quickly??? The facts were not at all clear what had happened that soon! & why such rush?

BTW, what ever happened to Bingham's mom. You know, the outgoing flight attendant who appeared on CNN Larry King for about 3 minutes one day, & the first thing she said was, "Yes, Mark called me, saying, 'Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham'" The whole think looked staged to me.

Why no further appearances of Bingham's mom on tv, like an hour on Oprah or Montel? Her son was quite a hero, after all? Why no offers to write a book? Very suspicious!

What are they hiding???

9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out Vol. 1, especially for anyone who is already open to 9/11 Truth.

If you are recommending a book to someone who still clings to the government myth I would suggest that they start with Dr. Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor as it carefully walks the reader through the reasons the government myth cannot be true.

I had gone back and forth about what hit the Pentagon and remained undecided until I read Karen Kwiatkowski's account of her morning at the Pentagon on 9/11/01. That said, I don't think that this issue should be a point of contention within the truth movement. Instead it should motivate us to work for real investigations that will settle this question and the 1000's of others that we all have.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

"Outside the Mall entrance, we stood for a while, listening to loud jets overhead, and wincing. Would they hit, as rumor had it, via another airplane inbound for the Pentagon? The idea that it was an airplane made sense, as we had been watching airplanes hit buildings only minutes before. Before long, we were ushered south some distance from the building to a spot between the Naval Annex and the south lawn of the Pentagon. From this elevated vantage point, a few thousand people all stared in disbelief at a smoking gash in the Pentagon, directly between the just completed and mostly unoccupied “wedge” on the right and its older, unrefurbished, sister wedge to the left. The older part of the building looked more damaged. Surreal is the word that kept coming to mind as we stared, transfixed...

...There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may have also been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue, referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile.” These aspects of the morning of September 11 combine to make me quite wary of the subsequent statements and actions taken by federal officials. This wariness might be easily eliminated with more detailed and forthcoming evidence—perhaps even a reconstruction of the aircraft that was reported to have hit the Pentagon. Unlike the painstaking reconstruction of civilian aircraft that we have witnessed in past decades, most recently in Flight 800—which exploded midair and crashed into the ocean—any physical remains of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon were quickly carted away to some unknown location, so we have no physical evidence that the aircraft really was Flight 77 or even a Boeing 757.

Like many people who watch a lot of television news and the Discovery Channel, I have seen post-passenger airline crash videos and post-accident computerized reconstructions of such events. Typically in these cases, a great deal of debris in all shapes and sizes is present, and an amazing amount of this debris is recoverable and useful in post-accident reconstruction. Yet in the case of the Pentagon attack, I saw nothing of any significance at the point of impact—no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. Strangely, none seemed to be produced afterward in any attempted accident analysis or reconstruction. This is even stranger in light of public reports afterward estimating that the large airplane was in fact flying low and turning, suggesting that one wing would have hit the ground before the aircraft nose hit the Pentagon, leaving a terrific amount of debris. Having only minutes before observed the televised crashes against buildings in New York, all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was, in fact, not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. I would think that if a 100-plus-ton aircraft constructed of relatively lightweight materials and designed for lift, loaded with passenger seating, luggage, odds and ends and passengers, going several hundred miles an hour were to hit the Pentagon, it would cause a great deal of possibly superficial but visible damage to the wide swath of the side of the building and the entire area of impact. But I
did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this façade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large airliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. I was not thinking at the time that it was a missile. My mindset was completely oriented toward the idea that a hijacked airliner had crashed into our building. I do remember thinking at the time how fortunate it was that the impact was diametrically opposite the offices of the secretary of defense and the service secretaries."

- Karen Kwiatkowski, "Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory", Chapter 2 of "9/11 and American Empire, Vol.1: Intellectuals Speak Out"