SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

Mittelwaechter · 09-09-13, 04:35 AM

A better version of my comment above.

Did an airliner hit the Pentagon? No!
The airliner flew over the roof of the Pentagon.

If you haven't seen the CIT videoclip - do it now to understand the following explanation of the Pentagon Attack.
(http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ - National Security Alert, videoclip or at YT)

And visit http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/ - to experience the distraction, the mix of truth and lies, the discreditation of witnesses,
the overwhelming evidence to keep the real story covered.

Be critical and learn how the public is manipulated.

The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon - what happened and why.
(My answer to Ryan Mackey over at JREF forums)

Skilled pilots willing to commit suicide do not grow at every corner.
The approach exactly into the construction site at the Pentagon was quite difficult.
No way for an auto- or remote-pilot to perform the task, in opposite to the WTC.

The plane didn't hit the Pentagon, because it was not remote contolled or auto pilotet, but flown directly by some skilled pilot.

The aircraft left the planned flight path along the Navy Annex for some reason slightly to the north.
Still good enough to fly over the designated impact zone, but now passing CITGO at the north side.

The pilot wanted to survive, he couldn't fly too low, or he wouldn't made it over the top of the roof. Mr Turcios from CITGO correctly claims the jet was pivoting up.
But they had to proof he did fly low into the Pentagon.
So they cut the light poles to have hard evidence against all witnesses observing and claiming the jet to fly over the roof.
All experts would state it to be impossible, to hit the light poles and make it over the roof.

Mr England - the cab driver - stated "that's not where I was" several times, insisting on not standing on the bridge (when the explosion occurred).
(CIT - National Security Alert, videoclip ~1.04.00)
He seems to be part of the plot, but easily to be discredited.

Mr Lagrasse, Pentagon Police Officer, observing at CITGO - claimed to have seen the cab east of the bridge on the road. It was one of Arabesque's proof to doubt him and his claim of the northern flight path. Everybody 'knew' the cab was on the bridge.
(http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2009...-were-not.html)

The cab was there, waiting for the impact event. They wanted to imitate the cab was hit by a light pole, wich was kicked into the air by an airliner flying low. It is the strong evidence the airliner 'really' hit the light posts in the approach, as one of them obviously got kicked through the air. Any witnesses for an other flight path would have to face this. And it covers any problems with accidental witnesses of the cutting job. An already cut light pole could not have been kicked into the air by the approaching airliner.

But the actual airliner didn't follow the planned flight path and the prepared side plot "flying pole into cab" could have been a problem so close to the real flight path. Improvising, they ordered the cab and the "flying" light pole on the bridge and kept the side plot strictly along the southern CITGO route. They simply smashed the cab's windscreen, the hood stayed undamaged. This would explain Mr England's confusing statements.

A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by. Correct. Just right after the plane crossed the border of the roof to be safe.
The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual.
Confuse the witnesses with a second airplane around (the military prop plane) and they would have to claim three airplanes were actually at the Pentagon.
Two flying around and one crashed into the Pentagon. It would disqualify them to be reliable witnesses.

The explosion carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77.
This is easily to be observed, but people refuse to accept the obvious in this drama. The authorities claim the airliner fits into the damage. Period.
Some willing supporters provide graphics and animation to "explain" it. Hidden in plain sight.

One or two trucks loaded with some explosives (and maybe some airplane debris) parked at the impact zone to damage the veneer, causing the fireball and the small debris outside.
The inside of the Pentagon was fully under contol. Additional debris was available to be carried outside.
All Pentagon workers and the fire fighters had to leave the scene, due to a possible second incoming airliner. Time to fix what's necessary.

The hole outside fits to the hole at the inner ring - in direction of the planned flight path.
Two directly attached round explosives in the size of the fuselage and the nozzle, ignited well timed with the fireball cut the holes into the walls.
There was a problem with the resistance of the structure or the ignition of additional explosives. The outer wall was still standing and the engines and wings impact did not show on the veneer.
After 45 minutes the structure collapsed and buried all embarrassing evidence of missing damage.

All inside walls were prepared to fit the demand. It was a construction site. The documented furniture and undamaged computerscreen fit perfectly into the lack of an exploding airliner.
All internal damage was a matter of desire, all fire and smoke was orchestrated.

A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted, that allegedly conflicts with both the false story and the track of the actual aircraft.
It was fully under control of the persons resposible. It had to mirror the light pole approach south of CITGO and the prepared hole configuration.
Bad luck the airliner took the northern CITGO route, but it was compensated by authority and order.

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Sure. If you want to fly over the roof and some witness observes you climbing again, it would be hard to explain the just exploded silver painted version.

It's all about plausible 'evidence' and discreditation of unwanted witnesses.

Briefed 'witnesses' support the plot. Real witnesses claiming the truth have to face "the evidence" and are discredited if necessary or ordered to keep silence.
Many witnesses "believe" they have seen the official process and support it. The brain tricks us sometimes, but we are not aware of it.
Some are simply self-exposers, happy to get some air-time. And there are briefed witnesses to confuse the public, to distract and to cover the unpredicted.

"We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2007...we-act-we.html

09-09-13, 04:35 AM	#118
Mittelwaechter The Old Man Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,304 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	A better version of my comment above. Did an airliner hit the Pentagon? No! The airliner flew over the roof of the Pentagon. If you haven't seen the CIT videoclip - do it now to understand the following explanation of the Pentagon Attack. (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ - National Security Alert, videoclip or at YT) And visit http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/ - to experience the distraction, the mix of truth and lies, the discreditation of witnesses, the overwhelming evidence to keep the real story covered. Be critical and learn how the public is manipulated. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon - what happened and why. (My answer to Ryan Mackey over at JREF forums) Skilled pilots willing to commit suicide do not grow at every corner. The approach exactly into the construction site at the Pentagon was quite difficult. No way for an auto- or remote-pilot to perform the task, in opposite to the WTC. The plane didn't hit the Pentagon, because it was not remote contolled or auto pilotet, but flown directly by some skilled pilot. The aircraft left the planned flight path along the Navy Annex for some reason slightly to the north. Still good enough to fly over the designated impact zone, but now passing CITGO at the north side. The pilot wanted to survive, he couldn't fly too low, or he wouldn't made it over the top of the roof. Mr Turcios from CITGO correctly claims the jet was pivoting up. But they had to proof he did fly low into the Pentagon. So they cut the light poles to have hard evidence against all witnesses observing and claiming the jet to fly over the roof. All experts would state it to be impossible, to hit the light poles and make it over the roof. Mr England - the cab driver - stated "that's not where I was" several times, insisting on not standing on the bridge (when the explosion occurred). (CIT - National Security Alert, videoclip ~1.04.00) He seems to be part of the plot, but easily to be discredited. Mr Lagrasse, Pentagon Police Officer, observing at CITGO - claimed to have seen the cab east of the bridge on the road. It was one of Arabesque's proof to doubt him and his claim of the northern flight path. Everybody 'knew' the cab was on the bridge. (http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2009...-were-not.html) The cab was there, waiting for the impact event. They wanted to imitate the cab was hit by a light pole, wich was kicked into the air by an airliner flying low. It is the strong evidence the airliner 'really' hit the light posts in the approach, as one of them obviously got kicked through the air. Any witnesses for an other flight path would have to face this. And it covers any problems with accidental witnesses of the cutting job. An already cut light pole could not have been kicked into the air by the approaching airliner. But the actual airliner didn't follow the planned flight path and the prepared side plot "flying pole into cab" could have been a problem so close to the real flight path. Improvising, they ordered the cab and the "flying" light pole on the bridge and kept the side plot strictly along the southern CITGO route. They simply smashed the cab's windscreen, the hood stayed undamaged. This would explain Mr England's confusing statements. A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by. Correct. Just right after the plane crossed the border of the roof to be safe. The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual. Confuse the witnesses with a second airplane around (the military prop plane) and they would have to claim three airplanes were actually at the Pentagon. Two flying around and one crashed into the Pentagon. It would disqualify them to be reliable witnesses. The explosion carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77. This is easily to be observed, but people refuse to accept the obvious in this drama. The authorities claim the airliner fits into the damage. Period. Some willing supporters provide graphics and animation to "explain" it. Hidden in plain sight. One or two trucks loaded with some explosives (and maybe some airplane debris) parked at the impact zone to damage the veneer, causing the fireball and the small debris outside. The inside of the Pentagon was fully under contol. Additional debris was available to be carried outside. All Pentagon workers and the fire fighters had to leave the scene, due to a possible second incoming airliner. Time to fix what's necessary. The hole outside fits to the hole at the inner ring - in direction of the planned flight path. Two directly attached round explosives in the size of the fuselage and the nozzle, ignited well timed with the fireball cut the holes into the walls. There was a problem with the resistance of the structure or the ignition of additional explosives. The outer wall was still standing and the engines and wings impact did not show on the veneer. After 45 minutes the structure collapsed and buried all embarrassing evidence of missing damage. All inside walls were prepared to fit the demand. It was a construction site. The documented furniture and undamaged computerscreen fit perfectly into the lack of an exploding airliner. All internal damage was a matter of desire, all fire and smoke was orchestrated. A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted, that allegedly conflicts with both the false story and the track of the actual aircraft. It was fully under control of the persons resposible. It had to mirror the light pole approach south of CITGO and the prepared hole configuration. Bad luck the airliner took the northern CITGO route, but it was compensated by authority and order. The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner. Sure. If you want to fly over the roof and some witness observes you climbing again, it would be hard to explain the just exploded silver painted version. It's all about plausible 'evidence' and discreditation of unwanted witnesses. Briefed 'witnesses' support the plot. Real witnesses claiming the truth have to face "the evidence" and are discredited if necessary or ordered to keep silence. Many witnesses "believe" they have seen the official process and support it. The brain tricks us sometimes, but we are not aware of it. Some are simply self-exposers, happy to get some air-time. And there are briefed witnesses to confuse the public, to distract and to cover the unpredicted. "We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality." http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2007...we-act-we.html __________________ 10 happy wolves rear 90 blinded, ensnared sheep. 90 happy sheep banish the wolves. Arrest the 1% - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6hg1oNeGE Last edited by Mittelwaechter; 09-09-13 at 05:12 AM.