Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Evidence of Bush Administration Foreknowledge and complicity is now overwhelming.



July 4, 1999 - President Clinton signs Executive Order 13129, which freezes Taliban assets in the U.S. and prohibits trade between the Afghan fundamentalist regime and U.S. entities. [Source: Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 129, July 7, 1999]




Jan. 30, 2001 - Sept. 11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah was questioned in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A number of UAE, Middle Eastern, European, and U.S. sources were cited in this CNN report, which said the CIA requested Jarrah be interrogated because he had been in Afghanistan and was suspected to have ties to terrorists. An unnamed CIA spokesman said the other sources' claims that the agency knew anything about Jarrah before Sept. 11 were "flatly untrue." Jarrah's Jan. 30 detainment at the airport in Dubai, UAE came six months after he took flying lessons in the U.S. Jarrah was released because "U.S. officials were satisfied," said the report. [Source: CNN, Aug. 1, 2002 www.cnn.com...]



June 8, 2001 - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) publishes a story headlined, "Central Asia: Charges Link Russian Military to Drug Trade." According to the article, figures for 1999 published in a report by the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP) revealed that 80 percent of the heroin consumed in Western Europe originated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The UNDCP report also revealed half of the drugs in that 80 percent traveled through Central Asia. A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published in March 2000 said Russian soldiers headquartered in Tajikistan were suspected of helping drug traffickers by providing them with transportation facilities. This was confirmed by a Russian intelligence officer who told the Moscow News weekly, "You can come to an arrangement [with custom officials] so that the search of military transport planes remains purely formal. The same goes for train convoys carrying military cargo [to Russia from Tajikistan]." [Source: www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/06/08062001111711.asp]




Sept. 4-5, 2001 - A freshman at Brooklyn's New Utrecht High School who had recently emigrated from Pakistan reportedly predicts the destruction of the World Trade Center a week prior to the 9-11 attacks, according to the JournalNews newspaper in White Plains, N.Y. Citing "three police sources and a city official familiar with the investigation" as well as confirmation from the FBI that the bureau had received this information, the paper reported that in the midst of a heated class discussion the student pointed to the World Trade Center from a third story window and said, "Do you see those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week." New York City Board of Education spokeswoman Catie Marshall confirmed for the JournalNews "that school officials reported the matter to police within minutes of the Sept. 11 attack" and students told the paper that "FBI agents and NYPD detectives descended on the school on Sept. 13 to interrogate the student [who made the prediction] and others in his class," which was "an English class for Arab-American students." [Source: The JournalNews, Oct. 11, 2001, www.thejournalnews.com...]




Sept. 5, 2001 - "Five hundred websites -- many of them with an Arab or Muslim connection -- crash when an anti-terrorism taskforce raids InfoCom Corp. in Texas," reported Britain's the Guardian on Sept. 10, 2001. A taskforce of approximately 80 federal agents and officials from the FBI, Secret Service, INS, Customs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, IRS, and Commerce Department occupied InfoCom's office building in the Dallas suburb of Richardson, Texas for four days, "copying every hard disc they could find." InfoCom hosts many websites for Middle Eastern clients and is located across the street from the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization which has been alleged to have connections with terrorist groups. InfoCom's vice president of marketing, Ghassan Elashi, is also the chairman of the Holy Land Foundation. [Source: The Guardian, Sept. 10, 2001, www.guardian.co.uk...]



Sept. 10, 2001 - The Houston Chronicle reports the FBI was notified of a fifth grader from a Dallas suburb who told his teacher, "Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose." The Chronicle was unclear on specifically when Garland, Texas school district officials told the FBI about the incident, but it was some time between Sept. 13, 2001 and the story's publication date of Sept. 19, 2001. [Source: Houston Chronicle, Sept. 19, 2001 www.chron.com...]



Sept. 10, 2001 - San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a call from what he described as "his security people at the airport" eight hours before the terrorist attacks "advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel," as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Brown was scheduled to fly to New York from San Francisco International Airport. He told the Chronicle the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make any alarming statement." [Source: San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 12, 2001, www.sfgate.com...]



Sept. 11, 2001 - The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the federal agency that runs many of the nation's spy satellites, schedules an exercise involving a plane crashing into one of the agency's buildings. "On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001," according to a website advertising a homeland security conference in Chicago run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, CIA official John Fulton and his team "were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way." Fulton is the head of the NRO's strategic gaming division. [Source: National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, www.nlsi.net..., story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20020821/ap_wo_en_ge/us_sept_11_plane_exercise_1]



Sept. 11, 2001 - After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon occur, National Public Radio's congressional correspondent David Welna reports, "I spoke with congressman Ike Skelton, a Democrat from Missouri and a member of the Armed Services Committee, who said that just recently the director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack -- an imminent attack - on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." [Source: www.thememoryhole.org...]



 Oct. 29, 2001 - The Bush Administration drafts "an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public," wrote the Washington Post. The order also required members of the public to prove "at least a demonstrated, specific need'" for a president's papers to be released. Critics contend this would overturn the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which releases documents after 12 years. The White House maintained that a Supreme Court decision in 1977 allows presidents various privileges for their records. [Source: Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2001, washingtonpost.com...]




June 14, 2002 - Common Dreams website publishes an account from a former member of the 1/118th Infantry Battalion of the South Carolina National Guard: "My unit reported for drill in July 2001 and we were suddenly and unexpectedly informed that all activities planned for the next two months would be suspended in order to prepare for a mobilization exercise to be held on Sept. 14, 2001. We worked diligently for two weekends and even came in on an unscheduled day in August to prepare for the exercise. By the end of August all we needed was a phone call, which we were to expect, and we could hop into a fully prepared convoy with our bags and equipment packed." [Source: Common Dreams,
www.commondreams.org...]


July 26, 2002 - White House security prevented the legal watch-group Judicial Watch from serving Vice President Cheney with a lawsuit filed on behalf of Halliburton shareholders. Before becoming vice president Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which has filed for bankruptcy. [Source: Cybercast News Service, cnsnews.com]




Aug. 2, 2002 - The FBI asked members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to take lie-detector tests as investigators try to determine who leaked information to CNN about communications in Arabic that made vague references to an impending attack on the United States. The communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency on Sept. 10 but weren't translated until Sept. 12. [Source: Associated Press story published in the Boston Globe, Aug. 2, 2002, www.truthout.org...]
101.  Aug. 5, 2002 - The Associated Press reported Russia's major role over the last five years in the trafficking of Afghan heroin into Europe. [Source: Santa Fe New Mexican, Aug. 5, 2002, www.sfnewmexican.com]



Aug. 16, 2002 - A Knight Ridder story discloses that members of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's staff have created a special planning unit for an invasion of Iraq. The unit is composed primarily of civilians and was spearheaded by conservative members of Rumsfeld's staff, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The story was headlined, "White House Methodically Preparing for Iraq Campaign." [Source: Knight Ridder Newspapers, www.truthout.org/docs 02/08.17B.wh.prep.irq.p.htm]
Aug. 28, 2002 - The Globe and Mail of Canada reports Afghanistan will become the world's top producer of opium this year, surpassing Southeast Asia. [Source: the Globe and Mail, Aug. 28, 2002]   



Aug. 28, 2002 - The Globe and Mail of Canada reports Afghanistan will become the world's top producer of opium this year, surpassing Southeast Asia. [Source: the Globe and Mail, Aug. 28, 2002]   

Originally posted by Clickfoot
]
I have been in a lot of major cities, but admittedly, not at that precise location at that time of the morning. Still, unless everyone is late for work every single day, it still seems odd.

No, that is incorrect. You make the assumption that everyone goes to work at the same time, and only traffic going to work. There is all sorts of traffic, and in the capital of the world's most powerful country, heavy traffic is a way of life, throught the day, especially around major sites like the Pentagon. People are always coming and going, alot of business is had there.

On the contrary. You'd have to be looking in the right direction or you'd miss it. It'd be quite easy to miss if it was right on top of you, unless you were in a convertible. Hundreds I could buy. Thousands seems a bit overkill.

If you look at the maps, and the direction of the roads, you will see that you are incorrect. The flight path the plane was coming at would have been clearly seen by people on 395 going west, we well as people going west on Columbia pike.

And let us not forget people who were not driving, who were in their homes, or hotel, or outside on the street going about their business. Thousands, yes.

And when the plane hit, you can bet those that weren't looking at the Pentagon were looking now. Yet no one saw a plane flying away. According to CIT, the plane was supposedly flying slower than official estimates, so it certainly was not going too fast that it would not be spotted. The only view of the Pentagon is not from west: people on other sides, plus people in the Pentagon's courtyard, would have seen it. Yet I've not seen any reports of a 757 flying low away from the Pentagon

Actually I don't believe a word the guy says, which is part of the problem. You seem not to either. But you've seen the pictures of his cab. You've read what the official story says about it. Again, does it add up, if the roads where as busy as reported?

I've seen what the official account says about his cab. Lloyd England can't keep his own account straight. None of the other witnesses I read mentioned anything about Lloyd's can skidding all over the place, I think only Lloyd did, and Lloyd, in my opinion, displays the hallmarks of being a serious nut case. Thus, I have to rely on the official story and reports of other people.

Given the size of the lightpole, and that traffic was reported to be at a standstill, I do not find it weird that only Lloyd's cab was damaged by the pole. As for the damage to the car, go ask a profession accident investigator. I do not claim to be an expert in damage assessment, and as far as whether or not the damage was possible, thats not a serious enough issue for me to care. I'll leave that to the nitpickers. What I did see of the photos and in the CIT video where Lloyd shows them the car, the damage looked like something very big smashed it up.


While I'm sure you and other think that lightpoles and cabs, and arguments of North of the gas Station vs South of the gas Station are critical to the whole question of 9/11, I do not.

The real questions cannot be denied.

1. Why the hell were our air defenses tied up and far away on 9/11 simulating a scenario disturbingly close to what went on?
2. Why, after 2 planes hit the world trade center, one caught on national TV, were jets not immediately scrambled or sent back to patrol the skies of D,C.? Why was a plane that had been hijack confirmed from before flight 175 hit WTC, flying freely around U.S. air space, and not even an alert or evacuation of major sites in Washington DC underway?
3. Why the hell did the 9/11 commission write off the surge in trade of put options on United and American airlines that went on in the days before the attacks, as "innocuous"?
4. Why did building 7 collapse?
5. Was flight 93 shot down?

That's just a starting list. Those are a sample of things that so far, I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation from the government and independent "investigations".

reply to post by Stylez


Excellent Post, thank you!



More Proof that the "official" story of 9/11 was nothing more that lies upon lies upon lies!

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. This is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33] Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.

But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army.

www.globalresearch.ca...

I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter".

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to
the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot shows the very last frame of the recorded data. It stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83f45e4fe78b.jpg[/atsimg]
url






[edit on 31-8-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by Jezus


I have never heard a rational explanation why the pentagon or shanksville "plane crash" looks nothing like any other plane crashes....

Wow. So you are an air accident investigator then, who knows exactly how all plane crashes should look because they are all the same? Impressive. Why didn't you say something before?

yes...it is a ridiculous and sensational claim...

Maybe in your universe, but out here in real real land, it is not.

exactly...thousands of people were not interviewed....

Of course they weren't common sense and logistics would make it impossible.

However, if alot of people saw the plane fly away and not crash, they would be telling everyone what they saw, from friends to family to local authorities and new agencies. Obviously, we see no one reporting, through mainstream or other channels, no reports on the net, of people who said "No, the plane didn't crash, it flew away".

puz:

Originally posted by burntheships

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

www.thepeoplesvoice.org

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie".
A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.prlog.org

81 minute Free Video Presentation: Scroll to bottom of page for link
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Uhuh....is there a reason why you are quoting the first post? I think its already been established that I do not hold it, nor CIT's investigation, as a worthy source of good information. Please tell me that's not your answer.

Mod Edit: Fixed quote box

[edit on 8/31/09 by FredT]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Wow. So you are an air accident investigator then, who knows exactly how all plane crashes should look because they are all the same? Impressive. Why didn't you say something before?

What? are you trying to be a smart ass with that answer? Do I have to be a demolitions expert to know when something blows up there is going to be a lot of debris and dead people if any were near by? Do I have to be a Physician to know when someone is hard as a rock and hasn't breathed for ten hours that he is probably dead! NO! And I don't have to be a smart ass debunking 911 to know when you are being condescending

Maybe in your universe, but out here in real real land, it is not.

Ok then, SHOW ME! Show me the myriad of plane crash aftermath photos making the ones taken after 911 NOT UNIQUE!

Show me the universe of images that say I am out of my element to even suggest their is something not quite right about the crash sites and shanks and the pentagon. This should be rather easy for you I would think since the universe you live in, that sort of thing happens all the time.

Do it, show me, I'd be impressed

Of course they weren't common sense and logistics would make it impossible.

HOW!

However, if alot of people saw the plane fly away and not crash, they would be telling everyone what they saw, from friends to family to local authorities and new agencies. Obviously, we see no one reporting, through mainstream or other channels, no reports on the net, of people who said "No, the plane didn't crash, it flew away".

You ever see someone or something happen that you didn't know was part of something else? Or didn't make the connection of just how something couldn't have happened the way the official story said it did?

here Ill give you a clue, something said back in the early sixties.

"Back and to the left" Back and to the left



[edit on 31-8-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

However, if alot of people saw the plane fly away and not crash, they would be telling everyone what they saw, from friends to family to local authorities and new agencies. Obviously, we see no one reporting, through mainstream or other channels, no reports on the net, of people who said "No, the plane didn't crash, it flew away".

Obviously you embrace ignorance, and refuse to see that there are many eyewitness accounts:

CIT had each witness draw the flight path he witnessed on a map; the compilation from all the witnesses is shown in the photo above. The yellow curved lines clustered together toward the top of the map are from the witnesses; the single straight line angling up from the bottom edge of the map is the official flight path of the plane, as described by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Taken together, the 13 witnesses deliver a devastating blow to the official story about the Pentagon attack. Five 40-foot, 247-pound light poles were knocked down that day. If the plane flew north of the Citgo station, it could not have knocked down those poles. The west side of the Pentagon was damaged as if it were hit by a plane heading north, with the zone of destruction angling north. If the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station before hitting the Pentagon, it would not have caused this kind of damage.

CIT’s evidence is compelling for a number of reasons. Three of their witnesses are Pentagon police officers who were on duty at the time of the attack. Most of the others were government employees at their jobs, and their presence at that place and time can be verified. This stands in sharp contrast to the witnesses who claim they saw the attack from their cars, as their presence on the road cannot be confirmed.

rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Wow. So you are an air accident investigator then, who knows exactly how all plane crashes should look because they are all the same? Impressive. Why didn't you say something before?

Simple comparison...

The pentagon and the shanksville "plane crashes" look nothing like any other plane crash videos or photographs...

You said in order for you to consider the evidence you would need proof that...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
thousands of witnesses lied about what they saw

This is an extremely ignorant statement because thousands of people weren't interviewed about what they saw...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
However, if alot of people saw the plane fly away and not crash, they would be....

Assumptions based on speculation...

Originally posted by burntheships
Uhuh....is there a reason why you are quoting the first post? I think its already been established that I do not hold it, nor CIT's investigation, as a worthy source of good information. Please tell me that's not your answer.

What you "hold as worthy" doesn't change the eye witness accounts that contradict the official story...

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Jezus]

Originally posted by Jezus

This is an extremely ignorant statement because thousands of people weren't interviewed about what they saw...

Oh yes they were, their statements were merely left out leaving many of them not motivated to mention it again as they thought they had already done it.

For all of you guys that believe that a jet would have done more damage to the pentagon than the damage there was.
Take a look at this

whatreallyhappened.com...

The pentagon is one tough building when it was built. The area that the plane hit on 9-11 was one of the sides that just went through a renovation to make it even stronger.

American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

Now if you guys use the search feature. Someone did a really great and comprehensive post showing that a plane really did hit the pentagon.

He went through the various photos of plane wreckage and compared the debris with actual photo's of airplane parts.

I don't doubt that a plane hit the pentagon after reading that post.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by grey580]

Originally posted by Jezus
Simple comparison...

The pentagon and the shanksville "plane crashes" look nothing like any other plane crash videos or photographs...

Now that was a ridiculous statement. lets see, the TWA flight 800 crash doesn't look anything like the Lockerbie crash. Does that mean both were fake non-existent planes? Get real.

Thats like saying if a car crash doesn't look like other car crashes, than no car crashed. Sheer foolishness when you take into account that circumstances that cause cars and planes to wreck vary from incident to incident.

You said in order for you to consider the evidence you would need proof that...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
thousands of witnesses lied about what they saw

This is an extremely ignorant statement because thousands of people weren't interviewed about what they saw...

Ignorant? I think not. Thousands of people cannot be interviewed. However, just because they are not individually interviewed does not mean that their accounts are somehow nonexistant.

because if thousands of people who were never interviewed by a reporter went home, or listened to the radio, and heard a version of events that was the absolute opposite and total untruth to what they witnessed, then there would be people calling up the news stations, radio stations, telling friends, ect, that that is not what happened. In otherwords, there would be alot of disagreement from the larger body of witnesses that could not be silenced.

Yet nothing like this happened. Not on the TV channels, not the local radio stations, not even on the INTERNET, which could not be censored. People would start talking before anyone could shut them up, and the word would spread fast.

Yet this did not happen. I remember being on the net in chatrooms that night, wanting to hear what people in the disaster zones were saying. I remember several in New York and new jersey talking about hearing what sounded like bombs at the WTC. I remember there were people who were talking about hearing another explosion at the Pentagon after flight 77 crashed.

But until CIT came along years later, I'd never heard of a flyover theory. Because I've yet to hear anyone claim they saw the airplane flyover.

it's not that difficult to understand.

Assumptions based on speculation...

I am glad you are understanding your problem now.

What you "hold as worthy" doesn't change the eye witness accounts that contradict the official story...

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Jezus]

Uh, what eyewitness accounts? The minute number of cherry picked witnesses by CIT, none of whom state that the plane flew over, o0ne even stating the plane hit the pentagon?

Over the far more numerous eyewitness accounts that contradict that? And the evidence that exists?

Sorry, but the dubious investigations of a self-appointed "Citizens Investigative team" have not produced anything that proves flight 77 did not hit the pentagon.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by elevatedone]

But when it comes to the Pentagon, the truth community has yet to reach a consensus, and 9/11 forums are filled with bitter arguments from proponents of one view or another.

It is assumed by most savvy 9/11 activists that the truth movement has been infiltrated by intelligence agents tasked with crippling activists in any way possible, and that many of the most strident arguments come, not from sincere researchers, but from disinformation agents intent on spreading confusion and discord. These agents are in a position to know the truth about what happened and can be expected to mount vigorous arguments against that truth, the better to keep the movement divided and to prevent a clear, cogent message about the false flag attack at the Pentagon from reaching the masses.

To many activists, the Pentagon attack stands as the single most incriminating feature of 9/11

rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...

CIT interviewed three Pentagon police officers (Officer William Lagasse, Officer Chadwick Brooks and Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.);

five Arlington National Cemetery workers (Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton Sr. and George Aman); auto mechanic Edward Paik;

Citgo gas station attendant Robert Turcios;

air traffic controller Sean Boger (who was at the Pentagon Heliport at the time of the attack);

Terry Morin, a project manager for Sparta (saw the plane from the Navy Annex);

courier Levi Stephens (saw the plane from the Pentagon’s south parking lot);

and Maria de La Cerda, a career musician with the Army band, who saw the plane from Arlington National Cemetery.

Every one of these people clearly recalls seeing the plane take a path that disagrees with the government’s story. None of them report seeing the plane fly south of the Citgo station, where it would have had to have been to have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

One witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., saw the plane after the explosion, banking low over the parking lot.

Given the bizarre behavior of Dick Cheny, and the reports that are fact about flight 77, that it was 50 miles out when it first was tracked at the Pentagon area:

“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said,

"Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”

A few minutes later, the Pentagon exploded in flames, killing 125 unsuspecting workers in the building. No evacuation order had been given.

Norman Mineta’s testimony was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.

It is only logical to see the "official" story as full of holes, inconsistencies, and lies.



[edit on 31-8-2009 by burntheships]

I believe the let´s call it “9/11 truth movement” has been loosing lot´s of momentum.
It slowed down considerably after Obama won the elections.
I think what this shows is that more about “the truth”, the movement was more an “anti-Bush” thing than anything else.
And now these people come and set up what looks at first like a SHOCKING, NEW AND REVEALING, thread.
And it is the same things all over again. The posters read the same, pro and con, and it is based on old stuff that is discussed in other threads as well.
There´s nothing new, no revelations or data to raise new questions. We are seeing the same discussions of the same points over and over.
It has turned into a “thing of faith”. You want to believe in an inside job theory? Then you are of that religion, and don´t listen to anything anyone tells you. The “truthers” don´t accept any argument given to them, no matter how strong or logic.
A plane that flew away? COME ON!!! Hundreds of people would have seen that and we would all have seen them on that very same day, saying so to the T.V. crews. Why? Isn´t it obvious? THAT plane would be the main suspect of the attack, dropping the bomb or missile or whatever.
The passengers, and crews of AA77. What became of them?
“Truthers” will have the answer to questions like this, always. And their answers somehow have to be accepted automatically by all of us. The passengers and crew were disposed of by the U.S. Gov. who else!! BUT HOW? They were executed of course!! And that´s that, you know? Just like that, it´s that easy.
OHH, but wait a second, my favorite. The bodies, airplane debris were INSTALLED, there at the Pentagon secretly!!!!!!!
Only the perps were SO STUPID that some parts are not of a B757!!!!
COOOME OOOOOON.
PLEEEEEAAAASE PEEEOOOPLE, GIVE US A BRAKE!!!


[edit on 31-8-2009 by rush969]

Right from the beginning, questions arose.

Where was the plane debris?

Photos taken immediately after the attack show no wings, tail or fuselage.

No luggage or bodies.

No damage to the pristine green lawn, even though the Boeing 757 was supposedly piloted into the first floor of the Pentagon at 530 mph by rookie pilot Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a small Cessna.

The damage to the building is inconsistent with the crash of an airliner with a 44 foot tall tail and 125 foot wingspan, with unbroken panes of glass where the tail section should have hit.


Even the downed light poles are suspicious. Compared to a light pole that was knocked down by wind, and has a jagged edge where it broke at the base, the five downed light poles on 9/11 appear to have been cut, neatly and cleanly.

On top of this suspicious crash scene, we now have 14 eyewitnesses who have stated unequivocally on camera that the plane was not where it would have needed to be to down the light poles and hit the Pentagon.

rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...

Very nice stuff! Great link.

There seems to been something strange about the Pentagon, but I read the list of 9/11 "evidence" that Bush was involved and I really don't think it adds up.

1. Even in 2001, there would have been Distaster recovery strategies and companies who sole job is to play war games to see how big business would survive. So it would be easy to find omne of these companies rehearsing a terrorist attack, that is how they make their money

2. What did the FBI know that there was going to be an attack by Moslem fanatics? If they were "on the ball" (reasonable assumption), they would be getting whiffs of a major attack, but would not know where on when. As the date got nearer, then chatter would get bigger, they would get more detail and may have known enough to stop it. But these guys are not the villains, they will get tip offs from people all the time and so may have expected this to be more noise. The villains are the Moslem Fanatics in the aircraft who threatened the air stewardesses with cheese wire around their throat (private reliable source). So loose talk/co-incidence could easily account for this.

As for the Pentagon - this is a military building, as such we will never know how successful or otherwise the hijackers were. USA will certainly not relaease film of the plane crash - and why not. If it was a missile (by mistake), again don't blame the people firing the missile.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

At that link you can read the answers to the questions below and more...

Frequently Asked Questions

[...]

1. If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew?

2. Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the building?

3. What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

4. Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

5. Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?

6. Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Ligon]

reply to post by AceOfAces


"Ridiculous that we're 8 years after 9-11 and still haven't investigated, tried, and convicted the real psycho's behind these attacks."

Especially considering there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Since the days of Sir Robert Peel and the shire reeves (where "Sheriff" comes from) new evidence, even exculpatory, is investigated.. this is why falsely convicted murderers get released based on DNA.

Yet the 9/11 murders are considered "solved" and new evidence ignored as conspiracy... an anomaly in US justice, the only other similar case I cant think of ATM is the murder of JFK.

If the govt had rock solid proof, they could have tried the alleged suspects in absentia. Bolivia, for example, did so -Vs- president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada charged with genocide for the deaths of 63 anti-government protesters... a total of 9 defendants were tried in absentia.

Italy may put CIA agents on trial in absentia, and Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, was convicted, and sentenced to death in absentia.

Wouldn't a televised trial of 9/11 suspects, even in absentia, add "closure" to 9/11? Once found guilty from overwhelming evidence (lol), from a Law Enforcement protocol POV, the case could be "closed" as the perps were brought to justice... if the US .gov had a case, that is.. which they don't.

As it stands today 9/11 is an open murder case, no suspects have been charged or brought to justice... add that much of the evidence was immediately destroyed, and not preserved..

From my retired eyes & experience, the official investigation is a sad joke.

I would bet my retirement that if seasoned experienced NYPD homicide detectives were to handle this case unabated, Bush, Cheney and a few others would be charged with murder & conspiracy / vicarious liability.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
No, that is incorrect. You make the assumption that everyone goes to work at the same time, and only traffic going to work. There is all sorts of traffic, and in the capital of the world's most powerful country, heavy traffic is a way of life, throught the day, especially around major sites like the Pentagon. People are always coming and going, alot of business is had there.

Interesting. Why, then, does Google Maps and Google Earth appear to show next to no traffic at all, right now? I can only conclude the answer to be "because you are wrong". I won't bother to post a screenshot because anyone can look this up for themselves.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I've seen what the official account says about his cab. Lloyd England can't keep his own account straight. None of the other witnesses I read mentioned anything about Lloyd's can skidding all over the place, I think only Lloyd did, and Lloyd, in my opinion, displays the hallmarks of being a serious nut case. Thus, I have to rely on the official story and reports of other people.

Well the official story, and the official photos, show what Lloyd says. So, third times the charm - does it add up?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Given the size of the lightpole, and that traffic was reported to be at a standstill

The traffic was not at a standstill. This contradicts the photographs. Lloyds cab, according to the photographs, did indeed skid across three lanes. It was still where it ended up several hours later. Either the photographs are correct, which means traffic must have been low, or they're faked, which means we can't trust any photographs.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
While I'm sure you and other think that lightpoles and cabs, and arguments of North of the gas Station vs South of the gas Station are critical to the whole question of 9/11, I do not.

Woah there, I didn't say anything about critical, I was just pointing out yet more things that don't add up.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Jezus
Simple comparison...

The pentagon and the shanksville "plane crashes" look nothing like any other plane crash videos or photographs...

Now that was a ridiculous statement. lets see, the TWA flight 800 crash doesn't look anything like the Lockerbie crash. Does that mean both were fake non-existent planes? Get real.

Thats like saying if a car crash doesn't look like other car crashes, than no car crashed. Sheer foolishness when you take into account that circumstances that cause cars and planes to wreck vary from incident to incident.

If I saw a car crash photo that looked nothing like any other car crashes I would expect some kind of rational explanation...

I would also wonder why if a car crashed into the pentagon and the photos looked nothing like a car crash if it was just a coincidence that no videos could prove it...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Thousands of people cannot be interviewed.

So we don't have the statements...

Your just assuming they match the official story based on your own personal speculation.

Even though independent investigation has shown that at least some of these thousands of witnesses have a contradictory account...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
However, just because they are not individually interviewed does not mean that their accounts are somehow nonexistant.

In otherwords, there would be alot of disagreement from the larger body of witnesses that could not be silenced.

Yet nothing like this happened. Not on the TV channels, not the local radio stations, not even on the INTERNET, which could not be censored. People would start talking before anyone could shut them up, and the word would spread fast.

Yet this did not happen.

It did happen...

Originally posted by burntheships

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

www.thepeoplesvoice.org

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie".
A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.prlog.org

81 minute Free Video Presentation: Scroll to bottom of page for link
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]

Wow. So you are an air accident investigator then, who knows exactly how all plane crashes should look because they are all the same? Impressive. Why didn't you say something before?

Yes everytime I see a crash site with NO plane parts I say to myself "golly gosh If I was a trained investigator I could ascertain that there was no plane here".