The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

Finally, a real life ATS conspiracy thread!!!!! Very interesting theory and well put together. I don't buy it, but it was fun to read. S&F.

a reply to: firerescue

"The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military."

Worked at the Pentagon for a while and i can say the original Pentagon and the Pentagon that was hit on 9/11 are two COMPLETELY different buildings.

It had been continously undergoing a multi decade renovation . Totally rebuilt from the Penatagon of the 1940s it is not the same building you are reffering to.

Wiki Penatgon Renovation Program

To my understanding renovations started in the fifties as elevators needed to be installed for the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

I have said this before and I will say this again. I was stationed at marine barracks 8th & I Washington DC 2 months after the pentagon attack. I had friends who were on the ground and saw the rubble. This was not a plane. What they found was not a boeing 757. Do I have evidence other than my fellow Marines words?

No.

But they know what they saw and I believe them.

This theory is pure Hollywood fiction. There is no practicality or possibly this Russian missile theft took place. Why risk stealing a missile from a sunken nuclear sub you have no idea if it was damaged or radioactively contaminated. No certainty the missile will function or you could program the missile to work.

The pursuit of impossible narratives with absolutely no proof is why a majority of people do not trust the truth movement!

You do not get to the truth through Hollywood movie plots and narratives with absolutely no logic.

Pushing this narrative that a half scientific minded person knows is absolutely fantasy shows why those that claim to seek the "truth" are their own worst enemy.

This is in conjunction with the pentagon missile theory has been debunked over and over again for 15 years!

If you want fantasy, stick to science-fiction novels. If you want the truth, provide some theory with logic and supporting evidence. Innuendo is not evidence.

originally posted by: neutronflux
This theory is pure Hollywood fiction.

It actually is. This is exactly what happens in Tomorrow Never Dies (1997). The bad guy sinks a ship and steals one of the cruise missiles which he planned to use in an attempt to create chaos between Britain and China. I bet that where they got the idea from.

a reply to: facedye

Except that you realize there is more than one, right? And did you miss the part about one being about to launch from near DC in your quote?

The aircraft over DC was ADDIS77, although the article said Venus77. That was the third E-4B launched and known as NAOC Tertiary. It launched out of Andrews an about 0945.

The NAOC Tertiary plane, with a call sign of Venus 77, took off from Andrews immediately after the attack — around 9:45 — and was trapped by the air space closure. It milled around Virginia for a while, and became quite noticeable when television cameras picked it up. In the early afternoon, it needed to land at Andrews, presumably because it was running out of fuel. (There was no tanker support in the Washington area; there was tanker support for the other two NAOCs, which were flying around the midwestern United States.) The NAOC Tertiary could not easily communicate with the Pentagon or with Andrews Air Force Base, where the Venus command post that monitors special assignment air missions at Andrews was located.

theweek.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

dude you're on ATS. like.. what more can I say? if you can't handle alternative takes and theories on significant world events, this really isn't the place for you.

unless you're paid opposition, of course.

you have the same formula to every single one of your posts.

looks like CNN is more along the lines of your cup of tea.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, if you haven't already, please go through the several E4-B's and military aircrafts in general that switched from "exercise to real-world" scenarios.

the war games that were taking place on that day, not only with respects to E4-B's, are nauseatingly blatant.

with this many half truths, with this much intended ambiguity, I cannot agree with the point of view that these aircrafts were all acting harmlessly, and with the interests of our national security in mind.

and, for the sake of argument, if there were 3 airborne E4-B's playing war games on 9/11, it would be just as easy to intentionally skew the details of these operations as it was to convince our entire air defense that these events were initially "simulations."

a reply to: facedye

As far as the exercises to response go, for the actual responding aircraft, it wouldn't have made a difference. The aircraft responding were never part of the exercise fleet, and will never be part of an exercise.

The aircraft that were airborne would have been looking at 2 hours to get armed and airborne, and would have been a limiting factor.

As for the exercise to real world, you realize that right now there are as many exercises, or more going on as that day, right? The military is constantly running exercises.

Great post and spot on. Ignore the cognitive dissonance spewing forth. I watched 1 of the classified videos before they pulled them off the Internet. It was a gas station camera catching the black streak zoom about 50 ft over the highway.

This video woke me up after they spewed the narrative of a Boeing doing maneuvers that defy physics and punched a perfect hole in the accounting department after 3 trillion dollars go missing. It's always follow the money, that's how evil controls this world. So many books written by engineers blowing this narrative open but people still flock to the couple videos that support their belief.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

As far as the exercises to response go, for the actual responding aircraft, it wouldn't have made a difference. The aircraft responding were never part of the exercise fleet, and will never be part of an exercise.

The aircraft that were airborne would have been looking at 2 hours to get armed and airborne, and would have been a limiting factor.

As for the exercise to real world, you realize that right now there are as many exercises, or more going on as that day, right? The military is constantly running exercises.

your first two points are entirely incorrect. please go through the sources I've posted where several times it is affirmed that military aircraft had the capability of being on-site prior to the event. this is common knowledge.

next time a massive airplane catastrophe happens in this country, let's revisit this talking point together and nail down exactly how many military exercises mimic the catastrophe *exactly* in nature and scope. I think you see where I'm going with this.

Excellent post, OP. I was in northern VA when the attack happened. I saw the aftermath first hand, within hours. That building was not hit by a plane. Period.

a reply to: facedye

There were still military aircraft on the ground. They weren't flying all our aircraft in the exercises. But I'm talking about alert aircraft. Short of ramming there would have been nothing a non alert aircraft could have done even if they were on scene prior to them hitting.

The alert aircraft are never part of an exercise, and are armed at all times. On 9/11 there were something like 7 on the East Coast, including the ones in Florida that couldn't respond. For the entire CONUS there were 14-21.

There were aircraft that started arming, and launched with partial weapons loads after the alert fighters, but they were over an hour getting even that done.

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
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

Well done you. Appreciated.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

There were still military aircraft on the ground. They weren't flying all our aircraft in the exercises. But I'm talking about alert aircraft. Short of ramming there would have been nothing a non alert aircraft could have done even if they were on scene prior to them hitting.

The alert aircraft are never part of an exercise, and are armed at all times. On 9/11 there were something like 7 on the East Coast, including the ones in Florida that couldn't respond. For the entire CONUS there were 14-21.

There were aircraft that started arming, and launched with partial weapons loads after the alert fighters, but they were over an hour getting even that done.

I have seen a multitude of contradictory, cited sources that would disagree with what you posted above.

what information or sources on 9/11 are you basing these assertions on?

a reply to: facedye

History Commons

Before looking at how the military response to 9/11 fared, we should consider the defensive posture on the East Coast at the time. Officially, there were only two air force bases in the Northeast region that were formally part of NORAD’s defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard Base on Massachusetts’ Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington. [BBC, 8/29/02] During the Cold War, the US had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14 fighters in the continental US by 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01 (B)] A cursory web search shows that until recently, many units were on five-minute alert status, which meant that from the moment they were scrambled (ordered into the air), they were guaranteed to be airborne within five minutes. NORAD has claimed that on 9/11 fighters in bases within its system, including Otis and Langley, were guaranteed to get airborne within 15 minutes, not five. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01, NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] (Why this reduction in capability happened even as the terrorist threat dramatically increased is another unanswered question.)

Only 2 bases on East Coast part of NORAD . Only 14 fighters to cover entire country

a reply to: facedye

Multiple sources, including years of experience. There were fighters all over the country, but only the alert aircraft are armed, unless they're armed for a specific training exercise.

In 1997-98, the Pentagon conducted their Quadrennial Defense Review. They cut the alert force from 107 bases to no more than 7.

Apparently, as a result of this "Quadrennial Defense Review," instead of 107 bases with armed jet fighters on alert status at all times, over one hundred of the bases were taken off the alert status, leaving the air defense of North America to some five to seven bases, each one responsible for a particular sector.

ratical.org...

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

just fkn That plane was just a Phantom fuselage crashed into a conrete block designed for Nuclear power stations so not a standard concrete mix some people should really look deeper at what they see before committing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

Multiple sources, including years of experience. There were fighters all over the country, but ononly the alert aircraft are armed, unless they're armed for a specific training exercise. 1997-98, the Pentagon conducted their Quadrennial Defense Review. They cut the alert force from 107 bases to no more than 7.

Apparently, as a result of this "Quadrennial Defense Review," instead of 107 bases with armed jet fighters on alert status at all times, over one hundred of the bases were taken off the alert status, leaving the air defense of North America to some five to seven bases, each one responsible for a particular sector.

ratical.org...

how interesting that even you, a man of great respect and experience, still agree that caveats and special preparations can amend the common procedure.

are you prepared to commit to the statement that every single armed military aircraft on 9/11 responsible for air defense was at least 1-2 hours away from all of the day's events?

are you prepared to commit to the statement that when prompted about a possible hijacking scenario, none of our military aircrafts designed to protect the homeland could be dispatched to arrive on-site in less than a half hour?

Very good read, interesting points as well. Thank ya OP