I recently wrote a piece called the Pentagon Attack which contained a number of videos. However, it also contained a number of questions related to the 9.11 event as a whole. This article is a summary containing the events regarding the Pentagon attack alone.
If you have the time I suggest you watch all these videos, as together they can be used to make a reasonable conclusion about what really happened at the Pentagon. Even if the first documentary has one conclusion please watch the second talk as it will explain the evidence piece by piece and can be used to explain why the first documentary comes to it's conclusion.
Why is the Pentagon Attack such a point of contention?
There are a number of reasons including:
1. The conflicting witness accounts. Some witnesses claim to have seen a plane fly over the building, some into it. Others claim to have heard the explosion first and then seen a plane in the sky.
2. The physical evidence. Some witnesses and photos show a clean front lawn outside the official impact zone. Other photos show plane debris. Witnesses claim to have walked through the holes in the wall and to have not seen any evidence of a plane at all.
3. Pilots and aircraft experts claim that the manoeuvre made by Nawaf Hazmi, the alleged terrorist, was too complicated and fast for even expert pilots to have made let alone an amateur with poor piloting skills. Other people claim the flight path could have been made even if it would have meant a huge plane flying at high speeds just metres above the Pentagon lawn, something engineers suggest is impossible.
Due to the US government refusing to release all CCTV and camera footage that may have caught the impact of the plane and put conspiracy theories to bed the Pentagon attack has been used by believers of the official story to beat many 911 Truthers over the head with. Many people see the Pentagon attack as a way to discredit the whole 911 Truth movement by claiming that they are ignoring physical evidence and witness accounts. If you can be dismissed at the Pentagon then your theories over the WTC and the whole event can be dismissed as well.
Any talk of missiles, no planes, holograms, lasers from space or mini-nukes are all used to label anyone who looks into the events of 9.11 as crazy. To the uninitiated, it doesn't matter if any of these theories have merits or not because just hearing these theories can make the whole movement look like tinfoil hat-wearing loons. Due to that, people unwilling to question their government can easily dismiss any uncomfortable facts.
Therefore questions about the evidence regarding the Pentagon needs to be looked at and answered if possible. Hopefully these two videos which look at the witness evidence in detail and then a talk by an ex Government official who slots all the pieces together will help.
The facts do not fit the evidence.
The impact zone that is supposedly where Flight 77 hit the Pentagon does not fit the evidence for a number of reasons.
1. The supposed impact zone is the first two floors of a wedge of the building that would have been impossible for a huge Boeing 757 to hit at 400 mph. Not only could a plane not fly that fast and low to the ground without crashing first. The dimensions of the plane do not allow it to create such a small hole.
Many pilots, aircraft specialists, engine designers have all gone on record to state that the down force of a large plane flying that fast and low to the ground would mean it would have crashed way before the walls of the Pentagon. If that had happened the grass outside the impact zone would have been scorched and covered with debris.
The whole plane would NOT have entered the walls of the building.
2. There is a lack of evidence outside this "official" impact zone. No big parts of nose cones, no huge multi-ton engines, and no damage to the lawn in front of the damaged building. In fact, the debris which was found was further along the building in front of a totally different wedge. This is explained later.
Notice how this supposed impact one is on the the first floor, an impossibility for a plane to hit without coming down vertically and not horizontally as we are expected to believe. Notice how there is hardly any plane wreckage outside the building.
3. A plane is made from lightweight materials. It cannot punch its way through 3 rings of re-enforced concrete as it supposedly did at the Pentagon. The following video shows what happens when a plane going at the speed of 475 mph hits just one reinforced concrete wall.
Notice how the wall remains solid and the plane disappears into small pieces. This speed is basically the same speed as Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
The Official Impact Zone Before The Pentagon Walls Fell In.
Witnesses Dispute Official Story
A number of witnesses who claim to have the seen the plane fly in towards the Pentagon provide contradictory evidence to the official story.
These are all people who have worked in the area of the Pentagon for years. Either Policemen, Arlington Cemetery workers, or aircraft specialists from the Pentagon itself.
The official story relies on a Southern approach to the hole in the wall that is the supposed entry point for Flight 77. However, all these witnesses claim to have witnessed:
-A north bound approach with the plane flying to the right (or over) the Navy Annex in a totally different manner to the official report which requires it to fly to the left of that building.
-A slower speed of the plane. Not a fast 450 mph plane approach as the official story claims.
-A plane that was wobbling, "banking" and correcting its angle - not a direct, fast, straight trajectory.
-All of these witnesses whilst in positions to see the plane come in admit they couldn't see the impact. Most were running away from the direction of the planes impact, covered their heads or were not in a position to see the impact.
-All have refused to change their testimony since it has been revealed to them that it directly contradicts the official story and whilst many now refuse to give further interviews they claim their story is correct.
-The one piece of evidence that corroborates the official story is the testimony of a taxi driver, Lloyd England, who claims to have been hit by the tall light pole that was supposedly bent by the plane as it flew the official trajectory.
However leaving aside the fact that a 450 mph plane hitting a goose or bird can cause a crash, let alone a large metal pole, the witness when confronted with his evidence and how it contradicts all other witness accounts tries to change his story to make it fit with the other witnesses.
He is also caught off tape many times making contradictory statements to the location of his taxi in direct conflict with the physical evidence and photographs which prove his exact location on the day.
He refuses to admit his car was where it was photographed and off camera alludes to the fact that:
"It has nothing to do with the truth it's his story"
"This is too big for me man this is a big thing"
"Man you know this is a world thing happening. I'm a small man."
"I'm not supposed to be involved in this."...."This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff."
"I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I have nothing."
"It was planned."
He seems to be alluding to be part of a story he has no control over, "a small man in a rich mans story" and he seems to admit to being part of a "story" to make the official story fit the facts. His wife also works for the FBI, although whether that has any importance I do not know.
The conclusion of the documentary is that the plane the witnesses saw didn't hit the Pentagon.
The witnesses who saw the incoming plane should be believed in that the trajectory of the plane was wildly different to the official story and that because they couldn't see the impact of the plane due to it flying over the Pentagon.
This conclusion would fit with the official analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which shows a discrepancy between the altitude of the plane and the official story.
For this plane to have hit the lamp-post which Lloyd England claims happened the plane would have had to have been 440 feet high!
This is obviously an impossibility.
What is clear from this documentary and the witness statements is that the official story doesn't even fit with the witness statements who are on record seeing a plane fly towards the Pentagon.
Ex Government Official Put Pieces Together
This talk from an ex Reagan administration official, Barbara Honegger, puts the pieces together meticulously in this talk to explain how the witnesses are right, the hole without debris is also correct and that a plane DID hit the Pentagon.
An overview is this:
1. A plane, probably a drone painted in American Airlines colours, did fly into the Pentagon but it flew in the trajectory that the witnesses in the Citizen Investigation Team documentary claimed.
2. The drone was either destroyed before impact or hit the Pentagon causing all the debris that was found near the Heliport terminal. Remember this is NOT the official impact zone which is many yards around the building.
3. The official impact zone was caused by explosives inside the building. This explains why there is no debris outside on the grass. No debris was found inside and why witnesses who walked through the hole to safety claimed to see no evidence of a plane.
4. This second explosion WAS reported on TV, by witnesses and Pentagon employees. The official story had to make this second explosion the plane impact even though the timings were out and the flight path didn't match with the witnesses. However, there is no logical or physical way the damage from this second explosion could have been caused by a huge Boeing 757 flying 400+ mph into the first floor of the Pentagon.
5. Therefore the cover-up involved making this 2nd impact zone the official entry point for the plane even though a plane could never punch its way through 3 huge concrete walls as the video above shows.
6. This also explains perfectly how witnesses saw a plane hit the building, how other witnesses could claim to see no evidence of a plane at the impact zone and why people claim to have seen debris and others NO debris. There were TWO impact zones. One from a plane (drone) and one from an explosion.
Watch the video below to see how she puts all the pieces together and provides the reason for the attack. Without it, no declaration of war could be made which meant that the Pentagon attack WAS the main attack on 9.11. As she points out, it wasGeorge W Bush himself that said that it wasn't until he saw the Pentagon attack that he realised the country was really at war.
Watch Barbara Honegger put the 9.11 Pentagon attack pieces together
Remember The Pentagon Plane Attack Impossibilities
By Dark Politricks
I have been into 9.11 almost as soon as I saw it on the TV screens of secretaries at my work in 2001. I always thought the "Pentagon Plane was really a missile"story was afake or government spined lie to discredit the 9.11 Truth movement. If the witnesses at the WTC, thousands who saw a plane or two hit the Twin Towers then why shouldn't the witnesses at the Pentagon be believed just as much.
However after examining it more extensively and with Pilots for 911Truth getting FOI data showing that the plane actually flew over the building and listening to talks from people who saw no plane debris at the "official" impact site, I changed my mind.
The Plane simply does not fit and cannot fly at 550 mph that low to the ground, and this is the supposed exit point the aluminium plane managed to punch through 3 rings of reinforced concrete walls.
It is impossible for a plane to fly that low, and punch through three rings of concrete building.
From the video given out to the public only after numerous FOI requests, we are expected to believe that a Boeing 757 managed to fly only a few feet off the ground horizontally, for some time, without down-force crashing it into the ground or it's engines, and for it's huge body to disappear into a small hole on the first floor of the Pentagon before punching it's way through 3 re-enforced walls of concrete and coming out of a small exit hole 3 rings later.
Witnesses, TV crew and employees spoke about the lack of debris, bodies, bags and engine parts when they walked through this 3 ring puncture to escape.
I have a detailed talk from Barbara Honegger, an ex Reagan official who appears in this short video, and I think she puts the pieces together well.
She talks about 2 attacks at the site which get around the problems of the first pictures of pristine grass outside the impact zone and no debris and if you watch her speech in the article she explains it as 2 attacks.
One by a drone, coloured to look like a plane and then the main attack at a different section of the building which was a bomb. This was why there was no debris outside or plane engines buried 10 feet in the ground as they would have been if flying that low to the ground to hit the first floor.
Problems with the official story include:
1. The incompetence of the pilot supposedly at the wings of the 757 to make such a complex maneuver. Something experienced pilots would need many attempts on simulators to get anywhere near right.
2. The official path of the plane does not fit with the witness evidence or the broken light poles on the road.
3. A plane cannot fly at 550 mph at only a few feet off the ground which is required to hit the 1st floor "official impact zone".
4. If you watch this video of a test to see what a plane would do a re-enforced concrete wall like the Pentagon had you will see that the possibility of an aluminium plane using kinetic energy would not punch through 3 walls but be destroyed into tiny bits on the first impact. Notice in the video the plane is on train tracks due to the fact you cannot fly a plane that low to the ground at that speed.
So from all the CCTV that the FBI confiscated which could have caught the plane, drone, missile, or flock of concrete beaked seagulls hit the Pentagon we got a short clip from a CCTV camera that showed a few frames that showed no plane and an explosion.
The FBI must know what happened from other CCTV and their threats to staff who went public but they themselves are as corrupt as every part of the US Oligarchy.
The plane did not nose dive down into the first floor it apparently flew parallel to the ground for a good few hundred yards. This is something when I asked my father who worked for one of the UK's top Air Research Facilities as a chief engineer who designed plane engines how difficult it would be. He said "very", and "almost impossible".
He said the same as many other pilots who said that just the huge turn in the air and path the plane took was impossible for this type of plane.
Many ex military men and pilots have come out to say this. John Lear tried to sue the Government and in his affidavit he explains how planes flying at 550 mph (roughly) could not be controlled in the manner they were as they are designed as cruise ships in the sky at 40,000 feet not Jet fighters performing exotic turns at low altitude.
Conspiracies like the official 9.11 Report show that.
1. The Commissioners lied to the public about outside funding from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia when asked numerous times due to the release of the 28/29 pages which admits Saudi Involvement in the attack.
2. Why did the extensive news coverage on the day about white vans being stopped on the Washington Bridge with Israeli Mossad agents inside along with box cutters and bombs not heard about after the event on the day?
3. How did the "Dancing Israelis" know to park their van across the Jersey river to get pictures and footage of the first plane hitting the WTC. They are on record saying they were "Sent to document the event", so how did they know the event would even happen.
4. Whatever turned the WTC into dust, metal beams just frazzling up as they fell, the lack of seismic data from the buildings hitting the floor, toasted cars a block away with perfectly fine paper from the WTC offices floating about. Nano thermate particles (or rust) found in the huge dust cloud that covered NYC for days and is now giving first responders cancers, from asbestos and other concrete particles or maybe radiation from a mini nuke under the towers as Russian agent and material witness Dimitri Khalezov believes is unimportant. We know from the extensive library of firemen, police, WTC workers and people like William Rodriguez, a janitor who helped many people escape and described multiple explosions below and above him that there was probably a number of fail safe techniques used to ensure the towers fell that day.
These recent articles are all updates for the upcoming 9.11 anniversary. You can find many more on the site.
(I have to constantly find new videos and images for this article due to YouTube taking them down - why, I d0n't know, it's history. However it is a constant battle to keep this page updated)
9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles
By Dark Politricks
This is an updated version to the original piece on my old site, plus it has the old comments added to the bottom of it so you can read the old debate I had with doubter. Plus we now have even more evidence from the deathbed confession of someone involved in WTC7's demise. A CIA demolition expert who worried the job looked too "real" and too much like a controlled demolition. He is right!
Despite directly contacting 9.11 skeptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven't managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don't even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.
Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you're not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime?
Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons. Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.
Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.
You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day.
Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:
4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practice.
Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skyscrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn't hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost free-fall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.
This is not to say that all these coincidences couldn't have occurred just that before 9.11 the most sophisticated coordinated Al Qaeda attack had been the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya which involved a couple of truck bombs. Therefore the jump in the level of complexity between the usual Modus Operandi and the attacks of 9.11 was immense.
Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn't not mean that either Al Qaeda didn't or couldn't carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.
A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means "the database" and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.
As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent bin-Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe bin-Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.
As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn't rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden's cave in Tora Bora.
We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain.
For a start we should ask ourselves the following:
1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia?
Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:
Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.
You can read all about their desire for such a scenario in the infamous Project for a New American Century reports. This is the same document that asserted that such a plan would be impossible to implement without a major "New Pearl Harbour" event taking place. It can be argued that 9.11 was exactly this event as these plans were then implemented. The question is was this purely co-incidental or linked somehow.
So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place.
The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.
Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn't mean they staged 9.11. It's one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn't otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.
You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it's own people for political expediency. The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.
More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it's own people including:
Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it's citizens to be blamed on the far left.
The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Chechen separatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Unfortunately these are just three proven incidents out of many however the one thing they all have in common is the misuse of intelligence agencies. A False Flag attack is undeniably a commonly used tool that is used to blacken ones enemies and invoke sympathy for otherwise unsavoury actions.
One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it's bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:
Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast fake messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake Intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi's adopted daughter.
The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it's supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.
Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilized humans who would never consider such tactics.
You cannot be serious? Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way.
This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:
Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:
"A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war."
Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war with Iran.
Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to "Sweep it all up. Things related and not" as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.
Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.
Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:
The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately "ignoring" the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.
Unlike some of the more far fetched theories surrounding 9.11 such as the "no planes" theory which would have involved hundreds of people including many civilians and the media being in on the secret both of these plans would only require a small number of people to be involved.
If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.
The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know.
We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.
Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn't I hear about this on the news?
Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK.
The reason you didn't hear about it or the CIA agent who confessed to demolishing WTC7 on the news is just one example of how the main stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:
No sooner had the towers collapsed than bin-Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the "official" story was released.
Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.
Okay so the Mainstream media doesn't report on wild conspiracy theories and prefers to only report stories backed up with provable facts. One thing is for sure and that is if members of the government or intelligence community deliberately failed to act on received Intel that showed an attack was imminent then they would have been found out and punished.
You would think so wouldn't you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.
In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:
Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
Brigadier General Montague Winfield
Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney's task force on problems of national preparedness
Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit
Pasquale D'Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York
These are not the only people, there are many more. In any world where blame was appropriated accordingly and people held account for failures which resulted in the deaths of 3,500+ people these high ranking members of Government would not have been promoted for their mistakes but punished. Logically there can only be a couple of reasons for this.
Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was, or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.
Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.
Did it though?
6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commission to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.
"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up". - Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.
The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it's case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90's including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.
Also the 9.11 commission wasn't fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.
So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it's report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.
The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:
We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.
Surely you can agree with these points and that if it is proven that one of the buildings fell due to a controlled demolition that logically this infers some high level of government collusion as even if a powerful terrorist group or foreign intelligence agency had been able to plant the explosives or bring down the buildings some other way they would find it very hard to control the conclusions of subsequent investigations without government influence at a high level.
Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.
Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
So both the Twin Towers and WTC-7 displayed all of the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of those associated with a progressive fire induced collapse.
However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the "smoking gun" of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11.
The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.
Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous "pull it" comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
"I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard....Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:
Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.
The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won't release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.
They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed. The first video was removed so I had to get a recent backup.
However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!
If WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.
Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!
NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.
The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.
It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.
Many people who follow the official line have tried to combat these studies by saying that the particles found within the dust were only by-products from the various office furnishings and other building materials.
They have also claimed in a number of documentaries that the amount of Thermite / Thermate explosive required to bring down a building would be too large and would have required a large scale operation to install however numerous people have carried out their own experiments to show that this is not the case.
As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, physical experiments and scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.
Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.
Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale.
Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.
WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built upon. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition.
We also now have a deathbed confession from a CIA agent who took part in the demolition process and he said that the destruction of the building looked "Too much like a controlled demolition" and thought people would start questioning it. You can read my article on it here.
If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.
A CIA Agents Deathbed Confession to Demolishing WTC-7 on 9/11
By Dark Politricks
If you have not heard yet recently there was another 9/11 whistle-blower and piece of proof that the demolishing of WTC-7 was NOT caused by fires as NIST and the official conspiracy theory claim.
It would have meant that the fires all had to cause a simultaneous and free-fall drop of the building from a single point of failure in the building's structure.
Does this look like a controlled demolition?
As I have said before as a computer coder myself I know that if you have a result you want to obtain then the parameters of the model to prove that point can be changed until that result is obtained.
As to my knowledge NIST have still not released the computer model they used to "prove" that fires caused the building to drop, despite no plane hitting it. Even if they do it does not mean it is correct.
If you put shite code in you get a shite output, and the official claim of a fire causing WTC-7 to collapse is pure shite.
Remember on 9/11, a single day, we had three historical events that has led us to 18 years of war.
Those events were that on a single day, for the first time in history, 3 steel framed sky scrapers, one not even struck by a plane, all fell into their own footprints due to fire.
I particularly like death-bed confessions as we all know that if a CIA or intelligence asset had come out in the open with the truth at the time of the event they would have been either been killed, imprisoned or silenced such as the FBI's Sibel Edmonds who was labelled at one point the most gagged person in history due to her revelations.
She was not the only government worker to speak out, many still shout the truth to the deaf, others died trying.
Why would you waste your last moments on earth telling a lie to the world?
The confession comes from 79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard. He worked for the CIA for 36 years and claims he was asked by senior CIA agents to work on the project due to his engineering background and early career in the demolition business.
Mr. Howard said that:
"It was a classic controlled demolition with explosives. We used super-fine military grade nanothermite composite materials as explosives. The hard part was getting thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms into the building without causing too much concern. But almost every single office in the Building 7 was rented by the CIA, the Secret Service, or the military, which made it easier."
He also explains how WTC-7 was “loaded with explosives in strategic places” in the month leading up to the day that changed the course of American history and has led to the USA becoming an almost dictatorship like country where laws enacted after that day have seen unlimited powers given to the President.
Laws such as the PATRIOT ACT and NDAA to kill on demand, lock someone up without trial or knowledge of their crime, shut whistle-blowers up with security letters that prevent them speaking out, and many others that have brought us an almost constant war since that event. A war that follows the plan laid out in the PNAC document to take over the Middle East and build up the USA's already massive empire and military.
Anyone wanting to return the US to rule by the constitution needs to actually read the document and realise why it is being ignored.
The problem is stories like this are being hidden and new Internet laws will make sites like this so slow to reveal such events.
People are too concerned helping to fill UTAH's massive data centre with their life story by posting everything they do on Facebook that then gets logged forever. The history of every American through massive surveillance schemes made legal by laws such as the PATRIOT ACT and hidden NSA programs that were used on the USSR but have been turned on America are helping to remove any last vestiges of privacy in the USA. Just ask William Binney who designed some of the software that has been turned on us without permission from Congress.
As this demolition whistle-blower is American, I am guessing he probably has thoughts of pearly gates and meeting St Peter on his mind if he is still alive, and I am sure he wanted to clear his conscious before meeting the man in the sky.
You can believe these confessions or you can dismiss them as people wasting their last breaths speaking bull shit. However I really cannot believe you would want to spend your last minutes putting your family in danger by spilling the beans on Government secrets that would enrage the country if everyone actually listened.
I particularly like the part in this video where Mr Howard, not E Howard Hunt, says that:
"We kept watching replays of the demolition, we had the whiskey and cigars out, and then all of a sudden the strangest thing happened. We all started to worry that it looked a bit too smooth. We watched the tape again and again and again and we started to get paranoid. It looked like a controlled demolition.We thought shit, people are going to question this. And then we heard that people from the street were reporting that they heard the explosions during the afternoon. When we were told that the BBC botched their report and announced to the world that the building collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did… At that point we really thought the gig was up."
Yes I agree, and anyone with a brain and eyes to see the truth should too.
If this man had spoken out at the time it would have helped the 9/11 Truth movement a lot but it would have certainly meant his own death. In the video the speaker says that the CIA lie all the time but if you were dying would you want to clear your conscience before a possibe meeting with God or would you waste your last words on this planet telling lies. I personally don't think I would waste my last moments telling fake stories. Plus the CIA would certainly have cleaned his name, and disavowed him for speaking out to cover their backs. If you cannot watch this video, use Opera with VPN on and select Asia as when I went to BitChute to get a new copy, as YouTube had obviously taken the video down, it said it was "deemed potentially illegal within your country by our moderation team" - so much for BitChute being free speech videos.
Seeing he is already dying he will only waste a CIA bullet.
If you know what is going on in Syria you will know the war is about two competing oil pipelines.
One heavily backed by the Rothschild's, Rupert Murdoch and other Globalists who see Iran as the big threat in the area along with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran also wants a pipeline to run through the Shi'ite controlled Iraq, something the US did not want to happen as in after fighting for so long in the area the Government has now grown closer to Iran.
There is talk of a "double tap" where the USA and the rest of the Axis of War allies e.g UK, France and of course Israel are all sending ships to the area, with an intent of invading Syria and Iran at the same time.
This also is in Israel's interest as they want to expand as in the greater Israel project plans and keep the Muslims of the area fighting each other.
If you read ex Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky book "By Way of Deception" you will see that after Israel had got rid of Libya in the 80's they were planning on taking out Iraq altogether and using US troops to do so.
The IDF hardly do any of their own fighting on a large-scale unless it's massacring imprisoned Gazans and killing kids throwing stones at tanks. Either killing women and kids and their farm animals or getting their arses kicked by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
That is why AIPAC controls Congress and as Benji said "America is easily swayed one way or another", basically Israel controls the US foreign policy.
Now like me you may have thought ISIS and al-Qaeda. Remember Al-Qaeda was just a database of Jihadists who were called upon by the US to fight in Afghanistan against the Russians.
Blow-back big time and numerous false flags later and al-Qaeda, a name Osama bin-Laden didn't even recognise until he heard the US call him and his hired hands by that term, became the US's mortal enemy or so it seemed.
So to find out that the Russians have been warning the US that an area containing a large number of ISIS/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra Front and other CIA trained jihadists is going to be attacked soon and for the Americans to get out of the way. Basically giving them notice and time to do so it is strange, and stranger still is that the US is sending more US troops into this exact area that is to be attacked to act as human shields against the Russians.
Now this is very dangerous and stupid.
If a US soldier is killed we won't hear on the nightly news that the US were using their troops as human shields to protect al-Qaeda and ISIS.
We will just hear about Russian war mongering and we will probably end up in a war with Russia. Something we don't want as the Russians have some highly effective anti-aircraft and aircraft carrier missiles and Obama had to save face under his term when 2 of his missiles sent from a ship in the Mediterranean were shot down by Russian defenses. Of course the MSM didn't report this.
There is another area I reported on a week or so back about how the last major city in Eastern Syria, that the ISIS remnants are holed up in, is in place for another fake false flag "chemical attack".
The Russians have been warning that English-speaking people have been seen in the area and chemicals have been brought in to stage a false flag which the US has said it would blame on Russia for not stopping.
You should really watch the previous video to understand the comments coming out of the Russian Duma and Military including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The main thing is that the US public don't realise that their supposed enemy of enemies Al-Qaeda is just a term that can be placed on any Jihadist group and then that authorises the President to attack them.
However for the sheeple who still believe a man on kidney dialysis living in a cave brought down the twin towers, and the Pentagon despite the FBI saying on their most wanted list that there was no evidence linking bin-Laden to the 9.11 attacks Al-Qaeda remains the common man who only reads sports pages their enemy that needs to be defeated.
Ask these people who don't question the crap spewed at them by Rachel Maddow and FOX News:why is the CIA and USA arming and training their supposed mortal enemy, al-Qaeda?
They are now using US soldiers as human shields and pushing for a full conflict with Russia that could turn into World War 3.
This is not good news and should be spread wide and far.
Please watch Jake from Blackstone Intelligence put the pieces together as he does a lot of research and doesn't just read US Today but also get news from Israel, Russia, China, Iran and other countries. Like most of us should do.
We are force-fed bullshit by our state-run news companies like the BBC, or "independent" news companies that always support a war (CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc) and during combat or the run up to it always have ex and current military members on their shows to push the plans further down the average Americans throat.
These people in the dark need to know how close we are to a proper nuclear war.
Russia is holding a 300,000 troop exercise with the Chinese army on the last day of the Syrian peace conferenceand a Russian general has said it was necessary and our only hope.
I can only deduce from that he means that the huge show of force, new weapons and a whole city on the move under live fire will shock the Americans into not staging the false flag attack they are planning.
The last US claimed gas attack has now been declared a non event by independent investigators who went there to see what happened.
However Trump and his neo-con army acted before evidence was in and they carried out a massive bombing raid despite fake evidence supplied by the White Helmets of babies being washed down despite the people doing the washing not wearing any protective gear.
This time the Russians have been warning the West for weeks not to attempt another false flag but they know no-one is listening and depend on #altnews sites and YouTube channels like Blackstone intelligence to get the news out in the hope people listen and the Axis of War fails to attempt another false flag attack.
They don't want to start WWIII but they are now at the end of their tether and I suspect if the Axis of War carries out their plans they won't be holding back.
Please spread this article and video far and wide.
View the Blackstone Intelligence video at YouTube.
