheld because it would detail security information about the Pentagon that they do not want to be public knowledge? Its entirely possible that the video is of really poor quality because the security cameras are really old and cant really see very much detail. They dont want people to know how easy it would be to get pass those cameras. Its also possible that many of the cameras are actually fake and dont even produce a recording. This is the government we are talking about.

The problem is the Pentagon should be able to take down a plane trying to strike it. In fact military air planes should have been sent and tried to escort any wayward plane headed straight for the pentagon, and shot it down if it did not comply. There are talks of multiple terrorist attack simulations being carried out by the government in and around that date. Also insider trading, many people with lots of money knew something big and bad was going to happen to the United States. Insider traiding that if investigated could reveal if it was an inside job or not, insider trading that was purposely not investigated by a noninvestigation 9 11 commission with less funds than the Monica Lewinsky investigation, iirc. Even terrorist insurance was put on the twin towers.

One of the WTC buildings seemed barely damaged by debris, and fell basically due to fires quickly and into its own foundation. Even though no plane had struck it, news agencies called its collapse prior to it actually collapsing. The ex president Bill Cliinton commented that two planes struck the twin towers and the pentagon was BOMBED, strange to make such an erroneous statement. There are also rumors the debris of the twin towers were quickly sent to china to be destroyed, though I don't know about that.

originally posted by: Dragoon01

originally posted by: D8Tee
Someone tell me one logical explanation as to why they would use a Russian missile thats been sitting on the seafloor....

Given the history of the WTC which had already been attacked by middle eastern terrorists in 1993 using a truck bomb, which theory sounds more logical?
If you were going to not follow option 1, why would you not just utilize a bigger truck bomb?
If you have access to all these sites to set up nukes or thermite or controlled demolition charges, then you should be capable of just putting 25000 lbs of c4 into a truck and getting into the garage of the WTC and setting it off.

No logic at all.
These people have been watching to many James Bond movies.

You have any idea the damage to New York that a noncontrolled collapse of the WTC twin towers could potentially do? If the twin towers collapsed and fell uncontrolled multiple buildings could potentially be severely damaged and also collapse and the chaos and carnage could be far bigger. The economic effects far drastic.

a reply to: Xenogears

common sense ain't all that common these days

a reply to: Xenogears

You have any idea the damage to New York that a noncontrolled collapse of the WTC twin towers could potentially do? If the twin towers collapsed and fell uncontrolled multiple buildings could potentially be severely damaged and also collapse and the chaos and carnage could be far bigger. The economic effects far drastic.

Intriguing! I have never thought of it like that. Thank you for that point of view, honestly!