Major General Explains 9/11 to Harry, Walter, and C-Biscuit

[DrSchadenfreude]

Major General Stubblebine: 9/11 Was a False Flag




The case of Major General Albert Stubblebine is also illustrative of the way that the CIA and U.S. military have systematically deleted, suppressed, and manipulated the original data about 9/11 on the internet (and in the mainstream corporate media) during the past 20 years -- erasing YouTube videos, paying to alter Google search results, and funding scores of CIA-funded websites claiming to "debunk" the General's accurate analysis of the 9/11 false flag op.

[DrSchadenfreude]

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


themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/


“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, Stubblebine 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 the 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?

[DrSchadenfreude]

Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/



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





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

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

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

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

CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. DOT

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

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon. DOT

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

A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon. DOT

Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used” DOT

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

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.

[DrSchadenfreude]

You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/




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.

[DrSchadenfreude]

AA Flight 77 Was Lost From Radar For 36 Minutes, Then a Smaller Military Plane Appeared On Radar That Was NOT AA Flight 77
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/


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.

[DrSchadenfreude]

More Visual Evidence (Including Aerial Footage) Indicating That No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/



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:

[DrSchadenfreude]

Donald Rumsfeld said that a MISSILE was used to damage the Pentagon
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/



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.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Timothy Roemer, Former 9/11 Commission Member, said that the Pentagon was “pried open by a MISSILE”
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/


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:

[cbisbig]

[oujour76]

Nov 3, 2022 10:21:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/




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.

LOL. Nothing like taking 20-year old supposition and acting as if it is relevant today. Too bad you didn't attend this Scientists for 911 Truth conference in Denver in 2019. I don't expect you will take the time to view the video below, but here's the gist...they admit their initial assessment of the Pentagon attack was wrong. Way wrong. And that not only was it a 757, it was in fact, AA Flight 77. Further, the entrance hole was far bigger than you claim. They go into great detail. Enjoy.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Nov 3, 2022 11:17:45 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 3, 2022 10:21:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide
themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/911-must-see-i-can-prove-that-it-was-not-an-airplane-that-hit-the-pentagon-major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/




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.

LOL. Nothing like taking 20-year old supposition and acting as if it is relevant today. 

Actually, Harry, your concept is the precise opposite of the truth.

If you ever study the evidence about CIA black ops-- including the JFK assassination and 9/11-- you will learn that the most accurate, reliable evidence typically surfaces early on-- only to be altered, suppressed, and attacked over the years by the CIA and military cover up people in the media.

My forum associate, Professor Joseph McBride, has documented this media cover up process in meticulous detail in the case of the JFK assassination.


www.amazon.com/Political-Truth-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/1939795613

[oujour76]

Nov 3, 2022 13:48:11 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Nov 3, 2022 11:17:45 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

LOL. Nothing like taking 20-year old supposition and acting as if it is relevant today. 

Actually, Harry, your concept is the precise opposite of the truth.

If you ever study the evidence about CIA black ops-- including the JFK assassination and 9/11-- you will learn that the most accurate, reliable evidence typically surfaces early on-- only to be altered, suppressed, and attacked over the years by the CIA and military cover up people in the media.

My forum associate, Professor Joseph McBride, has documented this media cover up process in meticulous detail in the case of the JFK assassination.


www.amazon.com/Political-Truth-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/1939795613

LOL. Knew you wouldn’t look at the non-governmental report you asked for, and instead would deflect. It’s who you are. ::shrug::

[DrSchadenfreude]

Nov 3, 2022 14:02:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 3, 2022 13:48:11 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Actually, Harry, your concept is the precise opposite of the truth.

If you ever study the evidence about CIA black ops-- including the JFK assassination and 9/11-- you will learn that the most accurate, reliable evidence typically surfaces early on-- only to be altered, suppressed, and attacked over the years by the CIA and military cover up people in the media.

My forum associate, Professor Joseph McBride, has documented this media cover up process in meticulous detail in the case of the JFK assassination.


www.amazon.com/Political-Truth-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/1939795613

LOL. Knew you wouldn’t look at the non-governmental report you asked for, and instead would deflect. It’s who you are. ::shrug::

Well, Harry, I took the time this afternoon to listen to Ken Jenkins' lecture on the Pentagon evidence and cognitive biases.

It was excellent, and also presented some data that I had never seen before, including the photo of the apparent 96 foot hole/aperture on the first floor of the Pentagon.

So, naturally, I'm revising my skepticism about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

That said, if you and Walter listen carefully to Jenkins lecture here on cognitive biases, you will also realize that you need to revise your erroneous beliefs that the WTC was not demolished by explosives on 9/11, as General Stubblebine points out at the top of this thread.

Welcome to 9/11 Truth, with Jenkins, at last!

[cbisbig]

Nov 3, 2022 18:09:48 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Nov 3, 2022 14:02:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

LOL. Knew you wouldn’t look at the non-governmental report you asked for, and instead would deflect. It’s who you are. ::shrug::

Well, Harry, I took the time this afternoon to listen to Ken Jenkins' lecture on the Pentagon evidence and cognitive biases.

It was excellent, and also presented some data that I had never seen before, including the photo of the apparent 96 foot hole/aperture on the first floor of the Pentagon.

So, naturally, I'm revising my skepticism about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

That said, if you and Walter listen carefully to Jenkins lecture here on cognitive biases, you will also realize that you need to revise your erroneous beliefs that the WTC was not demolished by explosives on 9/11, as General Stubblebine points out at the top of this thread.

Welcome to 9/11 Truth, with Jenkins, at last!

You're a nut...



www.thoughtco.com/why-world-trade-center-towers-fell-177706



Aircraft Impact
When hijacked commercial jets piloted by terrorists struck the twin towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel-fed an enormous fireball.1 But the impact of the Boeing 767-200ER series aircraft and the burst of flames did not make the towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the twin towers had a redundant design, which means that when one system fails, another carries the load.


The impact of the aircraft and other flying objects:

Compromised the insulation that protected the steel from high heat
Damaged the sprinkler system of the building
Sliced and cut many of the interior columns and damaged others
Shifted and redistributed the building load among columns that were not immediately damaged
The shift put some of the columns under "elevated states of stress."

Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature is not hot enough to melt structural steel.2 But engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, its steel frames didn't need to melt—they just had to lose some of their structural strength from the intense heat. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 Fahrenheit. Steel also becomes distorted and will buckle when the heat is not a uniform temperature. The exterior temperature was much cooler than the burning jet fuel inside. Videos of both buildings showed inward bowing of perimeter columns resulting from sagging of heated trusses on many floors.

[oujour76]

Nov 3, 2022 18:09:48 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Nov 3, 2022 14:02:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

LOL. Knew you wouldn’t look at the non-governmental report you asked for, and instead would deflect. It’s who you are. ::shrug::

Well, Harry, I took the time this afternoon to listen to Ken Jenkins' lecture on the Pentagon evidence and cognitive biases.

It was excellent, and also presented some data that I had never seen before, including the photo of the apparent 96 foot hole/aperture on the first floor of the Pentagon.

So, naturally, I'm revising my skepticism about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

That said, if you and Walter listen carefully to Jenkins lecture here on cognitive biases, you will also realize that you need to revise your erroneous beliefs that the WTC was not demolished by explosives on 9/11, as General Stubblebine points out at the top of this thread.

Welcome to 9/11 Truth, with Jenkins, at last!

Glad you listened to it and happy to dig into all 3 WTC buildings with an open mind after we finish here with AA 77 and the Pentagon.

How “revised” is your skepticism? Do you now believe that AA 77 hit the Pentagon? If yes, great to know. If no, what do you believe hit the building? Still a cruise missile?