Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[TheGoodFight1984]

What is intersting is that WTC building 7 was not actually owned by Silverstein but by a financial Institution with ties to the federal reserve....
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=18571.msg93182#msg93182

It seems that flight 77 the plane that supposedly flew into the pentagon was not really owned by American Airlines but by a Financial Intuition with ties to the Federal Reserve.

The registration number for Flight 77 was n644AA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_77

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA
Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration

 Name     WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY TRUSTEE 
Street  RODNEY SQ NORTH ATTN CORP TRT ADM 
City  WILMINGTON             State     DELAWARE            Zip Code      19890 
County  NEW CASTLE 
Country  UNITED STATES  

Who is this Wilmington Trust Company? Well, for starters they like to refer to themselves as WTC in their sec filings. Nice huh? They were founded by Dupont....."Wilmington Trust (NYSE: WL) was founded on July 8, 1903 as a banking, trust, and safe deposit company by DuPont president T. Coleman du Pont." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_Trust

BTW Dupont is like the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex...."is an American chemical company that was founded in July 1802 as a gunpowder mill by Eleuthère Irénée du Pont". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont

Wilmington Trust Company(WTC)helps wealthy people get more wealthy.
"Wilmington Trust provides customized financial alternatives for three core lines of business: wealth advisory, corporate client, and regional banking services. Now in our second century of serving clients, we are one of the most respected independent financial services organizations in the U.S., known for our expertise, the quality of our staff and our services, and our client-centric approach." http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/wtcom/index.jsp?section=About

The CEO of Wilmington Trust got himself a position on the Federal Reserve......
"WILMINGTON, Del.--(Business Wire)--Wilmington Trust Corporation (NYSE:WL) announced that Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer Ted T. Cecala has been appointed to the Board
of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. He begins a
three-year term in January 2008.

   The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is one of 12 Federal
Reserve Banks across the United States."http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187753+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108

Wilmington isn't exactly squeaky clean, seems they have gotten into a little trouble with the SEC before but that wasn't a problem for the FED.
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig071204.txt

BTW the other American Airlines Jet involved in 9/11 was owned by another financial Institution for some reason. And it looks like Wilmington may have actually more Boeing passenger type planes. Why would they have an aircraft they own carry passengers around the U.S., by American Airlines?

http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/registrations/wilmington-de-delaware.asp?spg=99

great stuff - flight 11 was registered as such:

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK TRUSTEE
Street      ONE RODNEY SQUARE
      920 KING STREET SUITE 102
City      WILMINGTON             State     DELAWARE            Zip Code        19801
County      NEW CASTLE
Country      UNITED STATES

Flight 93 was registered to United, but C/O Lyte, Soule and Curlee, whose list of clients does not appear to include United, but does include a lot of financial institutions and fossil fuel giants... hmm..

AIG Household Finance Corporation
American National Insurance Co. of Texas
Amoco Production Company
Asset Management Advisors, L.L.C.
Assn of Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors of Okla City, Inc.
Chromalloy Division - Oklahoma
Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.
Clement Industries
CMH Parks, Inc.
Coho Oil and Gas, Inc.
Conoco Inc.
Continental Resources, Inc.
CUNA Mutual Insurance
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Del Rancho USA, Inc. R. M. Barton Company
Dewberry & Davis Roberts Truck Center
Dewberry Design Group Incorporated Roberts Idealease
Dulaney Bros. Investments
Elson Oil Co.
Environmental Management, Inc.
Ferguson Pontiac GMC
Fleming Companies, Inc. - Scrivner Division
Frozen Food Express
Great American Insurance Company
H. D. Copeland International Trucks, Inc.
Imation Corporation
Ingram Industries, Inc.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company
Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.
Marathon Oil Co.
Municipal Employees Credit Union of Oklahoma City
Office Depot
Oklahoma City University
Oklahoma Industries Authority
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Inc.
Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group
Photographic Society of America, Inc.
Pratt Foods, Inc.
Security National Insurance Company
Shawver & Son, Inc.
Shawver Electric, Inc.
St. Paul Travelers
Tex-Ok Energy, L.L.C.
The Heritage Group
Tokio Marine
Tremco, Inc.
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.
Union Oil Company of California
Unitrin Business Insurance
Unitrin Kemper Auto and Home
Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc.
Werner Co.
Wynn Construction Company., Inc.
Yokohama

http://www.lytlesoule.net/repclients.htm

According to the FAA registry, flight 11's registration was cancelled on the 14th Jan 2002, reason being: Destroyed.

Flight 93's registration was cancelled 28th sept 2005, reason being: Cancelled - the same as flight 175.

--------------------

A bit of an aside, but I find it kinda strange that JP Morgan owns an AA boeing 767 - N369AA - if you google it, it shows up as an AA 767

Name             J P MORGAN TRUST CO NA TRUSTEE
Street       4 NEW YORK PLZ FL 15
City       NEW YORK    State    NEW YORK         Zip Code        10004-2413
County       NEW YORK
Country       UNITED STATES

then I stumbled across this Here at dot.gov - A spreadsheet that states that N369AA is actually United Airlines as of the fiscal year of 2005 - yet the FAA site says it's been registered to JP Morgan since 2002...? (Certificate Issue Date - 04/25/2002 )

alternate link for spreadsheet if the above doesn't work

That may well be nothing but it looks like something worth looking into.

[TruthHunter]

I'm thinking JP Morgan is probably the lender that enabled AA to buy the aircraft. The same way the bank holds title to your house until the mortgage is paid, they would also hold title on an asset like a jumbo jet to protect themselves since the carrier can fly the jet out of the country and so they could collect on the insurance to pay down the balance owed in case it is destroyed.

[TheGoodFight1984]

Biggs posted a very interesting pic in another thread

[Biggs]

it is an interesting pic, but was proved by one of the guys to be a photoshop job (who posted the original without AA markings) I put the post containing the pic in a bluebeam thread and a separate thread of its own, so I guess you took the pic from the thread where it was not disproven)

nevertheless, it does illustrate what could have happened and the sort of tricks that can be played,. it is thought provoking even if not accurate

[TheGoodFight1984]

Sweet, cheers for the clarification Biggs. I did suspect it was a photoshop job, it's a good effort for sure.

[Biggs]

Sweet, cheers for the clarification Biggs. I did suspect it was a photoshop job, it's a good effort for sure.

yes it is better than the usual effort, they took great care with the shape of the markings at the back end of the missile

[mytee726]

I haven't read all the posts but I just came across this and found it very interesting on what happen on 911. apparently its been around for a while but I never heard it before tonight and find it very informative. Now for some reason some of the websites she mentions I haven't bee able to get to but its late and I am tired. But everyone should hear this.

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=20839

[Protean]

I haven't read all the posts but I just came across this and found it very interesting on what happen on 911. apparently its been around for a while but I never heard it before tonight and find it very informative. Now for some reason some of the websites she mentions I haven't bee able to get to but its late and I am tired. But everyone should hear this.

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=20839

Yes, absolutely --this is an excellent show on the Pentagon by KPFA Guns and Butter with April Gallop and Barbara Honeggerr. I recommend everyone listen to this as well. It will really shed some light on the Pentagon Attack mystery. I have been posting it as well on other related topics on the Pentagon.

Another excellent Guns and Butter 911 interview is with Indira Singh, part 2 is where she tells the P-Tech story that will blow the lid off the whole 911 caper.
http://legacy.kpfa.org//data/20050720-Wed1400.mp3

[Cobra]

Yes, absolutely --this is an excellent show on the Pentagon by KPFA Guns and Butter with April Gallop and Barbara Honeggerr. I recommend everyone listen to this as well. It will really shed some light on the Pentagon Attack mystery. I have been posting it as well on other related topics on the Pentagon.

Another excellent Guns and Butter 911 interview is with Indira Singh, part 2 is where she tells the P-Tech story that will blow the lid off the whole 911 caper.
http://legacy.kpfa.org//data/20050720-Wed1400.mp3

Yes. The Indira Singh story is VERY interesting and the fact that it hasn't made ANY mainstream news at all (unlike other 9/11 "conspiracy" theories) imo, means that it has plenty of truth to it.

[DireWolf]

 Plane crashes have been documented on film for a half a century or more now always leaving massive wreckage strewn around. There are parts on the plane constructed of titanium large enough to have survived any heat generated by a crash, yet they were not found.
 Are we to believe that two jet liners totally vaporized, two high rise steel cored buildings collapsed in their own footprint, and another high rise structure that had minimal fire damage collapse in on its own footprint in a single day, for never in history had any one of these things occurred, and then all in one day?
 
 During opening statements from the lead prosecutor at Gitmo the truth about Shanks-ville was told, it was shot down to keep it from hitting the Capitol building. They lied about that so you can figure the rest of their explanations are also lies.

[ProphecyBuster]

Odd I saw this. I just got David Icke's book Guide to Global Conspiracy and have been reading some about the 9/11 diaster namely the plane crash in PA and the Pentagon.  Whats up with this? Can someone explain how a jet as large as a 747 can crash and leave very little debris? Another interesting thing that he brought up there were no Arabs on the flight list of either plane how did they get on board with out a ticket? Also, the hole that was left in the Pentagon after the so called crash I saw pics and to me it just does not look like a jet as large as a 747 went through there. He also mentions that the grass was as pristine after the crash as it was before how? I mean jet fuel burns hot about 1700F would not have the flash from the explosion charred the area around the crash site? Where was the debris from the jet I saw not pics of any debris. Jets falling from 30 and 35,000 feet leave large hunks of debris.

[Protean]

Odd I saw this. I just got David Icke's book Guide to Global Conspiracy and have been reading some about the 9/11 diaster namely the plane crash in PA and the Pentagon.  Whats up with this? Can someone explain how a jet as large as a 747 can crash and leave very little debris? Another interesting thing that he brought up there were no Arabs on the flight list of either plane how did they get on board with out a ticket? Also, the hole that was left in the Pentagon after the so called crash I saw pics and to me it just does not look like a jet as large as a 747 went through there. He also mentions that the grass was as pristine after the crash as it was before how? I mean jet fuel burns hot about 1700F would not have the flash from the explosion charred the area around the crash site? Where was the debris from the jet I saw not pics of any debris. Jets falling from 30 and 35,000 feet leave large hunks of debris.

This link was posted above--this will shed light on your questions.
Audio--Guns & Butter: What Didn't Hit The Pentagon
Listen here---
http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=20839

[markshark4]

Everybody should watch this movie on 9/11!!!


9/11 Ripple Effect



Featuring:

Pilot Fred Fox
Pilot Glen Stanish
Pilot Russ Wittenburg
Major Glen MacDonald
Major Doug Rokke
Colonel George Nelson
General Albert Stubblebine
Kevin Barrett
Jim Fetzer
Phil Jayhan
Jim Marrs
William Rodriguez


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3969310749489496889

[ProphecyBuster]

You guys got more patience than I do I just do not have the patience to sit here and watch those slow moving videos reminds me of a 1920s Vaudeville Comedy scene.

[markshark4]

I saw this on the comments section at Infowars, it's pretty funny and spot on.



A huge problem with these Bermas films is that he ALWAYS assumes there were planes based on NO verifiable evidence what so ever. That’s a problem for someone searching for the truth?

Hypothetical phone call from an airline company to the airline insurance representative after 911:

IC: “Hello…How may I help you?”

AC: Yes….I have 4 planes insured with you guys and they all crashed on 911 and I was calling to see when I can get my insurance money for my loss.

IC: “OK….that’s horrible. Let’s see…. where did this happen?

AC: Well….2 planes hit the WTC’s in NYC another plane hit the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field in PA. When can I get my money?

IC: “Well here at Bob’s Plane insurance we want you to receive your money asap. All we will need to do is inspect and verify the wreckage and the ID numbers on the 4 planes so that we can get you your money as quickly as possible. What are the exact locations so that we can send out our inspectors?”

AC: Well…..that’s a problem. You see there is absolutely NO WRECKAGE of ANY KIND but we do have lots of eyewitnesses and lots of video and film. When can I get my money?

IC: “I understand sir. It’s just that to pay you all we must do is simply verify that the plane that crashed was the plane that you say it was. It’s simply a matter of looking at any of the 3.1 million pieces that make up a standard 767. If 4 of them crashed that should be pretty easy. That’s almost 13 million parts of aircraft. When can we inspect the wreckage?”

AC: Well….you can’t. We have eyewitnesses and video.

IC: “Sir I understand. It’s just that we have never paid a claim simply by an eyewitness or video. All we go by is the wreckage. Certainly there were black boxes or voice data recorders that we could verify other than witnesses or video?”

AC: “Are you calling all of our eyewitnesses liars? Are you calling all of our video, film, and photos faked and staged? Are you saying that the pain felt by the victims is somehow not real? Are saying that Bush lied and that you hate our troops?”

IC: “Sir…I understand…it’s just that you are calling about being paid millions of dollars with not one single piece of verifiable evidence of any kind. As an airline insurance company…you must understand that we would be out of business in minutes if all that was needed to file a claim was an eyewitness, a photo, and NO WRECKAGE. Can we at least inspect or test the sites?

AC: No…..take it or leave it. All we have is what the media told us and what our eyewitnesses said they may have seen…although none of them were under oath. When can we get our money?

IC: “Sir…with all due respects….call us when we can inspect ANY form of wreckage. Goodbye.”

AND NOW REAL LIFE: As of this writing not one dime has been paid to any of the airline companies that lost planes on 911. Why? Because the insurance companies investigating the crashes have NEVER VERIFIED A SINGLE PIECE OF WRECKAGE FROM ANY OF THE 4 PLANES AT ANY OF THE 4 LOCATIONS ON 911. They pay only by wreckage.


^^^ Does anyone know if that last part is actually true? 

That's f'n CRAZY!!!

Can anybody confirm this?

[Biggs]

if, and I say IF the last part is verifiable then it is quite a big deal really

[Typhoon]

I always wondered why the pentagon didnt collapse.  WTC7 collapsed and wasnt hit by a plane, but the Pentagon was hit by a plane in the official story, hence -according to the official logic- it should have collapsed.

[Sasha]

As a result of a lawsuit, this footage from a hotel in Arlington, VA, confiscated by the FBI, has just been released.

Just add it to the mountain of other proof that we already have, but isn't it nice to hear an msm bobble head say, "...but the video does not show the airplane."

I also realize that since the Feds got to the footage first its very likely been doctored.  Someone with good video capture and annalysis equipment and skills is gonna get to this soon, then we'll be able to settle that question.  So here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXEZp-ULmXw

[markshark4]

A common question: If Flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, what happened to all the passengers???



This is a VERY interesting read that might shed some light on that question!!!

The 9-11 Passenger List Oddity
by Vincent Sammartino

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html



Operation Northwoods Document:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/200...

"drone (unmanned)" on pg 8 (3/b). Page 9 section 6, "military drone aircraft" and "modifying an aircraft" to appear as a Cuban Mig. Page 10 section 8 describes how a "passenger" plane would be disguised and shot down with a fake passenger list.
Also on page 8, section 2/a/11 "mock victims". More about fake passengers...



Click on more info

Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgDjYSE0pDU

[KiwiClare]

Although not new, it is new at Digg.com, so if you like it, Digg, comment & share with your friends:
http://digg.com/politics/9_11_Pentagon_Attack_Survivor_April_Gallup_speaks

  9-11 Pentagon Attack Survivor April Gallup speaks watch!

video.google.com — April Gallup makes some surprising observations and comments about the attack on the Pentagon.

[Biggs]

definitely a good video to show people

[Kregener]

Pentagon Eyewitness Has Different 9-11 Story
Civilian pilot says no Boeing 757 slammed into military complex

AMERICAN FREE PRESS • July 17 & 24, 2006

By Christopher Bollyn
Nearly five years after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the five-sided military fortress housing the Department of Defense.
Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Md., says he was trying to get out of Washington on the morning of 9-11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd., the highway that passes the western side of the Pentagon, from where he says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack.
Danner’s eyewitness account corroborates the theory that a weaponized unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, built on a low lying area southwest of the nation’s capital in an area formerly known as Hell’s Bottom.
A multi-billion dollar defense project involving contractors like L3 Communications Titan Group, Northrop-Grumman Systems Corp., and Raytheon, the Global Hawk is a 44-foot long jet-powered surveillance UAV with a 116-foot wing span that can fly 12,000 miles at an altitude of 65,000 feet at 400 miles per hour. At the time of the attack, there were only five or six Global Hawks in service. Two of the original UAVs in the Global Hawk fleet reportedly crashed, one at China Lake, Calif., another “somewhere overseas,” according to a spokesman at Edwards Air Force Base where the aircraft is tested.   
The evidence supporting the theory that a Global Hawk was flown into the Pentagon by remote control has been extensively investigated by this writer in American Free Press since 2003. While Danner’s testimony corroborates this theory, there is no evidence, physical or photographic, in the public domain to support the government version that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.
Danner, who was diagnosed with a form of lymphoma in September 2004, contacted 9-11 researcher Eric Hufschmid, author of Painful Questions, on June 29, 2006. Hufschmid, who works closely with this author, provided Danner’s contact information. Danner’s initial wide-ranging two-hour conversation with Hufschmid is available on-line at erichufschmid.net.
Asked why he finally decided to come forth with his groundbreaking testimony, Danner told AFP, “It’s been bugging me.” Danner said his son had shown him the 9-11 video called Loose Change by Dylan Avery on the Internet. “It made so much sense to me,” Danner said. “It got me upset, in a good sense, in a patriotic sense. I asked myself why I didn’t come out with this earlier?”
Danner told AFP that being a 53-year-old lymphoma patient going through chemotherapy had motivated him to come forward with his testimony.
Since coming forward with his account, Danner has been the guest on several of Michael Collins Piper’s radio program on the Republic Broadcasting Network. The shows have been archived at the web site RBNlive.com. His first show set a record for the number of listeners at RBN.
The government version that a Boeing 757 hijacked by Arabs hit the Pentagon is “a big bogus lie,” Danner said.
About the five video frames released by the government and the official explanation, Danner says: “That’s a lie if I ever saw one. The American people need to know. “It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon,” Danner told AFP, “No way.” In fact, Danner’s description of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon fits precisely with that of a Global Hawk, a relatively unknown UAV, which was still being tested in 2001.
Danner, a certified pilot who no longer flies due to his illness, has had a lifelong interest in aircraft, both military and civilian, and has attended military air shows at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington. “I like airplanes,” Danner said, and his ability to identify aircraft quickly and accurately is central to the credibility of his testimony. He was, however, not familiar with the Global Hawk at the time.
As he drove south on the west side of the Pentagon shortly after 9:30 a.m. on 9-11, Danner noticed a strange object in the air. He noticed that other drivers were also distracted by the object, which he described as an unidentified flying object (UFO). Danner pulled over on the right hand shoulder, stopped his car, and got out to observe the approaching aircraft.
From this position, with the Pentagon on his left, he recalled his observations of the aircraft he says struck the Pentagon.
Danner described the object as a white aircraft, without any cockpit or fuselage windows, which came at him very fast.
It was “bigger than a Gulfstream 300,” he said, and had only one engine located on the rear section between a V tail, which reminded him of a Beechcraft Bonanza. The aircraft had a “funny looking front” with the shape of “a humpback whale,” he said.

He saw the aircraft finish a tight descending turn to the right as it approached the Pentagon. As it leveled off just off the ground he said he heard “a high pitched whine” as the single engine aircraft “spooled up.”
“It was real low,” he said as it turned and dove toward the Pentagon over the highway cloverleaf southwest of the Pentagon. Danner said the aircraft had approached from the north and had made a 270-degree turn while descending.
“It looked like it was under perfect control,” Danner said, adding that he did not see any windows on the cockpit or the fuselage. Danner estimated that the aircraft was traveling about 200 miles per hour as it made the tight turn, then accelerated and leveled out before aiming itself at the Pentagon.
The engine configuration reminded Danner of an older Boeing 727, which has a turbine jet engine located on the back of the plane above the fuselage. “That was the only engine I saw,” Danner said, “there was none affixed to any fore or aft wings.”
“It had a V tail,” Danner told AFP, “it had a Bonanza V tail.”
Danner, who estimates that he was less than 500 feet from the path of this aircraft, noted that it was very quiet: “There wasn’t the roar noise that you get with a jet at full throttle. This thing knew how to fly quietly—I mean I could hear the whine and I knew it was jet powered.” Danner’s description of the
aircraft’s small size is confirmed by early eyewitness reports.
One witness, Steve Riskus, has previously confirmed to AFP that the plane was very quiet. “There was a four-engine jet above us,” Danner said, which looked to him like a Boeing 707 or a DC-8 at about 15,000
feet. He said this plane may have been controlling the windowless drone, which struck the Pentagon, by “flying it by camera.” Danner noticed that people at the Pentagon were aware of this plane overhead.
Danner said he had contacted some of the people he met on the lawn of the Pentagon to encourage them to come forward with their testimony.
Danner says the aircraft flew with remarkable precision as it leveled off and went right into the southwestern facade of the Pentagon. The impact created a “brilliant white flash” that he described as “a phosphorous kind of flash.” This suggests the UAV carried explosives or a depleted uranium (DU) missile.
If a DU missile was used, this could explain the source of Danner’s lymphoma. If he was contaminated by DU at the Pentagon crash site, the other people in the proximity would also have been affected.
Wearing his emergency medical technician (EMT) shirt that he carried in his car, Danner went directly to the crash site expecting to find wreckage, debris, wounded and dead. “I didn’t find anything,” Danner says. “I was there to rescue, but there were no bodies and no substantial pieces of wreckage.”
Rather than finding wreckage of a Boeing 757, passengers and luggage, Danner found “a bunch of sheet metal” and a bent and damaged 3-foot engine that was missing its turbine blades. Danner said he stood two feet away from the threefoot engine that this writer investigated in a series of articles in 2003. The engine was found about 25 feet from the exterior wall and appears to have bounced off the two-foot thick limestone-clad wall.
At the scene of the crash Danner recalls smelling gun powder or cordite. The white flash he saw suggests that the aircraft was weaponized with a missile. A DU missile launched as the aircraft approached the building would explain the brilliant white flash, the hole pierced through three rings of the Pentagon and the huge explosion.
Later, Danner participated in the retrieval of small pieces of the aircraft from the lawn with Pentagon personnel. He said he found small pieces of shredded aluminum and bits of carbon fiber and polymer resins. The Global Hawk has an aluminum fuselage and carbon-fiber wings. “We were told to pick up every piece of debris,” Danner said, which they put into trash bags.
Danner said the scene felt more like a crime scene than a crash scene and he was mystified by the way the evidence was being removed rather than flagged and documented.

Christopher Bollyn is AFP’s Midwest bureau chief.

[Terral]

Route24:

It's interesting to note that there is only one hole in the Pentagon that maybe the body of the plane went through. But where did the wings, engines and tail fins go?

There was never any 100-Ton Jetliner crash anywhere near the Pentagon (CNN video) on 9/11 or any other day. My explanation of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 is here, as told by the ‘evidence.’ The E-Ring impact hole was only 18-feet 3-inches wide at the second floor (pic) and no windows were even broken on the third floor (damage pic).  Then realize that the large cable spools (pic) stood directly in the flight path and there is NO WAY any 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here. Period. 

The engines on a 767 are roughly 9 ft around and are the heaviest equipment on the plane.

The fantasy AA77 was a Boeing 757-200 with two Rolls Royce 6-ton engines (pic) that also never struck the Pentagon anywhere. We know that NO massive engines struck the Pentagon, because at 530 miles per hour they would have exited the C-Ring wall in just .39 seconds and we see no signs of any twin-engine damage in the pictures at all (pic = wall on left). You can look back through the little 10-feet diameter C-Ring exit hole (here) to see light shining through the E-Ring windows just 220 feet away and see no signs of any crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. Remember that a real 100-Ton Jetliner (pic and schematic) includes 60 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium allow frame, the two 6-ton engines, massive wing sections, fuselage, landing gear (pic), massive tail section (like this) almost 50-feet tall, over 200 seats, cargo, crew and passengers. Even the impact hole should have extended over to Column Line (CL) #5 (pic = on left), but the actual columns taken out extend only to CL-11 (pic) with column #9 and #10 still standing. The only reason that some people talk about the size of the entry hole is over the complete lack of evidence for any 100-Ton Jetliner. :0)         

If the body of the plane is capable of punching a hole through 3 rings of the massive concrete walls of the Pentagon, there should also be holes where the engines went through.

We agree. However, remember that the first floor of the Wedge One section includes everything between the E-Ring to the rear C-Ring wall under a single roof (diagram) spanning a 220-feet distance. You can see the roof extending over the West Wedge One section in this picture (here). Therefore, the only masonry walls on the first floor are the outside E-Ring wall and the rear C-Ring wall with a checkerboard-like assembly of columns between them. The question then comes up about how an almost 50-feet tall Jetliner crashes only through the first floor ‘and’ over the tops of these cable spools (pic) and the vehicles parked in front of Column Line 8 (here).     

But there are no holes from the engines which rules out a 767. Let's also not forget that the section of the Pentagon that was hit had been renovated and reinforced to make the walls even more stronger than they were originally.

Well, the eight-inch masonry walls with poured 21-inch concrete columns with the limestone-clad facing are all original Pentagon building components, but the windows and key cross walls were beefed up against this very kind of attack. The difference is that the brand new water sprinklers and fire protection safeguards were installed by the DoD inside-job bad guys to contain this fire from spreading to the remainder of the unprotected four Wedges. If this self-inflicted wound had taken place in any of the other four Wedge Sections, then 4/5ths of the Pentagon would have burned to the ground and only Wedge One would have remained standing. :0) 

As for a small plane doing that kind of damage is even less likely. It was most likely a missile that looked like a plane.

Everything is explained in my “This Is What Really Happened At The Pentagon” Opening Post, and in my other threads in the LetsRoll Pentagon Forum (here), so I will not repeat myself needlessly here on your thread. We agree 100 percent that the Pentagon was attacked by a missile (like this), before eventually being struck by the same retrofitted A-3 Jet (pic) exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds later.

GL,

Terral

[TheGoodFight1984]

I have read a handful of arguments about the Pentagon strike, all very well researched and thought out, and while this is good for consideration, debate and further research, in my opinion there is one thing that will put to bed the AA77 / Missile / A3 / Global Hawk case pretty well, and that is the Pentagon releasing just one CCTV video, from the 80-odd they confiscated, that clearly shows what caused the damage.

The Pentagon will not release the tapes due to their claim of 'National Security'.. which is BS. They claim to have reviewed these tapes and say not one shows what did hit, so if none of the tapes show what hit, then release them all, you have nothing to worry about. But the whole 'National Security' reason says to me that if they did release any of these 80-odd tapes, the public would go ballistic at what they saw.

I don't mean that to detract from the validity or accuracy of anyone's research, I'm in no position to debunk anyone's hard work, but as far as I'm concerned, what we need is a release of the CCTV footage for some kind of closure on this...?

[Terral]

Hi Good:

I have read a handful of arguments about the Pentagon strike, all very well researched and thought out, and while this is good for consideration, debate and further research, in my opinion there is one thing that will put to bed the AA77 / Missile / A3 / Global Hawk case pretty well, and that is the Pentagon releasing just one CCTV video, from the 80-odd they confiscated, that clearly shows what caused the damage.

The Pentagon did release two CCTV videos showing the missile striking the Pentagon at 9:31:39 AM. :0)

911Research.net

These thirty frames are set side-by-side from the ‘two’ CCTV cameras positioned outside the Pentagon looking south. The first picture on the right side shows the nose of the missile approaching the Pentagon at 9:31:39 AM using the “South of Citgo” Flight Path (pic = in green) that strikes the E-Ring wall at Column Line (CL) 14. A clipping of this picture is used to show how I determined the precise diameter of the missile here:



An explanation appears in my Loose Change Timeline Post here beginning at “This Timeline Chart shows . . .”. Go back and look at all thirty frames to the bottom of the 911Research.net page to realize there are only ‘inside-the-building fires’ (from Barbara Honegger’s famous paper) in the first attack, until Lloyd’s ‘big boom’ (LibertyPost story) that transforms the ‘single smoke plume’ (top pic here and here = matches this larger one) into a massive 350-feet long blazing inferno (pic). 

The Pentagon will not release the tapes due to their claim of 'National Security'.. which is BS. They claim to have reviewed these tapes and say not one shows what did hit, so if none of the tapes show what hit, then release them all, you have nothing to worry about. But the whole 'National Security' reason says to me that if they did release any of these 80-odd tapes, the public would go ballistic at what they saw.

These two videos were released on May 16, 2006, but show the 9:31:39 AM first attack and nothing that takes place in the ‘second’ attack at 9:36:27 AM.

I don't mean that to detract from the validity or accuracy of anyone's research, I'm in no position to debunk anyone's hard work, but as far as I'm concerned, what we need is a release of the CCTV footage for some kind of closure on this...?

In other words, we should expect the Inside-Job ‘rogue element’ (my Pentagon explanation) bad guys, running the FBI/CIA/DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Campaign to just fess up and admit to murdering hundreds of innocent Americans in these 9/11 attacks. For some reason that should be obvious (Bush/Rove, Cheney and their cohorts are the murderers), that is likely not going to happen. :0)

GL,

Terral

[fradus]

In other words, we should expect the Inside-Job ‘rogue element’ (my Pentagon explanation) bad guys, running the FBI/CIA/DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Campaign to just fess up and admit to murdering hundreds of innocent Americans in these 9/11 attacks. For some reason that should be obvious (Bush/Rove, Cheney and their cohorts are the murderers), that is likely not going to happen. :0)

GL,

Terral

I disagree.
The cat always gets outta the bag - especially one this big.
Someone will "deepthroat" after Obama takes power.
There must be at least 20 people complicit.

Someone must need to sleep without this preying on thier mind.

[Mike Philbin]

Okay,

OBAMA'S NOW IN POWER. Where's the follow-up to this 9/11 investigation. I wanna see who did it. It's like the ultimate crime thriller. Are there no more Hercules Poirrots left?

Come on, I wanna see who did it? I know why. Actually, I know WHO, but I want the rest of the world to see it too, on the Nightly News. International arrests. Trials on US soil. Convictions and jailtime.

Mike

[New World Hitler]

I was wondering, how did the Pentagon's wall structure compare to the twin towers?

[Mike Philbin]

ENOUGH ALREADY arrest the criminals and let's have this blood-spurting artery of corporate history tied off.

[barndoor77]

Maybe try the documentary www.thepentacon.com

http://www.thepentacon.com/

I watched it - two police officers that were at the scene prove that the official flight path was completely bogus.

Besides you guys can argue semantics all day  - 80 tapes are being hidden from public eyes probably in some super-vault inside Iron Mountain.

[jimd3100]

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush had some controversial plans on how to allocate the Budget for the Military.


Published: March 18, 2001
Author: TOM BOWMAN; Baltimore Sun
On the third floor of the Pentagon, behind closed doors, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a coterie of advisers are quietly fashioning what may be a drastically altered military for the 21st century. Security is tight. The officers and civilian analysts providing information to Rumsfeld and his team are sworn to secrecy.

Not much has leaked out, but some analysts say Rumsfeld's goal might be a major transformation of the roles, missions and weapons of the armed forces.

"Potentially, one of the biggest shifts in the century, more dramatic change than in earlier reviews," said Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington research group.

Rumsfeld's blueprint, expected to be unveiled in the spring, will detail his view of the threats to the United States, the size of the military, the way forces should be deployed, which weapons should be built and which scrapped.

The Rumsfeld review will be the "underpinning" for Pentagon spending, according to Bush's $310 billion budget plan, which faulted the military for organizing and equipping itself to fight the long-departed Soviet Union, not future adversaries.

A military that relies on aircraft carriers, attack aircraft and tanks must look to more futuristic technology, according to the budget plan Bush sent to Capitol Hill late last month.

Elaborating on that presidential dictum, officials say victory no longer can be assured by brute force, but instead requires information, stealth and speed. They say the battle space of the future will be dominated by pilotless drones that can bomb or spy; small, missile-packed ships; and satellites and miniature sensors that detect the enemy.

Some contractors and military officers fear that cherished weapons systems may fall victim to the review because the budget plan says the military must move beyond "incremental" change.

Some say the sweep of the Rumsfeld review could be unprecedented, dwarfing earlier efforts to reshape the military.

Wolfowitz is a key figure in the new review, which is expected to increase the focus on terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and chemical and biological weapons. It also is likely to question whether the two-war strategy still makes sense, said military analysts and congressional aides, who have seen some of the proposals.

Rumsfeld picked up on those themes last week during a news conference and again raised questions about the weapons in the U.S. arsenal.

"Our interest is in recognizing that ballistic missiles constitute a threat and weapons of mass destruction constitute a threat," he said. "(These) threats constitute more of a threat today than the risk of a major land, sea or air war, where some country decides to threaten Western armies and navies and air forces."
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=MWSB|PKPB&p_product=MSNP&p_theme=msnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=Donald%20Rumsfeld%20and%20a%20coterie%20AND%20date(2001)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2001&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Donald%20Rumsfeld%20and%20a%20coterie)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no


James Dao, Thom Shanker, New York Times
Sunday, June 3, 2001

Congressional officials say fiscal restraints will tighten significantly in 2003, when Rumsfeld hopes to begin enacting major, and potentially costly, changes to the military -- most likely by procuring higher-tech weapons such as unmanned aircraft or anti-missile technology.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said, "By our calculations, there is not enough money to meet even minimal expectations of what Rumsfeld's requests will be.

"Without a compelling threat, an immediate threat," Spratt said, "I don't think cutting education or the environment is going to work."

Some Republicans have raised similar concerns. But the administration does not accept such budget analyses.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/06/03/MN149661.DTL&hw=UNMANNED+WEAPON&sn=053&sc=232

July 2, 2001
U.S. lawmakers from both parties warned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the $1.35 trillion tax cut combined with a softening economy might not leave enough money to fund basic defense requests, much less a wholesale restructuring of the U.S. military.
http://www.defensedaily.com/articles/dt/2001/dt07020122.htm

Looks like Budget analysts for the Military need to get on Board with Rumsfelds vision....

August 17, 2001
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is moving away from issuing specific orders to the armed services on how large or small their forces should be as the Pentagon works to complete guidelines for its next budget, a senior defense official said today.

Since Mr. Rumsfeld came to the Pentagon, reports of his closed-door discussions about sharp cuts in forces have been condemned by many people in uniform -- who say forces should not be reduced without a reduction in military commitments -- as well as Congressional advocates of bases and weapons programs.

At a Pentagon briefing, Mr. Wolfowitz said: ''You could say, 'I want you to have X divisions and Y air wings, no matter what else you do.' Or alternatively you could say, 'I want you to have certain capabilities; you pay for them any way you have to, and if you feel you need to pay for them by cutting an air wing or cutting a division, that's a decision you make within your budget process.' ''

Three parallel reviews are under way: The national security strategy review, in which the White House sets the overall goals in military affairs and foreign policy; the Quadrennial Defense Review, in which the Pentagon sets its strategy; and the budget review, which will result in a fiscal proposal for 2003, the first true Bush budget.

''Hopefully, if we've done our work right, and if the budgets are right, these two requirements will converge,'' he said. ''If there's a problem, we will end up with having to identify a gap between strategy and resources.''

If that gap emerges, Mr. Wolfowitz said, ''then obviously we either have to increase the resources to do the strategy or adjust the strategy in some way to be less ambitious.''

But given the Bush tax cut and domestic spending priorities, there is little expectation of a major infusion of money to the Pentagon, leaving planners few options beyond reducing forces and seeking efficiencies in its business practices.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/17/us/defense-chief-may-leave-size-of-field-forces-up-to-services.html

Sunday, Aug. 19, 2001
In seven months as Pentagon chief, Rumsfeld has managed to spook the military, alienate defense contractors, mobilize much of Capitol Hill against him--and even make some in the White House question his toughness. It's usually a Democrat who puts the Pentagon on a wartime footing, but Rumsfeld, 69, is an armor-plated Republican and a military man to boot (he served as a Navy pilot). He has stirred up these problems by launching a much needed but oddly secretive review of the U.S. military that until last week threatened to sink ships, ground planes and retire soldiers in order to reduce U.S. forces overseas and free up money for more research in areas such as missile defense. "This is one of the most interesting situations I've seen in a long time," says Representative Norm Dicks, a pro-military Democrat from Washington State. "He says he wants the military to stop saying they can fight two wars on two fronts simultaneously. But he has opened more fronts in Washington than any Defense Secretary in memory."

Which helps explain why, all of a sudden last Friday, Rumsfeld sued for peace. After hinting for months that the new Administration might force the Army, Navy and Air Force to cut two or three divisions, 40 to 50 ships and as many as 72 fighters, the Pentagon chief said, in effect, never mind. The three services, he announced, can decide for themselves how to prepare for the future. "This is a big organization," he said. "The services make lots of decisions. It would be foolhardy to try to micromanage from the top...every aspect of everything that is going on."

If the review was overdue, the way Rumsfeld went about doing it was downright peculiar. Instead of using active-duty officers to run the show, he at first went outside to retirees for advice. That upset both officers and civilian employees, who were much more up to speed about current threats and capabilities. Rumsfeld also kept top officials of the services in the dark about his progress--and many, like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, complained that it took months just to get a meeting with Rumsfeld. It wasn't long before the Pentagon bureaucracy went from pliant to resistant. "People got mad," said F. Whitten Peters, Secretary of the Air Force under Clinton, "because they didn't feel it was a real two-way street."

The military, however, regarded all the extra work as exhausting but also as a useful lever during budget negotiations. The more the services thought about Rumsfeld's "transformation," the less they cared for it. As an admiral said last week, "Like it or not, the current strategy resonates with most people here. It's better to be engaged overseas than to have to die [in combat]. We like that. When we're engaged, we know the turf and we know the allies. Pulling out takes all that away."

The budget situation became almost impossible. For months, many analysts had been saying the only way Congress might go along with Rumsfeld's reforms was if he sweetened the deal by sprinkling goodies on key districts. But now the extra money was drying up. Rumsfeld went to the White House in July to ask for $38 billion more for next year's military budget, and he came away with less than half that. It was the largest increase since Reagan, but it wasn't enough to grease the way for Rumsfeld's reforms.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,171790,00.html

And then Hani Hanjour solves a few problems. He was nice enough to hit that one spot that would cause the least damage.

AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE PENTAGON; Defense Department Says 126 Are Missing, Raising Total of Crash Victims to 190
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ELIZABETH BECKER
Published: Friday, September 14, 2001

The hijackers slammed the American Airlines 757 into a newly renovated wedge of the Pentagon. Many of the building's survivors credited new defense features, like shatterproof windows, for saving many lives and keeping the toll lower than it might have been.

''Protecting the Pentagon'' American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into an area of the Pentagon that had recently been renovated and included new designs to minimize damage from an explosion. Renovation officials believe that because of the reinforcements, some people in the damaged area were able to flee before it collapsed. THE REINFORCEMENTS STEEL BEAMS New vertical steel beams were installed on each side of every exterior window. DEBRIS-CATCHING MATERIAL A very strong mesh material, similar to Kevlar, was stretched between the stabilizing steel beams to contain debris in a blast. BLAST-RESISTANT WINDOWS Every exterior window and frame was replaced, with new panes an inch and a half thick. Diagrams show: Each window, with its frame, weighs 1,600 pounds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-pentagon-defense-department-says-126-are-missing-raising-total.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


And who were the bulk of Hani's victims?

Sunday, December 16, 2001
One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011216pentagonp4.asp

Resource Services Washington homepage....

Our Mission 

Develop MACOM level Program Objective Memorandum
Formulate the Operating Agency annual budget estimate.
Develop allocation guidance.
Execute or monitor the execution of budget authority.
Supervise open transactions and operation of DTS-W and the Army Welfare Fund.
Conduct budget execution reviews and managerial accounting service.
Report and account for public funds.
Evaluate operations for compliance with policy and recommend improvement.
Administer a Management Control Program.
http://www.hqda.army.mil/rsw/

If Pilot extraordinaire Hani's goal was to kill high ranking military brass he failed miserably. Maybe he had something against budget analysts. Instead of simply diving into the pentagon the showoff wanted to display his amazing flying skills....

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

His first time flying a large jet and he could have replaced this expert. He did the same thing supposedly....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk&feature=related

Published: Friday, October 12, 2001
The military may be accustomed to war and losing comrades, but the civilians who work at the Pentagon had not expected to find themselves in a combat zone. More civilians perished than military members.

When the terrorist hijackers steered the jet into the Pentagon, they managed to kill more accountants than special operations commandos. The worst hit was the budget office of the Army headquarters, which lost all 32 budget analysts and accountants.

The office had two weeks to close the books on the Army's annual $3 billion budget, a major feat any time but nearly impossible with so many colleagues missing. It did so just in time, using a makeshift crew of temporary accountants and former employees who came out of retirement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/us/nation-challenged-attack-pentagon-military-bounds-back-sept-11-does-it-double.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz no doubt got the budget for the military allocated towards their goals after Hanis' air show.

[Unintelligable Name]

bumpy bumped bumpum wump

[Brocke]

A screen grab for posterity.

[planet5]

dear dr. mount and staff at scantv(closeing the circle)
this is my best estimate of the whys and wherefores of the 911
globalist escapade (continueing)
Please pass this on to as many of your freinds and investigators as
possible. we need another investigation into what actually happened
to the drone and the missles comeing from above and on the opposite
side of the pentagon.....never shown,the damage on this inner ring
side.
the documentary expose from the 911truth pilots organization was
very good but only exposed a part of the truth as far as
corroberateing witness statements. more needs to be said about what
I have connected.


FOLLOW UP:


a LITTLE MORE RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT AN RQ-1 was most likely the
drone used,with hellfire 114 missles that could have been fired at
the pentagon after it dropped from 45,000 feet.
the drone was most likely attached to a larger military unmarked
aircraft(which was later seen in the area of pentagon) the two
sixteen foot holes in both walls of the three ring pentagon
explains this(as well as materiels and nacelle engine parts exiting
via the front face of pentagon and takeing out a light pole.
this drone can be stored in a box on board a C-130 hercules called
"the coffin"when not in use or ready to launch on an exterior
tripod of the military jet transport(not the c-130)
both were seen in the vicinity by witnesses on 911,but they did not
see a marked 757!!! and a 757 did not crash into the pentagon.
whatever hit it was moveing at supersonic and accurate speed.





it is most likely the rq-4 or a BAE or french made equivalent that
slammed into the pentagon,and most likely did have depleted
uranium(titanium)in engine(thus the cleanup efforts after the 911
incident. this plane most likely has an engine whose nacelle unit
most describes the jtd-8. it was most likely flown from high
altitude into the other side of the triple ring of the pentagon and
pieces exited the outer part of the ring camera side. light poles
and bldg pieces blown outward.
If this is the case this drone was controlled from either the
pentagon as nsa does for its operations in iraq,israel and
elsewhere,or from building number-7 for its accurate descent from
the plane it was mounted on...into the pentagon.
the why of 911 is even more important as is the money trail(none of
which was followed properly by the commisions)
the buildings contained evidence of the wrongs of the
american-british side in killings and oil manipulations and the
gulf war syndrome of the first gulf war,as well as the evidence for
ongoing fraud cases on wall st.involveing i am sure the treasury
and the SEC. this attack set the precedent for globalist entry into
the second gulf war as well as allowing all the fraud to be
continued to 2008 and our financial debacle on wall st. whats next?
something related to afghanistan pakistan and iraq I am sure in
another attack from the air in the usa blamed on those peoples
possibly.
charles,auburn,wa


 

[Mike Philbin]

Civilian pilot says no Boeing 757 slammed into military complex

Danner’s eyewitness account corroborates the theory that a weaponized unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, built on a low lying area southwest of the nation’s capital in an area formerly known as Hell’s Bottom. wing span that can fly 12,000 miles at an altitude of 65,000 feet at 400 miles per hour.[/b] At the time of the attack, there were only five or six Global Hawks in service. Two of the original UAVs in the Global Hawk fleet reportedly crashed, one at China Lake, Calif.,

what do we care about EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY to the truth of what REALY hit the pentagon on that day?  He thought he saw a Global Hawk before anyone knew what they were. He just 'saw something', let's put it down to eye witness error and focus on the Official Story. Thank you.

sarcasm engine disengaged.

[Ruth]

A screen grab for posterity.

Oh, come on - you can't be serious!  He is "trying" you know!

[criticalunity]

http://criticalunity.org/videos/viewvideo/415/staged-terrorism/911-pentagon-conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-v.html

Guys... The police state episode just got removed from youtube, DOWNLOAD ALL THE EPISODES YOU CAN USING KEEPVID.COM NOW!

[rabblevox]

Okay,

OBAMA'S NOW IN POWER. Where's the follow-up to this 9/11 investigation. I wanna see who did it. It's like the ultimate crime thriller. Are there no more Hercules Poirrots left?

Come on, I wanna see who did it? I know why. Actually, I know WHO, but I want the rest of the world to see it too, on the Nightly News. International arrests. Trials on US soil. Convictions and jailtime.

Mike

I'll fully admit, I got fooled by Obama.  He's one of the best speech-makers on the planet (probably the best US speech-maker since Reagan)  I fell for the whole "hope and change" thing.  The Bush years were so flat fracking awful that I was grasping at straws (as was most of the nation)

He knows the "truth" about 9/11, and will work every bit as hard as Bush/Cheney to make sure you and I never do.  He could end the Patriot Act with a stroke of a pen (which was one of his campaign promises).  Instead, he expanded it.

His administration has been anti-peace, anti-freedom, anti-justice every step of the way.
Democrats who are appealed by him will stay silent. (the same way most honest Republicans stayed silent during the Bush administration).  They feel, unfortunately (and accurately) like there is no where else for them to go.

The Greens, the Tea Party, the Libertarians, the Peace And Freedom Party...each has a piece of the answer, yet each is unable to talk to the other, much less to the general public in a way that will resonate.

And yes, there are Hercule Poirott's. (though due to culture, I'd be more inclined to name them Sam Spade's or Travis McGee's)

The problem is that Hercule, or Sam, or Travis, (or Brenda Starr, for that matter) are individuals.  The cult of "rugged individualism" is embedded deep in or national psyche.  It hasn't worked, it hasn't served us well, but it persists. (kind of like a chronic alchoholic who says "But I LIKE to drink!")

[shure]

http://criticalunity.org/videos/viewvideo/415/staged-terrorism/911-pentagon-conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-v.html

Guys... The police state episode just got removed from youtube, DOWNLOAD ALL THE EPISODES YOU CAN USING KEEPVID.COM NOW!

I personally think that is just a sales technique. After all, why would TPTB care about Ventura's tv shows that play internationally on television.

Especially when his programs are filled with "misinformation" concerning REAL subjects. I think TPTB would like that.


Have you seen this:

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

...and as for his pentagon episode, how come Jesse or any of his intrepid investigators didn't talk to any witnesses? Was he not able to find any? I didn't have a problem finding any that saw the plane hit the pentagon.

see:

Peter Kopf:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4044555/

Dawn Vignola:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4029242/

Albert Hemphill:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3369020/

Donald Bouchoux:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3485511/

Robert Leonard:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3480236/

Daryl Donley:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3589241/

Steve Storti:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3482275/

Lee Evey:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3340125/

Keith Wheelhouse:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3321073/

Alan Wallace:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269928/

Noel Sepulveda:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3340388/

Major Lincoln Lieber:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269452/

Rev. Henry Ticknor:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3315804/

Michael Defina:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3240097/

Penny Elgas:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1757591/

Father Stephen McGraw:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3485532/

Lloyd England:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3464077/

Tom Trapasso:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3488998/

Dave Winslow:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3555689/

Stuart Artman:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3555998/

Vin Narayanan:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3622757/

Allen Cleveland:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4045277/





.

[JURKA]

http://www.youtube.com/user/juccaf?feature=mhsn#p/u/3/s0bknYB6zhA