“I can Prove That It Was Not An Airplane” That Hit The Pentagon : Retd. Major General

Beats me how this debate keeps going, albeit half-heartedly these days.

Yea, same old thing over and over. I did hear some new nonsense in this thread. Someone stole one of our fighter planes and shot a missile at the Pentagon. Nice try but Fighters carry interceptor rockets not missiles.

The "The best 9/11 video I saw is this one" funny how the guy has to talk so fast that you can't understand what he is saying. "penetrate the worlds most heavily defended airspace" Obviously, this person has never flown into Jerusalem, or taken the bus, which is worse. They make no attempt to hide anything. The outer defense line before you get into the old city has hundreds of missiles of every shape and form pointed skyward. 50 caliber machine gun emplacements everywhere. Inside you get to experience two dozen or so big trigger happy Jewish kids pointing every different kind of gun ever made right at your head-and daring you to make a suspicious move. If you aren't religious before you get to the old city, you will be after you leave.

You guys really need to come up with something new-this thread is borderline boring.

reply to post by spooky24

Nice try but Fighters carry interceptor rockets not missiles.

Yea..wait...what!?!?!

First, please describe exactly what you are trying to say, before this little quote from your post is labeled utter bs...

On second thought...never mind...it is utter bs...without need for further explanation...

The Raptor has three internal weapons bays: a large bay on the bottom of the fuselage, and two smaller bays on the sides of the fuselage, aft of the engine intakes.[189] It can carry six compressed-carriage medium range missiles[190] in the center bay and one short range missile in each of the two side bays. Four of the medium range missiles can be replaced with two bomb racks that can each carry one medium-size bomb or four small diameter bombs.[159] Carrying missiles and bombs internally maintains its stealth capability and maintains lower drag resulting in higher top speeds and longer combat ranges. Launching missiles requires opening the weapons bay doors for less than a second, while the missiles are pushed clear of the airframe by hydraulic arms. This reduces the Raptor's chance of detection by enemy radar systems due to launched ordnance and also allows the F-22 to launch long range missiles while maintaining supercruise.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does everyone here read the word, "MISSILE," in the quoted text? Further, is the F22 Raptor considered a FIGHTER PLANE?

How anyone starred your post will forever remain a mystery incapable of logical explanation.

It amazes me that 9/11 truthers are handing this guy credibility because he used to be a Major, but he is speaking out about 9/11 truth so what he has to say must be true.... right...

Because this is the same guy who was involved in the First Earth Battalion and I have read the books, these guys had some very wacky idea's, like running into walls and trying to stop a goats heart just by staring at it. besides that though, lets not forget they were also actively involved in developing Remote viewing, mind control using L.S.D and other drugs and were basically the fathers of psychological warfare. How on earth can anyone take this guy seriously.

If i was to say post some ex-CIA agent say for example Michael Scheuer and his views on 9/11 and terrorism I would be shouted down because he is "in on it". Yet truthers will willingly believe the guy who was involved in the early days of mind control and psychological warfare. Surly if anything Truthers should be highly skeptical of this guy, if i was a truther i would probably be screaming "disinfo agent" at this point.

really, the men who stare at goats was not just some rubbish movie, go read the book!

But moving on to the video itself and what our Major has to say.

First thing that raised a eye brow with me was him talking about seeing air photography from a SR-71 during the Korea War, fought during the 1950's. Guys, the SR-71 didn't take its first flight until the mid '60's, he's talking crap.

Actually he talks crap throughout most of that video, its just a regurgitation of the usual truther rhetoric, stuff like "jet fuel cant melt steel", when nobody is saying that it can, only that it can weaken steel. The bit that really had me laughing was when he started to say that at first the pentagon footage showed a missile, then they changed the footage to make it look like a plane

He goes on and on about how he has "proved x, y and z" with out actually showing us any tangible proof and at some points even says "i cant prove that" or "i dont know"

I mean he left in 1984, how the hell could he possibly be any more reliable than me or my mate bob as a source for 9/11 truth.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

It amazes me that 9/11 truthers are handing this guy credibility because he used to be a Major, but he is speaking out about 9/11 truth so what he has to say must be true.... right...

The man represented the same government that provided us with a bs os...you are simply choosing which bs you prefer, are you not?

Because this is the same guy who was involved in the First Earth Battalion and I have read the books, these guys had some very wacky idea's, like running into walls and trying to stop a goats heart just by staring at it. besides that though, lets not forget they were also actively involved in developing Remote viewing, mind control using '___' and other drugs and were basically the fathers of psychological warfare. How on earth can anyone take this guy seriously.

There is no doubt about the program(s) FACTUAL existence. How does that subtract from his credibility?

First thing that raised a eye brow with me was him talking about seeing air photography from a SR-71 during the Korea War, fought during the 1950's. Guys, the SR-71 didn't take its first flight until the mid '60's, he's talking crap.

Nowhere in the video does he state the SR-71 images he viewed of North Korea were taken during the fighting of the Korean War. You are WRITING crap.

Actually he talks crap throughout most of that video, its just a regurgitation of the usual truther rhetoric, stuff like "jet fuel cant melt steel", when nobody is saying that it can, only that it can weaken steel.

You are aware there are photos and videos showing molten steel at the site of WTC 1 and 2, correct?

He goes on and on about how he has "proved x, y and z" with out actually showing us any tangible proof and at some points even says "i cant prove that" or "i dont know"

The only thing he states in the affirmative concerning the Pentagon damage is that plane could not have caused the damage.

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

 

Clearly it's the same guy but you make sound like he's some kind of nutter working on this walking thru walls while invisible in his basement while wearing a tin foil hat, when in reality he was apart of a US military project that later became a Hollywood movie starring George Clooney.

My apologies....He worked on walking through walls, and turning invisible while under the employ of the U.S. Government. And we all know that the U.S. Government has never employed "nutters" or invests money into nutty programs!

:

edit on 10-8-2013 by bhornbuckle75 because: mahbone

Dont forget the massive amount of hallucinogens they were putting in each other's coffee. Every time someone with a rank or official title (retired) says they believe in something, sadly, a disparaged group of CTers blast it across the internet like it is somehow ironclad proof of something. Frankly, it discredits it more than anything.

The guy retired in the 80s. Forget the fact that we was General Commander of Looney Toons Division, Omega Fruiloop Squad. Forgetting all that... The man retired over 20 years ago.

How many people have been in respectable positions of power and later realized to be complete morons or nut cases? Many... Which is why credentials from 30 years ago don't lend weight to anything.

I can picture people in 20 years quote the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, "He was a former Mayor!"

"Uh... haha, he was Rob Ford. You seriously believe anything he says?"

Oh man, they're going to Breitbart him...
poor ol' dude...

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by awakehuman

 

Isn't this the same guy who tried to become invisible and walk through walls?

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes and was a 32 year careered intelligence officer as well as a chemical engineer among other accomplishments.

Pretty sure Nicoli Tesla has some pretty crazy ideas but i think if he was alive today and wanted to share with the scientific community people would listen.

So maybe this is worth a listen too......just saying.

reply to post by totallackey

The man represented the same government that provided us with a bs os...you are simply choosing which bs you prefer, are you not?

And how is that any different form what Truthers do.

He is only reliable to you because he fits into your preconceived notion of what happened on 9/11. If he was saying "9/11 was not a inside job" you would be saying " he worked in psychological warfare and mind contorl programs how can anyone believe what he is saying!"

Nowhere in the video does he state the SR-71 images he viewed of North Korea were taken during the fighting of the Korean War. You are WRITING crap.

Actually if he left in 1984 and he was in for 32 years that that would put him in Korea during 1952 he also says he was sent their early in his career and talks about North Korean order of battle, sounds like he is talking about the time of the Korean war.

You are aware there are photos and videos showing molten steel at the site of WTC 1 and 2, correct?

You mean the molten Aluminum... right

The only thing he states in the affirmative concerning the Pentagon damage is that plane could not have caused the damage.

Of which he has no evidence for and he also says when he first saw the pentagon footage he saw a missile and then he claims the plane was added into the footage afterwords.

reply to post by Alfie1


OK show up a video of a "plane" hitting the pentagon,,,theres not one,,NOT ONE ! Across the street is the largest surveillance facility in the USA, wheres the video,,not the one that shows an explosion and not a plane,,OH BUT WAIT, there is a video, but the pentagon used surveillance equipment from the 80s (LMAO) that records in time lapse, so the plane was completely missing because of time lapse...LOL again...........Why didn't you just say that 4000 people saw the plane, I mean you sound like you believe these "official statements" that could have in reality said anything. PHONES DO NOT WORK ABOVE 800 FEET, try it,I did, they don't work. The taxi driver in the picture of the "broken pole" wouldn't even talk about it, too scared. Im glad you trust these liars, I don't know what happened, BUT anything that comes out the mouth of a politician IS A LIE ! AND don't forget, more than one person has accidentally said "missile" and then corrected themselves ON CAMERA and then said "airplane", .................AND DONT MAKE ME ASK ABOUT BUILDING 7 THAT BLEW UP ON ITS OWN .......WHY did they find thermite at the site ? HUH? HUH?:HUH?............Why did it happen the same day as a training exercise? HUH? HUH?....Let me know

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

He is only reliable to you because he fits into your preconceived notion of what happened on 9/11

Leap to conclusions much? Presumptuous buffoonery given I have posted nothing in any forum concerning any position, other than to state there is NO explanation I find satisfactory at this time.

Actually if he left in 1984 and he was in for 32 years that that would put him in Korea during 1952 he also says he was sent their early in his career and talks about North Korean order of battle, sounds like he is talking about the time of the Korean war.

Again, there is no definitive time frame stated for these events within the video. You are making assumptions. You do realize the term, "order of battle," is referencing plans in case actual warfare takes place, correct? Further, it would benefit you to simply google the term to clear up your misconceptions, prior to you posting further claptrap. You might even see a picture of an SR-71...

You mean the molten Aluminum... right

No. Molten steel.

Of which he has no evidence for and he also says when he first saw the pentagon footage he saw a missile and then he claims the plane was added into the footage afterwords.

If the footage he saw is the same footage presented in the POS videotape, then he believes he saw a missile. Personally, I cannot identify what is in the videotape.

reply to post by awakehuman

No Plane + Coverup Conspiracy ("official story") = Execution of a "False Flag" Attack = TREASON

reply to post by totallackey


I love how you are backtracking now,

you dont actually have a stated position on 9/11 (even though your doing your best to defend the truther in the OP''s video) and I am just making assumptions about everything...

He is clearly talking about the Korean War, dont bother trying to claim otherwise, its very clear in the video what he is talking about

If the footage he saw is the same footage presented in the POS videotape, then he believes he saw a missile

I do wonder have you actually watched the video,

because he says at first he saw a missile in the video but then the video was altered in someway so that it now shows a plane

So at first he believed he saw a missile, now he believes he is saying a plane and not a missile but that's ok because its just that the footage has been faked in some way, just that there is no proof of this.

No. Molten steel.

lets not go off topic arguing about this, I say aluminum you say steel, its got nothing to do with the attack at the pentagon.

Originally posted by spooky24

Beats me how this debate keeps going, albeit half-heartedly these days.

Yea, same old thing over and over. I did hear some new nonsense in this thread. Someone stole one of our fighter planes and shot a missile at the Pentagon. Nice try but Fighters carry interceptor rockets not missiles.

The "The best 9/11 video I saw is this one" funny how the guy has to talk so fast that you can't understand what he is saying. "penetrate the worlds most heavily defended airspace" Obviously, this person has never flown into Jerusalem, or taken the bus, which is worse. They make no attempt to hide anything. The outer defense line before you get into the old city has hundreds of missiles of every shape and form pointed skyward. 50 caliber machine gun emplacements everywhere. Inside you get to experience two dozen or so big trigger happy Jewish kids pointing every different kind of gun ever made right at your head-and daring you to make a suspicious move. If you aren't religious before you get to the old city, you will be after you leave.

You guys really need to come up with something new-this thread is borderline boring.

You must be refering to me. I never said that this happened... I only said it was a possibility and if you actually READ the damn post, you would have seen that it was a general statement saying that it's possible someone hijacked one, or already had access to it. Read back in recent history where a few different persons in our own millitary took out our own. THOSE people were on the side of the taliban. Think before you try to debunk.

Not only that, but you have NO CLUE about payloads of jet fighters, obviously. I suggest you do a little research on it. You'll be amaized at what you find.

You know what I see? I see someone who's obviously has experiance with this sort of thing telling you what he believes took place and you... someone that don't know squat about any of this... think you can debunk it based on what? Your own hair brained idea of the situation when you can't even accurately give a proper statement about the munitions a jetfighter carries?

You do realise Jets also carry ATG missles as well as ATA missles...? No, certainly you don't.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I love how you are backtracking now, you dont actually have a stated position on 9/11 (even though your doing your best to defend the truther in the OP''s video) and I am just making assumptions about everything... He is clearly talking about the Korean War, dont bother trying to claim otherwise, its very clear in the video what he is talking about

Backtracking, uh...I am not defending his views. I am merely pointing out your baseless claims made in response to the video. Yes, you are making assumptions. He is not clearly talking about the Korean War. You are making assumptions.

I do wonder have you actually watched the video, because he says at first he saw a missile in the video but then the video was altered in someway so that it now shows a plane So at first he believed he saw a missile, now he believes he is saying a plane and not a missile but that's ok because its just that the footage has been faked in some way, just that there is no proof of this.

I watched the OP video and I have watched the footage presented by the US Government in support of an airplane strike at the Pentagon. As I stated earlier, I have no idea what the object is in the Pentagon footage. I do see an explosion in the Pentagon footage. Major General Stubblebine states he saw a missile in the footage he was presented. I do not know what footage he saw. Neither do you. Plus, you have no proof the footage presented in support of a plane strike has not been altered prior to presentation.

lets not go off topic arguing about this, I say aluminum you say steel, its got nothing to do with the attack at the pentagon.

I am certain you do wish to engage in any discussion about this, because, like everything else, you have nothing. Since the topic of the WTC attacks is included in the OP video, it is open to discussion. You already brought it up.

Who is doing the backtracking?

reply to post by totallackey


Air to air missiles are for anti-aircraft shootdowns. They have a small warhead. What he was trying to point out was that it is a fallacy to claim it was a missile because a missile is a much smaller weapon used with a smaller warhead. Even a Hellfire anti-tank missile does not have the punch that was seen at the Pentagon. So he is correct.

A rocket on the other hand is would be a proper assumption, but this too is false cause there was no rocket.

reply to post by GenRadek

Air to air missiles are for anti-aircraft shootdowns. They have a small warhead. What he was trying to point out was that it is a fallacy to claim it was a missile because a missile is a much smaller weapon used with a smaller warhead. Even a Hellfire anti-tank missile does not have the punch that was seen at the Pentagon. So he is correct.

No. He is not correct. Therefore, neither are you.

The extra speed provided by a rocket motor enables greater penetration of a missile-mounted bunker buster warhead. To reach maximum penetration (impact depth), the warhead may consist of a high-density projectile only. Such a warhead carries more energy than a warhead with chemical explosives (kinetic energy of a projectile at hypervelocity).

Bunker buster

reply to post by waypastvne



Yes I see now that my wording was not good, I did mean that the whole facade was eight inches, which is about right, apologies for that.
This is a better angled picture of the hole, It does actually look like a support framework for a wet wall rather than rebar, but should still be pretty substantial along with the brickwork, but the hole still looks odd. Even so, the FBI's very sparing video clearly shows much of the debris flying over the initial roof of the Pentagon. A good part of the tail section, which is seen in the video before impact, looks to be a candidate for some of the debris.This is one area I don't agree with Stubblebine, as he needs to have the vertical stabiliser marking the building. But, by the same token, and since much of the debris went over the roof/s there is no need to say unequivocally that debris found in the spaces between the rings came through a wall, without some more digging into the various reports..




I am trying to locate the NIST report that should be in a PDF file, and the engineers for building performance report but I haven't found either yet.

reply to post by totallackey


But there was no bunker buster missile there, and there was no way anyone would be able to see a MISSILE powered bunker buster and it would not be scooting along the ground like a cruise missile. Also the explosion seen was not a bunker buster explosion but a jet fueled explosion and fireball. Bunker busters dont have such a massive fireball and black smoke. Plus they are small. Show me a missile bunker buster that has the same width, length and look of a 757. Even cruise missiles.

Plus I dont know anyone that would mistake this:


for this


or vice versa

Originally posted by jazztrance
reply to post by Alfie1

 

OK show up a video of a "plane" hitting the pentagon,,,theres not one,,NOT ONE ! Across the street is the largest surveillance facility in the USA, wheres the video,,not the one that shows an explosion and not a plane,,OH BUT WAIT, there is a video, but the pentagon used surveillance equipment from the 80s (LMAO) that records in time lapse, so the plane was completely missing because of time lapse...LOL again...........Why didn't you just say that 4000 people saw the plane, I mean you sound like you believe these "official statements" that could have in reality said anything. PHONES DO NOT WORK ABOVE 800 FEET, try it,I did, they don't work. The taxi driver in the picture of the "broken pole" wouldn't even talk about it, too scared. Im glad you trust these liars, I don't know what happened, BUT anything that comes out the mouth of a politician IS A LIE ! AND don't forget, more than one person has accidentally said "missile" and then corrected themselves ON CAMERA and then said "airplane", .................AND DONT MAKE ME ASK ABOUT BUILDING 7 THAT BLEW UP ON ITS OWN .......WHY did they find thermite at the site ? HUH? HUH?:HUH?............Why did it happen the same day as a training exercise? HUH? HUH?....Let me know

edit on 11-8-2013 by jazztrance because: (no reason given)

Calm down, you sound as though you have a very inflamed case of trutheritis.

You haven't addressed any of the points I made except for your comment about phones where you are wrong. Cell phones in 2001 could connect from planes in some circumstances but the Boeing 757 that was AA 77 had seat-back airfones anyway.

Leaving aside your off topic stuff about WTC 7 what do you have to say to the large number of witnesses on record who saw a plane at the Pentagon ? What do you have to say to the Arlington police calling in an " American Airlines plane over the pike ? What about the chopped down light poles and aircraft debris ? What about the flight data recorder ? What about the 50 specialists from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who dna identified 184 dead at the Pentagon ?

ww2.dcmilitary.com...

These things have nothing to do with politicians spouting off.