Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Thermo Klein


From what I've read about Operation Brownstone and Operation Code Angel, the intent of 911 was to destroy ONI and SEC investigations implicating the military, the admins of BushClintonBush, members of congress and members of International finance in massive fraud. Secondary goals were to destroy the white elephants of the WTC which no one wanted to rent and couldn't be destroyed because of asbestos, and to gain a pretense for long planned invasions.

With so much on the line, they wouldn't have relied on missiles alone. Perhaps a jet or a missile were thrown in for the Hollywood effect, but if they really needed to destroy that much evidence, not to mention the investigators who had compiled it, they'd need pre-planted explosives to ensure success.

Google Operation Code Angel and Operation Brownstone for more info...in their light, the impact locations of the alleged aircraft make a lot of sense.

Originally posted by Tosskey

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey

 

You can't follow the thought process?

Let me spell it out for you.

The evidence doesn't support your thought process; it does however support a wall breaching kit, implications be damned.

Follow?

Except, you haven't proven that. You've posted a few photos of what a hole looks like using a wall breaching kit, and use that as empirical evidence. As I've said, I've posted just as much evidence that it was a car that drove through the wall.

I think the biggest evidence that it WASN'T a wall breaching kit, just by looking at the photos, is that there is much more there than just wall debris. Please explain this, since you seem to be seeing some evidence that points to wall breaching explosives that I am not.

Where is the stinking plane that made the hole, like your car did?

Where is it? Something of similar size would be needed to punch through the reinforced concrete. You have no proof to support your hypothesis, unlike me.

Dang...it was only ten pages ago that you guys were still claiming the Pentagon was a flimsy office building without re bar except in the pillars.

Thermo, Anok, and the lads keep knocking your BS down and you still refuse to be honest about it. Is this a game to you?

reply to post by Tosskey

Again, you're considering the C-Ring damage in a vacuum, apparently.

Actually, now you're starting to get the picture. PLEASE consider it in a vacuum. That was the point...without all the hogwash about the plane blowing through a forest of columns, where is the evidence that anything solid blew that hole in the wall?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a58caa041bd6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/973656435d12.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2918c5ecf577.jpg[/atsimg]

When taking into consideration all the damage that has been throughly researched, it obviously points to a plane hitting the Pentagon, it's obvious that the damage was done by the Airliner.

Thoroughly researched? Are we back to the NIST reports now?

reply to post by Yankee451


That hole was odd but do you have a reason WHY they would want to blow that wall?
I see no obvious reason to do so...

reply to post by backinblack


I guess as part of the cover story...so we'd be fighting about missiles and jets, but I can only speculate. I'm only commenting on what the evidence points to, and the evidence of the hole clearly points to a wall breaching kit.

They needed to kill investigations and cover many other bases. Keep in mind, these are the masters of the universe...International finance owns everything, right? They have all the media in their back pockets, so they could float any story they wanted and drown out naysayers. They'll have their wars whether we want them or not.

It makes more sense if you read into Ops Brownstone and Code Angel...the original article I read is now a dead link, so I'm trying to find a better example on Google. Lemme know if you run into one.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Yankee451

 

That hole was odd but do you have a reason WHY they would want to blow that wall?
I see no obvious reason to do so...

the last wall to be breached would have to be an inner facing wall for one simple (although not obvious) reason, if the outer wall of a wing was breached but not the inner (second one you come to) then people would expect to see the airplane debris INSIDE that area. I feel that having an opening to the outside air somehow changes that expectation.

First time this thought crossed my mind, but makes me believe they knew how far that missile would go, and didn't just shoot it in willy nilly,

The exit hole would also allow an easy way to get the missile debris out while planting stuff inside.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

The exit hole would also allow an easy way to get the missile debris out while planting stuff inside.

Well that debris outside, the fuselage parts, certainly don't look like they've already been through 6 walls..

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey

 

Thoroughly researched? Are we back to the NIST reports now?

And you've done more research?

Ah that's right. You consider comparing 2 pictures of holes absolute proof.



Look, I'll grant you that the C-ring exit hole is one of the lesser understood/agreed upon phenomenons of the Pentagon disaster - but that doesn't immediately point to a pre-planted shaped explosive device, and a massive conspiracy. You can't look at the C-ring damage in a bubble and ignore everything else that very obviously points to an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


If we're speculating you'd better put a disclaimer out or the shrill team will start screaming for proof. Wouldn't it be cool if they added something to the conversation?

Anyhoo...here's my take. This is pure speculation based on the Code Angel stuff, coupled with what evidence we've seen on the public domain.

They needed to kill the ONI investigation, and they needed to renovate the Pentagon, so being pragmatic rat-bastards they moved the ONI into the area to be renovated and used the construction as cover to plant the explosives. Being well paid psychopaths with limitless access to secret clearances, military hardware, and trained killers, I can see them hitting the ONI investigators up front and personal; the goal is to kill the investigation and the investigators, so I would think they'd want to be sure they're dead before they destroyed the evidence. In comes a large plane...doesn't need to be a real passenger jet, it could have just been a small one painted the right colors, or a fighter swooping low to fly over the building. Witnesses wouldn't see much other than a large jet right overhead for a split second, and they'd agree with whatever the TV told them they saw. Just as the plane passes the Pentagon, they blow the big truck bomb they had planted amongst the construction equipment outside, setting fuel ablaze and causing a big fireball to hide the plane's exit still low behind the Pentagon, then they blow their escape hole out the back of the C ring, and once out of the building, blow up the evidence inside the building, which accounts for the debris shown in the punchout hole. With the help of their corrupt compatriots within the military brass, during the panic of the ensuing fires they make their escape.

Tom Clancy eat your heart out.

thetruth.dontexist.net...

reply to post by Tosskey

You can't look at the C-ring damage in a bubble and ignore everything else that very obviously points to an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

Actually you can..
In an investigations 99% of evidence may point one way but it only needs one point to blatantly contradict the other 99% and you have a problem..

Originally posted by Tosskey

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey

 

Thoroughly researched? Are we back to the NIST reports now?

And you've done more research?

Ah that's right. You consider comparing 2 pictures of holes absolute proof.

Look, I'll grant you that the C-ring exit hole is one of the lesser understood/agreed upon phenomenons of the Pentagon disaster - but that doesn't immediately point to a pre-planted shaped explosive device, and a massive conspiracy. You can't look at the C-ring damage in a bubble and ignore everything else that very obviously points to an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

Yes, I can honestly say I've done more research into explosives than the NIST reports have. They didn't even consider explosives, did they?

Why are you being so evasive? Are you afraid of the implications if you admit that the C ring evidence can be best explained by a wall breaching kit?

The truth will set you free daddy-o.

Originally posted by backinblack
Actually you can..
In an investigations 99% of evidence may point one way but it only needs one point to blatantly contradict the other 99% and you have a problem..

Except, being lesser understood doesn't 'blatantly' prove that it wasn't a part of the airliner that crashed through.

reply to post by Yankee451

Anyhoo...here's my take. This is pure speculation based on the Code Angel stuff, coupled with what evidence we've seen on the public domain.

But did you get to sleep with the cute blond mossad agent at the end?
If not, Clancy has it over you..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Anyhoo...here's my take. This is pure speculation based on the Code Angel stuff, coupled with what evidence we've seen on the public domain.

But did you get to sleep with the cute blond mossad agent at the end?
If not, Clancy has it over you..

Hah!

Watch your back Tom!

reply to post by Tosskey

Except, being lesser understood doesn't 'blatantly' prove that it wasn't a part of the airliner that crashed through.

Well I guess you have to ask what mass and at what velocity would be required to create such a hole..
Then look at the physical evidence and decide if you believe what's there could have caused the damage..
Obviously that flimsy fuselage played little or no part, so that just leaves the small section of undercarriage.

Now would that piece still have enough velocity at that point?

disregard