IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Granit Hits Pentagon?

GroundPounder
post Feb 24 2011, 04:41 PM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/21/jb...omy-of-a-frame/

i know, i know, the 150kt nukes are bs, but what if the granit part is legit?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FM258
post Feb 24 2011, 07:43 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 64



I get the feeling when we finally do get a breakthrough, it wont matter. I hope im wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Feb 24 2011, 09:44 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



you are just about completely correct.

tune into this very interesting bit of commentary...

http://maxkeiser.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 24 2011, 11:45 PM
Post #4


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 24 2011, 03:41 PM) *
...but what if the granit part is legit?


if this is a granit missile:



-then i would say no, not legit. none of the witnesses describe seeing anything like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Feb 25 2011, 12:11 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



QUOTE (paranoia @ Feb 25 2011, 03:45 AM) *
if this is a granit missile:

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O6ZYt2eifTI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O6ZYt2eifTI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

-then i would say no, not legit. none of the witnesses describe seeing anything like that.



Something like this?
Granit
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 3 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



A couple of points here on the SS-N-19 Granit
> the Russian submarine Kursk sank in Aug. 2000.
> Halliburton was a sub-contractor to raise the Kursk Aug 2001.
> It had the capacity for 24 SS N 19 Granit missiles.
> Why were only 22 were recovered?
> A Granit has an internal guidance system that has pre-set targets. US Military installations (Pentagon)
> Can evade SAM and Phallanx anti missile systems by twisting and turning in the terminal phase of flight.
> Speed 2.5 mach cruise, 1.5 on the line of attack.
> Heavily armoured. 7000 KG enough to break a destoyer in half without warhead.
> Coventional and nuclear warhead capable.
> Rocket propellant creates a white exhast plume.
> drops down to sea / land level skimming before striking.
> This would explain lamp poles and generator trailer damage as well as penetration of Pentagon and "punch out" hole.

The flight level and charactaristics are consistant with damage to light poles and generator trailer. The exhast signature would produce a "bumpy white smoke" trail when it twists and turns. The speed would make eyewitness accounts irrelevant. Kinetic energy alone.

NORAD refers to an incoming missile as a "quick" alert. Something popped up EAST of Boston NORAD tracked and it was not a plane. Prior to the explosion at the Pentagon the NORAD tapes reveal "quick desending, quick"
Not quickly, but quick.
I can document all of the above if anyone is interested.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Mar 3 2011, 07:30 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Ah yes, the infamous “Zig-Zag” feature…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 3 2011, 08:29 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



plot thickens....

edit:

only question for me is, if it was doing >mach where is the evidence of a sonic boom?

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Mar 3 2011, 08:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post May 29 2011, 09:02 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 3 2011, 07:29 PM) *
plot thickens....

edit:

only question for me is, if it was doing >mach where is the evidence of a sonic boom?


One thing about New York is, you don't find many people looking
up at the sky in Manhattan, because you can see so little of it, it's
simply not worth looking at. Least of all early in the morning in
downtown/lower Manhattan. So, the first clue anyone would have
to look, would be an abnormally loud sound. By "abnormal" in NYC
that means way over the 108 decibels we're used to having intrude
on us.

I haven't been able to quantify it yet, but it does seem that anything
supersonic, is going to be long passed the observer, before the
sonic clue arrives that they have something to look at. That time is
only lengthened by the Doppler effect. Thus at one mile out
(Lispenard street). in a dive (how high was the aircraft supposed
to be at this point?). There could have been as much as a two to
three second gap, before anyone would have a clue to look skyward.

If that is true, then the aircraft is only a second from
impact, by the time they hear it's sound, no time to even pan
the camera, less focus it. So that's something for the tech boys
to work out.

Rob has given us the speed and the rades data, I think, gives us the
height. We have the barometric pressure and temperature and we
know when the fireman first hears it, losing yet another second
turning his head for the camera. So, if that sound arrived 2 seconds
behind the jet, and another second is lost filming the fireman turning
his head, then the jet should have hit the tower, before the camera
man could even react.

It seems to me that the camera is focused too long on the building
the jet has disappeared behind, to pan and refocus on the towers,
before the jet emerges and strikes. We know that the jet can't
stop in the air and wait for the camera to catch up. But it seems
that's exactly what appears to have happened.

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post May 29 2011, 06:39 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 3 2011, 07:29 PM) *
plot thickens....

edit:

only question for me is, if it was doing >mach where is the evidence of a sonic boom?

Urban environments, like NYC and DC are very noisy. Plus sound bounces off of all the buildings which also block your view, so it's very hard to ever actually see, what caused the noise.

Also, most people are either indoors or underground that time of day. If they flew something in from out over the water, very few people would have been around to notice. Then you had the boom from the explosion a few seconds later, so even if people heard a boom, they probably would have thought it was the explosion from the 'missile' when it hit the building.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: May 29 2011, 06:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post May 31 2011, 11:39 AM
Post #11


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



There is NO evidence for a missile. The surveillance video shows a 757 sized object that they inserted. The alleged "entry" hole is PLANE SHAPED.

Why do you all have this romance or obsession with this missile fantasy?

You have perfectly sound evidence for an inside job with the heavily corrobarated north of Citgo flight path. Yet, you all insist on spending time theorizing on a message board about something you have no proof for and absolutely 0 expertise in.

Why are you all so stuck on the missile? Because some kids from Oneonta NY stared at a video and listened to the likes of Eric Hufshmid, who also has 0 expertise in munitions. Why?! Why?! Why?! It's amazing how people start with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory started by laymen who stared video frames and work backwards from there. You are all doing all u can to make a missile part of your 9/11 inside job fantasy.

Does it make things more exciting in your mind? Does it make you feel like a super sleuth that demands that we all have to hear your unqualified 2 cents???

Why are you all here foolishly theorizing about missiles when we went out and collected definitive evidence that can bring down the whole house of cards?

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jun 1 2011, 11:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 31 2011, 03:41 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ May 29 2011, 02:39 PM) *


the easy answer is...we know it wasn't a 757 that caused the damage at the pentagon, so, logically, it had to be something else. either pre-planted explosives, cruise missile or something.

c'mon aldo, you're a bright guy, lighten up a tad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 31 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Here's a question. Given the topography of the area immediately before the Pentagon, where would they fire a missile from?? Did the "missile" pull up? How'd they get that cardboard cut out shape of an "aircraft" with a missile? How did it suddenly stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed?





Rumsfeld and others were allegedly in "A" Ring. Would they risk an errant missile blasting its way through the building? Wasn't a limited fatality rate at the Pentagon more desirable? Take out the accountants? 0% survival rate?

Every angle points to internal explosives. A "damage control" event. The "missile theory" leads us in circles and simply causes tension and divides. More importantly, there is no proof.

2cents


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post May 31 2011, 07:05 PM
Post #14


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



We don't know anything except the plane flew on the north side of the gas station flight path.

We don't know what missile strike looks like in comparison to the Pentagon damage.

We don't know if a missile can destroy a forest of columns while kinking others and leaving a perfectly round circular hole.

Not one person with any shred of munitions expertise, a real name, or a report has come forward to even back up this dis/misinformation promoted by conspiracy theorist laymen.

No one saw a missile when one would be seen.

There is no evidence for a missile being fired from the generator trailer or any other location near the Pentagon nor is there evidence a missile can cause a cookie cutter plane shape, take out a forest of columns while kinking others, to then leave a circular hole.

The video frames were likely used to fuel the picture staring conspiracy theorist laymen then later debunked through the Integrated Consulants which shows the object as a Craft large enough to be a 757.

I see people on here still talking about that video as if it really shows an object that could be a missile. Completely disregarding that the very organization's forum they are posting on promotes FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that the 757 they claim is in the video you are promoting as a missile cannot approach low and level.

I am not going to "lighten up". This powderkeg piece of evidence that we uncovered is sitting there for anyone to take to authorities and I don't understand why you are all here rehashing old debunked garbage many of us have spent time explaining over and over and over.

There was no missile. And frankly we don't need even speculate on the explosives. We know the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon. None of us should spend hours and hours and bandwidth rehashing these ridiculous theories. We should all logically, be strategizing on how to get our strongest evidence in front of the right people.

We are losing this fight because everyone wants to sit back and wait for someone else to do something while being able to speculate and back pat and one up, anonymously.

I mean really, what does one expect to accomplish posting pictures of missiles and asking for thoughts? I mean, have you ever seen anything that is 100% conclusive from anyone that would prove or at least suggest there was a missile used? Ever? Out of this post, was there anything that would help us obtain justice or truth about what happened?

I don't want to be an asshole but I am desperately trying get you people to think.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jun 1 2011, 11:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post May 31 2011, 07:12 PM
Post #15


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Exactly Slice, thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jun 1 2011, 06:42 AM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



gentleman, i am most certainly a fan of logic and a 'good' premise. if you start w/ a flawed premise, you can have the 'best' logic and ultimately fall on your face. sort of like, 'don't build your castle on quicksand'. good foundation sort of thing.

first off, i don't claim anything. i accept the fact that there was a north approach which obliterates the official story and proves, by itself, that the rest of the crime scene was staged. if your collective contention is that pre-planted explosives were used, well ok. it's a great theory. i await data. i will not throw away theories, until i have data disproving them. if as many of you assert, that the witnesses witnessed no missile, proves conclusively that no missile could possibly have been used, well that is where we disagree. hopefully amicably.

edit:

and like you said aldo, "We don't know anything except the plane flew on the north side of the gas station flight path."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 1 2011, 09:29 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



What would happen if a missile was fired from close range. For instance, from the 'generator' that happened to parked on angle pointing in exactly the right direct? Maybe that's why there were no eyewitnesses but it also eliminated the need to rig the building ahead of time with as many explosives as they would have needed otherwise.

I also think, that during the renovations that they precut the places where the collapsed section attached to the section to the left, making it easier to initiate the collapse and reduce the amount of explosives such a collapse would normally require.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jun 1 2011, 09:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 1 2011, 10:55 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 1 2011, 02:29 PM) *
What would happen if a missile was fired from close range. For instance, from the 'generator' that happened to parked on angle pointing in exactly the right direct? Maybe that's why there were no eyewitnesses but it also eliminated the need to rig the building ahead of time with as many explosives as they would have needed otherwise.

I also think, that during the renovations that they precut the places where the collapsed section attached to the section to the left, making it easier to initiate the collapse and reduce the amount of explosives such a collapse would normally require.


I personally believe that the generator had a major part to play in the damage caused to the facade and for spraying debris, possibly a modified mortar type device which would kill 3 or 4 birds with one stone. Superficial damage, debris, thick black smoke to cover the flyover, create another section of the "damage path". Pure speculation of course but I personally can't see a more discrete and downright perfect way to accomplish this op. 2 cents.

Problem is that I can't prove it in any way shape or form apart from pointing to the NOC flightpath so we know that the damage was caused by a violent, controlled event that had nothing to do with anything airborne. If I was a sadistic military mofo, the generator would be the perfect vehicle for a multitude of purposes.

I also believe that you're right in that the retaining wall along column 11 was cut/weakened for the collapse

@groundpounder

I think Aldo is pissed at (and quite rightly) that thread after thread, week after week, the missile theory is posted by someone or other and it's totally pointless. We can talk about it, but that's it. It has no legs. No witnesses to the event. It is a cul-de-sac and a perfect entry point for certain people who want to cloud the issue. (I'm in no way referring to anybody here - if I see a post by you or DYEW, they're usually my first stops)

I've posted just some of the reasons why I believe that a missile didn't cause the damage. Did you read it?

Peace

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jun 1 2011, 11:32 PM
Post #19


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Thank you once again, Slice. Dead on.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 2 2011, 12:06 AM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 1 2011, 09:55 PM) *
I personally believe that the generator had a major part to play in the damage caused to the facade and for spraying debris, possibly a modified mortar type device which would kill 3 or 4 birds with one stone. Superficial damage, debris, thick black smoke to cover the flyover, create another section of the "damage path". Pure speculation of course but I personally can't see a more discrete and downright perfect way to accomplish this op. 2 cents.

Problem is that I can't prove it in any way shape or form apart from pointing to the NOC flightpath so we know that the damage was caused by a violent, controlled event that had nothing to do with anything airborne. If I was a sadistic military mofo, the generator would be the perfect vehicle for a multitude of purposes.

I also believe that you're right in that the retaining wall along column 11 was cut/weakened for the collapse

@groundpounder

I think Aldo is pissed at (and quite rightly) that thread after thread, week after week, the missile theory is posted by someone or other and it's totally pointless. We can talk about it, but that's it. It has no legs. No witnesses to the event. It is a cul-de-sac and a perfect entry point for certain people who want to cloud the issue. (I'm in no way referring to anybody here - if I see a post by you or DYEW, they're usually my first stops)

I've posted just some of the reasons why I believe that a missile didn't cause the damage. Did you read it?

Peace

OSS


I too find it upsetting to see, time after time the missile or Global Hawk theory come back
to life, only to have to be slain once again.

Probably due to that "slip" by Rumsfeld where he says "missile" instead of aircraft.
If you thought that was an errant mistake, you now get to judge its effect, if you
aren't thinking "clever, clever" by now, then you just don't appreciate your opponent.

But hey, even if the world is wrong and you happen to be the only one right, you
can't go around screaming and yelling at the world "you're wrong and I'm right!"
laughing1.gif
All that will get you is crushed. The world does not change it's views overnight,
no matter how off based and/or impotent the are. So, it's best to take the long
view and find a way to use misinformation to your advantage. Most people
who even bother to start looking at 911, do so because they find something
either strange or wrong with what they've been told or have learned. That
means that, they've probably learned misinformation, because the media
did the informing of millions, if not billions, every day for a decade by now.

Try to look at the missile/global hawk theories as a carnival barkers spiel,
designed to get people into the tent! Rather than despair over them
discussing misinfo, provide them with other 911 shockers to examine.
Once they learn just how anomaly rich is this thing called 911, they'll
despair of ever proving a missile, most especially if they can't prove a
plane.

Oh, and the numbers of people disbelieving the official story are reaching
critical mass. Officials are beginning to worry about how to manage
the next wave of denials.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2019 - 11:38 PM