WanderingWizard

Just look at this and tell me it isn't a nuclear explosion. [Just blocked literally 100 Saudi Arabian fagg*ts over this tweet. I can't wait to watch your country become uninhabitable, ArabSwine.]

Anyone who tries to get in the way of a virgin man and a virgin woman wanting to marry, at an age that has been acceptable since the dawn of time, should be executed publicly. They should be burnt alive, and their screams should be broadcast worldwide so that the normies associate it with incorrect and unacceptable behaviour.

Normies are literally satanic. They need to go, all of them, no exception. And they will in due time, such is the nature of the 1/f distribution.

To recap the missiles that can be considered reasonable suspects, given the energy requirement and the export status are: - The Kh-22M air-launched missile. - The P-270 ship-launched missile. - The P-35 ship-launched missile. There is also one more candidate, due to an important incident that will be stated later: - The P-700 submarine-launched missile, aka wet launched. These have the energy to penetrate the outer and inner Pentagon walls along the first floor E-C rings. But can we eliminate some candidates using one more clue? Some staff at the Pentagon were unfortunately murdered in this incident. A total of 55 active military personnel across the army, navy and marines. We can thus deduce that they at least were not in on this operation. It is inconceivable that the majority would have been in on it at all, in fact to be an insider you would have to be outside the Pentagon on that day. Why is this important? It means the launch had to be undetectable until the missile was in the air. Between the coast guard, the air force and NORAD, the US was able to detect and track threats to its homeland early and despite the end of the cold war, the US was still on alert as it was engaged in multiple wars at the time. From these missiles there are only three realistic scenarios. Let's begin by eliminating the most obvious impossibility: 1. An air launched missile, from the ground or air. Let's say the Kh-22M was smuggled from Ukraine into the United States. You cannot exactly wheel it around the US undetected. Even if you somehow evade all of the interior security, you still have to smuggle this missile into the country. People will ask questions and the mission will inevitably fail. So a ground launch can be eliminated as an option. Is an air launch, as designed, realistic then? No because we can actually count which planes can carry out such an Kh-22M attack: The Tu-95, the Tu-22[M/M2/M3], B-1B lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 bomber. And here I'm being generous and assuming the American planes are going to be heavily modified to carry and launch such an incompatible missile. Not even the F-15 can launch the Kh-22M, because its span is half its length. Such a mission will be detected early or will involve insiders. It will also involve smuggling such jets, the only realistic one being one of the Tu-22 variants operated by Ukraine. Thus, an air launch can be eliminated as an option. We can thus conclude the Kh-22M was not used on 9/11. 2. A ship launch. This is arguably even worse than an air launch. All of these missiles are large and easily detected. You have to prepare them on the surface of a ship, and do so near the US coastline. You cannot launch these from shipping containers, and none of them are vertical launch missiles. They need to be raised, inclined and then launched from a large ship. It will be detected and this mission will fail. Thus, a ship launch be eliminated as an option. That leaves us with only one option. 3. A submerged launch, or as it is named, a wet launch. In this scenario, a very slow moving specialised container vessel carries the missile to its launch site, well below the surface. It can be brought near the location by a merchant submarine. The missile can then be launched without being detected and even the booster stage will be completed during the duration that it is submerged. By the time it's in the air it will be at cruise speed. Of all the scenarios, the submerged option is the most stealthy and flexible. One the missile is in position, it can remain on the sea floor without anyone knowing. This is the principle that the Russian Poseidon operates on. That gives the suspects as much time as is necessary to place the missiles on the sea floor along the US coastline as necessary. The only difficulty is the bespoke positioning and launch platform itself, but this can be engineered many years (or decades) ahead of this operation and is actually something any small nation can pull off if given the time and motivation. We can thus conclude that a submerged (or "wet") launch is the only realistic scenario. And only one missile we have not eliminated is capable of it. The P-700 Granit. In fact, the P-700 must always be wet launched, even on surface ships using a flood tube. It was designed for a wet launched, and was a Soviet Union sneak attack weapon. It used reinforced armor so that even air defenses cannot stop it. It even employed a multi-missile swarm network, allowing it to coordinate without human intervention once a mission has programmed on all missiles in use. Thus, even under the two wall scenario, we arrive at precisely one murder weapon: the P-700 Granit. Well, there's one problem though: How did the suspects obtain this weapon? It was never exported outside of Russia or the Soviet Union. It was never in the hands of Ukraine. I did promise I will explain this... To get our answer, we have to go back just over a year before September 11 happened. Specifically, August 12, 2000. /6

Pentagon Addendum: The two wall scenario. The official report claims the object that struck the pentagon breached only the first floor (which itself is kind of unbelievable given the alleged 757 was 3 floors high, lol) but let's go with it as the satellite image only shows one blackened wall past the facade. Does it change our conclusion? Not really. If we include just the limestone wall, ignore the alleged much larger entry hole (retaining the exit area as before), and ignore all the damage columns and office material (and tragically, people) along the way, we can arrive at a similar result. Over 98 meters, the drag will reduce the kinetic energy to 0.993 of its original value. We will only have 2 walls, the limestone+unreinforced brick front wall and the filler back wall. That gives us a required energy of: Wentry = 81.35 MJ Wexit = 39.49 MJ But we need 1/0.993 of the exit energy, giving us a total of: ~121-121.5 MJ, let's take it down the middle. The P-700 Granit is now joined by other candidates... but every single one is a Russian (or Soviet) anti-ship missile: P-35 / 3M44 Progress P-120 Malakhit / 4K85 P-270 Moskit / 3M80+3M82 P-500 Bazalt / 4K80 P-700 Granit / 3M45 P-1000 Vulkan / 3M70 Kh-22M (Air launched) This is no coincidence. The Russians could not compete with the US surface navy directly, so they had to ensure their cruise missiles could penetrate the thick hull of the American ships. To achieve this, these missiles were all armoured, akin to a "flying tank", to the degree that anti-air missiles bounced off some of these missiles, reportedly the P-35 and P-700. But not all the armour was the same, for example, the P-1000 achieved its longer range through the use of titanium armour -- rather than the incredibly strong steel alloy featured on the P-700. What it was composed of is a secret, but we know the P-270 was composed of high-strength corrosion-resistant VKL-3 as well as stainless steel for the fuel tank. Similarly, the P-120 used a combination of steel and titanium. These missiles had one other thing in common: Every single one was nuclear capable, in particular the P-700 was only available in a nuclear or a "practice" round variant. We're kind of taken back a step with this though, because there are more than one option. Nevertheless, this still gives us a lead, as the missile could only come from one source: Russia. Can we narrow it down? We can approach this problem in two ways: 1. Painfully go through the official scenario and calculate the energy that would have been transferred into the columns and material, ending up with a higher threshold prior to further elimination. 2. Push through one more constraint: there must be a plausible means by which a third party can come into possession of such a missile. 3. The final constraint: launch method must be realistic for the 9/11 scenario We will avoid the problem of (1), address (2) and resolve the question using a combination of (2)+(3). None of these missiles were the type of thing you'd smuggle with ease, let alone acquire with ease. These were the top tier weapons of the Soviet Union designed for fighting nuclear wars, not firing at random targets except during training exercises. These missiles were stocked inside naval bases (air bases in the case of the Kh-22M) or loaded on naval ships and submarines. They weren't transported around or traded with other nations. That said, the Soviet Union's collapse brought about a curious situation: * The Ukraine inherited 423 Kh-22Ms that could be fired from Tu-22s. They sold the bulk of these back to Russia and the US monitored their destruction from 2002 onwards. But there was indeed a window in which they could be smuggled. * The P-270 was sold to China, just before 9/11, as part of a deal to transfer the Sovremenny-class destroyers. * The non-nuclear version of the P-35 was operated by the Syrian navy, Vietnamese navy, Ukrainian navy and Bulgaria navy. To remain unbiased in this investigation, we cannot eliminate any of these as potential transferred weapons. We need another clue to narrow down this list. /Cont. [1] Онлайн книга «"Непотопляемый авианосец" Крым. 1945-2014»

The Power of the Word /📄 Never sell your words, for you sell yourself and the motivation to utter them. If your words are worth nothing, then one may* say that the consciousness that uttered those words is also worthless. Nevertheless... never make a promise you cannot or do not intend to keep. Or it may appear that you are as worthless as those words. Further to this, you must be careful of those who intend to destroy you by forcing you to make a promise that can never be fulfilled.** How powerful is a word? In the plane you are familiar with, a word is a thought, transmitted impurely in written form, or more precisely in a spoken form, in every case carried by a medium. In a plane less familiar to most, a word can take forms as something far more powerful. The world that you know was created through a Word***. These planes can be crossed, and you don't need to imagine or know something more occult to understand how. I can describe it exactly for you even if it may appear infuriatingly obvious at first glance. A thought turns into a command, issued by voice. A button is pressed, and a compressive wave, is turned into an extreme large amount of light in a short burst of time. A small thought changes the world in an instant. But is there no equivalence mapping between thought, sound and light? Or the very "matter" an impatient person could be obsessed with for that case? A thought, can turn into a word, cursing one's luck, or putting another person down. It turns into another thought after another, and percolates through the matter of a person until. Like poison, it can misshape them, or like an elixir it might straighten them out. Putting someone down must be a measured choice, especially if your words hold weight. It can completely stunt someone who might be important to you in the future. Or inflate someone who is worthless, who will ultimately betray you. One of the most powerful things you can do is create a word especially if it generates the correct thoughts in all who hear it. Our enemies created the word "racist" and it's meant to be a word that makes us disappear. It resonates like a spell of jealousy inside all the subh*mans who hate us. We must create words for them too, we are already in the process of doing so. Ultimately, Yahweh will be killed by a single word that cracks him in a final act of dissonance. What that word will be, is ultimately be up to one of you****. Thank you for reading all my words for the years that have passed, you have no idea how much I appreciate it -- and you. /End * [This is not entirely true, of course, as thoughts are deeper than words, but they are ultimately composed of words yet to become.] ** [This is how the father of all lies and the first murderer, Yahweh, fooled his prey. See Matthew 5:33-37.] *** [See Genesis 1, John 1.] **** [Or perhaps me, if I'm lucky to see my dream to its end.]

Throughout history, women (the equivalent of vestigial virgins) would hand great men and champions hand picked flowers. In our inverted satanic world, the roles are inverted in order to dissolve man and woman. The same satanic subh*mans behind feminism were also behind this.

Almost all lies, let me address each and every one of them. 1. "No woman loves you for who you are, she only loves for what you can do for her" This is your experience with women who by your own definition do not love you. The women who love you are the type that would give you their umbrella in the rain. You probably never experienced this because you aren't a man who is worthy of any love or admiration. 2. "Nobody is coming to save you" Your parents have, God has many times, and here I am on his behalf trying to save your soul too, but you closed your heart a long time ago. After all, the person who will truly save you and the man you've been seeking your entire life is your future self. I hope you find him. 3. "Discipline beats motivation" This is how you become a slave. Without real motivation, discipline robs you of your agency. What you want is both. 4. "Money solves many problems" Money creates more problems than it solves and is the root of all evil. 5. "Silence is better than arguing" Arguing is fun, especially if it's with idiots who lose their sh*t immediately, and people who don't like fun are spiritually dead. 6. "Nobody cares until you are rich or dead." It's important to hide the fact that you're rich or the people who care will not be people you should ever care about. 7. "Respect is earned, not begged for" Respect is meant to be automatic in a functioning society, especially if it's someone you don't even know. Respect is lost, not earnt. This is an important distinction and I don't expect this writer to get it but my oomfies should. 8. "No woman is ever yours" Whoever says this is attracted to wh0res. 9. "You can do everything right and still lose." Because you're playing the wrong game, within the devil's rainbow. 10. "Your colleagues are not your friends" Your best friend is a colleague because business is war, and war comrades are irreplaceable. Those tested by the fires of war, who stand by your side even when the stakes are their own future, are irreplaceable. People you grow up with who you had fun with will likely flake on you in the things that matter the most because they've never had to go through such a trial. 11. "Your father is the only man who wants you to be better than him" Hahaha, this one is the worst one. It's the dream of every teacher to see their student overcome and surpass them. I'm no exception. I wouldn't be doing any of this if I didn't have complete and total faith in my oomfies.

We are now forced to conclude only one single missile had the energy to penetrate 6 walls of the Pentagon. The P700 Granit from the Soviet Union (now Russia 🇷🇺). It's not even close, and the margin for different penetration profiles/interior walls and so on becomes irrelevant. In fact, there's another factor here: No other missile of this class of kinetic energy could have survived the impact. The P700 Granit was steel reinforced. It was designed to penetrate the multiple walls of a US aircraft carrier. For that purpose, the Granit did not carry a conventional load. Before and during September 2001, the P700 Granit carried only one payload: ☢️ A 500 kiloton thermonuclear warhead. And on 9:37:46, September 11th 2001, it delivered that nuclear warhead directly into the heart of the Pentagon in the capital of the United States. It did not detonate. There's no denying the derivation. What is shocking is: - Who launched missile? - When are where did they launch it from? - What was the purpose and meaning behind this "message"? - What happened before and after this event? - Whose involvement can we infer? This is the key to unlocking the entire 9/11 nuclear terrorist attack and coup on the United States. /5

Here is every cruise missile up to September 2001, which had not been decommissioned, along with the resultant kinetic energy. This is as thorough as we can possibly be, and if the kinetic energy is less than 279 MJ, we can eliminate it as a candidate. Next up we will chart this result. Cont.

Identifying The Missile That Struck the Pentagon The missile struck the pentagon at a 70 degree angle, penetrated 6 walls. These walls were separated by 50 feet (~15.24 meters) inside the partitions, with a 30 feet gap (9.1 meters) in between. Eliminating Drag The first question is the drag coefficient. Near mach 1, we can set the drag coefficient to 0.5, but this drops as the missile loses speed. It's a nonlinear term so we would have to calculate this loss after each wall impact. This can be done, but it would take up the majority of this post, so instead, let's justify eliminating the drag. Let's say that the missile continued to travel at maximum speed, near Mach 1, say 0.99 Mach = 338.6 m/s. Then we can calculate the entire exponential decay for the full 68 meter span. Of all the cruise missiles in the world, the Kh-22 is the one with the largest diameter at 92cm. If we assume mass-diameter-length scaling, this would have a weight around 6 tons. We can calculate the worst case exponent factor k and thus the decay like so: rho = air density = 1.225 kg/m Cd = 0.5 mass = 6 ton * 0.8 (fuel loss) = 4800 kg missile profile (area) = pi * diameter ^ 2 / 4 = 0.665 m^2 k = rho* Cd * A / m = 8.48*10^-5 m^-1 The exponential decay of kinetic energy across 68 meters would be: k * x = .00577 => e^-.00577 = 0.9942 This is a 0.58% reduction in Kinetic energy. Given the approximations we've made, the most significant being the wall penetrated and the elimination of interior objects including inner walls and office objects, it's safe to drop this correction unless there is a marginal candidate we have to tie break on. Total Penetration Energy The nice thing about eliminating drag is we reduce the problem to simply a question of maximum initial kinetic energy involving mass and speed. We simply have to add up the contributions of (at 70 degrees): 5 brick walls, 20MPa resistance, 0.266m thickness 1 in-fill brick wall, 6 MPa resistance, 0.213m thickness 1 limestone wall, 70 MPa resistance, 0.138m thickness We can sum this up to create an effective total kinetic resistance in terms of energy for the Pentagon up to the sixth wall: Area of hole * (5 * 20 MPa * 0.266m + 6 MPa * 0.213m + 70 MPa * 0.138) = 37.6 * Area MegaJoules/m^2 Now our main approximation is the area of the hole, let's assume it's the same as the final hole: 3.5 meters wide by 2.7 meters high. That gives us: Area (elliptical) = pi * 3.5 * 2.7 / 4 = 7.42 m^2 HENCE, the total energy required to get to this point: E_Pentagon = 37.6 * 7.42 = 279 MegaJoules That's a huge amount of kinetic energy. To put it into perspective, a 9mm bullet from a handgun has muzzle energy of around 500 joules. Whatever struck the pentagon had to have half a million times the energy. We can now work backwards, and we have a line that the missile must cross to get this far: 279 MegaJoules = (1/2) Mass of missile * (1 - f) * Speed of missile^2 Where f is the mass/fuel ratio. If we chart the speed in terms of its velocity square and scale by mach number in the y-axis, and the mass in x-axis, we can graphically plot and eliminate the candidates by putting all known non-decommissioned missiles up to September 2001 on one graph. Cont.

Forensic Investigation of the Terror Attack on the Pentagon ================ What struck the Pentagon? A cruise missile. That's not enough of a detail for us. We want to find out who was also behind this attack and the murder weapon class is insufficient. We need to find the specific murder weapon itself. In this investigation, we have to put ourselves in September 2001. The idea of a bespoke cruise missile is impossible as these programs cost a lot of money, so we will only consider the non-decommissioned and available cruise missiles of the time. Once we narrow down which missiles are involved, we have to find a plausible means by which it came in the hands of a non-state actor, as we will still investigate the strike on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack with only an extremely limited number of insiders who cannot issue an order to launch and target the Pentagon itself. Why? Because it's the Pentagon. There is no way you can convince the Pentagon to attack itself no matter how Judeosatanic some of the staff are. The majority at the time were ordinary patriotic Americans who love their country and comrades. It's entirely implausible that they would sit idly while they came in harms way. Even today, as an extremely pro-Israel president like Trump controls the Pentagon, staff regularly resign and leak out his insane plans against Iran because they don't want to see their country hurt. This restriction might disturb some people, but I have to pursue the truth and that means eliminating this impossibility to me. With all of that said, you will be surprised that we can include any missile available by 2001 and not decommissioned, from any side. Let's do this: We will list all of the cruise missiles from any side as a potential murder weapon, as long as it wasn't decommissioned before September 2001, and as long as it was available by that month. With this in place, to find the murder weapon, we use our most powerful investigatory tool: Physics and the conservation of energy. Kinetic Energy Requirement The missile had to penetrate 6 walls and travel 68 meters after colliding with the first wall without any fuel. Why? Because the fuel visibly exploded upon impact, and we can presume that mass was lost too, further reducing the available kinetic energy. Less kinetic energy? Less travel. Less penetration. It's like a counter and it goes down with each wall and meter travelled after the initial collision, until it hits zero and the missile finds its final resting place. Another important but somewhat obvious observation: The cruise missile that struck the Pentagon could not pass Mach 1. Why? Because no sonic boom shockwave of any kind was observed in either NYC or Washington DC around the Pentagon. This restricts the Kinetic energy available too. A final thing that restricts the kinetic energy available is the mass. The equation for kinetic energy is: K = 0.5 * Effective Mass * Velocity^2 This is easy to understand: a bullet could kill you because of its velocity, but a cannon ball landing on you even at a low velocity can also kill you because of its mass. The highest penetration happens when you have both mass and velocity. Now keep in mind I say effective mass because we have to reduce it by eliminating the fuel lost on initial impact. You wouldn't include the entire mass of a round when calculating a bullet's impact velocity after all would you? Do we have to consider hardness as well? Yes, obviously, the missile will otherwise crumble just like the jet before. Yet, considering only kinetic energy will eliminate many many candidates. So now that we have the initial energy, we have just two mechanisms of energy loss: Drag (which is a minor component) and penetration loss. Let's start with the latter. Energy of Penetration How much energy is lost through impact with a wall? This seems like its very difficult to model, but it isn't. We have an effective approximation: the effective resistance of the material, measured in units of pressure. For a reinforced brick wall, a realistic value is 21-23 MPa. A filler wall, very weak at 4-8 MPa. Limestone? As it is stone, quite strong at 60-80 MPa! Work = Force * distance Force = Pressure * Area Thus: Energy lost from penetration = Effective Resistance * Area Impacted * Thickness penetrated That's it. We can assume the area resisting the missile strike is exactly the compressive area that crumbled together. To make our life simpler, we can assume that the final wall's area that collapsed is the area throughout. An elliptical area of 3.5m x 2.7m. An exact measurement of the exterior hole is impossible as the site was destroyed on 9/11. So this is a reasonable approximation. Drag A paper airplane doesn't keep flying forever, eventually the air drags along it and loses energy. Missiles are obviously no different. How do we model drag? Well, it's a force that's proportional to velocity squared for a high speed missile as a first order model: F_drag = - b v^2 Where b is a constant of the cross-sectional area of an object. This is equal to: b = density of air * drag coefficient * frontal area of the missile / 2 Now force is mass times acceleration (F=ma, thanks to Newton/Hooke). Acceleration is the derivative of velocity. Using the chain rule (calculation removed to make the point faster) we can model drag as an exponential decay of kinetic energy by distance: E_after = E_before e ^ (- 2 b x / m) Where x is the distance travelled. We may as well also define the exponent as k = 2 b / m to make our life easier. ============== Sequence of Flight This is going to be a relatively painful but completely tractable calculation. We have to do the following: * Compute the initial energy lost to impact + fuel loss. * Compute the drag loss as it crosses ring E. * Compute the penetration energy loss as it exit ring E. ...[repeat for D, then C entry] * Compute the penetration energy as it exits the ring C wall. We have the following variables for each candidate cruise missile: * Its cross-sectional area, basically the missile diameter. * The mass of the missile * The hardness of the material its exterior is made of. * The maximum velocity of the missile, but we will not calculate any velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, i.e. Mach 1. The reward for this long calculation? For the first time in history, we will be able to eliminate any missile candidate that could not have struck the Pentagon. So strap in, or, if you're impatient, start plugging this all into an advanced LLM while I write up the next part! /4

For the first time, we can clearly see what looks like a cruise missile. In fact, I am SHOCKED that this video ever saw the light of day. Unlike the plane, a cruise missile is completely consistent with almost all the facts we have observed. The low altitude flight? Check. This is a highly aerodynamic jet engine designed to cruise at this altitude after all. The single hole bored through? Check. So yes, it was indeed a missile. What we must determine next is what kind of missile it was. I always thought it must have been some kind of western or NATO missile. But, to my shock, narrowing down what type of missile this was, and keeping it consistent with all the facts above as well as plausible availability resulted in exactly ONE type of cruise missile. And the key to eliminating all but that missile is the penetration depth we calculated previously. /3

Next up, let's examine the footage of the object that struck the Pentagon to determine what it was, and its heading. Only two videos exist that show the object, and both of them run at very slow frame rates. But, amazingly, the object IS visible and looks nothing like a plane. The first video shows the object entering at 5 seconds, and captured in an elongated fashion due to its motion at 6 seconds. Clearly a long thin tube, highly reflective and flying just meters above the ground. Pause and see for yourself, but there will be screenshots to follow. The next time the object appears is at 1 minute 33 seconds. You can see just the head of an object but it is similarly flying just meters off the ground. Its long thin nose eliminates any kind of airliner. Cont.

Addendum: "But Koro!" you might ask "What if it was the nose cone? It was going really fast!" Well, let's examine this final complaint, because it will prove to be important for the rest of our investigation. It doesn't matter what the speed of an object is, only relative speed matters. Physics is the same no matter what frame of reference you chose, so a plane hitting the Pentagon at 600mph is the same as the Pentagon travelling at 600mph hitting the plane. Just like a tin can travelling at supersonic speeds against a steel sword. What determines what gets destroyed? Hardness. The truth is, aerospace aluminium has a Mohs hardness of 2.75-3. Limestone is between 3-4. A brick wall? 5-7. Basically, the plane is going to be disintegrated from the mason stonework. To not only knock down but also penetrate the walls you need something with hardness 7-8. Not convinced? Then use your eyes, here's what it looks like when a Phantom F-4 meets a concrete wall. No plane hit the Pentagon or it would have been laying in pieces in its front yard along with everyone and their luggage. /2

The most obvious clue to look into is the lack of an initial wall collapse, a single 2 meter hole, seemingly centred on the point of impact. Let's suspend our disbelief for a moment and claim that an airplane struck the Pentagon. In that case, what part of the plane is most likely to impact and pierce through six walls and 1680mm of bricks? The engines of course! And if we believe this object was AA Flight 77, then it had twin Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B engines, with casing dimensions 2.28 meters wide. These are separated by 13 meters. These engines are not made of steel, but are made of titanium, aluminium and other light weight Kevlar aramid fibre wrapped around the casing. The rest of the plane is made of lightweight and thin aluminium alloys and would crumble like a tin can even on the relatively weak Pentagon walls. Of course, it would be impossible for the plane to reach any kind of appreciable speed while basically skidding across the ground and that's usually when they would crash into the ground. But there's a bigger problem here. If the object truly was the plane, then why was there only one centred impact, rather than two holes, 13 meters apart (~13.8m compensating for angle). Yet there is only ONE hole, centred on the approach. It is beyond impossible that this was a plane. Furthermore, an impact causing a penetration through a wall as the engine is slowing down would cause a damage profile significantly larger than the object size that struck it. Just hit a wall with a sledgehammer and see the impact left behind, it's usually twice the size of the head. Thus we would expect roughly two ~4.5 meter hole inside the Pentagon walls, but we instead observe a single hole 3.5 meters wide* and 2.7 meters high. Are we supposed to believe the airplane turned into an accordion and crammed its two engines together to fit snuggly through the Pentagon while leaving no impression of itself on its outer walls? Reducto ad absurdum. This ridiculous idea, already aerodynamically impossible has died even with that granted. Therefore, just like the two world trade centres: No plane struck the Pentagon either!!!! [* To correct the previous post, with the official figures anyway.]

The ☢️ Missile Strike at the Pentagon on 9/11 /🧵 What really struck the WTC on 9/11? We've already eliminated airplanes as an option, which is a shock to anyone who lived through that day. We now have video evidence of not inserted planes in all footage of 9/11, but also the removal of another object. What the hell was that that "ball" like object? Could it also be a composite? A deeper fake, so to speak? Is there any clue that could possible eliminate all other options? It's a ridiculous thought but, given what we experienced, we shouldn't make any assumptions and only work with what is real, provable and observable. The real challenge of answering such a question is that the two world trade centres turned to dust, destroying the scene of the crime and most of the evidence with it. But we aren't out of luck, as another building was struck on 9/11: The Pentagon. Though there was obviously no wreckage of an aircraft on the scene, there is enough evidence in the Pentagon for us to determine not only what couldn't have struck it, but the only object in the world that could have struck it and left the damage that it did. Unlike the strikes on the WTC, there was no televised composite film of a plane striking the pentagon, simply because the scenario required was physically impossible. The plane supposedly banked to achieve cruise speed at ground level and struck the Pentagon parallel to the ground. There is a very slow and low quality surveillance video that depicts this strike (which we will examine shortly). Yet, just from the satellite photos of the Pentagon, we can determine the actual damage. So, let's examine three pieces of evidence based on things that are already established and known! With these pieces of evidence we will determine what struck the Pentagon and how it's related to whatever struck the WTCs and the larger plot around 9/11! A. Penetration Depth ================ Let's do some math based on established observations. This is going to be necessary to other objects out, though it will be overkill for a plane. The object that struck the Pentagon struck three of its five rings: The E-Ring, the D-Ring and finally C-Ring when it stopped. The exterior wall of the pentagon consisted of ~13 centimetres of limestone and ~20 cm of bricks. Inside the Pentagon, each wall consisted of 25 cm of brick. The distance travelled to the end of ring C is 64 meters total. Given the 6 walls penetrated, at the perpendicular, that is a total of: * 64 meters travelled after impact. * 130mm of limestone * 1580mm of bricks * Six impact impulses Even though the individual walls are not very thick or strong, that's a huge amount of material to eat through and that's at 90 degrees. And a very long distance from the first site of impact. If you measure the two visible impact zones, you will see that the object struck the Pentagon at an angle of 70 degrees to the plane. That means we have to divide the above by sin 70deg: - 68 meters travelled - 138mm of limestone - 1680mm of bricks The object was clearly on its way to the courtyard centre of the Pentagon and whoever planned this trajectory was attempting to penetrate the building as deeply as possible without targeting anything specific within it. Incidentally, the courtyard centre of the Pentagon was (and still is) called ground zero, a name it earnt during the Cold War under the assumption that the USSR would strike exactly that location during mutually assured destruction. There is even a hotdog stand in the middle of the Pentagon affectionately called cafe ground zero for this reason. B. Pattern of Destruction ================ Despite being struck with this object, the Pentagon outer wall did not immediately collapse. In fact, close ups show very localised destructions, albeit very strong fires. 20 minutes later, the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed. Another important observation was impact shape it left: it was that of a single hole that destroyed a brick pattern around ~2 meters wide. This was evidence even in the C-ring. Keep this important observation in mind. C. The Timeline ================ Let's place the attack on the Pentagon with all the events surrounding it: 8:46:30 AM - WTC North Tower is struck. 9:03:00 AM - WTC South Tower is struck. 9:37:46 AM - Pentagon is struck. 9:55:?? AM - First responders told to evacuate Pentagon perimeter. 9:57:?? AM - Pentagon outer wall "collapses". 9:58:59 AM - South Tower pulverised. 10:03:11 AM - Object destroyed over Pennsylvania. 10:28:22 AM - North Tower pulverised. ================ This is actually all the evidence we need from the Pentagon itself so let's dive deeper into the implications that every detail left behind. /1

Finally, the only unadulterated shot of the WTC exploding on 9/11. Not only was there no "plane" to speak of... There was also another object in the sky. This video was broadcast once and then never again. After this shot, all of the backdrops were lumakeyed. In some cases, some fake foregrounds and backgrounds like "walking" bridges were added. Yet, they made a mistake. On that and subsequent days, they failed to notice an artifact, or shadow, of the object in the sky. It still persists in other videos, meaning all of them were edited. I think most of you understood the first part, that the plane was inserted. This was obvious by the nose cone video. This one goes beyond that. This should disturb you deeply after you think about it.