Finally, we can put to rest the theory that a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11. Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch released a video today on his Twitter showing what looks like a Tomahawk cruise missile going into the side of the Pentagon on 9/11. Although Fitton claims this was actually a plane that hit the Pentagon, the evidence doesn’t appear to support this at all.
The ‘plane hitting the Pentagon’ theory has been a question mark for so many people as the camera footage was instantly seized showing the entire event, and there were no plane parts to be found anywhere. Not to mention the plane would have to be flying completely parallel to the ground, JUST skimming the grass to make it into the side of the Pentagon. And of course the hole made in the Pentagon doesn’t match that of a plane at all. See image below.
I have honestly been trying to figure out what Fitton is really up to with this post, because I almost can’t believe he thinks this is a plane which leads me to think he is doing this on purpose to help people see the truth.
Have a look at his Tweet below, and the video below that.
Tom Fitton Verified account
@TomFitton
President, Judicial Watch.
In order to help put to rest the 9/11 conspiracy theories, @JudicialWatch sued for and obtained the Pentagon parking camera footage of AA#77 hitting the Pentagon. https://pentagonmemorial.org pic.twitter.com/QEkTewHtlJ
Do you see a plane? Or do you see what looks a lot more like a Tomahawk cruise missile?
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
That would be a Tomahawk cruise missile with no warhead. Right?
But it must have been carrying the Flight 77 flight data recorder, personal effects of the passengers, and the landing gear from a 757.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-13 10:52:22 Reply Private Reply
#2: Justified To: misterwhite, Deckard (#1)
I would like to see the video from the hotel across from the pentagon. There has to be better video footage.
BTW we have already seen this video. I have already talked about this a long time ago.
Justified posted on 2019-09-13 11:17:23 Reply Private Reply
#3: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#1)
I dare you.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-13 11:47:31 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#3)
Well, if you breach etiquette and jump right to the sinister triple-dog- dare I just might.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-13 12:01:27 Reply Private Reply
#5: Tooconservative To: Justified (#2)
I like it when people do some math. Takeoff speed for a 757 is ~143mph. Stall speed is 167mph. So the speed could have been much lower if they chose to adopt a landing profile to hit the Pentagon.
The overall length of the plane is about 155 feet. Supposedly, it was a 757-223, a variant of the 757-200. That's where I'm getting the 155 feet. The 757-300 was a stretch version, about 20' longer.
So if they were approaching the Pentagob at 200mph in their 155-foot 757, it does change the math for your video calculations quite a bit. Since the plane was long since under the local radar ceiling, we don't have any evidence (other than flight recorder) for the speed the plane was traveling at.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-13 12:03:22 Reply Private Reply
#6: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#5)
It was reported that the 757-223 was traveling 530 mph (777 feet per second) when it hit the Pentagon. The Pentagon surveillance cameras were only recording at 1 frame per second. Pure luck it was recorded at all.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-13 13:04:51 Reply Private Reply
#7: redleghunter To: Justified (#2)
I just left the Pentagon one month before the attack and where the plane hit was the newly renovated portion of the Pentagon. If not for the additional force protection and blast construction measures that plane would have gone through to the inner courtyard by some estimates.
Well I digress. Two fellow officers (worked with me in the Pentagon), who had early appointments returning to the Pentagon, saw the plane from I395 hit the pentagon. That's good enough for me.
redleghunter posted on 2019-09-13 14:30:38 Reply Private Reply
#8: redleghunter To: Tooconservative (#3)
We probably would have found out if "Storm Area 51" actually got off the ground.
redleghunter posted on 2019-09-13 14:31:26 Reply Private Reply
#9: Justified To: Tooconservative (#5)
From wiki. The field of view from that camera was probably less than 300'.
Crash[edit]
Security camera footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Impact is at 1:27. [37] According to the 9/11 Commission Report, as Flight 77 was 5 miles (8.0 km) west- southwest of the Pentagon, it made a 330-degree spiral turn clockwise. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet (670 m), pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. Hani Hanjour advanced the throttles to maximum power and dived toward the Pentagon. While level above the ground and seconds from impact, the wings clipped five street lampposts and the right wing struck a portable generator, creating a smoke trail seconds before smashing into the Pentagon.[38][39] Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery, [40]impacted the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46.[41] The plane hit the Pentagon at the first-floor level,[42] and at the moment of impact, the airplane was rolled slightly to the left, with the right wing elevated.[43] The front part of the fuselage disintegrated on impact, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris penetrating furthest into the building.[42] In all, the airplane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 feet (94 m) into the three outermost of the building's five rings[44] and unleashed a fireball that rose 200 feet (61 m) above the building. [42]
Justified posted on 2019-09-13 15:03:28 Reply Private Reply
#10: Justified To: redleghunter (#7)
Justified posted on 2019-09-13 15:06:10 Reply Private Reply
#11: redleghunter To: Justified (#10)
Isn't amazing we 'need' video footage of what hundreds of people saw from one of the busiest highways in the nation? I mean my buddy told me everyone pulled over on the highway as they knew police and fire would be using the roads to respond. No one doubted it was a plane and that it was faster and at a lower altitude than the traffic coming from Reagan national.
redleghunter posted on 2019-09-13 15:13:04 Reply Private Reply
#12: Justified To: All (#9)
Well we can calculate the speed at which the plane travelled through the building.
310ft in 8/10's of a second. (310/8)*10 = 387.5 ft per second. (387.5ftps/5280ftpermile)*60sec*60min = 264.2mph through the building. So the plane must have been flying much faster than this.
Justified posted on 2019-09-13 15:22:53 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
That is exactly where I stopped reading this article you posted.
Please, CT freak – ping me when you have an article that can provide authenticated evidence.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-13 15:39:16 Reply Private Reply
#14: Gatlin To: misterwhite (#1)
That's pretty good.
No, that's REALLY good.
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-13 15:41:24 Reply Private Reply
#15: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#6)
I think that speed estimate was from a flight recorder. So the Truthists wouldn't accept it since they think it was something planted by the CIA or "salted" on the Tomahawk missile (or whatever bullcrap they make up on any given day).
Other events on 9/11 can be analyzed better because you have network footage and some video footage from the area that confirm each other. The Pentagon hit isn't comparable to the WTC attack in video footage or other evidence.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-13 16:04:40 Reply Private Reply
#16: Tooconservative To: redleghunter (#7)
Obviously, they are part of the Conspiracy. You know, Them.
Were they members of any Masonic lodge? : )
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-13 16:07:59 Reply Private Reply
#17: Tooconservative To: redleghunter (#8)
Don't give the Truthists any new ideas. You know how excitable they are.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-13 16:10:21 Reply Private Reply
#18: redleghunter To: Tooconservative (#16)
Both were Roman Catholics. So that means the Knights of Columbus were in on it too! ;)
redleghunter posted on 2019-09-13 16:17:01 Reply Private Reply
#19: jeremiad To: Deckard (#0)
jeremiad posted on 2019-09-13 21:19:09 Reply Private Reply
#20: Tooconservative To: redleghunter (#18)
So we can pretty much establish a Jesuit Connection. And from there, it's a hop, skip and a jump to the Illuminati and the Bildy-burger bunch and the Masons. Child's play really.
I keep wishing they'd open a new burger franchise and call it Build-A-Burger©, just for fun to screw with the CTs.
I had to check. Apparently Build-A-Burger is already a thing in at least few locations.
Build-A-Burger Milwaukee
Build A Burger Nebraska
Upcoming: When the Milwaukee Build-A-Burger and the Nebraska Build A Burger start suing each other over trademarks. That's when the Illuminati will have to step in.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-14 01:56:48 Reply Private Reply
#21: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#15)
I'm willing to listen to arguments against a 757 causing the damage. Just give me one piece of evidence that it was something else.
BTW, a Tomahawk cruise missile has a diameter of 20". The hole would have been much smaller. If it was armed with the standard 1,000 pound warhead, it would have done this:
Instead, the explosion was identical to the planes hitting the twin towers.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-14 09:06:13 Reply Private Reply
#22: Liberator To: Deckard (#0)
All of the theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories have long been a part of history.
11.9 – The truth movement is often laughed at for criticizing the Bush government’s answer to what happened on 11th September 2001. Now however, the recognized historian, Daniele Ganser gives legitimacy to the skeptics.
by Kristin Aalen
21.04.2008
CONSPIRACY: Ganser has caused debate following the presentation of his view in an interview with the Swiss TV-channel, U1. There he repeated his arguments from an article he wrote in the Swiss newspaper, Tages-Anzeiger in Zürich in September 2006.
Ganser’s premise is that conspiracies are nothing unusual or new in the field of historical research. At least since the assassination of Julius Caesar in classical Rome more than 2000 years ago, conspiracies have been an element of the political fight for influence and power.
He defines a conspiracy as, “a secret agreement between two or more persons to engage in a criminal act.”
He continues: “As 9/11 was a criminal act which was definitively not planned and carried out by one single person alone but by at least two or more persons who agreed on the plan before it was implemented, 9/11 must be classified as a conspiracy.”
Daniele Ganser
MOST CORRECT? “It is important to stress that all theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories. Once we realize that none of the theories can be dismissed on the grounds that it is a ‘conspiracy theory’, the real question becomes: Which conspiracy theory correctly describes the 9/11 conspiracy?” asks Ganser.
The historian thereby is in disagreement with the many who laugh at the critics of the official explanation of 11/9 as it is expressed in three reports (see fact box).
THREE THEORIES: Ganser presents three main theories about the conspiracy of 11/9. He does not himself address the issue of which theory most correctly describes what actually happened:
1. The so-called surprise theory: Offered by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission report (2004), it claims that Osama bin Laden conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohamed Atta, and other men to attack the US on 9/11. The surprise theory argues that 9/11 was a Muslim conspiracy. It concedes that there were rumours about a looming attack, but insists that the US intelligence community, including the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, and other intelligence services, along with Pentagon, were unable to prevent the conspiracy. (NSA: National Security Agency, DIA: Defence Intelligence Agency, red. anm.)
2. Let It Happen On Purpose: (LIHOP theory). Like the surprise theory, it assumes that Osama bin Laden conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohamed Atta and other men to attack the US on 9/11. In stark contrast to the surprise theory, however, the LIHOP theory claims that persons inside the US government deliberately allowed the attacks to be carried out in order to be able to start a number of wars that had been planned in advance. The LIHOP theory thus argues that 9/11 was a combined Muslim and Jewish-Christian conspiracy, in which the latter outwitted the former.
3. Make It Happen On Purpose: (MIHOP theory). It argues that criminal persons within the US government, Pentagon and the intelligence community, carried out the attacks themselves in order to be able to start a number of wars that had been planned in advance. The MIHOP theory thus argues that 9/11 was primarily a Christian or Jewish-Christian conspiracy, in which Muslims, if involved at all, were involved only in minor ways.
Ganser is in agreement with theologians who point out that no true Christians, Jewish, or Muslim values – including love and respect for other human beings – can be found in the crimes of 9/11, and that it is therefore fundamentally wrong to link any of the three largest monotheistic religions of the world to the crime. If religion played a role in the fanatic crime at all, then it was misguided religion.
TWO COUNTER-ARGUMENTS: Ganser discusses the two most important arguments against theories 2 and 3, which are:
Argument 1 against the Lihop- and Mihop-theory: Civilized, western governments in general, and the US government in particular, would never do anything as evil as to allow the 11/9-attacks, yet alone plan them.
Argument 2 against the Lihop- og Mihop-theory: If the 11/7-attacks were carried out by forces within the US own government, it would not have been possible to keep it a secret for so long.
RAISES DOUBT: As stated, Ganser does not address which of the three theories is correct. However, he has conducted so much research on secret warfare executed by western governments that he would not altogether dismiss the more moderate Lihop or the more alarming Mihop theory.
In order to understand why the Swiss historian doesn’t think arguments 1 and 2 against the Lihop- and Mihop-theories in themselves are viable, we need to look at his own research:
Ganser is an expert on the use of the Strategy of Tension by western governments, for example during the Cold War. This involved implementing a terror attack on public places and then placing the blame on a political opponent.
In his book on Nato’s secret army, Operation Gladio, he describes state-supported terror attacks during the 60’s and 70’s in Europe. These took place chiefly in Italy, but also in Beligium, Turkey and Greece. Secret forces were trained and equipped by the American CIA and the British counterpart, MI6.
FALSE FLAG?: But would American authorities really have sacrificed their own citizens?
Ganser refers to “Operation Northwoods”, a plan devised by the Pentago in the 60’s. This involved performing a series of strategy-of tension operations, designed to shock the US public and discredit Castro. Among other actions, the US officers suggested developing a fake “Communist Cuban campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”, faking a Cuban air force attack on a civilian jetliner, “sink(ing) a boatload of Cuban refugees”, and blowing up a US ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. This is recorded listed among the ideas defended by General Lyman Lemnitzer.
But Operasjon Northwoods was never implemented. At the time, President John F. Kennedy and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, opposed such operations, which included killing US citizens and involved a large-scale manipulation of the American population.
However, Ganzer makes a point of stressing that the strategy of tension was prominently advocated by the highest ranking officer in the Pentagon — General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — as a pretext to convince the US public of the need to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro.
KEPT SECRET: Further, is it possible to keep such cynical plans a secret?
Yes, believes Ganser. Operation Northwoods was a marked secret by the Pentagon. Only 40 years later, in April 2001, was is made public.The distinguished US researcher James Bamford engrossed himself in the material and produced in 2002 the book, Body of Secrets: An Anatomy of the Ultra Secret National Security Agency. In this he wondered whether Operation Northwoods was the most corrupt plan ever created by the US government. He concluded:
It is on the basis of this type of research that Daniele Ganser fears that arguments 1 and 2 against the Lihop- and Mihop-theories are insubstantial.
Facts
DANIELE GANSER:
WHO: Swiss historian and research specialist on peace and secret warfare. Senior researcher at the Institute of Strategic Studies, of the University of Zürich. His latest book is Nato’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2005).
WATCH TV-INTERVIEW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSjKuFu9fKU
READ ARTICLES: “Der erbitterte Streit um den 11. September” in the Swiss newspaper, Tages-Anzeiger, 9th September 2006. The ‘Strategy of Tension’ in the Cold War Period in the book, 9/11 and American Empire. Intellectuals Speak Out, 2007.
THREE TOWERS FALL:
WTC 1 North: Hit by Flight AA11 at 8.46.40. Collapsed in approx. 11 seconds at 10.28.
WTC 2 South: Hit by Flight UAL175 at 9.03.11. Collapsed in approx. 9 seconds at 9.58 (before tower 1) Both towers: Height: 417 og 415 meter, 63×63 width, 110 floors.
WTC 7: 47-floor building further north. Somewhat damaged by fire after being hit by debris when the twin towers fell. Collapsed at 17.20 the same day.
THREE OFFICIAL REPORTS:
SURPRISE-TEORIEN: Presented in the 9/11 Commission Report (2004). See http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology has produced Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (2005). 85 internal, 125 external experts participated. See http://wtc.nist.gov/
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency produced a temporary report on the fall of the three towers, in May 2002. See http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
OPERATION NORTHWOODS:
AVAILABLE: Archived on the website of National Security Agency www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430
National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Source URL: http://www.aftenbladet.no/english/englishcomment/article628550.ece
Liberator posted on 2019-09-14 14:12:41 Reply Private Reply