I have alarm bells going off there at the moment these were not posted on his own sub, but devils advocate as I have spent years on this, I think he could telling the truth. My opinion after having reviewed basically every first hand account there is online on the pentagon attack, there was no plane at all doing the damage. The place was rigged with explosives and a UAV was splashed against the side of the building. Damage pattern, reports of the smell of cordite, very specific offices and server infrastructure destroyed I could go on. I think it was easier to fly a UAV with a transponder for the commercial craft than to 100% fake all of it and use explosives to make sure the job is done.
I think you are pretty close, a combined explosives plus UAV. Some missiles if not all these days are UAVs.
It's even easier to splash that wall with a missile that carries a friendly military signal then one with a commercial transponder.
Something 100% hit the building, I dont think they could have placed that rubble there by any other means, also if all the debris from the plane was put there manually i.e. nothing hit the pentagon I dont think they would have used the wrong engines. All photos of the engine parts are all wrong for a commercial aircraft.
Rubble from the building? Explosives make rubble. Debris from the plane? Come on, one piece of metal with a red and a blue stripe on it and an object what looks like a very tiny engine. It could be an industrial blower for anyone to be the wiser. (As a side note, they used the wrong engine as prop at the WTC)
The explosives took care of the damage they wanted to inflict. That's it, end of story.
The other show elements are for distraction. It is irrelevant whether anything hit the building from the outside. If it did, it was missile. Definitely not an airliner.
But again it is irrelevant, whether they shot themselves with a missile or not in addition to planted explosives.
view the rest of the comments →
70times7 ago
He doesnt forget, but he does lie about a plane hitting the pentagon it seems.
LostandFound ago
I have alarm bells going off there at the moment these were not posted on his own sub, but devils advocate as I have spent years on this, I think he could telling the truth. My opinion after having reviewed basically every first hand account there is online on the pentagon attack, there was no plane at all doing the damage. The place was rigged with explosives and a UAV was splashed against the side of the building. Damage pattern, reports of the smell of cordite, very specific offices and server infrastructure destroyed I could go on. I think it was easier to fly a UAV with a transponder for the commercial craft than to 100% fake all of it and use explosives to make sure the job is done.
wooqy ago
I think you are pretty close, a combined explosives plus UAV. Some missiles if not all these days are UAVs.
It's even easier to splash that wall with a missile that carries a friendly military signal then one with a commercial transponder.
LostandFound ago
Something 100% hit the building, I dont think they could have placed that rubble there by any other means, also if all the debris from the plane was put there manually i.e. nothing hit the pentagon I dont think they would have used the wrong engines. All photos of the engine parts are all wrong for a commercial aircraft.
wooqy ago
Rubble from the building? Explosives make rubble. Debris from the plane? Come on, one piece of metal with a red and a blue stripe on it and an object what looks like a very tiny engine. It could be an industrial blower for anyone to be the wiser. (As a side note, they used the wrong engine as prop at the WTC)
The explosives took care of the damage they wanted to inflict. That's it, end of story.
The other show elements are for distraction. It is irrelevant whether anything hit the building from the outside. If it did, it was missile. Definitely not an airliner.
But again it is irrelevant, whether they shot themselves with a missile or not in addition to planted explosives.