Ret. Major-General Albert Stubblebine says no plane hit the Pentagon

June 28, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

AS: I am Major-General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment - my last command - I was responsible for all of the Army's Strategic Intelligence Forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK - before the fact. So, we always - always - rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple, and the more pieces of data you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going one. So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.

Interviewer: Ok. So on September the 11th, 2001, what hit the Pentagon?

AS: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.

Interviewer: What made you believe that?

AS: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole, that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough, so that there should have been wing-marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing-marks. So where were they? Did this vessel - vehicle, or whatever it was - have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon. One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. The reason that it's wrong, is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing COULD have broken off. But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? Ok, one broke off - there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful not NOT say what went in there. Why? Because they don't have that evidence. I did ... I've never believed it was an airplane since I looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it ... NO WAY. We pride ourselves with the Free Press; I do not believe the Free Press is Free any more. It's VERY expensive - it's VERY expensive. And the Press is saying what they have been TOLD to say about this. Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being - what certainly the ... the stories that were told - about ALL about 9/11 - were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down: they didn't fall down because airplanes hit 'em, they fell down because of explosives went off inside - Demolition. Look at Building 7, for Gods' sake. It didn't fall down to its side, it didn't fall to this direction, or that direction, just like the two Towers. When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt - to MELT - the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows ... it DOES NOT MATCH the facts. What is it they DO NOT WANT the Public to know?