FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Guest David Guyatt]

Following is a list of related websites on the internet. These websites are scholarly research oriented sites that we Architects and Engineers can have a good degree of confidence in for informing ourselves about the WTC High-rise building "collapses" on 9/11.

The full truth of the 9/11 events is complex as a whole, but relatively simple in each fact, piece of evidence, mystery, and burning question. Most of the known facts and evidence can be found presented in a variety of formats on the following websites.

We suggest you start out slowly, becoming increasingly aware, informed and educated as time passes. As the vast amount of information sinks in, the real truth of what really happened on September 11, 2001 becomes increasingly clear. And we find that what really happened bears little resemblence to the official Government fire related "collapse" story that we have come to believe.

911Truth.org — [ http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050827011535140 ]

911Truth.org's mission is to expose the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001, to promote, and in part to provide, the best in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th and its aftermath, and to seek justice and redress for those wronged on September 11th.

WTC7.net — [ http://www.wtc7.net/ ]

Jim assembles all the background information, the evidence, the eywitnesses, the tenants, the press reports, and concludes that the 47 story World Trade Center building #7 was without a doubt demolished by Controlled Demolition with explosives.

9-11 Research — [ http://911research.wtc7.net/ ]

9-11 Research is an ongoing effort to discover the truth about the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001. To that end they provide a growing hypertext documentary of the attack and its aftermath, easily browsed archives of evidence, and a body of original analysis based on that evidence. They maintain the website as a public service.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice — [ http://www.stj911.com/ ]

This is the new home for a restructured scholars group which welcomes scholars and all persons interested in exposing the truths of the 9/11/01 attack. In the process of development of the website, care is being taken to present the strongest and most credible research available. This group and website, like the sister site, the Journal for 9/11 Studies, seeks to present theories and evidence using the scientific method, while also encouraging and presenting related strong efforts in areas such as grand juries, media reform, protests, etc.

In the past year the the original Scholars group launched a website (ScholarsFor911Truth.org), created a peer-reviewed online journal (Journalof911Studies.com), and maintained a private moderated discussion forum for the participation of all members. We believe we have made inroads in the mainstream media and have helped to "move the ball down field" for 9/11 Truth. We look forward to engaging our new members, new group governance and continuing our ongoing dedication to seeking justice.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies — [ http://www.journalof911studies.com/ ]

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

9/11 Blogger — [ http://www.911blogger.com/ ]

911blogger.com blogs alternative 9/11 related news. What you will typically find there are articles about 9/11 from an alternative viewpoint. While the blog focuses on alternative 9/11 news they do not seek to force any opinions on the subjects or articles covered, nor do they necessarily advocate the positions stated in the news they cover. It is up to the viewer of the blog to do their own research, and to reach their own opinions. The Primary Goal of 911blogger.com seeks to fill a void in the blogger community by providing a blog centrally focused on alternative 9/11 related news. Breaking through to the blogger community provides an excellent opportunity for 9/11 researchers to reach a wide variety of politically active individuals.

Beginners Guide to 9/11 Truth — [ http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html ]

Patriots Question 9/11 – The Architects & Engineers — [ http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html ]

9-11 Commission Report — [ http://www.ae911truth.org/9-11-commission-report.php ]

Kevin Ryan - U.L. Whistleblower — [ http://www.ultruth.com/ ]

Peter, thank you for taking the time to make these research resources available. It is important to have ready access to historical as-it-happened information in order to combat later political spin and disinformation.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

Peter wrote: "Little private plane flies near White House...every one evacuatate and

public in the papers were that anti-aircraft batteries were ready to fire"

Does anybody know what he is talking about? He seems to make stuff up (in his own mind I imagine) as he goes along. Perhaps someone on "speaking terms" with him can ask him for a citation.

Yes Len, I knew exactly what Peter was talking about and I'm not even a rude American. I think you also know what he is talking about too, but are playing one of your coy little point scoring games that you are so fond of. And the point Peter makes about the private aircraft intercept episode a few years ago is a very valid one. I had forgotten about it entirely. It demonstartes for all and sundry that the White House is under the obvious protection that it should be. It would be criminal negligence were it not protected. Which, as Peter's post most sensible indicates begs the question...

Also, I am on speaking terms with Peter and wouldn't dream of asking him to provide a citation for you. You need to do more of your own homework rather than shucking it off on others to do for you. Remember, Lady Google is always at hand. I also sometimes decline to provide citations for you on principle. Peter and I are not alone in this either. I know others react likewise to your baiting in the same manner.

You might consider why that is (but you won't)...

David

[Craig Lamson]

Peter wrote: "Little private plane flies near White House...every one evacuatate and

public in the papers were that anti-aircraft batteries were ready to fire"

Does anybody know what he is talking about? He seems to make stuff up (in his own mind I imagine) as he goes along. Perhaps someone on "speaking terms" with him can ask him for a citation.

Yes Len, I knew exactly what Peter was talking about and I'm not even a rude American. I think you also know what he is talking about too, but are playing one of your coy little point scoring games that you are so fond of. And the point Peter makes about the private aircraft intercept episode a few years ago is a very valid one. I had forgotten about it entirely. It demonstartes for all and sundry that the White House is under the obvious protection that it should be. It would be criminal negligence were it not protected. Which, as Peter's post most sensible indicates begs the question...

Also, I am on speaking terms with Peter and wouldn't dream of asking him to provide a citation for you. You need to do more of your own homework rather than shucking it off on others to do for you. Remember, Lady Google is always at hand. I also sometimes decline to provide citations for you on principle. Peter and I are not alone in this either. I know others react likewise to your baiting in the same manner.

You might consider why that is (but you won't)...

David

What a bunch of crap David. Of COURSE good old Peter MADE THIS CRAP UP, as is his usual practice...the practice of being a half-truther.

I remembered the incident as well and yes the half-truther Peter got part of it right, but then he shifted into high gear and added this little part...which he made up from whole cloth....

" and public in the papers were that anti-aircraft batteries were ready to fire"

I've spent the time with "lady Google" and can't seem to find ANY reference to these AA batteries ready to fire.

So I guess its time for Peter (or your since you seem to be his second) to put up or shut up. Lets see those "papers" and the account of the AA batteries. I'm ready to be shown wrong. I wish the same could be saild of Peter.

Of course all of this is secondary to the real question. Was the Pentagon protected from errant aircraft with some sort of ground based firepower on 9/11. Half-truther Peter claims yes but as of yet can't offer ANY evidence to back up that claim. As his second, can you?

[Len Colby]

Air Defenses Stood Down On 911 After ATC Alerts Given

By R. Anderson

Dozens of air bases were within MINUTES of BOTH 9.11 targets

The author makes several points that are NOT disputed, there relevance is less than clear a few examples (numbering mine)

1. It is a FACT that DOZENS of Air Force and Air National Guard bases are located within ten to thirty minutes intercept time of BOTH 9.11 target locations. (List of bases provided below.)

2. It is a FACT that air defense units DID receive alerts from Air Traffic Controllers and FAA officials on a number of aircraft across the East Coast which had broken communications and deviated radically from established flight paths on the morning of September 11

3. It is a FACT that standard intercept procedures for dealing with these kinds of situations ARE TOTALLY ESTABLISHED, IN FORCE and ON-LINE in these United States 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

4. Absolutely NO executive-level input of ANY KIND is required for standard intercepts to be scrambled.

5. There was NO indication in any alerts received by air defense units that "SHOOT-DOWNS" may be required as opposed to intercepts -- i.e.; that the planes were definitely under control of "hostile" forces -- because ATC/FAA could NOT have KNOWN that.

1. is true but only two in the area(Otis on Cape Cod and Langley in southern Virginia had a total of four planes on scramble alert meaning they should have been able to take off in 15 minutes.

He (or she) made several claims for which no evidence was provided a few examples (numbering mine).

1. It is a FACT that most of these installations have, at the ready, fighter jets such as F-16s to be scrambled on a MOMENT's NOTICE, for intercepting troubled or problem aircraft.

2. It is a FACT that Air National Guard and Air Force air defense units of the United States WERE PROHIBITED from carrying out their STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES as detailed above on the morning of 9.11; AFTER they had received the alerts from ATC and FAA.

3. When the first alerts were received from Air Traffic Control, ALL that air defense units were required to do was scramble STANDARD interceptors to make contact with the incommunicado and off-course jets. F-16s and other fighter planes WOULD HAVE overtaken EVERY SINGLE HIJACKED PLANE on September 11, BEFORE they had reached their targets! (See below for locations of air bases.)

4. IF, at the time of interception, it was determined the aircraft were under hostile control and likely to impact targets, high-level air defense commanders at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) are FULLY AUTHORIZED under existing and established regulations and procedures to authorize a shoot-down,. in order to PROTECT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ATTACK.

5. Yet air defense units that were READY AND WAITING on 9.11 at DOZENS of nearby installations were ordered NOT to scramble interceptors: they were ordered to stand down from carrying out even the FIRST STAGE of STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES.

6. These orders came from the executive office of the president as well as from complicit individuals in the aforementioned NMCC.

7. There is NO QUESTION that if these interceptors had been scrambled AT THE TIME alerts were received, they would have intercepted the hijacked planes before targets were approached IN EVERY INSTANCE.

8. And there is NO WAY that the office of the President or the NMCC could have KNOWN through any standard means that these incommunicado flights required anything OTHER than standard interceptions, because ATC and FAA alerts DID NOT relay any such information. The alerts simply requested that STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES be implemented and that interceptors be scrambled forthwith.

1. 5. No, only Otis and Langley AFB’s had plane on scramble alert. Perhaps someone who takes this seriously will did the “heavy lifting” the author avoided and document any of the above

He continuously revels his ignorance

just by searching NYT archives, i found the policy and the methodology for intercepting a runaway Lear 35[Payne Stewart's charter]. the story clearly establishes that F16's were scrambled to intercept this bizjet within 25 minutes of its failure to report to controllers upon its reaching its cleared alttitude of 39,000 ft. These F16's were scrambled ONLY upon the loss of a radio communication: the transponder never ceased to function.

IIRC he is correct it took 25 minutes to notify NORAD or the scramble order to be given, this is similar to the 9/11 timeframes.

the way i view the intercept, the F16 out of Eglin, 500 miles behind the lear 35, travelling at its posted max speed, mach 2+, caught the lear 35 in 30 minutes

He misread that fighters were prohibited from flying supersonic, it took a total of about 85 minutes to intercept Stewarts plane so wherever the fighter which was already in the air was it took about an hour to catch up to it

He cited several FAA directive the elevance of which was unclear to me some merely covered mundane things like the boundrys of air space sectors “6) Unless designated at a lower altitude, Class E airspace begins at 14,500 feet MSL to, but not including 18,000 feet MSL”

Another went on about procedure for "Emergency Situations" but the air traffic controllers seem to have followed them.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010820151925/...10/atc1002.html

Peter wrote:

ALSO see this speech and its reference #33 re: anti-aircraft defenses around Pentagon.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/madison.html

LOL Was Griffin’s source the Department of Defense, NY Times or Washington Post? Nope it was “Thierry Meyssan, 9:11: The Big Lie (London: Carnot, 2002), 112, 116.” Meyssan seems to have concocted this claim out of thin air and he provide no documentation to back it up*. I don’t know if Griffin is an intellectual fraud or just a fool but obviously citing a source which doesn’t document its claims is the same as making an undocumented claim. He’s spent years in academia and know this.

http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile...he_Pentagon.pdf

Also has been pointed out repeatedly the Pentagon is on the approach to Washington National Airport how would they be able to distinguish planes heading towards one from those heading towards the other?

http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html see also my post on this topic on another thread linked at the begining of this one.

[Len Colby]

Peter wrote: "Little private plane flies near White House...every one evacuatate and

public in the papers were that anti-aircraft batteries were ready to fire"

Does anybody know what he is talking about? He seems to make stuff up (in his own mind I imagine) as he goes along. Perhaps someone on "speaking terms" with him can ask him for a citation.

Yes Len, I knew exactly what Peter was talking about and I'm not even a rude American. I think you also know what he is talking about too, but are playing one of your coy little point scoring games that you are so fond of. And the point Peter makes about the private aircraft intercept episode a few years ago is a very valid one. I had forgotten about it entirely. It demonstartes for all and sundry that the White House is under the obvious protection that it should be. It would be criminal negligence were it not protected. Which, as Peter's post most sensible indicates begs the question...

Also, I am on speaking terms with Peter and wouldn't dream of asking him to provide a citation for you. You need to do more of your own homework rather than shucking it off on others to do for you. Remember, Lady Google is always at hand. I also sometimes decline to provide citations for you on principle. Peter and I are not alone in this either. I know others react likewise to your baiting in the same manner.

You might consider why that is (but you won't)...

David

David the only pre-9/11 incident along those lines I can remember is when a small plane crashed into the White House on September 13, 1994 when the building was NOT protected by anti-aircraft weaponry

“The South Lawn, where the Middle East peace pact was signed last year, was a remarkable sight today to those who had assumed that the White House had a sophisticated security system, with anti-aircraft guns and perhaps even rooftop missiles that could shield the mansion from an aerial intrusion, especially one so unsophisticated.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75AC0A962958260

If you can turn up any evidence the building was equipped with anti-aircraft protection in the intervening 7 years I’d like to see it. But even if the White House had such protection that wouldn’t indicate the Pentagon did as well

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

There are several areas with which I either disagree or would seek clarification on.

It is a FACT that most of these installations have, at the ready, fighter jets such as F-16s to be scrambled on a MOMENT's NOTICE, for intercepting troubled or problem aircraft.

I would question this. I feel that the author is playing on peoples inexperience with aircraft operations, giving a false impression.

To use the phrase "F-16s to be scrambled on a MOMENT's NOTICE" gives the impression they would be airborne within a minute or two. To do that, aircraft must be on what is called (in our side of the pond) "strip alert". This means the aircraft is prepared for flight, on an invert off the runway, with the pilot strapped in and ready to go. All that has to happen is for the engines to be started, stabilised, and the aircraft to be launched. During the period of 9/11, there were very few - if any - aircraft on this standby. I freely admit I am unfamiliar with USAF operational doctrine but I don't think I am too far wrong on this. The planned exercises may have had some effect on this, but not too great an effect. You can only keep people on strip alert for a very limited amount of time.

More likely aircraft were kept at ALERT 10 or ALERT 30. That means the aircraft is ready to taxy 10 (30) minutes after receiving the order.

It is a FACT that air defense units DID receive alerts from Air Traffic Controllers and FAA officials on a number of aircraft across the East Coast which had broken communications and deviated radically from established flight paths on the morning of September 11.

I am unsure as to which communications you refer to, to which units, etc, but in general a commander cannot just order their aircraft to intercept and shootdown other aircraft. They would be reluctant to launch their aircraft on a "intercept and observe' mission alone unless they were sure of the circumstances. Amongst the confusion of the initial part of 9/11, I doubt any commander would have ordered his aircraft to intercept targets without a clear instruction from higher authority.

It is a FACT that standard intercept procedures for dealing with these kinds of situations ARE TOTALLY ESTABLISHED, IN FORCE and ON-LINE in these United States 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

<< Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E 'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2FAA

Sorry - that is a bad link.

<<Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

Another bad link.

<<FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

<<FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1

<<FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

<<FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service" Full text posted at: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

<<'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4. Policy (page 1) PDF available at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf

<<For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at: http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm

Unsure how many more bad links there are. Yes, procedure for aircraft intercepted are published. It is in every FLIP (FLight Information Publication). It doesn't necessarily say HOW an intercepting aircraft will conduct its mission; it just says how you are to respond to being intercepted.

It is a FACT that Air National Guard and Air Force air defense units of the United States WERE PROHIBITED from carrying out their STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES as detailed above on the morning of 9.11; AFTER they had received the alerts from ATC and FAA.

Could you provide more detail on this? How they were prevented, by whom, references, etc? Thanks.

Absolutely NO executive-level input of ANY KIND is required for standard intercepts to be scrambled.

That is probably quite correct. Opening fire would be a different case, though. The main point to appreciate is that with multiple aircraft being told to land, and many of them having to land at unplanned destinations... which aircraft do you decide to intercept?

There was NO indication in any alerts received by air defense units that "SHOOT-DOWNS" may be required as opposed to intercepts -- i.e.; that the planes were definitely under control of "hostile" forces -- because ATC/FAA could NOT have KNOWN that.

Unsure if the statement is correct, but I can understand that most - if not all - air defence missions were going to be "intercept and identify". An order to engage would be very, very rare.... unless the US was under mass attack.

When the first alerts were received from Air Traffic Control, ALL that air defense units were required to do was scramble STANDARD interceptors to make contact with the incommunicado and off-course jets. F-16s and other fighter planes WOULD HAVE overtaken EVERY SINGLE HIJACKED PLANE on September 11, BEFORE they had reached their targets! (See below for locations of air bases.)

I strongly dispute this. I would like Peter to obtain from the author details of what alert status the various units were at, their actual response times, the estimated intercept times required, etc. What is a "standard" interceptor? What weapons are fitted? How long does it take for such weapons to be fitted to a non-alert aircraft in a real-world event?

I have not the time to address the remainder of the post for now. Bedtime awaits!

[Matthew Lewis]

The picture previously provided by Peter Lemkin accompanying an article supposedly showing prohibited area P-56 is wrong. The picture posted by Peter Lemkin instead shows the class B airspace around the major airports in the DC area.

I've attached (and linked the image directly from the page in case some have trouble seeing it) a graphic from this page from the FAA showing P-56.

http://www.faa.gov/ats/dca/dcaweb/p56.htm

Note the Pentagon is outside of P-56 which is on the other side of the river covering the Mall. Note also that arrival and departure instructions repeatedly mention staying clear of p-56 but nothing about flying over the Pentagon. Again, the Pentagon is flown over hundreds of times daily. The airspace above it is, as shown, not restricted or prohibited.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

I posted a link directly to the FAA and that is somehow bull? You know who I work for, that is if you are competent enough to click on a link at the bottom of every one of my posts. I am a lieutenant in the US Air Force exactly as it says in my biography. Specifically I am an air battle manager and work with and around various airspaces every day. I have also worked with and talked to various people in NORAD at SEADs at Tyndally AFB where I was stationed for a year and a half for training. I am currently stationed at Robins AFB in GA and fly on the JSTARS E-8C aircraft. Additionally, I am a private pilot and hold a Bahelors and Masters in Aviation. My postings here and elsewhere reflect my views and research and do not necessarily reflect nor coincide with the views of the Air Force.

I take it from your tone though that you don't believe that and perhaps believe that I am paid to post here? Paranoid much? Is it impossible for someone to simply disagree with you? Do you always have to be right? You can't refute what I posted so you have to attack the person? You must be really fun at parties.

edited to correct spelling

Edited November 9, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

The map you posted was quite clearly class B airspace and not the prohibited area. The article writer made a mistake. I checked multiple sources online and offline of various ages and the prohibited area was always the same. The airport in question has been there for quite some time and has had to deal with that prohibited airspace for a long time as well. Regarding fighters at many airbases near DC, that I believe was already answered by another poster. Alert fighters were available at Otis and Langley. Other bases may have had fighters but they were not on alert and hadn't been for quite some time due to reductions after the end of the Cold War. I have not done much research on this nor do I care and have similar feelings on the rest of your post. I really only wanted to post on the airspace over the Pentagon as it relates most directly to my area of expertise. I don't post much on the subject of 911 for similar reasons. I prefer usually to lurk. I don't have the time or will to look much further. In the past few years I have seen nothing change on either side nor do I see that changing any time in the future. Note that the fact that the airspace over the Pentagon is not restricted or prohibited does not change anything else that one might believe about 911. It simply means that this one supposed fact of it being restricted reported by some sources was wrong.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[William Kelly]

I posted a link directly to the FAA and that is somehow bull? You know who I work for, that is if you are competent enough to click on a link at the bottom of every one of my posts. I am a lieutenant in the US Air Force exactly as it says in my biography. Specifically I am an air battle manager and work with and around various airspaces every day. I have also worked with and talked to various people in NORAD at SEADs at Tyndally AFB where I was stationed for a year and a half for training. I am currently stationed at Robins AFB in GA and fly on the JSTARS E-8C aircraft. Additionally, I am a private pilot and hold a Bahelors and Masters in Aviation. My postings here and elsewhere reflect my views and research and do not necessarily reflect nor coincide with the views of the Air Force.

I take it from your tone though that you don't believe that and perhaps believe that I am paid to post here? Paranoid much? Is it impossible for someone to simply disagree with you? Do you always have to be right? You can't refute what I posted so you have to attack the person? You must be really fun at parties.

edited to correct spelling

A difference without much distinction. That map and article I posted was written by John Judge...not to be taken lightly. His family had clearnces higher than you even know exist. I believe his map was from 2001 and yours is recent...but I don't see much difference. How'z it that all the fighters at the many airbases near DC and all its precious jewels of fascist government corporate control were not protected?! How is it that apparently Chaney gave a stand down order and told all military craft the central area of DC was off limits to them, as well, until after whatever it was hit the Pentagon. Read Peter Dale Scotts The Road To 9/11 for the details of all of this......

I suggest you also look at the website <A href="http://www.patriotsquestion911.com"'>http://"http://www.patriotsquestion911.com" target=_blank>http://www.patriotsquestion911.com many other pilots and polical/govt. people have spoken the obvious truths...up to former NSC members and members of the JCS. Never mind my 'tone' it is just of anger and upset at my Nation...once the hope of the world turned into the new Reich marching apace to fascism and perpetual war outside and a policestate internally.

Peter,

John Judge has no doubt whatsoever that American Airlines 77 hit the Pentagon, and neither do I. I've talked to witnesses (a school teacher who never served in the military) who saw the plane fly by the banks of the river and right into the Pentagon, and another witness who was at the scene and recognized jet parts. The idea that anything other than AA77 hit the building is a real distraction to figuring out what really happened.

Nor do I think Matt Lewis should be attacked for being in the military or disagreeing with you.

I don't know why this Defense Department report is not on line.

Please advise when it is on line so we can read it before talking about it.

In addition, FYI, one of the credited authors of this report, Alfred Goldberg, is also a credited author of the Warren Report.

<A href="http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix4.html">http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix4.html

xxxxx

Alfred Goldberg was born in Baltimore, Md., on December 23, 1918. He received his A.B. degree from Western Maryland College in 1938, and his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. After 4 years' service with the U.S. Army, Dr. Goldberg became historian with the U.S. Air Force Historical Division and later Chief.

BK

[Jack White]

Bill...I of course disagree with you and John Judge THAT

757 AA FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. There is a total

lack of BELIEVABLE evidence that was the case...otherwise

the govt would have been quick to present it. I could go

into great detail on this but do not have time right now.

Suffice it to say there were dozens of surveillance video

cameras which would show what happened, but all are

suppressed.

Each individual aircraft part has a manufacturer serial

number, yet not a single piece of wreckage is in evidence

containing such serial number.

Why would the govt WITHHOLD EVIDENCE which supports

the official story?

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

post deleted. wrong thread and forum. sorry.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[William Kelly]

Bill...I of course disagree with you and John Judge THAT

757 AA FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. There is a total

lack of BELIEVABLE evidence that was the case...otherwise

the govt would have been quick to present it. I could go

into great detail on this but do not have time right now.

Suffice it to say there were dozens of surveillance video

cameras which would show what happened, but all are

suppressed.

Each individual aircraft part has a manufacturer serial

number, yet not a single piece of wreckage is in evidence

containing such serial number.

Why would the govt WITHHOLD EVIDENCE which supports

the official story?

Jack

I hear you Jack.

We can still be friends can't we?

BK

[Charles Drago]

Bill...I of course disagree with you and John Judge THAT

757 AA FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. There is a total

lack of BELIEVABLE evidence that was the case...otherwise

the govt would have been quick to present it. I could go

into great detail on this but do not have time right now.

Suffice it to say there were dozens of surveillance video

cameras which would show what happened, but all are

suppressed.

Each individual aircraft part has a manufacturer serial

number, yet not a single piece of wreckage is in evidence

containing such serial number.

Why would the govt WITHHOLD EVIDENCE which supports

the official story?

Jack

Hi Jack,

As always, great to read you here.

I lean heavily toward your position regarding what hit -- or better yet, didn't hit -- the Pentagon. But I also can propose an answer to your concluding question above:

To sucker punch the otherwise on-target critics at the opportune moment, and in the process taint by association ALL so-called "conspiracy theories."

I've yet to read or hear explanations that sufficiently blunt the major objections to the AA 77 theory. But we're still in the dark to the degree that I for one am not prepared to state with certainty that something else caused the wound to the building. Let's say I'm 89 percent there.

Best,

Charles

[Jack White]

Bill...I of course disagree with you and John Judge THAT

757 AA FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. There is a total

lack of BELIEVABLE evidence that was the case...otherwise

the govt would have been quick to present it. I could go

into great detail on this but do not have time right now.

Suffice it to say there were dozens of surveillance video

cameras which would show what happened, but all are

suppressed.

Each individual aircraft part has a manufacturer serial

number, yet not a single piece of wreckage is in evidence

containing such serial number.

Why would the govt WITHHOLD EVIDENCE which supports

the official story?

Jack

I hear you Jack.

We can still be friends can't we?

BK

Bill...are you kidding? You and John Judge are among the best

of the good guys. I never let a small disagreement affect

friendships.

In this instance, I am afraid that you and John have been

unduly influenced by your knowledge of the T. Carter story,

which in my opinion may have been a carefully crafted

intelligence use of a credible witness without her knowledge.

Intel agencies do crafty things like that, as we know.

Your friend.

Jack