Reflections on the Pentagon: A 9/11 photographic review

Reflections on the Pentagon: A 9/11 photographic review


by Dennis Cimino (with Jim Fetzer)


“Frank Legge paid special attention to a prominent piece of fuselage, which had come from a Boeing 757–not one that had hit the Pentagon on 9/11, but one that had crashed in Cali, Columbia, in 1995″–Jim Fetzer

Dennis Cimino

Dennis Cimino

As we explained in “Limited hangouts: Kevin Ryan, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies”, the Pentagon serves as a litmus test for those who profess to be dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11.

By that standard, the Journal of 9/11 Studies does not measure up, because articles published there by Dr. Frank Legge, by Legge with Warren Stutt, and by Dr. John D. Wyndham on the Pentagon are intellectually indefensible.

They attempt to demonstrate that a Boeing 757, designed as “Flight 77″, hit the building and caused the death of 125 Pentagon personnel as well as its passengers and crew.  But no passengers or crew died in a plane that did not crash.

What did and did not happen at the Pentagon has become a source of immense controversy within the 9/11 research community, which I have found difficult to appreciate, since books by Thierry Meysson about the Pentagon, 9/11: The Big Lie (2003) and Pentagate (2003)–were the first serious studies of 9/11 I read and convincing that no plane had hit the building. “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, for example, was published by rense.com in 2009 and then republished in my own blog in 2010. And when Gordon Duff invited me to write for Veterans Today, my first article, “Seven Questions about 9/11″, published in 2011, also focused on the Pentagon.

Among the points I made is that the official trajectory–of a Boeing 757 traveling over 500 mph and flying low enough to take out a series of lampposts–is neither aerodynamically nor physically possible. Such an aircraft at that speed could not have come closer than 60′ or even 80′ of the lawn because of (what is known as) downwash. And had a plane encountered a series of lampposts, the effects on a plane traveling over 500 mph hitting stationary lampposts would be the same as if the plane had been stationary and hit by lampposts traveling over 500 mph: its wings would have broken open, its fuel would have exploded and it would have careened on fire across the lawn. They missed two of my crucial questions:

Question 4

When he published, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth”, Frank Legge paid special attention to a prominent piece of fuselage, which had come from a Boeing 757. Although he did not appear to know it at the time, this was authentic debris from a Boeing 757–not one that had hit the Pentagon on 9/11, but one that–as James Hanson had already found by 2007–had crashed in Cali (or Buga), Columbia, in 1995, where the keys to its origin include its lack of effects from intense heat or from a violent crash–and a piece of vine.

As I had explained to the BBC when it came to my home near Madison, WI, and interviewed me for eight (8) hours for its first “Conspiracy Files” documentary about 9/11, the most stunning and revealing aspect of alleged crash at the Pentagon was the virtually complete absence of any debris from a Boeing 757, including no wings, no tail, no bodies, no seats and no luggage.  They just weren’t there. And even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were not recovered from the site. But the distinctive piece of debris has to have been dropped on the lawn by a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon: Question 5The probability that a Boeing 757 could have hit the Pentagon and not left debris from its wings and tail or even its engines–not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage–is zero. The probability that the alleged trajectory could have been flown in violation of the laws of aerodynamics is less than zero–since violations of these laws is not even physically possible. The probability that such a crash, had it been possible, could have left a smooth, green, unblemished lawn is zero. The probability that debris would have been planted, had this event been authentic, would likewise have been extremely low.  That all of these things should have occurred, if the alleged crash had been contrived, however, is precisely the opposite. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable alternative, as the photographic record confirms.

On the Pentagon: Whom are we supposed to believe?


by Dennis Cimino

Jim Fetzer asked me to participate in our earlier article, “Limited Hangouts: Kevin Ryan, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies”, from an analytic angle, where I enthusiastically joined in the effort to address the pathetic and sad attempts by the faux truthers–namely, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Mr. Legge, Mr. Stutts, and Mr. Wyndham–to promote indefensible assertions made in the position papers we have addressed. Here I want to elaborate on the photographic proof that no Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon.

From the initial sentences of these articles, which are effectively being offered as incontrovertible proof that a B-757-200 struck the Pentagon on 9/11/2001–during what can only be assessed as a very elaborate hoax and ruse played out against the world that day–it is clear they are making the contrary assertion that a very complex aircraft was hijacked and flown with a great deal of precision into an impossible building entry that left no wreckage of the empennage or fuselage, nor wing, tail, or rudder fin (aka vertical stabilizer), when it hit the Pentagon that morning. We are to believe around 80% of the “official story” to simplify our understanding.

I wish to call everyone’s attention to these three photographs of the “Pentalawn”, as we call it in many places. The first was snapped less than 10 minutes after an explosion made the hole on the façade of the building. Note that there is virtually no wreckage in front of the entry hole. You won’t see this photograph in any of the Legge-Stutts-Ryan-Gage-Wyndham fraud, because this photograph by itself tells the “hole story”, as I laughingly refer to it as. Notice, too, the difference between the guard rail in the first (which is rusted) and in the second (which is not), which shows that at least some of the photos from the Pentagon were photoshopped:


More photos that simplify matters

And the fact of the matter is that there are many more photos taken early on that demonstrate the absence of the kinds and quantity of debris that would have been present had a Boeing 757-200 actually crashed there. As Jim Fetzer has observed, it is possible to prove a negative, as we do when we visit our living room and find no signs of the presence of an elephant, when those signs should be present if an elephant were there. We thereby prove that no elephant is in our living room, just as the absence of signs that a plane crashed at the Pentagon prove that no plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Dennis #5
Dennis #2 Dennis #1

And here is one from the Pentagon helipad, showing that no Boeing 757-200 crashed at that location, either:

Dennis #3

As you can see, inside the entry hole some structural members of the building are visible. But do you still think an airliner slid in this hole and disappeared? This is the entry hole. Yes. That is where 80-100 tons of airliner and wings went, according to what they would have us believe. Had an airliner truly struck the building in this location, not only would there be problems with fuselage entry through this hole, but clearly there are no slots present where wings entered the building either. Indeed, not only are those wing slots not there, we also do not have two engine penetration holes 48 feet apart where they, too, would have had to enter to not be seen in the above photograph.

The most powerful proof

Now this photograph is the most powerful indicator to the world that the wreckage that these men advance as “proof positive” could not have been the immediate result of an aircraft impacting the building, because not a single part of the plane is visible on the lawn. So one should ask, “How did any of the purported wreckage arrive there–and why so late?” Here it is post-collapse and there is still no real wreckage yet either. Given this late photo shows virtually no wreckage from an aircraft of the kind and quantity expected–period. End of story.

Dennis #6

Here is one more post-collapse shot, which is also consistent with the absence of the expected field of debris:

Dennis #7

A jet engine will miraculously appear in the vicinity of this generator; it is not there now but was planted later:

Dennis #8

Legge’s “Proof of Impact”

In Mr. Legge’s astonishingly unsubstantiated “white paper”–a good term for articles published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies–he makes the claim that his photo of the main floor offers proof of airliner impact at this location:

As you can see, there are no aircraft components in this area. Per Mr. Legge’s statement, this photograph is indisputable evidence of an airliner impact in this location. Really? How did he deduce this? As many people might remember, a reporter named Jamie McIntyre had that morning observed that he saw no proof of an airliner having crashed there. Now we can all maybe in retro have asked McIntyre to go get his eyes checked, but then you would also have to send an F-15 pilot who also overflew the Pentalawn a few minutes later and likewise assessed that he, too, saw no evidence of an airliner impact there.

The Buga, Columbia crash

Unbeknownst to many people globally, a very little known American Airlines accident in Buga, Colombia in the end of 1995, provided the small amount of 757 wreckage that would be photographed on the Pentalawn, which was dropped later that morning from the lowered cargo ramp of a C-130H transport aircraft under call sign, GOFER SIX, flown by Cdr. Steven O’Brien of the Air National Guard.

This is the source of the small amount of plane parts seen on the Pentalawn after the explosion took place. GOFER SIX was the only aircraft allowed to be in the air in the immediate aftermath of this incident and had just enough cargo capacity to air drop these small fragments seen on the Pentalawn after the above photograph with NO WRECKAGE visible was taken by a U.S. Army enlisted woman. That photograph alone proves beyond reasonable doubt that there was no aircraft impact on that building that morning. There was no wreckage 9 minutes later. Notice the arrival of wreckage is evident here, when it was not there in the earlier shots:

Dennis #9

The wreckage placement team has decided that the time is right for them to perform their assigned tasks:

Dennis #10

Notice that rivet holes have already popped from corrosion on this allegedly fresh piece of 757 wreckage:

Dennis #11


The series of lamp posts

The official story claims that this aircraft, N644AA, a B-757-200, flown by “Chic” Burlingame, had 5,300 gallons of JET-A on board when it pushed back from the concourse that morning and, notwithstanding a very modest amount consumed enroute, the lion’s share of the remainder of the onboard fuel should have been all over the lawn after the plane struck six lamp poles on it’s way to the building. Had this actually been the case, the fuel in the wings would have provided some spectacular pyrotechnics on the way to the building, because the wings would have been ruptured all the way to the fuel tanks and the voltage potential between the poles and the plane would have ignited massive fireballs for us to see–not to mention the shredding of wing components as the leading edge slats would have been torn from the wings on the way to the building post-impact with those poles. Dennis #12
If you believe the plane struck the poles on the way to the building, then you cannot with a straight face assert there would be no damage to the aircraft as it struck those poles at that speed. Certainly that no fuel explosions or wing components separated as clearly they did not, apparently. Virtually all of the fuel in this aircraft was in the wings. Yet no fuel was present at the Pentagon lawn, no wing wreckage was found and no signs of the B-757’s massive wings or tail anywhere near the entry hole, which was too small for them to have politely neatly folded in, had the plane turned into a barn swallow and tucked the wings before impact. It’s not possible these massive wings vaporized. They would be there–mostly intact–and outside, due to the lack of wing entry slots in the façade of the Pentagon. So where did they go?

And, even more importantly, where are the engine entry points? Where? The west portion allegedly hit by this plane had just been reinforced with Kevlar jacketing, making it even more likely to repel the penetration of the wings, which remain invisible in every photograph either inside or out. A key point of the official theory that these wings are not visible outside because they are inside.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          In Legge’s photo, however, you cannot see a single aircraft component: no wings, no main spar, no spar box, no fuselage components, no seats, no overhead bins, not even a seat cushion. And, remarkably, not one torso or body part.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 It’s physically impossible that such a plane could effortlessly penetrate the building without being destroyed by the heavy reinforcement of that façade, no matter how fast they assert it was flying, which was in this case beyond its aerodynamic capability.


What does this mean?

I have carefully read the assessments of another researcher about this absurd position that these gentlemen advance, where Mr. Ryan’s recommends that we ACCEPT AS TRUE as much as we can of the official story. Our puzzlement about the dearth of wreckage, body parts and other things unpleasant, are somehow buried in the rubble. So we are supposed believe an American Airlines jet flew at an impossible 465 knots speed into this building, hitting six poles en route, yet the wings didn’t rupture or fireball–and the plane did not have enough structural integrity post-crash to remain visible outside the building?

When Pentagon employee, April Gallop, crawled with her son from the building through the entry hole, she saw no evidence at all to support the assertion that any aircraft had struck the building that morning. Not one body part, not one plane component, not one strand of aircraft wiring, not one seat cushion, nothing from a plane visible to her, and amazingly, no pools of jet fuel which would not have been burnt if they assert the plane made it into the building. Are we to believe April Gallop or those who are lying to our very eyes?

Dennis #13

The repetitious ‘believe, believe, believe’ and ‘accept, accept, accept’ suggestion by Kevin Ryan and indeed his henchmen who would wish us to so believe, is that much of an 80 ton aircraft could crash at the Pentagon and leave such a dearth of wreckage. Mr. Legge asserts that those of us who beg to differ are doing a ‘disservice’ to the truth community that he would like us to believe he is a valid part of, when neither he, nor Ryan, nor Stutts nor Wyndham has any experience or valid credentials in aviation or aircraft certifications, or aircraft operations; yet they pose as the arbiters of 9/11 Truth? How could anyone, after reviewing these photographs, continue to place faith in any of them–or in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, for that matter?

The proponents of the official story have told us that to not believe them, and to reject the nonsensical ‘official story’ is doing a massive disservice to the truth that they apparently are the sole arbiters of. Sound familiar? Which is it? Do we live now in a world where persons without ANY recognized credentials in these areas of AVIATION and FLIGHT and AIRCRAFT BUILDING AND CERTIFICATIONS now can suddenly be the very experts that tell us that the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY is TRUTH and that it’s perfectly fine that nearly 80 tons of airplane wreckage simply turned into vapor at the Pentagon? Apparently so. But it’s nonsense.

A missile or a Global Hawk?

Some have postulated that enough evidence of some form of air vehicle striking the Pentagon exists–and that appears to be the case. We have shards of very fine pieces of fiberglass, all over the area near the helipad and the helo control tower. A truck parked there has been fire damaged, but none of the glass is broken in that truck, which means whatever hit there didn’t hit with enough force to create shockwaves that would shatter the glass in the truck. So what created these shards of fiberglass? Could it have been one of these? The Air Force, incidentally, in the months after 9/11, reported that it had “lost” two of these in Afghanistan, which were never recovered.


John Danner, an EMT and commercially rated pilot, who was in the vicinity that morning, reported he observed a Global Hawk approach the building that morning. If this is true–which I believe it may be–then why was it there? What function did it serve? If there was a B-757-200 involved that day, any one of the Pentagon’s camera tapes would have shown that clearly to us en route to the Pentagon. So why withhold that from us? For what good reason? The only logical explanation is that the myriad of recordings clearly do not show a B-757-200 flying and striking the Pentagon as we have been maliciously and fraudulently told.

Clearly the government has not come clean here, in that IT holds the indisputable proof of what did and what did not fly over or fly into the Pentagon. We have the eyewitness testimony from N.E.I.T. 428’s Mr. Russell Roy interview by the Army, as you can easily verify for yourself, reporting that he saw a plane overfly so low that he could see the pilot’s face that morning as he pitched his plane up and banked away and flew away to the northwest towards Washington, D.C.

This man’s testimony is damning ‘prima facie’ evidence of a ‘flyover or flyby’ as is the excellent work of C.I.T.’s analysis and interviews of several very close in eyewitnesses that more or less reinforce the fact that a large aircraft flew a low approach to the building but then swerved over it. And this ‘low approach’ was not in sync with the external explosion at all, which means someone got his timing off a bit. Russell Roy could clarify this, if he is still alive today. But his interview still stands as proof of an aircraft having been close enough to the Pentagon and then departed, meaning we have ascertained that ‘something’ did not strike the building but flew over it.

Some in the truth movement believe that John Farmer, aka as Blue Collar Republican, a known ‘well poisoner’ in the 9/11 research realm, by the way, misused the Russell Roy interview transcripts to obfuscate and or muddy up the water about what really did occur at the Pentagon on 9/11. It is my professional opinion that the once fairly reliable source, Mr. Farmer, was co-opted and ‘bought’ by someone with a lot of cash to dangle, but I cannot certify the reason he went from once being a good source of information to being a definitive and certain ‘well poisoner’ for his later work, before he left the 9/11 Truth community in a huff.

What about the E4B?

One question remains in that it was well photographed that day over Arlington, high above the ground, an ‘E4B’ ‘TROUT’ doomsday aircraft was seen in a ‘hold’ pattern up high and yet this aircraft does not appear in the heavily doctored RADES 84 data for good reason. Is this the plane people seem to be pinning on Russell Roy’s observations that morning? Somehow as relevant as the E4B sighting is to the whole thing, it was up so high above Arlington that connecting it directly to a Pentagon overflight is a bit of a stretch, if not an absolute attempt to obfuscate the tight close in recollections of Mr. Roy that morning.

He was an Arlington Cemetery worker, in a very good position to see everything but the Pentagon itself from his viewpoint. At the very least we have enough damning information that firmly places O’Brien’s C-130H in tight and close to the Pentagon for wreckage seeding operations as I assert, contrary to his own disinformational claims that he was never anywhere within 4 n.m. of the Pentagon. And today, nobody has really addressed the clearly ‘supervisory’ role of the E4B aircraft in the operation in Arlington to attack the Pentagon using a missile. A solid fuel rocket motor propelled, D.U. penetrator equipped, land attack missile.

My assertion that an AGM-65J ‘maverick’ missile (below) was used to punch the ‘entry’ hole seems to fit well in what NEIT-428’s testimony states happened that morning, namely, that a large explosion occurred and then the flyover took place a few seconds later. Additionally, we also know that decontamination procedures for D.U. or ‘depleted uranium’ were being followed as It had been detected immediately after the explosion, so crews were washing people down to get D.U. off of them.

As I have stated, this indicates a penetrator warhead was used and, although I cannot pin the tail on AGM-65J with certainty, it’s inclusion in the Navy weapon’s inventory that year makes it the perfect candidate. In the below photograph, you can clearly see the use of ‘masking’ of the D.U. signature by the military having procured a huge amount of granite aggregate and other cover being laid down in the blowback area. Had an airliner been the whole gig, why would the government need to lay down rock to mask and suppress the radiation from fragments in the soil?

I don’t think they were landscaping. In other words, nobody can justify this masking of the underlying fragments of D.U. by the use of enormous quantities of radioactive granite fragments and other aggregate. So this, too, appears to be an attempt by the government to cover up the use of a D.U. penetrator warhead missile of some sort.

Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage and CIT

One of the leading sources of good solid detective work regarding the Pentagon attack is Craige Ranke’s Citizen Investigation Team (or C.I.T.), where their work on its own destroys the official story that a B-757-200 flown by inexperienced and incapable hijackers were somehow able to skillfully fly this machine to a pre-designated spot in the ‘Catcher’s Mitt’, which they hit with a great deal of precision and without being challenged or shot down by interception that day.

If one wishes to take the bait and believe Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage and the Legge-Stutts-and-Wyndham disinformation team and, just for simplicity sake, believe the government because that is less confusing, then one also has to ask these same disinformation peddlers ‘how’ we are to dispose of all of the damning evidence that suggests that they are in fact shills pushing the official government story, when so much contradictory proof destroys their assertions altogether? Simpler theories, as Jim Fetzer has reminded us many times, are only preferable when they can account for the same body of evidence.

We know the Pentagon had more than 80 video tapes of what happened that morning. “Show us the 80+ tapes”, Mr. President! Let us see what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.” The government will never ever come clean about this ruse, because to do so would de- legitimizes it fully and make it painfully clear that we are prisoners in a nation run by criminals and knaves, not a nation ruled by law. This event that took place going on almost 13 years now is the one that is the deal breaker. America was hijacked but those hijackings did not happen to any airliners that day. They happened in the very buildings we trust these frauds to govern from in the Beltway. That is where the hijackings really took place.


Dennis Cimino has extensive engineering and support experience with military electronics, predominantly US Navy Combat Systems, was the Navy’s top EMI troubleshooter before he went to work for Raytheon in the 1980s.

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on August 16, 2014, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

73 Responses to "Reflections on the Pentagon: A 9/11 photographic review"

  1. LC  September 1, 2014 at 7:36 am

    @ Min. 60. PENTABOMB was the actual FBI name!!!

    ++ bombs blew up interior walls before anything even hit the outer wall!!!

    @ Min. 95. it could’ve been a missile or drone (made of graphite) & painted as AMR but it hit the Heloport building & was destroyed there. It didn’t even hit PentaCon itself.

    Barbara Honegger 2013 “The 9/11 Pentagon Attacks”


    She kept calling it “The white PLANE” may be because she doesn’t know what it was. ++ a drone or missile can probably be called plane too!!!

    Her conclusion is very good to point at last 3 minutes; “BOMBS INSIDE + if anything hit buildings they were just smokescreens”

    • Jim Fetzer  September 1, 2014 at 7:55 am

      She should not be talking about “a plane”, white or any other color, since no plane hit the Pentagon. She knows enough to differentiate between UAVs and planes, where the Global Hawk is a UAV, not a plane. And a missile should not be referred to as “a plane”, either. Those are amateurish mistakes. She should know better.

    • LC  September 1, 2014 at 9:33 pm

      I see what you mean Doc.
      But I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. May be just consider it a TYPO!!!
      After all we’ve all made paper-planes too. Haven’t we???

      But did you notice the passion & frustration in her speech of not getting any real-evidence from the CIC (Cannibals-In-Control)??? Specially for her who had worked in the PentaCon that’s really frustrating. I think if she were a male journalist instead she couldn’t have handled it the way she has managed to. Much complements to her.

  2. hybryd  August 21, 2014 at 9:27 am

    This testimony by Roosevelt Roberts a pentagon employee who saw a plane at lightpole level over the south parking lot ( opposite side of explosion area) directly after explosion is the SLAM DUNK for me…..there had to be a flyover diversionary tactic happening. Period. Possibly tracking the global hawk. ……listen for yourself folks…..its on the library of congress web site of testimonies. http //memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr348a01.mp3

  3. LC  August 20, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    Prof. Fetzer;

    above you mentioned “OPERATION TERROR”.

    DID you mean this one???


    • Jim Fetzer  August 20, 2014 at 11:27 pm

      Yes, by Art Olivier. It’s an excellent introduction to 9/11 and provides a background narrative that enables someone who is not up to speed on the evidence to understand the big picture, whether or not he has all of the details right. I would be less upset with A&E911 if they did as good a job of orienting the public to what 9/11 was all about.

  4. dalethorn  August 20, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    I just looked over my own personal notes from the last few years, and those are

    1. The plane couldn’t do the maneuver.
    2. The pilot couldn’t fly the plane, let alone do the maneuver.
    3. The plane, once maneuvered, couldn’t be flown straight into the first floor.
    4. There was no air protection of the Pentagon for more than an hour after the first strike in New York.
    5. Numerous videos/photos from all the Pentagon cameras missing.
    6. The plane (a very thin and soft-shelled vehicle) could not penetrate much into the Pentagon.
    7. Insufficient or no wreckage on the lawn.
    8. No impacts of the massive steel engines on the wall next to the relatively small hole.

    I would expect debunkers to attack some of these points, but their credibility as honest researchers would have to be held suspect if they claim to be able to debunk all of them.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Excellent commentary, dalethorn, which I greatly appreciate. Some seem to have lost their way and are talking about what happened at the South Tower, not the Pentagon. But this case is enormously important because, as the US military command and control center, if there was fraud and fakery here, the entire official account of 9/11 is suspect–which is of course completely justified because virtually everything we have been told by our government about 9/11 is in fact provably false.

  5. thisisanorange  August 19, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    Although this is a serious topic, some of the official explanations from the presstitutes can be totally hilarious. Watch Mike Walter’s (USA Today) “eyewitness” account of the plane hitting the Pentagon @ 1 50

    Pentagon 9/11 Eyewitness Mike Walter Exposed
    https //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qouaq9GFtOk

    There you go The wings got scared and “folded back”!!! Strangely, the wings did the exact opposite in NYC that day. Even the extreme tips of the wings somehow managed to cut through steel beams as they were swallowed by the building. See also the video that was apparently released by a whistleblower a few year ago. There are a few copies on YouTube at this moment

    https //www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPWLqc5T20

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 19, 2014 at 11:16 pm

      Obviously the jets impacting the WTCs did NOT impact heavy vertical steel columns but sure as can be, the wings were severed from the fuselages by the resin cement/steel floor pan/ 30″ deep light weight truss assemblies. See the damage. The core of one WTC halted forward progress of one jet, while the jet fuselage of the other missed the core and ran the length of the other WTC without further resistance.
      Hologram jets or prepped and cut 1/4″‘and 7/16″ plate perimeter plate structural steel perimeter panels?
      The first option is hypothetical and ]IF POSSIBLE would cost billions of dollars in high powered laser generators, radar, military jets, and other equipment. The second option is also hypothetical and could be funded in its entirety by the procedes from me selling my two 1993 and 1997 Honda cars and my 1994 Mazda B4000 with the big tires and the lift kit. I could have procured explosive bolts from the engineers(present on site per contract) and high speed chemical steel cutter from the guys renting space where one of the jets hit and had enough money left to pay a few assistants and had money left over.

      Israel’s boss has some explaining to do. Israel does not own the ARCO site, the Skull and Bones Society, the London pedophile cult, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, the pentagon, The United States Coast Guard Report on What Hit the Pentagon on 9-11-2001, the CFRtv, American Associated Press, or CFRtv newsanchors who imitate misguided social climbers.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 20, 2014 at 6:23 am

      You insist on promoting myths about planes having hit the Twin Towers. But the videos of Flight 175–which Pilots for 9/11 Truth have discovered was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had allegedly hit the South Tower–not only show this “plane” traveling around 560 mph–faster than aerodynamically possible at 700-1,000′, so we already know we are dealing with some form of deception–but performing feats that no real plane could perform. Why you insist that Newton’s laws were violated on 9/11 is beyond me. But we shall return to this issue and other obvious frauds and deception in our next article, which I hope to publish today.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm

      Me? Argue with who may well be the greatest figures in the realm of math and science? THE Isaac Newton, with the Calculus, The Theory of Universal Gravitation, and so much more bases for our understanding of physics and measurement? Surely you jest. Like that other bucket of slop contaminating such a brilliant career in investigative science. See my statement below as to how fanciful and futile an acceptance of a hypothetical holograms and ‘NO PLANES’ approach is to understanding what punched holes in the WTCs and the pentagon. Believe me kids, steel and aluminum behave like butter. You just heat them up. And wouldn’t you know it! The materials to do this thermal chore have been PROVEN to have been on site and used from laboratories’ assays and certifications. The top military brass is up to their necks in this. At least the ones installed by the Bush cabal. Sorry about any problems with these ‘superior officers’.
      The most logical resolution to the claims of jets traveling at “500” mph too close to the ground for it to be possible is to ignore it. We know the radar programs in use that morning were hacked by the 9-11 attack perpetrators. Ignoring all references to low flying passenger jets travelling 500 mph should thus automatically be considered suspect, and for all intents and purposes, shit-canned.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 4:56 pm

      Ii have a cyber mystery troll editor today and a few times before. I recommend all references to civilian jets travelling 500mph@1200 feet altitude be completely disregarded as false radar images. Also beware of editted and photoshopped videos. At another post, I proof read and corrected, in vain, references {with photos by a puzzled carpenter} by Tom Flocco or Joe Vialls publishing an article featuring complex cantilevered joists being constructed to hold up the three levels of the pentagon impact area about 12 years ago. Unfortunately, I failed to hold on to many photocopied documents. Not a loon.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 20, 2014 at 5:07 pm

      It’s insulting that you are posting so many comments about the Twin Towers as opposed to the Pentagon. And there is no good reason to believe you in relation to the speed of “the plane” or how it could have been a real plane, yet entered a massive 500,000-ton building with no loss in velocity. You are fanatical and post more comments than anyone else–where I must say no one seems to find them convincing. A bit unreal!

  6. ksp  August 19, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    RE Jim Fetzer August 19, 2014 – 5 01 am
    “Dennis wants to know if you are instead asserting the pole strikes destroyed the wings and therefore they would not have still been on the plane at impact.” I am just pointing out that a wing that is not strong enough to survive the lampposts surely isn’t strong enough to be “mostly intact” after hitting a heavy masonry building. The wings would be in many small pieces and probably ashes. Of course there is no sign of wings or wing parts of an aircraft so probably not relevant.
    Thanks for all the response on my posts, clears up a lot. Especially the idea of the lampposts being props.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      In virtually every air crash in recorded history, the wings have been components most likely to survive. The points we made were that hitting lampposts would have gouged the wings and caused enough damage for the fuel to have been mixed with air and burst into flame, which would have led the plane to careen across the lawn. They would not have been broken into many small pieces or reduced to ash. Most of the wings would have still been present. But of course there is no evidence of any plane having crashed there.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 19, 2014 at 11:35 pm

      Those light posts with breakaway base bolts are designed to give drunk and other errant drivers another chance at finding happiness. A commercial jetliner’s wings would have been broken open and otherwise damaged with this jet’s full load of fuel scattered. This did not occur. We know of reports of two A-3 Skywarriors undergoing serious refitting two weeks before 9-11-2001. A-3s were designed to carry two 1970 nukes and fly through debris, at least. Prop light poles? Nah. Too complicated. HOWEVER, the smoke generator machine at the ‘crash site’ is indicative of how little the “U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A., …” chanting sheeple care about what really happened at the pentagon that day

  7. ksp  August 18, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    If the entry hole was made by a missile what knocked over the lampposts??
    If contaminated material on the lawn was an issue wouldn’t new contaminated material also be an issue??
    Where would one go to get “enormous quantities of radioactive granite fragments and other aggregate”
    What I see in the photo is a roadway being built that will support all the heavy truck/equipment for the clean up and reconstruction operations.

    Just some speculation, I wasn’t there.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 18, 2014 at 4:58 pm

      CIT has been especially successful in uncovering witnesses who saw a plane approach the Pentagon north of the Citgo station, which then flew over it while explosives were being set off in the building. Those lamppost appear to have been taken down to serve as props. I was puzzled that, later in the morning, as rumors swept Washington that the Capitol was next, when the members of Congress rushed out onto the steps of the building, they looked across the Patomac and saw enormous black clouds of smoke rising from the Pentagon. I was curious where it was coming from, since those lime-green civilian fire engines had put out the modest fires shortly after the alleged impact; and when I dug into it, I discovered they were coming from a series of enormous dumpsters, which were serving as the source and functioning as if they were smoke machines on a Hollywood set.

    • OrdinarySerf  August 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm

      Hollywood set of a low budget, second rate ‘B’ picture Jim. I followed CIT from the start and found them to be one of the most trustworthy / credible sources for research on this. But regardless, what people have to do is just step back, open their eyes and think logically. Absolutely impossible for a plane of that size to have gone into that building in that manner, even being flown by the most experienced airline pilot on the planet, let alone a young inexperienced kid as they would want us to believe…..

    • Jim Fetzer  August 18, 2014 at 7:31 pm

      Dennis has asked me to clarify that granite is radioactive: get a geiger counter and put it on any granite table top or counter surface and then tell us what that shows you. That thick foundation didn’t need to exist for construction or renovation to occur; if that were the case, why wasn’t it done before CATCHER’S MITT WAS RENOVATED? The ground, by the way, is not boggy there. It would easily sustain trucks without any reinforcing. Laying so much of that granite was to suppress the radiation signature from the D.U. debris.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 18, 2014 at 8:16 pm

      And he asked me to add he does not believe that a MISSILE took down the lamp posts. We don’t know how the lamp posts got taken down, but a B-757 didn’t do it for the reasons stated regarding no fireballs, no wing debris. Similarly, had a Global Hawk sheared the poles, he would have expected some wing debris–even from fiberglass wings–to have been found nearby, so the lack of wing debris is a problem for even a Global Hawk strike. The fraudulent FDR data flight path, incidentally, does not align with the pole strikes, if one wanted to believe it, which he does not because it, too, is faked. (See his article, “The official account of the Pentagon Attack is a fantasy”, http //jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html)

  8. LC  August 17, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    Thanks Prof. Fetzer;

    Also…Former 9/11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon


    & folks please remember that we just saw equivalent of two 9/11 jobs on innocent Palestinians with our weapons.

    • captain obvious  August 18, 2014 at 12:50 am

      rummy himself said “missile” once, MSM glossed it over real quick.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  August 18, 2014 at 1:54 am

      Someone needs to send this article ( and more ) to that liar Scott Horton over at anti-war.com…

    • LC  August 18, 2014 at 7:41 am

      RiteOn Captain;

      Dave Van Kleist (maker of 9/11 in plane sight++) & husband of the Fed. Whistle-blower Col. Joyce Riley (maker of BEYOND TREASON) here documents a whole host of Rummy’s truthful slips + other people’s truthful slips in this interview;

      9/11 Government Misstatements


      He replays some of the actual slips in this interview. Like @ Min. 20 when Rummy said we shot down flight 93!!!

  9. ksp  August 17, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    Two points seem to be incongruous A wing that can not survive impact with six ( maybe aluminum) lampposts yet survive impact with a heavy masonry building mostly intact. I don’t think we can have it both ways.
    I would like to hear some airframe folks speculate about what could fly through the six lampposts at any speed and still be in the air. If the specs on the lampposts are known then some body should be able to figure out what it would take to mow em down. I think the UAV would be digging a hole after the first post.

    Just some thoughts,

    • Jim Fetzer  August 17, 2014 at 8:06 pm

      Yes, excellent points! There is no plane there. Does anyone have any doubt? IT’S NOT THERE. And the official account is not even aerodynamically or physically possible. No Boeing 757 could have been just skimming the ground (close enough to take out a series of lampposts) at over 500 mph, just as no Boeing 767 could have been flying at even higher speed approaching the South Tower. Neither event is aerodynamically possible. And there are no signs that any plane either hit or entered the building no wings, no tail, no bodies, no seats, no luggage. If you have any doubt, LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS. As we have explained, not even the engines–which were virtually indestructible–were recovered at the Pentagon. And in New York, an engine component of the wrong kind was planted at Church & Murray. So what is the probability of this stunning absence of evidence if a real plane had really hit the Pentagon? or if a real plane had hit the South Tower? Approximately ZERO.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2014 at 5:01 am

      I am puzzled by the first three sentences, however. If a Boeing 757 had hit those lampposts, then it would have been damaged, fuel stored in the wings would have ignited and the plane careened across the lawn. THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT HAPPEN. If a Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon, then its wings would have been present SOMEWHERE. But the wings ARE NOT THERE. There is nothing inconsistent here. Dennis wants to know if you are instead asserting the pole strikes destroyed the wings and therefore they would not have still been on the plane at impact. BUT WHERE ARE THEY? I am sorry, but if that is your stance, it is weak and indefensible.

  10. Abe  August 17, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    I was a Launch & Recovery Technician in a crash unit in the Corps almost 40 years ago now, and a retired commercial carpenter with 30 years doing high rises. I’ve been on several crash sites during that time. Any aircraft is very fragile to say the least. Two things that really scream out at me is the “Road Runner cut outs in the twin towers. If I recall correctly, those box columns were on 40 inch centers, 16 inches square, and on the 80th floor were 1 1/2 inches thick. The columns in the elevator core were 22″ x 54″ , and 2 1/2″ thick. (remember it came out the other side, intact on the 2nd hit on the Twin Towers) LOL Ja! Shore! Youbetcha it did!!
    In the pics from the hole in the pentagon I could clearly see “2” I columns, generally on 16 foot centers totally undamaged. Don’t know the size, but they only held 4-6 floors above them.
    Here’s a couple videos I send friends to see what a crock of BS the “official” story is. Note the wings on the Fox 4! Like the cerebral leprechaun says from Mechanics Illustrated says, “The wings came off”.

    BLU-109 2000lb “Bunker Buster” Bomb
    http //www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKkzuU2qtE

    F-4 Phantom Vs. Wall
    http //www.youtube.com/watch?v=–_RGM4Abv8

    • Abe  August 17, 2014 at 4:02 pm

      I just wanted to mention a video James Corbett came out with a couple years ago. It clearly states how ridiculous the “Official” conspiracy really is.
      9/11 A Conspiracy Theory
      http //www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm

      At the impact levels, the structural steel, including the bolted in place perimeter panel assemblies, was MUCH thinner than you describe, and thus much easier to cut, either as the Rockefeller/Bush criminal NYC/White House cabal mandate during construction, or by the late night ‘work crews’ a week or two before 9-11 or as is suspect, the Israeli ‘performing artists’ camped out in the WTC, who had as one member, one of the ‘Dancing Israelis’ who at the time also was a demolitions expert with the Israeli Mossad. I don’t think this fellow is a hologram, but it was reported that Janet the DHS let him back in the country after Chertoff the SOB sent him back to Israel with his fellow dancers, all of whom had failed polygraph tests while in custody in the U.S. for being 9-11 attack suspects,

  11. William St. George  August 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Instead of the event “9/11″ let’s imagine a costly Hollywood production with a multitude of stars. We will call it “9/11″. If it followed what in fact actually appeared to happen that day and the following days to the attack on Afganistan, I think after a few weeks the film would lose attendance and have to be written off as a flop. The criticism would be lack of expert advise during the production. The real 9/11 is riddled with flaws and obvious mistakes. But most people do not have the technical knowledge to spot these things. And within a few days anyone who doubted the offical story was showing their insensitivity to the survivors and falling for a conspiracy theory. So sloppy though it was with a good mixture of impossibles and improbables, enough people took it to heart that they whoever they were were delighted and went on to use that event to destroy and murder!

  12. MK  August 17, 2014 at 11:50 am

    I would be very interested if there was “peasant” insurance on the Pentagon employees as there was on the people in the Trade Towers. Now that Rick Perry has been indicted, let me encourage EVERYBODY to send emails to the Texas state government to require investigation into his links to the Bush Cabal.

  13. wjabbe  August 17, 2014 at 6:44 am

    http //www.nationofchange.org/six-cops-arrested-corruption-philadelphia-1406988642
    Remember that great action film “The Dirty Dozen” with Lee Marvin, 1967? 12 murderers were allowed to vindicate themselves by carrying out a risky mission behind German lines. Marvin was the Major John Reisman in charge. The link above indicates a half dozen corrupt narcotics cops need atonement for their sins. How about Duff or Fetzer leading the “Dirty Half Dozen” on a mission to elicit the truth from the four stars in the image of the film above? After all, our government today, at every level, has gang raped our Constitution anyway, and adopted the motto “the ends justify the means.”. Are not the crimes of 9/11 orders of magnitude worse than stealing from drug dealers? Perhaps these corrupt cops can do some good for humanity after all, and atone for their sins? The roof of the new towers could be the staging platform. Tongue- in- cheek of course.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm

      The public wants a major nationwide crucifixion to take their minds of the stress of having to tie their own shoelaces.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 1:52 pm

      The public wants a major nationwide crucifixion to take their minds of the stress of having to tie their own shoelaces.

      DISOBEY4SURE, I have been shouting from the rooftops for over 5 years and probably 10 that NO PASSENGER jet liners crashed as the government claims. Read before you bite.

  14. Dbooger  August 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    Barbara Honegger published the “9/11 Pentagon Attack – Behind the Smoke Curtain” that goes into detail of the events surrounding the alleged Flight 77 crashing into the pentagon. I watched the youtube presentation for around 3 hours while I was in Kurdistan in 2013 that, and at that time, not having the usual western news agencies on television, I came across Press TV and Veterans Today. I have been following both for the past year and the disclosures provided are indeed forging together the “truth” movement.
    Being in structural engineering and construction for the past 50 years, Honegger’s film hit the nail on the head and even while I watched the destruction of the WTC 1 and 2 including building 7 while I was in Beijing in 2001, my first thought was, that this had to be a staged event and not related to bin Laden.
    Hopefully, in my lifetime, the real “truth” will prevail and the despicable gang or group of people behind this debacle including the millions of lives sacrificed will be arrested, tried and executed for their evil crimes.
    My question is, when will all the groups be channeled together in one solid movement to press for the actual truth?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 17, 2014 at 7:12 am

      Barbara gets things mostly right, but I have chastised her repeatedly for using the word “plane” to describe a Global Hawk, since it tacitly reinforces the false claim that a Boeing 757 hit the building. She should refer to it as “an unmanned aerial vehicle” or as a “Global Hawk”, not as “a plane”. Dennis and I are also troubled that she does her level best to discount the testimony of April Gallop–and we am not alone in thinking so. April confirms on the basis of her personal, direct and timely experience that there were no parts of any plane anywhere in the vicinity to be seen–which, of course, was also the report of Jamie McIntyre, where both of them are featured in the videos we embedded. They, however, were civilians, where their testimony is substantiated by the photographs and analysis we present here, while those by the military who claim to have seen a plane are not.

  15. forthurst  August 16, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    I wish you guys would stop attacking those who clearly are sincere in their beliefs about the nature of the 9/11 event, but whose views are constrained by either their professional backgrounds or that of limiting their rebuttal of the official conspiracy theory to what would attract the widest possible acceptance from highly qualified people prepared to put their names on the public record. That is not to say that poisoning the well is not taking place; on the other hand, when it comes to limited hangout, that it is far more meaningful in the logistical and political spheres than the technical, since once it is established in the public mind that two (passenger) planes could not demolish three WTC towers, it hardly matters whether those planes or the third at the Pentagon were real or the towers were demolished by nuclear devices, since the official narrative has been destroyed.

    How the event was carried out and to what extent anything that allegedly happened was real (probably none of it) is obviously very interesting and a challenge to those with the necessary technical backgrounds, but it is not essential to inculcating a belief that the 9/11 event was the most egregious false flag attack in US, possibly world history; getting enough people to believe that and its importance to their own futures is the most vital endeavour, especially bearing in mind they almost miraculously never see any public refutation in the MSM.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm

      If you don’t care about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding 9/11, then you have no place in the 9/11 Truth movement. Those who have placed politics ahead of science are using feeble excuses like yours to deny the American public the truth. That is despicable and I will not stand for it. There are too many half-hearted phonies and frauds who have prominent positions from which they promote limited hangouts. That has gotten us nowhere. I say let the truth be told: New York was nuked on 9/11; none of the 9/11 planes actually crashed; and Israel, the Neo-Cons and the CIA brought us 9/11. THAT might capture the attention of the American people.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 17, 2014 at 4:49 pm

      1) Lear was a CIA contractor, one to lie, not one to examine blueprints or work or even cut steel. I
      am. His presence in this discussion rivals a mannequin in admissability and pales beside the
      mannequin in veracity.
      2) Rumsfeld and General Myers associate directors of 9-11. Duh. Can you say NSA General
      Michael Aquino, long time Bush cabal youth coordinator and entrtainment director and now
      director of all psychological warfare for the U.S. military, at home and abroad?.
      3) The United States Coast Guard Report on What Hit the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. Real or bogus?
      Major General (Ret.) Albert Stubblebine considered it a document vital to understand all which
      contributed in damaging the pentagon and wiping out the auditing effort to locate the missing 3.2
      trillion on that day. This AFTER his premature statement about “no plane” when ambushed at a
      busy air terminal.
      4) Can 1/4″ thick and 7/16″ thick medium structural steel be cut by an oxyacetylene torch
      or a chemical ordnance or demolition product at a rate exceeding 700 fps? How about 850fps?

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 17, 2014 at 5:38 pm

      5)Were there exploding bolts and high speed metal cutter product on site or close at hand on
      9-11-2001 at the WTCs I and II? Duh. Yes there was and ‘yes’ it looks like they used a bunch of it.
      Not an hypothetical hologram.
      6) The upper level adjacent welded perimeter panel assemblies were supposed to be welded
      together, per spec. These adjacent panels were not welded together. Sonnenfeld’s FEMA 5 hour
      video and MBs of still shots show proof of rampant buiding code violations and the use of
      explosives during the WTC demolitions.
      7) Please don’t prance like Richard Gage. You are no Richard Gage. When he prances, it is
      dreadful to watch. When you do it, it shows a disintegration of Veterans Today.
      8) The United States Coast Guard Report on What Hit the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. Is it Fake or
      Fetzer FAIL. If some higher ranking traitor within the halls of the pentagon is sitting on it, tell them I . told them to hand you a copy so you can see and know the real deal about what hit the pentagon…

    • disobey4sure  August 19, 2014 at 7:48 am

      Howard– Jim and Cimino have basically proven that NO PLANE hit the Pentagon– OK, OK,
      we get it. In late 2001 I saw the French video that showed conclusively that the big airliner did not and could have not have hit the Pentagon as the Liars would have the people believe.
      !3 years later, I still believe that to be fact.
      Don’t know if Dennis Cimino has read the extensive analysis about what hit the Pentagon in
      Dimitri Khalezov’s New Book released last August– I know Jim Fetzer is too busy to read it because He told me he was too busy. So– Dennis, man up and read another look at the story that has been very suppressed and since most people don’t read, they will continue NOT knowing a very detailed and commonsense approach from a most knowledgeable guy.
      Not only will you see what most likely hit the Pentagon, you will also get all the background information for you to form your own opinion as to whether you think it is plausible, or not.
      Up to you! Fetzer’s bias not included.

  16. ethanallen  August 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    It seems to me that any and all records that could incontestably establish the falsity of the official 9/11 claims have been absolutely, thoroughly and irretrievably destroyed. It would be sheer madness for any administration to leave records establishing their treason and risk capital punishment for themselves and the utter destruction of any nation that assisted in this despicable act. Should a subsequent administration be electorally defeated (by a rigged election?) it is possible that in a fit of pique the ousted president might order a release of all information.
    Has documentary evidence ever been found proving Nixon’s treasonous deal with Thieu in 1968? Of the Reagan campaign’s1980 October Surprise deal with Iran? Of Roosevelt’s foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? If the documentary evidence of these shameful events can not be retrieved it is hopelessly naive to even suggest documentary evidence proving treason on 9/11 could ever be retrieved.

  17. davor  August 16, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Great stuff, the only sad thing is that people are afraid to ask for the truth, to try to look for truth. Don’t know how someone can call himself a member of MENSA and look at these photos and still go with the official story. It’s like losing intelligence exponentially, like the needle pointing altitude in a falling plane. I bet that CIA recruit/trainees that upon their examinations accept the official 9/11story probably never enter that organization because they are treated for morons. War on terror….Jesus Christ.

  18. wjabbe  August 16, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    The most basic function of the Department of Defense (DOD), is not to conduct foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere around the planet, but to defend the homeland, we know as America. Isn’t the Pentagon Building, where supposedly most of the planning for our defense takes place, part of the homeland? Our four star generals have been provided many billions of hard earned borrowed and printed tax dollars to provide for the security of the USA, including but not limited to the Pentagon. Where is the evidence of our defense systems operating that day? Were any of these four star generals, with all that fruit salad on their chests, questioned in public about their dismal failure to provide defensive systems to destroy what ever destroyed the Pentagon on 9/11/01? Were any of them fired, let alone jailed or executed for possible treason against America? So far as I know, all have been allowed to quietly collect their high pensions while the taxpayers were gang raped by these shameless scoundrels. At least one of these so and so’s must know the truth of what happened. What happened to Honor, Duty, Country Mr. Four Star General? Has the cat got your tongue?

    • wjabbe  August 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      The average American has no concept of how the 4 star generals protect the homeland today. They are supported by literally thousands of both in house and external “experts” of all persuasions, from physics to history, from mathematics to social science, from foreign language to computer science, and on and on and on. These people are mostly Ph.D. level at or from top universities. They engage in what is called operations research or game theory. Their job is to anticipate virtually every possible scenario, however remote by which America could come under attack. Our Four Star Generals are aware of basically every possibility and more. They have been provided the financial and physical resources to defend against virtually every possible outcome. If someone seeks to excuse their failure with the claim, “How could they know a commercial airliner might attack…”, this is an ignorant, worthless, meaningless statement by one ignorant or in denial of how they operate today. The only rational explanation of the apparent attack on the Pentagon is that the Four Star Generals either planned the operation themselves or were ordered by the President to do so. No other rational explanation is possible to anyone with knowledge of how the associated agencies NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD,… secretly operate today. Secrecy is what allows Americans to be so easily fooled and fleeced.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 16, 2014 at 7:08 pm

      Excellent posts, which I commend. You are contributing to understanding a virtually inexplicable aspect of 9/11, which is how the public could have been so easily fooled.

    • moneytalks  August 16, 2014 at 7:50 pm

      “” Secrecy is what allows Americans to be so easily fooled and fleeced.””

      The Rothschild empire controls the US from the City of London world currencies trading capitol. It owns half the world and is the wealthiest private empire in all of history. Secrecy was built into the empire operations from the very beginning about 250 years ago. Rothschild controlled state intelligence agencies are likewise secretive about their vast array of projects. The sheeple of the world care very little about being fooled or fleeced. They are generally mentally incapable of dealing with murders or the prospect of their own exterminations; and amazingly the sheeple are easily terrified into ignoring or not recognizing their predators.

    • mikeward991  August 18, 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Yes. Way past time. I propose tactically nuking London.
      End the Feral Reserve. Disburse the Rockefeller fortune, the Scaife fortune, Bush’s fortune. Take pleasure in watching them die as paupers.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 17, 2014 at 8:49 pm

      How many of these four-star generals were recommendedd and nominated since the JFK assassination by the Cheney/Rumsfeld Bush criminal cabal White House presidencies? All, probably. Congress was too busy prancing and mewling for dollars to pay attention, like RGage and 9-11 research.

  19. dalethorn  August 16, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    What’s so sad – a guy I worked with for years at the computer store in Beverly Hills, he flies big planes now for AA, but I can’t even mention this stuff to him or he’d never talk to me again.

    • disobey4sure  August 21, 2014 at 8:35 am

      dalethorn— WHY would YOU ever want to talk to him?? Must have a Very closed mind.

  20. drbhelthi  August 16, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Original videos showed a 9´ hole in the Pentagon. Shortly thereafter, an internal explosion did the damage to the three floors that subsequent videos showed. The original hole was blown by a Tomahawk missile that was observed by a woman on the sidewalk. She described it as, ” – – it looked like some kind of small airplane.” This is an excellent description of the Tomahawk, by an average person who is not an aviator. We subsequently learned that the Tomahawk was fired by a US Navy vessel in the Chesapeake Bay.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 16, 2014 at 5:29 pm

      If an explosion violent enough to burn and tear apart three floors had occurred, that unabridged dictionary on the stool within one foot of the seperation on the second floor would have been burned or knocked off the stool. About ten years ago Joe Vialls or Tom Focco ran an online article featuring photographed close ups of ‘drop away floor joists’ surreptitiously taken by a puzzled capenter during the remodel signed off on the previous day. This sure rings true. It takes a huge amount of power to sever such large floor joists, unless rigged, such as the WTC I and I&II perimeter panels were rigged by cutting to allow passage of 200,000 pound jets travelling over 250 mph. One jet hit the core straight on. The other missed and scooted across the floor without resistannce or wings.
      Sometimes credentials are like a TSA uniform and all that means, or the placebo president, B. Obama.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 16, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      According to multiple studies of the videos, “Flight 175″ was traveling over 560 mph, which is its cruising speed at 35,000′ but impossible at 700-1,000′ where these events transpired, because the air is three times denser and cannot be sucked through the turbines, which causes the engines to function as enormous breaks. It would be impossible for any real airplane to pass though the steel and concrete facade of either tower without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. On your “garage door” theory, a opening was blown for their easy admission. But you can study this event frame-by-frame and no opening is blown in the facade to facilitate its entry. You have been publishing crap about the planes in New York for years now and I have wasted hours upon hours correcting you. But in your infinite stupidity about this aspect of 9/11, you do not even seem to understand that the planted engine component at Church & Murray gives the game away if a real plane had crashed, then it would not have been necessary to fabricate evidence–like the landing gear recently found wedged between two buildings, where even Commissioner Kelly observed that it was connected to a piece of rope, which had been used to lower it into place. Enough is enough from you on this subject, Howard. I am stunned that you denying what is physically impossible or otherwise clearly refuted by the available evidence. Posts like this only serve to make you look like a loon. For those who do not understand the issues, see “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” or watch “The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”, Part 2, which I have embedded several times now.

    • moneytalks  August 16, 2014 at 8:09 pm

      Lewis is a shill .

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 16, 2014 at 10:56 pm

      I am more real than you guys. Fetzer FAIL. I have a 36 year WTC research lead on Fetzer, whose misuse of logic concerning military participation I find disturbing and out of place. I saw those 911 conference videos shortly after their release, and beyond hologram references and nonsensical references to CIA pilot Lear as witness material, found them fairly good. I have lost faith in you as an impartial 911 researcher who carries the tune but lies and ignores vital facts and material. You, Mr. Fetzer, have become somebody’s stooge. It is not like you. See the pentagon interior wreckage photos or call them all faked. Standin military version jets have slightly beefed up leading edges. I need a new keyboard so I shall stop in typing only.

      Moneytalks, you are in over your head.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 17, 2014 at 7:06 am

      What “misuse of logic” concerning military participation? Who doubts that Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers were key players on 9/11? John Lear is our nation’s most distinguished pilot and his affidavit about the impossibility of those planes entering the buildings as shown is an important contribution to understanding what happened that day. (Go to 911scholars.ning.com and search for “John Lear affidavit”.) The case for the use of holograms is relatively straightforward, as long as there were witnesses who saw (what they took to be) a plane flying toward the South Tower. (I interviewed Scott Forbes on “The Real Deal”, for example, and found him quite credible; plus there are many other reports.) “Beefed up leading edges” won’t cut through massive steel beams, not even the external support columns, and the South Tower “plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trussed connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, filled with 4-8″ of concrete and representing an acre of concrete apiece. No real plane could have effortlessly passed into the South Tower as the videos display. You are welcome to find fault with me, but not even Howard T. Lewis III can overcome the laws of physics.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 3:02 pm

      These edges shredded the jets, and momentum, p=mv,carried them into the WTCs and the pentagon. p=momentum, m=mass, and v=velocity. If you allow me to lightly pad my knee or head, I can demonstrate this violation of your alleged sensibilities and easily bend prepared 1/4″, 7/16″. and 1/2″ structural steel over the padded knee or skull without causing myself injury. I did receive one Jeet kun do personal lesson from Bruce Lee in Seattle in 1971, but no paranormal abilities will need be called into play in demonstrating that a 100,000 pound jet traveling at least 250 mph could fold aluminum siding and precut thin gauge steel in the direction of travel. This sure trumps your approach. PLEASE start remembering I have reviewed each and all of your VT and conference 9-11 presentations, as well as some other interviews. I will be available for travel to demonstrate before a crowd how this steel manipulation can be. I do not, nor have I EVER said a “door was blown”in these perimeter panels. I have said and do reiterate that casual examination of the records of the impact sites reveals straight cut edges either from steel under aluminum panels being unbolted and or cut in preparation and anticipation of the incoming jets.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  August 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm

      You unfairly cut out the part about me saying any one out of a million steelworkers, all of whom apparently shy away from VT, could perform this SIMPLE demonstration..I DID get a lesson from Bruce Lee. Half a dozen witnesses still around. You a betting man?
      Either you or a troll is butchering my input today.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 20, 2014 at 3:37 pm

      You are losing it, Howard. Until now, I have not been on this site today, because I am working on an article (in part) in response to you. I think you have completely lost it, but I am not for that reason censoring or editing any of your comments, although it is proving to be a severe test of my will power.

  21. Mopar21277  August 16, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Excellent Professor & Mr. Cimino; as I understand it, “Flight 77″ was one of the two “hi-jacked” flights that was actually scheduled to fly that day. Was this the one that was over Illinois and didn’t a reporter see the tail ID at an airport in Ohio maybe?

    My question is, what about the people, particular the pilot? If they did indeed land after the supposed crash, were they put into “witness protection,”? Were they actors in a drill? Were they rounded-up and liquidated?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 16, 2014 at 1:14 pm

      No. Actually, BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) records show that Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) were not even scheduled to fly that day. The whole Pentagon exercise was a charade and, as Dennis has emphasized, not a very convincing one. These schemes succeed to the extent they do because of a complaint media, which has lost the ability to conduct serious investigative journalism. For more on the faking of all four crash sites, see “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”, Part 2, which is embedded in our most recent article prior to this, “Limited Hangouts Kevin Ryan, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies”, where we review some of the most important data.

    • moneytalks  August 16, 2014 at 8:20 pm

      “” These schemes succeed to the extent they do because of a complaint media, which has lost the ability to conduct serious investigative journalism.””

      There should be no doubt that it was not merely a lost ability — it was deliberately taken away to help secure ZWO agenda operations ( such as world depopulation operations for example ) against unwanted opposition .

    • moneytalks  August 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm

      That is to say — hear no evil , see no evil , then you can report no evil .

    • moneytalks  August 16, 2014 at 8:29 pm

      That brings to mind another glaring piece of suspicious evidence — the lack of eyewitness testimony from any of the dozens of people working on the Pentagon crash site . It is all so very odd , very strange .

    • Jim Fetzer  August 17, 2014 at 7:20 am

      No, there were more than 80 purported “eyewitnesses”. Mike Sparks and I spent six hours discussing their alleged “testimony” and found serious problems across the board, where they either were not in the position to have seen what they claim to have seen or what they said was too vague or too ambiguous to make any difference. As a Series Commander with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command at the USMC Recruit Depot in San Diego, I could have provided 300 sworn affidavits that they saw Bruce Wayne drive the Batmobile into the Pentagon. See the links provided in “Limited Hangouts: Kevin Ryan, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies”, http //www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/14/limited-hangouts-kevin-ryan-ae911-and-the-journal-of-911-studies/ Their testimony, needless to say, is not consistent with the photographs and analysis that Dennis and I provide in this article.

    • moneytalks  August 16, 2014 at 8:45 pm

      Most people , including many veterans , that I have conversed with over the years are buffoons about national security realities . Eyewitnesses could easily fall for any government ploy to get them to remain silent for security reasons along with threats of legal sanctions against them talking about off limits national security matters .

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2014 at 5:10 am

      Dennis sent this response “Mr. Ward, were you aware that there was a nearly 26 second delay in the entire N.E.A.D.S. radar feeds on 9/11/2001? My assertion is that the government used a device I worked on in the Navy called an SPH-2 (SPH-2) Radar Video Recorder / Reproducer aka as RAVIR, designed and developed by Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, to ‘replay’ pre-recorded exercise video from an earlier exercise run on the Pentagon about a year earlier. This 26 second delay never happened in N.E.A.D.S. either BEFORE 9/11/2002 or AFTERWARDS, and the Public Affairs Officer at Langley, a female Captain, assured me this was a timing issue. When I informed her that all facilities like these use CESIUM BEAM ION CLOCKS or ATOMIC CLOCKS for system synchronization, that ‘ended’ her discussion with us, this being at a time when John Farmer, referenced in this article, was actually one of the best resources of information one could possibly find in this effort.”

    • captain obvious  August 17, 2014 at 9:00 am

      YES about “compliant media”, just look at WTC-7 still standing 23+ minutes after bee-hotch announced it was down, with a live picture of it UP right behind her.. yeah friggin wow. then larry silverslime saying “we pulled it”, afterwards backpedalling to STILL COLLECT billions on invested millions, no way he’d got away with that if the big media werent 100% complicit-compliant.

    • drbhelthi  August 16, 2014 at 1:36 pm

      There is much more verified information to add to your 1st paragraph.
      Your 2nd paragraph is very appropriate.
      Why the recent secrecy at the Mount McGregor prison in N.Y. state? No prisoners were listed, yet a constant staff of 73 has been on the payroll.
      Were the passengers from one 9-11 related flight, plus passengers of another airliner, that landed and saw the 9-11 airliner and passengers being deplaned, taken captive? What were 325 people to the Bush CIA/MOSSAD, which had just murdered 3,000 innocent people, to secure a $4 billion insurance payment to a wealthy israeli?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login