16 votes

9/11 truth phone argument, with a typical duped GOP loyalist...

It's party above all else; it's "we love Rand Paul too....just drop the 9/11 truth crap....you guys are morons!"

This is what disinformation produces...this is 10 years of Alex.Jones making himself into the face of 9/11 truth, and, 10 years of right-wing talk radio calling us kooks....thereby, supposedly hurting our own candidate by "association".

The perfect storm has been master-minded by Karl Rove, to destroy Rand Paul's chances of ever being in a position of dismantling the "matrix" of enslavement that has been thrust upon the people since(and for decades before) 9/11.

The neo-cons, conservative talk radio, Christian talk radio, pro-family, pro-Israel K-street lobbyists...the FRAUD Glen Beck....they all love Rand Paul....they want him to run for the White House in 2016!!!

One problem; 9/11 truthers, who follow Alex Jones, they like Rand too....well, they can't stand us, nor can they stand WITH us in this battle royale to "restore the Republic"!

Last night, I spend over an hour on the phone with my friend of over 25 years(who can't stand me being a Ron Paul supporter), giving him every chance he he could to just show me where we're wrong, we don't know what we're looking at, and WHY people like us, and our candidates don't belong in public office, let alone HIS Republican Party.

Psycho-analyze his desperation, and lack of ANY cogent arguments, that prove they're for truth, accountability, fiscal responsibility, transparency, liberty or the rule of law; as all they have is hatred and disgust towards those of us who have had it with the perpetuation of lies and the exponential increase in the size, scope, and spending BY establishment Republicans...and why we're NOT going to quit, back down, or go away(no matter how much they profess to love Ron Paul's son and conservative principles) without looking at the tyranny that has come from post-9/11 politics.


Keep getting after them....9/11 was our Boston Massacre! Obamacare is our Stamp Act! If this guys' ilk, drinking right-wing kool-aid, can't discern truth from a lie; and realize the lesser of two evils is still evil, insomuch as...despite them wearing Rand Paul on the outside, they'll NEVER allow him to destroy the inside from the Executive Branch...how are ANY of these evidence-ignoring, evidence-denying, legislative hypocrites even remotely fit
or qualified to LEAD a political party towards a recovery or restoration?

They're NOT going to purge us, we're going to purge them...for our posterity's sake!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I see a problem with want you

I see a problem with what you desire. You are not recognizing the fact that voting for these positions will never be open to the public. No, I'm not talking about Electors either.

Everybody here, should know by now that the vote count is rigged. How do you expect to overcome a rigged election? You can have an area with 100% of the population voting for the same person, and when the results come in which differ from what people knew before hand, they don't question the validity of the count. If you so happen to be principled enough to question the validity of the count, nobody else will support the effort to have a recount. Worse part is, that many areas ar moving to those electronic voting machines and there is no need for a recount becasue the rigged count is built into the machine; it will always come out that way.

The day of voting the bad man/men/people out of office is regretably behind us.

Vote count

The votes are counted, every day. We vote with our actions.
We covet paper money, we vote
We live beyond our means, we vote

We borrow from banks, we vote
We let our employer pay our taxes, makes us safe, purchase inclusion into a rigged medical market ? We do that, we vote.

We tolerate it, we vote. And who can argue the votes are not being counted. We vote, they consume more of what we capitulate.

We fiddle while Rome burns, we vote

Looks like "you" pulled your video here

So I'll comment on 9/11 truth. In actuality, exposure of the fraud that is 9/11 is the key to opening minds that something is terribly wrong in America. Only then with the correct understanding of what is really going on in the continual corruption of our Republic can we find the proper solution to rectify it. Let me ask you this: When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?

As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!

There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.

I want to try an experiment here:

Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my letter so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:

(YouTube Key Words: Johannemann suicide)

Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?

The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:

(YouTube Key Words: Barry Jennings dead age – more hits when “dead age” excluded)

Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True. This is just one piece of evidence which raises more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.

William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:

(Google Video Key Words: William Rodriguez Alex Jones)

Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:

(Google Video Key Words: Steve Jones Boston)

In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun IT IS THE GUN. See the article here:


The actual paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:


If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!

Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?

Then take a look at this:

Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:

(YouTube Key Words: BBC Solomon slips – you get more hits by excluding “slips”)

How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).

Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it. Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes about a week to rig a building with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:

(YouTube Key words: PBS Silverstein)

Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. What’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”

Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?). This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about THAT Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" starts at 26:45 here in this interview:

(Google Video Key Words: Aaron Russo Reflections Warnings)

One more thing. In February 2009 a 44 story Chinese skyscraper caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It DID COLLAPSE. See that article here:

(Google Key Words: China 44 fire consumes)

Now see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
(YouTube Key Words: architects engineers 911 truth)

Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture. You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.

Now 9/11 will not be the last major false flag in the race towards dictatorship. I hate to say it but the next one will probably make 9/11 look like the pop of a firecracker. See what Joel Skousen believes is in store here (Ah, yes look at this! He's being interviewed by that notorious Alex Jones!):





valid explanations

Perfectly valid explanations exist for many of the anomalies in the official 9/11 story. I am not saying that there are some unbelievable things and unbelievable coincidences, and it is entirely possible an actual conspiracy exists. Our job is to look at these anomalies and remove some of those for which there is a possibility of valid explanation. The last thing we want is clinging on to things that can be discredited and made fun of.

Valid Explanations = Plausible Deniability

Conspiracy often times like to use valid sounding explanations as cover as it invokes plausible deniability to the situation. Let me give you an example of anomalies that currently invoke plausible deniability in the case of Aurora and Sandy Hook. Unlike 9/11 where conspiracy is proven fact, these shootings are still in the conspiracy "theory" stage because evidence is still pouring out. I'm just going to give you the "titillating stuff" however there is a lot more:


Now look at the third video in this article which has been eviscerated from YouTube (that means you can only see it here and not on YouTube):


Now certainly it could be coincidence that the original Gangster Squad trailer shown in Aurora (only on opening night) showed the gangsters shooting their way through a movie screen into the audience which eerily portended what was to happen only minutes later.

Certainly the Big Lit-Up word "Aurora" on top of the Gotham skyscraper in Dark Knight Rises could be purely coincidental. Same goes for the "Sandy Hook" which was the only legible thing scrawled onto the Gotham map in the same movie (this is all on your DVD, go find these). It's even more interesting to know that the section labelled "Sandy Hook" was never labelled as such in the older Batman movies. That change came with the Dark Knight Rises.

But when you see freak chance events "happening" with much more regularity than chance would dictate you have to ask yourself, "Is there something else at play here"?

It's not like predictive programming is anything new here. Here's a pilot episode for a show that aired on Fox a few months before 9/11 where the plot was to ram a plane into the World Trade Center. Incidentally that plane, also, in the show departed from Boston:


I personally believe that the people who perpetrates these evil events like to leave their mark in advance. What are the chances a movie trailer would feature shooting up a movie audience on the same day it really would happen? Maybe 1 in 5000? What's the chance the word "Aurora" would be prominently featured in Dark Knight Rises where the opening night shooting takes place? Maybe 1 in 1000? Then Sandy Hook on the map in the same movie? Maybe 1 on 2000? OK, so we've got 1 in 5000 X 1000 X 2000 = 10,000,000,000 or one in ten billion. So where do we decide that there is a greater chance that something else is going on other than just pure chance?

So when I wrote the 9/11 piece above I chose to stick with the facts. They prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt. Sure, any one thing might show plausible deniability but as more and more evidence pours in you get to point to where the probabilities of it being "just chance" turns out to be only once out of the entire history of the world or less. Conspiracy is a much more common event than that. You have to look to that as possibility. It's hidden and does not reveal itself willingly. Like any other organized crime they thrive in darkness and pieces of evidence must be put together to solve it.

I guess you could say that there are levels of awareness based on one's life experience. When you see a lot of these "chance" anomalies turn up in different conspiracies over and over again one become much more aware of the possible evil behind it. It's a lot like what's described in these two articles:




Great post, Bloated

The evidence can't be said enough until real justice is served. I've seen most of the videos you posted and I still can't understand how people just overlook the MOUNTAIN of evidence against NIST's bullshit report.

I don't think we'll ever get a fair shot at a new investigation.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

The fair shot at a new investigation is ongoing...

...by you, myself, Steve Jones, Alex Jones and the thousands of brilliant minds out there in the private sector. I just assembled what I view as the best information. Eventually this will break open. It's a work in progress.


mrbengal and others

It doesn't have to be any thing other than a plane. Given the technology of remotely flying the planes is atleast 20 years old now, IF THEY EVEN DID IT, they really don't need to resort to painting something else as American Airlines plane.

Yes, I agree that the trajectory of the Plane that hit Pentagon is incredible. Making almost a 360 degree turn, while descending at super high rate of angle and speed, keeping the plane perfectly horizontal, almost PERFECTLY leveling at mere few feet from the ground, wings not even touching the ground...absolutely amazing... hard to believe the lone sanitary clothing head Hani Hanjour actually was competent enough to do that. But motivation can make people do impossible things. But I still do not rule out the possibility of remote controlled flying by rogue elements in the Gubmint. Just the unbelievable trajectory forces me to consider this possibility.

I hear you, and I wouldn't

I hear you, and I wouldn't rule out it being something other than alleged AA plane if there wasn't a ton of evidence that makes it really hard to deny.
1 All the witnesses that saw a large passenger jet or American Airlines plane by name
2 All the American Airlines plane parts found at the scene and all the witnesses that testify to seeing them
3 Body parts identified by dna and belongings of the passenger found at the scene
4 No evidence of a missile or other aircraft at the scene
5 The fact that AA flight 77 took off with the alleged passengers and no evidence of it or any of the passengers on it being anywhere else

I am not one who can believe that EVERYONE in and around the area afterwards (police/firefighters/investigators/Pentagon workers/clean up) were and are in on a huge coverup and deception. Therefor the only logical conclusion I can come to is that it indeed was the alleged AA flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Poor Rand he is a man without

Poor Rand he is a man without a party... We don't trust him and neither do they. They all claim they love him but when push comes to shove they will abandon him like a cheap used up whore.

That's what happens when you compromise your virtue and try to play the filthy game of politics.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Video removed by user....

Video removed by user.... DOH!

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

my friend gave me grief...

...and I honored his request...(he knows he provides me with a punching bag)...

You tell 'em, Adnan!


I know I will get attacked

I know I will get attacked for this, but this guy makes alot of good points. There IS dna evidence for the plane at the Pentagon. There is plane parts recovered at the Pentagon. There are many eye witness that seen the plane flying towards or into the Pentagon. There is far more evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon, than that it didn't. As a matter of fact, I don't really see any credible evidence for anything else. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.


And it's not that I don't question any intelligence agency involvement, I think that's very possible like with OKC and WTC in 1993. Or the collapses, especially building 7, seem very fishy to me as well. But the different plane theories don't have the evidence, quite the opposite.

I'm not going to go back and forth here with a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong, that is way old to me and usually goes nowhere anyway. Just feel like people need to look at the evidence for the plane hitting the Pentagon, instead of only documentaries claiming something else did.

Building 7 alone proves that

Building 7 alone proves that we don't know what really happened that day. It's the magic bullet.

I won't attack you but don't

I won't attack you but don't attack me - The proof for me is looking at the video footage of the pentagon before the roof collapsed and I don't see a plane. I see a small hole like a missile. I am sorry they can tell me they have 100 eyewitnesses and I still won't believe a plane hit it because of the raw video footage. The sad thing is eveyone needs "proof" or expert opinion - I trust my own eyes.


So you saw video before the

So you saw video before the roof collapsed, that showed no plane wreckage that you could make out, and now no amount of evidence can change your mind that it was not a plane that hit it? Not an attack but I find that to be a very unreasonable and illogical position to take. Sorry I trust my eyes as well, but almost all the plane wreckage was inside the building, seems logical to me that would be the case with a plane slamming 530mph into the side of a building. So it's very likely you couldn't see any recognizable plane parts from video a distance away outside the smoking building, doesn't mean there wasn't any there.

Anyway I don't know what else I could add to this. I've left plenty of links to a whole lotta evidence that supports my position.


this whole question could be put to bed very easily.

The FBI confiscated over 100 video tapes that would give a clear picture of what did hit the Pentacon on 9/11.

All they need to do is release the tapes. But they won't.

Why do you think that they won't release the tapes?

Good question, some info

Good question, some info about the 85 video tapes here though.

So you can believe that info or you can believe they have video that does directly show what hit the Pentagon. The problem is there are more than 50 eyewitnesses that saw a large plane or even an American Airlines plane by name. I've posted the links to those many times now. So if there is video that somehow does show clearly that it was not an American Airlines plane, it makes almost ALL those eyewitness testimonies no longer credible, including the ones that support the "impossible" flight path theories.
And theories of a drone or missile or something dressed up as an American Airlines plane seem pretty silly to me and open up a whole other huge batch of questions that no one can answer. I mean does anyone have a good theory or any credible evidence on what happened to the actual planes if they weren't the ones used? If so I haven't heard one. Some people try to say they were totally made up but that's easily falsified. People did leave on the alleged planes and never came back.

But what I personally think is that info about the tapes I linked to is right, and they don't really have any good tapes or they would have released them.

Unfortunately, it takes time and effort to plot the details

Many do not possess this quality.

Do you?

1. Divergence or disagreement, as between facts or claims; difference.
2. An instance of divergence or disagreement.

I have time linked the following videos to save you from taking the time it took others to unearth this information.

Regarding the witnesses, what they saw, and the flight path discrepancies with the official account.

Flight path simulation according to flight 77 black box flight recorder (released by The National Transportation Safety Board via FOIA request)


Now lets take a look at another independent investigation regarding
witness evidence (corroborated yet still it does not tally with the official account).


Please note, the witnesses all corroborate the flight path depicted by the simulation of the released flight recorder data as read by expert pilots.

Flight recorder 300ft altitude discrepancy (180ft vs 455ft):


Phone call to NTSB regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder altitude discrepancies:


Full documentary based on the American 77 Flight Data Recorder as provided by the NTSB following the full flight in real time as it happens in the air traffic system on Sept. 11, 2001.


Full video - Lloyde England, his Taxi Cab and the downed light poles: (outside of the flight recorders flight path).


Any event that many people

Any event that many people witness always has discrepancies in the story. People can watch a replay of a football play 20 times and disagree on where a foot or the ball was. Or who won a fight. What clothes a robber had on. etc.
I've addressed all this, I don't know what else you want me to say about it. Look through my comments and you will see.

Can you answer any of my questions to those who say it was not the alleged AA plane? Any of them?

If you want to try and answer my questions and discuss this in a civil manner I have no problem with that. But I am done with third graders like constitutional who debate with absolutely nothing but insults, because that's all they have.

Please watch Major General

Please watch Major General Albert N. Stubblebine who is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy on this topic.


I have not looked at 911 stuff for awhile and after seeing what they tried to pawn off on us as an airplane has me even more convinced. The video of the fireball (that is suppose to be a plane) with green grass in front and cable spools should be enough evidence in itself, but the video of the fireball (and no plane) is even better. Release all the VIDEOS and convince me please.

I forget the names

but there are videos out there that dissect the actual flight paths vs those the planes were supposed to take. There are large chunks of radar tracking missing among other anomalies.

terrible, all three of those links.

Gov paid crockery. No plane hit the pentagon. Planes have wings that would have left SOME baby scratches, at least,on the pentagon but they didn't because no plane hit the pentagon, dummy!

For you: Blast expert Allyn

For you:
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

But I know, I know, he's just in on it too. The whole clean up crew and all the investigators/police/fireman/witnesses all in on it. Even the people at the Pentagon who were injured and had friends and coworkers get killed, if they say they saw an American Airlines plane of plane parts they are just in on it, right?

I mean how come, in the doc you use to support your argument, they didn't interview anyone who cleaned up or investigated the crash site? Wouldn't those people be the best evidence? Where are some of those people saying they saw no American Airline plane parts, etc.?

learn crutucal thinking

Tiger, you fall for everything.

Actually no

April Gallop was in the room right next to where the supposed plane hit. She crawled out of the wreckage and saw NOTHING resembling a plane. Here is her interview:


Regardless of what hit the pentagon, 911 was a sham. It DID NOT happen the way they told us. I personally think it was the Saudi's with factions of the US government including members of the Bush admin. that caused it.

Ok, April Gallop who says she

Ok, April Gallop who says she saw no plane parts but sued American Airlines. Even if you take her at her word, it's not like she was of clear mind at the time looking around for clues, she even says that. It doesn't dismiss all the many other people who were there that were trying to help or investigated/cleaned it up afterwards.
check this out

My only point of this whole discussion is for Daily Paulers to look at ALL the evidence. Everyone of the documentaries that claim the alleged planes were not what struck the Pentagon or WTC omit lots of information and makes false claims about the number of witnesses and evidence. I believed that it probably wasn't the AA plane that hit the Pentagon from watching a couple documentaries for a few years actually. Then I debated a friend who did like I am doing and showed me ALL the evidence that the alleged AA plane DID hit the Pentagon and I don't see how it can be legitimately refuted honestly. Planes DID take off with those people and then plane parts from those planes and dna of those passengers were found at the scenes. Unless you just believe everyone who had to do anything with the clean up and investigation etc. were in on it and are covering it up then I don't see how it is refuted.

Still cant answer ANY of my questions

You act like this was a normal plane crash, no it was a kamikaze attack, big difference. When planes crash normally the pilot is trying to slow down and avert damage, not speed up and maximize it.
So tell me if there is no evdience an American Airlines plane was what hit the Pentagon, then what is this and where did it come from?
or how did this get there?
or this?
or this?
or this?
or this?

I could go on but it's all from my links.

And no witnesses you say, what about all these people.

Funny to me how you call direct visual evidence in the way of pictures of American Airlines plane parts in and around the crash site, passenger dna evidence, and many, many eye witness testimonies "terrible" evidence, yet a documentary that makes claims on the impossibility of specific plane trajectory and crash effects with absolutely no proof to it, is somehow ultra-credible to you. Again this is a good debunking of that doc.
Check out the comment by Frank Legge (who is apparently the author of the article) at the very bottom of the page.


you ignore the fact that April Gallop crawled out of that hole and saw NOTHING. Is she lying? And if she is, what is her motive? There are plenty of motives for government officials to lie.