Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[Biggs]

At the 23:52 part he says "everything we bring up in this movie is a fact"....ok now you show me the part where he was demanded by sponsers to "alter their perspectives."   Now to me saying, "everything we bring up in this movie is a fact", means that he is in agreement with everything in this movie. But you think it means he was coarced? Why not just say he's a plant too?

do not underestimate the power of coercion even where well known dissidents are concerned, people can be partially compromised without being plants or traitors.

Also your assertions that anybody accused of not seeing a plane crash into the Pentagon, despite testimony to the contrary, is somehow a person being accused of involvement in 9-11 is unreasonable.

People's testimony can be compromised without them being traitors or accused of being traitors.

Mind Control being the most obvious case of innocence but more often and just as effective are -
gentle coercion or suggestion or even polite request to say something in a statement can be done easily. Combine this with plants too and those fooled by decoy plane etc and you can have a decent list of witnesses, all of whom are compromised and none of whom are traitors or accused of being traitors.

Please do not make out that calling a witness into question is the same as them being accused of direct complicity in treason and mass murder, because the two things are not the same, not by a long shot.

[jimd3100]

do not underestimate the power of coercion even where well known dissidents are concerned, people can be partially compromised without being plants or traitors.

Also your assertions that anybody accused of not seeing a plane crash into the Pentagon, despite testimony to the contrary, is somehow a person being accused of involvement in 9-11 is unreasonable.

People's testimony can be compromised without them being traitors or accused of being traitors.

Mind Control being the most obvious case of innocence but more often and just as effective are -
gentle coercion or suggestion or even polite request to say something in a statement can be done easily. Combine this with plants too and those fooled by decoy plane etc and you can have a decent list of witnesses, all of whom are compromised and none of whom are traitors or accused of being traitors.

Please do not make out that calling a witness into question is the same as them being accused of direct complicity in treason and mass murder, because the two things are not the same, not by a long shot.

Lots of witnesses claim a plane flew into the building. Almost all of them say it was a large jetliner. Show me one witness that said it was something else, or that there was no plane, other than Stubblebine, who isn't really a witness but certainly supports your theory. I wonder why?

[Biggs]

other than Stubblebine, who isn't really a witness but certainly supports your theory. I wonder why?

now why the childish smear? You seem to forget that 'no plane at the pentagon' has been the overriding position of most truthers for at least 3 years, it is hardly odd that people should find your assertions at the very least difficult.

All I was saying is that it is not helpful for you to say that 'no plane at the pentagon' are accusing witnesses of treason and mass murder. No one is making such an assertion, a witness can be compromised and be entirely innocent, add that to a few plants and you have numerous compromised witnesses.

For you to smear those who point this out as people who are making accusations of treason is not helpful in the least. Nobody here is saying these witnesses are traitors or killers, but it is possible that they have been somehow misled or cajoled into giving certain statements. That does not make them traitors and murderers.

Mores to the point nor does it mean that someone who points this out is accusing innocent people or being traitors, they are not accusing these witnesses or murder and treason, merely of giving false or innaccurate or confused witness for one of many reasons.

You may not agree with such assertion, no problem, but to smear people's assertions by accusing them of calling innocents traitors is not helpful.

Nobody is accusing anyone of treason here, just because witnesses are not murderers or traitors does not mean they are accurate or their testimony right, I accept this is not your view, fair enough, however, nobody here was talking of traitors.

As for stubblebine, I have never even heard of him, there are many better known no plane at pentagon people around, including ALL of the leading videos.

[Great Haku]

I don't know about you, Jim, but I don't exactly trust these guys:

PLANTED PENTAGON EYEWITNESSES:

Dennis Clem – Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Mike Dobbs – Marine (Navy) Corps Policy Planner Commander and senior fellow with the Lexington Institute.

Penny Elgas – sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush.

General Richard Myers – Vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Albert Hemphill – Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner – Communications Officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Stephen McGraw – former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest.

Colonel Mitch Mitchell – serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant.

Patty Murray – United States Senator (D –Washington).  She is a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security.  Sits on a board with George Bush, Sr.’s Chief of Staff.

Rick Renzi – (the law student) is actually the third most corrupt United States Congressman (R – Arizona).  His father owns a large defense company.

Meseidy Rodriguez – her name appears in legal records of Dick Cheney’s top-secret energy policy meetings, which isn’t a good sign.

John O’Keefe – managing editor of Influence, Lawyer lobbying magazine.

Vice Admiral Darb Ryan – Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel.

Alfred S. Regnery – President of Regnery Publishing, (publisher of Barbara Olson’s book) a portal of right-wing propaganda.  He is a practicing attorney and on the board of the American Foreign Policy Council “staffed by noted specialists in foreign and defense policy, and serves as a valuable resource to officials in the highest levels of government.”

Mary Lyman – Executive Director of the Washington-based lobbying group — Coalition of Publicly Traded Partnerships.

Jeffrey Taylor – Chairman of the lobby practice of Barnes & Thornburg, the practice was heavily linked to Jack Abramoff, the tainted lobbyist.  Later, Taylor becomes a lobbyist for Christian Coalition of America, a right-wing Christian group.

Elizabeth Smiley – intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters – which means that she is one of the people who coincidentally failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because she was busy watching staged jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.

Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn – Deputy Director of Military Support to Civil Authorities — which means that he is another one of the people who coincidentally failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because he was also busy watching staged jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.

Elaine McCusker – co-Chairman of the Coalition for National Security Research.

Fred Hey – Congressional staff attorney for corrupt congressman Bob Ney (R) of Ohio.

Frank Probst – retired Army officer and DoD contractor.

Donald Bouchoux – retired Naval Commander, Exec. Officer of VF1 “Wolfpack” F-14 squadron.  US Naval Institute and contributor of Proceedings naval periodical.

Ken Ford – State Department employee, claims he was using binoculars to watch the area.  This appears to be more consistent with a veteran Secret Service agent, Kenneth Ford.  He was later offered a position with the NSA after the 9/11.  But, he turned whistleblower and that resulted in him being framed as a spy.

Lesley Kelly – retired Naval Commander.

Shari Taylor – finance manager at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Philip Sheuerman – Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force.

Charles H. Krohn – Army’s deputy chief of public affairs.

Ron Turner – Navy’s deputy chief information officer.

Terry Morin – former USMC aviator, Program Manager for SPARTA, Inc.

Donald (Tim) Timmerman – relative of neocon Kenneth Timmerman.  Kenneth Timmerman is a member of the fear-mongering Committee on the Present Danger and a contributor to National Review and its ultra-right counterpart FrontPagemag.com.  Currently, Kenneth Timmerman is calling for war with Iran.

Bob Dubill – executive editor for USA Today.

Mary Ann Owens – journalist for Gannett.

Richard Benedetto – reporter for USA Today.

Christopher Munsey – reporter for Navy Times.

Vin Narayanan – reporter for USA Today.

Joel Sucherman – multimedia editor for USA Today.

Mike Walter – reporter for USA Today.

Steve Anderson – director of communications for USA Today.

Fred Gaskins – national editor for USA Today.

Mark Faram – reporter for Navy Times.

Phillip Thompson – reporter for Marine Corp Times.

Anna Adams – reporter for Daily Record.

Eugenio Hernandez – TV producer/video journalist for Associated Press.

Dave Winslow – radio reporter for Associated Press.

As I am pro-NoPlanes/TVFakery, I distrust these 'media eyewitnesses' as I believe that the mainstream media was operationally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Even for those who aren't convinced of the media faking the WTC videos, it should come suspicious to you that the news agencies that these eyewitnesses came from are all run by the Gannett Company, which at the time was chaired by Douglas H. McCorkindale, who was on the board of top defense contractor Lockheed Martin!

Eyewitnesses are not an issue any more. Accounts of real eyewitnesses are contradictory, and the ones that saw a plane are not exactly the most trustworthy people in a conspiracy such as this one. Some of the eyewitnesses make ridiculous claims, like the claims that Flight 77 was hitting the ground. A claim which is easily refuted by browsing through the photographic evidence. Therefore, we must base our theories on the evidence.

Photos show:

*There was no tail damage caused by a 44ft tail section.

*The engines did not cause the damage to the building that they should have.

*The attack only destroyed the first ring, yet there is no visible debris in the hole or outside on the lawn. There is a startling lack of credible identifiable debris.

*The plane was flying low, and the engines, which hang under the fuselage, should have caused damage to the lawn. The huge explosion should have scorched the lawn. The lawn shows no damage and there are no signs of body parts, airplane debris, blood, jet fuel, or luggage on the lawn.

Based on this and other anomalies in the Penta-hoax case, the Pentagon crash appears to have been faked.

[jimd3100]

I don't know about you, Jim, but I don't exactly trust these guys:

PLANTED PENTAGON EYEWITNESSES:

As I am pro-NoPlanes/TVFakery, I distrust these 'media eyewitnesses' as I believe that the mainstream media was operationally involved in the 9/11 attacks

Well, It's wonderfull that you've found a theory you are happy with. That's nice. I find that allot of people get locked into a theory and then are more interested in defending a theory than seriously searching for what the truth is even if we turn out to be wrong. If I wasn't able to see I was wrong I wouldn't be here. I didn't believe 911 was an inside job. But I looked at all the evidence, and I had to admit I was wrong. However it is ALWAYS beneficial when I find out I'm wrong. Because that's how one gains knowledge. A great way to learn. But I've gone over the no plane thing on the no planes thread, and wont get into it here, probably not there either unless you are truly interested in an open minded correspondence who's only goal is to get at the truth or what is most likely true. I find that is very rare.

[Great Haku]

Well, It's wonderfull that you've found a theory you are happy with. That's nice. I find that allot of people get locked into a theory and then are more interested in defending a theory than seriously searching for what the truth is even if we turn out to be wrong. If I wasn't able to see I was wrong I wouldn't be here. I didn't believe 911 was an inside job. But I looked at all the evidence, and I had to admit I was wrong. However it is ALWAYS beneficial when I find out I'm wrong. Because that's how one gains knowledge. A great way to learn. But I've gone over the no plane thing on the no planes thread, and wont get into it here, probably not there either unless you are truly interested in an open minded correspondence who's only goal is to get at the truth or what is most likely true. I find that is very rare.

See, I'm not taking my theory over searching for the truth. It's that I believe that 'no planes being used on 9/11' is the truth. If I did not think it was the truth, I wouldn't defend the theory as much as I do. Should new unquestionable evidence come out ultimately proving it to be wrong? Yes, I would change my theory of what happened.

I didn't believe that no planes were used at Shanksville for awhile (This was when I believed F93 was shot down and only thought that there was no plane at the Pentagon). After awhile, the photos just kind of reached me. No fire, no debris.. It just didn't make sense. I concluded that Shanksville's crash site was a hoax like the Pentagon's was. I still didn't believe no planes were used at the WTC, but I always wondered why they would fake the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites, and not the WTC crash site. Then, I saw the evidence of TV fakery and the cover-up of the planeless/nose-out videos. That's when I concluded that there were no planes on 9/11.

See, I didn't just 'like' the theory and jump on board. I had to see evidence. It's just what I think happened.

===============

BACK TO THE PENTAGON CRASH



 "From my close-up inspection,  there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed." -CNN (09/11/01)



Explosion is fake, as it scorches the lawn, but photos show the lawn to be undamaged. The time code is wrong. There is a bizarre shadow for the post.. -Sigh- Is anyone buying these cruddy frames?

Of course, these frames were meant to be obvious fakes. Everyone would jump on board the "frame debunking" team and expose the tampering of evidence surrounding the frames. This was meant to serve as a distraction from the crucial issues. Ever wonder why the frames aren't in the Commission Report? The real issues:

Pentagon Dustification



We've seen the evidence of DE Weapons at the WTC. Part of it is how the Towers seem to be disintegrated from top to bottom in seconds. The same kind of thing is happening in the Pentagon outer wall collapse.

Also note that while the outer wall is being pulverized into dust before their eyes, the people on the scene don't really care that much.

[truth]

what about the dozens of photos that show debris from a commercial plane all around the pentagon?  How does that fit your theory?  Fake photos?

[Brocke]

what about the dozens of photos that show debris from a commercial plane all around the pentagon?  How does that fit your theory?  Fake photos?

Please post links to photos of "debris from a commercial plane all around the pentagon".

I have only ever seen 3 pieces of debris from the Pentagon including:

• a piece of cowling
• a twisted handful of aluminium
• Jet engine part

This is what it looks like when a plane slams into a building

[truth]

Last time I checked 3 was greater than zero, I've seen the photos on the internet and in other medium inlcuding newspapers and magazines.  One correction - that is what that plane looked like when  it slammed into that building.  There is no such thing as a "typical" plane/building collision. 

[Brocke]

Ok, the Pentagon plane vaporised on impact. You have convinced me. 

[truth]

Now you got it.  What else would you expect when something as structurally fragile as an airplane slams into the side of something as structurally rigid as a concrete and steel low rise?  Did you really think that plane would just fall into big chunks and lay in front of the building?  Also, why would you expect there to be a lot of plane debris on the ground in front of the building?  That would be the last place the plane was intact. 

[das_ding]

Now you got it.  What else would you expect when something as structurally fragile as an airplane slams into the side of something as structurally rigid as a concrete and steel low rise?  Did you really think that plane would just fall into big chunks and lay in front of the building?  Also, why would you expect there to be a lot of plane debris on the ground in front of the building?  That would be the last place the plane was intact. 

U also convinced me!!   
All debris went INTO the Pentagon!
But tell me - did all parts of the plane vaporized before - or after running thru the tiny - 10 feet - holes at the pentagram? 

[A K]

The two massive engines for the plane are not fragile.  And we don't see them on the lawn or even the impact of them on the building.

I have spent a long time on this, including a FOIA document that almost nobody has seen yet, and I'll post everything later today.

[truth]

Yes they are, particulary when they meet a concrete and steel building at an extremely high speed.  Besides, what was the one picture posted above?  Part of the engine.  A commercial jet liner full of innocent Americans and some dirty bastards hit the Pentagon on 9/11.  That's all.  No cruise missles or drones or flying saucers.  Why is it that you will believe all this crap but you can't believe that all the world can mustard 20 people who hate Americans so much that they would gladly kill themselves for a chance to hurt us? 

[ghardy]

ground effect is approximately 1.5 times the length of the wings.  when within this ground effect, you essentially have no drag.  speed increases, and so does lift.

[Biggs]

I agree that the debris found is laughable, those photos are supposed to make us believe that  large jetliner was there, pathetic little slivers of unscorched metal.

As for witnesses, if you watch Pentacon and one or two other movies there is a crew of 6 witnesses from ABC or similar and it has be proved that from the position they were in, they could not possibly have seen the plane crash into the Pentagon.

The hole in the Pentagon is not big enough, at what 16 feet, for a big plane to enter, especially given lack of damage caused by tail and wings and engines on the facade of the pentagon.

[A K]

"but you can't believe that all the world can mustard 20 people who hate Americans so much that they would gladly kill themselves for a chance to hurt us? "

Yes, but most of those twenty people were either in the Bush-Cheney government, and their  names are Feith, Grossman, Edelman, Libby, Armitage, or they were in the intelligence agencies of Turkey, Israel and Pakistan.

[Brocke]

And of course the jet fuel that was hot enough to melt plane and the steel in the Twin Towers was not hot enough to burn this stool and phone book.

[jimd3100]

now why the childish smear? You seem to forget that 'no plane at the pentagon' has been the overriding position of most truthers for at least 3 years, it is hardly odd that people should find your assertions at the very least difficult.

All I was saying is that it is not helpful for you to say that 'no plane at the pentagon' are accusing witnesses of treason and mass murder. No one is making such an assertion, ......
For you to smear those who point this out as people who are making accusations of treason is not helpful in the least. Nobody here is saying these witnesses are traitors or killers, ........
Mores to the point nor does it mean that someone who points this out is accusing innocent people or being traitors, they are not accusing these witnesses or murder and treason, merely of giving false or innaccurate or confused witness for one of many reasons......

You may not agree with such assertion, no problem, but to smear people's assertions by accusing them of calling innocents traitors is not helpful.

Nobody is accusing anyone of treason here, just because witnesses are not murderers or traitors does not mean they are accurate or their testimony right, I accept this is not your view, fair enough, however, nobody here was talking of traitors.

As for stubblebine, I have never even heard of him, there are many better known no plane at pentagon people around, including ALL of the leading videos.

Well, since it was you yourself who posted on this forum that Mike Walter was an obvious CIA Plant, I think you might want to take some of your own advice....I couldn't help but notice that your posts accusing Walter of this is now "deleted".
This..."All the leading videos" stuff, is a good point. Mike Walter was in these as proof a missile hit, when it is discovered that this was edited from what he really said, you turn around can call him a plant. To say I'm "smearing" people is a joke, when I have said over and over that accusing an elderly cab driver and a reporter and a priest of being plants and accomplices is outrageous and irresponsible.
http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm

As for Stubblebine, since you have no idea who he is maybe you should? I would think it would be a wake up call that a very obvious spook is taking your position.

[Great Haku]

what about the dozens of photos that show debris from a commercial plane all around the pentagon?  How does that fit your theory?  Fake photos?

Planted evidence. I only know of one photo that shows definite identifiable American Airlines debris and it is a single scrap. No burns, scratches, or anything. It is sealed off, and in other photos, it is in a different area. The ever-moving, explosion-proof, single AA scrap.

[truth]

So that's it?  Whatever evidence doesn't fit your theory (whatever that is) is faked?  Now you're burdened with proving that the photo is "fake".  How do you intend to do that?  The debris is not sufficiently damaged?  What's the minimun damage level?  It's in different places in different photos?  So?  Things don't get moved at an emergency site? 

[Dig]

guys there were hundreds of theories regarding the pentagon, now there are very few.  the only thing clear about the pentagon is that hani hanjour could not have flown the plane into it.

also it is also clear that stubblebine is a fricking whacko.

instead of pushing speculations, just post facts so they can be evaluated for what they are.  And please do not follow my personality flaws by attacking posters (especially jimd3100) without a very thorough investigation.

thanks.

[cover fire hero]

If you were wrong they would just release the footage from one of the 80 cameras around the pentagon. The fact that they refuse to release that information and the footage they did provide, (4 frames from the crappy gas station camera, that they confiscated 5 minutes after the attack btw) did not show a plane hitting the building and it had a weird glare.  http://youtube.com/watch?v=uL826k4PmwQ

[A K]

Not one single suitcase or bit of luggage.  Not one single seat. 

Can't buy it.

[trixi1]

And of course the jet fuel that was hot enough to melt plane and the steel in the Twin Towers was not hot enough to burn this stool and phone book.

Just in this photo alone, I'd like to point out besides the stool and phonebook, take notice of the desk above, walls aren't charred (beautiful white walls), wires aren't charred, etc.

My observations though...

[jimd3100]

Not one single suitcase or bit of luggage.  Not one single seat. 

Can't buy it.

Want to see a pic of a seat? It's under this corpse
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

[Brocke]

Want to see a pic of a seat? It's under this corpse
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

Good post! I've never seen those images before.
Were those the bodies of passengers on the plane or were they in the Pentagon at the time of impact?

[A K]

I have looked at the trial photos.  That appears to be a man who was sitting at his desk.  No seatbelts, no airplane seat.  There were 200 seats on that airplane, maybe 200 pieces of luggage.

And not one photo.

 

[jimd3100]

I have looked at the trial photos.  That appears to be a man who was sitting at his desk.  No seatbelts, no airplane seat.  There were 200 seats on that airplane, maybe 200 pieces of luggage.

And not one photo.

Well, since you didn't get the picture you wanted, that proves that a missile hit the pentagon. Good work.

[jimd3100]

Just in this photo alone, I'd like to point out besides the stool and phonebook, take notice of the desk above, walls aren't charred (beautiful white walls), wires aren't charred, etc.

My observations though...

So does that mean that there wasn't really fire at the pentagon?

[Biggs]

So does that mean that there wasn't really fire at the pentagon?

no but it does mean that a jet fuel based fireball is less likely, and more likely to be consistent with a blast wave from an accelerant explosive (i.e. a non incendiary explosive device as is common in military grade explosives) - which will cause much less fire than fuel based fireball or incendiary device.

It is a good piece of evidence, but not entirely conclusive in itself.

it is nevertheless, deeply remarkable that all that jet fuel went up in a fireball less than 20 yards away and a book stands there uncharred, uncharred walls, desks, filing cabinet, I have seen a picture of a pc as well previously etc etc.

Highly, indeed one could say spectacularly remarkable, especially given that the thousand gallons of fuel was not a set fire but ignited whilst in a very non-uniform motion, i.e. sprayed all over the place from ruptured fuel tanks moving at the alleged 500 miles per hour (air resistance seemingly ignored in that calculation).

[A K]

Rather than the massive flaming spray of jet gas (see WTC), I don't see many reports of gas smell, rather several active duty military reported the smell of cordite - explosives.  And I agree, with a plane crash and thousands of gallons of gas burning, you wouldn't have everything else right next to it unburned, not even charred, like that book.

[xatom227]

Well I’m sold it was...

I am from Virginia, so our primary is February 12th.  Yesterday, at my Ron Paul meetup group, a gentleman from the Green party was there.  I don't know how the topic really came up, but I overheard him say something about him being at the pentagon on 9/11.  Naturally, I was curious so I asked him some questions.  I did not record our conversation, so the following details are from memory.

This guy is a former Vietnam Marine Corps vet.  He worked in the pentagon from 1996 to 2001.

Me - "Sir, do you believe a plane hit, or have you heard the theory about a missile hitting it"

Him - "It definitely was a plane. I saw it on the video feed we had.  I ran security and facilities for several years in the pentagon and reported directly to Donald Rumsfeld."

Me - "Video?  The only video the public has seen is the choppy 5 frame picture where you can not make out what hits the pentagon"

Him - "The plane circled the pentagon 2 times.  It missed the first time"

Me - "WOW, I am shocked to hear this. How is that possible?  Could it have been remotely controlled?”

Him - "We have video of people we can see clear as day on the plane flying it."

Me – “How could the plane penetrate through five rings of reinforced concrete?”

Him – “The spot where the plane hit contained the heating and air conditioning vents so once the plane went through the first ring, it hit these huge vents which are not reinforced.  This enabled the plane to penetrate further into the building than it would have if it hit in a place where there were no vents.”

Me – “Have you ever talked to the media about this?”

Him – “Due to the agreement I had to sign when I was forced to retire, I can’t speak with any media.”

He also stated that Pentagon officials had received notice two weeks prior to the attacks that something was going to be bombed.  About twenty days after 9/11, he was forced to retire and has never been allowed back in the Pentagon.  After the attack, on one of the desks surrounded by debris were the Marine Corps flag and American flag undamaged. 

I also asked him if he had seen some of the documentaries made about 9/11.  He said no

I asked him if he would be willing to sit down and do an interview, that I could put up on YouTube…maybe some day

He said, after everything comes out, we can do an interview.

I asked if he had ever heard of Alex Jones, he does a radio show out of Austin. TX….Nope, never heard.

I said, would you be willing to talk on his show, if I was able to get you in touch with his producer?  He said he would consider it.

I have this guys Name, and email.  I was all shook up after speaking with him.  It was quite an experience.

[PaladinRoden]

So a former government offical tells you he saw a plane on video, is not allowed to talk to the press and reported directily to Rumsfeld, yet after all the evidence that has been documented you now believe this guy. Hmmm I guess it doesn't take much these days to convince people of anything.

[DCUBED]

hmmmmm... I wouldn't trust anyone who works in the Pentagon and who reports to Donald Rumsfield. but that's just me. I  don't doubt that some kind of plane hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't a Boeing 757. and the part about the air conditioning vents smells like bullshit to me.

[Dig]

This is just another piece of evidence to add to the pile.  It is heresay and many degrees of separation.  But the 2x circling is interesting and obviouly none of this should be believed without corrobarating information.

Just add it to the pile.

[DCUBED]

Pentagon Strike



http://youtube.com/watch?v=POInxw0Id_E

Judical Watch Video



http://youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8

Doubletree Hotel Video



http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNfkej6YyeY

[DCUBED]

Him - "We have video of people we can see clear as day on the plane flying it."

I don't believe that for a second.

BTW, Alex doesn't like talking about the Pentagon, so I doubt he will be a guest on the show.

[xatom227]

It sounds a lot different from me writing this compared to how he was saying it...obviously.  But, none the less, it was interesting.  Who knows...

[HEX]

Yeah, I would not take his word for it...