9/11 Contradictions: Bush in the Classroom by David Ray Griffin

9/11 Contradictions: Bush in the Classroom
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/07/02080.html

DRG has a new book coming out "9/11 Contradictions". I hope in this one he no longer promotes the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, or at least acknowledges that it's controversial and not accepted by most people that question the official story. This article in The Canadian is the first in a series, very intelligent analysis of the Secret Service violations of standard procedure in Sarasota.

"The Secret Service’s failure to hustle Bush away seemed even stranger in light of the reports that Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and several congressional leaders were quickly taken to safe locations. Should not protecting President Bush have been an even higher priority? As Susan Taylor Martin of the St. Petersburg Times put it on July 4, 2004: "One of the many unanswered questions about that day is why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location, as it apparently did with Vice President Dick Cheney."

The fact that this question was raised immediately after 9/11, then continued to be raised, could well have been perceived by the White House as dangerous. This question did, in fact, have dangerous implications, because it could -- and in some circles did -- lead to the inference that Bush was not evacuated from the school because the Secret Service knew that he would not be targeted. The desire to stop this kind of speculation was likely behind the White House’s attempts at getting a revisionist account of Bush’s behaviour instilled into the public consciousness."

Mr 911 - The Giuliani Anthem

Why WOULDN'T Griffin Challenge the Pentagon Issue?!!

It is crazy to accept the official version of the Pentagon strike.

WHY, OUT OF THE CLOSE TO A HUNDRED VIDEO CAMERAS ON THE PENTAGON GROUNDS, HAS NOT ONE . . . NOT ONE VIDEO BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC??

WHY WERE THE HOTEL AND GAS STATION VIDEOS CONFISCATED ON 9/11 BY THE FBI AND NEVER BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC?

IT IS CRAZY NOT TO WANT TO VIEW THESE VIDEOS.

Anyone demanding 9/11 truth, who really wants it, would demand to see those videos, rather than castigating those who are demanding it.

David Ray Griffin's work is BRILLIANT RESEARCH.

It's not the Strongest Suit

Of course there are multiple problems with what happened at the Pentagon. It's just NOT the strongest suit.

In the case of the Pentagon explosion, there is a startling lack of evidence. However, the lack of video camera evidence (for example) does not constitute evidence.

Whereas, in other situations on 9/11, there is an ABUNDANCE of physical and circumstantial evidence to work with. Better to lead the charge with those.

MrEguy

I never said

the videos should not be released; i think they should be

HOWEVER, it is a very real possibility that they're holding on to videos of a 757 hitting the Pentagon precisely to fuel the speculation, and to maximize the damage to the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and confuse the millions of people who've convinced themselves that they know absolutely positively for sure that it wasn't a 757, if and when they do release 10 or 100 videos that are clearly unphotoshopped.

The elites control the media, corporate america, the Republocrats and the vote count; they're currently not in much danger of a real investigation. They don't have perfect control of public opinion, which they depend on to legitmize their corrupt rule, which is why they invest billions of $ a year in manipulating it. Public opinion is shifting against them, if it gets to the point that they're actually worried, coming out with 757 videos, if they have them, is something they might do.

This article is good analysis of the revisionist history and the Secret Service and Bush's odd behavior, that the 9/11 Commission inadequately addressed.

This controversy over what actually crashed into the Pentagon just highlights the problems with physical evidence claims. Every Truth Activist here should take note that the media and gatekeepers continually allude to the missile theory, and steer clear of the war games, foreknowledge, warnings, obstructed investigations, Sibel Edmonds, insider trading, etc.

I haven't thoroughly read Debunking, but in what i looked at, DRG goes heavily into the "no plane" "evidence", which is NOT conclusive, by any means

The Top 40
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

old info

"WHY WERE THE HOTEL AND GAS STATION VIDEOS CONFISCATED ON 9/11 BY THE FBI AND NEVER BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC?"

Most (if not all) of them were released. The video was inconclusive. It's on youtube/google video.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Do you expect us to believe that the most secure building in

the world doesn't have any clear video of an airliner smashing into it???

Come-on, stop this nonsense!

Take a Look at the Map of Sarasota

The Booker School was almost in direct line with the runways at
Sarasota Int'l, and just two miles away (and just 18 seconds away
at 400 mph).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/idiotbastard/bookerschool.png

The school made a conspicuous target from the air--it was on the
first major E-W thoroughfare south from the airport, it was marked
by a railroad, a golf course, a lake, and a subdivision with a peculiar
tennis-racket street plan.

The Secret Service surely grokked on this when the Booker
appearance was in the planning stages. At one time the FAA
believed that as many as 11 planes had been hijacked.

This leads me to speculate that W was in fact a hostage.
Consider who else engaged hostage behavior: Osama
checking into the Pakistani military hospital (in Rawalpindi--not
in mountain Peshawar); Osama's brother Shafig meeting with
Poppy Bush at a conference hosted by the Carlyle group,
General Mahmoud Ahmad breakfasting with Goss and Graham
at the Capitol, maybe Mohammed Atta checking into that motel
in Maine.

If anybody knows of any others who appear to have been hostages
in connection with the 9/11 attacks, please let me know.

More hostages :

The entire UN General Assembly !!
Ministers and other high-ranking Government officials from every single country in the World
got held back in the US for the 3 days the skies got closed for air-traffic ,only the Fahds and the Bin Ladins got out ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

I totally disagree! Loads of evidence + common sense tell us

that AA-77 is not what blew-up at the Pentagon. Large airliners cannot fly 2 feet above the ground nor totally disappear into the first floor of a building.

You also have a huge problem reconciling Barbara Olson's phone call reporting that maniac hijackers had box-cut the pilots & commandeered the aircraft, when evidence shows that these patsy misfits couldn't fly a Cessna. When you get past that, try telling us these are also plausible:

How did “hijacked” AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., 45 minutes after the WTC was struck by 2 other “hijacked” airliners, without it being intercepted, pursued, or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

How did flunky Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how did he make those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section of the Pentagon?

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video evidence of what struck the Pentagon, more than 6 years later? For what purpose is this evidence still being withheld from us?

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 of 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were supposedly vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

What happened to the airliners virtually indestructible 2 huge steel/titanium engines?

How did a B-757 with a 125’ wingspan make a 16’ foot initial impact hole? (Mike Walter's assertion that the wings simply "folded back" is preposterous.)

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta? Why was the airliner’s location given as: “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”??? Out from what--did Cheney know the target??? Why didn’t Dick or the young man warn people in the Pentagon to get away from windows & take cover???

Pentagon Tapes.

I agree. And the passenger list was also pretty revealing after seeing it on Loose Change: Final Cut. A bunch of Raytheon and Defense Contractor employees or something? Something isn't right. I can agree that this might not be our go to piece of evidence as far as the whole scheme of things go, say over WTC7 and the like, but it is fishy to say the least. I think this plane was flying way under booked as well.

Yes. Also, we keep hearing about all these eye-witnesses who

saw AA-77 slam through the Pentagon, in access of 500 mph. How much detail could anyone possibly discern of such phenomena near ground level? That's blink-of-an-eye stuff. (Not to mention how easy it would be to plant all sorts of gov't shills near the Pentagon of all places.)

all valid questions

The jet could've been flying down at an angle all the way to the Pentagon- smoke and foam obscure a lot of what's in the photos- there is massive damage for about 100 feet along the bottom floor of the recently reinforced Pentagon, possibly enough to allow most of the wings and the engines thru. There may have been bombs on the plane or in that section of the Pentagon that helped to destroy the 757/engines, but jets are hollow and largely aluminum, anyway; a fighter jet that was test crashed into a concrete wall was completely obliterated. If the jet was blown apart, they may still have been able to collect enough body parts for DNA testing. Check the analysis here, there are other pages on these sites as well, just grabbed these quickly:
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/pentagon.html

I "theorize":

The jets were piloted by remote control- 77, if that is what it was, was certainly not being flown by "can't fly a Cessna" Hanjour

The planes were allowed to fly around so long probly because there was a combo of direct stand-down orders, i.e. Cheney "Yes, the order still stands" and intentional war games confusion

The Pentagon could be withholding clear photos of the 757 simply because they want to fuel this "red herring" idea of a Pentagon missile- at the right time they may release the photos- imagine what effect it would have if the Pentagon releases video from 10 angles that is clearly not photoshopped. The missile claim is consistently alluded to by corporate media and gatekeepers as one of the main claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement- they generally don't go near the war games, warnings, foreknowledge, insider trading (lots more than just the UA/AA puts- check http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeli... ) Also- the missile theory was promoted by Rumsfeld, and is heavily promoted by Fetzer, Reynolds, Wood- not good company.

And there's also the witnesses to a 757 http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html

Scripps poll 06: 36% think 9/11 happened on purpose to go to war; 12% believed a missile hit the Pentagon
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Scripps 07 poll 62% think Feds chose to ignore specific warnings
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28534

I don't claim to know for sure that it was 77 or even a 757, there's still anomalies, but I think it's definitely possible that it was 77. I think it's much better to stick to things we all agree on- Mineta's testimony, Hanjour couldn't fly, the ack guns at the White House and Pentagon would've shot whatever it was down if standard procedures weren't obstructed, the flying object made nearly a full circle around the Pentagon to crash into the recently-reinforced nearly empty (except for civilian contractors and defense accountants) section of the Pentagon opposite the top brass, instead of diving straight down into it. I don't for a second believe anything Ted "sometimes the govt needs to lie to the People" Olson says

The Top 40
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

"Clear" Pentagon Video

I feel if the pentagon releases any clear video at this point, it will be more damaging to their story than anything else. Being that releasing a "clear" video will no doubt gain world wide attention, and the fact that this govt is known for lies, corruption and cover-up's, those who have not been researching the subject thoroughly will question the timing and ask why they didnt release the tapes sooner and instead elected to sit on it all this time stirring controversy.

People do not trust this govt. The govt will shoot themselves in the foot releasing any tape so late in the game. Its what woke me up last year and look at where we are today...
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html#Balsamo

For the record, Bill Dahl (an old friend of mine from Long Island who i used to fly with in an online air combat squadron years ago as a hobby) claims the govt does have a clear video of the aircraft approach. He claims he has this video. Bill Dahl was a first responder and Anti-Terrorism Instructor for EMT's. He was supposed to give the DVD to me, however never followed through for reasons unknown and no longer returns emails.

For those who would like to know who Bill Dahl is, google his name along with Bloomberg. Feel free to contact Bill and ask him to release the video so it can be thoroughly examined. Keep in mind, there may be a slight possibility Bill may be lying about having such a video due to cognitive dissonance.

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Do you think the flight approach is plausible?

I don't, which is why I don't think a video will be released. I don't even think a plausible video could be faked, unless it ended well before impact..

Sorry, but...

... your scenario is even more improbable than the official account.

About the reason Pentagon photos/video are being withheld... I don't think it very probable that promoting the "red herring" theories is the reason for that. For one thing, even if they will show that a Boeing 757 really hit the Pentagon, they will also disclose its true approach angle (which is pretty conclusively placed to the North of Citgo by now) which raises then many more questions (i.e. why did the lightpoles pop, or worse yet, show what really happened to those poles).

About damage on the first floor... Even if a 757 DOES physically fit into that hole and have clearance (mere feet) over obstacles on its approach, does not mean it is realistic. Just consider the ground effect, for one. I would say that it is much more probable that no 757 actually hit the building than that one was master-piloted with such microscopic tolerances into the first floor. Whatever hit the Pentagon, was obviously intended to hit as low as possible in order to guarantee the safety of the occupants on the opposite side (the top brass). Even if a master pilot was behind the (remote) controls, with such a high speed and microscopic tolerances it would have been too messy of an operation. They could have easily overshot, hitting the Rumsfeld & Co. on the other side. Too much of a risk, I would say.

Keep in mind also that the swath of damage inside the building lined up with the lightpoles (i.e. the official theory), but not with the 757 approach angle (North of Citgo, per eyewitnesses). So, there was definitely two events taking place there -- one that caused the off-angle damage, and the Distraction 757 flying in North of Citgo. What happened to the 757? Who knows! Fly-over, maybe. Bombs on the plane? I doubt it. Again -- too risky in a populated place. What if the bombs detonated too early (over the freeway, for example), or too late? Besides, if a bomb blasted the aircraft, I would expect more debris on the lawn. Also, a bomb that powerful to shred landing gear and titanium engines would have done comparable damage to the building as well.

Your scenario mimics closely that of Jim Hoffman et al at 911Research. For the brilliant guys they are, I can't imagine why they would come up with such an improbable scenario in the first place (plane shredded just before impact, plane actually reaching the first floor at those speeds, without touching the lawn or obstacles).

The Pentagon is causing me sleepless nights, too. I just can't figure out what really happened there. Too much confusion and contradictory information. And it all happened under broad daylight in a populated place! Six years and counting, and still no clear answers!

My feelings exactly

"I just can't figure out what really happened there. Too much confusion and contradictory information. And it all happened under broad daylight in a populated place! Six years and counting, and still no clear answers!"

Flight 77

Dean M. Jackson

The fact that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon is beyond question! That a much smaller aircraft may have hit the Pentagon is possible. This is the conclusion of DRG; not NO aircraft hit the Pentagon! Your strawman argument is suspicious, since the various Pentagon videos that were released do, in fact, show a much smaller object heading towards the Pentagon just feet above the ground (a 757 cannot get that low to the ground flying at 530 mph due to ground effect). Exactly what this object is is unclear. What is clear, however, is that the object is not a Boeing 757 unless 757's are the size of commuter aircrafts!

To accept the proposition that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, we have the quandary of a 757 avoiding all six missile batteries that the Pentagon had on its premises on 9/11 (five on the roof hidden in fake AC covers and one mobile system hidden on the ground). We also have the quandary of the flight path of Flight 77 as released by the NTSB this time last year. The NTSB places Flight 77 not south but north of the Citgo Gas Station and at an altitude of 480 feet one second before impact. This means that Flight 77 did NOT hit the light poles and would have flown over the Pentagon. All the evidence such as the impact damage to the Pentagon, the revised flight path of Flight 77 as provided by the NTSB and the Pentagon videos proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. This is the reason that most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement find insulting the proposition that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

Where does this claim come from?

"a 757 avoiding all six missile batteries that the Pentagon had on its premises on 9/11 (five on the roof hidden in fake AC covers and one mobile system hidden on the ground)."

Further, does the NTSB flight path place the plane north of the Citgo station?

Here we go again...

Talk about Pentagon's alleged missile batteries, but no evidence.

Why the lapse in security for Bush?

I've read Grifin's "The New Pearl Harbor," in fact, it was the first book I read on 9/11. It's a very interesting issue why there was an apparent lapse in security for the President ?

I'm open to possible explanations. Is it they knew Bush wouldn't be targeted? It seems, someone in the know may have anticipated such a shortcoming? My guess is it was intentionally done? Why?

Is it Bush was allowed to be a sitting duck for any faction who would want to take a shot at him? Or, the time allowed to lapse to simply raise such a possibility in the President's mind?

I'm convinced just by his expression that Bush wasn't in the know and the meeting later in the day at Offut AFB (Stratcom) with Scowcroft and Buffett has always been loaded with implications! I believe, the faction responsible for the 9/11 event negotiated with the President and he capitulated at that time. It represents a rare eruption into publlc life of political contention and subterfuge.

I may have to check out 9/11 Contradictions to see what input Griffin has to offer.

...don't believe them!

Flight 77 and the Pentagon

Dean M. Jackson

The fact that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon is beyond question! That a much smaller aircraft may have hit the Pentagon is possible. This is the conclusion of DRG; not NO aircraft hit the Pentagon! Your strawman argument is suspicious, since the various Pentagon videos that were released do, in fact, show a much smaller object heading towards the Pentagon just feet above the ground (a 757 cannot get that low to the ground flying at 530 mph due to ground effect). Exactly what this object is is unclear. What is clear, however, is that the object is not a Boeing 757 unless 757's are the size of commuter aircrafts!

To accept the proposition that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, we have the quandary of a 757 avoiding all six missile batteries that the Pentagon had on its premises on 9/11 (five on the roof hidden in fake AC covers and one mobile system hidden on the ground). We also have the quandary of the flight path of Flight 77 as released by the NTSB this time last year. The NTSB places Flight 77 not south but north of the Citgo Gas Station and at an altitude of 480 feet one second before impact. This means that Flight 77 did NOT hit the light poles and would have flown over the Pentagon. All the evidence such as the impact damage to the Pentagon, the revised flight path of Flight 77 as provided by the NTSB and the Pentagon videos proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. This is the reason that most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement find insulting the proposition that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

DRG HAS already acknowledged it

In "Debunking 9/11 Debunking," he acknowledged that the no-757 crash hypothesis is hotly debated within the movement. He spells out the case for both sides, and he suggests various possibilities. He believes that the no-757 crash theory may or may not be correct, and he also suggests that the plane, if it was a 757, could have been a remote controlled Boeing 757 painted to look like AA 77 (Northwoods Documents, anyone?), or perhaps even Flight 77 itself, but with a remote control technological override, thus eliminating the need for a suicide hijacker (whether Hanjour or anyone else).

Can't wait to read this next book! :)

I was just reading about that Bush/Blair Memo

Where bush was going to paint a spy plane in UN colors and then try to get Saddam to shoot it down as an excuse for war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4849744.stm

Apparently the guy knows how to remote-control-fly these things.

Remote Control.

Remote Control Technology is definitely a very real possibility in all these events...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1699196,00.html?xid=rss-t...

Boeing, April 1998

IMO..real patsies on board remote controlled planes. White "mystery plane" likely location of the real pilot(s).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/autotask/index.html

Control Automation and Task Allocation. The CATA technology enables a concept for a "strike package" that offers a six ship set of internetted combat vehicles for offensive and defensive operations. It can be tailored to accommodate diverse situations. For example, a combat package could comprise a composite set of manned and unmanned lethal vehicles, a composite set of manned vehicles, or all unmanned aircraft.
CATA is designed so that a mission controller or "on-the-scene" pilot/operator can manage the flight /defense-space/infoelect/s of vehicles and allocate strike package assets such as sensors and weapons. From a remote aircraft, such as an AWACS, the mission controller can deploy a strike package that will work best for the mission.
When aircraft are flown without a human in the cockpit, extra precautions must be made to assure the aircraft performs as planned. Boeing has met these concerns by integrating flight, mission, and battle management software, computing, and communications systems, vehicle and package integrity management strategies with the required human oversight, whether localized or remote, into one system that can be employed in a theater of operations.
Flight testing could begin as soon as 2000, with possible deployment by the U.S. Air Force within five to 15 years.

Jan. 2006 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing-p...
Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners
The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.

crash hypothesis

Definitely drones in the first two strikes, but not at the Pentagon. Airliners are not built to withstand impact. If it was a real 757 it never would have made it through the first ring.

According...

To this account, they didn't leave allegedly because of Bush's insistence...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a916noevacuation#a91...

(Between 9:16 a.m. and 9:29 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secret Service Still Does Not Evacuate Bush From School, Allegedly at the President’s Insistence

The Secret Service later tells the 9/11 Commission that while he is in the holding room at the Booker Elementary School (see (9:16 a.m.-9:29 a.m.) September 11, 2001), they are “anxious to move the president to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 39] Yet according to Philip Melanson, who is an expert on the Secret Service, “With an unfolding terrorist attack, the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible, which clearly is not a school.” [St. Petersburg Times, 7/4/2004] Bush himself later recalls that at this time, “[T]he Secret Service and the Mil Aide [military aide] was in the process of getting information about where the president ought to go. One thing for certain, I needed to get out of where I was.” [Sammon, 2002, pp. 93] Yet he does not immediately leave the school, and will remain there to give a brief statement in its library (see 9:29 a.m. September 11, 2001). According to Frank Brogan, the lieutenant governor of Florida, who is also in the holding room at this time, the Secret Service tries to get the president to return to Air Force One immediately. But Bush refuses, saying he is “committed to staying on the ground long enough to write a statement about what was happening, read it to the nation and lead a moment of silence for the victims.” [UP Online, 9/18/2003] Bush himself later says that while he is in the holding room, “I didn’t spend that much time about my own safety because I knew others were worried about that. What I was interested in is making sure that the response mechanism that was under my control was sharp and ready to go. And that meant defense, for starters.” [Sammon, 2002, pp. 93] Yet he reportedly will not make any decisions about the response to the attacks until after 9:55 a.m. (see (Between 10:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001). The 9/11 Commission later claims that, while Bush is in the holding room, “No one in the traveling party had any information… that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. Staff was in contact with the White House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine, no one with the president was in contact with the Pentagon.” [Washington Post, 1/27/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 39-41] In contrast to the Secret Service’s inaction in removing Bush from the school, Vice President Dick Cheney is reportedly “seized by the arms, legs and his belt and physically carried” out of his office by Secret Service agents around this time, in order to get him to the bunker below the White House. Cheney himself says the agents “hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs” (see (9:10 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [White House, 9/16/2001; Daily Telegraph, 12/16/2001]


Who Is? Archives

I agree with the idea that the "No Boeing" at the Pentagon is a

poor strategy for the exposure of the 9/11 lie. But I strongly support the approach of the Pilots for Truth and others who work on disproving the official story as this does aid our cause.

DRG is a very important part of our movement and if he does push the "No plane at the Pentagon" theory I think he may be unnecessarily speculating! I have always found his work of the highest calibre.

Regards John Bursill - Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!

It boggles my mind that we

It boggles my mind that we in the truth movement are still so obsessed with what did or didn't hit the Pentagon. Personally I'm uninterested. The incessant debate surrounding it has literally sucked the curiosity out of me. The only thing that we should be concerning ourselves with when it comes to the Pentagon strike is that SOMETHING hit it. The most defended structure in world history was struck without any interference whatsoever. The anti-aircraft defense system was seemingly inoperable ONLY on that day. Combine that fact with the Mineta testimony and that's all we need to discuss when dealing with what happened at the Pentagon. But ignore this and continue on (wasting precious time) debating what did or didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We desperately need as many distractions as we can muster.

I wish someone would please make a list of what evidence we can viably present to a jury should these matters ever become officially legal. They can serve as some sort of general guideline as to what is important to concentrate on versus what's NOT.

Nothing wrong with...

... being obsessed with an unexplainable event. This is the nature of the human mind -- to find out what really happened. If we hadn't have obsession with unexplainable, we would not have scientific discoveries or technological progress. I think the problem of America is exactly the lack of curiosity, that's why so many dirty tricks, such as 9-11, are being continuously swept under the carpet with impunity.

I am obsessed about it, too. While other aspects of 9-11 have become quite clear by now (in terms of how they might have done that), for the life of me, I can't figure out what happened at the Pentagon! There is so much contradicting evidence and testimony! And to think that the event took place in broad daylight in a populous place, with eyewitnesses at every possible angle!

I am curious also, how come nobody has leaked any photos or video yet. Can't some Mr. Anonymous do us all a favor and do that, please? Surely, there must be some material available. What's so hard about posting it anonymously?

The reason the Pentagon

The reason the Pentagon scenario ferments in my mind is that if, in fact, Flight 77 didn't hit, there is no fallback position for the official lie.

Over time, there can be some capitulation on controlled demolition -- breaches of security, wired for demolition years ago, etc. (We may believe that to be bunk, but for the majority of people suffering from cognitive dissonance over the entire event, any johnny-come-lately explanation will likely suffice.) For Flight 93, "Well, it was shot down as per normal operating procedures, but we didn't didn't want to cause alarm and hurt the airline industry." But anything other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon exactly as said proves beyond any shadow of a doubt the highest level of military involvement.

Think about it -- there would be no controlled demolition theory regarding the WTC without massive video evidence, both of the implosions and the witnesses during and immediately after the events. There would be no WTC7 smoking gun. If we apply the same standards to both New York and Virginia, we can't rule out a major deception at the Pentagon. This was a psy-op from beginning to end, and it would have helped the desired psychological trauma to replay the Pentagon strike as often as the WTC strikes. There was no valid reason to withhold them, unless one believes that the brass scratched their heads and said to themselves, "You know, funny enough, it doesn't actually look like a 757 hit there -- let's create a honeypot on the spot by refusing to release the videos."

Also, we have no way of knowing what was planned in advance and what was improvised that day. That Flight 77 is alleged to have flown so far west before returning to the Pentagon has always been more of a smoking gun for me than that Hani couldn't have piloted it. (He was probably alleged to have been the pilot simply because he could be documented to have had any manner of recent flying experience.) Was Cheney reiterating a standdown order to the young man or was he creating a false narrative? Who knows?

The Flight 800 story has only been allowed to stand because there was no video evidence to back up the more than 100 witness accounts of something firing on it. The Zapruder film was most Americans' first real inkling of a rat in the JFK assassination, and as soon as they saw it they realized why it had not been made public much earlier.

I just have a hard time believing that if the Pentagon videos prove the official story at the Pentagon, there was any percentage in withholding them. My assumption has to be that they do not.

newsfrombelow it is good to

newsfrombelow

it is good to read the back and forth over the issue of what hit the pentagon. one fact not mentioned is a piece of
interview footage not put into loose change final cut, where dylan interviews this dissident government scientist
who claims that in order to produce the round hole and penetrate three rings what hit the pentagon had to have
been depleted uranium tipped. she had a close associate measure radiation levels near the pentagon after the
attack and found they were much much higher than normal.

i am not sure why they excluded her testimony from the final cut, but i found it to be some of the most powerful
of the material gathered surrounding the pentagon attack.

i cannot locate the name of the scientist at the moment, but i am sure some people on this site remember
the clip from the loose change final cut "cutouts" which were viewable at youtube.

her point was quite clear: it was some kind of missile, tipped with depleted uranium, that could only have
done the damage which is visible, and it explains the biggest problem with the official story of the pentagon attack:
how did the nose of the plane penetrate three rings yet there is no visible signs of serious wreckage inside the
area penetrated. indeed, we are led to believe that everything disintegrated upon impact yet something was powerful
enough to penetrate three rings of the pentagon and then "disintegrate."