Pentagon Whistle Blower?

It's nice to see more press on the Pentaon cover-up, however it's a shame the
witness is not revealing his name.

Read here for the entire story. THis was released July, 31-2009:

www.americanfreepress.net...

Originally posted by turbofan
It's nice to see more press on the Pentaon cover-up, however it's a shame the
witness is not revealing his name.

The following comes from a conspiracy web site, and even THEY say this "no planes at the Pentagon" bit is absurd, and is damaging the credibility of the other researchers in the truther movement. If you don't believe them, then at least believe your fellow truthers:

Pinch yourself, it's true- it really WAS an airplane

There are undoubtedly large numbers of well informed "insiders" who know very well that public postures of both the Bush and Obama administrations on the subject of 9/11 are a cover up.

Evidence of this pops up in almost any area of investigation of this subject. These insiders are keeping their mouths shut for good reasons. There is every reason to believe that telling the truth would be both very hazardous and worse, futile.

The American public, as a whole, has no stomach for the rigors of integrity. Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners is not a problem for them. Policing their own public officials is asking too much.

If Americans are ever pushed to the point where the killers of Iraqis start operating in the US, we won't finally see American justice being done, we will see 1776 reloaded.

couple things should stick out in that article..
what was his reason for TWO deployments to Afghanistan in the first persian gulf war?
I didnt know we had airforce personnel in Afghanistan at that time.. let alone long enough for TWO deployments..
and I didnt know that the dancing Israelies were released the next day.. thought it was months.. didnt they sue?
also of what relevance is his opinion on WTC 1 and 2..
he is supposed to be a Pentagon witness..

very weak..

Originally posted by turbofan
It's nice to see more press on the Pentaon cover-up, however it's a shame the
witness is not revealing his name.

I thought you said more `press``. That rag is not `press`, at least no `press`that any sane person would get news from.

Great source for your PfT news, though!

How`s that C-130 Andrews departure going, TF!
How`s that Gallop lawsuit going, TF!
How`s that affidavit going, TF!
How`s the SAM missiles at the Pentagon, TF!
How`s the overall story going, TF!

...and I`ll add...

How`s that Pentagon `witness`going... you know the one....who had `2 deployments to Afghanistan in 1990 when we had no troops in Afghanistan`, TF!

Great witnesses you guys dig up! A totally anonymous fake who gets his lies wrong.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451

Great witnesses you guys dig up!

[edit on 2-8-2009 by trebor451]

When they are great this sort of thing happens....

Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

For years, researchers of the 9/11 attack have built a case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers primarily on the basis of one body of evidence: the scores photographs and videos of the Towers coming down. Whereas authorities were unable to prevent the circulation of this visual evidence, they successfully suppressed the largest body of eyewitness evidence for nearly four years. That body is a collection of hundreds of "oral histories" 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, many of whom witnessed some aspect of the total destruction of the Twin Towers.

The vast majority of these accounts remained suppressed by the city until the New York Times won a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the City of New York in 2005, and announced the release of the records on August 8, 2005. The newspaper published the accounts in the form of PDF documents. 1

A perusal of some excerpts of these accounts containing recollections of the sights, sounds, and immediate observations of the destruction of the Twin Towers suggests the reason the city fought to keep them suppressed: the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.

Source..

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Seventh


Of course. That is exactly the reason why the 9-11 Whitewash Commission refused to hear the 503 1st responder testimonies and review the 19,000 pages of testimony reporting explosions and demolition of the WTC.

The role of the 9-11 Whitewash Commission was to hide the demolition of the Towers and WTC7; not a search for any kind of truth or seeking justice for the victims.

Originally posted by SPreston
Of course. That is exactly the reason why the 9-11 Whitewash Commission refused to hear the 503 1st responder testimonies and review the 19,000 pages of testimony reporting explosions and demolition of the WTC.

Of course, it's been mentioned in almost every thread here already that noone is refutung that witnessed heard explosions. Everyone in the vicinity heard explosions. What you're doing is claiming these explosions had to be EXPLOSIVES, rather than any of the flammable objects in the structure going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn. There is zero evidence that any actual explosives were in the towers, and a 100% certainty there were flammable objects in the towers (I.E. electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc) so completely ignoring the latter while embellishing the former is more descriptive of a political agenda, rather than any search for the truth.

The role of the 9-11 Whitewash Commission was to hide the demolition of the Towers and WTC7; not a search for any kind of truth or seeking justice for the victims.

Nowhere in the commission report did it discuss the mechanics of the collapse, so it's blatantly obvious you're makign this claim up off the top of your head...or I should say, the conspiracy websites you're getting this drivel from are making this up off the tops of their heads. I know full well you're not coming up with this on your own.

Tell me, just HOW do you know that the 9/11 commission report is full of lies if you've never read it? It would seem to me that if you're so certain it's full of lies then you'd see it as your responsibility to read it in order to expose the lies to us all, rather than running and hiding from it the same way vampires avoid sunlight.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave have you ever looked at the blue prints and construction pictures of the inner centre core?, have you seen how thick the bottom steel beams are?, at the beginning of both collapses you can clearly see the *hats* move, the tops of both towers started descent which obviously means no support from the inner core itself, which again means only one thing.. It wasn`t there, and ceased to be there at all, when both towers collapsed so had the inner core, no amount of jet fuel heat could vaporise that inner core.

Something more than broke the backs of both those inner cores, my money is on whatever caused the seismic data to record 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale just prior to both of the initial collapses.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Of course, it's been mentioned in almost every thread here already that noone is refutung that witnessed heard explosions. Everyone in the vicinity heard explosions. What you're doing is claiming these explosions had to be EXPLOSIVES, rather than any of the flammable objects in the structure going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn. There is zero evidence that any actual explosives were in the towers, and a 100% certainty there were flammable objects in the towers (I.E. electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc) so completely ignoring the latter while embellishing the former is more descriptive of a political agenda, rather than any search for the truth.

And what you are claiming is that these so-called flammable objects that 'exploded' would have been so LOUD that the noise did not diminish in all of the surrounding noise of emergency vehicles, people shouting and crying and so on. How much distance was there between the 'official fires' and the ground? 800 plus feet. A LONG way.

The explosions being described are MASSIVE. Not the everyday lightbulb blowing up or other so-called flammable objects that would explode.

I understand Dave that you are trying (at least I like to think that you are) to keep this debate on 911 in focus. The problem is that your arguments go against what people saw and experienced.

Originally posted by Seventh

Dave have you ever looked at the blue prints and construction pictures of the inner centre core?, have you seen how thick the bottom steel beams are?, at the beginning of both collapses you can clearly see the *hats* move, the tops of both towers started descent which obviously means no support from the inner core itself, which again means only one thing.. It wasn`t there, and ceased to be there at all, when both towers collapsed so had the inner core, no amount of jet fuel heat could vaporise that inner core.

I'm not certain where you're getting your information from, but no source that I've ever read ever claimed the fires vaporised any of the steel. I am going by the analysis by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, who states the collapse was caused by the initial damage from the impact compounded by the irregular heating from the fires, causing warping from uneven thermal expansion and contraction of the steel and leading to a chain reaction of structural failure. It wasn't just the aircraft damage OR just the jet fuel fire OR just the contents of the floors set on fire. It was caused by all of them put together.

MIT engineer's analysis of the collapse

Is this THE explanation for why it collapsed? We'll obviously never know, but it at least has the benefit of basing its analysis on what was definitely known to be in the building, rather than making up stories of explosives, which forces its proponents to make up stories about how the explosives got there, which in turn forces its proponents to make up explanations how they were never detected, which in turn forces its proponents to make up accusations against everyone for being secret disinformation agents, and so on and so on. Once we board that runaway train of secret conspiracies, gov't plots, and circular logic, it's nigh impossible to ever get off.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I hear what you`re saying, not all of us are stating it was beams of death fired from the loins of Dick Cheney whilst he was piloting a holographic Millennium Falcon, there are so many reports of explosions by first responders plus some were injured by these, backed up by identically timed activities from seismographs, and amongst all the debunking from videos showing explosions which range from... Reflections of the sun, various explosive office furniture, random jet fuel running around all over the place from the lobby, storeys above and a few guest appearances in WTC7.

We`ll go back to the 503 first responders whom between them clocked up over 19000 pages of evidence, if these would have made their way to the commission, there would have been tests done for explosions on the steels, now i`m no master of policing serious crime scenes, but here`s a thought... If you have 2 national agencies employed to find out how the 3 buildings collapsed and after several months, years, whatever they still cannot come to a 100% clinical conclusion, then you find out through what ever cause there`s over 500 people (all first hand experience eye witnesses) all stating explosions, you would not be inclined to follow this line of investigation further?.

For is it not the case that it may have been terrorists whom planted these bombs, thus creating huge breaches in security protocols thus putting the general public in danger, if you cannot find the answers you`re looking in the wrong places, there`s still 3 huge questions to be answered that day as far as New York is concerned.

Originally posted by dariousg
And what you are claiming is that these so-called flammable objects that 'exploded' would have been so LOUD that the noise did not diminish in all of the surrounding noise of emergency vehicles, people shouting and crying and so on. How much distance was there between the 'official fires' and the ground? 800 plus feet. A LONG way.

Have you ever heard an electrical transformer blowing up? When the electrical transformer in the building across the street from where I work overheated the thing blew up like a bomb, shaking the building I was in and setting the whole building across the street on fire. This was after 9/11 so it caused the (ahem) more easily spookable people in my building to run around screaming "BOMB! BOMB!". Thus, when people say they heard explosions in the towers that sounded like bombs, I know from first hand experience it was almost certainly the flammable objects already in the building that were exploding. Plus, not a few Chicken Littles screaming the sky is falling in who are adding incorrect information into the mix.

Now, I can't say it was DEFINITELY exploding transformers that they heard, and I can't say any particular explosion they heard was DEFINITELY a transformer exploding, but I can say there were DEFINITELY many flammable items like electrical transformers in the buildings, they DEFINITELY will explode like bombs when they overheat, and there were DEFINITELY fires burning in the building, so it was almost certainly what they heard becuase these flammable items DEFINITELY would have exploded sooner or later, as the fires reached them.

Compare this with all the secret conspiracies, gov't plots, and hordes of disinformation agents being submitted by the conspiracy proponents, and you will understand why my position is that they have little credibility.

I understand Dave that you are trying (at least I like to think that you are) to keep this debate on 911 in focus. The problem is that your arguments go against what people saw and experienced.

On the contrary, my arguments do conform to what people saw and experienced. Namely, me.

Originally posted by Seventh
We`ll go back to the 503 first responders whom between them clocked up over 19000 pages of evidence, if these would have made their way to the commission, there would have been tests done for explosions on the steels, now i`m no master of policing serious crime scenes, but here`s a thought... If you have 2 national agencies employed to find out how the 3 buildings collapsed and after several months, years, whatever they still cannot come to a 100% clinical conclusion, then you find out through what ever cause there`s over 500 people (all first hand experience eye witnesses) all stating explosions, you would not be inclined to follow this line of investigation further?.

Not quite accurate. First, all organizations recognize that the collapse was instigated by the plane impact, and all organizations recognize the chain reaction of structural faulure was due to the strange design of the towers. How the plane impact instigated the chain reaction of structural faulure is what's being debated amongst the myriad agencies.

Second, noone is refuting that explosions were heard, whether it was five people or 500. The debate is over what actually caused the explosions, not whether anyone heard explosions. There is zero proof that any explosives existed, but there is an absolute certainty there existed flammable items that would explode when they catch on fire.

Third, the whole idea that anyone could set up controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied buinding without anyone noticing anything is unrealistic. It's akin to saying someone can cut a hole in your kitchen wall and cover it up with a picture frame, and you'd never notice it. Remember, most of the people in the towers *survived* the attack, either becuase they were able to get out or they hadn't shown up for work yet. There would have been many, many witnesses.

So no, I wouldn't investigate the possibility of explosives for the same reason I wouldn't investigate the possibility of a new strain of termites that eat steel- it's unrealistic and only adds more questions than it resolves. I agree with you there is legitimate reason for wanting to document the causes of the explosions, but at the end of the day it's still the generally accepted opinion that the damage being suffered by the structure was what caused the explosions, rather than the other way around.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hey there GoodOlDave.

Here is a few pics.

Can you help us all find the hole?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d54a4d860fe0.jpg[/atsimg]

I see no hole made from a big plane smashing through five rings of pentagon walls...Do you?

Here let me provide another photo of where the hole should be.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5c902182ee8.jpg[/atsimg]

The hole should be somewhere around that Big red circle but there is none.

Heck the explosion looks as though it was completely from the inside out, I mean Look at that lawn. No divots from where the plane allegedly hit the ground and bounced back up, No scattered plane parts, Nothing to suggest a plane crash.

We have alot to suggest an internal explosion but not alot to suggest that the explosion was cause by a plane crash.

Kinda questionable if you ask me.

Originally posted by titorite
The hole should be somewhere around that Big red circle but there is none.

Heck the explosion looks as though it was completely from the inside out, I mean Look at that lawn. No divots from where the plane allegedly hit the ground and bounced back up, No scattered plane parts, Nothing to suggest a plane crash.

We have alot to suggest an internal explosion but not alot to suggest that the explosion was cause by a plane crash.

Kinda questionable if you ask me.

First off, this is a bizarre photo to be demanding a crystal clear view from, since you can see right in the picture there's clouds of smoke coming from the Pentagon as well as a stream of water from that fire truck. We can't really see anythign of the Pentagon behind this obstruction *at all*, let alone any structural damage.

Second, you have not noted when this photo was taken. The very first thing they did on day one was to pick up all the pieces of wreckage as evidence, and the link I provided alreedy shows the wreckage found on the lawn becuase it was taken almost immediately after the impact. The lack of visible wreckage in your photo (plus there being a fire truck already having arrived) suggests it was taken some time afterwards. It is not a good basis to use this to claim "no wreckage".

Third, your photo does not refute the multitude of eyewitnesses who specifically saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon. The building isn't out in the middle of nowhere- there are buildings and houses all around it, PLUS there's a major highway right next to it. There were many witnesses to what happened, which, again, were listed in the link I provided.

I do thank you for your photo, but at best, it doesn't disprove anything I said, and at worst, it only proves my arguments, rather than yours.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The whole emphasis here Dave is the timing of explosions, for now i`ll go along with your assessment that all the internal ones caused after initial impact were due to the fires, now explain these ones.......

CONCLUSION
Several seismic stations recorded seismic signals originating from two events which occurred at the WTC site, immediately prior to both aircraft impacts. Because these signals preceded the impacts there can be no doubt that the seismic signals recorded were not those associated with the aircraft impacts on the Towers. These signals were in fact the seismic spikes associated with the huge basement explosions reported by witnesses. Only by a revision of the previously well-regarded seismic times has NIST been able to attempt to say the times of the aircraft impacts coincide with the seismic signals, and even then, their 8:46:30 first impact time is a fake. Meanwhile, the evidence of basement explosions prior to the impact of AA Flt 11 has not been explored or examined at all, even with so great a cloud of witnesses.

Source...

www.journalof911studies.com...

If you have time read it, it`s very concise and the seismographs never lie, an explosion 14 seconds before the 1st impact, and 17 seconds before the 2nd, both where in the basements of the respective towers seconds before the Jets hit them.

[edit on 30/07/2009 by Seventh]

Second, you have not noted when this photo was taken. The very first thing they did on day one was to pick up all the pieces of wreckage as evidence, and the link I provided alreedy shows the wreckage found on the lawn becuase it was taken almost immediately after the impact. The lack of visible wreckage in your photo (plus there being a fire truck already having arrived) suggests it was taken some time afterwards. It is not a good basis to use this to claim "no wreckage".

Does it not strike you as odd that within minutes of a strike on the Pentagon they had people out there collecting the material evidence who were not qualified forensic investigators, who were not photographing the pieces of evidence in situ, as they are supposed to, and this evidence was never used to reconstruct the aircraft as is a legal NTSB requirement in all such incidents?

For comparison, they dragged over 95% of TWA800 out of the water and rebuilt it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


GoodOlDave, according to the OS the plane actually touched the ground then bounced back up into the building.

So where are the divots or skid marks of the plane wing scrapping up earth?


ALSO the Plane Cabin was roughly the size of two and a half stories. Big enough to put a HUGE hole into the building.

So where is it?

As for when these photos were taken? Before the pentagon structure collapsed but after the explosion.

You would have us believe that the one who picked up the debris did so BEFORE the firefighters got there. That is to say while the fire was still raging out of control those desk clerks ran outside braved the fire without fire gear to pick up the pieces. It almost sounds like they were desperate to hide something.

ANYWAYS

The plane was bigger than the firetrucks in my picture.

You can understand that logic right?

The firetrucks there in the photos are so big and we see no hole the size of those firetrucks.

So where is the hole?

EDIT:

Here, I found another photo.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/486198c1fe0d.jpg[/atsimg]

With first responders again before the collapse with alot less smoke right at the impact site.

Where is a 757 size hole?

[edit on 3-8-2009 by titorite]

Honestly, you official story guys should refrain from arguing about what happened at the Pentagon at all, I mean really. The pictorial evidence of the Pentagon before the wall collapsed is so damning to the "official story", it's unbelieveable! I mean, at what point do you realize your argument is impossible in the face of overwhelming, contradictory visual evidence? And don't be mad at me, I didn't hang you out to dry.

The more you argue such ridiculousness, the deeper the holes you dig for yourselves (and for the overall official story) become.

Peace

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Dr Love]