Webster Tarpley Interviews Thierry Meyssan and Morgan Reynolds

This is more than a few days late, but on May 27th Webster Tarpley had both Thierry Meyssan and Morgan Reynolds on his show. You can find the show in the World Crisis Radio Archive under May 27th.

Sorry for the late coverage of this.

Jaybird, controlled demo is

Jaybird, controlled demo is great evidnce, but don't give up on UA93 & cell phone evidence, it's good too.

Ø®£Z--"And don't

Ø®£Z--"And don't you find Reynolds extremely suspicious?"
No, but I do find you to be extremely suspicious. And those Pentagon photos do not prove AA77 struck the Pentagon.

Those are excellent Pentagon

Those are excellent Pentagon pictures.
But they only reenforce my judgement that no 757 caused that damage.

What OREO refers to as "wing damage" is just about the lamest thing I've heard in the Pentagon discussion.

That said, the REAL story is how ANYTHING hit the Pentagon so late in the game. 757, missile, carrier pigeon . . . whatever.

pockybot, there is no

pockybot, there is no conclusive proof that AA77 struck the Pentagon.
"Puncture/lack of parts" because that was the reinforced section. WTF?
It And you trust Rummy to have a piece of AA77 in his office? (So, let's run tests on that supposed piece.)
"No need to risk a "fake" plane, or risk hijackers crashing it into a nuclear facility." Yeah, especially if it's not the real plane but a SkyWarrior/drone.
"It was shot down, AND the passengers tried to revolt." How do we know what was shot down? And the passangers tried to revolt against whom?

How come the "Flight 77

How come the "Flight 77 didnt hit the pentagon" people havent seen the numerous internal pentagon wreckage footage of charred but easily identifiable 757 parts? What, somehow amidst charred bodies they "planted" charred 757 parts? Get real. Rumsfeld SPORTS a part of Flight 77 in his office as a "wonderful reminder" trophy.

Don't let the 9/11 activist movement get dragged down by the Pentagon theories. The real story is WHY it hit the reinforced wall.

@ Anonymous But AA77, a 757

@ Anonymous

But AA77, a 757 did hit the Pentagon. Here are only a few pics to look at, that disinformants won't show you.

2> http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4291/pentagon911blogger9zb.jpg

3> http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/344/rightsideoffuselageimpactzoner.jpg

4> http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/1329/leftwingimpactzone2tl.jpg

5> http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/7643/woodsupports6op.jpg

And I am not a shill. So spare it.

And don't you find Reynolds extremely suspicious? A former Bush Administration member (who could still be working for/with them), who "comes out against" the official 9/11 story BUT promotes, propagates and supports "no 757's hit the towers, it was hologram covered missiles".

How could you not look at Reynolds crooked and find him extremely suspicious?!

i think the next move is

i think the next move is going to involve extra=terrestrials. an extra terrestrial invasion... some kind of space threat. i think webster tarpley is the george castanza of the truth movement. somethings a little fishy about that guy...

To all you 911 truthers who

To all you 911 truthers who recognize that the Pentagon video(s) does not show a 757:

When will you wake up (or are you only pretending to be asleep?) and recognize that the Pentagon video reveals, as per the 1st frame released way back in March 2002, that whatever aircraft it is is too small to be a 757?

What "magic spell" is keeping some 911 truthers from seeing through the government's Big Lies about what struck the building(s)? (Fear of being laughed at by the flat-earthers, or what?)

Not only was it impossible for a 757 to have made the claimed approach and hit the building there without tearing up the lawn, but the key frame from the video, when analyzed forensically/geometrically, shows a mostly-hidden craft which is much smaller than a 757.

It's as if some 911 truthers speak, and other (fake? government-believing) 911 truthers cannot hear them.


Question the implausible; reject the impossible...

"Fake Pentagon Tape".

"Fake Pentagon Tape".

maybe not fake, but sure as

maybe not fake, but sure as hell not proof of a jumbo jet.im glad they put that bullshit tape out. it helped us recruit much like the phony war in Iraq is helping "al qaeda" recruit. they never stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Don't underestimate them.

Don't underestimate them. 9/11 surprised all of us and the next move of them might be just as unexpected.

Just one example: Bush promised 2 times to UFO believers that he would blow the cover of the government's UFO secrets. Now call me a nut but i believe it's true. They have them, they have frozen bodies of aliens and they have the crashed saucers they arrived in. If Bush exposes that - as promised - it will PARALYZE the world, and 9/11 will disappear from all of our radar screens.

Just think, they've got them. Reagan said about the E.T. movie to Spielberg: "there aren't a handful of people in this room that know how true this all is"

Thank you Webster

Thank you Webster Tarpely,Morgan Reynolds and Theierry Mason. Honorable people who can be proud of themselves.
Makes me wonder what going to happen when the dollar goes down. Hopefully at some point people in general will become more receptive to the truth. I would like to at some point think we will be able to expose and bring to justice the evil people who have been responsible for so much of the death and misery in the world today.

"Thank you Webster Tarpely,

"Thank you Webster Tarpely, Morgan Reynolds and Theierry Mason. Honorable people who can be proud of themselves."

That says far more than you think.

how did the crazy nico get

how did the crazy nico get on one of websters show. eww

Isn't Webster Tarpley

Isn't Webster Tarpley suppose to be one of the smart good guys in real 9/11 truth? I don't know much about him, but that is what I had been led to assume based upon things that I've read about him, by various internet posters here at 911Blogger and elsewhere.

Then why the fuck is he interviewing Thierry "no evidence a 757 hit the Pentagon in these few, limited, carefully selected, small size, deceptive pictures I provide" Meyssan, and the highly suspicious of being an agent of disinformation directly from the Bush Administration itself (no less), Morgan "no 757's hit the twin towers, it was real-time hologram covered missiles" Reynolds?

Tarpley credibility > lost.

Thierry Meyssan was among

Thierry Meyssan was among the 1st to point out that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. His "truck bomb" theory (which can be modified to a Skywarrior/drone), got the ball rolling to release the 1st round of Pentagon video.
Morgan Reynolds continues to back off from previous "no real planes at WTC." His recent stuff is quite good. http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/guest/index.php?ntid=83698&ntp...

Just ignore the distraction

Just ignore the distraction tactics.

Both done quite a lot for the movement...

Posted by

Posted by Anonymous
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6631372/ #149910
"If Bush exposes that - as promised - it will PARALYZE the world, and 9/11 will disappear from all of our radar screens"
In a brief departure from my usual responses to the terrestrially minded conversationalists, I do have to say one thing about a dream I had about 3 years ago. All I remember was seeing George Bush in an isolated room wearing a casual FEMA-type work outfit. It was a classroom setting but with a whiteboard, not a blackboard, and he had a frightened look on his face, and he was responding to a garbled question, then he simply responded to it by drawing a UFO and pointing at it, and stared at me. That was it.
Yeah, like I said, it was a departure, but it's true, and what you said reminded me of it.
IÂ’ve also had other dreams regarding similar themes, but none as strange as that because it actually involved a major political figure, my other ones are usually more simplistic like seeing them fly in the sky and saying ohh ahhh with my friends.

Im not saying no planes hit

Im not saying no planes hit the towers but I must say the footge of the South Tower really does look strange. Its as though the building just opens up for the plane and swallows it. With all the film that must have been shot of the second hit (South Tower) why is there not one conclusive video that shows this being the commercial airliner claimed. All blurry distant shots or quick over the head "WTF" views. Not one conclusive video period. The videos zoomed out showing the plane approaching for some distance looks like some kind of shadow plane effect. Im not saying no plane but Id say the commercial planes were at the very least swapped out for other "special" planes. I question whether those commercial flights even existed. As for the Pentagon if a commercial flight hit it they would have released that footage by now. No way theres a video showing the amazeing flight path knocking over lite poles hitting at ground level without touching the lawn. Im really not concerned about that anymore? Who asked me anyway? I like Tarpley by the way. Smart mo-fo.

Why did Flight 77 shred into

Why did Flight 77 shred into tiny pieces? Because it was the one spot EXTRA reinforced with who knows what. Why doesnt anyone talk about THAT could be the reason why the puncture/lack of parts is anomalous? Rumsfeld is so keen to showing off parts of flight 77 in his office like a damn trophy.

It's not WHAT hit the Pentagon, but WHERE it hit. 9/11 was under control the whole time. No need to risk a "fake" plane, or risk hijackers crashing it into a nuclear facility.

And I love what Loose Change has done, and I like the hour worth of potential final cut footage, but come on! Flight 93 landed? The parts are scattered for 8 miles. It was shot down, AND the passengers tried to revolt.

As for "UFO"s, yeah I really dont like 9/11 to be anywhere near the UFO conspiracy realm of discussion...but if you look at the Mexico 1991 footage shot by hundreds of people, there can be no doubt. The problem is acknowleging with hardcore proof would potentially change culture, religion, the entire world. Its the equivalent of shooting off nuclear weapons.

As for the Pentagon Im

As for the Pentagon Im willing to look the other way and entertain the notion flight 77 disintegrated along with all the passangers and luggage. Theres just no way it flew that obstical course as claimed. So on that Im not biteing. I have no use for the 93 debate. The official story smells like a fart in the car but too many superior argueing points. I hate the cell phone debate also. Controlled demolition does all the other scam exposeing much easier. Im agnostic on UFOs but I have a thought that the government flys them and has been involved with some of the claimed abductions just for entertainment. I think these sick fucks who worship 40 foot stone owls would enjoy that kind of fun.

Big fun. "Hey Dick. Lets

Big fun. "Hey Dick. Lets abduct that Jon Gold guy and take him on a UFO trip". Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I love what Loose Change

And I love what Loose Change has done, and I like the hour worth of potential final cut footage, but come on! Flight 93 landed? The parts are scattered for 8 miles. It was shot down, AND the passengers tried to revolt.

pockybot | 06.02.06 - 1:17 am | #

correction. A plane was shot down in Pennsylvania. there is NO WAY of knowing if it was 93. there are reports that a FLight 93 landed at a Cleveland airport.that story was not a "lie" or a "mistake" like the Flight 77/Pentagon believers want you to believe.2 planes at a Cleveland airport, one of which was identified as Flight 93.this was reported before the "official" story made it mandatory to scrub it from the website and official record.so yes, some plane parts were scattered for 8 miles. there is no way to prove that it was Flight 93, just like there is no way of proving that 93 landed at Cleveland, but at least in that case we had some verification before it got scrubbed.i find it funny how some people here, who usually, rightfully so, dont trust the media, find the excuses that they "made a mistake" credible.

Once again, claiming AA77

Once again, claiming AA77 hit the Pentagon doesn't make it true. Wanting to believe it doesn't make it true. Do I know what hit the Pentagon? No. Why? Because all the available evidence doesn't prove AA77 hit the Pentagon, therefore, the more important question is: Why did ANYTHING hit the Pentagon 35 minutes or so AFTER the last WTC building got hit?

Read "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" by David Ray Griffin, and you'll see how f-d up the government's story on this truly is.

and by the way, the archived

and by the way, the archived story of Flight 93 landing in Cleveland was now also scrubbed. it can no longer be found.funny.

Chris, some crucial UA93

Chris, some crucial UA93 articles have been archived here: http://911readingroom.org/bib/
(Click on "Cleveland" under Aviation on the far leftside of the page. Then click the ref. number icons on the far rightside of the page, not on the underlined titles of the articles themselves, as they come up blank.)

Pockybot, according to the

Pockybot, according to the official story the Boeing 757 hit the wall of the Pentagon at 530 mph. Now the Pentagon has recycled an old video which now shows some blob basically crawling along the ground. Ergo; that blob is supposed to be a B-757 at 530 mph. However; one has to be friggin' retarded to believe that nonsense. :)

They're stuck in their lie. To excuse the lack of wreckage at the scene they had to overhype the speed of the plane an concoct that fairy tale about the evaporated plane. That bunk is for the birds.

We should stick to

We should stick to fundamentals.

The fundamental issue is whether this official story about 9/11 is true or false.

Now; when they claim that a Boeing 757 crawled along the ground at 530 miles per hour that is obviously a lie. It's impossible to fly that kind of plane feet off the ground. Remember that the Pentagon video blob is mere feet off the ground and besides the engines of a 757 extend something like 8 feet below its body.

Actually we only need to refute one segment of the official fairy tale and Pentagon is just as before the most nonsensical part of that fable.

If AA77 really did hit the

If AA77 really did hit the Pentagon, why did they have to LIE that 63 of 64 passengers on AA77 were identified by DNA???

How the hell did they obtain DNA samples from the people who slammed the Pentagon at 530 mph???
YouÂ’re telling me that the plane was reduced to unrecognizable fragments, but they could ID the passengers???
Any dubiously remaining DNA wasnÂ’t damaged, degraded, destroyed & obliterated, by the extremes such as the severe impact, explosion, & fire???
They were able to extract & separate DNA from whatever medium, (cement, metal, brick, etc.) from which it was supposedly withdrawn???
It wasnÂ’t totally commingled with everyone elseÂ’s DNA???
It wasnÂ’t ruined & washed away by the fire hoses & chemical foam sprayed all over it???

LetÂ’s face it folks, they didnÂ’t ID any passengers at the Pentagon, let alone 99% of them!!! Why did they need to make this boldfaced lie to bolster the official if AA77 really did hit the Pentagon???

Yeah, aluminium, steel and

Yeah, aluminium, steel and titanium friggin' evaporated but entities made 70% of water (humans) left enough behind to be identified ? That total nonsense. Besides they couldn´t identify the supposed hijackers and have admitted that. I mean; this is just total nonsense.

You no-Pentagon-757 people

You no-Pentagon-757 people are amazingly ignorant.


It is sad that even this retarded piece of disinfo won't disappear.

"lack of wreckage at the scene"

There was wreckage.

"YouÂ’re telling me that the plane was reduced to unrecognizable fragments, but they could ID the passengers???"


"Yeah, aluminium, steel and titanium friggin' evaporated but entities made 70% of water (humans) left enough behind to be identified ?"

Don't lie please. The plane did not 'evaporate'.

"YouÂ’re telling me that

"YouÂ’re telling me that the plane was reduced to unrecognizable fragments, but they could ID the passengers???"


Anonymous | 06.02.06 - 3:16 pm | #

nuff said about this guy. plus he linked to 911myths.com. plus he goes by Anonymous. do you really need to know any more?

flight93 landed safely at

Interesting info on

Interesting info on 9/11myths.com re: the practices of crematoria. Unfortunately, it is bullshit like most everything else on that site.

As per AA77, do the crematoriums also slam the bodies through concrete walls @ 530 MPH resulting in huge explosions & fireballs???

Like I said above, they did NOT ID 63 of 64 people on AA77 at the Pentagon! It is a baldfaced lie to embellish the official story!

yeah,somebody should try and

yeah,somebody should try and figure out who runs that bullshit site.and hackers here?