It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I will preface this by saying I am certainly no expert on the 9/11 subject. I WILL say I do not buy the O/S, not one little bit, but then again, I rarely trust anything which comes out of our pathologically lieing gov figureheads mouths.


That being said, I found this article to be fairly interesting reading, and thought you guys might enjoy. Evidently the guy who compiled all this info lives less than a mile away from the pentagon, and has been investigating this since shortly after it was struck.

I will leave it up to you guys to come to your own conclusions on which points have validity, and which can be thrown out.

Let the debate begin...


On September 12, 2001, news media had to have known that something was amiss when at the Dept. of Defense News Briefing “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″, were not even mentioned, and reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

Eventually, when the security camera video of “Flight 77″ was released by the Pentagon it included only one frame showing something — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” — moving parallel to the ground about 100 yards in front of the Pentagon.

This is the U.S. government’s evidence to support its claim that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and establishment news media have shown little interest in further investigation.

Indeed, the government’s own records — Pentagon transcripts, official reports, flight data recorder, and the laws of science belie “The 9/11 Commission Report”.

September 11, 2001: CNN News Report

Just minutes after the alleged attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported: “From my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”

McIntyre continued, “If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

This news report apparently was not rebroadcast, and a few years later McIntyre claimed on CNN (Wolf Blitzer’s show) that he had been taken out of context.

Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed “an unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameter” confirms McIntyre’s account.

Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”

Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): “As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.”

Flight 77 is alleged to have struck the Pentagon at 9:38.

A diagram (derived from the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”, Figure 7.9) indicates a “Slab deflected upward” which is consistent with either an explosion below the slab, or an upward blow by a hard object.

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) — former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, and head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence — stated in a video interview, “I don’t know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.”

Major Douglas Rokke, U.S. Army (ret) adds: “No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”

September 12, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″ were not even mentioned.

How significant is this?

With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″ were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!

Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugher responded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”

When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher reponded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.”

The transcript reveals that reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

This year, the transcript of the September 12, 2001 News Briefing was removed from the DoD website.

September 15, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.

When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”

Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.


Full Article:

www.veteranstoday.com...


edit on 3-1-2011 by DimensionalDetective because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
S & F!

Great stuff once again.

You're rapidly becoming my favourite ATS poster DD. All your hard work is appreciated.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Veterans today is a very interesting website. From the title of the website one would believe that they deal primarily issues regarding US military veterans. However, the website is replete with articles about, of all things, Israel. Before the "debate" can begin, maybe you should consider the source of the article.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Veterans today is a very interesting website. From the title of the website one would believe that they deal primarily issues regarding US military veterans. However, the website is replete with articles about, of all things, Israel. Before the "debate" can begin, maybe you should consider the source of the article.


Attacking the source and not the info eh? What about all of the other sources for information such as this? All now defunct because DDs source mentions Israel on its website?

@OP: Another great post, though I've heard this info before I think it's as important as it's ever been to keep this sort of thing in the public consciousness.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Veterans today is a very interesting website. From the title of the website one would believe that they deal primarily issues regarding US military veterans. However, the website is replete with articles about, of all things, Israel. Before the "debate" can begin, maybe you should consider the source of the article.


You are not the only one to be concerned about " veterans today " :-

www.sitejabber.com...

So far as the article is concerned it just seems to be a re-hash of most of the long debunked stuff I have ever seen about the Pentagon 9/11. Not leavened at all by any of the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon.

I think the only thing I hadn't seen before is the allegation that at the Dept of Defence news briefing on 9/12/01 journalists were " threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away." Would love to see substantiation of that !



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Dookzor
 



Attacking the source and not the info eh?


Well, before the debate can begin we must first establish the factual basis of the "info"! No need to sit and debate baseless accusations and fabrications.

The website is very suspect. It has been linked to in various post on this forum by different posters. Like I said, the website's name is deceptive in that it sounds much like a popular website for US veterans, like the VFW, the American Legion but the site is replete with critical articles about Israel.

Yes, we must consider the source first.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Yea I understand that, it's not the point I was making though. You attack the source and almost completely disregard anything to do with the info presented.

I agree that the source does look somewhat suspect but it's not as if it's presenting completely new info. It raises some valid points regardless.

I just find it wierd how you overlooked that completely whilst rubbishing off the post due to the source.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Dookzor
 


Well, lets look at the "info":


At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.


Oh really? Says who? This is editorial and not "info".


When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.


A reporter? Which reporter? From where? Where is this quote coming from? How is it the writer of the article has sufficient information to quote the "reporter" verbatim and yet not have the reporters name or affiliation?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Dookzor
 


Well, lets look at the "info":


At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.


Oh really? Says who? This is editorial and not "info".


When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.


A reporter? Which reporter? From where? Where is this quote coming from? How is it the writer of the article has sufficient information to quote the "reporter" verbatim and yet not have the reporters name or affiliation?


Yea you don't have to explain why the source is suspect. As I mentioned prior to your post, I understand that.

Isn't it apparent that there are lingering doubts about what hit the Pentagon, though? Editorial or not, there did seem to be mass confusion worldwide[ on that day.

Whether the "reporter" is named or not, don't you find it confusing that the wings and tail were not "shorn off"?

Do the things you mention make the points raised completely invalid, though? I agree that a more reputable source would have been preferable here but the manner in which you chose to respond belies your intentions, IMO.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Dookzor
 



Isn't it apparent that there are lingering doubts about what hit the Pentagon, though? Editorial or not, there did seem to be mass confusion worldwide[ on that day.


No. Not that day, not afterward, shortly or otherwise. It was Flight 77. There was no mass confusion regarding that point. There is no "debate" because that is not "info"


Whether the "reporter" is named or not, don't you find it confusing that the wings and tail were not "shorn off"?


Nope. Everyone else understands, don't really know anyone else who thinks the wings and tail would have been clipped off and laying on the grass outside.


Do the things you mention make the points raised completely invalid, though?


Yes.


I agree that a more reputable source would have been preferable here but the manner in which you chose to respond belies your intentions, IMO.


Not more reputable sources - any sources.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I saw 3 links out of many that mentioned Israel, it plays a part in world events ya know and 1 that may, it was titled The Enemy Within so I'm guessing, that is out of again a guess 50 odd links so hardly the fringe non pc site that you hint at, the info looks good and your objection looks spurious.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Thepreye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
reply to post by hooper
 


I saw 3 links out of many that mentioned Israel, it plays a part in world events ya know and 1 that may, it was titled The Enemy Within so I'm guessing, that is out of again a guess 50 odd links so hardly the fringe non pc site that you hint at, the info looks good and your objection looks spurious.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Thepreye because: (no reason given)


What about that little note under "History" about Israeli "war crimes"? C'mon, just trying to be realistic here. That has nothing to do with veterans issues. Personally I think its offensive to try and pawn off this anit-semetic garbage under the guise of helping US military veterans.

Think you'd ever find an article like that on an American Legion site or VFW site?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



The available debris photographs clearly show an engine, which under intense research matches diameter and size of a GLOBAL HAWK drone aircraft shaped missile. This is what hit the pentagon, and unless we all suspend all known physical laws on airplane flight and air turbulence no passenger airplane hit any buildings that day in VA.

I assure you, and everyone reading this post, that under all known laws of physics and airplane flights, it is impossible for an airplane 757 or otherwise to fly and impact and leave zero evidence of debris at the pentagon that day...

Long live the lies...and those who insist that an airplane hit the building...guess you folks have also seen G-d do miracles too, huh!

BTW, great post and info...long suspected, never proven...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by EdWard54
 



I assure you, and everyone reading this post, that under all known laws of physics and airplane flights, it is impossible for an airplane 757 or otherwise to fly and impact and leave zero evidence of debris at the pentagon that day...


And I assure you, repeating the mantra that there was no evidence of debris at the Pentagon will not make it any more true.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I imagine I'm as safe to say personnel serving under the flag of Israel have committed war crimes much like those serving under the flags of the UK, the USA, France, Holland and even Germany, it happens in war but needs regulating and reporting and is nothing to run away from.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdWard54
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



The available debris photographs clearly show an engine, which under intense research matches diameter and size of a GLOBAL HAWK drone aircraft shaped missile. This is what hit the pentagon, and unless we all suspend all known physical laws on airplane flight and air turbulence no passenger airplane hit any buildings that day in VA.

I assure you, and everyone reading this post, that under all known laws of physics and airplane flights, it is impossible for an airplane 757 or otherwise to fly and impact and leave zero evidence of debris at the pentagon that day...

Long live the lies...and those who insist that an airplane hit the building...guess you folks have also seen G-d do miracles too, huh!

BTW, great post and info...long suspected, never proven...


The engine parts at the Pentagon had absolutely nothing to do with a Global Hawk, or any sort of drone, but everything to do with a Rolls Royce RB 211 as fitted to AA 77 :

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
reply to post by hooper
 


I imagine I'm as safe to say personnel serving under the flag of Israel have committed war crimes much like those serving under the flags of the UK, the USA, France, Holland and even Germany, it happens in war but needs regulating and reporting and is nothing to run away from.


Not true and besides the point. The point was the OP presented an article as "info" to encourage a debate. I stated that the source of the article called into question the validity of the info in the article and went as far as to question two points that were being presented as fact without basis.

As to the "Israeli War Crimes" issue, that is an entirelt different matter, but only brought out as an example of the true nature and purpose of the website.

Note: The article in question is titled "Israeli War Crimes", not war crimes committed by individuals in the IDF. It means to tar the entire State of Israeli by applying a term commonly associated with Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Or perhaps the dude who proof read it for the site, if it was even read, wasn't as careful with their words and meanings as I was, I've seen some disgusting anti Semitic sites I don't think this is one of them this is just reasonably critical.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I dont believe for a second a plane hit the pentagon. theres no reason for me or anyone to believe it. no evidence, no proof equals didnt happen. everything contradicts itself with the pentagon. not to bring up the released pager messages, but even the messages contradict everything. defused a bomb at the heliport, and helicopter blew up at heliport... but now its a plane? whatever.. liars

global hawk
edit on 3-1-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
I dont believe for a second a plane hit the pentagon. theres no reason for me or anyone to believe it. no evidence, no proof equals didnt happen. everything contradicts itself with the pentagon. not to bring up the released pager messages, but even the messages contradict everything. defused a bomb at the heliport, and helicopter blew up at heliport... but now its a plane? whatever.. liars


So, a raft of witnesses including flight crew of a C130 in the area, radar tracking, air traffic control and flight data recorder placing AA 77 at the Pentagon, aircraft wreckage compatible with a Boeing 757, dna identified body parts of passengers and crew found at the Pentagon , total lack of evidence of AA 77 going anywhere else but, according to you, "no proof " ! ?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join