General Albert Stubblebine talks about the Pentagon attack and 911.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Letter To A 9/11 Truth Skeptic
By Julius Sequerra
BeforeItsNews.com
September 17, 2011The following letter was sent to the CEO of a major national corporation whom I met at a private social function last week:
Dear John,
I’m pleased that you called. For a moment I wondered if I’d offended you that evening with my careless comment about the 9/11 cover-up. It’s a subject I normally avoid with people I meet for the first time. I only responded the way I did because I misunderstood your question re the “9/11 anniversary.” Obviously, I’m relieved that the reason for your silence was because you hadn’t received my email.
With that being said, and considering the import and gravity of the topic, I feel I must somewhat reluctantly break protocol and run the risk of broaching this sensitive subject nonetheless. Please forgive me for doing so, but I believe I would be remiss in my role as an American patriot and a responsible citizen if I were to avoid the subject altogether — objectionable as it might at first appear — without at least alerting you to some of the facts that led me down this troubling path of discovery.
This information was first communicated to me, circa ‘04, by two friends — one, a retired USAF fighter pilot, the other a current airline captain. This opened my mind to a reality that was shocking, to say the least. It’s been a profoundly disturbing awakening since.
First, may I ask that you please take 10 seconds to watch this clip of the THIRD tower at the World Trade Center that collapsed on 9/11. Unknown to more than 90% of Americans, WTC Building 7 was a 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper that collapsed in a 6.6-second freefall at 5:30 PM that same day:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Then, please take 15 minutes this weekend to watch the following clip just released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and narrated by Hollywood celebrity Ed Asner:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_ embedded
Finally, I would urge you to watch this 5-minute interview of Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, US Army (Ret.). Gen. Stubblebine was former former Commanding General of US Army Intelligence and Security Command:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E&feature=player_ embedded
Should you wish to dig deeper (I’m almost certain you will), also copied, below, are a few recent articles I pulled together for your perusal. This assemblage of material represents merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are literally thousands of military officers, pilots, firemen, physicists, architects, engineers, academics, political leaders and others who are involved in a burgeoning global “9/11 truth movement,” and are demanding to know what really happened that doomful day. I’ve also provided a few links to give you an idea of the unimpeachable credibility, and caliber, of the individuals who are standing up to be counted.You will not find any of this information in the mainstream media. As to the reasons for this silence, I believe Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski – who blew the whistle on the Bush administration’s efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — explains it best:
“I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled ‘conspiracy nut’ or ‘anti-government traitor,’ or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.”
A video released last week entitled AE 9/11Truth – Experts Speak Out [1] provides the clearest analysis of the 9/11 attacks from professional architects and engineers. It is, without doubt, the best and most comprehensive film yet produced challenging the official version of the WTC attacks. It’s also the appropriate antidote to the disinformation that continues to be pervasive in the US media.
You have my firm assurance that I shall not henceforth touch upon this subject (unless, of course, you were to request more information). That said, I would urge you to take the time this weekend to delve deeper into this most disturbing matter. If I did not deem this information to be absolutely vital to the future of our nation — indeed, the world — I would not be communicating this to you.
All I ask is that you approach the matter objectively and with an open mind. And it might be prudent to keep in mind that what we think we know today with ‘certainty’ can be radically altered by what we discover tomorrow.
Our nation is in peril, sir. Time is of the essence.
Kind regards,
Julius
[1] Architects & Engineers: Experts Speak Out – www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YW6mJOqRDI4
Partial list of 9/11 Truth organizations:
NB: Should the links not connect automatically, please copy-paste in your browser.
Patriots for 9/11 Truth (Military officers, political leaders, academics, et al)
patriotsquestion911.com/
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
www.ae911truth.org/
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
firefightersfor911truth.org/
Military Personnel for 9/11 Truth
www.militaryofficersfor911truth. org/
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
mp911truth.org/
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/
Actors, Artists, and Athletes for 9/11 Truth
www.aaa911truth.com/
______________________________
_____
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. A former editor of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, at Stanford.
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD
The “Critics” of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research
September 13, 2011
<www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26520 > The short answer to the question in the title is no.
The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.
Let’s examine the case against “the truthers” presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.
But first let’s define who “the truthers” are.
The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of “9/11 conspiracy theorists”.
Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.
Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.
9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.
For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.
The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.
The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.
It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.
It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.
It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.
The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.
When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.
When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.
When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel–and their testimony is backed up with photographs–in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.
When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.
When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.
It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.
That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.
What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) www.
informationclearinghouse.info/ article29113.htm Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?
Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.
Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. barnhardt.biz/
Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.
Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.
Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.
Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges.”
www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911- conspiracists-vindicated- after-all-these-years/ Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”
Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.
Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon–they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both–stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”
If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.
I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.
Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.
Cockburn’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.
Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.
Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?
They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.
Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.
There is no 9/11 debate.
On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.
The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.
_________________________________________
DR. BOB BOWMAN, Lt. Col. USAF (Ret.)
Former head of President Reagan’s
‘Star Wars’ program; Caltech PhD in Nuclear
Engineering and Aeronautics; and decorated
fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions
in Vietnam.
www.patriotsquestion911.com
“The official story of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. It violates the laws of physics.High levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.”
Col. Robert Bowman is just one of thousands of high-caliber individuals at the forefront of this noble and courageous effort loosely referred to as the 9/11 Truth Movement.
While I’d heard of Dr Bowman over the years, I met him for the first time circa ‘05. Since then, I’ve had the honor of publicly introducing this true American patriot at a few political events when he was running for US Congress (Florida).
With a PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman is a scientist of high stature. His academic qualities as well as his leadership skills would explain why he was hand-picked by President Reagan to head the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, aka “Star Wars”) program. Later, he continued to serve under President Carter in this same capacity — at the time, arguably the preeminent position in this nation’s defense apparatus.
To add to his long list of accomplishments, Col. Bowman is a highly decorated fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions in Vietnam. In addition to being a rocket scientist, defense expert, and fighter pilot, Col Bowman was also a College Professor, and an executive in both government and industry.
Col. Bowman’s official statement on 9/11:
“The official explanation in the NIST report violates the laws of physics. It is physically impossible for a building (or anything else) to fall at near-free-fall speed and do work (smashing steel and concrete) on the way down. An external energy input (like explosives) is absolutely essential. In addition, for the top of one of the towers to tip about 30 degrees and NOT continue tipping and falling off violates the law of conservation of angular momentum. The symmetrical collapse of building 7 due to highly asymmetrical damage is also unbelievable. We have not yet been told the truth. If the government has nothing to hide, why continue to hide everything? Why not a new and truly independent investigation?”
Is it not a grievous tragedy, that in this great “democracy” of ours, even bona fide, larger-than-life leaders such as Dr. Bowman aren’t given so much as a minute of exposure on ‘Prime Time News’ on an issue as momentous, and universally relevant, as 9/11?
Please take the time to watch the following 2-min video clip in order to get a snapshot of what this great man has to say about the hidden truth behind the 9/11 attacks. Then, ask yourself this question: Would a man of such grand accomplishment and stature wish to squander a lifetime of brilliant achievement by standing up for something as “nutty” as 9/11 Truth?
2-min Clip:
video.google.com/
______________________________
______________________________ __ Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 Was a CIA-Mossad Operation
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga
___________________________________ “All the intelligence circles of America and Europe, with those at the forefront of Italian intelligence, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized from the CIA and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and in Afghanistan… The attacks could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”
___________________________________ Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio [1], has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed–an honest politician–and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio — a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.
Operation Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they coined “false flag operations,” terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
Cossiga’s revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the US intelligence apparatus [2].
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
President Cossiga’s new revelations recently appeared in Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera [3]. What follows is a rough translation:
“From neighboring environments in Palazzo Chigi, the nerve center of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is testified by the fact that Osama Bin Laden in it “confesses” that Al Qaeda was the author of the 9/11 attacks, while all the intelligence circles of America and Europe, with those at the forefront of Italian intelligence, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized from the CIA and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and in Afghanistan.”
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book [4] as stating that “The mastermind of the attack must have been a ‘sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: the attacks could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals — he cannot be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Notes:
[1] <www.truthmove.org/> content/operation-gladio
[2] <www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/us. terrorism_graun_24jun2000.html >
[3] <www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_ berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee- 9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b. shtml >
[4] <www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf >
_______________________________
Prof. Niels Harrit – Member of the 9-member team that discovered explosives residues in 9/11 dust samples
Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor of Chemistry,
University of Copenhagen.“When I saw a video of Building 7 collapsing — a building I had never heard of before — I kept playing it over and over again. I couldn’t believe my eyes. it took me weeks to digest it… Once you realize this, there is no way back. So you can either speak out, or you can live in shame. The evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming. The evidence for Nano-thermite is overwhelming. It is very complicated…very sophisticated…It’s a masterpiece in demolition.”
Dr. Niels Harrit. Prof. Harrit lectured for 34 years at the University of Copenhagen; he has published more than 60 articles in major science journals. Since waking up to the 9/11 fraud, he has delivered 90 lectures on the World Trade Center in Sweden, Norway, England, Holland, the US, Australia and Spain.But you won’t hear about any of this through our “free press”. Dr. Harritt is one of a team of nine international scientists who presented a peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves beyond a doubt the three WTC towers were imploded with explosives [1]. Yet, the report, which made front-page headlines six times in the major Danish newspapers during the first week of February 2010, was never reported in North America.
Watch Dr. Harrit being interviewed on Russia Today, here [12-min]:www.youtube.com/watch?
feature=player_embedded&v= 4RNyaoYR3y0
For the non-scientific readers, please click on the following link, where you’ll find Dr Harrit present a lucid explanation to interviewer Michael Wolsey of the basic chemical processes involved in a Thermitic reaction: www.911truth.org/
article.php?story= 20090415231352441
Question to the reader: Does Prof. Harrit strike you as a “nutty conspiracy theorist”?[1] www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/
articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf–
Danny Jowenko – President of a Controlled Demolitions Company
“Building 7 collapse was a Controlled Demolition.”
Danny Jowenko
President, Jowenko Exposieve Demolitie BV,
Dutch Controlled Demolition company
“Absolutely a controlled demolition. It is without a doubt a professional job, done by a team of experts.”
Like millions of others around the world, Danny Jowenko, president of a leading Dutch demolitions company, had never heard of WTC Building 7, the THIRD skyscraper that fell suddenly into its own footprint seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed.
Mr. Jowenko was shown a video of this structure’s collapse, but initially told nothing about the building or its location.
After he carefully observed the 6.6-second freefall, the interviewer informed Mr. Jowenko that this was in fact a 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper that was located at the New York World Trade Center, and that the collapse occurred on the afternoon of 9/11.
Watch the video (link below) to see this expert’s reaction of shock and disbelief, and hear his categorical assertion this was “absolutely a controlled demolition. It is without a doubt a professional job, done by a team of experts.”
Of this we can be certain: The “team of experts” responsible for this “professional job” was not comprised of a ragtag band of Arab losers led by a chap in a cave in Afghanistan.
This, clearly, is a stunning example of professional demolition expertise — a level of capability possessed only by very few world-class experts.
Importantly, even for a team of such experts, the planning, preparation and set-up of a project of this magnitude would have taken several MONTHS to complete.
It is impossible for this to have been accomplished in a matter of hours on the day of 9/11.
Why is the collapse of Building 7 so important?
- The controlled demolition of WTC7 means if one building at the WTC was wired for a controlled demolition, then all three buildings were;
- The impacting airliners were intended to provide a gruesome and shocking distraction that would facilitate the actual destruction of the buildings by other means;
- Any successful operation of this scale requires expertise, access to the targets, effective local support — and months of preparation;
- Neither the 19 named Arabs nor any of their possible supporters in the US or elsewhere had the expertise, access and local support needed to do that.
Why was Building 7 of such importance that the perpetrators felt they absolutely had to take it down—even at the risk of doing so in full public view, and without any aircraft crashing into it to provide the necessary pretext for its collapse (as with the Twin Towers)?
Building 7, aside from housing New York City’s fortified Emergency Response Center on two of its floors, also contained the offices of the CIA, NSA, ATF, and the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).
Was it pure coincidence that the demolition of Building 7 guaranteed the total destruction of (among other things) every vestige of incriminating evidence in the prosecution of the two biggest corporate frauds in history, Enron ($11 Billion) and Worldcom ($3.8 Billion)?
NB: It is my opinion (one shared by many) that, as with the Twin Towers, “the plan” called for an aircraft — United Airlines Flight 93 — to crash into this third tower to provide a pretext for its destruction, but something went awry (most likely with the homing system). The official story is that Flight 93 nosedived into a field in Pennsylvania when a handful of brave passengers took control of the craft (the “Let’s roll” myth), but it is now generally known that Flight 93 was in fact shot down by a North Dakota Air National Guard F-16 in the skies over Shanksville…but that’s another story altogether.
Here is a clip of Mr. Jowenko’s response when he saw, for the first time, footage of Building 7 in freefall:
[6-min]…
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=yMhUTrBODtA ______________________________
__________________ Dwain Deets – Former Director of Aerospace Projects, NASA
Dwain Deets
Former Director of Aerospace
Projects, NASA
“I am absolutely certain it was not fire and gravity that demolished the three towers with such massive display of power.”
Dwain Deets recently retired from a 37-year career at NASA. Dwain was Director of Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Research Center, where he worked on the Space Shuttle program as well as on some of America’s most highly classified ‘black’ military projects. Deets’ specialty is digital fly-by-wire control systems.
A member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth <www.ae911truth.org>, Dwain is an indefatigable activist who plays a leading role in the 9/11 truth movement. His technical presentations on the destruction of the 3 towers, and the projectile (allegedly a Boeing 757 according to the official conspiracy theory) that impacted the Pentagon, are among the best I’ve seen.
So here is yet another example — one of literally thousands, and growing—of the caliber of professionals who are bravely standing up to be counted through the 9/11 truth movement. And Dwain Deets is yet another example of an individual of unimpeachable credibility the muzzled mainstream media absolutely refuse to touch.
BIO:
MS Physics
ME Aeronautical Engineering
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
Question to the reader: Would this distinguished gentleman risk his hard-earned 37-year career reputation as one of America’s top-ranking aerospace experts by supporting some “crackpot conspiracy theory”?
______________________________
_____________________ Captain Russ Wittenberg
35 years with PanAm; 30,000+ hours Pilot-in-command; 100+ Combat missions
CAPT. RUSS WITTENBERG
Former USAF Fighter pilot with 100+
Combat Missions; retired PanAm & United
Airlines Captain; 30,000+ hrs flying
experience.Capt. Wittenberg had previously flown two of the planes that were “hijacked” on 9/11 — Flight 93 that allegedly “crashed” in Shanksville (it was actually shot down), and flight 175, the plane that hit the South Tower.
Wittenberg states unequivocally that for Hani Hanjour, the Hijacker who allegedly flew the plane that hit the Pentagon — but who was refused the rental of a little Cessna because of his bad flying skills — to have done so would have been absolutely impossible.
“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total BS, plain and simple…For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible — there is not one chance in a thousand… Besides, there was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”
- Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.
- Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Commercial aircraft flown include Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown.
- Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which “crashed” in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).
Video interview in 9/11 Ripple Effect <www.911rippleeffect.
> 8/07: com/ “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175, and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville. Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible. Like I said, for a so-called terrorist to train on a Cessna 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757/767-class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. The aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.
“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple. There was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.
For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand. “
Wittenberg recalled that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying the bigger aircraft.
Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon: “The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what’s called a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high-G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous.
“It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon! The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”
Question to the reader: Is Capt. Wittenberg, too, another “crackpot conspiracy theorist”?
______________________________
_____________________
Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, USMC (Ret)
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford – Former fighter
pilot with over 300 combat missions; awarded
the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 Air Medals;
over 10,000 hrs of logged flight time.
“Your countrymen have been murdered, and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away… The 9/11 Commission was, as was the Warren Commission before it, a dog and pony show…”
Meet Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired US Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions under his belt. Col. Lankford is the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal. During an illustrious 20-year Marine Corp career, Col. Lankford mainly flew Douglas A-4 Skyhawks (a carrier-borne ground attack aircraft), but also Lockheed C-130H Hercules transports.Lt. Col. Lankford’s Statement:
“September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.“If you ask why so many of us are asking for a new, honest investigation of the events of 9/11/2001, my answer is “Why aren’t you?“ If you need elaboration, consider that the 9/11 Commission started with the assumption that Osama Bin Laden and a band of Arab hijackers defeated the world’s preeminent military power, without ever offering proof.
“This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
“If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or… to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?
“Scholars for 9/11 truth” [1] have developed reams of scientific data. Michael Ruppert [2] published an exhaustive account of the case from the viewpoint of a trained investigator. David Ray Griffin [3] provides a context for the unanswered or badly answered questions that should nag at anyone who pretends to love this country.
“Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it?… Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool.
“What does it all add up to? The 9/11 Commission was, as was the Warren Commission before it, a dog and pony show.”
______________________________
_______________
Fighter Pilot, Experienced aircraft accident investigator, Safety Board President
Lt. Col. David Gapp, USAF (Ret)
Fighter pilot, Aircraft Accident Investigator
Aviation Improbabilities
In my professional opinion as an Aviator, I have the following concerns, which I would like to title “Aviation Improbabilities.”
Now, I am not suggesting these are impossible to occur as individual occurrences, but that it is highly improbable that they would all occur in series to have the outcome as professed by the US Government.
• Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots voluntarily giving up control of their aircraft to individuals stating they have box cutters and have or will kill passengers; this is not the established protocol to give up control of aircraft and responsibility of safety for your passengers and crew
• Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots being killed without a deliberate violent flight control reaction that would upend any cockpit invasion
• Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots not entering the Hijack or Emergency Code into the transponder, alerting ATC of a serious problem
• Improbability, IF the above occurred, that the marginally-trained hijackers would be able to operate the navigational systems and fly to specific points in airspace using Instrument Flight Rules
• Improbability of maneuvering the airliners above 400 kts airspeed (considered high speed) and precisely striking the comparatively small WTC 1 & 2 (Professional pilots in simulators have about a one in three chance of accomplishing this maneuver.)
• Improbability of maneuvering AA Flight 77 from 35,000 feet descending to hit the Pentagon, as stated by USG in an analysis of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR); specifically a 330 degree turn from 7000’, descending at a controlled airspeed of 290-300 kts, to precisely strike the Pentagon at ground level by a minimally-trained, unqualified hijacker
• As a military fighter pilot, I have questions as to why numerous Air Defense systems were not utilized that day, including intercept aircraft that had plenty of time from 8:14 am when Boston Center Air Traffic Controllers realized something was wrong with AA Flight 11, after it did not respond to authorization to change flight levels. There were 3 Air Defense Exercises ongoing on Sep 11, and their command posts and chain of commands were fully staffed. Otis AFB, MA had ANG F-15 fighter-interceptors nearby which were airborne “too late” (8:53 launch); Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:45 am, followed by Flight 175 hitting the South Tower at 9:03am. Many other bases, including Andrews AFB outside Wash DC and Langley AFB VA have fighters on alert or available – why did none of them launch in time to intercept Flight 77, as it did not strike until 9:37 am?
• Finally, as an experienced aircraft investigator, I have serious questions regarding several of the crash sites. Again, it is IMPROBABLE that of the 8 “black boxes”, in reality a bright orange FDR and a bright orange CVR on each of the aircraft, only the FDR from Flight 77 into the Pentagon and both recorders from Flight 93 in Pennsylvania were recovered. With over 1.5 Million man-hours of time sorting through debris at Fresh Kills site in New Jersey, it is IMPROBABLE that we don’t have more aircraft evidence of what actually occurred in each of the unfortunate airliners that day. Thank you again for your time and consideration of these important facts.
______________________________
___________________________
Kathy McGrade — Metallurgical Engineer
Kathy McGrade
Metallurgical Engineer
______________________________
“What we’ve been told happened to the three towers on 9/11 not only violates the laws of Physics, it also violates the laws of Thermodynamics.”
______________________________
Kathy McGrade is a 30-year career metallurgical engineer who has worked on projects ranging from satellite delivery systems to metal fusion and vapor deposition technologies.
In other words, here is an expert who is capable of speaking authoritatively on the explosions that destroyed the three WTC towers and the ensuing metallurgical reactions — specifically, the resulting pools of MOLTEN IRON found “flowing” in the basements of all three towers.
Ms. McGrade is one of many technical experts who appear in AE911’s new video, “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out”
In the following clip, excerpted from the video, Ms. McGrade explains how normal office fires cannot melt steel and how the symmetrical collapse of all WTC skyscrapers, according to the official story violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
I urge you to take 9 minutes to watch this irrefutably compelling video…
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=NHoXUem0gUM&feature=player_ !embedded#
______________________________
________________ Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, USAF (Ret)
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, U.S. Air Force (Ret)
MS Aeronautical Science; former instructor
USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s
Tactical Leadership Program
Statement (3/25/07):
“After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.”
“The ‘collapse’ of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did [1], unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is [owner] Larry Silverstein’s video-taped confession [2] in which he states “they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse’.“We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
“We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!”
- U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot
- Former instructor, U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program.
- As an Air Force weapons effects expert, was responsible for wartime tasking of most appropriate aircraft/munition for target destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures.
- Former aeronautical structures flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas, working on advanced DC-9 autopilot systems and DC-10 flight envelope expansion stress and flutter analysis.
- Tactical aircraft flown: General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet, Boeing B-1 Bomber, MiG-29 (Russian fighter), and Su-22 (Russian fighter/bomber). 3,000+ fighter hours. Combat time over Iraq.
- 20-year Air Force career.
[1] <www.prisonplanet.com/
> articles/february2007/ 280207timestamp.htm [2] <www.prisonplanet.com/
> articles/january2006/ 050106silversteinanswers.htm
Commander R.E. ‘Ted’ Muga (US Navy, Ret)
Cmdr. Ted MUGA, US Navy (Ret)
Naval Aviator; later flew international
routes with PanAmerican World Airways.
BSc Civil Engineering
“None of the pilots — eight highly trained professionals — ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There’s a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code. Eight pilots, and not one of them sent a hijack distress code! This is unbelievable… And the WTC Towers? Controlled demolitions. Period. There’s absolutely no way those three towers came down the way they did because two jets crashed into them. Question is, who rigged the buildings? And the Pentagon — where’s the wreckage of the 757? And UA Flight 93 that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania — where’s the wreckage?”
Like most people on the planet, Commander Ted Muga first accepted the official story about 9/11, attributing the attack to Arab ‘blowback’ for American misdeeds abroad. He only woke up to the fraud when he watched the PBS program on Nova, which attempted to explain the “collapses” of the WTC towers using their now utterly discredited “pancake theory.”
Muga, educated as an engineer, immediately saw that Nova’s explanation made absolutely no sense: A “pancake” collapse of 110 floors should have left a stack of 110 ‘pancakes.’ Problem was, there was not one. At the very least, he then wondered, shouldn’t the 110 corrugated steel pans that lined the concrete floor slabs have survived? Again, there was not one. Every one of them — gone.
Then there’s all that concrete: more than 800,000 cu.ft. of the stuff that made up the floor slabs. Where did it all go? Magically, this massive volume of concrete was converted into 50-micron-sized particles of dust — in less than 10 seconds.
The last straw, in Ted’s mind, was the issue with the towers’ central core columns. A ‘pancake collapse’ of 110 floors should have left the 47 core columns jutting 1,350 feet into the sky. But those, too, were gone — converted into pools of molten metal in the basements.
Right then, Muga realized the towers had to have been demolished with explosives; there was no other explanation that made sense. When Muga began digging deeper into the official 9/11 story, he learned of a THIRD nearby skyscraper, Building 7, that had also collapsed later that same day, in the very same manner — straight down, into its own footprint at virtually freefall speed. Again, hundreds of tons of steel mysteriously turned into into streams of molten metal — “flowing like lava”, according to firemen — in the building’s basement.
There was no doubt in Muga’s mind. His words:
“Controlled demolitions. Period. There’s absolutely no way those three towers came down the way they did because two jets crashed into them. Question is, who rigged the buildings? And the Pentagon — where’s the wreckage of the 757? And UA Flight 93 that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania — where’s the wreckage?”
During a subsequent radio interview, the host, Alex Jones asked Cmdr. Muga to explain how Hani Hanjour — the 9/11 hijacker pilot who allegedly flew a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon — could have done so given his virtually non-existent flying skills.
Cmdr. Muga’s on-air response:
The maneuver at the Pentagon began with a very tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat withstand the loads imposed by that kind of a maneuver, it’s something that’s very, very, very difficult for a pilot to do. It would take considerable training. Commercial aircraft are not designed for military maneuvers. And while they may be structurally capable of doing them, it takes a highly talented pilot to do what Hanjour is said to have done.
When a commercial airplane’s speed gets that high in such a tightly-banked spiraling maneuver, it gets very close to getting into what’s referred to as a high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be extremely violent on a commercial-type aircraft; you never want to get into that situation. I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
In fact the air traffic controllers in Washington DC, when they saw this incredible maneuver on their radar scopes, they all believed it was a military aircraft.
And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers.
I mean, hell, a guy doesn’t give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots — many of them tough ex-military pilots — would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150-pound guys with a little box-cutter is ridiculous.
And also in all four planes, if you recall, none of the pilots — eight highly trained professionals — ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There’s a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code. Eight pilots, and not one of them sent a hijack distress code. This is unbelievable.
Commercial airplanes are hugely complex machines. And they’re designed to be operated by two highly trained pilots, not amateurs who couldn’t solo a little Cessna. And to think you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit of a big jetliner and fly, much less navigate, the craft to a designated target? The probability is so low, that it borders on the impossible.
______________________________
Colonel George Nelson, USAF (Ret)
Specialty: Aircraft Crash Investigation
COL. GEORGE NELSON, USAF (Ret)
Exert on Aircraft Accident Investigation.
Distinguished 34-year career with the
United States Air Force. Licensed
Commercial Pilot.
“With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.”
During his 34-year military career, Col. Nelson’s considerable hands-on experience distinguished him as one of a small coterie of the world’s top-ranked aviation accident experts. If a crash involving any type of US military aircraft — fighter, transport, helo — occurred anywhere in the world, chances are Col. Nelson and his team were the ones dispatched to the scene. This gentleman’s knowledge of crash-site forensics and aeronautical engineering is impressive to say the least. And he’s a licensed commercial pilot to boot.
What follows is Col. Nelson’s statement on the four aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks:
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. …
The US government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.
______________________________
Major General Albert Stubblebine (US Army, Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine
US Army (Ret)
Expert on Photo Imagery analysis
& Intelligence Gathering
“I’ve never believed it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon”
“We pride ourselves with the ‘free press’. I do not believe the ‘free press’ is free any more. The press is saying what they have been told to say about 9/11….The stories that were told about 9/11 were false… I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn’t fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives that went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake!”
- Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 – 1984, commanding 15,000 intelligence and security personnel.
- Commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center.
- Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence.
- 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame
From video interview, June 28, 2009 <www.youtube.com/
General Stubblebine: I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment — my last command — I was responsible for all of the Army’s strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. …
I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That’s Intelligence, okay, before the fact. So, we always — always — rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple pieces of data. The more data you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. …
So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?
General Stubblebine: I don’t know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.
Interviewer: What made you believe that?
General Stubblebine: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel — vehicle, or whatever it was — have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong. And the reason that it’s wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off.” I said, “Fine, that’s possible, one wing could have broken off.” But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven’t met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off — there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I’ve analyzed. Now I’ve been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don’t have that evidence.
I’ve never believed that it was an airplane since I’ve looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it — NO WAY!
We pride ourselves with the “free press.” I do not believe the “free press” is free any more. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that the stories that were told about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn’t fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake. It didn’t fall down to its side. It didn’t fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers. …
When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt — to melt — the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows — It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know?
I want see vedio