![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTVyekKboAAf1Po.jpg)
![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTVyd8QaYAA0Qqe.jpg)
![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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»](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTOpIOrbYAAF5iI.jpg)
![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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»](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTOlXT1bkAAT0l6.jpg)
Olivia
Online
WanderingWizard
@WonderBWizard
Joined December 2024
30 Following
41 Followers
3.7K Posts
@SarahHuckabee South Asians are welfare leeches
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
![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTVygbMb0AAHLeX.jpg)
@cirnosad The few lucky ones in this world who are truly connected with God are never alone. We call them saints. God shows them stuff hidden from us and they prefer to stay away from people and worldly life. For the rest of us we're not so lucky but hopefully we'll be in the next life:)
@ivgiz jews would make good lampshades
@cirnosad DEW should be used on whatever subhumans are behind these bot accounts
@Vanillabwnny Non virgin unmarried females are disgusting creatures
@DemonFramed Are you a demon or something
@cirnosad He's probably a demon
@Rusia_HD He's so right
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»
![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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»](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTOz7M3aIAE-tjT.jpg)
@ScousePatriot45 jews are a threat to humanity
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.]
![cirnosad's tweet photo. 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.]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTJZDIlbwAAbyK4.jpg)
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.
@cirnosad I'm so glad I've always found it cringe. Never understood why men should give flowers to girls and get on their knees. Both are very unnatural for a man.
@DefiantCoreX Hating jews is based
@cirnosad We're all connected to our ancestors through genes. We're them, they're us. One can't simply disown their past.
@MaximusChud What is that ugly creature
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
幸男風味
Seen from Japan
I ♥ Selfers 🔞
Seen from Chile
Roxas/ Rio sep 23-28th 🇧🇷 
Arrim0n3senelMetroCDMX
Seen from Brazil
Asupan indo
Seen from France
แอบเย็ดป้าแท้ๆ
Seen from Thailand
dbnguyen
Seen from Vietnam
cheatingwhitegirls
Seen from United Kingdom
sol argueta
Seen from Guatemala
GHAFFAR.wav
Seen from United States
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.4M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers