TYB
>>19918129 last bread
o7
Thank you for your service.
If one paid attention to early reporting then it was clear there was more going on. Talk of suspects even being intercepted at Amtrak stations. Anon remembers well early AM news radio reporting, morning of, that an F-16 shot down Flight 93. The station never corrected the report. They just later reported the whole Todd Beamer "Let's Roll" narrative.
Anon believes what you say. Or more precisely. Anon believes that you believe what you say. And it might be the truth. Anon does not know. Anon however believes that we have been lied to about a great many things concerning that day. Anon remembers Rumsfeld announcing to the world the "Pentagon Office of Disinformation". Never heard another thing about it. Never heard of it being shut down or anything else. Have analyzed and agonized for more than two decades. Why? Well because the story, and the way it was presented (both the visuals in the media and the way it was told) just didn't quite add up. Think Hijacker mugshot lineup aired over the TV networks (for example). Remember, anon had already been through reporting on TWA 800. So suspicion about what what was being said came as second nature by that point. So what was the truth? Running mental simulation, or thought experiments, over and over, and over again. Changing variables, looking at the plausibility of each. Then leaving NYC completely out of the analysis. And focusing only on what happened at the Pentagon and in that field near Shanksville. Anon figured if could not solve the problem because it was too big and complex then break it into two pieces and work on them seperately. Anon chose first to work on DC because it is the seat of power of the USA, had the most proveable discrepencies, and failures on both sides (attackers and targets). Also because popular thinking on NYC had become such a convoluted mess. What with seemingly a thousand different scenarios being tossed around. Everything from nukes in the basement to directed energy weapons to the wrong type of jet engine found in the street to no planes at all. It was just a mess to look at all the different theories and try to form a cohesive model that worked in my mind. Those waters were quite muddied. Perhaps this was by design. So I chose to focus only on DC for the time being. And that is where my models started to make some sense. Let me explain.
So what do we know about the attack(s) on DC? For starters, unlike NYC, we have no images of any airplanes flying into any buildings at all. Supposedly they exist, but the FBI says we can't see them. What images we have been allowed to see show something flying into the Pentagon and exploding. But certainly not an American Airlines 757 (Flight 77). And the damage to the building. Once again. Not a 757. Then there is the part about just how impossible the descending corkscrew turn by the 757 prior to impact would have been for even the most skilled 757 pilot to pull off (Why does the military do a tactical descent like this anyway? One reason is to be seen by as few eyes as possible in the area. Think about that one.). So a 757 is out of the question altogether at this point. There are just too many no's and zero yes's. It had to be a missile. Once that idea was firmly placed in my mind then I was free to think about other aspects of the DC attack(s). The failed attack. Flight 93. Of course there is the official story of the passengers somehow getting word that they were aboard a weapon of war that would soon impact it's taget and then making it impossible for the Hijackers of that particular 757 to do anything other than crash in a field outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Makes for a heroic story to buoy the American citizenry's spirits, doesn't it? But in light of the obvious lies surrounding Flight 77 it seems rather fantastical in retrospect. (continued in reply) 1/2
>>19918129 last bread
o7
Thank you for your service.
(continued from)
What do we know about United Flight 93? Not much actually. We have images of a hole in the ground and no airplane seen. Like the Pentagon, impact damage doesn't match the damage footprint that a 757 would put down where it hit. Regardless of the angle of the impact. The story is they were identical aircraft. And on that point anon has no cause to differ. So anon has decided, for purposes of modeling what happened, that they both were missiles. A failed attack. Well the hit on the Pentagon seemed to come in pretty low and level from what we have been allowed to see. What missile flies low and level? A cruise missile comes to mind. So two cruise missiles then. Why Shanksville? Well, what do we know about cruise missiles in 2001? They can be pre-programmed to fly a route to their target while staying at low altitude and presumably get there undetected by enemy radar defense systems. Also possibly could be flown by remote control from the launch point. What was maximum range of other than US cruise missiles in 2001? After looking at various models and ranges anon settled on 400 miles for purposes of the theory. Obviously the second failed to hit it's target. Why? Perhaps it malfunctioned? Perhaps it had help malfunctioning in the form of suddenly activated US radio jammers immediately after the Pentagon was hit? If a cruise missile, or it's targeting system, suddenly was jammed and/or malfunctioned what would happen? Would it just spontaneously self destruct? Or would it possibly go to some default mode to maintain straight and level flight in case the jamming stopped and/or the malfunction suddenly cleared? Designed this way so as to have the best chance of resuming the mission? What if it just continued to fly straight and level? What might it's ultimate fate be? Shot down? If not shot down then certainly it would run out of fuel. Now draw a straight line that is 400 miles long. It starts in that field outside Shanksville and extends almost directly southeast. It passes through Washington, DC. And it terminates well out into the Atlantic ocean. The best and most plausible model, based on what anon can actually believe, is that what happened in DC and Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001 was that the USA was attacked by a pair of submarine launched cruise missiles.
This leaves the question of what flag that submarine was flying. If you look at geo-political happenings in the months and years leading up to the attacks then you have a list of suspects. Any good detective will tell you that your crime investigation must always look at motive. This attack was no small thing. So the motive is likely of a similar magnitude. What happened leading up to the attacks? Did Bin Laden have a fleet, or even one, submarine? No. Rule out Bin Laden then. Is revenge a motive? You bet it is. If not Bin Laden then who? Who had their embassy in Belgrade attacked by the very same weapon, although later reporting was the US used smart bombs? Who also hit a US Navy aircraft with one of their jet fighters and forced it to land, taking the crew prisoner, in the spring of 2001? That's right anons. The very same country whose leader was invited to dinner by Trump for a personal demonstration of what a truly coordinated succsessful cruise missile attack looks like. And the very same country that Trump later hit with huge tariffs. The very same country who later freaked out when they fully realized that Russia was in on the demonstration and decided to perform a biological attack against the entire planet.
With this model the very quick invasion of Afghanistan and the relatively close proximity of Bagram Air Base to China's nuclear weapons facility makes sense. As does Trump's desire to keep Bagram. And Biden's willingness to let it go.
This is my thinking on the subject because it is not overly fantastical and seems most grounded in reality to me. If you have something to say about it then anon would like to hear it. (end) 2/2