Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Dark Wizard

What really happened at the Pentagon?

Recommended Posts

 

Oh man, that'll have the nuts saying it was a British plot! .... Royal Navy Tomahawk lol

 

When in doubt blame the Royal Navy! :P

 

No in all seriousness I do question 9/11 but I know when/where to draw the line, destroying the Pentagon with a missile

would require an Air strike, there is absolutely NO WAY you could cover THAT up. not even Nixon could pull that off.

There was a Boeing E-3B circling the pentagon at the time of impact (it was there to coordinate our defense), retribution would have been swift and certain, we'd be in full on battle. Boeing's E-3B is a modified Boeing 747-400, it is part of the AWACS program, in times of attack they are stationed at various points in the US airspace, AWACS planes are airborne Radar, E-3B nightwatch planes are the airborne Command and COntrol centers, had an airstrike been launched against the pentagon a dogfight would have swiftly ensued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there have been many government cover ups in history, im just saying its a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there have been many government cover ups in history, im just saying its a possibility.

 

there's only a couple missiles that pack enough punch to do that to the pentagon, Maverick and Tomahawk,

Given angle of approach, altitude and angle of attack you'd have to drop a tomahawk from a stealth fighter over Pennsylvania,

Mavericks are fired from Fighter jets, and are a short range missile.

Bomb wise you'd either need a Bunker buster or a daisy cutter, bunker buster would do similar damage but has to be dropped at close range from either a B-2 or a B-52, if your using the smaller Daisycutter MAYBE an F-18. either way lots of people are going to know. a daisy cutter would've levelled that entire section of the pentagon. it would've done tremendous damage. both to the pentagon and the parking lot/surrounding structures. Now it is possible to open the microwave ports on the avionics computer

on a 757-200-VIP essentially making it a giant drone, but again you'd need support infrastructure, you still have to have pilots and a flight engineer (Which would require a mobile ground station in close proximity) again that would've been noticed.

the WTC being hit by remotely flown 757-200-VIP's is more feasible as you could operate them from a navy ship at sea but again it would have to be in close proximity, the harbor logs don't contain reports of any navy ships in the harbor, Harbor entrance or the harbor approach at the time of attack, operating beyond the 12 mile limit puts them out of range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be much better if those images were to scale. Missiles are generally smaller in every dimension than large commercial passenger aircraft.

 

Edit: Also,

not meaning to piss you off but what they did to Wikileaks is deterrent enough to whistle blowers.

Even though Wikileaks was operating under the whistle blower act they still got prosecuted and shut down.

Now blowing the whistle on a classified military operation can at the least get you life in prison, at the worst case you vanish.

(btw I don't believe in what DW said, just sayin what happens to stool pigeons that snitch off the government).

People would keep quiet cause they know better than to talk.

 

Wikileaks is child's play in comparison to going it alone. People have been whistle-blowing for ages. Even when doing so is treason and the highest penalty for it being death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again why use a missile when you can use a perfectly good airliner? You don't have to cover up military stock control.

 

I subscribe to the obvious. Terrorist trains to fly- hijacks a plane- crashes it into the pentagon.

 

Big satan takes one on the jaw etc. Ideal opportunity to kick some ass, make some cash probably on both sides too.

 

Why make it more complex than it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because if one person speaks out then more will and it is impossible for everyone to disappear. DW, if you want I can do the calculations for what force that plane hit the building with, and what the tolerance for the wings were, as far as temperature. But people have already done them and it shows that it isn't going to be like a cartoon but like a semisolid blob of metal that hits the Pentagon.

 

Andrew: I agree completely with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because if one person speaks out then more will and it is impossible for everyone to disappear. DW, if you want I can do the calculations for what force that plane hit the building with, and what the tolerance for the wings were, as far as temperature. But people have already done them and it shows that it isn't going to be like a cartoon but like a semisolid blob of metal that hits the Pentagon.

 

Andrew: I agree completely with you.

 

let's see, plane fresh on it's route, just fueled up, minus 2,000 gallons lost during takeoff a 757-200 has an 11,489 gallon capacity. full throttle at altitude your burning about 2,000 gallons an hour, that's roughly 4,000 gallons down. that means at impact that airliner had about 7,000 gallons of fuel (Give or take a few hundred gallons). not only is that airliner a Kinetic energy weapon, it's a Vacuum bomb (Thermobaric/Air fueled Bomb) with the physics involved you have one of the most powerful non nuclear weapons. plane vs Pentagon, Pentagon loses. plus your hitting with a precision guided weapon, that means the parking lot doesn't even get damaged, plus your creating a vacuum bomb, the mechanism of detonation is via fuel vapor, when it detonates it creates a vacuum, sucks all the air into the pentagon, when it reaches full detonation, all the air (and everything not nailed down inside the pentagon) is violently forces outward with the shockwave) and deposited in a manner consistent with the debris field. the air would rush back in at a slower speed than it was forced out. the Pentagon is what it is. plain and simple.

there simply isn't enough indirect evidence to support a Conspiracy/coverup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also IS I'm in agreement with you and C2T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again why use a missile when you can use a perfectly good airliner? You don't have to cover up military stock control.

 

I subscribe to the obvious. Terrorist trains to fly- hijacks a plane- crashes it into the pentagon.

 

Big satan takes one on the jaw etc. Ideal opportunity to kick some ass, make some cash probably on both sides too.

 

Why make it more complex than it is?

 

An Airliner is more efficient, we don't have a surface to surface missile with the punch of a vacuum bomb.

an Airliner laden with fuel is a poor man's vacuum bomb. it is more efficient than a full on missile strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes generally don't take off with full capacity of fuel. It just isn't fuel efficient to carry all that extra weight. They get just enough to get to the destination and a little extra for a possible delay for landing.

 

That said, planes were still pretty effective at taking down large military ships in WWII. That is even without extra fuel, since they'd have barely enough to reach their target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes generally don't take off with full capacity of fuel. It just isn't fuel efficient to carry all that extra weight. They get just enough to get to the destination and a little extra for a possible delay for landing.

 

That said, planes were still pretty effective at taking down large military ships in WWII. That is even without extra fuel, since they'd have barely enough to reach their target.

 

Planes generally don't take off with full capacity of fuel. It just isn't fuel efficient to carry all that extra weight. They get just enough to get to the destination and a little extra for a possible delay for landing.

 

That said, planes were still pretty effective at taking down large military ships in WWII. That is even without extra fuel, since they'd have barely enough to reach their target.

 

you gotta remember c2t them planes were headed for Los Angeles, they were express flights, they were going their full range, only 93 wasn't at full capacity. and yes, an old boss of mine was in the battle of New Caledonia, Japs used Kamakazis to great effect, we used a similar strategy if we had to ditch, our guys would find a ship, aim the plane at the ship, open the throttles, lock the controls and bail out. planes are decent weapons...

Japs and us also used them against military installations in the battles of Midway and Okinawa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grain dust explosions are also thermobaric bombs like fuel vapor explosions, here is an example of a grain dust explosion.

 

 

Grain dust is a similar explosive yield to jet fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here c2t I hope this helps your case :)

 

 

these are REAL tests performed by REAL commercial pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for some fun with a 747. Note he's giving 'Er hell on the deck and doing violent turns in something that outweighs and is considerably larger than a 757-200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are bigger questions in regards to the perfectly freefalling WTC (especially building 7) than I find in the pentagon thing. There is also some very weird things about the planes that flew into the buildings like the attachment to the bottom (?).

 

Anyway, I think there would be a whistle-blower if it was a big deal... but what if it was a rogue group within the CIA (or other internal organization) that assisted in the destruction. I would look more to corporations than government though, think of how much money these arms companies have made, even if they spent a billion dollars to covertly carry out 9/11 they still are in the green for money made.

 

 

Let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are bigger questions in regards to the perfectly freefalling WTC (especially building 7) than I find in the pentagon thing. There is also some very weird things about the planes that flew into the buildings like the attachment to the bottom (?).

 

Anyway, I think there would be a whistle-blower if it was a big deal... but what if it was a rogue group within the CIA (or other internal organization) that assisted in the destruction. I would look more to corporations than government though, think of how much money these arms companies have made, even if they spent a billion dollars to covertly carry out 9/11 they still are in the green for money made.

 

 

Let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin

 

Or the bay of pigs..

One of the biggest 9/11 mysteries is how them buildings fell at Terminal velocity along the path of greatest resistence..

Lateral ejection of steel, ejection of pulverized concrete in mid flight, the complete absence of pancaked stories,

that and people that were working in the sub basements that heard multiple huge explosions minutes and seconds before the collapse, one had major burns. If ANYTHING falls along the path of greatest resistence it is going to decelerate, not accelerate,

there was explosions, rythmic explosions 20 and 40 floors below the main blast wave.

when solving a mystery like this you must follow the money, 2 parties stood to gain from this, the US Arms manufacturers and the owner of the world trade center complex (He's rolling in the insurance money).

I tend to agree with what TC said here. Also them planes pulled off some high G maneuvers, you'd have to be in a pressure suit to withstand them kind of G forces, just saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

MIT engineer disputes NIST findings RE:WTC collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to do this in multiple posts, because the forum hates me for some reason. Either that or there's a quote limit or some bullocks. Edit: Appears there's a quote limit.

 

One of the biggest 9/11 mysteries is how them buildings fell at Terminal velocity along the path of greatest resistence..

 

The towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds.

Lateral ejection of steel, ejection of pulverized concrete in mid flight,

 

What do you think the whole building was made out of? There wasn't just steel columns in the middle, the entire outside frame was made of steel and concrete as well. It's going to go somewhere, and the air pressure on the inside would have a tendency to take it somewhere... possibly outside.

the complete absence of pancaked stories,

 

So, wait, the building didn't collapse on top of itself?

that and people that were working in the sub basements that heard multiple huge explosions minutes and seconds before the collapse,

 

That just goes to show you it wasn't demolition. A full demolition sequence take seconds. It is not a slow, methodical ordeal. It was more likely the sound of buckling steel.

one had major burns.

 

Fire? Chemicals? Too much sun? Bad rash? Not sure what you mean.

If ANYTHING falls along the path of greatest resistence it is going to decelerate, not accelerate,

 

Wait, what? Do you even know what you just said or are you just repeating something you heard?

there was explosions, rythmic explosions 20 and 40 floors below the main blast wave.

 

Citation needed. Also, yeah, sure, "explosions." Anything loud and indiscernible to a layperson sounds like an "explosion." Like, perhaps, steel buckling. I mean, do you know the difference in sound between a multiple C4 explosion, multiple steel columns buckling under extreme stress, multiple cannon fire, or even some bad music being played excessively loud from hundreds of meters away?

 

Anyway, if I remember correctly, that's where the steel support columns were actually buckling under the extreme stress. The inner support columns collapsed ahead of the rest of the building during the collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when solving a mystery like this you must follow the money,

 

Mystery?

2 parties stood to gain from this,

 

Oh?

the US Arms manufacturers

 

lolno. The US was already buying plenty of arms before that day, so they were rolling around in the money already.

and the owner of the world trade center complex (He's rolling in the insurance money).

 

lolnox2. Anyone who doesn't insure something that expensive is a fool.

Also them planes pulled off some high G maneuvers, you'd have to be in a pressure suit to withstand them kind of G forces, just saying...

 

High-G? Like hitting a building? I honestly don't think they survived it. Nor were they concerned with their safety beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to do this in multiple posts, because the forum hates me for some reason. Either that or there's a quote limit or some bullocks. Edit: Appears there's a quote limit.

 

 

The towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds.

 

What do you think the whole building was made out of? There wasn't just steel columns in the middle, the entire outside frame was made of steel and concrete as well. It's going to go somewhere, and the air pressure on the inside would have a tendency to take it somewhere... possibly outside.

 

So, wait, the building didn't collapse on top of itself?

 

That just goes to show you it wasn't demolition. A full demolition sequence take seconds. It is not a slow, methodical ordeal. It was more likely the sound of buckling steel.

 

Fire? Chemicals? Too much sun? Bad rash? Not sure what you mean.

 

Wait, what? Do you even know what you just said or are you just repeating something you heard?

 

Citation needed. Also, yeah, sure, "explosions." Anything loud and indiscernible to a layperson sounds like an "explosion." Like, perhaps, steel buckling. I mean, do you know the difference in sound between a multiple C4 explosion, multiple steel columns buckling under extreme stress, multiple cannon fire, or even some bad music being played excessively loud from hundreds of meters away?

 

Anyway, if I remember correctly, that's where the steel support columns were actually buckling under the extreme stress. The inner support columns collapsed ahead of the rest of the building during the collapse.

 

The inner support columns had help, If you apply even basic math, that building should have taked about 45 seconds to collapse, not just 10 seconds. also explosions as in dynamite or C4 slicing through steel columns.

it didn't deviate off it's vertical axis it fell into it's own foot print (Veritical resistence from that extremely well built and reinforced central core would have caused it to deviate to one side or other), the building fell without any resistence (There was no deceleration, the strong central core would have caused the building to decelerate while collapsing), also it wouldn't be powdered concrete falling, there would be boulders raining down on the streets below.

also it isn't necessary to repeat anything anybody else said when we all seen that complex go down man...

the insurance on that building specified acts of terror/acts of war, it didn't specify controlled demolition, in order to get that money the buildings had to burn abit before they were pulled. also the skin of that building served a reinforcement purpose, it wasn't built like a normal skyscraper, in a typical skyscraper, the steel skeleton is it's reinforcement, in WTC, the outer skin and the central core were that buildings backbone. maybe fanatics did hit the building, but for all intents and purposes it should have burned for hours before collapsing, than it should have only been a partial collapse. the Empire state building was hit by a B-29, it's still here, planes have hit buildings before they didn't collapse. WTC had help. they had to induce structural failure.

It don't matter who hit it, what killed everyone is what happened in the moments after the impacts. Do you actually think

when they designed that building they didn't take into account that it might experience a prolonged blaze?

also anyone that has ever lit a grill knows that hydrocarbon based fuels burn off quickly, the remaining fire was from building contents. also do we have any firefighters? Can you tell me what was wrong with that fire? Black smoke dude! That fire was oxygen starved. it wasn't burning near as hot as they sold it off as. and not near hot enough to melt steel.

IS are you really going to forget all you ever learned about Physics and science and modify facts to make NIST's shaky and neatly packaged theory work? when other engineering firms have said the gov's version of events simply can't happen?

What happens when you have an accelerating body (in this case that 15 floor block) encounter resistence that is of greater mass (in this case the remaining 95 floors of said building) and start to lose mass. It's going to slow down substantially isn't it? It's going to lose it's kinetic energy isn't it? end result your going to have large pieces of the building (including entire mostly intact floors) left. wanna know what a pancake collapse is, look at the after math of the haiti earthquake, or the aftermath of major quakes in california. HAD that collapse been caused by the planes and fires alone, common sense tells us they should have collapsed at a way slower speed and large intact sections of the buildings would remain in the rubble pile, that didn't happen, them buildings were pulverized, now that is only going to happen of the vertical resistence (the frictive force) is removed ahead of the blast wave, the best way to do that is with shaping charges. sure AQ hit them, but that collapse had help, countless engineering firms that were unaffiliated with the government have said that. even some demolition firms have said that.

no I won't post sources cause I'm not gonna flood this forum with links, I'm gonna let you do your own research.

If you don't want to accept how crooked our gov is, that is your prerogative, also it didn't stay quiet, lots of people have come forward, the gov has made you believe your an unpatriotic sugar if you believe them, they have embarked on a massive smear campaign. you have every right to forget everything you learned in school and believe NIST's bogus theory. I'm not stopping you.

also unless they put them things together with Rivets, steel under stress bends (makes a creeking sound) it doesn't make powerful explosion sounds.

 

Also watch the 2 videos I posted, one of the guys that reported them loud explosion sounds was the building's structural engineer who was working in one of the sub basements when the planes hit, he was also one of the first to question the official story. a guy with an Engineering degree, not a layperson made that initial claim.

he compared the sounds to Dynamite. Not bending and breaking steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember IS, not only is that 15 floor block crashing down at roughly 90mhp, it is also breaking up (Losing considerable mass) as it goes and the remaining 95 floors/central core and reinforcing skin are pushing back.

 

wanna get an idea of the forces involved? imagine a Ford Short bus going full on into the ass end of a parked full sized Greyhound bus from 1 block away and tell me who loses. Get the picture?

 

A collapse originating atthe top of the structure simply couldn't produce the devastation we seen

due to numerous factors, if you really want to duplicate what we seen, you'd have to start the collapse on the lower floors, thus removing any resistance, that would ensure that your 15 floor block doesn't lose it's kinetic energy, it would accelerate, you'd make that 15 floor block into a pile driver. same with tower 2. oh and building 7, building 7 didn't take near the asswhooping buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 did. It collapsed while 3, 4, 5 and 6 were still standing. the official story was that building 7 collapsed due to buckling of one column, really? it would have caused whatever side that column was on to start falling first, the building would have fell with a list to one side. it fell on it';s own foot print. Now like I said, you can forget everything you spent years and money learning including basic common sense and believe NIST's theory or you can wise up and do your own research using non government, independent sources. A better idea is to head to your library, get some books on demolition science, watch some videos of building implosions, burn it into your brain, than watch the WTC towers come down, I tell you what, the similarities will jump out at you like a deer on a highway. Funny how that happens :P

 

Also a building falling due to loss of one column means whoever designed that building was completely stoned or shouldn't have been designing buildings to begin with. they should've deemed that building unsafe and brought it down years ago if it didn't have enough redundency to survive the loss of one column.

Hell they should have brought the entire WTC complex down years ago if they knew it couldn't survive a 5 floor medium temperature fire. :P

If NIST is right, them buildings were unfit for habitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×