9/11 Solution

The big clue everyone missed

How the key 9/11 myths were implanted

Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:

1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge

2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and #7 were brought down by controlled demolition

A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first hours few hours immediately after the attacks.

Specifically:

1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?

Were these stories prepared in advance?

There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."

Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.

Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.

original article

men on streets and in booths

It's certainly interesting that Jerome Hauer is the guest of Dan Rather, and the one who is trying to convince Rather to focus on non-state terrorism.

That guy on the street sounds like an actor. That's the most unnatural eyewitness account I have ever heard. Unnatural because he sounds so composed. Most people have to "hum" and "hah" their way through a spontaneous speech, but this guy has his words chosen carefully. You're right: Who the hell would have spoken so assuredly about "structural failure" on the morning of 9/11?

I don't have the imagination to know how the guy on the street could be a plant, but Hauer as a conspirator I can definitely grasp. Remember also that network news always appeals to government insiders for "expert" opinion, no matter the story; so no one had to conspire to make that happen. The moment the FBI releases a statement about OBL, the entire flock of parroting elites starts repeating it.

Jerome Hauer????

You must be kidding- the man who killed John O'Neill?

Where are the handcuffs?

That post is full of very

That post is full of very interesting information. Excellent work by you and stickdog. Hauer is certainly in the middle of this, with connections to the amerithrax scare, Kroll Inc., John O'Neill, and Giuliani.

And there he was talking to Dan Rather, explaining "what really happened."

Local Newspapers on 9/12/01 carrier an AP National Story

Our local newspaper in town ran a front page cover story entitled, Fire and Damage Bring Towers Down. I thought it very distrubing that after no professional analysis that the 'cover story' was being circulated nationwide by this AP story. The article interviewed an engineer (sorry don't have the paper with me at home for the guys name) who stated his expert opinion that fire and damage brought the buildings down. This story reminded me so much of the Christ Church Star New Zealand story that Lt. Col. Fletcher Prouty read about Lee Harvey Oswald before LHO had even been charged with a crime.

I think the head designer of the WTC said it best...

I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Saturday, February 27, 1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC

Here's another one...

09/12/2001 - Updated 11:12 PM ET
Extreme heat, 'pancaking' doom towers into rubble
By David Lieberman, USA TODAY

NEW YORK — Strange as it sounds, the World Trade Center towers lived up to engineers' hopes in the moments after two hijacked jets slammed into their upper floors Tuesday morning. The north tower remained standing for more than an hour and a half after it was hit by American Airlines Flight 11. The south tower held on for almost an hour after it suffered more serious damage from the impact of United Airlines Flight 175. The buildings withstood the impact of 400,000-pound Boeing 767s crashing into them at perhaps more than 300 mph.

"They rocked back and forth, and then stopped," says Masoud Sanayei, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Tufts University. "If there was no fire, we might have demolished the buildings a year or so down the road but people would have had an opportunity to evacuate."

But there were fires, fed by the estimated 60,000 pounds of jet fuel that each jet was likely carrying. These infernos may have hit 2,000 degrees.

That was just too much for the steel and concrete structures. Steel loses more than half its strength at 1,500 degrees.

What followed was a building designer's nightmare. Some of the upper floors probably sagged 2 feet or more before finally breaking loose from the steel outer frames and inner cores that supported the buildings.

That dumped tons of concrete, fixtures and furniture on lower floors. A single floor could weigh as much as 3,000 tons. The falling debris started a top-down domino effect engineers call pancaking.

"The momentum was too much to handle," says William Faschan, a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, the structural engineers for the towers. "A given floor normally could support the weight of three floors. But that assumes the weight is imposed in a gradual manner."

And there was nothing gradual about the process once each tower began to collapse. It took just moments for the growing weight and velocity of the wreckage to rip through lower floors as though they were tissue.

The buildings imploded just as they would if demolition experts had been hired to do the job.

It was a pitiable ending for the 1,362-foot buildings that were engineering marvels, and models of stability, in 1973 when construction was complete.

The 110-story towers were assembled from prefab grills, shipped from as far away as Seattle and Los Angeles and hoisted into place by cranes specially built in Australia for the project. When bolted together, they created more than 130 vertical steel support columns on the exterior, spaced 3 feet 4 inches apart. Horizontal steel beams from this outer tube helped to support the 4-inch concrete floors. They also connected to an inner tube — where the elevators were — which was supported by another set of steel columns.

"It was like a doughnut with this core element providing vertical support," says Tod Rittenhouse, principal of Weidlinger Associates. "This shell had tremendous strength."

Indeed, architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the towers to be far sturdier than state building codes required. The biggest threat to a building that tall is wind. New York insisted that buildings stand in the face of 90 mile per hour storms.

But the towers were "built to withstand the largest hurricane that could be envisioned," Faschan says. The simplicity of the design helped. "It was such a box," says Mysore Ravidra, president of LeMessurier Consultants, the firm that engineered New York's Citicorp building. "It's an engineer's dream for a design."

Still, after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, many will try to come up with ways to avoid similar calamities.

"We need better materials and methods to extinguish these fires quickly," Sanayei says.

Some say that there's no realistic way to prevent a building from succumbing to such overwhelming attacks. "Nobody could afford it," Ravindra says. "It's almost unthinkable. There is no lesson to be learned. There was nothing in the building that was flawed."

Rittenhouse agrees. "There isn't much you can do" about a fire like the ones ignited by the exploding jets, he says.

Engineers may be able to help nearby buildings, though. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has asked for volunteers to check for damages, and possible improvements, in structures around the World Trade Center — now reduced to seven stories of rubble at the site of what was the north tower and two stories at the south tower.

A 47-story structure in the World Trade Center complex, Building 7, collapsed late Tuesday afternoon as a result of a fire that apparently ignited shortly after the towers were hit. And a nearby structure, One Liberty Plaza, had partially caved in as of late Wednesday.

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/13/towers-collapse.htm

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

A lie so good, it had to have been pre-scripted.

They obviously had that ready to trot out. And what kind of actual journalist blandly reports that a third skyscraper collapsed due to fire -- when that is completely without precedent?

I dod not know about this live footage

it's pretty damning.

But I have done some research into print media:

The USAToday from 9/12/01had one of the first printed explanations for the towers collapse:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/13/towers-collapse.htm

But there were fires, fed by the estimated 60,000 pounds of jet fuel that each jet was likely carrying. These infernos may have hit 2,000 degrees. (F???) That was just too much for the steel and concrete structures. Steel loses more than half its strength at 1,500 degrees.(F????) What followed was a building designer's nightmare. Some of the upper floors probably sagged 2 feet or more before finally breaking loose from the steel outer frames and inner cores that supported the buildings. That dumped tons of concrete, fixtures and furniture on lower floors.

A single floor could weigh as much as 3,000 tons. The falling debris started a top-down domino effect engineers call pancaking.

***

This was the first given explantion, not really challenged till today.

Now, 5 years later, as there is compelling evidence that WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed by demolitions, can you please cite your sources? Who was it, who told you this first explanation?

Especially regarding this statement:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/130906Demolitions.htm
first video, beginning with minute 3:15

That looks like a fake, like a given transcript explanation learned even before the towers were strucked!

Sorry

For the double post........My cpu is damn fast ,and i only have a problem on this site.

Good post

Yeah they had all the right answers,and so DAMN fast! Amazing!
Funny thing, they were so exceptional at finding out the who's,how's, and why's, but were so DAMN incompetent at preventing it!
Hummmmmmm? Knew Bin Laden was a threat?
In a cave in Afganistan?Why the hell did we go Iraq? Yes, add it to the long list of unanswered justifiable questions we already have, and it equals....The Offical story is BULLSHIT!
Thanks 9/11TruthNC....GOOD POST.

Everytime I see 911 Mysteries with a large group....

....and "baseball-cap" guy comes on and gives his little spiel....the theater cracks up...it's such ridiculously obvious disinfo that it's funny (as we briefly separate it from the day's tragedy).....

An acquaintance of mine calls that guy a "buzz agent" (a secret, professional word-of-mouth purveyor....Google it if you don't know what it is; I didn't). Obviously, what this guy is doing is more diabolical than that, but I found it interesting....how propaganda, or a meme, is spread...

Agreed, "baseball-cap guy" is clearly a plant.

I had to laugh the first time I saw him, too. He is so obviously scripted, like a really bad movie, right down to the Harley tee shirt. Perfect for Faux News, btw.

Wouldn't it be great if we could track him down?

I'd love to know who he really is and publicizing the fact that he was a plant would go a long way in proving just how completely staged the whole 9/11 event was.

While I wouldn't suggest that we put too much energy into tracking him down, I would think that it wouldn't be that hard to find him. We have his face and voice, after all.

I hope that you and yours are well.

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

That baseball-cap guy in the street

is such an obvious plant. And so well-practiced. It is the earliest phase of the establishment of the government story.

**** Does anybody have any idea who he is? ****

For me, this is a BIG question. If we can find him we have made a breakthrough. For anyone who doesn't understand, it's the guy in the Fox interview in the first few minutes of '9/11 Mysteries'.

Anyways, thank you 911TruthNC for the great post!!

Harley Davidson dude

Yes... does anyone think that people who actually wear Harley Davidson things wear the cap and the t-shirt together? We need to make a mug shot for him, and give him a temporary name, like Ernie.

"...and then we witnessed both towers collapse, obviously due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense."

Riiiiiight, Harley dude. Riiiiiight.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Let's call him...

..."Buzz".....

as in, "buzz agent"...

"Who the f*ck talks like that"....?

Infomercial mannequins....

Exactly.

too many people

"Oh you guys just keep adding accomplices to this crime...."

Probably one of the same people who planted the explosives.... doing double duty
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

"Ernie the Plant"

We're lookin' for ya!

"Harley Davidson"?

As in, "Thanks for your spontaneous 'structural failure' expertise, Harley..."

Show "More Evidence! Time Magazine did a profile of Bin Laden in 1998!" by Brainster

when they are doing tv shows

when they are doing tv shows in the future----

talking about the 911hoax
-----theyll be playing the footage that youre talking about---and be explaining how they attempted to manipulate the media

all this footage will serve to document murderous hypocracy at it's most idiotic....

Different approach

I have found it fairly effective when presenting 911truth to people for the first time,to use the approch of "what if this happened in China or Russia and the news papers etc. reported it to be "official story" that did not seem logical. What would be their reaction?

 Without fail the answer is" the press in those countries are government controlled and can't be trusted to tell the truth". And this is the place that the average Joe needs to be shown that "most if not all the MSM is no different than what they percieve those other countries press to be like"

. This is not very hard to show examples of.

 Our press are all telling the same lies.

  By this I 'm also reffering to the lies of ommisshen,and lack of context.

 The news repeaters are not reporters. Their motives are hard for me to understand.

  If you accept a job to inform the people in a free country ,that puts as much importance on the press to maintian the balance as we do How the hell can these msm parrots sleep at night?

Good Day

 Rob B.

Or

Show how the MSM makes a big deal out of

1) Some guy lied about his life in a memoir
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html

and then

2) Completely ignores the fact that the President lied about WMD's in iraq (see Scooter Libby trial).

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Google CENSORSHIP!!!!.... pulled this video

On 2/10/07 I posted "The 9/11 Solution",
and since then our logs show that 19,802
have visited the page and seen the video.

Unfortunately, for reasons not clear, Google Videoremoved the video from their
web site last night.

This morning I attempted to upload the video to
YouTube.

It was automatically removed:

"...due to terms of use violation."

I have read the Terms & Conditions of both Google
Video and YouTube and there is nothing in this video
that violates their written terms.

I am the video maker and am sole copyright
owner of the material.

The content is not illegal, an invasion of anyone's
privacy, obscene, an incitement of hate or violence,
or a portrayal of graphic violence.

In short, they had no cause to remove it.

If anyone has specific, detailed, actionable
information on how I can appeal to these
people to stop censoring this video, please
let me know.

Please: No idle speculations, hand wringing
or even expressions of sympathy.

But if you have SPECIFIC experience with Google
and/or YouTube on this kind of a problem and
can point me to exactly who I should contact and
how I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

What the page looks like now:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/80.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. If you were one of the lucky few who downloaded
the video before it was pulled, please feel free to
distribute it in anyway you want. As the copyright
owner, I authorize you to do this.

If you can point me to the link were you have uploaded
it, all the better.

P.P.S. This has happened at an inopportune time
for me personally. I will not be able to respond
personally to any e-mails for the next five or
six days.

Thanks for all your support.

Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?zAxs7OwctMxsnEwM7KzM
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

re: How the key 9/11 myths were implanted

Here's another example:

'I saw the faces of some of the passengers'
By Kimball Perry, Post staff reporter
Publication date: 09-12-01
http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html

Turns out that the reporter gilded the lily, and the witness -- James R. Cissell -- is pissed off about it. Check it:

Proof That 'Flight 77' Eyewitness Report Skewed
'I saw faces of passengers' man furious with newspaper for twisting his words
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/300606flight77.htm

Here's an excerpt:
--------------------------------------------
James R. Cissell contacted us to express his anger at the newspaper for taking his comments completely out of context.

"The Cincinnati Post article, which you refer, angered me greatly after reading it. It is almost completely fiction based loosely on an interview I did with a Cincinnati Post reporter Kimball Perry who called me in response to an on air phone report that I did for Channel 12 in Cincinnati."

Cissell relates what he actually told the reporter.

"The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

Here's the Post quote again.

"I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.''

Compared to, "Had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

Cissell's comments were taken so far out of context that this seems to be a deliberate attempt at sensationalism or even an effort at lending bias towards the assumption that the plane was a large commercial airliner with passengers on board.
--------------------------------------------

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

I don't doubt that the MSM manipulated some of the testimony

But keep in mind:

Not one single person reported:

SEEING a missile
seeing a Global Hawk
seeing a Predator
seeing someone plant evidence

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

and that the Pentagon is right next to a highway. If something unusual happened people would have seen it. People would be coming out (like they are about Building 7).

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

SHOW ME THE VIDEO

I think a plane hit, but not a 757. Here's an interesting clip from the day of 9/11 of a reporter saying that a "737" hit the Pentagon, and then watch how fast his mic gets cut off:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon1/911.pentagon.747.wmv

(the link says 747, but the reporter does say "737")

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Pentagon Highway

To believe that they faked the hole in the Pentagon you have to believe that they faked light-pole damage corresponding to the size of a 757, and that no one has come forward to report what really happened.  You have to believe that they would risk trying to fake this.

Did I forget to mention that Jim Fetzer supports the no plane theories? 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Eh?

Where did I say "I believe that they faked the hole in the Pentagon"?

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

I didn't that

you did think that.

There are those who believe a missile hit the Pentagon after all, or that a Global Hawk was involved.

Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. It wasn't my intention.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

no prob, but

what do you mean "faked light-pole damage corresponding to the size of a 757"? Where's proof that a 707/ 737, 747, etc.. couldn't have damaged the light-poles. And please leave Uncle Fetzer out of this. Don't try to put me in with that Sh*tbag. Thanks.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

757

The evidence that a 757 was used is supported by the eye-witness testimony and also the plane parts found at the pentagon:

http://pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Where's proof that those parts were identified as 757 parts?

Who identified them as such if true?

Are those parts exclusive to only 757s?

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Identification

The author of Pentagon Research.com and Jim Hoffman have compared the photos to different plane types. Apparently these different types of planes have different parts, but sometimes they CAN be similar or hard to distinguish. This is discussed in the website. Jim Hoffman has also analyzed this stuff. Once you see the pictures side by side it is pretty compelling.

Click on the links on the right in my prev. post, he does a side-by side comparison of the plane parts. It looks pretty convincing to me.

Of course the whole problem with the Pentagon is that we don't really have access to alot of the evidence and videos... but personally I am convinced that a 757 did hit the Pentagon.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I'll check the link out, but

Did Hoffman or whoever else compare the parts to other model planes?

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

yes he did.

Pentagon research is very compelling... he discusses all of his evidence and why he comes to his conclusions.

"I noticed that this piece has a very distinct rivet pattern. I investigated the 727, 737 100-800, and the 747 rivet patterns. The only match was on the 757. Now if you look closely at the piece you will see that it has an obvious smooth cut trimmed by rivets (at the bottom left) which indicated to me it was on the corner of a door or window."

http://pentagonresearch.com/083.html

Oops I just reread your previous post and...

saw where you wrote that they compared the parts to other planes. But I need more than someone saying:

"I investigated the 727, 737 100-800, and the 747 rivet patterns. The only match was on the 757."

Where's his research on this? Where can I find the comparison pics that this researcher used to come to the conclusion that the parts belonged to a 757 and not some other plane?

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Arabesque wrote: "The

Arabesque wrote: "The evidence that a 757 was used is supported by the eye-witness testimony"

There are some who say a "757", and there are some who didn't, or didn't say exactly what type of aircraft hit. I think I remember one person saying that a helicopter hit. Last I checked there were over a hundred documented witnesses that said something hit.
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Yes, that's true

But did you know this?

9.36 a.m.: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77 “Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it…

[1]

The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien… describes his close encounter: ‘When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.’ O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. ‘They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that’…

[2]

The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.

Of course there were eye-witness who even reported seeing this plane too.
 
I'm planning on doing a blog on the Pentagon... including analysis of eye-witness testimony.  I find all of this very fascinating. 


[2] Sternberg, Bob Von. 2002. “How We've Changed.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I'm familiar with that report

I remember seeing an interview with the pilot of the C-130. It's been a while so I don't recall exactly what he said, but I don't remember him saying the fuselage was silver. I could be wrong. Do you know what video clip I'm talking about? If you have a link please post it. I'd like to check it out again to hear exactly what he said.

EDIT

Here's the video interview I'm talking about, and there's no mention of a "silver fuselage", or any other testimony that proves an AA 757 hit the Pentagon. I wonder if the NYT gilded the lily with O'Brien's statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4

EDIT Again

Arabesque, can you please give me a link to where O'Brien said "the fuselage was silver", or that it was a 757? I'm looking for a direct link to a statement from him saying the plane was a "757 & had a silver fuselage", not a report from the 9/11 cOmmission, or a newspaper saying he said it.

Another EDIT

Ok, it looks like it wasn't the NYT that reported O'Brien's statement about a 'silver 757 fuselage'. It was from the other article you referenced:

How We've Changed
by Bob Von Sternberg
The Minnesota Star-Tribune
September 11, 2002
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/minneapolisstartribune09...

So according to O'Brien's estimation, the closest he got to the plane was "a mile and a half, two miles away"? How could he have known what type of plane it was from that distance?

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

I got the info from the 9/11

I got the info from the 9/11 timeline. Search the flight 77 category.
Or here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a936c130asked#a936c1...
"O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane."
I'm doing a statistical analysis of the Testimony... here's a sample of what I found:
Number of times the word plane, jet, Boeing or jetliner is mentioned At least 353 times
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there’s no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. At least 30
Number of times witnesses describe a “757” At least 14
Number of times witnesses describe a “747” At least 1
Number of times witnesses describe a “737” At least 4
Number of times witnesses describe a “727” None
Witnesses who saw something crash into the Pentagon At least 89
Number of witnesses who saw an explosion At least 58
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: ‘airliner’, ‘big’, ‘silver’, ‘roaring’, etc. At least 45
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening. At least 22
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways [during a traffic jam]. At least 19

Arabesque, much as I respect

Arabesque, much as I respect your thoughtful, well-researched, and scientifically valid posts, I have to mention that I've been on that exact stretch of I-395 hundreds of times. Even sitting still in traffic, I would have as much success identifying the plane that flew by at hundreds of mph as I would have in idenfiying an automobile that blew past at the same speed -- very, very little. And that is taking into account that most folks have greater familiarity with automobiles than aircraft.

There is so much air traffic from National Airport running cheek-by-jowl with the Pentagon, with planes taking off and landing incessantly, I am skeptical that random reports of seeing large-bodied planes in the vacinity prior to impact represent a slam-dunk for the Boeing scenario.

I've said many times that I have no idea what hit the Pentagon, but I couldn't be certain even if I had been parked on 395. And all of this freshly-minted eyewitness expertise is mitigated by the air traffic controller's statement that the flight looked like a military plane on radar.

NOTHING had any business striking the Pentagon. That's my story -- and I'm stickin' to it, by gum.

thank you

But I think that the light poles are a dead give-away on the Pentagon. No one has been able to explain how (or why) these fell down in a pattern that fits the wing-span of a 757... a plane is the only reasonable explanation.

and I have been looking at the eye-witness testimony and the plane parts... it is actually very compelling for several reasons: No one SAW a missile. Even if you think it's all fake... it's like Building 7--people are coming forward with "the truth". Why hasn't anyone claimed to have seen a missile? No one ever reported a Global Hawk or a Predator either...

The people who saw a small plane were all far away (according to Jim Hoffman). Most people saw a "757" and only a few claimed otherwise. Even more said they saw an “American Airlines” jet. A surprising number. I think there is actually enough evidence to prove convincingly that a Boeing 757 plane hit the Pentagon... the eye-witness testimony reveals a stunning amount of detail. It’s when details are corroborated repeatedly without contradiction that they become compelling.

Here is my evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon:

1. You have a highway right next to the pentagon. There is a traffic jam described as "standing still" by more than 20 statements. How many cars is that? More than one thousand cars? You have two massive parking lots right next to the Pentagon early morning before work. You have a lot of witnesses who can see what happened. The pentagon does not control these people.

2. Mineta Testimony: "Plane was 50 miles out". I checked for confirmation: The plane WAS 50 miles out. I can quote the evidence. This is very strong evidence that a plane was approaching the pentagon. Otherwise you think that they would make this FALSE Mineta statement implicating NORAD of GUILT.

3. Smoking Gun Evidence: Light poles knocked down corresponding to 757 wingspan. In a stand-still traffic Jam, a plane knocks them down with literally hundreds of witnesses from many different angles and perspectives. Impossible to fake. Remember that not all of the witnesses left testimony. But people report what is UNUSUAL. If something ELSE knocked them down, someone would have reported it.

4. Plane parts, hole size (although controversial, analysis shows that it could have been caused by a Boeing 757--see Hoffman's research), all provide more evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Pentagon research has compelling analysis of these parts. More evidence… and there is more.

Don't you think it's interesting that a C-130 can intercept the plane, but the military can’t? This further proves a stand down.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I do believe they faked the lightpole damage

look into it a bit more, it appears every bit as staged as "Ernie". Besides, there was reportedly a traffic jam on I-395 at that time, a most uncommon occurrance at this time of day, so there probably weren't just random people nearby - most were from USA Today, other mainstream rags or the military itself. I know all of this implicates a wider circle of people, but look into the lightpoles and the story of the cabdriver first before you dismiss it.

Lightpoles

Please explain how they could fake this... in early morning traffic by a highway... I really doubt it could be done.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Like I said:

"Besides, there was reportedly a traffic jam on I-395 at that time, a most uncommon occurrance at this time of day, so there probably weren't just random people nearby - most were from USA Today, other mainstream rags or the military itself."

Hey, we're talking fooling the world by covertly rigging and blowing up 3 skyscrapers, why not consider the possibility of this as well?

Bruce did you know that:

The traffic on the highway was described as "stand-still". I have 20 witness statements to back that up.

These are perfect conditions for witnessing what happened at the Pentagon. This highway is right next to the Pentagon. In fact it's so close that the plane hit the light poles before hitting the Pentagon.

There are also two massive parking lots at the Pentagon. 25 000 people work there. Do you think everyone at the Pentagon was in on it? I really doubt that because people died at the Pentagon. They obviously were not told.

Now do you honestly think that you could knock down light poles (damaging them on the top) without ONE of those people noticing what happened? Would you risk pulling off something like this if you were the government?

Fact: Everyone who saw the light poles come down said that a PLANE knocked them down. They also said there were pieces of plane debris after it hit the poles on the highway.  No one reported anything suspicious.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Im inclined to ask your

Im inclined to ask your opinion on the cab...how does a lightpole that just got knocked down by a 747 doing 500 mph manage to puncture the windshield of a moving cab (presumably at least 50 mph, in the opposite direction) and not leave a single scratch on the hood of the car? You dont think any mark would have been made in either the entry or the exit? I have personally called the phone number on the door (DC registration on liscence plate, so used DC area code)
and it is no longer in service.
This , to me, seems like a piece of staged debris, maybe set up for the NROs morning wargame?
I also realize this is a taboo subject in this movement,
and do not wish to cause a rift between us as this is about the only thing I disagree with you on.
Thanks.

Google video link isn't working for "9/11 Solution"

Try this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3074561005024763960&q=9%2F11+So...

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Palestinians 'Gone

Palestinians 'Gone Wild'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRNKvm-Ky-Q

"Jubilant" Palestinians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

^Turns out that this celebration had NOTHING to do with 9/11!

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

An excuse to mention Jerome Hauer

And to post the new video link:

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

Jerome Hauer!

WHO IS JEROME HAUER?

fromthewilderness.com:

Jerome Hauer is a Bio-Warfare expert who is well known in New York City for having created former mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) in World Trade Center 7 – the building that inexplicably imploded in a freefall on September 11, 2001, without having been hit by an airplane. Hauer’s corporate affiliations include SAIC, Batelle, CSC-DynCorp, Hollis-Eden, and one of the nation’s most powerful private investigative and security firms Kroll Inc., among others. Now BioPort has been added to his resume.

On the eve of 9/11, in NYC, Hauer was having drinks with his close friend, the recently retired FBI Agent and “Osama-Chaser,” John O’Neil. At that time O’Neil was the head of security at the World Trade Center complex, a position Hauer had helped him to get. O’Neil died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, and it was Hauer who identified his body.

Hauer was quoted by Newsday staff writer Laurie Garrett on her personal blog as saying, “John O’Neill was head of the FBI’s counterterrorism branch in Washington. He led every important investigation you can name — the USS Cole, Tanzania, Kenya bombings. He retired three weeks ago. I helped him get the job as head of security for the World Trade Center.And the irony is, the guy he chased for most of his career killed him.”

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121505_jerome_hauer.shtml

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening