Sunday, January 29, 2012

9/11 Emergency Response at the Pentagon

more photos

Andie found some interesting FBI photos and a video of the emergency response at the Pentagon on 9/11 that I thought should be saved outside of the FBI realm.

As with anything from the FBI, the photos, some of which may be staged, and the video, which was unlisted and couldn't be accessed without the link, may not be an entirely honest account of that day but still worth examining. 

In the video, I didn't see anything of the reported downed light poles that even this questionable site questioned. Maybe I missed it? The light poles always seemed to be a poor add-on for the official story and maybe injected for the distraction value. Also the video doesn't show many lawn marks or much of a debris field in front of the Pentagon.   ???

Update 1-30-12

Willyloman put together this graphic showing what appears to be poles on the Pentagon lawn and another screenshot from the video that looks to confirm what he is saying. (see comments below)


  1. Here's an interesting link to a 9/11 skeptic who uses his decades as a professional photographer to question what we were told and presented in photos.

    General Introduction

    Jack White BA has been a professional photographer for more than fifty years. White's specialty is photoanalysis. In these 9/11 photo studies, Jack White investigates the provenance of the images. He considers the trustworthiness of the pictures and examines in considerable detail the record of events.

    Jack White's 911 Photo Studies question the AUTHENTICITY of the photographs themselves. All studies are intended to raise the following questions:

    1. Did the events depicted occur as shown?
    2. Did the events occur when shown?
    3. Were the events shown physically possible?
    4. Are some events and objects shown mutually exclusive?
    5. Were some of the events staged?
    6. Did whistle-blowers insert "mistakes" on purpose?
    7. Were many photos altered, manipulated or retouched?

    If even one faked "official" image can be proven, all official photos become suspect. One may wish to ask several further questions:

    a) Were the events of 9/11 staged as a New Pearl Harbor – a horrific propaganda event to justify the US conducting invasions and going to war?
    b) Were photographs posed or fabricated as powerful propaganda tools?
    c) Were persons in power responsible for the 9/11 atrocities?
    If citizens of the United States and elsewhere cannot trust the official photographs and imagery of 9/11, why should anyone trust the official account?

  2. Yes, I just saw this yesterday and was looking for the downed light poles. Didn't see them. Good catch.

  3. For starters, I trust that most people visiting this site know that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. That is obvious. As to the photos, the hole in the inside of the "C" ring was made by a backhoe; it could not have been made by the nosecone of a 757. That should also be obvious.

    However, photos of the space between the "C" and "B" ring should raise an obvious question. Since there is nothing but about 40 feet of blank space between the two, with nothing but air in between them, then if the "plane" had enough power to completely punch through the inside wall of the "C" ring, then what prevented it from impacting the outside wall of the "B" ring, eh?

    Again, pretty obvious.

  4. There is one downed light pole in the video at the 3:46 mark.

    What I find conspicuous in it's absence is the moment of the collapse of the section of the Pentagon that had been hit. I find it odd that someone video tapping that event would completely miss something that dramatic. More likely since this is an FBI release, they removed that part for whatever reason.

    In this video and these photos again, it is what is missing that is key. There are no 9 ton jet engines which would have survived in some form. There are not airliner seats. There is no luggage that I can see. No tail section which would have broken off, no wing sections that would have broken off. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

    More than likely what hit the Pentagon was a laser or GPS guided drone painted and perhaps even modified to resemble a smaller scale AA 757-200, but don't say that too loud or the thought police of the movement will accuse you.

  5. The orange markings on the wall appear to be unfinished reverse pentagons.

    Par for the course, i guess.


  6. Hi all.

    willy, if you get a chance, here's screenshots of 3:46 and 3:48. Please let me know what you're seeing there.

    Greg, yeah. All of the FBI and NIST photos are suspect.

    aferris, the markings are strange to me too.

  7. anon @ 10:23 AM, yeah, the B ring looks to be in pretty good shape.

  8. Ok Kenny. Take a look at this side by side comparison I did of the still from the video and the image you linked to from Blogger.

    You will notice that the angle is obviously slightly different, but, as you can see the same 5 crucial elements are there in the same relation to each other:

    1 Pole 3
    2 small tree
    3 Pole 3 base
    4 guard rail that stops prior to the road running off to the right (off ramp)
    5 off ramp

    That long thing on the ground there on the far right side of the image is Pole 3 and there is no doubt about it.

    That is not to say that it wasn't staged in that position. I think it was due to the fact that the ground isn't damaged at all around the pole. They are all like that.

    But, that video clearly shows Pole 3.

  9. willy, I see what you're saying. There's even a better view at 3:54.

  10. Yeah, you're right. They zoomed in on it didn't they? My first comment mentioning the pole gave the time stamp of the first moments of that segment. As they pan around and then zoom in, it's pretty clear what that is when you compare it to the photos you linked to on Blogger.

    Again, I think what is clearly missing from that video though are 1. luggage 2. seats 3. bodies 4. 2 nine ton engines 5. tail sections 6. wing sections

    Something hit that building. Something that had wings and a tail made of a composite graphite like a drone, that would shatter on impact rather than crumple up like aluminum wings and tail sections of a 757-200.

    And considering that a drone doesn't have seats and luggage, that would be my guess.

  11. I added your graphic as an update. Thanks.

    Now, what about the photo of the pentagon @ 5:22 PM comment? It was taken some time after the event. The 'B' ring?

  12. I guess that should be the 'D' ring.

  13. Look at the picture again. What you will notice is the ring between the entrance hole (outer ring) and the hole punched in the 3rd ring (C) doesn't appear damaged. The emphasis is on "appear"

    Look and you will see that the rings themselves are 5 stories tall, but you can clearly see a ceiling between the two rings (D and C) and that is because there was a ceiling between them. The same is true for the space between E and D. They also had enclosed walkways for the upper 3 floors.

    There is no hole visible because the damage between them is underneath that roof.

    So there is some damage in the second ring there. I think there would be a hell of a lot more if a 757-200 hit that building.

  14. It looks like inverted anarchy (circle A) signs on the side of the pentragram building. -Dr.Strangelove-

  15. dont see a backhoe making the circular hole.

    nor a drone.

    certainly no 700 series plane made the very nice circular hole touching the ground.

    how do the cheney-wolfowitz-zellikow crowd explain this piece of evidence?

  16. The Global Hawk has one jet engine over the body of the drone. If anything would make a punch-out hole in the 3rd ring, it would have been an engine. 757? Two holes. Drone? one

  17. Anyone who questions the official narrative is a goddamn terrorist!

  18. So what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers?

    Did they magically disappear into thin air after the missile/drone/whatever hit the Pentagon?

    I'm with Rivero on this one.

    The no plane nutters are trying to poison the well but they're doing a rather poor job.

  19. Well lets see, for starters the pilot was military connected, as well as many of the passengers on the supposed Flight 77. Faking a few, or even say 90 or so idendities isn't exactly a tall task for the zionists and neocons(including Pentagon connected like Rumsfeld and Zakheim) who pulled off 9/11. The "what happened to the passengers" argument is one I hear often from official story pushers though. Mike "formerly of NASA wink wink" Rivero can say whatever he wants about what hit the Pentagon. I don't care.

  20. And the planes that hit the towers were holographic projections whose passengers never existed either, right?

    This no plane nonsense has got to be the most pathetic attempt at poisoning the well ever.

  21. Yeah, they always come back after all the evidence we present and say "well, what happened to the passengers? Did they just kill them?"

    First: How the hell would I know what happened to the passengers? All I am doing is talking about the physical evidence that proves Flight 77 (or no other 757-200) did not hit the Pentagon on Sept.11th 2001. The ONLY people would WOULD know what happened to the passengers, are the people who staged the event in the first place. And contrary to what people like Rivero say, I ain't one of those people.

    Second: Why is it so unbelievable that the same people who murdered 2,000+ people in the Twin Towers when they demoed the building, may have landed Flight 77 somewhere else (remember that little detour the plane took?) and killed those passengers as well? Why is that so unreasonable and the setting off of high explosives in an occupied building isn't?

    I don't know what happened to those passengers. But I do know the evidence shows that it was not flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

  22. And do not try to conflate the holograms bullshit with the hard evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

    There are plenty of videos showing the planes hit the Twin Towers and they still haven't released the 80 videos showing whatever it was hit the Pentagon.

    VASTLY different thing.

  23. Anon@11:57, congrats on hitting another obvious tried and true disinfo ploy-conflating "holograms at the towers" with those who question what specifically hit the Pentagon. How fucking lazy are you?

  24. I think it's highly likely that the same disinfo agents who concocted the no planes at the towers crap are also the ones who concocted the no plane at the pentagon crap.

    That's why I "conflated" them.

  25. Is that you Jon Gold?

  26. That does sound like Jon Gold doesn't it?

    Well, there are literally TONS of hard physical evidence that two planes struck the Twin Towers aside from video tapped footage of both strikes.

    There is in fact NO hard evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. None what-so-ever.

    There is however hard evidence and witness statements suggesting that something a bit smaller than a 757-200 hit the Pentagon, something that may have been painted to resemble flight 77.

    These two theories are completely different in regard to those obvious and well documented facts.

    So the ONLY reason to "conflate" the two is to attempt to discredit one by association with the other.

    That is the kind of thing that Morgan Reynolds wanted when he created the bullshit holograms "no planes" theory... and you are certainly doing his work for him.

    I am sure he would appreciate your efforts.

    And yes, my guess would be Jon Gold or Victronox or Arabesque or any of those other Truefaction favs.

  27. I defy any of these imbeciles who state that there is proof that commercial airliners hit the WTC provide the actual proof -- NOT the "official" conspiracy theory -- that it occurred. Any dime-a-dozen video editor can slap a "plane" into a video in 5 minutes, and there is a time delay between when something happens and when you see it on TV, even if it's "live." It's only been 10-1/2 years now, you stooges. It's not up to anybody to prove that commercial airliners DIDN'T hit the WTC; it's up to you state-huggers to prove that they DID, and the story out of the criminal murderers in DC is not EVIDENCE. Where is your PHYSICAL PROOF?

    Do you people give the criminal scum in DC hand jobs in the alley for crack? Do you have Israeli bar codes stamped on your asses? How can anybody possibly be stupid enough to believe this garbage after all this time? What a scathing indictment of the so-called "education" system.

    And I'll bet that you still believe that a "plane" with 65 tons of aluminum, steel and titanium could "vaporize" into thin air, but that they could recover usable DNA and fucking suicide notes from the same site, right? And you people vote and reproduce?

  28. And right on time we have a real "no planer" show up...

    hell, it's almost as if Jon Gold didn't like the tone of the discussion so he called his friend Morgan Reynolds and asked him to pop on over and bolster his claim.

    Wow. Now that's some coincidence, huh?

  29. anyone pushing planes at this date is up to no good, they belong in the slow typing class

  30. another lying 911 shill is video rebels blog, he says there were 3000 victims at 911, and he repeats and repeats it, I dunno how he arrived at the number, maybe CNN, they're video rebels too

  31. No planers at the WTC are liars or useful idiots. Conversely, those who push Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon are also liars and shills.

  32. This is great! We get the missing plane at the pentagram conflated with Michael Jackson, Elvis and Santa Clause. We get name calling about Jon somebody. We get somebody (Israeli?) citing the lack of a BOEING as "No-Plane", thereby conflating 'hologram' BS with other BS and name calling and yet we're supposed to just admit the damage at the Pentagram WAS caused by a jet because some anon jerk says it's stupid. It is to laugh.

    And right on schedule there's the moran shouting out "what about the children?", oops, I mean passengers when there's no evidence flight 77 even existed! Memorial sites are rife with pictures containing the wrong EXIF data (VicSims!), tenant records show the twin towers were nearly empty, Flight 93 couldn't even burn a patch of grass ("Let's Roll" - woohoo!) and here it's all supposed to go away because Anonymous said...

    "So what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers?

    Did they magically disappear into thin air after the missile/drone/whatever hit the Pentagon?

    I'm with Rivero on this one.

    The no plane nutters are trying to poison the well but they're doing a rather poor job.

    February 1, 2012 9:54 AM"

    Well WOW! He's convinced ME!

    So Anon, go read up on what's over here: and take it back home to your Ashkenazi buddies.

  33. wow. look at that line-up at 9/11 solution: "Fake victims", "tv fakery", and nukes being buried in the limestone at Ground Zero since 1969 just waiting to bring down the towers.

    Mention Jon Gold and Morgan Reynolds and they come pouring out of the woodwork don't they?

  34. Hey all, sorry I'm a bit late showing up to this discussion.

    I'm totally convinced the videos and planes (and thus, many of the victims) were faked in NYC on 9/11 for many reasons. Those pushing the planes in NYC are completely ignoring the work of September Clues, Christopher Holmes, Jim Fetzer, Killtown, Phil Jayhan/Larry McWilliams of Let's Roll 9/11, Dean Hartwell, and others who have discussed these issues AT LENGTH on numerous occasions and in numerous articles and books you can find in print or online. I have links to all of these sources directly on my blog for those that really want to understand this subject. It's a major part of the PSYOP aspect of 9/11.

    willyloman wrote:
    "Well, there are literally TONS of hard physical evidence that two planes struck the Twin Towers aside from video tapped footage of both strikes."

    Oh really? Do enlighten us.

    How do you explain the "nose out" shot on TV? How do you explain the fact that the technology to alter live video feeds has been around FOR DECADES NOW, well before 9/11? How do you explain all the media and government insiders pushing the "planes hit the WTC" on 9/11 when many eye witnesses claimed it was a missile or small aircraft or explosions in the buildings? How can an airplane literally pass through a steel and concrete building as if it provided no resistance? How do you explain the history of the government faking or altering evidence in major crimes, like the JFK assassination, in which the Zapruder film was in fact altered? 9/11 was no different folks. The videos were FAKED, and those that can't recognize this fact after all these years NEVER WILL apparently. Just look at the various videos in NYC that day -- it's so obvious if you have an open mind.

    Those who push the planes and victims in NYC and get all up in arms with those of us who have done our homework on this subject are the ones up to no good.

    It's a shame we can't have an honest discussion about this subject without causing a shitstorm.

    Bottom line: EVERYTHING the government and media tell us is a lie, especially when it comes to 9/11.

  35. BTW- thanks kenny for hosting these discussions, er, I mean back and forth, childish bickering matches. :)

  36. Well lookie there, they called in the big guns. I wonder if Morgan Reynolds (founder of the "no planes" theory and Bush administration Commerce Department head) is next.

    Ok, well, if I gotta do it, I gotta do it.

    Wow, what a who's who list of fake "truthers" you roll out. Killtown? Phil Jayhan? September Clues? Jim Fetzer? Why don't you toss Judy Wood and her "ray beams from space" in there as well. I mean, if the object here is to reduce serious discussion about the events of 9/11 into a discusting and insulting diatribe of bullshit, why not use ALL the phonies at your command?

    Phil Jayhan runs around saying that no people died on 9/11. There are no victims. That pretty much makes all the victims family members, friends, and loved ones liars. That's a particularly effective way to make the Truth movement look like a bunch of assholes, now isn't it?

    The "no planes" theory, made by a Bush Commerce Department flunky, is also designed (and I chose that work carefully) to make us look like idiots and whack-jobs. That one is kinda in the same ball park as "ray beams from space" and it's no coincidence since Jim Fetzer put Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood together in the same ironically named "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" company.

    No one is buying your bullshit here "Friend" but you did get one thing right... your website is "..a major part of the PSYOP aspect of 9/11"

    You got that right.

    You know, I have more respect for the asshole JREF debunkers than I do your kind "Friend". At least they believe what they write however misguided they are they aren't trying to pretend to be something they aren't in order to discredit what you must understand to be a legitimate movement. In short, they aren't traitorous pieces of crap, they're just misinformed. You and your ilk on the other hand "Friend"...

  37. gotta go with willyloman at 935 am.

    "no planes" is nonsense and its purpose is to make questioners of the cheney-wolfowitz-zelikow narrative appear as fools therefore dismissable.

  38. Not only that, but the "no planes" meme directly shields those involved with "hijacking" the planes remotely. Which when you consider Dov Zakheim and SPC's ties you are also shielding Israels role in the false flag. No planes is about both discrediting 9/11 truth and muddying the waters among those involved in it.

    I say this as someone who believes its possible the video was manipulated in some way(to conceal a possible plane swap). I do not believe John Friend is some kind of psy op runner, he and many others likely truly believe that "no planes" were involved. I believe they are being misled and are letting certain suspects off the hook in doing so.

  39. Ahh 9/11 truth discussions. It makes my heart swell with pride lol.

    Annnyway, I was minimally involved in 9/11 truth a few years back. I used to correspond with a few guys: Eric Hufschmid (yes THE Eric Hufschmid :D), Daryl Bradford Smith, and it was I that determined that Christopher Bollyn had buggered off to Estonia (!! yes I am that great :D).

    Annnyway(2), the bad guys really did do a good job of co-opting (or of course) running the whole 9/11 truth thing from the get go. It looks like the disintegration is still going on despite some great work by the CIT guys etc..

    Its quite fascinating to see really.

    Anyhow, I've got just a thought since I never see their names mentioned at all when it comes to 9/11, and 9/11 truth.

    Has anyone dug into the Naudet brothers at any stage in the last few years??

    They just "happened" to be in the right place at the right time to film the first plane hitting ... and thats always been just a tiny bit suspicious to me. Like the passports just happened to survive the jet fuel, the collapse of the towers etc.

    So anyone know anything interesting about the Naudet brother? ... or why people still talk about Jim Fetzer (jeez you could tell he was a shill in 2007 :D).

    Best wishes

    Harvey P.

  40. I always found the Naudets to be suspicious myself. I dont really know mcuh about their backgrounds though.

    As for shills, Fetzer is obviously one but so is Rupert Murdochs son in law Eric Hufschmid. And while Bollyn has done a lot of great work, particularly on the circumstantial evidence front and tying things together, hes obviously not on the up and up and was likely meant to discredit those who would inevitably start to piece together the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11.

  41. if you wonder about naudet bros, you need to try reading. it was resloved at lets roll forum, they work for the perps.

  42. to everyone who saw planes, plese post here-

    where you saw them
    what kind of planes

  43. Shut the fuck up Anon@3:22. Lets Roll forums are disinfo(not that there isnt some things worth reading there) so I havent been there in awhile. Eat a dick bitch.

  44. "it was resolved..". Sure it was fucko. Whatever Phil says right dickbag? Try thinking for yourself assclown. That way maybe you wouldnt be so quick to fall for obvious disinfo like no planes at WTC. Fucking moron.

  45. wow. Looks like the verdict is in "Friend". Take your BS and your sock puppets elsewhere.

  46. Hey kenny, my comment didn't get published. Maybe went to spam?

  47. Willyloman, you're real good with the ad hominem attacks, but I haven't seen you post one single piece of actual evidence to back up your assertions. And if you don't believe the BS about "Flight 77," then why do you believe any other part of the "official" conspiracy theory? Isn't this called a "limited hangout?"

    Who's the real disinfo agent here?

  48. hey Willyloman, how's the weather in Tel Aviv?

  49. Wow... this is the second time I have just submitted a lengthy comment that has been completely erased.

  50. OK- willyoman, you have got to be kidding me dude! You made nothing but baseless accusations against me and all the other sources I cited without addressing a single question I raised.

    Let's see if you're an honest guy. What do you have to say to Col. George Nelson, retired US Air Force accident investigator, who said:

    "The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft."

    Once again, all I'm saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE of any Boeing 757/767s anywhere on 9/11, not necessarily that there were "no planes". Many eye witnesses saw a missile or a small plane:

    There were even planted eyewitnesses, like this guy at the beginning of this video:

    Was he a scripted actor preparing a fictional narrative for a traumatized public?

    How do you explain these aspects of 9/11 willyloman?

  51. If anything the morons pushing the "no pnaes at WTC" crap are posting from Tel Aviv, helping run cover for deep asset Dov Zakheim and his remote flight SPC planes.

  52. That would be "no planes at WTC" crap.

    Tv fakery crowd=useful idiots helping to protect Zakheim and Israels role in 9/11. Oh, but you mention the 5 dancing Israelis right, so I guess that lets you off the hook? No. You're still useful idiots muddying the waters.

  53. Planes hit the Twin Towers. Whether they were Flight 175 and Flight 11, I do not know. Whether they were flown by remote, I do not know. There are jet engines on the streets in Manhattan and thousands of witnesses saw it happen, live. That much I do know. I lived in Manhattan for 7 years. Still have friends there. Friends who saw the second plane hit the South Tower. Whether or not it was actually Flight 175 I have no idea. But there were NOT any jet engines found at the Pentagon and there is NOT any video evidence of a plane striking that building.

    Has it EVER occurred to you that if they faked the videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers, then they would have faked the videos of the planes hitting the Pentagon as well? Ever thought about that? Ever wondered in your little brains why they would risk PRISON for faking one set of videos then not risk PRISON faking another set?

    Yes, faking videos can be detected and that makes one an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT which in a case like this one wouldn't even be a prison sentence, it would be a death sentence since this is an act of treason and mass murder.

    No one is going to fake videos of this, and no one is going to manufacture fake lab results (that's why the simply refuse to test for high explosive residues) because that is a crime in and of itself. Get it?

  54. willyloman only the bottom 5% of intellects still believe in planes on 911, try doing some reaserch man, you've obvioulsy done zero, your insults mean nothing, you can't come here and dis john friend, he's a well respected, dedicated expert on OPERATION 911- media hoax, false flag, psyop, insurance fraud

  55. Anon@8:08, how about you answer his question? Specifically this one-"Has it EVER occurred to you that if they faked the videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers, then they would have faked the videos of the planes hitting the Pentagon as well?"

  56. Remember cab driver Lloyde England?

    He's the guy who supposedly took a lightpole to the windshield.

    During his interview, he kept denying that his cab was on the bridge, even when confronted with photos of it sitting there, impaled with the pole.

    Thought for years he was the dumbest liar on the planet.

    Until one day when a new thought occurred to me: "I think Lloyde got photo shopped!! No wonder he sounds so damn confused. AND so scared."

  57. So no "no planes at the WTC" people wanna answer that question about why they wouldnt have just faked the Pentagon hit if they faked the WTC hits?

    Especially when you consider how many people first came to 9/11 truth through the Pentagon and the lack of both damage and footage of the attack. I know I did. It doesnt make much sense to leave that loose end open when it was apparently so easy(according to you no planers) to fake a such a video of planes hitting the WTC.

    Or, you know, actual planes remotely flown by ziocon 9/11 perps hit the WTC while something that wouldnt have been shot down by missile batteries in DC airspace "hit" the Pentagon. Sounds about right to me.

  58. @8:33 PM, I'll answer it. First, why do you figure that if they faked one, they would necessarily have to fake the other? If they got people to believe the WTC videos (and after 10 years, it's obvious that they've gotten tens of millions of numbskulls to believe them), why would they need to do the extra work? And if you want to posit that they would HAVE to have faked both, then why aren't you and willyloman asking why they wouldn't have faked a video about "Flight 93?" In any event, both of you are just making assumptions.

    And John Friend, as for Harley Guy, his name is Mark Walsh. Here's a link to the full video from that day:

  59. You call it "extra work"? Really, how much extra work is it to cover all bases if faking the videos is so easy? In theory the Pentagon tape should have been even easier to fake as it wasnt live on tv like the towers were.

    And talk about making assumptions, its basically what most of the tv fakery theories hinge on.

    Your Flight 93 question is a red herring. It stands to reason that NYC and The Pentagon would have lots of cameras around. A desolate field in rural PA? Not so much. And imho the Pentagon issue(and lack of a tape) is a lot more suspicious and led to a lot more people coming into the 9/11 truth fold than did the lack of debris in that field. That was also suspicious but can be explained by a shoot down-which obviously does not automatically lead to "inside job" like the Pentagon issue does.

    Oh by the way Anon@2:29, you didn't really answer the question. Unless your weak "extra work" comment was your whole argument for why they wouldn't just fake a Pentagon video like they supposedly faked the WTC videos.

  60. Re faking the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon: it seems to me it would be much harder to do. I mean, the Pentagon is what, 5 stories high? The entire scenario of a 757 flying in to it is ridiculous. It would be even more obvious that TV fakery was involved on 9/11 if they tried to fake a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon...

    In any case, like I have always said, there is ZERO evidence that any Boeing 757/767s were involved at any of the sites on 9/11. And there is lots of evidence that the videos we saw in New York were faked. Can anyone still doubting the video fakery angle of 9/11 seriously watch September Clues or read Christopher Holmes' analysis and not be at least skeptical of the video footage we saw that day?

    I really need to sit down and do a post on this subject. There are so many angles to 9/11 that are often misinterpreted or simply dismissed...

    I don't think we'll ever agree on all aspects of 9/11. I sure hope everyone is on board with WHO did it: Israel and criminal, traitorous Zionist Jews that have control of the United States.

  61. Have you ever considered that September Clues fucked with the footage themselves to fool people into thinking "no planes" were involved so as to discredit 9/11 truth?

    I agree, Israel/zionists and their sayanim did the deed. Including Dov Zakheim and his SPC "flight termination system". And as Ive said before, the "no planes" meme lets him, a crucial 9/11 perp, off the hook.


  63. Interesting read John. But im still not convinced and I still think the purpose of "no planes at WTC" is to muddy the waters and let the real perps who controlled those planes off the hook. Dov Zakheim thanks you for playing along.

    Plane swaps? Entirely possible, even likely(considering the flight paths of the planes over certain military bases). No planes? Blatant disinfo meant to discredit and confuse.

  64. here is a simple experiment i did with friends at our range.
    We cast aluminium projectiles in a 38 calibre mould and fired them from a 357 magnum with a supersonic load at a quarter inch thick steel plate from 25 yards.
    The aluminium projectiles failed to penetrate thus proving that the aluminium wingtips of an airplane travelling at subsonic speeds could not have cut thru 14 inch deep steel beams butressed against reinforced concrete floors as 'appeared' to happen on 911 at the world trade centre.
    The fact that trained military personel could believe such idiocy highlights the effectiveness of the levels of brainwashing to which americans are subjected.