9/11 MUST SEE: “I can prove that it was NOT an airplane” that Hit the Pentagon – Major General Albert N. Stubblebine

Written by on September 11, 2014 in 9/11, Videos with 103 Comments

How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government’ to ‘Oh My God! What’s going on?’  That’s exactly where I went in all of this.” – Albert N. Stubblebine III

Albert N. Stubblebine III is a retired Major General in the United States Army. He was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984.  In this compelling interview, Stubblemine reveals the following information (what he calls “dots”) about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:

  • Stubblebine initially believed the official story regarding 9/11.
  • Then, he saw the hole in the Pentagon. He can prove that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. DOT.
  • All of the sensors around the Pentagon were turned off except one. That one sensor captured an image of the object that hit the Pentagon.  It looked like a missile.  But, after he went public, the imagery was changed to look like a plane. DOT.
  • The collapse of the twin towers was caused by controlled demolition – not the fuel from the airplane. DOT.
  • Larry Silverstein, the lease holder of the WTC complex, admitted that that building 7, which was not hit by a plane and had only a small fire, was intentionally “pulled” – which is phraseology used for controlled demolition.  DOT.
  • All of the air defense systems around Washington DC were turned off that day. DOT.
  • Also on 9/11, there was an exercise designed to mimic an attack on the towers by airplanes.  DOT.
  • When you connect the DOTs, the picture says that what we were told by the media was not the real story.
  • Stubblebine, visibly upset, describes how he felt when he realized the truth about his government after having a strong belief in his country since early childhood: “My belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point.”

Below are some notes from the interview including a partial transcript. (Be sure to watch all the way to the the end, where you can see the deep hurt on his face when he recalled the moment that he realized that his government, the government that he proudly served for over 30 years, was not what he thought was):

5:15 Stubblebine hears about the 9/11 attacks: “We’re at war.”

6:00 Stubblebine said there must have been intelligence information to know that an attack was coming and we didn’t see the signals.  Somebody missed it.

6:35 He initially believed that it was terrorist attack done by other forces: “Not my government.”

7:45 Stubblebine  then saw a photo of the Pentagon showing the hole in the Pentagon supposedly made by a Boeing 757.  “Something’s wrong. There is something wrong with this picture…”

8:30 “Well there was something wrong. And, so I analyzed it not just photographically, I did measurements… I checked the plane, the length of the nose, where the wings were… I took measurements of the Pentagon – the depth of the destruction in the Pentagon.”

9:05 “Conclusion: airplane did not make that hole.”

9:10” I went public at the time. I am the highest ranking officer, I believe, that has ever gone public… The official story was not true.”

9:25 “I was very careful to not say what it was because I couldn’t prove it. I was careful to say that it was not the airplane that did that, because I can prove that it was not the airplane.”

9:45 “In the hole, however, was a turbine that looked like a turbine from the missile… I can’t prove that, I don’t know. But there was something there that did not look like the engine from an airplane, but did look like a turbine from a missile.”

10:10 “Later I saw another photograph taken by one of the sensors on the outside of the Pentagon. Now, all of the sensors had been turned off, which is kind of interesting – isn’t it? That day, why would all of the sensors around the Pentagon be turned off? That’s strange. I don’t care what the excuse is.  That’s strange. There happened to be one that apparently did not get turned off. And in that picture, coming in, flying into the Pentagon, you see this object, and it obviously hits the Pentagon.  When you look at it, it does NOT look like an airplane.  Sometime later, after I’d gone public, that imagery was changed. It got a new suit around it that now looked like an airplane. But, when you take the suit off, it looks more like a missile – not like an airplane.”

11:30 “Let me go back to the next very important piece of information.  The amount of energy to melt the girders – the steel in the tower – cannot be gotten to a melt point with the fuel that was in the airplane.  Not possible!  So, any melting did not occur as a result of the hit from the airplane.  Point. I call it dot. OK?  DOT.”

12:10 “When you look at the tower coming down, what you see at each floor is successive puffs of smoke: puff, puff, puff, puff… all the way down. What are the puffs of smoke coming from? Well, they claim that they are from the collapsing floors… No. No. No. Those puffs of smoke are controlled demolitions. That’s exactly what they are, because that’s exactly how they work. And so, the fact that the airplane hit, it did, it did not cause that collapse of the building.  The collapse of the building was caused by controlled demolition.”

13:05 “Fact: Building 7 – Silverberg, I believe is the name of the owner…” (his name is actually Larry Silverstein), “…was on a video and you could see Building 7.  And, there was a fire in Building 7, there’s no doubt about that. No airplane hit it.  I assume that the fire came from some debris, but I’m not even sure of that.  But, in the lower right-hand corner of the building was a fire – not a very big fire. It didn’t appear to be out of control. It certainly was in a small part of the building.  But, then he is heard on the video and he says Pull it.  Then, the building collapsed. What does pull it mean?  Let me tell you.  That’s the order for controlled demolition.  That is the phraseology that’s used for blowing up something.”

CLN Editorial note: Stubblebine got mixed up with his facts regarding the Siverstein video, which you can see here.  The video is a PBS interview with Silverstein that was shot sometime after 9/11.   The footage of Building 7 going down is historical footage, not live during the interview.  Nonetheless, Silverstein does say that he gave the order to “pull it.”

15:00 All of the air defense systems in that part of the country had been turned off that day.  All of the air defense systems had been turned off… Why would you turn off all of the air defense systems on that particular day unless you knew that something was going to happen? It’s a dot.  It’s information. But, it’s strange that everything got turned off that day.  DOT.”

15:50 There was an exercise that was designed for the air defense systems that was an attack on the towers by airplanes.  Isn’t that strange that we had an exercise that mimicked what really happened?  Strange that we had planned an exercise that was exactly what happened. And, at the same time, the air defense systems were turned off.  Don’t you find that strange? I find that really strange?  DOT.  Just a piece of information.

16:50 “But how does it correlate with everything else? So, you see the dots.  You have all of these dots. They’re just bits of information.  But, that’s exactly how the intelligence world works.  You get a bit of information here. A bit here, and a bit here. And, pretty soon you’ve got a picture. To me, what does the picture say?  The picture says that what we heard and were told in the newspapers, the media, was not the real story. There’s enough doubt in the official story where the story is absolutely not consistent with what happened. They paint a different picture than the one that was given to the media.”

17:45 “How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government’ to ‘Oh My God! What’s going on?’  That’s exactly where I went in all of this. Because, my belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point. I did it because I wanted to do it – because I believed! And then going to the military academy and serving, defending…

18:30 The real story was, I have a question I guess. The real story to me is: who was the real enemy? Who participated in this? Who planned this attack? Why was it planned? Were the real terrorists the people in Arab clothing? Or, were the real people that planned this the people sitting in the authority in the White House?

Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757

The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in detail below, most of which is video footage:

  1. Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide.  The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic.  And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off?  DOT
  2. The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd.  A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts.   DOT
  3. AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”   DOT
  4. No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon.  The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon.   DOT
  5. CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.   DOT
  6. Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon.  Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact.   DOT
  7. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon.   DOT
  8. Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked.   DOT
  9. A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon.   DOT
  10. Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”  DOT
  11. Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” DOT
  12. KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon.  Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles. DOT

Connecting the dots, a very clear picture emerges: (a) American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared; (b) instead, a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult maneuver and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down; (c) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile.

You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide

Watch this 10-minute segment of the outstanding Italian documentary titled Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, which includes analysis by Stubblebine and addresses many of the serious problems with the official account of what happened at the Pentagon:

The discrepancies that are addressed in the above video include the following:

  • There is no airplane debris visible anywhere in front of the Pentagon. Examples of what you would expect to see at a plane crash site are shown. Captain Russ Whittemberg, a pilot with over 30 years in military and civil aviation, said: “I have been at some accident investigation sites in the Air Force. And I have never come across any accident scene where there is no tell-tale evidence of the plane that crashed.”
  • There is no evidence that either the airplane engines or the wings impacted the building. Instead, we are supposed to believe that the 38 meter (125 feet) wide Boeing 757 fit into a hole that is only 5 meters (16 feet) wide. We are supposed to believe that the wings folded up like those of a dragon fly and squeeze into the 5 meter wide hole.
  • Major General Albert Stubblebine: “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
  • One theory is that the Boeing 757 was vaporized due to the speed and the force of the crash. The engines are made of a titanium steel alloy that would not vaporize unless they hit a temperature of 3,286 degrees Centigrade. That did not happen. Plus, the engines would have caused significant damage upon impact. Yet, there is no indication that the engines impacted the Pentagon.
  • After a period of time, various photos of airplane debris began to appear in newspapers and on the web did not appear in any photos shown in the days following the event.
  • The Pentagon had numerous cameras that had complete and separate recordings of the incident. The FBI was immediately on the scene and confiscated many video tapes from the Pentagon and nearby buildings. Yet only four videos were released after 2006 when FOIA requests compelled them to release them. Only two showed any useful information. But most experts believe the white image in the videos is too small to be a 757.
  • The story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon is absurd – by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour.

AA Flight 77 Was Lost From Radar For 36 Minutes, Then a Smaller Military Plane Appeared On Radar That Was NOT AA Flight 77

Please continue watching the next segment of the documentary Zero: An Investigation into 9/11:

  • According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. Hanjour was known as “a terrible pilot,”  who could not even fly a small airplane.
  • An experienced pilot with thousands of hours would probably require 10-20 attempts to pull off the maneuver that was performed with the Boeing 757 on its way to the Pentagon. “You just can’t do that with one of those big airplanes.” –Robin Hordon, flight controller and flight instructor
  • AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.
  • No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon.  The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would be allowed to approach the Pentagon.
  • The official report of the final half mile of Flight 77 before it allegedly hit the Pentagon is aerodynamically impossible. “I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere: give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for half a mile. CAN’T Do. It’s aerodynamically impossible.” – Nila Sagadevan, pilot and aeronautical engineer.
  • The alleged hijackers had difficulty flying small aircraft, which means that there is a zero possibility that they could pull off an impossible maneuver on the first try.

CNN Reporter: “There is NO Evidence of a Plane Having Crashed Anywhere Near the Pentagon”

Jamie Mcintyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent at the time, was at the Pentagon shortly after it was hit. Here’s what he reported:

“From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately, it wasn’t until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

More Visual Evidence (Including Aerial Footage) Indicating That No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11

In the video below, pay close attention to the aerial footage that begins at the 4:25 mark and especially the closeup shot at 4:50.  Where is the plane debris?  The footage shows exactly what McIntyre described: there was no plane debris.

Also, have a look at the following video containing analysis of the damage to the Pentagon showing that a fully-fueled Boeing-757  could not have possibly hit the Pentagon:

Donald Rumsfeld said that a MISSILE was used to damage the Pentagon

If no plane hit the Pentagon, then what did? In an interview with Parade Magazine in October 2001 (of which a transcript was posted on the U.S. Department of Defense website, defense.gov), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked “How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?” Rumsfeld replied:

“There were lots of warnings… It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.” [1]

Note that Rumsfeld indicated that both a plane and a missile were used on the Pentagon, which matches up perfectly with evidence presented in the video, Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Timothy Roemer, Former 9/11 Commission Member, said that the Pentagon was “pried open by a MISSILE”

In an interview in September 2006 with CNN’s Miles O’Brien, former 9/11 Commissioner member, Timothy Roemer, says that a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and then quickly corrects himself to line up with the official story.

O’Brien: “At any point during this day were you just, in a very base way, afraid?

Roemer: “There was — there were many times, Miles, that you were afraid. You were — you were worried, especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, an airplane, thinking about the number of people that probably died on the plane and on the ground…”

Click on the link below to see the above exchange between O’Brien and Roemer:

Analysis of Pentagon video indicates that it was faked

Recall that Stubblebine said that he saw the original video tape showing object that looked like a missile hitting the Pentagon, and then the tape was altered. Below is an analysis of the video footage that allegedly shows Flight 77 exploding as it impacts the Pentagon. The frame-by-frame analysis shows the fuselage is still in view when the explosion occurs. In addition, the brief footage of the nose of plane certainly does not look anything like a Boeing 757.  Watch it here:

Leaked Video Showing a Cruise Missile Hitting the Pentagon

Have a look at the following videos about an allegedly leaked video showing a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon (Note: we have no way of verifying that the leaked footage is authentic):

Expert claims that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicates that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”

The missile hypothesis is supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman, a well-respected radiation expert, used a Geiger counter to measure radiation levels from about 12 miles downwind of the Pentagon shortly after the attack on 9/11. Sherman reported that the Geiger counter reading was extremely high, 8-10 times greater than normal. [2]

Although Sherman’s findings are not conclusive, Dr. Leuren Moret, formerly a scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory, stated:

I’m not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used.” [3]

The missile theory was echoed by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert:

“When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” [4]

Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001

April Gallop and her child survived the ‘impact’ at the Pentagon. She was a Pentagon employee who was inside the building sitting at a computer when the explosion occurred.  After escaping through a hole in the Pentagon wall she waited on the grass near the road before being taken to the Hospital. She did not see any plane debris or experience any jet fuel or any other evidence of a plane crash.

USAF Witness: There was “a strange lack of visible debris…moments after impact”

Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (retired) wrote that there was a lack of debris moments after impact. Kwiatkowski, who was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon on 9/11, was a contributor to a book titled 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, in which she wrote that there was “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.” [5]

Another Pentagon Witness: I was convinced it was a missile.

Lon Rains, who was an Editor for Space News at the time, happened to be driving his car near the Pentagon when it was hit by a missile on 9/11. In an article titled Eyewitness: The Pentagon, published on June 30, 2005, Rains wrote:

“That morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane. [6]

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 1 of 8:

Part 1 of the video contains a review of some of the reasons for questioning the official story of Flight 77:

  • Lack of debris, plus what a crash site should look like
  • No damage to foundation
  • Aeronautically impossible
  • No evidence that a plane actually hit the Pentagon

Next, the official version of the Flight 77 flight path (as specified by the 9/11 commission and the alleged “black box” data released by the NTSB in 2006) is established as being south of the Navy Annex and south of the former CITGO gas station. This is key information that has to be true in order to explain the angle of entry that caused the physical damage to the Pentagon.

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 2 of 8:

In part 2, we are shown images and animation of the path that the plane must have taken in order to knock over five light poles and damage the Pentagon in the manner that it did, which is the official story. The location of the downed light poles is important because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot.

Part 2 also contains interviews with the first two witnesses (Edward Paik and Terry Morin), who were positioned on the south side of the Navy Annex (vantage point #1) as the plane flew over. Both Edward and Terry saw the plane fly directly over the Navy annex to the north of the “official” path. Of particular significance is the interview with Morin, an aviator and a program manager for SPARTA Inc at the Navy Annex. Initially, Morin was between the wings of the Navy annex, so he could only see the plane as it “flew over the top of me.” Morin than ran over to get a better view and watched the plane for 13-18 seconds. Morin, as an aviator, disputed the official report that the plane was flying 460 knots. Instead, Morin says that the plane was only flying at a speed of around 350 knots.

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 3 of 8:

Part 3 contains interviews with three witnesses who were at the CITGO gas station (vantage point #2) on 9/11 when a low-flying plane flew by.

Robert Turcios, CITGO station employee, saw the plane on the north side of the station and initially thought the plane was going to crash onto the street between the station and the Pentagon, but saw the plane “lift and go up a little bit.” He did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

In addition, Pentagon Police officers Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse each confirm that the low-flying plane flew by on the north side of the CITGO station.

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 4 of 8:

Morin and Lagasse independently draw a nearly identical, flight path lines showing an approach to the north of the CITGO station.

Next, an interview with a witness who was located on the north side of the Navy Annex (vantage point # 3) on 9/11 is shown. William Middleton Sr., an Arlington Cemetery employee, said that he plane was coming straight down Southgate road on the north side of the Navy annex. Middleton also said that he could see the plane dropping in altitude and that it came so close to where he was standing that he could feel the heat from the plane. In addition, Middleton said that the plane was travelling at a “slow” rate of speed, corroborating what Terry Morin had said.

After the interview with Middleton, interviews with Arlington Cemetery employees Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather, who were positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11 are shown. Both said that a plane was coming directly at them and that after barely clearing the Navy Annex building, the plane continued descending and at the same time was banking to the right. The banking of the plane to the right is irreconcilable with NTSB data, physical damage to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon security video.

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 5 of 8:

This video segment starts with an interview of another Arlington Cemetery employee, Donald Carter, who was also positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11. Carter’s testimony is similar to that of his co-workers, Stafford and Prather.

Next, an interview with Sean Boger is shown. Boger, a heliport air traffic controller, was in the Pentagon heliport tower that is located directly in front of the Pentagon (vantage point # 5) on 9/11. Boger said: “I just happened to be looking out the window. And, as I was looking out the window, I could see a plane… The plane was coming directly at us… You know I fell to the ground and I covered my head.”

Boger stated that he saw a plane come over the Navy Annex and bank right toward the Pentagon. Based on the amount of time he watched the plane after he first saw it, the plane was travelling significantly slower than 460 knots.

From five vantage points, 13 eyewitnesses independently and unanimously confirm a north side approach. A drawing is shown depicting the paths drawn by the witnesses. The eyewitness testimony contradicts the official reports that are required to make the official story plausible.

All of the eyewitnesses have worked in the area for many years and are therefore very familiar with the topology and landmarks. Since the release of their interviews in the public domain, all have been made aware of the implications yet stand by their stories as reported. None have claimed that their accounts have been misrepresented.

Most of the witnesses could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape, and admit to running, dropping, or flinching for cover. This explains why they did not see the plane fly away and assumed that it had hit the Pentagon because of the explosion.

The independent and unanimous placement of the plane on the north side and banking to the right amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did fly away without hitting the building because the damage to the Pentagon required a south side approach.

Although the witnesses presented so far did not see the plane fly away, some did (and are documented in the next video segment).

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 6 of 8:

Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane fly away immediately after the explosion. He was at the Pentagon south parking lot loading dock, only a few steps inside the building during the explosion. After hearing an explosion, he ran outside, looked up, and saw a plane flying around the south parking lot. Roosevelt describes seeing a commercial jet that was banking and flying away at less than 100 feet above the ground within 10 seconds after the explosion.

Roosevelt could have only seen the same banking plane that all of the other witness reported seeing on the north side flight path.

There is additional evidence that more people saw the plane continue past the Pentagon. Arlington National Cemetery employee Erik Dihle was officially recorded by the Center for Military History on December 13, 2001. Although he personally did not see the plane, he said the first thing that other people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet flew by and kept on going:

A number of us were working building 123.  Right after the explosion… we got up and ran outside… Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.”

Multiple witnesses have testified to seeing a banking, low-flying plane approach the Pentagon from the north side of the former CITGO gas station. This means that the damaged light poles, of which one allegedly went through the windshield of a taxicab, had to have been staged. Although there are photos of a bent pole laying on the ground and a broken windshield, not a single photograph exists showing the 40 foot, 247 pound pole inside the cab.

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, Part 7 of 8:

Taxi cab driver, Lloyde England, initially claimed that a silent stranger helped him remove the light pole from his car. A 247 pound light pole knocked over by a 90 ton Boeing 757 traveling 530 miles per hour certainly would have caused massive damage had it hit Lloyde’s taxi. However, the only visible damage to the taxi is the broken front windshield. Otherwise, the taxi was unscratched, which makes absolutely no sense.

However, don’t forget that testimony from multiple witnesses has proven that none of the downed light poles could have been knocked over by the incoming plane. Therefore, the lack of damage to the taxi does make sense.

After Lloyde was confronted with the information provided by the witnesses indicating a north side approach (and that therefore the downed light poles must have been staged), he had a very strange reaction. Lloyde then changed his story and refused to admit that his taxi was on the bridge next to the downed light pole, where it appears that photos of both Lloyde and the taxi were taken.

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, Part 8 of 8:

Lloyde goes on to explain that history has nothing to do with the truth and that he was used by people who have money. He then essentially admits that the downed light pole was staged and pre-planned. But, he was cautious not to outright confess. He distanced himself from the planners while admitting that the staging was planned.

Conclusion: The Pentagon was hit by a MISSILE, not hit by a plane

The lack of any evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, eyewitness testimony of a banking, north side approach, eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying “jet” fly past the Pentagon that “kept on going,” plus Lloyde’s confession that the downed light pole was preplanned and staged all provide ample evidence proving that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but instead a smaller “jet” merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after it was hit by a missile in order to appear as though a plane did the damage.

References

[1] Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine, News Transcript, October 12, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118063828/http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

[2] Greg Szymanski, Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner, August 18, 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20060111183631/http://www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2005.html

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, USAF (ret), 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 2006

[6] Lon Rains, Eyewitness: The Pentagon, Space News, June 30, 2005
http://web.archive.org/web/20060210130450/http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html

 

GaiamTV_Bnr_600x76

Tags: , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

103 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. clojo105@gmail.com' Jermaine Brackett says:

    It is also a fact that eyewitness accounts are some of the most unreliable. But the police and FBI don’t know what they are talking about smh.

  2. cf@claire-france-perez.com' Claire-France Perez says:

    For the first time in military history, in July of that year a civilian took over command of Fort Myers, Florida. You might remember him as Bush’s vice president. That is the only person who could have authorized the shut downs of every device, the air exercises and all the coordination.

  3. had.matter@hotmail.com' hadmatter says:

    This is a good article. Looks like you put a lot of work into bringing together all this info. I’m with you most of the way on your presentation, but take issue with you on a few points.

    Foremost is your insistence a missile hit the Pentagon. Notwithstanding Rumsfeld’s and Roemer’s “accidental” slips of the tongue (two people I do not trust) there are no witnesses to a missile. Missiles may be fast, but they aren’t that fast. Not even the ATC in the heliport control tower or the two fire fighters standing next to the Pentagon fire truck reported anything like a missile approaching. It’s at best a speculative theory.

    Also, the so called “leaked video” of the missile striking the Pentagon is fake. Someone took a video called “ariel b-roll” of an aircraft circling the Pentagon, cropped the edges, then photo shopped the white streak hitting the Pentagon. There’s a youtube debunk of the missile video showing it and the original ariel b-roll side by side. It’s an obvious fake.

    Pre-planted explosives, specifically “shaped charges” set to mimic a directional impact seems a more logical source of the destruction. The damage had to be precise to wipe out the info and auditors looking for the missing $2.3 trillion. There’s no way the perps could count on a plane or even a missile hitting that exact spot no matter who was at the controls or firing the missile. Couple that with the fact Rumsfeld and all the top brass were in that building it’s unlikely they’d take such a chance.

    Planes and pre-planted explosives were the MO in NYC. It would seem reasonable they’d do the same thing at the Pentagon, but with the twist the plane flew over hidden by the distraction of the massive fire ball and billowing smoke.

    I’m also curious why you conclude it was a smaller plane that approached the Pentagon. The only witnesses who describe a smaller plane were pretty far away with the exception of Omar Campos, who says he was working apparently outside the ANC maintenance buildings. But what he actually said in an interview is that the plane wasn’t “muy grande”. That was misinterpreted by a translator (who didn’t speak very good Spanish) to mean a “business jet”. But according to native Salvadoran speakers I’ve asked, what they understand him to be saying is that it wasn’t a 747 or similar size jumbo jet. All other witnesses describe either a 737 or 757 size airplane.

    Overall I like what you’ve done. I just don’t think there’s enough evidence to conclude a missile struck the building. And promoting the fake missile video is the kind of thing debunkers like to home in on to discredit anything and everything else you present.

  4. had.matter@hotmail.com' hadmatter says:

    Here’s the link to the video debunking the missile video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzoUlajZVY0

    Don’t be put off by the requirement to sign in to prove your age. There’s nothing x-rated in the video. Some group is simply doing what they can to keep it hidden.

    And IIRC the original “ariel b-roll” was shot in 2006, not 2001 as stated at the link you posted to, adam.

  5. KJH86xr@wavecable.com' TheBigOne says:

    Sadly Americans are too divided against each other to see the beams in their eyes. The US Government used our political divide as a leverage by getting the Clintons to have sex with women *his secretaries* and the Republicans to be blinded by it so that’ s all the focus.

    Then Bush who is neither a Republican or Liberal used the distraction as a vantage point to gain popular support to fulfill his globalists plans for a one world banking system but blogs like these called him out.

    I wish there was a way 9/11 could’ve been stopped but then again we would’ve still had TSA anyways from the shoe bomber and underwhere? Bomber.

    The massive scope and execution of the TSA showed to me that it was preplanned in the event of a national emergency so I think it would’ve been rolled out on a slower scale without 9/11 but happen nontheless.

    The only thing I think Bush did right was try to stop the banks from being allowed to give loans out to people who cannot afford it which lead to 2008 banking crisis.

    2008 economy crash was doomed to happen regardless of whom sat in that big chair in the Oval Office on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave due to laws in the 80s/90s being passed which gave the courts authority to sue banks so banks had to give money away they didn’t really have.

  6. bruce@bcat.us' Sorgfelt says:

    I now mostly agree with the premise of this article, especially after watching the Barbara Honegger video linked elsewhere in these comments, and it seems that another video was added to the body of this article that I didn’t notice before. The Global Hawk cruise missile/drone hit the Pentagon well to the left of the hole, which was probably made by explosives.

  7. bruce@bcat.us' Sorgfelt says:

    Go back over these comments or search for the Barbara Honegger video and reexamine the videos here. It looks like a Global Hawk drone/cruise missile, which really looks like a smaller plane, hit the area well to the left of the hole and that the hole was made by explosives. This is in addition to the 747 that eyewitnesses that I personally know said they saw approach the Pentagon at a dive, and apparently flew over the Pentagon, rather than impact it.

    I’ve seen a lot of articles and videos on this subject, and it seems that everyone always gets one or two little facts wrong, which of course is always used to debunk the whole article by people still in denial. It is very frustrating.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top
Close
Please support ConsciousLifeNews
Like us on Facebook