Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Embed
What would you like to do?
Did The Plane Flyover The Pentagon?

Plane Flyover; Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon

The flight data recorder and credible witness testimony are compelling evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon on 9/11.

These facts explained below have been hidden under our proverbial no(i)se for 17 years.

Every citizen on earth has a civic duty to study this information. The intentional wars and destabilizations that have followed 9/11 for example in the Middle East, the migration invasions, the divisive politics tearing apart the U.S.A, as well as the possible coming nuclear war between the USA and Russia has been perpetrated by the global elite[mafia] who masterminded 9/11. I wrote:

This cabal is the puppeteer of the DEEP STATE […] doing all this shit [also] perpetrated 9/11. It’s the same cabal that for example manipulated Russia and the Russian year 2000 elections [as well as financed the rise of the Communists that have caused more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century].

Cambodians understand to this day how real this megadeath and starvation was.

The famous comedian Jim Carrey’s ignorant myopia (his delusion the country was improving until Trump arrived) exemplifies the apathy towards civic duty.


First view the photos and details in some comment posts (←PLEASE CLICK) on my recent prior blog about 9/11.

The subsequent sections are more verifiable, yet first an anecdotal witness. I have a friend of very high ethics who was laying tile (artistically) for a State department employee on the morning of 9/11 about 4 miles away south off of route 395 in Alexandria, VA.. That client had received a phone call not to report to work that morning before the first plane hit the WTC. I don’t know if this phone call was before the planes were suspected to be hijacked. My friend says he was down in the basement to shut off the water and he felt the foundation of the house (4 miles away) shake from the explosion at the Pentagon. Rumor is that key eye witnesses on the scene such as:

Destruction of the key testimony of air traffic controllers is documented.







Citizen Investigation Team’s Craig Ranke wrote:

  • Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony1 about Cheney’s [countdown] discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
  • Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?
  • Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
  • How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?

[…]

It is true that from “very early on” many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized about “what hit.”

However, “what hit” is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building [also confirmed by PilotsFor911Truth]. The very question of “what hit” the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) “hit” at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years […]

In fact, we feel that the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down this incorrect “what hit” path. For example, we do not think that the alleged “leak” of the dubious five frames video [obviously Photoshopped and with the wrong time] was a real “leak” at all, but rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus on missile and drone theories of “what hit.” Likewise for Donald Rumsfeld’s supposed slip of the tongue during an interview with Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as mentioning “the missile” which “damaged this building” (the Pentagon). The DoD itself mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the proliferation of missile theories.

Even former 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer (intentionally?) made the “missile” slip-of-the-tongue. The 9/11 Commission was complicit (c.f. also).

That obviously Photoshopped security video resulted in such absurdly false theories such as the following video (excerpted from the investigative film September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco) which claims a background tree is the tail of the airplane and that the blurry white smudge is trailing “smoke”:

The alleged-to-be smoke trail is inconsistent with reality because none of the witnesses (that saw the plane) had stated it was on fire before the explosion.

1 A biased attempt to discredit Mineta’s testimony. Although Mineta stated that (normal) travel time from his DOT office to the White House is 7 minutes (confirmed by Google Maps), his journey was accelerated by “ran down to the car, red light and sirens, went over to the White House”, “drove into the White House grounds” and “drove onto the sidewalk.” It’s inconclusive whether Mineta couldn’t have been informed (via his chief of staff John Flaherty) by the CEO of Delta Airlines until after 9:30, because the FBI has expressed suspicion of Delta flight 1989 at 9:03. Richard Clark’s testimony and any information from the goverment or 9/11 Commission can’t be trusted. Also “‘Monte, bring all the planes down!’—Monte had already done so” is inconsistent with “So Monty said, ‘We will get them all down,’.” Were both Monte and Mineta duped? Secret Service had the initial evacuation beginning at 9:18. Yet it’s plausible the countdown applied to the Shanksville, not the Pentagon.

Farcical C-Ring “Punchout” Exit Hole

Physics and structural engineering unequivocally concludes (c.f. also) the C-Ring couldn’t possibly have been created by a Boeing 757 impacting the Pentagon.

How does the airplane made mostly of low-density metals such as aluminum travel in a virtualized tube — that is much narrower than the distance (on impact) between the titanium engines — through so many still intact concrete walls and columns over such a huge distance to make that relatively tiny exit hole? It can’t. Impossible.



Barbara Honegger, M.S. wrote:

Fig. 7. Earliest known photo, by a DoD photographer, of the near-perfectly-round 9- to 12-foot diameter alleged “exit” hole in the inner wall of the third-in or ‘middle’ C Ring. Even if all or part of the debris were from a plane, which the Pentagon's own spokesman said it was not (see below text), the quantity is clearly too little and the density too low to have created the force required to explode out such an opening.

As for claims that any part of the debris seen in these photos was from a plane, the Pentagon’s own Terry Mitchell of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Audio/Visual Division, who was given early access to the A-E Drive between the C and B Rings into which the hole opens, showed reporters a photo like the above to the media at the Pentagon’s 9/15 news briefing and clearly explained: “This is a hole in [the C Ring]. There was a punch out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn’t see any evidence of the aircraft down there…This pile [of debris outside the hole] here is all Pentagon [i.e. no plane] metal. None of that is [from the] aircraft whatsoever […] they’ve punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out.” […] 23 […]

The fact that a data file was downloaded from the alleged plane’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR) four hours before the official story says that FDR was “found” just inside this C Ring hole25 and that the data fields that could have definitively identified it as having come from the plane that flew as Flight 77 on 9/11 — or not — were intentionally “zeroed out”26 proves that this most important piece of “wreckage” was manipulated and then planted to make it appear that part of a plane had penetrated to the C Ring. This was almost certainly done by the federal agency in charge of all evidence at the Pentagon, the FBI — the same FBI whose 9/11 investigation code name is PENTTBOM[B].

[…] In addition to former NASA Dryden Flight Research Center/Research Engineering Division Chief Dwain Deets having shown that all possible straight paths between the alleged E Ring “impact” point and alleged C Ring “exit” hole had multiple steel-reinforced columns still standing, such a “slurry” would had to have reconstituted and refocused itself after being progressively shredded and dispersed from impacting multiple intervening columns, finally forming itself into a perfectly-focused cone of energy capable of exploding a near-perfectly-round hole in the inner C Ring wall. As shown by Fig. 8 from the Purdue University simulation study below, just the opposite is what would have occurred if the official story were true.

Fig. 8. Screen capture from the Purdue University simulation study showing the progressive shredding and dispersal a plane would undergo if it could have penetrated the newly-hardened outer E Ring wall specifically upgraded to withstand bomb blasts and high force lateral impacts..

As Craig Ranke alluded at the start of this blog and as quoted below, the C-Ring is obviously a psyop to proliferate the kooky “missile” theory so as to discredit sincere, astute truth seekers in the eyes of the general public. Basically 9/11 is a test of how gullible the “sheepeople” public are. As I recently cited from the Corbett Report, another example of such psyops is that in the Arab world “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” has the colloquial meaning “I’m going to the toilet.” It’s implausible that ‘the toilet’ could be the name of an Islamic movement. It’s fiction invented by the CIA (c.f. also, also, also, also). Al Qaeda was the (derogatory) name of our base and covert assets in the Middle East. Another example of this sleight-of-hand (c.f. also), Dick Cheney employs legalese to deceive by not making it clear that when he refers to the “link between Iraq and Al Qaeda” that he actually means the CIA’s former relationship with Saddam Hussein (and not some other ressentiment-based islamophobic meaning of Al Qaeda that the interviewers and viewers assume)!

What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?

Sure, this is a good strategy for opponents of "the Movement" (including "the perps" themselves [as well as all the “dupes” who promulgate “alien ray beams”]), generally speaking.

The propaganda psy-ops (aka psychological warfare) is even more sophisticated. Because regardless that a real plane actually did hit the WTC south tower, by releasing the blatantly altered Pentagon video, they (including allegedly complicit FBI director Robert Mueller) encouraged proliferation on the Internet of n00b delusion such as imagining that realistic true 3D “holographic” projection is viable or that an indestructible landing gear or aircraft engine ejected from the south tower (and landed without cracking the concrete?) is instead the easily shattered nose of the plane. Which paints all truthers as such extreme kooks that the general public ignores (tunes out, becomes callous to) all truth seeking. Psyops demoralize and desensitize the populace.

North Side Approach, Flyover

Although perhaps inconclusive as an isolated fact, it‘s notable that seismologists found no signal of a plane impact at the Pentagon.

As shown in the following linked video, the NTSB and FAA/ NORAD flight animations for United Airlines flight #77 conflict with the 9/11 Commission’s flight depiction. The former have the plane flying north of Citgo gas station. This north path — which has been well supported by the excellent Citizen Investigation Team (aka CIT, formerly Pentacon) and further supported by my explanation of the utter lack of credible conflicting witnesses (c.f. also the §No Credible Conflicting Witnesses below) — requires a bearing (i.e. compass angle) trajectory which (as depicted above) is impossible to match the farcical C-Ring exit hole at the inner atrium of the Pentagon.





The complete NTSB flight animation (shown and linked below) is presumably based on the flight data recorder (FDR) recovered at the Pentagon. The NTSB flight animation terminates with the displayed altimeter reading 180 ft without ever crashing into the Pentagon:

The following is a speculative yet plausible holistic explanation of this and other related anomalies. The perpetrators have ostensibly woven a web of disinformation cleverly obscuring their goal of avoiding provably involving the NTSB in a cover-up, whilst seeding the proliferation of incorrect kooky psyops disinformation theories (so as to bury the truth in a media circus of kooky noise). The following is the first time I believe you will have read a coherent and concise attempt to unravel the cleverness of perpetrators of this “inside job”. Pay attention to the revealing details below.

Hidden Data, North/South Side Bearing Duality

Independent hobbyist investigator Warren Stutt discovered 4 additional seconds (not “6 or 8”) in the raw, binary FDR file received from the NTSB via his FOIA request. This extra data wasn’t incorporated into NTSB’s animation. Stutt posited it was because — as he discovered that — the error correcting codes were missing from the FDR file. Surely the experts at NTSB noticed this anomaly. Yet this cleverly provides a convenient alibi for the NTSB. The L3 Communications Aviation Recorders third party ROSE software supplied to the NTSB had a bug which ignored (i.e. silently didn’t decode) subframes that are missing error correcting codes. But the NTSB ostensibly didn’t use the ROSE software. This didn’t deter others from quoting employees of the NTSB to imply the NTSB had not noticed the extra anomalous data because they adhere to standard procedures with standard software:

The NTSB explains how they generate an animation from the FDR:

Dan Bower is an Aerospace Engineer at the NTSB who is directly involved with analyzing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders. Unfortunately, there are many different formats this information can take. The FDR data, says Bower “is different for each airplane and each style of Flight Data Recorder.” Because of that, he adds, “as soon as we have an accident, we call the airplane manufacturer to get the conversion algorithms... On Bower's PC, which runs the Windows NT Operating System, he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways. “We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three, four and six degrees of freedom,” explains Bower. Within that software and other packages, Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs, using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time. While these animations don’t offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI, they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible. The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI-based animations. Once the data is moved to that machine, one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible. For this process, detailed models are used, backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene. A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation.”

After discussing an important related issue, I will delve deeper into this surreptitious, extra 4 seconds of data recovered from the FDR file obtained from the NTSB. Yet first we can speculate on motives. By corrupting the last 4 seconds of data from which NTSB must model the flight path such that the usable data terminates before an impact which (as proven in this blog) never occurred, the NTSB is relieved of culpability for not being more explicit about (i.e. not overt announcing) the undeniable, irrefutable fact that a north side approach is inconsistent with the bearing of approach required to match the alleged physical evidence of impact, such as the previously explained farcical C-Ring hole and faked downed light poles. Although I have difficulty explaining how the NTSB is not culpable for not more aggressively announcing the anomaly of the missing airplane serial number from the header of the FDR file.

Additionally the data in the FDR file (including the portion decoded into the CVS file and animated by the NTSB) indicates the barometric altimeter was set to standard atmospheric pressure. Thus in the above animation, the NTSB displayed the legitimate raw uncorrected altimeter data such as the end point 173 ft (rounded up to 180 ft). Although legitimate, that’s an intentional deception because the true altitude corrected for actual atmospheric pressure was actually ~473 ft above sea level at the corresponding end point of the animation. Ironically this 173 ft is also the true altitude at end of the extra 4 seconds of data! The duality duplicity strikes again (c.f. also below on the magnetic vs. geographic bearing declination issue)! Clever bastards. This enabled the NTSB to faithfully model the data they could decode with the standard manufacturer provided ROSE software (or by declaring the extra 4 seconds to be corrupted data even if employing the RAPS software from Flightscape Inc.) even though the totality of the data places the plane on the north side (which disallows for impact with the Pentagon that could match the observed physical damage), while also giving the impression to the naive that the plane was closer and lower at the end of the animation than it really was in reality. Presumably n00bs in the general public would be duped into the impression that the plane was close to impact and that the FDR was disrupted at that point by the impending impact. This even confused Legge and Stutt and provided an excuse for the 9/11 Commission to make the “mistake” of using the NTSB’s data end of recording time as the impact time.

This multifaceted deception drowns the search for truth in unfruitful directions that included such confused vitriol as TEN DEGREES FROM TRUE: The NTSB Animation is Flat Wrong and Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path “Contradicts” Official Story according to “Black Box Data”. Those linked bloggers are complaining that the data in the FDR file indicates 70 degrees bearing which also matches the official south side approach, yet the NSTB animation depicts an 80 degrees declination from magnetic north when considering the displayed orientation of the Navy Annex, Citgo, and Pentagon buildings as depicted in the animation.

There’s two simultaneous deceptions going on here. First, the 80 degree bearing shown above is w.r.t. magnetic north, yet we should note at the Pentagon’s location on earth, 80 degrees declination from magnetic north is also simultaneously 70 degrees declination w.r.t. the geographic north pole!

Which ‘north’ does a FDR typically record declination relative to? Magnetic or geographic? Would the Automatic Data Computer (ADC) display geographic north which doesn’t move slightly ever year? Presumably the FDR records magnetic declination because that is the metric measured by the physical compass. Thus those bloggers claim the NTSB is incompetent. But not necessarily incompetent and more likely complicit, because there’s a second deception intertwined.

The highly credible CIT witnesses which support a north side approach tend to draw a 70 magnetic declination bearing until the plane is past the Navy Annex and begins its hard turn to the right (starboard) south side and power up over the building (as described in the CIT witness videos). Which also concurs with the FAA/NORAD animation that has the plane flyover the (and emerge from over) the north edge of the Navy Annex and also fly on the north side of the Citgo gas station.


(cyan line above should be labeled “9/11 Commission flight path” not “NTSB flight path”)

Thus given the data which the NTSB decoded ends with a true altitude ~473 ft and 4 seconds before the Pentagon lawn, the north side approach theory could be consistent with both the 70 magnetic declination up until the end of the data the NTSB animated (which would place the plane roughly over the north edge of the Navy Annex) and subsequently the 80 degree magnetic declination (which is equivalent to 70 degree geographic north declination). The latter 80 degree bearing (when the plane makes a hard turn to the right and powers up over the building, as described in the CIT witness videos) as depicted by the yellow curves drawn on the photo above, wouldn’t begin until after (passing the Navy Annex which was) the end of the data decoded by the NTSB! This enables the presentation of the honest data from the FDR file to be highly confusing without making the NTSB provably complicit in a cover-up. Very clever!

Yet the perpetrators were even more clever. They ostensibly removed the error correcting codes from that extra 4 seconds of data at the end of the FDR file to seed sufficient confusion that enables the alleged disinformation infiltrators (c.f. §No Credible Conflicting Witnesses below) such as Frank Legge PhD to successfully publish an incorrect analysis which attempts to discredit the north side approach. That propagandized, psyops “analysis” is probably convincing to n00bs who have not read my corrections below.

In that paper Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Legge and Stutt erroneously claim that the apparent discrepancy between the true altitute (recorded from the barometric altimeter that measures atmospheric pressure) and the radio altitude (recorded from the radio altimeter that measures distance to the objects “below” the plane via phase shift modulation) can be entirely explained as error in the barometric altimeter:

They note that the discrepancy is 124 ft at the end of the 4 seconds of extra data recovered, compared to the average of 52 ft (or 63 ft?) for the discrepancy of the prior landings at major airports for the same FDR. They presume all of this extra 73 ft of true altitute is error in the barometric altimeter. Their justification is vacuous:

The general consistency of the radio trace over the last few seconds, shown in the graph below (Fig. 13), together with the very uniform descent shown by “true” altitude, totally rules out any possibility that the last unadjusted radio height, 4 feet, was recorded while passing over the Pentagon, as has been suggested.

The lack of upward turn in the true altitute could possibly be explained by the data ending too early. Or possibly explained by lag error at low altitude with the plane operating so far outside its designed normal use case (e.g. landing) velocities at that low altitude. And especially if the turn upwards began say only in the last 2 seconds of the data in the FDR file, because the barometric (aka pressure) altimeter was recorded only every second:

The file contains a vast amount of data, including the following essential information: the vertical acceleration every eighth of a second; longitudinal acceleration, roll angle and pitch every quarter of a second; air speed, ground speed, pressure altitude, radio height, heading and position every second; all finishing at points within the last second.

In fact, they make an assumption which is contrary to fact:

While it may be argued that the radio altitude can have a significant error under cruise conditions, the likely error close to the ground, less than 1 foot, is well established and confirmed here by the study of data in the FDR file, produced while the aircraft was taxiing, as described above.

They studied the prior error in the radio altimeter at normal approach landings velocities and taxiing. The performance of the radio altimeter at those very high speeds can’t establish its error when the plane is operating egregiously outside its rated limits. The airplane was accelerating to 480 knots as it reached the Pentagon!

Pilots for 9/11 Truth explained this factual error:

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

The NTSB didn’t even include the radio height data in the decoded CSV file they provided in response to FOIA requests. So the NTSB knew and indicated that the radio altimeter data was erroneous; thus implicitly admitting that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Note the “outside the capabilities of a standard 757” referred to in the quote above is not related to the “pull-up after passing over the VDOT radio antenna tower” g-forces issue which Legge and Stutt rebutted.

Legge and Stutt thus presume all the 73 ft of excess discrepany is error in the barometric altimeter:

This analysis clearly shows that the claim that the FDR file provides evidence that the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon is without foundation. It is true that the altimeter indicated that the plane was too high but the radio height system did not. Based on the data and analysis presented above, there is no reason to distrust radio height but there is ample reason to distrust the altimeter on descent at low altitudes, especially at very high speeds.

There’s ample reason to distrust the radio altimeter operating egregiously far outside its designed maximum speed limits (given it’s normally only employed near the ground at low speeds, and not at cruise altitute with high velocities). Also as the plane accelerated upward to flyover the Pentagon as seen by the CIT witnesses, the radio altimeter could be potentially measuring echos off the heliport tower and/or trailers that were placed in front of the Pentagon. Sean Boger was the air traffic controller in the Pentagon heliport tower right next to the alleged impact point. He was originally duped by the deception. Sean later clarified that the plane was headed directly at him while he was in the tower and he ducked so couldn’t actually see if it hit or flew over.

Legge and Stutt admit that the plane is under extreme aerodynamic stress at that juncture:

The vertical acceleration shows a curious pattern. It is not possible for the plane to be controlled in such a way as to produce a motion with the observed high frequency of reversal. It therefore seems likely that some part of the plane is fluttering, as occurs with excessive speed. It is interesting that this does not appear till about 4.5 seconds before impact, at which point the plane has accelerated to about 470 knots, significantly above the “maximum dive velocity”, 410 knots. As fluttering will eventually damage or destroy an aircraft, this observation may give an indication of the size of the air speed safety margin, a figure which does not appear to be available to the public.

In fact the FDR file recorded that the wheel of the plane turned very hard to the right during just after 8 seconds before the end of the file, and the plane began to roll to the right. The pitch of the nose even began to turn upwards at 2 seconds remaining.

As well the vertical, upward lift g-forces started to increase just after 4 seconds remaining as the plane decelerated vertically and plausibly began to turn upwards in the last 2 seconds as the g-forces peaked at just under the 2.5g design limit of the airplane.

Legge and Stutt claim that the negative horizontal acceleration (i.e. deceleration of forward direction) is indicative of impact:

The longitudinal acceleration shows a severe negative deviation at the end; the maximum value possible in the data file, as would be expected from collision with a substantial object.

Since the error correcting codes are missing and given the “maximum possible”2 longitudinal acceleration value of -1g is written in the last record in the file compromising an incomplete frame (i.e. chopped off), we can’t be sure that it’s not an erroneous value. Also the vertical acceleration suddenly increases and should instead be abruptly decreasing if there’s impact. And even if it was not erroneous, 1g deceleration is inconclusive because even NIST stated the average deceleration was 30g. Which means the peak deceleration on impact would have been greater than 100g (if it had occurred). Negative 1g deceleration is equivalent to maximum braking of a car. Perhaps it’s plausible to achieve a momentary -1g horizontal deceleration in flight with a combination of lurching the pitch of the nose upward, activating the spoilers, and at least on some airplanes the ability to activate reverse thrusters in flight. And remember that CIT has documented that the plane which approached the Pentagon was a military plane and not UAL flight #77.

2 Is that a 0xFF hexadecimal value which also can signify invalid data?

Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon

Secretary of Transportion Norman Mineta said, “Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon.” And he said, “And then pretty soon he said, ‘Oh-oh, we just lost the target.’ And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, ‘Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon.’”

National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (also Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs and Chairman of the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board) Richard Clarke said, “Ralph Siegler stuck his head into the room. ‘There has been an explosion in the Pentagon parking lot, maybe a car bomb!’”

Barbara Honegger, M.S. wrote:

The FBI knows that explosives are central to the real 9/11 plot

The FBI’s code names for terrorist investigations known to have been carried out by means of bombs or explosives end in BOM[B] — for example, the acronym for its Oklahoma City bombing investigation is OKBOM.1 It is therefore highly significant that the official FBI code name for the investigation of the September 11 attacks is PENTTBOM, which stands for Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing. In this acronym, the abbreviation for Pentagon comes first, followed by that for the Twin Towers, with the notable absence of an abbreviation for Pennsylvannia. Robert Mueller, who was FBI director on 9/11 [c.f. also and also], confirmed this to Time magazine: “The [FBI's] SIOC [Strategic Intelligence Operations Center] filled to capacity on 9/11 and remained that way through PENTTBOM, the FBI’s cryptonym for ‘Pentagon,’ ‘Twin Towers’ and ‘Bombing’,” reconfirming Newsweek’s report in the immediate wake of the attacks.2

Despite the clear inference that the 9/11 investigation, the largest in the agency's history,3 was focused on bombs or explosives, FBI briefers lied to the "Jersey Girls," whose husbands were killed in the Twin Towers, when they asked why the investigation was called PENTTBOM. They were told that it was because "all the FBI's investigations [code names] end in BOM."4 This is provably false; even the acronym for the agency's investigation of the 9/11-related anthrax letter attacks is AMERITRAX, not AMERIBOM. Further evidence that the FBI knew the core of the 9/11 attacks was bombs or explosives is that the acronyms for its investigations of prior major terrorist attacks known to have been carried out by bombs did end in BOM(B) -- for instance, OKBOMB for the Oklahoma City bombing.4a

[…]

Secretary Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson of ABC News that his first thought was that a bomb had gone off, and when Donaldson asked, “What did you think it was?” Rumsfeld replied, “A bomb?”

Reports of primary Pentagon explosions throughout the chain of command

[…] Pentagon eye- and earwitnesses gave testimonies to official Defense Department historians and the mainstream media that they experienced massive explosions at the Pentagon, some more than five minutes before Flight 77 is held by the government's narrative to have come anywhere near the building […]

Many other military officers and enlisted personnel inside the building also experienced and reported explosions. Lt. Nancy McKeown, who was in the Naval Command Center on the first floor of the second-in D Ring, said, “It sounded like a series of explosions going off... It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off.” […] McKeown yelled “Bomb!” when she heard and felt a major explosion, after which tiles fell from her office ceiling.7 Lt. Col. Thurman, who was on the second floor of this same second-in D Ring said, “To me, it didn't seem like a plane. To me, it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me. It seemed like there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time.” Army Lt. Col. Victor Correa, who was on the second floor in the Army Personnel area just above the alleged impact point, said, “We thought it was some kind of explosion, that somehow someone got in there and planted bombs because we saw these holes.”8 John Yates, a security manager for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs who was in the same area as Correa just above the alleged impact point, said, “There was no noise. I mean, I did not hear a plane. Just suddenly the room just exploded, and I was blown through the air.”9 Even a local mayor who was at the Pentagon that morning had a similar experience, reported by the Frederick (Maryland) News-Post. Thurmont Mayor Marty Burns “was leaning against an office doorway when an explosion rocked the Pentagon...Pentagon employees assumed it was a bomb... ‘Where's the next bomb?’ Burns and his Pentagon colleagues wondered. Even outside the building, Burns saw no indication that a plane had caused the [internal] damage.”10 Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell, who had just come out of a restroom off Corridor 4 in the vicinity of te fourth-in B Ring, said, “I heard the sound of a very loud explosion. In my number of years in the artillery community, I hadn't heard anything that loud. I thought it was a bomb.”11 And standing outside the Navy Annex about three football fields’ distance from the building, Terry Morin recalled, “I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2,000-pound bomb going off…”12 Though Morin had just experienced a large plane fly overhead […], he nevertheless described what the official story alleges to have been an impact, which he acknowledged could not see, with bomb-related references.

I conducted an interview with the above-mentioned Ft. Monmouth Army financial auditor Michael Nielsen, who had been in the Army financial management area on 9/11 only minutes before the explosion, part of the building soon to be among the most destroyed in the attack. He had just returned to his temporary duty office on the ground floor near the building's cafeteria when he heard and felt a massive explosion. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor and out the exit, yelling “Bombs!,” “A bomb went off!,” “It was a bomb!”

Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, the highest ranking military officer in the U.S. military chain of command, [is adamant that he] experienced what had to have been the residue of explosives. On page 434 of his biography Without Hesitation, General Shelton noted that upon his arrival at the Pentagon he was struck by an overpowering smell of cordite, a substance used in bombs that has a very distinct and different odor from burning jet fuel. “The smell of cordite was overwhelming,” he said. Pentagon worker Don Perkal told MSNBC, “People shouted in the corridor outside [my office] that a bomb had gone off. Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.”13 Department of Defense attorney Gilah Goldsmith reported that immediately after hearing “an incredible whomp noise,” she “saw a huge black cloud of smoke” that “smelled like cordite or gunsmoke.”14

Army witness April Gallop, who experienced a massive explosion as she pressed the ‘on’ button on her computer in Room 1E517 in Wedge Two off Corridor 5 more than 100 feet north [Gallop said, “50 feet from the impact zone”] of the official story alleged impact point (see Fig. 1, below), also smelled cordite and thought that it was a bomb. “Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath,” and it sounded and acted “like a bomb,” Gallop told the author in an under-oath videotaped interview.15 She also restated this in a formal court filing and in a videotaped interview with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura for a TruTV episode on the Pentagon attack aired December 17, 2010.16 The force of the explosion and/or the impact of debris falling upon her stopped her wrist watch at or just after 9:30,17 which is almost 8 minutes before the official story claims Flight 77 came anywhere near the building. Though cordite produces a strong detonation shock wave, it is cool burning, which would explain why Gallop experienced a major explosion and yet remain unburned (see Fig. 2, second below).

[…] Gallop stated that there was no jet fuel and no fire on the floor as she walked out. “I had no jet fuel on me...I didn't smell any jet fuel...I didn't see any airplane seats. I didn't see any plane parts...I didn't see anything that would give me any idea that there was a plane [in the building],” she said under oath […] The only fires Gallop did see were “flames coming out of the computers” on desks around the perimeter of the large Army administrative area in the outer E Ring where she worked. In her original interview with an Army historian soon after the attack, Gallop said that her computer “blew.” This was also experienced by other workers closer to the alleged plane impact point further south in Wedge One. As everything went black, witness Tracy Webb, whose office in 2E477 was on the second floor of the outer E ring off Corridor 4 effectively above the alleged impact point, also saw her computer suddenly “burst into flames.”19

April Gallop also stated she didn’t see any plane parts of the lawn.

Gallop also emphasized that her superior demanded she rush in and bring her baby with her instead of dropping him off first at the daycare center. Upon her arrival, he left her there and said the urgent matter could wait until he returned. And she and others in those affected wedges of the Pentagon weren’t given any warning even though we know from Norman Mineta’s testimony1 that evacuation had already begun and the command center was aware a plane was incoming. Could it be that some people knew about the plan but fearing for their life (or due to their own unfortunate complicity) were unable to speak-out, and so instead — knowing which adjacent wedges of the Pentagon weren’t rigged with bombs — were scheming to make witnesses of the deception available? Do those with a conscience possessing inside knowledge, know something we don’t which prevents them from taking action? Would the global elite[mafia] launch a nuclear winter if they were challenged?

Honegger continued:

There Was Major Fire and Destruction in the Innermost A and B Rings — Far Beyond the Alleged C Ring “Exit” Hole

Perhaps the most compelling evidence against the official story that a plane caused the internal damage at the Pentagon is that there was major fire and destruction in the two innermost B and A Rings — one and two rings further in towards the center courtyard than the alleged C Ring “exit” hole that was the alleged furthest point of penetration and internal destruction from of any part of a plane.

The author interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews, a former Green Beret and the top civilian official then in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In this position, Andrews oversaw the Special Operations Command, one of whose operations was the Al Qaeda-tracking-and-data-mining “Able Danger” group which identified three of the four alleged 9/11 hijacker cells more than a year before the attacks and was ordered shut down shortly after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took office […] My sworn affidavit as to the content of the interview with Robert Andrews has been provided to the panelists and organizers of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings.

[…]

According to Andrews, immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03, he and an aide left his office and ran down to Rumsfeld’s west section Counterterrorism Center (CTC). While they were in the CTC, a sudden violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read c. 9:35 but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32. He and the aide then immediately left the CTC to join the Secretary Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. En route to the ESC, Andrews said that when he and his aide entered the corridor on the innermost A ring of the west section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the central courtyard. This A Ring is two rings further in towards the center courtyard than the alleged “exit” hole in the C Ring which the official story says was the furthest any part of the plane or damage from it penetrated.

In addition to the deaths, and by inference the violent events that caused them, encounteted by Andrews and his aide on the inside of the innermost A Ring, there also was massive damage and fire on the inside of the fourth-in B Ring. This, again, is one ring further in towards the center courtyard from the official story alleged plane "exit" hole on the inside of the third-in C Ring. The day after 9/11, the Washington Post reported that “the attack destroyed at least four of the five ‘rings’ that spiral around the massive office building...A 38-year-old Marine major…said he and dozens of his colleagues rushed to the area in the Pentagon that appeared most heavily damaged — the B Ring between the 4th and 5th corridors.” The major said that the B Ring area “was decimated” and “that heat and fire, it could eat you alive in three seconds.” In his interview with the Army’s Center of Military History, a lieutenant who was in Room 2C450 in the middle C Ring at the time of the attack, said he saw “the windows in the B Ring [first] go out and [then] come in — like the pressure, the blast made the windows go out,”30 consistent with a massive internal explosion inside the B Ring. Also, members of the Pentagon Rescue Team told the Washington Post that “When we got into the building, we started to feel the heat right away, and as we walked deeper down the hallways [i.e., further towards the center], it got hotter and hotter. It was just fire everywhere. Not so much smoke, but just fire all around us. You couldn’t see a plane, just [office] debris everywhere you looked.”31

It is physically impossible for any impactor, whether a plane or otherwise, that allegedly penetrated only to the middle C Ring as the official story holds, to cause massive damage, fire and deaths in the two rings further in.

Readers should read the rest of Barbara Honegger’s exposé, which goes on to explain how construction in that section of the Pentagon prior to 9/11 (mentioned also in my prior blog) is plausibly how the explosives were planted. Evidence cited includes the photo that the blast proof windows were only installed on the section that has the alleged impact hole:



Hardening of the exterior wall and windows being necessary of course to prevent the evidence of an explosive force from inside the Pentagon expelling office items too far out onto the lawn to be implausible for an incoming plane impact. Note the placement of the trailers in front of the alleged impact hole (to prevent expulsion and to house bombs) that was curiously confined only to the ground floor:

Her exposé also outlined the likely motives for 9/11 including the Zionist mafia links (not most Jews!) that Christopher Bollyn has detailed, which she further elaborates in her Behind the Smoke Curtain presentation. She noted that Ted Olsen — the husband of Barbara Olsen who was alleged to make the (proven to be impossible by Japanese Asahi TV investigators and according to Honegger now admitted to be nonexistent by the FBI) cell phone calls aboard the alleged hijacked flight 77 — helped to steal the Florida election that put the Neocons in power so they could achieve 9/11.

I still vividly remember that some grave threats that effectively forced Ross Perot to bow out of the 1992 presidential election.

Honegger’s theory that a plane did hit the Pentagon nearer to the heliport, can’t be correct because there’s no such evidence of impact on the Pentagon wall and very credible witnesses such as Sgt. Lagasse clearly saw the large plane (c.f. below). The debris strewn onto the heliport likely was ejected from the windows of wedge 2 which as previously shown weren’t blast proof unlike the windows in wedge 1. Honegger refers to witnesses such as Penny Eglas who aren’t credible as I had explained in my prior 9/11 blog. Honegger has apparently been duped and set up to propagate the UAV psyops deception. Very high IQ actor James Woods was duped (c.f. 1, 2) by the acting performed by alleged Israeli Mossad agent Mohamed Atta.

In a different interview remarking that at least 6 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11, Honegger tied in the covert financial dealings of the global mafia which seems to run the intelligence agencies around the world (c.f. also the “Ptech story” below) to a $100,000 payment to alleged hijacker Atta. For more on this, also refer back to the Corbett Report’s episodes on Al Qaeda linked from §Farcical C-Ring “Punchout” Exit Hole.

Kevin Ryan has an excellent blog From renovation to revolution: Was the Pentagon attacked from within? on this topic, excluding the erroneous bit about the plane actually hitting the Pentagon and Rumsfeld forsaking his duties for 30 minutes (which was a now disproven alibi for not coordinating NORAD response). I excerpt some his key correct points:

These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion […] The renovation project was originally planned during the first Bush Administration, when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) […] Early in the project, oversight was provided by John Deutch, the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF). Deutch came to the job after a career in academics and at the Department of Energy. He was associated with Mitre Corporation, which in 1999 was in collaboration with a company called PTech to “look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.”[6] Investigator and author Jamey Hecht has written that “The [very important →] Ptech story is a crucial piece of 9/11 because the software was used to simultaneously coordinate the FAA with NORAD and the Secret Service.” […] Of course, the Pentagon is the center of the U.S. military industrial complex and therefore the people running its programs would have stood to benefit from the extraordinary increase in military spending after 9/11.

The new plan and the environment in which it was drafted

In 1997, a new plan for the renovation project was crafted by Hamre, reportedly in response to the mid-1990s terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City and abroad. This new plan appeared to be an effort to improve the resistance of the exterior of the building to an explosive impact, with additional actions taken to reduce the possibility of fire damage. The following improvements to the building were planned:

Former NSA executive and whistleblower Thomas Drake said that former NSA Signals Intelligence Director (#3 at NSA) Maureen Baginski told a group of more than 50 staff just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the worst intelligence failure in US history since Pearl Harbor, leaving almost 3000 dead: “You have to understand, 9/11 is a gift to NSA. … We are going to get all the money we want.”

Ryan also explained why self-proclaimed eye witness Frank Probst (pictured below) can’t be credible. I had pointed out in my prior 9/11 blog that Probst refused to be interviewed by CIT.

No Credible Conflicting Witnesses

The claim by disingenuous detractors (disinformation propagandists and even disinformation infiltrators of 9/11 truth movements such as John Wyndham of “Scientists for 9/11 Truth”) that there’s even one strong witnesses supporting the (conflicting) south side flight path is simply incorrect because on closer analysis of the details — as I detailed witness-by-witness in one of my prior blogs — their multitude of claimed witnesses either in some cases aren’t credible due to stating conflicting details, being unsourced, out-of-context, misleading, misattributed, and/or even doctored. Or in the other cases demonstrably didn’t have either a clear view of the plane’s path until it hit the building or its relative position to the Citgo. For example, witnesses who embellished their story by claiming they saw the plane hit yet also admitted they ducked, hit the ground, or failed to admit their view of the actual impact hole was obstructed. This isn’t a very arguable point for those who have sincerely studied the details (c.f. also).

The alleged disinformation infiltrator (c.f. also) Jim Hoffman wrote:

They neglect to show the reader that the C-130 is a four-engine straight-wing turboprop, and they neglect to mention that the E4B, a four-engine Boeing 747, was not less than several thousand feet above. Given those assiduously avoided realities, neither plane could have been mistaken for a 757 flying away from the explosion.

The claim that the plane would have been seen flying over is not a refutation because at least one credible witnesses Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. did actually see it flyover and others such as Maria De La Cerda and Erik Dihle heard it at “the other side” and said, “some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.” Yet the possibility of many people seeing it flyover wasn’t so great due to the complex topography in the area, plus the waterways and evacuated national parks on the other side of the Pentagon from which the plane emerged. There may have been more sightings that were covered up because in Arlington (but not in New York) all 9-1-1 calls were sequestered and never released to the public! Also there was the white E4B or "mystery plane" and the C-130 plane which ostensibly served as a decoy to confuse some of the eye witnesses, as depicted in one of the photos at the top of this blog and mentioned by Erik Dihle et al. Fetzer Claims (c.f. also) his friend Roy Schaeffer at JFK research told him about trucker Dave Ball who had seen the plane fly over the Pentagon, but Dave was reticent to be interviewed and was found dead a couple of weeks later.

The following video begins approximately 1 minute after the explosion which caused the plume shown, seems to have recorded the C-130 from the 1:04 mark. The 1:32 mark has an ironic Twilight Zone-esque “American Air Services” van pass in front of the camera with a male passenger making a devil worship hand signal with a grimaced facial expression. Remember the official story alleges American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The mushroom cloud plume is due to an explosive upward force, which is not the signature of a plane crash.

Craig Ranke explained:

Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction.

There are ZERO eyewitnesses on record who could see the Citgo station as the plane flew past it and place the plane on the “conventional path,” i.e. south side of the station, where it had to be in order to hit the downed light poles, generator trailer, and building as already admitted by you. On the other hand, there are now over a dozen on record who could see the Citgo gas station and place the plane on the north side flight path.

If we were “cherry-picking” witnesses then the witnesses who “erroneously” place the plane on the north side would be greatly outnumbered by the witnesses who “correctly” place it on the south side. It would therefore be much easier to find south side witnesses than north side witnesses. And yet, in nearly four years since the release of The PentaCon and our four initial north side witnesses, which Jim Hoffman baselessly called a “hoax” at the time, none of our detractors, who have spent a combined total of countless thousands of hours arguing against the north side approach online, have been able to locate and interview a single one. Meanwhile, every person that we have interviewed since releasing The PentaCon who could see the Citgo gas station corroborated the initial north side reports that Hoffman had quickly branded a “hoax.” Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, all witnesses are not created equal regarding their ability to answer the question of which side of the gas station the plane was on. The majority of the witnesses could not see the Citgo as the plane flew past it. We have interviewed the witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the absolute best locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo, and they consistently said that it was on the north side.

Craig Ranke also provided some computations indicating greater than 2 seconds minimum reaction time (for those who didn’t flinch or duck) of witnesses to the sound of the plane incoming and/or the explosion for turning their head to view either. Thus for some (of the many on I-395) the confusion of turning the head one direction to locate the sound of the incoming plane and then whipping it back the other direction for the explosion. This is (plausibly one of the reasons) why it was critical for the plane to be flying nearly 500 knots speed in order for the false-flag deception to be achieved. Also Craig points out that it’s not unusual to hear the sound of an airplane in “close proximity” of the area as these are approaching and departing in the immediate airspace around the building every 2-4 minutes all day every day. And even sometimes overflying the Pentagon:

The "action" that people would have been "riveted" to would have been the massive fireball as the Pentagon exploded, not the extremely common sight of a low flying aircraft in "close proximity" to the Pentagon.



The alleged disinformation infiltrator Jim Hoffman also wrote:

More to the point of this essay, The PentaCon [aka CIT], like any good magician, selectively presents imagery of the Pentagon and its surroundings in an apparent attempt to insulate its audience from the physical realities next to which the flyover theory looks so absurd. Those realities are obvious to anyone who drives by the Pentagon on its many surrounding highways and access roads or flies into Reagan National Airport on its north approach just east of the normally-empty airspace over the vast office building. Fortunately, those realities can now be obvious as well to anyone with a web browser thanks to Google Earth™, Google Maps™, and the Street View feature of Google Maps.

Craig Ranke rebuked Hoffman:

A full response to Hoffman’s article is beyond the scope of this rebuttal and will have to wait for another time, but one of the more egregious things wrong with it is the fact that he relies on unrealistic-looking, computer generated images (CGI) of the area around the Pentagon created from Google Earth that do not remotely represent the true point of view (POV) of someone driving on the highways. All trees, landscape, and even other structures in the area are removed. He claims that these images “show what would be seen at each vantage point for each of the five points in time,” yet in the next sentence he contradicts himself and admits that this is not the case at all since “[Google] Street View shows visual obstructions such as trees and small buildings that are not realistically rendered in Google Earth.

In spite of this admission, he embeds the deceptive computer generated “snapshots” in the article, not the much more realistic images from Google Street view which DO show “visual obstructions such as trees and small buildings” (and walls, overpasses, fences, street signs, etc).

Furthermore, even though they are an improvement over his deceptive CGI, Google Street view images are also inaccurate because they were taken from a camera mounted several feet above the roof of a car.

For more accurate POV shots from the surrounding highways you would have to provide images/video from inside a car as we have in our presentation CIT Jettin' Crosstown.

Sgt. William Lagasse

Disingenuous detractors attempt to discredit CIT witnesses by emphasizing one case. North side witness Sgt. William Lagasse had previously in 2003 defended the official story of the airplane hitting the Pentagon. Sgt. Lagasse wrote in anger to the original progenitor of the north-side flyover hypothesis Dick Eastman, ostensibly because Sgt. Lagasse had clearly seen the airplane — as it flew on the north (i.e. “starboard side”) of his location at the Citgo gas station — without yet understanding the implications of the north side approach. He ostensibly assumed the plane he saw passing over him had hit the building, presumably because without knowing the implications of the north side approach the plane impact was a possible explanation of all the damage he encountered upon arriving at the Pentagon “30-40 seconds after” the explosion. Yet he admitted his view of the alleged Pentagon impact was obscured and thus implicitly also the alleged clipping of the light poles was also obscured from his view. Thus it logically follows that he was merely presuming that the official story must be true.

I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.

How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.

In that 2003 email and in his 2001 recorded testimony, he insinuates that there wasn’t much recognizable debris on the lawn nor was he able to stay very long at the impact zone due to ongoing explosions and difficulty to see with all the smoke. Thus his angry 2003 email claim — that he had seen part of a turbine inside the Pentagon — was likely an embellishment of the recollection of some glancing view of the entangled mess inside the Pentagon (analogous to seeing shapes in clouds) during the height of his adrenaline, cortisol rush (which tends to shut down the pre-frontal cortex) “30-40 seconds after” obviously sprinting from the Citgo to the site of the explosion.

In that 2003 email, Sgt. Lagasse had explained why many of those supposed conflicting witnesses on the roadways near the Pentagon couldn’t have possibly judged correctly what they saw (because of the topography blocking their view except for just a second or split-second glimpse of the plane):

Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible […] there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the assessment.

Later as Sgt. Lagasse became aware of the inviolable implications of his sighting of the plane on the north side approach, he no longer objected to the flyover conclusion. Craig Ranke wrote:

We sent our DVD The PentaCon to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks, and they stuck by the north side flight path, even AFTER being made aware of the implications. Sgt. Brooks called our video an "eye-opener," and admitted that "anything is possible" in terms of him being fooled about the impact. (This too is explained in National Security Alert).

And wrote:

Sgt. Lagasse has been made aware of the implications of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station. He still stands by his account, and has said that he would testify to the plane flying on the north side of the station in a court of law.

No Credible Plane Debris at Pentagon

Besides the conclusively-planted debris at already explained farcical, implausible C-Ring “exit” hole, multiple photos, videos, and eye witnesses (← click that link!) confirm no plane debris inside nor on the lawn even though that facade of wedge 1 had been recently hardened with 2 feet thick of steel-reinforced concrete and masonry to prevent penetation by such an attack.3

Except for what appears to be a very few select pieces that appear to have been planted. That could have plausibly been planted during the multiple chaotic evacuations or dropped from the helicopter4 that Honneger noted was seen by radar departing from the heliport just moments before the alleged impact! An expert helicopter pilot eye witness even noted the erratic meandering of said helicopter at a low altitude.

For example, based on its position relative to the alleged impact being so close to the wall of the far north edge of the heliport tower, it seems implausible for the following plane debris to have ricocheted from the front wall of Pentagon unless of course instead it was planted perhaps by “the soldier” in the tower that Sean Boger says “went downstairs to the restroom” immediately before the explosion.





Ostentatious reports of plane debris inside the building such as the “an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached” suspiciously lack sufficient photo evidence, ostensibly to avert the independent scrutiny that might unmask the deception.

3 I already noted in §Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon that the debris strewn on the heliport far from alleged impact hole was likely office debris blown out of the non-blast-proof windows on wedge 2.

4 Which is much more plausible than Professor Fetzer’s hairbrained hypothesis that the debris was dropped from the C-130 circling high above. Fetzer also posited the incorrect theory of molten lead not being silver-grey color when attempting to refute the molten iron (not steel) (c.f. also) flowing out of the WTC. Fetzer myopically cites only 1.4% of total structural steel was in the 14 floors above the impact zone at the north tower, which ignores the mass other than the steel such as the concrete slabs.

Disembarkment of the 9/11 Passengers

Barbara Honegger noted the glaring inconsistency that although the government attributed the unidentified DNA alleged but unproven to be from the Pentagon to the hijackers, according to her the FBI states that “no Arab DNA” was discovered in what is alleged to be human remains from the Pentagon. Is this legalese in that does an “Arab DNA” category even exist in genetics?


A rescue dog doesn’t seem to be very interested in finding any “remains”
(Photos: FEMA News/Jocelyn Augustino).

There’s no “independent chain of custody” linking “these alleged DNA samples“ remains verifiably retrieved on the crash sites:

[…] fragments of a shoulder blade bearing Geoff’s DNA were found among Trade Centre rubble at a landfill site.

Analogous to the BTS disclaiming any accuracy of data that had appeared on their website but hence disappeared (c.f. footnote 6 in §Consolidation of the Passengers below), apparently the passenger manifests (which apparently aren’t manifests) have never been officially released by the government. All we have are documents published by unofficial sources which we’re supposed to assume are copies of official documents. We’re being played like a fiddle. This is a farce!

Honegger also stated that the plane which departed Dulles alleged but not officially reported to be American Airlines flight 77 — which descended very rapidly 6000 ft as officially reported by the FAA controllers in Indianapolis — couldn’t have possibly been the plane that flew to the Pentagon because the said descent isn’t present before the turn East in the data on the FDR released by the NTSB. Although I note the time discrepany cited by Honegger could plausibly be the clock on the plane advanced by ~6 minutes. She somewhat convincingly speculates that because it was a military plane as seen only by military transponder mode (which the 9/11 Commission didn’t sufficiently investigate), it didn’t trigger a (direct) military interceptor response.

“Flight of the Bumble Planes” had already in 2002 figured out some facets of the plot. The recently updated “Operation Pearl” by Professor Dewdney is somewhat closer to what I independently assimilated below. Dewdney explains on page 20 the likely fate of the passengers if they were murdered while on the tarmac or after deplaning. But I think the scenario suggested by the anonymous “Pilot A” in James Perloff’s blog is less risky of detection and failure:

I agree that the passengers were killed early on [but] . . . I just took your idea about a gas canister and thought about it from a pilot’s perspective. Why would I use a poison gas canister when the air in the cabin circulates back into the cockpit too? I risk potentially poisoning myself and fellow hijackers!

Pilot A came up with a much safer, more efficient way that the hijackers would have killed the passengers and flight attendants: depressurizing the cabin.

By switching off the AC packs and opening the outflow valves. Once the cabin altitude hits 12-14,000 feet the masks deploy and the passengers have an average of 15 mins oxygen. The flight crew [in the cockpit] have hours of oxygen at their disposal. This is what I think they did to MH370 during the initial phase, because Kuala Lumpur radar said that the B777 climbed above 40,000 for a brief time, which is highly unusual. This would asphyxiate the passengers quite quickly if the cabin was depressurized, but still allow the crew to survive. The flight attendants have a few portable O2 cylinders in the cabin, but they don’t last very long if you’re scared and hyperventilating as you watch passengers fall into unconsciousness and die. And above 40,000 feet you almost need pressurised air forced into your lungs as air on demand is not enough to get over the pressure differential.

I disagree with Dewdney’s scenario of the pilots of flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 cooperating under the pretense of military exercises (unless they were complicit undercover agents). Instead the pilots were probably killed (by undercover agents on board) as part of simulated hijacking. I agree it’s likely that most of the others who cooperated (and thus were complicit) were compartmentalized by and/or under the impression (or at least have the excuse in a court-of-law) that they were ordered to participate in simulations of terrorist hijackings.

For the following reasons the “inside-job” planners of 9/11 didn’t want to risk having the passengers on the planes that were actually precision remote guided into the WTC buildings and precision timed flown over the Pentagon:

  1. There was no way to fly an actual plane into the Pentagon and achieve the death and destruction of a myriad of intended targets previously mentioned, such as the auditors and records for the $2.8 trillion missing from DoD budget which Rumsfeld had announced the day before 9/11. The plane wreckage itself would have conflicted with the death and destruction due to the explosions. Ditto the destruction of evidence at WTC7 which housed records for many government agencies:

  2. Military planes (or drones) outfitted with remote guidance pods (such as the pod alleged to be seen on the plane that crashed into the south tower) couldn’t be boarded at passenger gates without potentially being noticed as an anomaly. Outfitting commercial planes (even if possible to hide the artifacts externally) would be at risk of detection from commercial airline maintenance workers. There’s no way the planners would risk these to kamikaze pilots willing to die for the cause. Nor could a human pilot accomplish the precision required.

  3. Risk of (being intercepted or destroyed if) flying as the radar tracked planes low and slower speeds for extended periods of time so that passengers could make (aforementioned otherwise proven impossible) cell phone (and inoperative on 757s airphone) calls to their relatives. Instead hide from radar the planes carrying victims to eventual death by asphyxiation. The hero narrative for flight 93 was necessary to galvanize support for the Islamophobia wars (and the war on our freedoms to enslave us like sheep) goals that the 9/11 false-flag was designed to achieve.

  4. Inability to tightly control the DNA evidence. It seems that most of the passengers were either complicit, impostors, voice “morphing” simulations (for example) or didn’t exist. Additionally the Victim Compensation Fund which paid out an average of $1.8 million per victim stymied any discovery via lawsuits by forcing victims to agree not to sue the airlines.

  5. Risk of nothing-to-lose, gung-ho passengers actually disabling the plane. For example imagine the passengers somehow disabling the electronics by breaking into the floor or somehow punching a hole in the fuselage which is only 2–3mm thick aluminum. Although that’s 20 times thicker than a Coke can, note a pointy object can easily rip a hole. If any one of the remote guided planes was crashed over a major population center in a way such that it was not totally destroyed in a containable manner, potentially evidence proving the complicitly of the inside perpetrators would be recovered.

Since we know beyond any reasonable doubt that a plane didn’t crash at the Pentagon, speculation on what happened to the passengers on 9/11 is aided by analysis of the anomalies of the flight paths.


Flight times and paths of “hijacked” planes

Flights 11, 77 and 93 were flown into primary radar blind-spots as the transponders — which identify the aircraft and provide altitude data — stopped broadcasting. These holes in radar coverage were created when coincidentally and conveniently “the FAA began dismantling certain primary radar installations in 1999.”

Pay attention to the location of the Cleveland airport marked as “CLE” on (the south side of Lake Erie in) the image above, because it’s where flight 93 may have actually landed.

Additionally although not shown on the images, flight 175 also probably flew into the same radar blind-spot (aka gap) as flight 93 by both planes flying in each others’ vertical radar shadow with transponder off on at least one of them planes so that it was impossible to detect them as separate objects on primary radar.

So the most plausible explanation of what transpired is as depicted in the images below, the originating flight 11 plane was flown away into the gap in the radar coverage after its transponder was turned off. Flight 11’s flight path on radar was continued by two drone “planes” (flying horizontally close together as one radar blip as seen by FAA ATC because their non-military transponders are off) which had flown down through the gap to meet flight 11 before it peeled off. Both the drones and flight 11 could also have been hidden in the Vigilant Guardian wargames exercise on that day which simulated attacks by Russian bombers coming over Canada.

Alternatively flight 11 flew along with the 2 drones (horizontally close enough to be in the same radar blip) and peeled off close enough to 175 to also be hidden in flight 175’s radar blip. If instead flight 11 peeled off into the radar gap, then it could fly freely undetected. Otherwise if it peeled off hidden in 175’s radar blip then it must stay in 175’s vertical shadow (at any vertical altitude separation) until it descends low enough to be undetectable on radar so it could have possibly landed at Lehigh Valley International Airport near Allentown. Allentown is quite populated and Lehigh airport doesn’t look like is has any secure enough isolated area. Ditto Reading Regional Airport and Harrisburg International Airport. Horsham Air Guard appears to be more isolated, although a commercial flight would standout landing at a small military base in still somewhat populated area.

Much more likely the flight 11 instead peeled off into the radar gap over Green Mountain National Forest where it could descend below radar altitude (mimicking the descent of the imposter drone now posing as flight 11 which will hit the north tower) and subsequently fly over very sparsely populated forests (such as as Silver Lake Wilderness and Independence River Wild Forest) to land undetected on Wheeler Sack Army Air Field at Fort Drum out in the middle of nowhere to coincide with the FAA order by that time for all 4500 planes still in the air to land at the nearest airport.





Regardless of which direction flight 11 peeled off, these two military imposter planes continued flying horizontally close enough to be in each others’ radar blip until they meet with flight 175 at 8:37am. Then the imposter drone for flight 175 peels off to fly hidden in flight 175’s radar blip. When the drone “plane” hits the north tower, flight 175 turns off its transponder but stays hidden within the same radar blip as the second drone. Flight 175 descends down below radar altitude so it can wait for flight 93 to catch up as drone peels off to make its turn back towards the south tower. Then flight 175 flies in flight 93’s radar shadow until both planes enter the next radar gap near to Cleveland, Ohio. A passenger who called from flight 175 thought they might be headed to Chicago. That radar gap was confirmed by the FAA on 9/11:

We were finally able to deduce by the airplanes talking back to us which was the airplane not talking to us, and that was Flight 93.



There’s some evidence that Flight 93 and/or 175 may have eventually landed at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and been quarantined at the NASA Glenn Research Center there. The suspected-to-be-hijacked Flight 1989 also landed at Cleveland ostensibly to create confusion for obscuring that 93 and/or 175 also probably landed there as confirmed by an eyewitness whose position on Hwy 480 made it impossible for them to see (and mistake it for) flight 1989 on the south end of the runway:

On the ground, the entire city was put on full alert, buildings were evacuated (source)

The confusion included the landing time and identity of the plane:

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight. (source) [emphasis added]

Still, the flight landed uneventfully in Cleveland at 10:10 a.m. (source)

Delta Flight 1989 made an emergency landing at Hopkins about 10:45 a.m. (source)

Delta Flight 1989, another LA flight from Boston that took off shortly after Flight 175 passes very close to Flight 93 just after it makes its U-turn over Cleveland airport. (source)

Col Alan Scott spoke about Delta 1989 in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. However, he referred to the flight as Delta 89 for some reason, and talks of it landing around an hour before it actually did, which has led some to speculate that this was an entirely different plane:

9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red herring of the day, because there were a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attacks. Delta 89 was not hijacked, enters the system, increases the fog and friction if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about seven of eight minutes later and clears out of the system...

At 9:41, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking. So again he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us… 9:47 is when Delta 89 clears the system by landing in Cleveland. So he is not a hijack… (source)

And confusion about the number of passengers and location of quarantined debriefing:

The plane sat on airport property between the terminal, the NASA Glenn Research Center and the International Exposition Center […] The 69 passengers and nine crew members then walked down a portable staircase and onto the buses, which took them to the FAA headquarters nearby [beside the I-X Center]. (source)

The plane was evacuated of its 78 passengers shortly before 1 p.m. They were taken to NASA Glenn Research Center to be interviewed by FBI agents. (source)

On a remote taxiway at Hopkins International Airport at Cleveland, Delta Flight 1989 is quarantined. (source) [emphasis added]

[first officer David Dunlap5 allegedly wrote] the tower told us to turn right off the runway. I figured that the normal path to the gates was clogged and they were taking us around the other end. As we backtracked down the taxiway we were told to “turn left onto taxiway bravo and wait there.” I looked at the airport diagram and noticed that taxiway bravo was in a very remote part of the field, about as far from the terminal as you could be. (source)

At the Cleveland airport, [an alleged passenger of Delta 1989] said their plane was kept in an isolated area, far from buildings and other planes. (source)

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport (source)

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. The plane was sitting on a runway at the airport’s west end with approximately 200 passengers on board. The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside […] The airplane landed at about 10:45 a.m., but the airport released no information about the plane's intended destination. Normally, planes of this size do not land at Hopkins […] He said airport officials reported that a second airplane in distress had passed through Cleveland airspace earlier Tuesday morning before being handed off to Toledo. Officials at Toledo Express Airport did not immediately have any information about a plane headed from Cleveland. (source) [emphasis added]

Cleveland Mayor Michael White said at a news conference this morning that a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of fears a bomb was aboard. He reported that air traffic controllers could hear screaming aboard the plane. The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15 a.m., though White said the pilot was still concerned that a bomb remained. White reported that another plane was diverted from Hopkins toward Toledo. (source) [emphasis added]

The shadows on the tail of the plane in the photo of Delta 1989, place the photographer on the west or south side of the plane if taken before noon. Else on the east or north side. North side would be consistent with the taxiway. The quotes above, trees in the background and an additional point below, all indicate the Delta plane was at the south end of the runway:

 

To make sure that flight 1989’s landing approach is southeast so it didn’t end up at the northwest end of the runways where the NASA center is located:

And now, preparing for landing, Werner has more important things to worry about. He was too close to Cleveland when he got the order to land. So he loops back, over Michigan, and heads toward the city. (source)

Dewdney wrote:

If Flight UAL 175 had proceeded directly from Boston to Cleveland, instead of turning south, as the official story alleges, it would be landing at this very time in Cleveland, having traveled at an average speed of 310 mph (takeoff & landing allowance included) […]

Strangely enough, a second Flight, thought to be DAL 89 [aka Delta 89], came in for a landing at 10:45 am with little excitement […] It proceeded to another remote area of the airport, beside the NASA Glenn Research Center. At 11:15 about “200 passengers” were evacuated into the Center. It is thought that Flight DAL 89 was one of the aircraft being used in the ongoing war-games exercises. This would explain the confusion that surrounds its real identity […] When DAL 89 was first cleared to land, it was apparently not in the correct position to land easily and found it necessary to fly as far as Toledo, Ohio before turning around and coming in at the time stated. Had it come in when first cleared it would be landing at approximately the right time to be Flight UAL 93 […]

It would have been possible to have passengers of either UAL 93 (from Newark) or UAL 175 (from Boston) to have boarded Delta equipment, thanks to a prior arrangement with the airlines involved. United and Delta have a history of cooperation and there may be some overlap in the respective boards of directors […] However, it might well be that an aircraft with United markings could also pass for Delta 1989 for the simple reason that a) only one or two of the most senior people were in the tower at the time […] one has the simpler job of feeding the tower personnel the right story, given their knowledge of the war-games, […] “We’ll have two Delta Flights coming in as United […]”

Augmenting aforementioned numerology, remove 19 fictitious hijackers from ‘1989’ yields ‘89’. Subtract 9 - 8 = 1 then concatenate ‘1’ with ‘19’ reversed yields the date ‘911’. Also flight 11 with 81 (8 + 1 = 9) passengers and crew of 11.

More about Delta 89:

“Delta 89” was the codename for a plane participating in the ongoing wargames […] Colin Scoggins was the controller who sent the “Delta 89” messages to Rountree. Scoggins was the “military liaison” […] The exercise status of “Delta 89” also explains why it was tracked by Scoggins (Boston Center) when it was already deep in Cleveland Center airspace […] Col. Scott himself says that “Delta 89” landed at Cleveland. But he gives the bizarre landing time of 9:47 […] It might be hard to find witnesses who actually have observed Flight X. There are, however, people who have observed fighter jets forcing an airliner to land at Hopkins:

I’m sure there was a fifth plane involved that was headed toward Camp David;however, that plane was forced (yes forced, militarily) to land in Cleveland. I thought the target could also have be NASA’s Glen/Lewis Research Center that is right next to the Cleveland Airport. The news reported that the plane landed because of a suspected bomb on board but they haven’t released anyone that was on that plane. The closed NASA and transported everyone that was on the plane there for questioning.

[…] The 9/11 Commission tells us that NEADS sent fighters from Michigan and Ohio. But these fighters never came in contact with Delta 1989. The Ohio fighters took off at 10:17, seven minutes after the landing of Delta 1989. The Michigan fighters, despite being airborne at 9:40, landed at their home base shortly thereafter (source)

When NORAD‘s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York, was notified of the first real-world hijacking at 8:38 a.m., its mission crew commander, Major Kevin Nasypany, thought this was part of the exercise, which he'd helped to design. He said out loud, “The hijack‘s not supposed to be for another hour.” [8] NEADS was in fact alerted to the suspected hijacking of Delta 1989 almost exactly one hour later, at 9:39 a.m. [9] This was therefore around the time it was due to be notified of the simulated hijacking in the exercise, and supports the contention that Delta 1989 was playing the targeted aircraft in that exercise.

DELTA 1989 INDICATED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIJACKED

[…] Just after 9:39 a.m., when a radio transmission was heard coming from the hijacked Flight 93 in which a hijacker said, “There is a bomb on board,” […] the crew of Delta 1989 missed the hand-off to their new frequency. The new sector controller dealing with Delta 1989 called out to the plane several times but received no response from its pilots […] this news soon reached an FAA teleconference.

[…] “One anomaly that perpetuated concern” at the TRACON was that Paul Werner “never used the ‘heavy’ designator in his communications.”

[…] Members of the SWAT team, who’d taken up a position just behind the aircraft, saw Paul Werner with blood running down his face as he leaned out of the window to give them the “all clear” signal […]

MILITARY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WRONGLY REPORTED DELTA 1989 AS HIJACKED

[…] when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, FBI agents called the FAA's Cleveland Center and warned its controllers to keep an eye on Delta 1989 […] Colin Scoggins, the center's military liaison, reported that the flight was a possible hijack […] And it appears that Scoggins had no evidence that the flight had been targeted (source)

Three minutes after the Pentagon was hit, a strange aircraft with call sign “Delta 89” popped up on the radar screens of air defense commander Kevin Nasypany’s crew. It signaled a hijacking and was tracked by NEADS for three minutes before it suddenly disappeared again […] 90 seconds before Delta 89 appears on stage, NEADS receives a verbal message from Colin Scoggins, the military liaison controller at Boston Center, regarding Delta 1989 […] they detect two planes “really close together” — Delta 89 and Delta 1989 — and obtain the squawk code of one of them: 7112. This is not Delta 1989’s code, which is 1304, so it must be the code of Delta 89. The first digit “7” indicates that it’s not the ID code of an usual civilian airliner - they never begin with a 7. Instead, the 7 is reserved for emergency cases […] By squawking 7112, Delta 89 manages to pop up on the NEADS radar screens and signals a hijacking […] At 9:44, Delta 89 is suddenly “lost” […] Obviously the pilot has turned off the transponder, making himself virtually invisible [at that low altitude landing at Cleveland by 9:47].(source)

If the Cleveland FAA Control Center had any valuable data that it hadn’t already revealed, one could plausibly imagine it conveniently destroyed due to another mysterious evacuation:

Later that tense day, after most planes had landed, Oberlin police warned the center of a small plane still flying and headed toward the center. That warning resulted in a brief evacuation except for essential employees. Mr. Kettell said that plane simply flew past and was never identified. (source)

So that no one would expect to see the other passengers from 93 and/or 175 depart the airport, the flight 1989 passengers:

We were then escorted out of the airport without going through the main terminal to avoid what the FBI called a "media circus" because the mayor of Cleveland was holding a press conference stating that there was a bomb on our plane and a hijacker in the cabin.

5 Dunlap quit flying and either was never certified to fly or is David Caris Dunlap.

Consolidation of the Passengers

Unraveling The Mysteries Of Flight 11 is a must read, including the (correct link to the) cited forum thread. Read first the summary. Also note that United Airlines personnel were subjected to a surprise training exercise 12 days before 9/11 that was so realistic that some of them ended up in tears or became physically sick.

Flight data recorders for flights 11 and 175 were never recovered and for flights 77 and 93 the FDR serial numbers weren’t disclosed.

The “officially” non-existent6 BTS wheels off time for flights 175 and Delta 1989 were 8:23 and 8:25. Flight 175 thus plausibly flew in Delta 1989’s radar shadow as “Delta 89” (or “UAL 1898”) landing at 9:47 (or 10:10 or 10:45) in Cleveland. According to the ACARS data reported by United, the other (as tracked by radar, e.g. possibly as a war exercise) “flight 175” departed (the ground) at 8:14.

SMOKING GUNS: flight 175 was verifiably routed nearer to Pittsburg and Cleveland long after its alleged crash on the WTC. Also, passenger Peter Hanson allegedly thought flight 175 was headed west to Chicago, not east to the WTC. Click here for more:

  • FBI has no records linking wreckage to FAA registered aircraft.
  • NTSB says flight 175 took off from a different airport.
  • Flight 93 was still radio handshaking over ACARS (while positioned nearer to Illinois) after it allegedly disintegrated into tiny pieces scattered over 8 miles at Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Flights 11 and 77 never officially departed and those planes were deregistered 14Jan2002 as “destroyed”. Whereas, the planes for flights 93 and 175 were deregistered in 2005 as “canceled” meaning they could still be in service with different tail numbers in other countries or in the military. There’s some evidence, reports, anomalous testimony and conjecture indicating flight 11 was consolidated with flight 175 (aka “Delta 89” or “UAL 1898”) or even Delta 1989 with its 299 pax seating. Victims were plausibly consolidated on war exercise obfuscated (load factor) flights landing in Cleveland. Complict and/or non-exist passengers could have boarded instead the duplicates which were radar tracked until they were swapped for drones.

Flight 77’s victims (if any) could have been flown up the aforementioned radar blind-spot corridor to land much earlier at Cleveland, or flown to Newark for consolidation with flight 93 which was delayed. The possibly witnessed consolidation could have been merged and obfuscated along with the transfer to flight 93 of passengers from cancelled flight 91. Flight 93’s “officially” non-existent6 BTS wheels off time of 8:28 disagrees with the 8:42 according to the aforementioned ACARS data reported by United and reiterated by FBI which noted the anomaly as “leaves” instead of “departs”.


(click to view)

It’s highly implausible that any Boeing 757 crashed at the farcical preexisting “wings-shaped” strip mine “gouge” hole in Shanksville where no debris was visible according to FBI agents who first arrived on the scene. The remaining most plausible explanation being (per the prior section) is flight 93 landed at Cleveland at 10:45. The possibility that all 199 passengers from the four alleged hijacked flights landed at Cleveland, concurs with the aforementioned report that “200 passengers” were at the “west end” near the NASA center.


(click to view)

Somewhere (perhaps on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum) I read a conjecture that the small bits and pieces of debris which were scattered for miles around Shanksville, had been plausibly dumped out the back of a C-130 seen flying in the area. Here’s another chart and discussion from the the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum which I haven’t had the time to fully research:

I find interesting that a plane from this encounter -the M3-2230 later flyies closely around the Shanksville site even before anything bumps there; and later quite very exactly above Pentagon just after the attack, long before the Langley fighters arrive there. There's also another plane M3-6774, comming quite fast and straight from southwest, which arrives at Shanksville site and quite clearly circles it just less than 8 minutes after the M3-1527 - "UA93" disappears from the radar some 1.3 mile north of the Shanksville site.

Please note that I'm not asserting a swap occured in this multiple planes shell game encounter - the radar data don't allow me to firmly conclude something like that, the blips appear to have positions too far from each other and the MC indicates several thousand of feets different flight levels.

From my long lasting research of 84Rades radar data I must confirm there are the "holes" in the radar coverage - as Culper721 suggests. The M3-1527 - "UA93" was out of booth primary and secondary radar consistently for almost 15 minutes over Pensylvania so any swap could well occur throughout whole this period (13:47:15 - 14:01:44 UTC) anyway - if one likes such playful ideas.

But to my knowledge there's no publicly available proof that the thing which allegedly crashed near Shanksville PA was indeed the "UA93" or that it was even a B-757 tailnumber N591UA (in fact there is officially available evidence to the contrary - see the ** note) - which took off from EWR and later encountered the swirling planes over the Jefferson and Clarion counties in PA showed in the picture above.

The thing which crashed near Shanksville - if anything crashed there - could well be also the M3-6774 whose radar track also disappeared over the site at 14:14:02 UTC at MC 6300ft - exactly at the moment when the C-130 from ADW passed around - as we know the very same C-130 which also encountered the "AA77" and surveilled the Pentagon just after the attack.

...I somehow don't remember the C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien to tell anything to the meaning he had ever seen a plane circling the Shanksville site, I somehow don't remember absolutely anybody talking about a plane circling Shanksville site at an altitude of more than kilometer AGL...

The BTS database indicates for N591UA/UA93 (EWR-SFO flight) Departure: 8:01, Taxi out time: 27 min and Wheels/off at 8:28

There indeed are two planes taking off from EWR around ~8:28 -one disappears far south in Georgia and another the M3-3374 flyies far west, over big lakes, even crosses to Canada airspace passing from NY state to southern Michigan (where just btw is very bad NORAD radar coverage under 8000ft and almost no coverage under 5000 ft), where it looks like being apparently abruptly grounded - I can't say exactly, because the radars don't see there so low - maybe in Grand Rapids or more likely in Battle Creek (where just btw is National Guard Airbase) or at other numerous smaller airports around.

If somebody would ask me where the plane was originally bound to I would take the online BTS, loudly read what is to this very days written there, take a map, draw the quite straight line, scratch my head with my Occam razor (briefly invoking the notions of Gate 32/26 and 26/20,21 questions together with the "UA175" sudden appearance inmiddle of the Boston bay...), thinking something like that I should after all believe not the media propaganda but the serious official sources of evidence...

...and whisper SFO.

...contrary to the M3-3374 the M3-1527 track marked red on the above picture absolutely clearly took off from EWR at ~8:42 - which is a number, which despite all the torture of the common sense last 10 years still somehow doesn't look to me as the number 8:28, somehow logically comming after the 27 min taxiing, after the 8:01 departure of N591UA at United Airlines flight 0093 from EWR to SFO on 9/11 2001.

Note although the preexisting gouges on the following alleged 1994 USGS satellite photos don’t precisely match the one on 9/11, they do indicate this site wasn’t likely a random event chosen by a plane falling out of the sky at a random location. That land had been worked since 1994 to fill those gouges providing cover for planting a bomb there.

James Perloff is positing that the passengers were flown over the Atlantic ocean through a refueling stop at Lajes Air Base in the Azores islands before proceeding to Israel. This seems less likely because of the aforementioned ACARS evidence that both flight 93 and 175 were flown out near Cleveland and didn’t crash. Perhaps there would be less control and more risk factors flying out of the domestic airspace which was highly controlled and obfuscated with ongoing military exercises. Really doesn’t matter because the outcomes and implications are the same regardless. Note there was a US Today article that mentioned, “three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.”

6 Indeed the “tail numbers” are garbled as displayed on transtats.bts.gov/ONTIME/ for flights from 01Jan2001 to 28Feb2002. Original source was removed sometime after 18Nov2016.

Debunking Mark Roberts’ Disinformation Tactics

I will poke gaping holes in the logic and facts of the deceptive arguments made by the arrogant, disinformation agent Mark Roberts — the so called “Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers”.

Roberts disingenuously implies that because WTC7 had some office fires for 7 hours prior to collapse that this could have caused the extremely high levels of heat officially measured in the debris 5 days after collapse. That isn’t a plausible explanation.

When attempting to justify the photo of orange-hot (which is much hotter than and not “red-hot”) steel being pulled from the rubble days after the collapse, Roberts is attempting to refute the clearly seen molten steel (which I explained can’t be aluminum and in another debate Roberts admits there’s molten metal!). He disingenuously implies that none of the structural engineers nor firemen on the scene saw molten steel, but we have them on record stating that they did. He quotes structural engineer Dave Peraza who was involved in the cleanup operations (coincidentally a different David Peraza died on 9/11). But above I cited the structural engineer who built 9/11 and the firm contracted to actually remove the steel. Also I have read some accounts of the extremely paranoid security employed for the trucking of the steel out of the facility.

And Roberts is cleverly lying when he erroneously implies that for example aluminum — the only other metal that could have been at the site in appreciable levels which melts at low enough temperate to refute the claims that molten steel implies — can appear to be orange when flowing as molten. It can’t. Study my prior sentence to detect how clever (high IQ?) his lies are. You see by implying other metals could have melted there (for example copper and nickel which melt at a much higher temperature may flow molten in orange color because of the high heat required), he tricks the naive reader into forgetting that the entire point of stating there’s molten steel (iron) there, is because molten steel couldn’t be possible due to the heat of office fires (and NIST admits the jet fuel had burned off in first few minutes yet the molten material pouring out is nearly an hour after impact and just before collapse). Roberts obfuscated what the original point is.

Roberts claims that the iron microspheres found in the dust of WTC collapse are normally produced by fires and that the iron oxide found in these chips was from the paint on the steel. Dr. Niels Harrit refuted this very resoundly, citing at least three technical reasons these chips couldn’t be ordinary paint.

Roberts disingenuously claims that any structural engineer can explain the official story of the collapse that ensued after the initiation of collapse where NIST’s model terminates. That claim and the so called “peer-reviewed” papers Roberts refers to have been resoundingly refuted.

On his website, Roberts reiterates the testimony of Penny Elgas which I already refuted. Roberts is apparently not aware of the evidence CIT compiled on the staged light poles, including the taxicab driver admitting on video that he lied and that it was staged. I had explained in one of my prior 9/11 blogs why Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda can’t be trusted. Army Captain (now Major) Lincoln Liebner implied in his testimony that (“the fireball from my angle wasn’t as dramatic as I have subsequently seen on the file tape”) he wasn’t able to see the actual alleged point of impact because he was running towards the south face (presumably near to the corner with the west face) of the building. Lienber didn’t see any evidence of a plane crash, “Remarkably, there was no debris from the airplane.” Also he stated, ”The plane had essentially gone in on the floor above us…” And he did see evidence of an explosion, “There was a door that was completely blown off and I walked in.” Additionally, Elgas’ and Liebner’s statements imply a north-of-Citgo approach which conflicts with the official story. Liebner visually indicated a NoC approach.

On a different page of his website, Roberts mocks David Ray Griffin by citing a radio debate in which (at the 2:30 mark) George Monbiot makes the unsubstantiated claim that the WTC twin towers weren’t demolished by taking out the center columns first thus removing all resistance at the bottom. Roberts also lampoons the related claim by engineers Edward Knesl and Donald Messerlian. Yet we have evidence of preparations (c.f. also) and testimony from the key witness William Rodriguez and others (such as those who survived the collapse from inside a small compartment near the bottom that wasn’t completely destroyed) about explosions not only throughout the building many minutes before collapse but also specifically individuals who were burned in the basement by explosions before the planes impacted. Also my aforementioned resounding refutation explains why it’s impossible to have total collapse of the interior core structural beams without such controlled demolition. In short, the interior vertical beams in the center of the building were weakened first, then it pulled the horizontal beams (trusses actually) and exterior facia steel inward into a collapse. The unique construction of the twin towers facilitated the illusion of top-down collapse which duped Monbiot into making an idiot of himself by proclaiming that which he doesn’t know jackshit about. The center first implosion is clearly visible by the collapse of the radio tower a split-secondsbefore the exterior collapse. Ditto the WTC7’s center is clearly seen on video collapsing before the exterior.

Roberts also cited for example Ryan Mackey’s refutation of Physicist Heikki Kurttila’s “resistance factors” and Newtons Bit’s refutation of Mechanical Engineer Gordon Ross’ conservation-of-momentum based in the distinction between elastic and inelastic collisions. The 2105MJ kinetic energy should probably be much lower because the upper 16 floors didn’t initially fail symmetrically as evident by the radio tower falling a split-second in advance. The 30 floors of the South tower even tilted over meaning much of the mass only moved a much lesser than the 3.7m distance down before receiving resistance from the officially intact lower structure. Newtons Bit’s refutation lacks sufficient finite element modeling of complex effects wherein entropy will play a role. The 9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses video explains and demonstrates that the pancake theory is incorrect.

Additionally if the argument is to justify complete collapse due to only the plane impact, this conservation-of-momentum argument can be an irrelevant red-herring obfuscation tactic as I had explained (and I may be the first to point this out) that it’s physically and entropically impossible to adequately transfer the kinetic energy to the 47 vertical interior structural beams such that they could be entirely collapsed symmetrically into neatly sized cut ~30 ft sections (as opposed to partially standing and/or toppled, bent over into an asymmetric footprint). IOW, either the conservation-of-momentum would result in an arrested (i.e. not complete) pancake collapse or otherwise the extreme forces would punch through the lower floors chaotically without complete collapse of the core center vertical columns of structural steel.

Clean Tactical Nukes, Not Kooky Directed Energy Weapons

I’ve been intuitively suspicious of Dr. Judy Wood’s theory of Star Wars technology because it reeks of the psyops tactics I wrote about in this blog such as the the kooky no planes and missile disinformation. Also the science of her thesis is dubious. Christopher Bollyn via James Perloff provides some anecdotal confirmation of my suspicions:

This summer, during his book tour, I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Bollyn, one of 9/11’s best researchers. In this interview, starting at about the 42-minute mark, Chris states a Mossad agent approached him in Germany and tried to sell him on the “beam weapons” thesis, long before Judy Wood got on board with it. Dr. Woods’ DEWs, which she initially called “Star Wars Beam Weapons,” took Israelis off the hook for 9/11, since they wouldn’t have had a space-based weapon.

Please read my comment post What Hit the WTC? for a hypothesis that customized 767 military planes were used.

In the Nuclear 9/11 section of his blog, Perloff attempts a well reasoned conjecture for the explosive force which enabled the twin tower collapes to accelerate and pulverize instead of pancake as previously mentioned in the 9/11 Experiments video. I quote below some of his points:

WTC dust samples contained inexplicably high concentrations of elements produced by nuclear fission, such as strontium and barium

Tahil’s conclusions are being corroborated, not only by the high cancer rates among 9/11 survivors, but through the fact that, by 2008, thyroid cancer was occurring at above-average frequency in first responders more than any other type of cancer […] And by 2013, the number of first responders with thyroid cancer had nearly quadrupled from 26 to 97.

Then there was the virtually complete vaporization[pulverization] of the Towers’ inner contents […] included the humans inside (whole bodies that were found belonged to people who jumped before the Towers exploded):

A common objection to the nuclear hypothesis is: “Where are the post-9/11 Geiger counter readings showing lots of radiation in New York City?” The answer: not all nuclear bombs discharge large amounts of radiation. Most use a combination of nuclear fission and fusion […] During the Cold War, the United States began developing tactical nuclear weapons, also known as “battlefield nukes.” Obviously, in a battlefield situation, a low-radiation weapon is desired; otherwise it could harm one’s own army […] What types of nuclear warheads would Israel stockpile? Although this is a state secret, it should be obvious that Israel would emphasize “battlefield” nukes. In war with its neighbors, it wouldn’t want radiation blowback to Tel Aviv.

The Towers’ “collapses” were clearly explosions. Here is a shot of the South Tower showing a huge single upward burst of energy:

The North Tower explodes:

Tactical nuke exploding:

Here the same bomb creates an expanding ground-level cloud, similar to what New Yorkers fled from on 9/11:

Conclusion

I reiterate again that 9/11 is a test of how gullible, poorly educated, and lazy the decadent populace is. Disinformation agents such as Roberts are doing their job to test how much intentional bullshit the average person will shovel into his/her drooling orifices.

Bullshit such as the following:

This Sicilian-esque mafia shit started a long time ago and even before that. Along the way they assassinated JFK.

James Perloff wrote:

While alternative media correctly regards 9/11 as a false flag intended to generate the domestic police state and never-ending Middle East wars, Dionisi notes the event had an additional dimension usually overlooked: the Twin Towers’ destruction constituted a ritual sacrifice, a burnt offering on a mass scale.

Luciferianism in photos alleged to be of a 1972 Rothschild-hosted ball and more signs of their control:

 









The last image above is a card from Steven Jackson Games’ Illuminati game. An amusing video seemed to have predicted the Lower Manhattan attack 31Oct2017, the Barcelona attacks 3+2=5 days before the 21Aug2017 solar eclipse (also the day Big Ben chimed for last time until 2021 due to renovation) and attempted to make a guess of the next false-flag based on these cards and other factors. The video also documents numerous additional examples of predictive programming in the media such as the one imaged below. But the cards at least are perhaps of dubious predictive value given there are 412 cards available in addons for the game, although the original game had only 110 cards. And many of the cards which don’t depict predictions can be eliminated from consideration.


COUP compact disc cover from June 2001

Perloff wrote:

No film reeks of 9/11 symbolism more than Back to the Future, from Marty’s DeLorean leaving a glowing “911,” to Biff watching a simulated Twin Towers collapse in Back to the Future 2. Director Robert Zemeckis later made a movie about the Twin Towers called The Walk, released in October 2015, the same year and month Marty traveled ahead to in the future. I won’t embed it here, but this 12-minute clip nicely summarizes Back to the Future’s 9/11 predictions.


BACK TO THE FUTURE predicts 9/11 (click to play)

9/11 was predicted in the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which aired March 4, 2001:


(click to play)

I noticed this one some years back and I don’t think anyone else has ever mentioned it. Lauren Hill’s “Everything Is Everything” music video which was released in 1998, has a NYC skyline absent the twin towers and her lyrics are a Christian retort to the evil, “I wrote these words for everyone who struggles in their youth. Who won't accept deception, instead of what is truth. It seems we lose the game. Before we even start to play. Who made these rules? (Who made these rules?). We're so confused (We're so confused). Easily led astray […] Adjacent to the king, fear no human being […] Let me tell ya that. And the ones on top, won't make it stop. So convinced that they might fall. Let's love ourselves and we can't fail. To make a better situation. Tomorrow, our seeds will grow […] After winter, must come spring. Change, it comes eventually.”


(click to play)

Note I didn’t cite Prince’s prediction in 1998 because the information was already public knowledge when Prince stated it.

Psychologically the official stories of the 9/11 hoax are a feel-good, self-aggrandizing (pat ourselves on the back) “we Americans are the good guys” Islamophobic Hollywood mirage comfort zone which Americans are conditioned to trust because they grew up being entertained, befriended, comforted, and communing with the golden age of television.

On the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” TV show, former POTUS junior Bush admitted there are secrets he’ll never tell. Bush and his brother Jeb were clearly complicit on 9/11:

George W. Bush, who [didn’t] asked his staff chief Andrew Card for no clarification on the whispered message that “America is under attack” (9:05), but instead remained seated, listening to children read in a classroom, until around 9:16; and whose large White House entourage remained in the Florida school until 9:34.

The junior Bush’s amiable, light-hearted personality is the epitome of the tragedy-of-the-commons concept I’ve oft-explained and am trying to ameliorate with decentralization and the inverse commons aka cornucopia-of-the-commons.

The alleged whistle blower said, “Let’s put it this way, I was training to become a psychopath, and I failed.” Cabals are the game theoretic outcome of the power vacuum of collective governance and fungible resources— i.e. not caused by the existence of evil versus good (people). The egg doesn’t lay the hen. Globalization and the process of increasing cooperation is necessary destiny.

Perloff’s blog elicited a chuckle:

In America, we basically think Christians have two choices: Catholic or Protestant. I’ve never been a Catholic, but many traditional Catholics whom I know acknowledge the severe issues their church is experiencing, especially since Vatican II in the early 1960s—most notoriously, perhaps, pedophilia, gay scandals, and even reported satanism. A friend of mine has a 90-year-old mother who describes herself as having long been “ex-Catholic.” On the day of her confirmation, she said, the priest had “hand trouble.” You can use your imagination as to what that meant.

A very informative discussion — between a David Duke-styled interviewer who wants to blame everything on Jews and an intelligent, articulate 26 year old Libertarian Jew — when distilled exemplifies that organization of resources ultimately leads to their consolidation by the Beast for evil and not because any particular in group aimed to be evil. Even local governments are corrupted. Even collectivized insurance has a game theory which provably caused enslavement. Money is an information system which values those who manage resources well up to a point, then it fails because aggregation of control becomes deleterious and evil. Jesus’ message is that love is the unwavering (immortal) truth, not money, our bodies, and worldly possessions. Love is the antithesis of the lust for control and in support of the inexorable increase in entropy (i.e. go forth an multiply) of God’s creation — congruent with the irreversible thermodynamics which enables time to exist in distinct past versus future. And for us to exist as distinct from the nothingness and everything-at-once of the multiverse. God carved us out of the multiverse and gifted us shared perception of time so that we have the free-will to decide whether to love as so defined (for there’s no choice and in fact money can’t even exist if there’s no shared perception of time). Love can’t exist as distinct from evil without the free-will choice of whether participate in evil.

I do not wish it to be this way, but note that the damned fact is that the Bible is correct that Eve (women) are inherently subversive and only a rib (i.e. are implicitly enslaved). Biologically a woman (subconsciously at least) desires to be conquered as a (noisy, imprecise, chaotic!) circumstantial evidence that her eggs are seeded with the strongest genetics. A female is in bliss while she feels conquered by her prince — an illusion that is usually not sustainable. The female’s number of reproduction cycles is very limited. Given the power to vote and be powerful in all matters of civic society, women will naturally subvert the collective for their R strategy (aka feral) reproductive priorities. Frankly many weak men defect from meritocracy also. Evil men will lust for power, but nearly all women will subvert the collective good because it’s the nature of the female. The nature of the woman must be handled with male stewardship and love. The greatest evil w.r.t. females is as the Bible said about Oman spilling his semen on the ground to prevent reproduction because it denies her life, given reproduction is her primary life function (i.e. the damned fact is that females can’t focus on engineering nor science nor saving no matter how talented their intellect is and instead will nearly always turn their attention towards subverting the workplace for example promoting egalitarianism or some emotional drama instead of meritocracy).

Decentralization Technology Can Empower Truth

As more Westerners awaken to the realities of our decadent Western society, the looming collapse of the corrupted Western civilization form of cooperation takes form into a global village of knowledge and human cooperation built on decentralization technology.

Gary North wrote:

“All three are clearly controlled demos. Everyone that views it knows it.”

I cannot imagine a more inaccurate statement. Hardly anyone who views them knows “it.” Almost every adult American has seen the videos of the collapse of the North & South towers. On September 11, 2001, the videos were shown over and over on the networks, all day long.

Only a handful of experts have ever publicly argued that the cause of the buildings’ collapse was a system of controlled demolition. Anyone who dares to mention the pancake collapse of the third tower is rejected derisively as a conspiracy theorist.

If the critic then goes on to point out that there were no plane debris at the alleged crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania — the parts were scattered for miles, indicating that the plane exploded in mid-air — he is dismissed as a nut case. Why? Because such a scenario raises an obvious question: Did the military shoot it down? This in turn questions the “Let’s roll” scenario of heroes on board Flight 93 who stormed the cabin.

Millions of believers in the government’s “Let’s roll” version of the crash look at the small empty hole and do not see what is missing: debris. They see an empty hole and conclude that a plane crashed there. In their case, not seeing is believing.

This leads me to a conclusion: Seeing is not always believing. Not seeing is very often believing.

This is why conspiracies have gotten away with a great deal in history.

I have faced this all of my adult life. I started out in 1958 with a high school term paper on whether Roosevelt knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. I concluded that he knew an attack somewhere in the Pacific was coming. I have not changed my mind. In 1972, when I was awarded my Ph.D. in American history, as far as I knew, I was the only historian age 30 or younger with a Ph.D. in history who believed this. Even today, I am one of maybe a dozen men with a Ph.D in American history who believe this and say so in public […] The phrase, “conspiracy theorist,” is literally a career-killer in academia […] Alex Jones was one of the first to broadcast videos with comments on the collapsing Building 7. He is openly a conspiracy theorist. The fact that he promoted the event as a conspiracy pretty well dooms others who also promote the official account’s implausibility.

[…]

LIES, SPIN, AND COVER-UPS

My point is simple: every Establishment rules in terms of lies, spin, and cover-ups. Most of the citizenry is vaguely aware of the lies and the spin on this or that minor matter, but voters side with the regime on the big lies. To do otherwise is to call into question their own wisdom. It is to admit that you were successfully taken in on some major matter — you and millions of others. This undermines the religion of democracy. It means that republican patriotism is based on widespread gullibility. “Fool me once, shame on the government. Fool me 20 times, shame on me.” So, once the masses have adopted the Official Party Line, to abandon it means abandoning your old self and your old world of political legitimacy. It means that you are now on your own — an outlaw, a pariah.

Gary North wrote:

GETTING THE WORD OUT

[…]

Most people do not have time to re-think every government position. Even with the big positions, people do not have time to re-think them in detail. They sense the personal cost of such investigations. If they ever figured out that they have been lied to deliberately, they might lose faith in the government. This is like abandoning the religion of your youth. The costs are high. The older you are, the more emotional capital is invested in this “market.” To abandon faith in the official line means admitting that you had previously fallen for a grand deception. You were played the sucker. You were, in Lee Harvey Oswald’s now-famous term, a “patsy.”

There is an old line: “You cannot change just one thing.” When you abandon faith in the broad outline of the government’s official explanation, you then feel as though you must offer a better one. This opens up a huge can of worms. This may take you down rabbit trails. Then this may take you down rabbit holes. You may be like Alice. You may enter Wonderland. You may never re-emerge.

LOSS OF FAITH

My loss of faith in the federal government’s version of American history began in the fall of 1958. I wrote a high school term paper on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I reached a conclusion: President Roosevelt not only knew that an attack was imminent in the first week of December 1941, he had for a year authorized policies that he believed would provoke such an attack. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson spoke for Roosevelt when he made this entry in his diary on November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot… .”

I did not know in 1958 that he had been Secretary of War under Taft, Secretary of State under Hoover, and was later known as “the chairman of the American Establishment.” I was young and naïve in 1958. I am no longer young. I trust that I am not naïve … not about the U.S. government, anyway.

[…]

Then let us ask the question that Lenin also asked, stealing it from Cherneshevsky: “What is to be done?”

Answer is as I wrote for example here, here and here: “decentralization technology.”


Note replacing steemit.com with busy.org displays my blogs and blog comments in a more readable format with for example bold text more visible.

P.S. The now widely banned hyper opportunist sensationalist Alex Jones hints that a military coup is fomenting. Alex Jones also reminds us that the major radio networks reported on 9/11 that WTC7 was destroyed with bombs. He also mentions that military official he had interviewed after 9/11 died soon after those interviews.

Disclaimer: some of the sources I linked to (especially for example where I linked to a specific mark in a video where I intend only the intended portion to be referenced) contain some (for example) debunked disinformation which I’m not espousing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.