Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[yanaar]

All of those "witnesses" stink !  Calling it in to the news and yes she knew for sure it was an AA 757..absolutely.  I am a pilot and I can hardly tell the difference between a 757 and 767 or 737 AND while the plane is going 400 plus ! 

<snip> 

I've wondered about that... thank-you for this insight. 

[MikiQuick123]

All of those "witnesses" stink !  Calling it in to the news and yes she knew for sure it was an AA 757..absolutely.  I am a pilot and I can hardly tell the difference between a 757 and 767 or 737 AND while the plane is going 400 plus !  C'mon !  And they all mentioned how it sped up just prior to impact...ROFL  How could they tell? Did they see the afterburners light up? HAHAAA  Are you a friend of Mike Rivero?  or ARE you Mike Rivero?  How the FFFK can you think a plane, a 757, could punch holes thru concrete with its soft nose radome and yet 6 ton steel engines not only don't leave a mark but THEY FRIGGIN DISAPPEAR !!

There is also the issue of "ground effect". I don't think people realize what an important role that plays in the "plane" scenario. That maneuver with a jet that size (wing span) and that low seems extremely difficult if not impossible.

[yanaar]

There is also the issue of "ground effect". I don't think people realize what an important role that plays in the "plane" scenario. That maneuver with a jet that size (wing span) and that low seems extremely difficult if not impossible.

More evidence that it was a missile.  Remember Rummy's slip of the tongue in the interview with Parade Magazine, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, AND THE MISSILE TO DAMAGE THIS BUILDING and similar (inaudible) that damaged the WTC."

[AlexStratus]

As far as I can see the only interesting things that have been said are:

Abaddon’s eyewitnesses saying that they saw something other than a plane. clearly at least one of the quotes is a misquote. The first one on the list in fact. It gets even worse, they actually said that they saw planes! Great job! This is why we have to discuss this and not take your word for it

The other thing is what AlexStratus said – the plane could not fly in the way it did, so low to the ground. I admit that I don’t really know how the flight manoueveured in the last minutes. How do we know for example that the plane flew 2 feet off the ground, and didn’t just fly in at a low angle. How do you know this, is this from Pilots’s for 911 truth, or in some report?
Oh I forgot, I’m on the ‘shitlist’.
You say you are a pilot, ok enlighten us some more with your piloting and 911 knowledge and research please.
That’s a good one 

Is your friend Stubblebine an important source for you?

Why are youy calling Stubblebine my "friend"?  Did I say something about him? Maybe I did but I don't remember it.  Actually I get a weird feeling about him.  Can you tell me what it is that you know about him?  He certainly is NOT a source.  My own knowledge  or aerodynamics and personal flight experience is what I based my analysis on.  You asked about whether the plane could have come in at an angle and maybe pulled up horizontal at the last second ? (I am speculating that THAT is what you mean)  The security camera frames show something moving parallel to the ground for the last couple hundred feet.  We are not sure that the video is legit (e.g. wrong date) it may be doctored.  I have not flown anything as large as a 757 but I can tell you that when I first started advancing to larger faster heavier aircraft, the difference from a little bugsmasher cesssna 152 to a Centurion 210 feels like driving a limo after driving a VW.  You have alot more mass moving and the faster you go more inertial energy is stored.  The little cessna trainer cruised at 100 knots an redlined at 170 (in a dive) the 210 would cruise at 190 and redlined at 250.  The 210 weighed twice as much as the 152 and had 3 times load capacity. 
Now why all the specs...?  With bigger faster planes , everything happens slower, except actual speed.  You have to anticipate maneuvers far in advance.  The plane simply cannot make an aburpt change like diving down to a few feet above ground level and just instanly level off.  It's a law of physics in a fluid (air) environment.  There is no argument. 
BTW I went to a site that one of you guys out a link here for and it refuted the "ground effect claim" by saying "solution:hold nose down to compensate"  This was obviously written by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.  That is the whole point of  the story I told earlier; there isn't enough stick deflection to push the nose down hard enough to get down to the ground.  The elevator control pushes the nose down by lifting the tail and pulls the nose up by pushing the tail down.  Actually what it is doing is changing how much lift the horizontal stabilizer produces.  In normal flight, the tail is always pushing down when straight n level.  Negative lift.  Now when you get close to the ground and fast (all lift surfaces producing high lift) and you push the nose down by increasing upward lift on the tail which is pushing the rear of the plane up AND the wing is already lifting up and there just is not enough lifting force in the tail to push the nose down.  It just won't go down...ya know what thats like...right ?  Sometimes they ...just won't... go....ya know...
Seriously tho...it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to get a 757 or ANY aircraft with the normal wing and tail configuration under 50 ft AGL at high speed (for wingspan greater than 50 feet.)  Now if you have a forward canard type horizontal stabilizer THEN you have a whole different situation because now it is reversed.  Ground effect is usually perceivable when you reach a distance AGL (above ground level) equal to the wingspan.  That is when it is first PERCEIVABLE.  I imagine in a 757 if it had a 160 foot wingspan you could get it below a hundred feet AGL at 400 knots if you had lotsa room, like a dry lake bed AND no passengers behind the wings...everyone in 1st class AND maximum stick deflection which is not good because then you haven't got much control.  Are you starting to get it?  As I talk about this I can feel it...I just know what it's like and it may seem weird to imagine that you cant push the nose into the dirty except with an abrupt dive and that isn't what happened.   Even if you came in over a hill and were parallel to the back side of the hill and the path was going to bring you within 2 feet of the backside slope , as soon as you came over the crest of the hill, you FEEL like you hit a speed bump and you'd be bouyed upwards immediately 50 to 75 feet.

C'mon guys.  We all agree on the most important thing, that we have a criminal govt that killed 1000's on 911 and 100,000's since. Right.  ?  If we are all on the same side, then whether or not it was a plane or a missile is not really that important NOW.  But it is wasting our time n energy.  So if we are really all on the same side, can we suspend this debate for now and perhaps this is why Alex doesn't discuss it.  It is not important.  The same people are responsible regardless of how this part was done.  Right?  AM I CORRECT?  IMO anyone who continues to drag this on, is working against the cause.  Can we all agree on that?  It is important what happened and we don 't want to go around lookin stupid by perpetuating a bogus theory.  I won't say which theory is bogus.  But Im just made a pretty good argument for the no plane theory that any pilot would understand and PROBABLY agree. I am proposing a truce for now.  Nothing is diminished.  We can pick this one up again later after bushcheneyrumsfeldricerovewolfawitzashcroftgonzalez are "detained" indefinitely

I "suspend" my case !  (and give it a rest too)

[jimd3100]

A freudian slip.

Or a wild goose chase
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg116070#msg116070

[yanaar]

Or a wild goose chase
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg116070#msg116070

Could be.  But these guys aren't superhuman.  They're just as vulnerable as the rest of us.  When lying, the truth has a way of slipping out. 

[jimd3100]

All of those "witnesses" stink !  Calling it in to the news and yes she knew for sure it was an AA 757..absolutely.  I am a pilot and I can hardly tell the difference between a 757 and 767 or 737 AND while the plane is going 400 plus !  C'mon !

 
Over 100 witnesses, on the record. If they say the plane was commuter they should be discarded and ignored because they are not accurate enough. If they say it was an AA 757 they should be discarded and ignored because they are to accurate. But since all the witnesses on the record said it was a plane that hit, it surely wasn't a plane. And this is logical?

And they all mentioned how it sped up just prior to impact...ROFL  How could they tell? Did they see the afterburners light up?

So witnesses who corroborate each other only show that they are accomplices to mass murder instead of being reliable witnesses, unless they are at the wtc then witnesses are worth listening to. And this is logical?


 

HAHAAA  Are you a friend of Mike Rivero?  or ARE you Mike Rivero?  How the FFFK can you think a plane, a 757, could punch holes thru concrete with its soft nose radome and yet 6 ton steel engines not only don't leave a mark but THEY FRIGGIN DISAPPEAR !!

Alex Jones has Mike Rivero on once a month. But he should have you on instead right? Because AJ is an idiot for listening to M Rivero? You are more important right? I see why you want to pretend www.whatreallyhappend.com should not be paid attention to...Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon. from:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Prison Planet Foruminal.html

The engines don't matter to you no planers. No physical evidence or witness testimony matters to you no planers. You demand to see pics of the parts, and when they are shown you claim they are planted.

So don't listen to M Rivero who AJ has on once a month, and don't listen to Jim Hoffman who is one of the best 9/11 researchers out there. Just listen to Stubblebine and Rumsfeld.

[markshark4]

 
Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the [/i] Pentagon. from:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Prison Planet Foruminal.html

So don't listen to M Rivero who AJ has on once a month, and don't listen to Jim Hoffman who is one of the best 9/11 researchers out there.

Another corroborating source:

Photos Of Flt 77 Wreckage
Inside The Pentagon
Exclusive Photos & Story

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm




9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[AlexStratus]

Or a wild goose chase
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg116070#msg116070

Okay I cannot resist...but your logic isn't logical:  you say Rumsfeld's remark was the first time anyone ever made a reference to a missile hitting the Pentagon and this was a fake freudian slip intended to discredit  911 truth people

1. if there was no one questioning whether a 757 or a missile or anything other than a 757 had hit the building,  why would he want to say something that would provoke closer investigation?  If he had never said anything about a missile then we would have no other reason to doubt their story....regarding what hit the pentagon.  Why would he do that? 

2.  Rumsfeld cannot stay focused on anything for more than 30 to 60 seconds.  He was already pretty badly deficit in attention before 911.  If you have seen his appearance in congress regarding the 2 Trillion plus dollars they misplaced and he could not remember what the question was by the time she got to the end of the question.  A freudian slip is consistent with attention deficit or esp. with alzheimers.

3. People latched onto the idea that a missile was used rather than a 757 because of evidence consistent with a missile hit and the lack of evidence consistent with a plane crash.
a. the physical appearance of a round hole penetrating thru multiple walls of reinforced concrete CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE
b. high explosive force shredding it (the unknown flying object) to bits  CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE
c. flight path and impact point very close to ground CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE
d. smell of high explosives (cordite) CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE
e. very little or no luggage, seats, aircraft windows, 6 ton 9 ft dia 12 ft long jet engines not seen anywhere (usually severely battered but still intact lumps of metal)  ABSENCE of these is INCONSISTENT WITH a 757 CRASH
f. no damage to outside of building where engines would have hit, no large pieces of wings or tail or fuselage (tail sections are damaged but often stay together and easily recognized.  Even with a high initial impact speed, the tail has a 100 foot "crumple zone" that slows it down and the tail is also very lightweight.     ABSENCE of these is INCONSISTENT WITH a 757 CRASH

I could go on but it isn't necessary really.  But I do have a great idea of how to determine with a very high reliability what could or what could not have hit the building and it would only cost a few million.  Out in the Mojave desert (north of me about 100 miles) there is a airplane grave yard.  There are hundreds of commercial jets that were flown in there and retired.  They was nothing broken on the planes but they had reached their airframe limits.  So you can pick up a used 757 for next to nothing with just one limitation that you can't take it out of the desert.  Add any remote controls needed and build a duplicate of the section of the building involved with the same materials and distances between walls etc.  Then FIRST see if you can fly it below 50 ft AGL at 500 knots (you can't but) then fly it into the wall at the same angle and speed and fuel load and put some crash dummies in it too.   I would bet it doesn't even get thru past the second wall, maybe not even the first.  If it does get thru the walls, or most of them, now see if you can find the Boeing.  I would bet your life that you'll find plenty of easily recognized parts.  But think about the coverage that it would get !  Hell, setup 3 or 4 planes and we could take turns trying to punch holes and incinerate titanium...it'll be fun !

[skeptic101]

I'm not that familar with the details of 9-11 as a inside job, my question would be if one truly believes some in the Govt. did it or whatever cabal of people, isn't it just hard to post about it?  If I believed in it, I wouldn't just be posting; for it would truly mean the Nation is taken over by traitors of the state and posting about it isn't going to cut it, but I'm sure Cointelpro just wants it confined to the WWW.

[jimd3100]

1. if there was no one questioning whether a 757 or a missile or anything other than a 757 had hit the building,  why would he want to say something that would provoke closer investigation?

Where did you get that idea? I already explained that. A website had already been set up asking about the scene at the pentagon. Rumsfeld then was nice enough to provide a BS answer.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg116070#msg116070

If he had never said anything about a missile then we would have no other reason to doubt their story....regarding what hit the pentagon.  Why would he do that?

 
So I guess I will just have to keep repeating this over and over. The story was just beginning to be questioned. He was nice enough to immediately provide the answer. He's a swell guy. Like I said in the other message...Just after the attacks of 9/11 in early Oct a webpage was put up by French author Thierry Meyssan, in which he had pictures of the recently damaged pentagon and was asking where is the plane?

2.  Rumsfeld cannot stay focused on anything for more than 30 to 60 seconds.  He was already pretty badly deficit in attention before 911.  If you have seen his appearance in congress regarding the 2 Trillion plus dollars they misplaced and he could not remember what the question was by the time she got to the end of the question.  A freudian slip is consistent with attention deficit or esp. with alzheimers.

Yea, a guy with alzheimers was one of the main culprits of 9/11. I suppose my logic isn't working to good, I should have realized that.  

3. People latched onto the idea that a missile was used rather than a 757 because of evidence consistent with a missile hit and the lack of evidence consistent with a plane crash.
a. the physical appearance of a round hole penetrating thru multiple walls of reinforced concrete CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE

Consistant with a missile no one saw, also consistant with firefighter efforts, they could have created a big hole out of a smaller one, that happens you know, or maybe it was a missile....maybe one should take a step back and gather all the evidence for the most likely explanation..here's another one.....
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/091.html

b. high explosive force shredding it (the unknown flying object) to bits  CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE

Or a plane flying full speed

c. flight path and impact point very close to ground CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE

Or a plane consistant with the wreckage found and ALL the witness statements

d. smell of high explosives (cordite) CONSISTENT WITH a MISSILE

The smell of Jet Fuel which is much more reported (except by folks like you)gets ignored and replaced with cordite (BTW I've never said explosives were not used)
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/fires.html

e. very little or no luggage, seats, aircraft windows, 6 ton 9 ft dia 12 ft long jet engines not seen anywhere (usually severely battered but still intact lumps of metal)  ABSENCE of these is INCONSISTENT WITH a 757 CRASH

Not seen anywhere? You mean you didn't go inside the heavily damaged pentagon and see it yourself? That is where it would be you know? Maybe if someone who was in there would tell us what he saw it would be helpfull...hey Sgt Williams was in there....."It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.".....What an asshole huh? He has to be in on it because of this...When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him....or maybe the reporter just made it up or was told to write that, and knew Williams would go along right?..."There is somebody in there who I knew," Williams said quietly. The victim was the husband of one of Williams' co-workers, a senior enlisted soldier who worked right near the point of impact and is almost certainly among the dead...but I guess you're to smart to fall for the Sgts BS right?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm
It doesn't matter if you are shown what's left of the engines, because you'll claim there isn't any and if there is it was planted...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html
Someone should tell Williams and the rest of the rescue workers that the people they found still strapped to their seats were riding on a missile. I'm sure they would be big supporters of 9/11 truth when you tell them what you know. It would be real helpfull. I'm sure it would scare the hell out of Rumsfeld as you expose the "truth" of what happened there.

f. no damage to outside of building where engines would have hit, no large pieces of wings or tail or fuselage (tail sections are damaged but often stay together and easily recognized.  Even with a high initial impact speed, the tail has a 100 foot "crumple zone" that slows it down and the tail is also very lightweight.     ABSENCE of these is INCONSISTENT WITH a 757 CRASH

Just because it gets repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Just a 12 foot hole...or just a 16 foot hole? Actually it's the first floor, but why not just say it was a 5 foot hole...that would sound even better wouldn't it?
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

I could go on but it isn't necessary really.  But I do have a great idea of how to determine with a very high reliability what could or what could not have hit the building and it would only cost a few million.....

 

Yea, that's a good idea. I'll start saving up for that, then maybe we can once and for all know wether it was an invisible missile or an invisible flyover. And maybe that pesky lieing cab driver can finally go to prison. It's allot better than my idea, of exposing how the fact that a person who couldn't fly a Cessna in August, was able to perform in September the nearly impossible feat of slamming a 757 he had never before flown into the first floor of the just refurbished sparsly populated side of the pentagon, the nations military headquarters an hour and a half after the first hijacking, is smoking gun proof that there was not only a stand down but that the planes were controlled by means other than Arab terrorists.

[jimd3100]

If I believed in it, I wouldn't just be posting; for it would truly mean the Nation is taken over by traitors of the state and posting about it isn't going to cut it.....

What would you be doing?

[yanaar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGbAmPVJ2d8

Can't understand why there's a problem about this.

[yanaar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89coc88Hrs

Take a closer look... the "evidence" can be picked up and carried off by hand.  Huge airliner debris?  Don't think sol

[jimd3100]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGbAmPVJ2d8

Can't understand why there's a problem about this.

Maybe you didn't notice. He's outside the pentagon. Engine parts, bodies, fuseloge all found in the pentagon. That's where the plane flew into you know. No..it didn't bounce off the wall.

[yanaar]

Maybe you didn't notice. He's outside the pentagon. Engine parts, bodies, fuseloge all found in the pentagon. That's where the plane flew into you know. No..it didn't bounce off the wall.

planted evidence... they're carrying it away in their hands.

[jimd3100]

planted evidence... they're carrying it away in their hands.

Planted by who? Keep helping the debunkers with their claim of how many people would have to be involved for 9/11 to be an inside job. And continue to be just like Cheney by picking and choosing what evidence to use. If it's from a global hawk it's evidence, if it's from a 757 it's planted.

[yanaar]

Do you really think the Pentagon was sooo out-of-the-loop that they didn't know a plane was heading towards their front door?  I mean, really?  Career military (not the ruling elite military,) but career military would just stand by and allow themselves to be dissolved into a NWO military?  I don't think so. 

I beleeeeve.... that mutinious elements just below the Pentagon elite diverted 77, conned Cheney into thinking he was ordering a plane... fired a missile into the back of the Pentagon, and saved our f**ing arsses.  It was a brilliant maneuver...

[jimd3100]

I beleeeeve.... that mutinious elements just below the Pentagon elite diverted 77, conned Cheney into thinking he was ordering a plane... fired a missile into the back of the Pentagon, and saved our f**ing arsses.  It was a brilliant maneuver...

Yea, they did all that. And then continued on as if nothing happened. And never went public...I guess because they would do all that instantly, but are just to cowardly to go public.

Yea, they stopped the attack from happening but that resourcefull Cheney was ready for that to and had a team of henchmen ready for that possibility by having a bunch of 757 parts to be "planted" just in case of this "Mutiny". 

But go ahead and "believe" anything you want. Make up your own story. It doesn't help. I'll just go with the evidence and witness statements, documents, you know..weird shit that doesnt matter.

[yanaar]

Yea, they did all that. And then continued on as if nothing happened. And never went public...I guess because they would do all that instantly, but are just to cowardly to go public.

But go ahead and "believe" anything you want. Make up your own story. It doesn't help. I'll just go with the evidence and witness statements, documents, you know..weird shit that doesnt matter.

Sorry jimd - the evidence is conflicting... we're gonna have to call a truce sooner or later.

[jimd3100]

Sorry jimd - the evidence is conflicting... we're gonna have to call a truce sooner or later.

I don't find plane parts at the pentagon along with every witness saying a plane hit to be conflicting

[yanaar]

I don't find plane parts at the pentagon conflicting with every witness saying a plane hit to be conflicting

I know this... you have a closed mind on this matter.   The witnesses saw a plane and then an explosion.  They added two and two and got five.   

[jimd3100]

I know this... you have a closed mind on this matter.   The witnesses saw a plane and then an explosion.  They added two and two and got five.   

It's to bad I have a "closed mind" on this matter. Makes one wonder how I even address other theories without ever looking at them. Maybe I should be more open minded like you and claim any evidence I don't like is "planted" and make up "mutiny" theories backed by nothing to support my "beliefs".

[yanaar]

Maybe you're right.  Truce.

[markshark4]

Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, & Lt. Col. Bob Bowman are all neutral about the pentagon ... which is a clear sign that a missile/global hawk hitting the pentagon is a pretty weak argument.

Also, Michael Rivero, Jeff Rense, & Jim Hoffman who are almost always spot on, think that Flight 77 DID hit the pentagon.

Here are some pretty solid cases that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, all made by 9/11 Truth Members.

A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Prison Planet Foruminal.html

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html


I assume mostly everybody here is on the same side and thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

The 9/11 Truth Movement will be MUCH stronger if everybody is on the same page.

So maybe people should quit fighting and join forces about things they ALL agree on.

Such as ...



Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission clearly proves that Dick Cheney allowed Flight 77 to hit the pentagon.

Watch here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Mineta


Or the ridiculous notion that Hani Hanjour was able to execute a 270 degree turn at 400 mph in a 757 but he couldn't even fly a Cessna just three weeks prior to 9/11???





Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent a small Cessna 172 plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland, though he was declined after exhibiting poor flying skills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

The plane was obviously flown by remote control ala Operation Northwoods (1962) which = INSIDE JOB!


Oh yeah, and as long as we are talking about Rumsfeld, what do people think about him saying that Flight 93 was shot down???

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

[yanaar]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6133

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
 
For this one, scroll down to American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data.

[jimd3100]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6133

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
 
For this one, scroll down to American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data.

Uhh....so the parts are planted by the Government but the Flight Recorder Data supplied by them is valid? Unless some one comes along and explains it..then it is no longer valid and is planted. Right.

Yea, same guys supporting the invisible flyover theory

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

Yea, the c 130 which was never circling above the pentagon dropped some stuff on the lawn...or didn't.....yea, that's probably what happened...

Do I really need to get into Fetzer? We watched Morgan Reynolds credibility go down the drain and Fetzer to......

[yanaar]

http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html

neener neener neener.... 

[jimd3100]

http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html

neener neener neener.... 

This is at least the second time you've posted about cnn correspondent Jamie McIntyre and his report that according to him no plane crashed at the pentagon.

You think I care that you "disapprove" that I prefer to deal with reality? It would be nice if you would wise up that what I'm trying to do is keep 911truth truthfull.
You know the best way to kill a "truth" movement? By proving that it is really a lie movement.

I sat and watched as the "truth" movement showed everyone their star witness for a missile hitting the pentagon. He was there he described it, he was a good witness. His name was Mike Walter and guess what? It was a lie! He was describing an AA 757 hitting the pentagon and the "truth" movement edited his statement. That made the movement not truthfull but lieing. But it wasn't enough for folks like you, who "want to help". Then it was said he wasn't a good witness after all. He's really a liar and is "in on it". Great way to kill the movement.

So you keep "helping" the "truth" movement by showing how Jamie McIntyre was at the pentagon and he said there was no plane there. Keep showing how the "truth" movement is really a lie movement. Why don't you explain to everyone how pushing lies is helpfull to us? I'd love to hear it.

Here is what he thinks about it. In 2006....
from:     http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

MCINTYRE: Until now this single frame -- was the only image that showed the jetliner before it hit the Pentagon, and the image is so indistinct, that it helped fuel conspiracy theories that abound on the Internet despite pictures of the wreckage and eyewitness accounts:

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon

MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.

And your response to this? He's lieing! That's always the response. He is told what to do and now he's a lying and therefor an accomplice. And guess what happens when people find out he is in fact not lying, but you are? Guess what happens when people find out that 9/11 truth videos are 911 lie videos? The movement is dead.

Now take a real good look at the unedited video of him on that day, and you will see that he is in fact not lieing and he is just another victim just like Mike Walter was of 911 truthers being 911 liars. We don't need to lie.

See the unedited clip.....think he is reporting that no plane hit the pentagon? The clip is over 5 minutes long. The edit you like to show begins 2:53 into this. Let's take a look at the whole thing and we can see that he was telling the truth. He was answering a question. And he himself never questioned wether a plane crashed into the pentagon. So who is being dishonest here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8

[yanaar]

OK.  You could be right.  Just needling you...

[skeptic101]

What would you be doing?

Sell my house, quit my job and you saw the movie

Red Dawn?

  It's Red Dawn baby, not posting about murder hiding behind some monitor and punking out and thinking it's so cool to have high post counts 

[markshark4]

Do I really need to get into Fetzer? We watched Morgan Reynolds credibility go down the drain and Fetzer to......

What happened with Morgan Reynolds?

[markshark4]

Yukihisa Fujita brought up that important point in front of the Japanese parliament stating, "there were 80 security cameras at the Pentagon but they refused to release the footage."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7t-dZiNE9NI&feature=related



Michael Moore also brought this up, "We've never seen the plane hit the Pentagon... there must be 100 video cameras surrounding the Pentagon atleast if not more. And so there's footage of that plane hitting the Pentagon from numerous angles and yet we've never seen the footage. Why is that? That's been my question now for 3 and a half years."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUoZx3CBfcY

Video of the crash was reportedly played for the jury in the Moussaoui trial.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html



One possible reason they won't show the video to the public.

It would show that "Hani Hanjour" didn't fly straight into the pentagon, but instead went out of his way to do a giant 270-330 degree cork screw turn so he could specifically hit the only side of the pentagon that was under renovation for bomb blasting. Not only that, but this incredibly precise maneuver was done at 400+ mph in a 757 by a complete novice.

The plane was flown by computer, not somebody who couldn't even fly a Cessna three weeks before 9/11.


Another possible reason for not releasing footage of the pentagon strike, is to keep the "no plane theories" going and discredit the entire 9/11 Truth Movement.


I don't know, I have a hard time believing that Michael Rivero from whatreallyhappened.com, Jeff Rense from rense.com, and Jim Hoffman from wtc7.net are all wrong about the pentagon.  All three make very strong arguments that Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Prison Planet Foruminal.html

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1


Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, & Bob Bowman are all neutral about the pentagon which doesn't give me much confidence that a missile/global hawk hit the pentagon either.

[jimd3100]

A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon:

The 9/11 Truth Movement will be MUCH stronger if everybody is on the same page.

Or the ridiculous notion that Hani Hanjour was able to execute a 270 degree turn at 400 mph in a 757 but he couldn't even fly a Cessna just three weeks prior to 9/11???





Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent a small Cessna 172 plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland, though he was declined after exhibiting poor flying skills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

The plane was obviously flown by remote control ala Operation Northwoods (1962) which = INSIDE JOB!

Exactly. I want to hang them with their own story. Hani Parking his 757 into the first floor of the pentagon an hour and a half after the first hijacking is a huge smoking gun. Instead of discarding it and the witnesses who saw him do it, use this smoking gun against them. Focus on how Hani could no way in hell pilot that plane!

At Moussaoui's trial under oath.....
Peggy Chevrette, the school's general manager, told jurors Hanjour had a commercial pilot's license but lacked the appropriate skills, arousing her suspicions.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/22/moussaoui.trial/
Our Fearless leader President Bush, according to the 9/11 commission report...
As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon.[/b]
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm

Doesn't quite add up does it?

[markshark4]

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO f**kING READ THIS ENTIRE INTERVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It talks about Flight 77, Flight 93, Remote Control, Mutiny, & More! Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

[yanaar]

^^ de Grand-Pre is one of the best.

[markshark4]

^^ de Grand-Pre is one of the best.

Can you or somebody please give the 411 on this Colonel?

Have you read his books?

His credentials look solid to me, but I want to be sure.

This interview is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* Flight 93 WAS shot down

* Flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon

* The planes were flown by remote control

* The cell phone calls were fake

* The passnegers were unconscious within 18 seconds

* 9/11 was planned YEARS in advance

* Drones were used, the original planes were flown over the Atlantic never to be seen again

* CFR/Globalists have infiltrated VERY high ranking positions

* Military is fed up and bordering on mutiny

* Rumsfeld & Cheney knew everything and will be the first to fall



Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about him! 

Why aren't his books selling like The New Pearl Harbor or 9/11 Synthetic Terror?

This interview is a LONG read, but it is well worth it!!!!!!!!

Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

[jimd3100]

Can you or somebody please give the 411 on this Colonel?



* Flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon

* The planes were flown by remote control

* The cell phone calls were fake

* The passnegers were unconscious within 18 seconds

* 9/11 was planned YEARS in advance

* Drones were used, the original planes were flown over the Atlantic never to be seen again

* CFR/Globalists have infiltrated VERY high ranking positions

* Military is fed up and bordering on mutiny

* Rumsfeld & Cheney knew everything and will be the first to fall



Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about him! 

Why aren't his books selling like The New Pearl Harbor or 9/11 Synthetic Terror?

I wouldn't get to exited. Some folks are not going to like me saying it, so what? Just because he says it was an inside job doesn't make everything he says true.

He is retired military high up. Is there actual proof of that? I don't know.
He makes a lot of claims about the events of 9/11. But they are just guesses. You can believe he doesn't guess at all, but in fact knows. But he doesn't. So which is it? A global hawk or a missile that hit the pentagon?  He doesn't know. How about a plane? He claims the pilot that shot down 93 admitted to him he did it. Well, he also claims there were not any hijackers and his "good friend" Richard Myers that he claims he talks to agrees with him Richard Myers should be in prison, he is the same guy who as head of the military claimed they never expected 9/11 when they actually practiced it. He also lied his ass off at the 9/11 commission hearings.

Yea, his story is interesting, but I would take whatever he says with a grain of salt. It's just talk. Looks like a possible holocaust denier too if reading the following link about his book, written before 9/11--- he claims to be a major arms dealer and was worried that the military was being downsized.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/guests.htm

I've seen him claim he was retired Air Force Officer, retired Marine Officer, Major arms dealer for the pentagon....is all this actually proven true? Now I can be jumped on for being a horrible person who said something bad about this veteran and hero. Oh well. Just telling you the way I see it. Thinks 9/11 was an inside job. That's great. A friend of Richard Myers is someone I would avoid. But he could mean well, be retired military, and arms dealer like he said, and know some folks. But if you think he was not involved in 9/11 but knows the details of it, I find that very hard to believe. He has thoughts on it like we all do. His most interesting point is his claim that he talked to the guy that shot down flt 93. This is either extremely interesting or he is a liar. I don't know which is true.

[markshark4]

I wouldn't get to exited. Some folks are not going to like me saying it, so what? Just because he says it was an inside job doesn't make everything he says true.

He is retired military high up. Is there actual proof of that? I don't know.
He makes a lot of claims about the events of 9/11. But they are just guesses. You can believe he doesn't guess at all, but in fact knows. But he doesn't. So which is it? A global hawk or a missile that hit the pentagon?  He doesn't know. How about a plane? He claims the pilot that shot down 93 admitted to him he did it. Well, he also claims there were not any hijackers and his "good friend" Richard Myers that he claims he talks to agrees with him Richard Myers should be in prison, he is the same guy who as head of the military claimed they never expected 9/11 when they actually practiced it. He also lied his ass off at the 9/11 commission hearings.

Yea, his story is interesting, but I would take whatever he says with a grain of salt. It's just talk. Looks like a possible holocaust denier too if this is correct, written before 9/11 he claims to be a major arms dealer and was worried that the military was being downsized.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/guests.htm

I've seen him claim he was retired Air Force Officer, retired Marine Officer, Major arms dealer for the pentagon....looks like disinfo to me. Now I can be jumped on for being a horrible person who said something bad about this veteran and hero. Oh well. Just telling you the way I see it. Thinks 9/11 was an inside job. That's great. A friend of Richard Myers is someone I would avoid. But he could mean well, be retired military, and arms dealer like he said, and know some folks. But if you think he was not involved in 9/11 but knows the details of it, I find that very hard to believe. He has thoughts on it like we all do. His most interesting point is his claim that he talked to the guy that shot down flt 93. This is either extremely interesting or he is a liar. I don't know which is true.

You might be right, we don't hear too much about him from other 9/11 Truth Members either, which is kind of weird.  He wasn't listed on Patriots question 9/11 either, and they have a pretty complete list.  I was hoping I wasn't getting my hopes up.   It seemed too good to be true when I was reading it for nobody to be talking about this guy.  To have a legit whistle blower from the Military get such little press from 9/11 Truth.  I read about the Holocaust denial on screwloosechange.com, but I thought maybe they were just trying to smear him.  Similar to when Ron Paul was called a racist.  I still think Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army might be right about some of his claims though.  I'd be curious to see what Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley, Ray McGovern etc. think about him.


This is an interesting post from another forum!

De Grand-Pre's interview is indeed amazing. I had no idea that the military was close to mutiny. THAT is the key to this whole mess. If the vast majority of military officers and NCO's refuse to obey illegal orders from Bush/Cheney re: Martial Law, then their nefarious schemes will fail. WE need to encourage the military ie. Colonels and below, that their Oath to defend the Constitution requires them to stand by US, the average citizen and not the Elitists.

I want to add some more interesting facts from Tarpley's book that are not well known. Apparently, 4 young men of Arab descent, pulled up in a van at the gate to the resort where Bush was staying early in the morning of September 11th. They told the SS agent on duty that they were a TV crew who had arranged for a poolside interview with Bush before he left to go to the school photo opp. The SS agent (I'm using the abbreviated form of Secret Service on purpose) didn't know anything about the interview and refused them entrance (BUT DIDN'T TRY TO DETAIN THEM). The van drove away and they were never seen again. Now...add to this that one of the major warlords in Afganistan was assassinated three day earlier when the camera of a 'TV crew' sent to interview him exploded PLUS the assertion that Flight 93 (or the drone posing as 93) was intended to crash into the Capital Building and you have a very interesting hypothesis. If Bush had been assassinated and Congress decapitated, who would be left in charge? The obvious answer is Cheney and it would be easy to pin the blame on him but maybe that's too obvious. What if Cheney, for all his ego and brilliance, is merely the front man for another party altogether. If you check out this site, you'll see that a surprising number of people, who were in a position to facilitate 911, have connections to an extreme political/religious group.

http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html


If you go to Youtube and search on the keywords 'mossad 911' you see videos one of which shows one of the mossad agents, who were caught celebrating as the twin towers collapsed, saying that they had been sent there to document the attack, which can only mean that Mossad knew about the attack in advance. One more piece to add here. The pentagon, FAA AND SS all use communications software bought from Israeli companies.

Who has the most to gain from a 'clash of civilizations' between the US and Islamic extremists? Israelis intelligence. That means they had the motive. They could have also had the means via software with backdoors, thereby giving them access to NORAD, FAA and maybe even STRATCOM launch codes for all we know, and if the US military, White House and CIA had been infiltrated with individuals who had dual citizenships and were secretly loyal to a Zionist cause(see link above), then radical Zionists may be the real enemy, not Al Qaeda. 100 suspected mossad agents were arrested on 9/11. After about a month in custody, a judge ordered them all released. That judge appears to have been sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Do you see the pattern here?

It's important to understand that I'm not accusing all Jews of these activities. A lot of Jews actively oppose radical Zionism in the same way that most Muslims denounce radical Islamism. It is dangerous to allow individuals in high positions of authority to have a potential conflict of interest with divided loyalties to an external country or ideology.

I'm not 100% certain that Mossad was behind 911 but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in that direction and we shouldn't exclude it as a legitimate possibility just because of the risk of being labeled anti-semitic. We need to follow the evidence WHEREVER IT LEADS!


Dancing Israelis on 9/11:

"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html




Let me add another possibility to the thread. Webster Tarpley, in his well-researched book, 911: Synthetic Terror, makes a very convincing case that some unknown group, which could be rogue CIA, Neo-cons, or perhaps even a foreign intelligence agency, had penetrated the computer systems that controlled SS (Secret Service) communications, FAA air-traffic control radars and even Nuclear launch control codes, and essentially orchestrated the entire 9/11 operation. Bush was threatened with assassination when the SS received an anonymous but coded transmission that 'Angel is next'. Angel was the code word for that day for Air Force One. The reason why Bush flew to Omaha instead of Washington, was because of the fear that the senders of that message could send fake launch orders to StratCom for nuclear missile launch and Bush wanted to be there in person to countermand any bogus orders. He was faced with an ultimatum by the 'group' of either declaring a war on Islamic extremists (clash of civilizations) or the 'group' would take matters into their own hands and order nuclear missile launches. How does all this tie in with Flight 93? Several possibilities. One is that Cheney ordered the interception even though only the President had that authority and they had to hush it up to avoid awkward questions. Two is that a lower level officer exceeded his authority by ordering the interception without Presidential approval and the third possibility is that if in fact, the whole 9/11 operation was ordered and planned by Bush/Cheney/neo-cons, the remote control of flight 93 may have failed and they had to shoot it down to prevent if from landing intact, which would have raised all kinds of dangerous questions.

My own opinion is that flight 93 was something that went wrong from the rest of what happened that day. Either someone stepped in and foiled an attempt to crash a plane into the Capital Building/White House or the conspirators' plan for that plane had gone awry and they had to 'fix' it so that it wouldn't blow up in their faces. If an interception order from a 'legitimate' authority had gone out to shot down 93, then why not admit it as an example of Bush taking bold and decisive action to save lives? There is NO doubt that 93 was shot down. You can't have an engine hit the ground miles away from the alleged 'impact' point if the plane had crashed.

[jimd3100]

  I'd be curious to see what Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley, Ray McGovern etc. think about him.


This is an interesting post from another forum!

De Grand-Pre's interview is indeed amazing. I had no idea that the military was close to mutiny. THAT is the key to this whole mess. If the vast majority of military officers and NCO's refuse to obey illegal orders from Bush/Cheney re: Martial Law, then their nefarious schemes will fail.

Well, the Holocaust thing, actually is irrelevant IMO. He might not be one, and if he was the Holocaust and 9/11 are different things. But that mutiny thing is total BS IMO. Am I really supposed to believe that the high ups that lied about what happened on 9/11 are ready to mutiny? They testified before the 9/11 commission. And lied. And the 9/11 commission then helped them out by letting them get away with their lies totally and created a brand new one for them. And they were fine with it. Am I supposed to believe that Richard Myers is an undercover agent for 9/11 truth? That is so fukin preposterous....but do you have a better term for someone who according to De grande talks with him about how 9/11 was an inside job. Myers then kisses Rumsfelds ass and the rest and goes along with everything. I'm not buying that R Myers is really an undercover agent for 9/11 truth. I think Grande tends to exaggerate.