Conspiracy Theory with Gov. Jesse Ventura- 911 Pentagon Attack(Full Episode)

Conspiracy Theory with Gov. Jesse Ventura- 911 Pentagon Attack (Full Episode) 12/17/10

Front page!

Clearly this is a news story. This episode, regarding a central part of 9/11-- the Pentagon attack -- aired on television last night, hosted by a former Governor, who interviewed public officials about what happened. There is no way it is not newsworthy. This is not just Joe's opinion piece.

While I don't endorse every comment or individual featured, I am for bold criticism of the Pentagon. This attack was clearly an inside job just as much as the demolition of building 7. Obvious foul play.

And if some of the statements need straightening out, then this is the place to do it.

Show "FRONT PAGE - ABSOLUTELY" by taylor mcknight

the reason this is not on the FP

Unless it's credible new research, most stuff related to the 'what hit the Pentagon' question is going to go into the blogs. This is significant as it's Jesse Ventura and it was broadcast on national cable TV, so it's worth discussing. However, there's no new info or analysis here.

One glaring omission from this show is any presentation of the evidence that a 757/AAL 77 did hit the Pentagon. See these:

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

Pentagon Attack Errors

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman

Another omission is any discussion of how controversial this 'what hit' question is in the 9/11 Truth Movement, how consistently MSM/pundits have used it to mock/discredit/undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement, and whether the whole 'what hit' question is a strategy to waste the time of researchers/activists, divide and disrupt the movement, and turn it into a 'conspiracy theory' tarbaby that citizens, journalists and pols don't dare touch out of concern they'll be associated with it.

Sure, the government needs to release all the evidence they're sitting on; photos, video, documents, etc. And if someone wants to reserve judgment on the 'what hit' question until they do, fine.

But NO evidence exists proving that anything other than AAL 77 hit the Pentagon- and there's plenty of evidence the OCT is false, that specific people should be investigated, and there's an ongoing cover up.

EDIT to add a few links specifically re CIT:

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

Also search CIT at Arabesque's blog, and

And see this article and the the debate in the comment thread:


Thank you loose nuke

Thank you loose nuke

Non-witnesses to crash listed as "eye witnesses"

>9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

I checked this list in good faith, expecting to see a list of "What witnesses described" as it is titled. Then I went to the YouTube interviews of several at random, to hear them in their own words . To my disappointment NONE of them claim to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon, or even that they could see the Pentagon at all from where they were at the time.

Police Officer Barry Foust only said he saw a plume of smoke from a distance, and is not an eye witness.

Daniel McAdams and his wife were in their living room, 2.5 miles from the Pentagon, drinking coffee, but are called "eye witnesses"?

Detective Don Fortunato did not even see it, only came to the scene later.

All I am saying is that we should not cite Arabesque's list as ALL eye witnesses to a plane crash, because these witnesses only saw the situation AFTER the crash. The page should specify which people actually saw the plane hit, and which saw only subsequent events. Otherwise, it implies a larger number of witnesses.

Show Could Have Been Researched Better

For example, A.K. Dewdney's claim that American Airlines 757s did not contain seatback phones seems to be challenged by photographic evidence of AA 757 seatback phones circa 9/11:

December 1998 (copy and paste address if link doesn't open):

And alleging the presence of "missiles" based on one reportedly overhearing sensitive radio information shortly after the Pentagon explosion or Tim Roehmer's use of the word "missile" during an interview, is an unreliable claim not backed by more reliable evidence.

After all, some TV reports also wrongly described "missiles" attacking the WTC.

Decommissioned vs. removed

Mr. Monaghan,

I don't have the appropriate documentation before me, however my understanding is that a document exists indicating that the phones in AA's 757s had been taken offline in early 2001 while a subsequent document shows they were not physically removed until early 2002.

I recall one AA official attempting to rebut the no-phones assertion by emphasizing the latter (I think he used the term "ripped out") while simply ignoring the former claim.

But if it's correct that the phones had already been decommissioned, then it wouldn't matter whether photos still showed them by 9/11.

Of course, you're the one with the hard data on all this, so I'll defer (at least until I can track down the relevant docs.)

Publically Available FAA Records For 757 & 767 Seatback Phones

Here is FOIA information for FAA authorizations (Supplemental Type Certificates) for seatback phone operation within Boeing 757s and 767s. Unfortunately, they do not seem to cite specific airlines. Also tried to get similar information from the FCC with no success.

Am trying obtain more information about the alleged 9/11 phone calls from the FBI via the courts.

witnesses - clarifications

It says at the top of Arabesque's blog post:
"NOTE: there are some minor errors that I need to fix and that have been pointed out to me. A handful of witnesses described what they saw after the attack and are not first hand accounts. I will also be adding transcripts of of live television witnesses, never before transcribed." The videos referred to are here:

Arabesque has been occupied with other things, and has not fixed the errors yet or transcribed the accounts and added them. A small number of people in his list were referring to things they saw after the fact, or were reporting what others had told them. The vast majority were witnesses, and a couple dozen or so have been re-interviewed by CIT or Shure.

Re the 3 examples cicorp listed of not witnesses to impact:

"Barry Foust" is not a name that appears on Arabesque's list

The McAdams are not cited as witnesses to the impact; Arabesque includes their account their account of hearing a plane pass overhead and seeing the fighters shortly afterward.

Fortunato is not cited as an witness to impact; he arrived shortly after i happened, saw Lloyd England's cab and the light pole damage to it, saw plane parts, saw traffic at a standstill.

Direct link to the witness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon- again, not all of these people say they saw it hit w/ their own eyes, but the vast majority do.

Pentagon Witnesses

the bigger (non-confiscated) picture

It sure is a major news story.. which exposes a stand down of military protection in Washington, D.C. way after planes-demolitions of 2 WTC buildings. Getting a mainstream testimony of Norman Minetta's report, showing how it was covered up.. and April Gallup standing up to the fascist cover-up.. and voters at 911blogger condemn this program? It seems to happen with many groups I have been involved with.. a bit of self righteous-tinted perceptions to claim what is PC (politically correct) for this forum, meanwhile missing the greater story of exposing the 9/11 cover-up and a cable tv program's researching such a subject. There was many great parts of the show.

Before 9/11 I worked with the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space from my work in exposing the high risk Cassini Earth flyby. After 9/11 we lost our battle to stop weapons from entering low-orbit space because of this Anthrax-threatened coup d'etat and the executive control over Congress. I immediately started investigating 9/11.. and asked this group.. the Global Network to join with me in exposing the evidence of such an action that enabled weapons in space. This group like many other progressive groups acted righteously and only wanted to continue pursuing their cycle-do-nothing actions.. as the wars were unleashed using 9/11 for its justification..

Being more flexible would be good for inside the 9/11 movement to join many areas of research that is quite appropriate and beneficial for our mutual interests. This show deserves main news visibility because it exposes the interior crimes of that day. No one is perfect.. and being too righteous only about WTC demos is missing a bigger picture.. so we can unite and demand new investigations..

Thanks for posting this important news story.. Flyby News is linking to this program, but not to this page.. Many comments here are missing the bigger story for exposing what happened that day, and on the friends that help us expose the crimes and cover-up..

Straightening out

The Pentagon no planers have been straightened out six ways from Sunday for years now. This is an exercise in repetition. You are aware of these challenges as most are. This episode is a circus of ridiculous misinformation. It's incoherent, rambling conspiracy porn of the worst kind, and does extreme injustice to 9/11 Truth. The IDEA that a missile was involved, is something not even CIT accepts as credible. It's utter delusional crackpottery. Dwain Deets?? He got it handed to him in debate on this site. He knows next to nothing about the Pentagon. Rob "Tends towards planes at the WTC" Balsamo??

You go ahead and jubilate over this affront to 9/11 research. I'm repulsed. I suggest you watch Jeff Hill/shure's video above.

There was no missile. There was no flyover. A plane hit the Pentagon. The witnesses weren't 'fooled', the Pentagon no planers were. The passengers are dead, and they died at the Pentagon.

The answers to no planer's questions are all over 911blogger. To no avail.

Go back to Pro Wrestling



Vote down the suggestion that news be posted as news? Am I endorsing a "flyover"? No. Am I endorsing PFT? No. Am I saying that I believe a missile hit the Pentagon? No. I have never speculated on what did or did not hit the Pentagon. I applaud the Gov. asking questions of those in power and demanding answers.

I don't believe we should "punt" on the Pentagon or avoid it. Many aspects of this attack point to inside operation: 1: The flight path. 2. The alleged pilot. 3. Where the Pentagon was hit (Wedge 1). 4. Norman Mineta's testimony re: Cheney's orders. 5. 80+ videos withheld. 6. FDR data which contradicts the official story. 7. The FBI's own admission in court about calls received by Ted Olson. 8. Rumsfeld's Sept. 10th announcement about missing trillions-- and the fact that the Pentagon was struck in just the place to destroy the investigation into this scandal.

Gov. Ventura might be incorrect about a few things, but he is boldly talking about the cover-up. He does WAY more good than harm. might have a few people that I don't like, but bottom line is that it does WAY more good than harm.

Talking about the Pentagon has some drawbacks, since there's so much contradictory/ withheld/ or destroyed evidence, but this criticism does WAY more good than harm.

This is what allowed the Bush admin. to call 9/11 an "act of war."

The News is that Jesse Ventura is CASHING IN on tragedy

- and worse. It's a disgrace.

I'm with RL here

I'm giving you an thumbs up on this one. I've read Jim Hoffman's work, it's very good, extensive and other excellent works supporting the premise for it being Flight 77 that hit the pentagon, but I'm still have my seeds of doubt. I'd say I'm about 90% sold. There is something to be said for "why would they substitute the plane" and complicate things more. There may be no evidence 'proving' something else hit it, but there isn't much evidence proving it did either. Things that bother me are of course the withholding of tapes which could answer many questions. The fact it came out of nowhere and made the maneuvers it did. Not only did it hit in the D wedge where accounting people worked, it was just finished re-enforcement renovations and damage still went to the 3rd ring. There was the E4-B plane seen just after probably guiding it (left out of Jesse's program). The list can go on, so I think it is good talk about it and JV certainly gets people doing that.

I was a little disappointed about Mr Deets advocating for the "fly over" idea, but everyone is entitled to their point of view of the evidence. IMHO, if there is a plausible alternative, I think it was missile or something disguised/modified to look like an AA jet. Just my gut feeling.
I was concerned JV said there was NO evidence of people from the plane. My understanding is that DNA was identified for each of the passengers at Dover.
I liked the fact they tried the flight simulation.

Overall, I am glad JV is getting people talking about 9/11 but he could do SO much better. It seems like he always gives you half a glass however.

that's my take.

peace everyone.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within” – General Douglas MacArthur.

Flight Simulator.

I also liked the flight simulation and see its value. Just as sharpshooters have tried to duplicate Oswald's alleged shots from the sniper's nest, we should get pilots to see if they can duplicate Hanjour's alleged flight in the sim.

Also, I agree that 'Conspiracy Theories' is a tabloid-style show that is one-sided. It is not meant to be a fair and balanced treatment of the subject it covers presenting all the possible evidence that supports the official line. It is meant to raise contrary evidence which suggests conspiracy. (hence the name)

If the issues raised are significant enough to get people thinking and asking questions, then great. Unanswered questions MUST be answered.

here here!

What a disappointing, easily discreditable ball dropper Jessie is turning out to be.

Conspiracy Theorists

I think it is absurd that I need to apologize for not being a conspiracy theorist. But here goes......I am sorry. I am more interested in reality. I'm not interested in theorizing on what I consider to be conspiracies. I am a researcher and amateur historian. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am sorry.

There are different levels of conspiracy theorists. The most hard core are frankly... crazy. I do not think Jesse Ventura is crazy. But I do think he is an entertainer and a conspiracy theorist. I have come to this conclusion based on.....

JV has a Book out called "American Conspiracies". He also has a TV show called "Conspiracy Theory". Gee, I am quite the detective aren't I? He is a conspiracy theorist. I am a researcher, and truth seeker.

I have tolerated conspiracy theorists for some time now, and frankly it's old and boring. I tolerated it because 9-11 was indeed a conspiracy, so it was to be expected that conspiracy theorists, would be active in 9-11 truth. If the truth movement is wanting to have any success whatsoever it needs to expose and distance itself from the hardcore conspiracy theorists or go down as just another fringe group of "nutty", "eccentric", "crazy", "weird", "wacky"...or whatever...choose your own term. Cult, is a word that seems appropriate to me in regards to these no planes conspiracy theories. I am not interested in being part of any cult. I'm not even interested in proving 9-11 was "an inside job". I am interested in the truth and historical facts. I again apologize for not being a conspiracy theorist. However there are lots of other avenues and "conspiracy hobbies" that can keep those that wear tin foil on their heads (and those that are not at that level). May I suggest UFOs, shape shifters, Lizzard people, and so on. I suggest "conspiracy theorists" find another "hobby" for this reason......

The biggest asset the Government has for operations like 9-11, the anthrax attacks, Kennedy getting his brains blown out THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, and so on, are CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. Because these conspiracy theorists become the LEADERS and most vocal proponents, and rational, sane, honest, reasonable, people are not keen on being labeled, and associated with conspiracy theorists. And it all simply becomes "Oh...that's just some weird conspiracy theory". 3000 people died on 9-11 and hundreds of thousands of others died because of it. The constitution has been shredded, and we have been lied to and manipulated. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Exposing the truth behind this event is more important than some retarded conspiracy theory.

Everything in this sorry ass show that Jesse Ventura was ALLOWED to air on TV has already been debunked. It's old boring and insulting. According to the TV show a missile hit the pentagon. Or if it wasn't a missile it was a bomb as a plane flew over. Well.....which is it? Not one person who was there(and there were lots) saw a missile or a plane flying over the pentagon. What they saw was a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. Because......ON 9-11 PLANES FLEW INTO BUILDINGS.

Book sales, and ratings equal money. Let's be honest. A good old fashioned conspiracy theory beats the truth every time as far as entertainment value goes. And entertainment value equals ratings, and ratings equal money.

They say it isn't the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. Well, want to see a 9-11 cover up? It's very obvious and it's very easy to prove.

"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying."

"In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset." {footnote number 197}

"2. Al-Bayoumi has been determined to have co-signed for hijackers Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar when they rented an apartment at
the Parkwood Apartments complex and to have sometimes paid rent for them." page 1/8

"One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power." page 226/858

After September 11, the FBI developed information clearly indicating that Bassnan is an extremist and a Bin Ladin supporter." page 229/858

"Then, last November, Newsweek reported that Princess Haifa, the wife of the long-time Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar, had over the course of a couple years sent $130,000 in charitable donations to the wives of al-Bayoumi and another San Diego-based Saudi friend of the San Diego hijackers, Osama Bassnan."

“Bayoumi should be in jail,” Baer told me by telephone this week. “He is much more connected to September 11th than Zacarias Moussaoui.”

“As a former intelligence officer, I focus on these governments,” Baer says. “It’s a classic operation where a government sets up front companies. How did Bassnan get on Princess Haifa’s charity list? He didn’t just show up and write her a letter. The Saudis check these people.”

"Sources close to the case told TIME that beginning in January 1999 monthly payments of $2,000 were made from Princess Haifa's checking account to Majida Dwaikat, wife of Osama Bassnan. A Saudi national, Bassnan was living in San Diego last year and has been linked to Omar al Bayoumi, a Saudi student who befriended two men who wound up helping crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The sources also say that the ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, gave $15,000 to Bassnan.",9171,1003790,00.html

"Government officials told U.S. News that Butler disclosed that he had been monitoring a flow of Saudi Arabian money that wound up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers. The two men had rented a room from a man Butler had used as a confidential informant, the sources say. According to officials familiar with his account, Butler said that he had alerted his superiors about the money flows but the warning went nowhere. "Butler is claiming ... that people [in the FBI] didn't follow up," says a congressional source. Adds another: "He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there."

"Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."

Want to see just how corrupt this Government is? While Bush's Buddy Bandar was funneling money to the 9-11 hijackers, and Agent Butler warned his supervisors and nothing was done Louis Freeh was the head of the FBI. He resigned in June 2001. He doesn't call Bandar a suspect. He calls him his client.....

"Freeh says that when the FBI investigated Riggs Bank accounts under the control of Prince Bandar, "...they exonerated our client, Prince Bandar and his family with respect to any money laundering or any terrorist financing, because you remember that was really the focus as to whether two individuals who were Saudis who had connections with two of the [9/11] hijackers were using any monies from those [Riggs Bank] accounts to finance it."

"It was very unusual. In the public statements what they said is they found there was no activity, in the accounts that showed any wrongdoing by my client or members of his family. It's an extraordinary conclusion to make. But the government found no money laundering and no evidence of any terrorist financing and absolved my client and his family, which is a very extraordinary result."

"FRONTLINE inquired to the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice about the "public statements" that "exonerated" Prince Bandar. The FBI responded saying it was unable to locate anything that matched what the former Director was referring to. Inquiries with the Department of Justice were met with instructions to contact the FBI. When asked to provide a copy of a statement or a private letter that may have been sent to him or his client, Mr. Freeh did not respond."

"Lehman recalled asking Bush about the news reports that checks for thousands of dollars written by the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, might have been funneled to two of the hijackers in San Diego. "He dodged the questions," said Lehman." page 344

"I answered every question they asked" --G Bush after meeting with 9-11 Commission (1:55 mark of following video)

"He dodged the questions," said Lehman. page 344

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The President has prevented the release to the American public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.
(2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States.
(3) The Administration's decision to classify this information prevents the American people from having access to information about the involvement of certain foreign governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

This is a cover up. This will never be "debunked". This is not a "conspiracy theory" I made up. You wont see this exposed on TV. Instead you will see No plane "conspiracy theories" put forth by J Fetzer, Jesse Ventura, and Morgan Reynolds on TV. Because Conspiracy theorists are the Governments best assets to keep their crimes and cover ups hidden.

Thanks for nothing Jesse, I guess you're to stupid to realize that by telling the world 9-11 truthers are nothing but No Planer conspiracy theorists you are actually helping them. You exposed nothing on this show but your ignorance.

I apologize once again for not being a conspiracy theorist.

Show "Conspiracy Analyst" by taylor mcknight

The flyover idea is absurd.

If anything, people would have been more likely to look toward the Pentagon from across the river. There is a major highway on the other side of the Pentagon from where it was hit, and beyond that, the Potomac River, and then more highways on the edge of Washington DC. There are several major bridges with full view of where the plane would have flown after passing over the Pentagon. It is absurd to think the plane could have flown over the Pentagon unnoticed!

"No one but the perpetrators have all the answers."

"No one but the perpetrators have all the answers."

Right- we don't have all the answers.

"Just because I don't know doesn't make my idea wrong or crazy."

Not knowing can drive people crazy- and it definitely drives people to wonder and speculate- which may be why evidence is still being suppressed, and why the truth movement is arguing about this while being portrayed and marginalized as conspiracy whackos- while 'incompetents' got raises, promotions, increased authority and budgets, while whistleblowers got threatened and punished, and while there hasn't been a substantive investigation with the power to actually get at the whole truth.

Promoting speculation as fact undermines the credibility of the truth movement. The public doesn't know, and we should; the govt should disclose, people should be held accountable, We the People have a right to truth and justice.

I put a bunch of links in my comment above that respond to your comments about the hole seeming too small, the seeming lack of wreckage, as well as plenty of witnesses to an AA 757 hitting the Pentagon- including CIT interviewed witnesses.

Venfura promoted speculation

as possibilities, however, not fact. Which led him to ask WHAT hit the Pentagon, among a list of possibilities-- at the show's end. Yes, the show is one-sided, and it is important to show the evidence supportive of the government story, too. But what gets us a new investigation? Showing how the official narrative is right, or showing how it is wrong? Contrary evidence, unanswered questions and outright lies... is what might wake people up enough to care and demand a new investigation.

In spite of 9+ years having passed.... and "Dancing with the Stars" on their TV sets.

We don't have all the answers. How do we get them?

1. By pointing out Rumsfeld's Sept 10 testimony about the missing 2.3 trillion and then showing where the Pentagon was impacted? Or by not pointing out this inconvenient fact?

2. By showing Mineta's testimony and how it contradicts Dick Cheney's account? Or not showing this to the public?

3. By analyzing FDR data to see if it contradicts or supports the official story? Or by ignoring the fact that the NTSB is releasing this?

4. By examining the hole in the C-ring to determine if it is consistent with damage from a plane's nose cone? Or by ignoring the hole in the C-ring because it is inconvenient to the government story?

5. By demanding the release of the 80+ surveillance videos or by keeping our mouths shut?

6. By seeing if Airline Captains can duplicate Hani Hanjour's alleged flight in the sim? Or by not pursuing this test?

7. By punting on the Pentagon? Or pointing out the issues which indicate an inside operation against a target that allowed the Bush Administration to call 9/11 an "act of war?"

"Contrary evidence, unanswered questions and outright lies"

"Yes, the show is one-sided, and it is important to show the evidence supportive of the government story, too. But what gets us a new investigation? Showing how the official narrative is right, or showing how it is wrong?"

Showing how it's wrong, of course. My point is, claiming it's wrong based on misinfo and speculation doesn't go anywhere towards proving the OCT is wrong, or getting a new investigation. Rather, promoting misinfo as fact, and speculating while ignoring relevant evidence undermines efforts to get the whole truth, and justice.

Re your list:

1) as Jon Gold has linked in this thread, the $2.3 trillion figure has been revised downward, and on Sept 10 Rumsfeld said, "According to some estimates." If the 9/11 truth movement hadn't been disrupted and distracted over the years by people pushing BS, we'd be further along towards getting real answers on the money and the timing of Rumsfeld's announcement. That the Pentagon was hit in the recently-reinforced and mostly empty section opposite the top brass is a freaking huge 'coincidence', especially in light of all the other 'coincidences'.

2) Yes, this raises serious questions, and everyone in the PEOC should testify in public under oath, in answer to real questions. However, Mineta saying there were people running out of the White House when he arrived raises questions about whether he actually arrived later than he thought- search his name at

3) The FDR data supports the official flight path- but there are legit concerns about tampering.

4) I wasn't aware the official account claims the C-ring hole was caused by the nose cone, which would've been destroyed on impact- it might've been caused by the nose wheel gear, or a wall breaching kit.

5) The FBI acknowledged having 85 videos, only two of which were surveillance videos. Definitely surprising if the Pentagon didn't have more cameras- they may have withheld them from the FBI, or FBI may be lying. Yes, demand the release of all evidence. Last week I appealed a FOIA denial for all records related to the Pentagon, which took them close to a year to finishing processing.

6) This would be interesting, possibly revealing, but may not be conclusive or admissible in court.

7) "Punting on the Pentagon?" Refraining from making unsupported claims, of course.

Other Pentagon issues:

Why was there no CAP over DC, after a summer of threat which included warnings about planes as missiles attacks on US cities, after years of such warning signs/intel, after the Pentagon had drilled for dealing w/ planes as weapons scenarios, and nearly an hour after the first WTC tower was hit?

Why weren't DCANG fighters scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit, even though a Secret Service agent had requested this? (see Shoestring article here at blogger)

Why were fighters from Langley sent over the ocean and then after a phantom AA 11?

Why wasn't the NMCC involved in ANY of the scramble orders prior to the end of the attacks?

Did the Pentagon have anti-aircraft guns; why weren't they used?

Why did Rumsfeld change air defense procedures June 01 to require him being in the loop if lethal force would be needed?

Why was he out of the loop that morning and doing nothing?

Why did JCS acting Chairman Myers go into a meeting w/ Cleland after a summer of threat and being informed a plane hit the WTC?

The TV is labeling us as Conspiracy Theorists

taylor mcknight said..."Did you watch the show?"

Yea, I did watch it which is how I know that "our" expert witness at the 11:30 mark doesn't know what he's talking about.
Just a few months ago this guy admitted to knowing almost nothing about what happened at the pentagon....
31:25 mark....

Question: "I don't know if you've looked into the pentagon at all?"
NASA Conspiracy theorist: "I have not...uh..very little."

Now he's on TV as our "expert" explaining how everyone was "fooled" as the plane few over the pentagon. I find that to be pretty strange. It's BS, and he's not an expert on what happened at the pentagon and his retarded conspiracy theory in no way represents me or anyone else but a few Conspiracy Theorists.

taylor mcknight said.... "Who saw a plane hit the building?"
The people that were there. Maybe you should start thinking for yourself and do some research instead of believing things you see in "kewl" videos.....

Here's one....and notice that "pretty" lawn.....

Here is another witness interviewed less than 45 minutes after it happened, there are lots more just like her. How many do I need to post before you believe it?

Another witness, think he would have seen a "fly over"?

taylor mcknight said..."Just because no one saw a plane fly over doesn't mean it didn't."

Yes, actually that is what it means. The reason no one saw it fly over was because they watched it fly into it. Will you even admit that if everyone saw the plane fly into it, and it actually did fly into it, then no one would see it fly over? Will you even admit that?


It was poorly worded when I said this...."I guess you're to stupid to realize that by telling the world 9-11 truthers are nothing but No Planer conspiracy theorists you are actually helping them."

Jesse obviously is not "stupid" and I should have phrased this better. I don't think he is stupid, in fact I like Jesse Ventura and respect him. Which is why it is such a disappointment watching him play into the hands of the MSM as they control the 9-11 truth message. Is he willing to sacrifice credibility for ratings and TV exposure? I would have thought the research would have been better before presenting this show before a television audience, but IMO he is caught up in his "conspiracy theories"

22:32 mark "The only bodies found at the scene were pentagon employees" ....

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."

So no plane at the pentagon, maybe Jesse could do a program about the alleged plane crash in Shanksville. I think he will find no plane there either. So if there were no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, then how sure can we be that there really were planes at the WTC? Since we know the families were fooled with voice morphing technology, and the pentagon witnesses were fooled as well, could we have been fooled with video manipulation?

And that is how you get a "no planes on 9-11" conspiracy theory, that television would be happy to assist us with.

I like Jesse Ventura and am disappointed he seems to be letting the MSM and his conspiracy leanings manipulate him. On 9-11 planes flew into buildings. The evidence is overwhelming.

On Censorship


Who are these ridiculous actors/team members?

Daniel David Kucan is an interior designer and television personality.

June Sarpong is an old MTV UK & Ireland presenter.

All that terrible mugging at the camera and acting as if there's some kind of debate between these people?

Half the time i can't tell the difference between the upcoming promo for the next segment and the actual segment.

plane at pentagon

I know I don't know what happened at the Pentagon....Nothing has convinced me of anything.

I assume most everyone has seen this, but I don't see it in discussion so I want to make sure.

The "mystery" plane at the Pentagon is what is seen at 1:55 in the video below. At :10 seconds in, when the video actually begins you see the top of the explosion cloud. It is still formed and growing, I can only assume that the explsion happened within a minute of the tape being started as is said in the video's info. That would put this "mystery plane" at the Pentagon within 3 minutes of the explosion at the Pentagon.


Is this the C-130 or E4b, or something else?

That plane is no mystery

It's a C-130, see here,

The link is

The link is broken, please relink.

Thank you.

My bad

It is all so interesting...

From the History Commons (Your link) Page on C-130:

"The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O’Brien, will later be interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He will claim that just before the explosion, “With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out,” implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, “I could see the outline of the Pentagon,” again implying he is not nearby. He then asks “the controller whether [I] should set up a low orbit around the building,” but he is told “to get out of the area as quickly as possible.” He will add, “I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] "

Thanks for the link by the way.

I don't see any discrepancy in the accounts

It seems to me that the C-130 flew over the top just shortly after impact, like both O'Brien and the witnesses on the ground said, and like the video you linked shows. At least assuming the jet that hit the Pentagon did a loop around first like the FDR data shows, then O'Brien would've been fairly far behind until just before impact, and after that the smoke surely obscured much of the Pentagon from his view.

No major discrepencies.

But the fact that he was told to get out of there ASAP I find interesting. If we were just attacked at the WTC, then the Pentagon and a military plane was in the area, why order it awy?

In the least the pilot could act as eyes for the military/faa/flight controllers.....the transponders were off afterall.

Yes, the view from the C-130 was most likely not an easy one with morning fogs, smoke, and other variables.

C130 pilot speaks

Nor Cal Truth said..."In the least the pilot could act as eyes for the military/faa/flight controllers.....the transponders were off afterall."

That is exactly what happened.

Meet the c 130 pilot-and watch as the television happily showcases another of our no planer leaders....

Yes Jimd

I know.

That is the reason why the C-130 was visible to people.

I don't think you are following me. And I am not arguing no planes bro.

This is what I was referring to:

He then asks “the controller whether [I] should set up a low orbit around the building,” but he is told “to get out of the area as quickly as possible.

I find it weird that he was ordered away, that's all. I hope you see what I am saying.

Obviously he thought he should set up a "low earth orbit", and I would think the same.



You are arguing no planes. You don't believe the plane parts are plane parts. (Which is, of course, your problem, not ours) Why backpedal now?

To be exact...


"No Planes" have never exited the lips on my mouth, or text in my type. Get it straight please.

"No Plane" just the same. I find certain things interesting enough about the Pentagon to not be sure, as sure as I am about the demolition of WTC 7 for example.

I am being completely rational so don't get all "...Which is, of course, your problem, not ours..." on me.

Where is your integrity?

I think that the pieces of metal are extremely shiny for what they have been through. Call that what you will.

And I will only go to my /first comment to reinforce how I feel about the Pentagon:

"I know I don't know what happened at the Pentagon"

"All the answers on Blogger" have not convinced me one way, or the other. Though maybe thats my problem, not ours, or yours, or whatever.

Why waste your time on such silly comments as yours snowcrash? - now I have to defend myself from your, and others, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of how I feel, and what I have said.

Please don't make this the last time I say thanks (like I always have)


No thanks

There is no doubt what you mean. Or did you mean they planted fake plane parts in addition to a plane crashing there? Just asking questions, right? "Shiny" means absolutely nothing. Those are plane parts, from the plane that crashed there. See? It's very easy.



Agree to disagree. Or...

Imply or speculate further as much as you want about what I am asking, or saying. Here you go:

The plane parts are shiny for travelling hundreds of miles per hour into a concrete re-inforced wall with enough momentum to travel through 3 rings of the pentagon and subsequent explosionous fireball that shot the debris backwards from its gained momentum.

Am I to understand that some here, if we get a new investigation into 9/11, would refuse the attempt to have the Pentagon incident investigated?


"The plane parts are shiny for travelling hundreds of miles per hour into a concrete re-inforced wall with enough momentum to travel through 3 rings of the pentagon and subsequent explosionous fireball that shot the debris backwards from its gained momentum."

You say this in a mocking tone, which makes your intention perfectly clear. First, you say the plane traveled through 3 rings of the Pentagon. No matter your intent, this suggests to the reader that the plane had to pass through multiple walls. This is incorrect, there were just two walls and a grid of spirally reinforced columns.

Pentagon architecture

The lightwells between E & D and D & C don't extend to the ground.

Then, you assert that the fireball "shot the debris backwards". There is, of course, a hidden premise in your argument: that all plane parts must have been visibly singed by the fireball. Moreover, you neglect to mention that AA 77 hit the Pentagon (according to ASCE) at a 42° angle to the wall from the southwest. I think the angle might have been slightly different, but this is inconsequential. The effect of the plane hitting the wall at this angle caused significant debris to be hurled towards the north, and some ended up near the helicopter tower.

Some of it may have smacked into the facade and bounced off. The distance such reflected debris could have traveled by collision energy alone is unknown: I'm not aware of any calculations. Are you? How does it work with bullet fragments? When mass increases? Elasticity of the collision?

Then, some of it may have been propelled backwards by the fireball, and some of it may been put into motion by a combined action of both. All of this happened in a fraction of a second. A fuel/air explosion creates a shock wave. This is the pushing action, and it means that not all debris necessarily came into contact with the fireball. Even if such debris came into contact with the fireball, it would have been extremely brief (again, a fraction of a second) and I'm not sure what kind of quick singing/sooting mechanism you have in mind then.

So, you have no calculations, no experimental data, you appear to misunderstand the Pentagon's architecture, yet you speak about 'shiny' plane parts hurled backwards in a mocking tone, supposedly bolstered by your 'intuitive physics'. Yet, as I've shown, there is no basis whatsoever for your mockery.

Not only are you attempting to falsify on the basis of flawed intuition, you don't verify: there are no witness statements of plane part fabrication or planting, and there is no physical evidence of plane part fakery. This is the difference between falsification and verification.

Here is a plane part from another plane crash, in Iran:

pentagon,plane crashes,9/11

Looks shiny. According to your logic, it must be fake. So, to come to your final question:

"Am I to understand that some here, if we get a new investigation into 9/11, would refuse the attempt to have the Pentagon incident investigated?"

I support a new investigation into 9/11, but as far as the Pentagon goes, it's going to show an American Airlines jet, probably AA 77, crashed there. I know this because I've done hours and hours and hours of investigating on my own, and plenty of information is available to the public now. The answers are there, for those bothering to look. Unless, of course, one chooses to believe abject nonsense from apocryphal sources, such as Jesse Ventura's 'Conspiracy Theory'.

In the mean time, if you think the plane parts are fake, say so, don't hide behind mockery and rhetorical questions, then come back and say you're not advocating no plane theories.

I've had so many discussions on the Pentagon, and here I am, still addressing the same claims dressed up as 'questions'. JV's conspiracy porn is one of the reasons why.


I appreciate your attempt, and indeed you point out some important factors to the equation.

For example how many walls there were, the potential angles of the plane...sorry but it's not enough to make me sign my letter of approval for the OCT of the Pentagon.

But again, I know I don't know. You obviously know you know. I am not you.

The picture of the Iranian plane part you point out is somewhat pointless without context. Did this plane slam into concrete re-enforced walls and explode upon impact at a 42 +/- angle at high speeds to ripped off and thrown by a massive fireball/explosion?

Because if it just crashed into the ground there are plenty of opportunities of the plane ripping apart before the explosion engulfes and blackens the metal, leaving it shiny.

Plane wing material that had potentially ripped off from the plane during the famous pole damage would not have the "AMERICAN" on it so commonly refferenced by many here. So That piece is from the hull, which crashed hundreds of miles per hour into a concrete wall subsequently exploding and making a large, hot fireball. The metal, aluminium, I would assume should be darkened and illegible.

But ultimately you are right, this is intuitive physics. Much like watching buildings on 9/11 turn to dust and being suspicious before "scientists" work calculations.

I have been polite, don't turn this around. Remember what you have put into this very thread:

"(Which is, of course, your problem, not ours)"
"Why backpedal now?"
"If you believe AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, you are wrong. "

In which I have asked where is your integrity?


Emergency service authorities have reported the plane was destroyed and shattered into pieces and the wreckage was in flames.

ABC News Australia — 150 feared dead in Iran plane crash

Before crashing, the plane's tail was on fire as it circled in the air, one witness told The Associated Press.

"Then, I saw the plane crashing nose-down. It hit the ground causing a big explosion. The impact shook the ground like an earthquake. Then, plane pieces were scattered all over the agricultural fields," Ali Akbar Hashemi, a 23-year-old who was laying gas pipes in a nearby home, told AP by phone.

The impact blasted a deep trench in the dirt field, which was littered with smoking wreckage, body parts and personal items from the Tupolev jet, according to photos from the scene. Firefighters put out the flaming wreckage, which officials said was strewn over a 200 yard area. A large chunk of a wing was visible in footage of the scene, but much of the wreckage appeared to be in small shreds.

CBS News — 168 Killed in Iran Plane Crash

"It's a major disaster with pieces of aircraft spread over an area of 200 sq m," a fire brigade official told state television. "There was an explosion which left an indentation 10 metres deep in the ground. There was nothing we could do. We tried to put out the fire as best we could."


"Unfortunately the plane caught fire in the air and it crashed ... different small parts of this plane can be seen on the ground," Reuters reported, quoting Fars.


Television footage showed a smouldering crater strewn with mangled wreckage, with a large piece of wing lying in farmland. Most of the wreckage appeared to be in small pieces and included clothes, shoes and identity papers.

There were differing eyewitness accounts of what happened. One said: "I was about 300 metres away. The plane fell from the sky and exploded on impact." But another told the ISNA news agency that the plane's tail burst into flames and the plane circled in the air as if looking for a place to land before it crashed.

The Guardian — 168 feared dead in Iran plane crash

Images of the crash site show a smoldering crater scattered with charred pieces of the plane and tattered passports.

Ten members of the country's youth judo team were aboard the Caspian Airlines plane, said several sources, including Iran's Press TV. The government-backed network said the dead included eight athletes and two coaches.

The plane "disintegrated into pieces," said Col. Masood Jafari Nasab, security commander of Qazvin, the city nearest to the crash site in northwestern Iran.

"The aircraft all of a sudden fell out of the sky and exploded on impact, where you see the crater," a witness told Press TV from the crash site.


Pictures from the scene were "consistent with a high-speed impact," [Aviation analyst Kieran Daly] said. But he added that there could be large debris not seen on television, and that could change his analysis.

CNN — Crashed Iranian airliner 'disintegrated into pieces'

A Russian-built Iranian passenger plane bound for Armenia from Tehran crashed and exploded in a fuel-laden fireball minutes after takeoff early Wednesday.


Witnesses quoted by Press TV and other Iranian news agencies said that the tail and at least one of the tail engines were on fire as the plane plummeted, and that it exploded in flames on impact, creating a crater 30 feet deep and scattering body parts and wreckage.

NY Times — Plane Crash Leaves 168 Dead in Iran

As for your other criticisms about lack of singeing, I already explained very clearly why they do not hold. There is no need to repeat those arguments.

"The metal, aluminium, I would assume should be darkened and illegible."

You assume too much.

"But ultimately you are right, this is intuitive physics. Much like watching buildings on 9/11 turn to dust and being suspicious before "scientists" work calculations."

In the case of the twin towers, the 9/11 Truth Movement has verification in the form of physical evidence, video evidence and witness testimony. There is no comparison. Moreover, even that issue hasn't been elucidated completely yet. Physics isn't intuitive, the success of physics lessons depend upon convincing students not to trust their intuition anymore. 'Intuitive physics' is the primary culprit for the various no plane theories and assorted physics blunders. Take for example "aluminum cannot penetrate steel" and "freefall speed".

"In which I have asked where is your integrity?"

It's right here, setting you straight about the Pentagon. I have now done more than enough of your homework, and I will not allow you to continue the burden of proof reversal, where I have to provide evidence to satisfy your incredulity. On the contrary: it is your job to provide evidence of plane part fakery, and you have failed to do so.

Where are your experiments? Where is your data? Calculations? Where are the flyover witnesses? Where are the plane part fabrication whistleblowers?

Your evidence... where is it?

Snowcrash- I don't want to


I don't want to waste your time, nor mine.

Thanks for the context on the plane crash, obviously the plane was on fire and/or smoking. It is however still far different from the Pentagon dynamics. Your efforts are noted though, and appreciated.

You ask:

"Your evidence... where is it?"

I have not CLAIMED anything to be sure! Thats what you are doing, and trying your darndest to prove, again it is appreciated.

But all I have said is I'm not sure, and "I know I don't know what hit the pentagon."

I want an investigation, and I think it is fully plausible that a plane DID hit the Pentagon.

Won't it be great telling everybody "I said so"? Until then...



You said rather sarcastically, and I quote:

3)The photos of airplane parts are really not convincing me of anything. They are so shiny! WOW, I could only hope for such clean metals after a 400 mile an hour crash/explosion in the pentagon. All of these pieces could have been placed in an area near a bomb to have "pieces" of a plane thrown about. The lack of more large pieces is still notable, however planes were flown at high speeds in order to penetrate throught he WTC, perhaps the same happened here - except that we saw a impact zone of many stories at the WTC. The Pentagon impact hole was only 1.5 stories tall....too small if you ask me.


The reason these theories exist is because those who should be able to answer our questions, REFUSE TO DO SO.

It's true, these theories exist because those Pentagon questions aren't being answered by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Instead, we claim we "do not know" what happened at the Pentagon. This is the official 9/11 Truth Doctrine, and, in my opinion, the primary reason why we are where we are.

I will try to answer these questions, but simultaneously, I ask that those who have an alternative theory start relying on verification instead of falsification, then filling in the gaps with 'could have' scenarios. Let's take, for example, DRG's voice morphing theory. It 'could have' happened, but then again, if you accept that as plausible or probable, then so is coercion at gunpoint or Victoria Hoffman's cellphone repeater hypothesis. You see, 'could have' merely establishes feasibility, not actuality, unless direct evidence emerges. These subtle logical differences are crucial.

If seatback phones were installed in AA 77, then high altitude phone calls 'could have' occurred, and the entire argument is moot, and I think it is, although I acknowledge that high altitude cellphone calls were practically impossible on 9/11.

Yes, I remember. Even in that

Yes, I remember.

Even in that paragraph I say that a plane could potentially have hit the pentagon.

And I stated why I doubt it happened.

That doubt is a doubt. I am not saying no plane, no doubt.

I am simply saying doubts exist, and explaining just some of those doubts.

You are saying Plane, No doubt.

You have put yourself into a position of no doubt.

I am not there.

That's correct

I do not doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon just as I do not doubt planes hit the WTC.

Come to think of it, considering there were actually people who believed no planes hit the WTC, or that the WTC was hit by missiles cloaked in holograms, it's pretty much a given that a large group of people will be catastrophically wrong about the Pentagon as well.

The primary reason for this is that there are no impact videos. And the primary reason there are so many impact videos for the South Tower is because the first attack on the North Tower focused all eyes on the WTC.

So..Yes, I have abandoned my position of agnosticism about the Pentagon attack. In fact, I don't quite understand how I could ever have believed anything else in the first place. Oh wait.. I do... I was misled by a sensationalist documentary in 2004, called "In Plane Site". It might have alerted me to 9/11 Truth, but for all the wrong reasons.

Now we have another sensationalist documentary series, catching people's attention, but infecting their brains with ridiculous nonsense before possibly sending them here, where we have to do a long process of disinfecting and re-education, this time based on the scientific method, books, historiography, logic, journalistic standards, etc etc. In short: we tell these people: you're new; do your homework before you start spouting off.

So no, JV's "Conspiracy Theory" is not a "net plus" as some have said. It's a strategic BURDEN.

That said, I'm not here to force anything, and you are well entitled to your opinion, but I am here to speak up and speak out when I see lies being told about the Pentagon (For example, the claim in the documentary that no plane passengers were recovered from the site), and 9/11 research corrupted and perverted for mass entertainment. The 'questions' about the Pentagon can and will be addressed.

This is a topic of which I know a little, and I feel obliged to share what I know in these circumstances. So with that, Nor Cal Truth, I will extend my hand to you, and we can go our ways.


I said there were no impact videos of the Pentagon, but what I meant was there are no impact videos comparable to the impact videos of WTC 2. The Pentagon impact video shows an impact, but the quality of the security camera and the frame rate leaves many people unconvinced, even though the outline of a tail section can be seen in it. Of course, since the impact video would have shown a 'flyover', it follows that it must be fake, just like the CITGO video, showing a shadow of AA 77 coming across on the south side, and various other things CIT's not happy with. And.. the FDR data 'proving' the plane flew too high was not only incorrectly converted, the FDR was found at the Pentagon, ergo it cannot support 'flyover', which is why CIT avoids it like the plague.

It goes on and on.

Thank you. The hand is

Thank you.

The hand is extended back.

I appreciate all your in-depth research Snowcrash, it is becacause of you and a couple of others whom I respect that I have become ever-more convinced that AA77 did hit the Pentagon. (As stated, I'm just not as sure as you) Please know that.....

And in this spirit, keep up the good work.

I look forward to knowing more in the future, and in the present.

My name is Brian, by the way.


Well done, gentleman

You stayed with it and came to an amicable understanding.

(yes, it CAN be done if people choose to!)

Thanks for making my day! (along with an email I just read, too)

[Who knows...I might even find a way to put the two of together (in a way) on this Pentagon project I am working on]

Cheers to both of you!


Hey Nor Cal Truth and others

Please read through this link before reposting any more ideas that continue to be debunked and discredited. No one is saying it's wrong that you haven't looked into it enough yet, nor that it was wrong of you to ask. It's just as far as the points you keep re-iterating (which btw SnowCrash has to keep repeating the same logical points which you 'just can't accept cause you are different' or something), they have been refuted. Believe it or not, the negative voting and SnowCrash taking time to correct you is for YOUR benefit Nor Cal. If you enjoy theorizing about the pentagon in highly speculative ways, well good for you, but it's a waste of our time unless you can prove your theory (and if your theory is un-original or a re-posted, there is nothing wrong with noting it as such). Why keep repeating some 'out' 'imaginary' idea of 'what might have possibly maybe happened'. If keep putting forward your 'maybe' theory with no facts, and subsequently your 'maybe' theory gets refuted with facts, then get over it. Sure it was a theory that was maybe possible, just turns out it's not true. That's ok Nor Cal. It's a mistake we have all made in the past. Get over it and move on.

Jessie has made some gross errors here, which in many cases will be considered quite offensive to most American's. He deserves to be called out on it.



c 130 orders

Nor Cal Truth said "I find it weird that he was ordered away, that's all. I hope you see what I am saying. "

I wasn't accusing you of anything far as the 9-11 truth no plane was the MSM I was accusing. I wasn't aware he was given that order, but there really wasn't much he can do being an unarmed old slow c 130. It's just speculation but they might have thought for his own good to go ahead and leave not knowing WTF is going on other than we are under attack and he is unarmed in a low flying slow c130. Eventually fighter jets are going to have to show up, and it might be best for him to get the _____ out of there.

Very dissapointing

While I expected the flyover nonsense, I was shocked to see they cropped the security camera video shown at 13:40, cutting out the plane in the one frame that shows it, and then claimed our government hasn't shown any footage of the plane. The only notably good thing in the whole program is at the very end, where the 9/11 commission staff member proclaims ignorance of Rumsfeld's 9/10 announcement of the missing 2.3T, and admits that "it's always about protecting the institution in the end."

This post proves NOTHING is being censored here

Thank you for not front-paging this embarrassment disguised as news about 9/11. Also, it's a good time to point out that 9/11 Blogger IS NOT CENSORING this information since the video is right there to click on and watch now isn't it? Not promoting something to the front-page is not censorship! If a big fat jolly red-faced man shows up on Christmas to tell you it is, he is LYING to you.

You are right

there are just "free speech zones" and intimidating snowsoldiers.


$2.3 Trillion number is inaccurate as I showed in 2007, and yet, this information is ignored by the majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Missing money is still a problem obviously, but I doubt it had anything to do with where or why the Pentagon was hit.

Here is something I wrote about the Pentagon. Did Jesse cover any of that? No?

The other day, I noticed that Rob Balsamo was posting on Anthony Shaffer's wall on Facebook. Tony posted this new story from Peter Lance that was published in Playboy (haven't seen this on blogger, or the fact that Tony is now suing the Pentagon, but what can ya do?) Here's an example of how you interact with people vs. how you don't interact with people.

Good Example:

Jon Gold: Tony... while you were serving in Afghanistan, were you aware of the allegations of the ISI's involvement in 9/11?

Anthony Shaffer: No.

Jon Gold: Thanks.

This was relevant to Tony because as he says, he did not trust the CIA's relationship with the ISI.

Bad Example:

Rob Balsamo: Anthony - When will 9/11 be covered and the fact that the aircraft reported on 9/11 are impossible to achieve such speeds unless modified?

Rob Balsamo: Anthony - Why does the data provided by the National Transpiration Safety Board not add up to an impact at the Pentagon? Why do numerous witnesses including Pentagon Police Officers place the aircraft opposite the physical damage path? They bet their life on it. We have it on camera. Why is this information never covered on Fox News?

Rob Balsamo: Anthony - Why does the FBI and NTSB refuse to positively identify the aircraft wreckage from 9/11?

Rob Balsamo: Anthony - "Private War" is 100% correct. Unfortunately, this war was declared many decades ago. You're just waking up to it, as I have..

These questions are not relevant to Anthony Shaffer. There is no reason in the world to expect that Tony would be able to answer these questions, so why ask them of him? Why ask them of him in an aggressive, spamming fashion? Tony did not respond to him. This is also not the first time Balsamo was peddling his "information" on Tony's wall.

Putting aside all of the information pertaining to the Pentagon, and the fact that theories like Flight 77 didn't hit and instead was an A-3 Sky Warrior/a Global Hawk/a missile, or that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon have been used against this cause relentlessly over the years, the individuals that promote them are assholes. Every single one of them. They don't benefit this cause in any way, shape, or form. What have they done for the families? What have they done for the responders?

Judge a group or person by the fruits of their labor. That is the bottom line.

good stuff

and good work with the 2.3trillion
i hate it when we can be easily debunked!

The fact that...

Jesse has followed the "formula" and has covered the two designated issues of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the media tells me not to trust him at all.

On a different note, this is a fantastic video...

excellent vid


I had not noticed..

that the 2.3 trillion dollars was recalculated. Good, hopefully they are not ying. Thanks for mentioning that.

However the 4 contradictions in the Pentagon piece you wrote dont jive for me...why?

1)Passports/IDs were found at all the wreckage, no matter how unplausible the reality of that happening was. Can't trust that. Red Bandana anyone?
2)DNA evidence, again, no matter how unplausible. Please show me a body strapped to an AA seat in the Pentagon. All photos of Pentagon bodies appear to be Pentagon employees to me.
3)The photos of airplane parts are really not convincing me of anything. They are so shiny! WOW, I could only hope for such clean metals after a 400 mile an hour crash/explosion in the pentagon. All of these pieces could have been placed in an area near a bomb to have "pieces" of a plane thrown about. The lack of more large pieces is still notable, however planes were flown at high speeds in order to penetrate throught he WTC, perhaps the same happened here - except that we saw a impact zone of many stories at the WTC. The Pentagon impact hole was only 1.5 stories tall....too small if you ask me.
4)There are probably more books that peddle the OCT than books that question it. That wont sell me - people say all sorts of lies, mistakes, misperceptions, and stuff they have been told to say contrary to their experiances.

As you said JG:
The reason these theories exist is because those who should be able to answer our questions, REFUSE TO DO SO.


Do you really think...

That I'm going to get into another debate about the Pentagon? Sorry, no.

I'm thinking of planning an action identical to the one the Vets just did at the Pentagon, but for 9/11 Justice. The idea will not be that we are asking for a new investigation because I don't want Washington D.C. to investigate the attacks, but instead, will just be a statement that says "we were lied to about 9/11, and there needs to be truth and accountability."

Look for information about it.


I don't care what you do, nor do I think or expect it. Thanks.

Just using that stuff called...speech.


I had a little nice FB conversation with him, on the same day, after this:

I think I do not need to comment this!

I don't know why I came here tonight

I got a feeling something ain't right...

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Show "Something rotten in the cotton " by Randy

There is no censorship

You are commenting on a posted thread.

If you believe AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, you are wrong.

Show "nope" by Randy

I guess you're to stupid.

I think you meant to say "too stupid".

The ire that is raised by approaching the Pentagon topic is palpable. I watched this program. I would have done it differently, but overall, I think it is a net plus for the movement. I agree with Mr. McGee that this is a topic to be explored and addressed. Just because I am not convinced about alternative theories does not mean that I will default to the official story. I know that the official stories have been wrong for so many things surrounding 911 that I don't think it is wise to endorse the official story based on that fact alone. I will stay skeptical.

The knee-jerk negative votes seem to have more to do with bad blood from past personal attacks than with the Pentagon story itself. That is the rift that caused two opposing factions to start their own separate websites. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but I don't believe the official story.

I think Jesse Ventura is an honest guy. Sure, he is making money doing this show. That does not mean that he isn't being honest. I agree that he put forth some obsolete information, but I don't think he is knowingly being deceitful. Unfortunately, you play with the players you have, rather than the players you would like to have. Jessie is imperfect, but I think he is still an asset to the movement.

I think we all know who the "anonymous" negative voters are.

It just makes me want to say, fuck this.

How to save YouTube videos before they disappear, for Free

This video is up now, but controversial videos sometimes are "removed". The full length version of Jesse's previous show on 9/11 has disappeared.

Here is how to download videos, using a great Free utility. (10.4 MB).

You can also locate the Flash video in your Windows Internet Temporary Files in the Content.IE5 folder. It is called something like "videoplayback[1].flv" on your hard disk. You can then rename it.

If you have any questions here are tips.

Downloading Flash Video

Add-ons for Firefox -> Extensions -> Video DownloadHelper (0.55 MB)

RTMP streams, of course, require additional effort.

(Afaik, Youtube doesn't do RTMP at this point, so the first link will suffice.)

For playback, I recommend, VLC.

I'm sorry, but 9/11 as entertainment just doesn't work for me

As I said a little over one year ago :

As for the program in general, I don't think it helps the truth movement much and may actually be a net negative in some ways. The general tone of the program, the production values, the "investigative staff" on the show and Gov. Ventura's persona will strike many as cheesy and not credible. I think the only people that will be encouraged to look further into the events of 9/11/01 by this program will be the very few fans of Gov. Ventura who have not already done so.

Sadly, this latest program on the Pentagon only reinforces my opinion.

To those who are choosing to use this program, and the Pentagon issue itself, as a wedge issue within the 9/11 truth movement, is it really worth your time and energy to try and divide the movement ( and thus slow down our progress) for this issue?

Whether by design or coincidence, this show plays right into the perps desire to divide and neutralize the 9/11 truth movement.

Without a thorough and transparent investigation (with full subpoena power) we can't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon, so why not work together to get said investigation and actually determine what really happened?

Hopefully, someone can sit down with Gov. Ventura and explore his thinking on this.

Let's keep educating the public with our most credible evidence, brothers and sisters, and leave the entertaining to others.

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

Indeed -

LeftWright said:

"Without a thorough and transparent investigation (with full subpoena power) we can't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon, so why not work together to get said investigation and actually determine what really happened?"

I completely agree, and would add that nothing should have hit the Pentagon - another point that is lost sometimes. (Though I assume most here know that and agree)

However LW, I still am friends with many people who are not so, well....not in the movement - And they are definately intrigued by Jesse Ventura and the show. Many of these people are starting conversations with me with a "Jesse Ventura and his show...." - though I am sure that will swing both ways for different people.

The show plays into typical Television setups, with cheesy music, acting, scenes and other not-so-intillectually- stimulating aspects. I know many of us here don't watch TV, I havn't owned one for over a decade, so to me it is all crazy too. But to those that are still "in the matrix" of television living, this may suit their style. I assume Jesse Ventura is not editing the show, it's TV professionals....

Anyhow, lets all keep together, and be willing to help each other out.


I agree with you and LW on that.

I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. We need a new investigation.

I still believe there is misappropriated anger here. It is frustrating.

It is a conditioned response to the subject.

"We need a new investigation."

...and as the number of people doubting the "OFFICIAL STORY" grows by any means, the closer we get.

It matters little that a theory may be proved wrong via sworn testimony, subpoenas, etc.
What matters as far as the general population goes is that they DOUBT and begin their own research, start talking, and demand a real investigation.

..forest for the trees...

True -- That is the first step

Over the years, I have personally disseminated to thousands of people.
Along the way, I have run into hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks who already knew that the official story was wrong.
Many of these people did not have all the details of the facts correct by memory, but they had formed a conclusion that the official story was bogus.
This is the first step.
They got the key concept.
I do not try to correct people on the fine details, but rather I encourage them to help get the word out and to "learn what else has been recently discovered", that there is a lot new information.

The odd Pentagon scenario is an entrance point for many...
Many of the folks whom I have run into on the street, cite the Pentagon scenario as their bailiwick or zone of interest. They may not have all the facts straight, just like many on the street do not have all the facts straight about the World Trade Center demolitions.

The Pentagon is not my bailiwick.
In fact, on 911blogger I usually avoid any comment concerning the Pentagon because the subject gets some people riled up.
Personally, I am glad to see the subject of 9/11 hit the TV. TruTV has also been repeating the first 9/11 program which Jesse did.

Acidic vitriol - Unfriendly atmosphere

I agree... ROBinDALLAS said: "I still believe there is misappropriated anger here. It is frustrating."

The Truth can be completely wrong when it is not relayed with a caring affinity.
Every intellectual fact and detail could be exactly correct, but the Truth would become a tarnished perversion if it was conveyed in an argumentative, vitriolic fashion.

I like a friendly atmosphere.
I like being around people who have manners, tolerance, and who strive to understand what another person is saying.

While disinformation can hurt The Truth Movement, other aspects can also hurt the movement.
Acidic, strained, disparaging, unfriendliness destroys the channel of communication.

Well said, agreed

and thank you.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Holiday cheers!

Fair enough, LW

This type of program certainly does not work for studious intellectual types like yourself.... but it might get Joe 6-pack to start asking questions and looking at BETTER information.

After all, David Ray Griffin has been criticized on several fronts, but would anyone say that he hasn't been a huge NET PLUS for the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Loose Change V. 2 has some flaws. But would you say that it hasn't been a huge NET PLUS for 9/11 Truth? Indeed it was LC 2 and "The New Pearl Harbor" that really got me involved back in 2006. I know of many others who would say the same thing.

It is the investigation itself that will be the final arbiter of the facts. But we must get people doubting the OCT first to get there. It's called outreach. MOMENTUM.

Show "This is a perfect example" by Dave Nehring

Compromised? Blatant suppression and censorship?

An embarrassment? These are very extreme claims with no backing. Do you work for the Rock Creek Free Press ? You sound exactly like that article. And wait, over the exact same issue! The pentagon. As if blogger hasn't devoted pages and pages of front page attention to an issue which has long been covered and explained. Just look it up. If you are new to blogger. I understand how you may be surprised as to how this article was presented. It's simply because you haven't seen how much this subject has already been covered. You need to dig far deeper into blogger before you leap to such baseless accusations. I'm thankful that blogger makes quality choices as to the the diverse and quality range of what material is presented. If you are new to 9/11 truth, I can empathize with you for getting upset if some ideas you have clung happen to have been discredited (in this case, some time ago). Please stick with the facts and we can find a common ground.

What an embarrassment!

How can you even stand yourself for being associated with such a wretched hive of villainous scum?



try to contact prof jones for an opinion on whether or not this site is compromised
he posts here
r gage reads this site too

when i first came here i thought it was possibly compromised but i didnt claim it as i wasnt sure- that would have been a stab in the dark

i noticed at that time there was a blogger who never ever had written "9/11" in his/her blogs and a lot of people who were very tough on others

well that dubious blogger hardly ever blogs here now and i've taken the trouble to find out who the mods are

i strongly advise you to watch snowcrash very closely- i agree with snowc on 99.9%

i am a london uk private cab driver who has helped out the TM a bit- hi by the way!

i've been fortunate enough to drive:

Richad gage, DRG, cynthia mckinney, senator gravel (who used to be a NYC taxi driver it turns out!) and i have met annie machon, ian henshall, willie rodriguez and seen a presentation by Niels harrit

my first street action was on my own in speakers corner, hyde park london uk and my first linking with others in the tm was gareth and the WAC london people and i've also met and helped out the people 3 times

wait a while- observe snowcrash though your scope before you squeeze the trigger

if you observe closely i guarantee you wont want to dis this site

though the peeps here are maybe not overly cordial to those who disagree strongly with them, i would point out that their research is sound

i advise to ignore the emotion eg vehment opinion of a person contained in comments and just look at the research they link to and cite

please forgive them if they're passionate- i know you are too but in many cases the 911blogger mods and regular posters rightly contradict others in the TM

other well-meaning and respected people- i too believed strongly in flyover (i was well meaning but not respected- im not a TM luminary!!)

unfortuately in a well designed psyop such as 9/11 i think there can be a certain amount of disinfo to muddy the waters and discredit investigations
i think that has been achieved by limiting the release of pentagon evidence- fertile ground for spurious claims especially when everyone in the TM is already knowing that 9/11 is bogus, and would not trust the official line even if it was truthful...

that's the ideal result for the perps of 9/11

sorry it wasnt "briefly" by the time i finished


i have got the hardback version of jv's american conspiracies book and i think it's well researched
i just think that like me a year ago he's being tripped up by wrong research within the TM re the pentagon


if you dont agree with me you are definitely an agent -joking!! :o) chillax!

I hope that everyone will read the declaration and guidelines

that Jon has linked to above.

Thanks for doing that, Jon.

I just read every word,

I've saved it for later reference in our 911 truth blogging- Thanks Jon

Show "Thanks to Dwain Deets," by sewalkie

I cringed

when I heard what Dwain Deets said. He went right to the 'flyover theory', for which there are ZERO witnesses.

An engineer should know better. Thanksalot, Dwain.

Strong Words from What Really Happened

Michael Rivero’s Comments on What Really Happened at the Pentagon


"This whole no plane at the Pentagon is a poison-the-well propaganda trick to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.”

“Hundreds of witnesses saw that passenger jet flying toward the Pentagon, shouldn’t there be hundreds of witnesses seeing it fly away?”

“This was an issue created as an easy handle for the corporate media to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement. It’s a fraud. It’s a hoax.”

“… and it’s all planted by government propagandists to make the whole issue of questioning the official story look silly.”

“Jesse Ventura got used by somebody…”

“It’s called poisoning the well.”



Thank you