World class remote viewers release a 9/11 video on Youtube

a reply to: InhaleExhale


For some reason the guy who posted the video called the General a Whistle Blower. Probably for Internet hits alone. What gets me pissed is my cousin who was in Air Force Intelligence was at that site as an investigator back in 2001 so he would know whether a missile or a jet plane hit the Pentagon. He will not say sheet even in 2019. When we ask just him lame questions IE: Jet or Missile he says nothing and just leaves the room. So maybe his actions are louder than words. That along with the pictures that I have seen along with the Generals comments have one again perked my interest. Good conspiracy either way.

a reply to: Waterglass

Again there is zero physical evidence a missile hit the pentagon. None.

The below is from a truth movement friendly source.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Editor's Picks, Essays, Science, US |
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.

From the same source

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

a reply to: Waterglass

I tried to watch the video of Major General Albert Stubblebine III.

Basically he said the entrance hole that was over 93 feet at its widest, almost two stories at its tallest, shaped like an upside down T, and with no indication of a warhead detonation was not made by a large jet? But a 3 foot diameter missile? With no proof.

a reply to: neutronflux


Our world is just one big bucket of sheet isn't it. I am not promoting plane or missile either way. Just stating whats out there as I saw the Generals video and I thought it odd he would say what he said. I have my own axe to grind on another issue as I am digging it up.

IE: 55 pine street Eustis, fl. 32726, who is ocasio?, who owns ocasio?, who is Tyecha Silas?, who is Gaspar Perez?, FL, voter records

a reply to: Waterglass

World would not be such a big bucket of sheet if people would not lend credibility to those with zero credible evidence. It now only takes empty allegations.

So why should anyone find Major General Albert Stubblebine III credible? Because people care more about their fantasies than actual evidence.