Today's Show: "WHAT DIDN'T HIT THE PENTAGON" April Gallup & Barbara Honegger Guns & Butter KPFA

April Gallup on Today's KPFA Guns & Butter Talking Pentagon


Must hear!


Maybe someone can find a better way of posting this.

One of the good things

about this program is the last speaker identifies particular people, namely, Zelikow and Snell, as plotters. I think an effective campaign could be mounted by naming and branding particular people as participants, with the justification, just as this speaker did. Kind of like a ten most wanted.


that's just silly, i could see naming Zelikow as integral in the cover-up, but the actual plot? that's just specious.

I don't feel you are being specific enough

in discounting Zelikow's involvement. Who do you think formulated and implemented the plot?

However, to expand on my earlier suggestion, how about a deck of cards with 52 9-11 perpetrators? Who would be the joker? Bush? The King? Perhaps Cheney? I think it would be easy to fill the other slots. A deck of such cards would fulfill an educational role for the public.

Encore Presentation

Re-Broadcast Yesterday.

The Truth is getting out ALL OVER.

I applaud everyone's efforts.


Thanks for posting this Joe ...

This is an excellent audio to listen to by these two speakers, they are both insiders and articulate their experience and knowledge in an engaging manner. Please make sure you go to patriotsquestion911 and pull Barbara Honegger's 12 page essay from the Marr's site: THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS.

link ...

Here is the link for The Pentagon Attack Papers:

It's been some time since I've visited the Patriots Question 911 site:
The first time I visited this site that Alan started this up about 20 months ago, there were about 200 patriots, now there is 1,200 entries. I think that is a reflection of what is happening in the general population.

edit for including: After you read Barbara Honegger's paper, go to a video entry made in the comments section by Aidan: and see what type of hole can be made a wall breaching device.

Forest for Trees

Th importance of this BROADCAST is that it was BROADCAST. Sent out over the AIRWAVES.
While it may not be perfect, it is an example that we are breaking through.

This may be the first time a listener has ever heard of discrepancies with the Pentagon story.

This may be just what it takes to get someone to investigate further.


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Recommended reading

Reportely, Von Kleist made over $1 mil on In Plane Site.

Honegger, still a Navy employee, has claimed that Richard Reid is actually Osama, and that Iran did 9/11.

Jim Marrs, who has published Honegger's paper in his book, is mostly known for his UFO research (Alien Agenda,) and is frequently interviewed on cable programs on UFOs.

April Gallup says she didn't see what she expected to see and that her watch stopped, but she doesn't claim to "know" that a plane didn't hit or that it was a missile, a Sky-Warrior, etc. She presents a reasonable viewpoint of an eyewitness and feels concerned they didn't want her to give interviews, etc.

None of that adds up to any certainty of "no plane" or "no Boeing".

It's interesting how witnesses INSIDE the buildings count, but ones on the OUTSIDE who saw what was happening, are ignored. Sorry, but that's not scientific.

From oilempire on Barbara Honegger:
"Navy employee Barbara Honegger, who is active in 9/11 conspiracy issues, offers the piggy back theory -- the hijackers found out about the overlapping war games and timed their attack to take advantage of the confusion. This is probably a limited hang out designed to keep military officers from whistleblowing, since the claim that al-Qaeda supposedly compromised US operational security procedures could be very effective at keeping insiders from explaining what they know about the exercises. Honegger has since made ludicrous claims that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was really Osama and that the Pentagon was hit several minutes before it was struck by the plane (probably false leads designed to soak up time and energy on a wild goose chase)."

oilempire on the Pentagon:
There are not any sensible arguments why the conspirators would have substituted a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane. Substituting a missile for the plane would have made the attack much more complicated, involved more technicians with insider knowledge, and not provided any direct benefit to the plotters (especially if the theory about remote control technology being used to direct the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon is ever proved). The "no plane" theories don't make sense -- why would they bother to substitute? why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.

Pentacon Critique by Arabesque:
"Instead, the film simply moves on and concludes that there is “smoking gun” proof that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station and flew over the Pentagon completely ignoring their testimony (and all other testimony) that claimed the plane hit the Pentagon. Robert Turcios did not see it hit, but claimed “it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.” Cherry picking their own testimony (i.e. special pleading), the filmmakers do not provide us with a single statement that the plane flew over the Pentagon. I challenge the filmmakers to find one single statement to support this conclusion from less than 5 years after the attack. The Pentagon is surrounded by several major highways and was filled with stand-still traffic jams on 9/11.[251] If a flyover actually happened on 9/11, it should be easy to find several witnesses who actually saw this. In contrast, how many witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon?"'s Mike Rivero:
"The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800."

Joël van der Reijden's essay, 'Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself':
"People are send to the gas chamber based on witness testimonies. It's very obvious that eye witness accounts, when taken as a whole, are considered to be extremely reliable. Even the 9/11 research community acknowledges this, judging from their generous quotations from witnesses who claimed to have seen explosives at the WTC; or a missile at the Pentagon; or a missile hitting TWA800; or an explosion before flight 587 started to come down; etc. On the other hand, the moment the 9/11 skeptics community is confronted with a majority of the statements made about the Pentagon, they suddenly begin claiming that witness testimonies don't mean anything and that people are always imagining things. And on top of that, most of the 9/11 skeptics ignore the fact that the physical damage on the Pentagon does indeed correspond with a 757. And these are the people that call the rest of the world a bunch of sheep. Go figure that out."

Jim Hoffman's most recent Pentagon analysis: The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows -
"Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no-Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities."

Pentagon Attack Errors on
"Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence."


Even if the Pentagon released video showing conclusive proof that it was Flight 77.

If there were conclusive proof of complete plane debris, bodies etc.

Even if there was COMPLETE irrevocable proof that it was a Boeing Passenger Plane,
ask yourself why Andrews AFB was asleep.

That is far more important than all this controversy of "missile" / drone / Boeing.

If you knew the right people, you would know even WITHOUT Andrews, the home for the NMCC, ITSELF is PROTECTED 100% against SOVIET / RUSSIAN threats.

No matter wthat they say to the contrary.

Unless it was an all out RUSSIAN attack, NOTHING could have penetrated the AIR DEFENSES.



The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Double Post.

War is based on Deception.

Peace is based on Truth.

I would have more faith in the Peacemakers than the Warmongers.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it