consciouslifenews--2020-09-10--What Are the Effects of Masking Facial Expressions?

You may improve communication using more nonverbal cues and increasing your voice volume when muffled behind a mask ; consider techniques to calm yourself if you become anxious Infants learn to differentiate emotional expressions within the first six months and young children use their caregiver ’ s expressions to interpret new situations Masks have reduced our ability to use visual cues to communicate ; we study the whole face to process information Poor air quality and the use of face masks have been a daily fact of life for many living in China .
Since the 1950s , some in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worn masks as a means of protecting themselves against air pollution .
They also wear them for other reasons , specific to culture.1 In Japan , people wear masks when they feel sick and women wear them when they go out without makeup .
Bradley Sutton is an American who lived in Japan .
He told a reporter from VOA News that wearing a mask in Asia is ingrained in their culture , so doing it for reasons other than air pollution is easier.2 Despite the problem with air quality before the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks were not a regular part of every Asian ’ s life .
It was only after SARS that they were used consistently .
Manufacturers in East Asia are now producing up to 20 million masks each month .
Before SARS , people living in Taiwan believed masks marked them as being severely ill .
Since then , the Taiwanese have embraced the use of a mask .
In a commentary in China Under the Radar , the writer believes young Chinese are wearing them to build a “ social firewall ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as sunglasses or headphones would.
” 3 While real-world testing indicates that masks used for air pollution vary widely in their effectiveness , they have become a staple in Asian life.4 After the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic , masks have become more commonplace around the world .
Since science and testing have not yet caught up , many are choosing to wear a mask in public to allay others ’ fears .
Whether or not they are effective , it ’ s important to recognize the communication problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address those problems .
Masks have removed a crucial way in which people use visual cues to communicate and understand each other .
Smiles , cheek twitches , and lip movements are all lost under a mask .
These visual perceptions of expression are part of how people recognize and understand communication .
In a paper published in Current Opinions in Psychology , one professor from The Ohio State University hypothesized that to interpret emotion , the visual system , including the eyes and brain , attempts to identify muscle activation in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and imaging evidence , he believes humans are able to effortlessly infer an emotional state by reading facial expressions .
This is different from the categorical model that proposes there are six distinct and universal emotions that are communicated across cultures .
These are happiness , anger , disgust , sadness , surprise , and fear.6 The second theory is related to a dimensional model that suggests there are varying dimensions across emotions that are not distinct .
Researchers have found evidence that supports the use of more than one way to categorize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting to psychological researchers , what does it mean in terms of our ability to communicate , when we can ’ t see most facial expressions ?
When adults were tested , they did not have to acknowledge they had seen a face for their brain to recognize the expression.7 While this is a good indication of how quickly the visual system communicates with the brain , when facial expressions are not fully visible , this recognition is hampered .
Rebecca Brewer from the Royal Holloway University of London points out that humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than paying attention to a singular feature , such as the eyes , nose , or mouth .
“ When we can not see the whole face , such holistic processing is disrupted , ” she says.8 Brewer adds that this happens even in countries where the women wear veils in public .
Children and adults learn to interpret information from the whole face ; expressions on others ’ faces , even furrowed brows , are used in several cognitive processes.9 Your Face Is an Effective Communication Tool Aleix Martinez is a researcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been studying the recognition of facial expressions while programming machine learning algorithms .
He believes that relying on facial expressions can also be misleading and explains that the key to interpretation is the study of the entire body posture , motion , and context.10 Yet , your face communicates more than what ’ s coming out of your mouth .
The authors of one paper described it this way:11 In countries where facial coverings are new , many are struggling with the ability to communicate and find it hard to breathe .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , it can be overwhelming for those with communication difficulties or psychological trauma .
For example , people who are deaf can no longer read lips , which severely hinders communications with a person who does n't know sign language.12 Yet another concern with widespread mask-wearing is related to people who have post-traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) and those who may be traumatized from the pandemic .
Yuval Neria of the New York State Psychiatric Institute runs the institute ’ s PTSD program and told the American Heart Association that mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicting the effects of this pandemic:13 There is concern that the pandemic is also affecting those who have a history of trauma .
PTSD is not limited to people who served in the armed services .
Men and women who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault may have significant difficulty wearing masks .
In 2018 , the number of self-reported rapes or sexual assaults of people older than 12 doubled from 2017.14 In 2015 , 1 in 5 U.S. women reported having experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intimate partner has affected 33 % of women and 25 % of men , and 14.3 % of women have been injured.15 When these experiences involve choking , smothering , or the attacker wearing a mask , it can be even worse .
Psychiatric nurse practitioner Adam Barkeloo spoke with Channel 9 News , expressing concern about how this can trigger a PTSD episode:16 Dawn Nau told her story to a reporter from the Altoona Mirror .
She had been a bank teller during a robbery during which a man wearing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The reporter wrote:17 Dawn ’ s story is not unique .
It is similar to that of Lori Perkins18 and thousands of others who live with anxiety related to PTSD that was caused by traumatic events in their lives .
Children are also experiencing distress from adults wearing masks .
This short video demonstrates the role that facial expression plays in infant interaction .
It ’ s called the “ Still Face ” experiment , which was first performed in 1975 by Edward Tronick , Ph.D. , who continues to conduct research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may affect the emotional development of infants and children.19 The study may be one of the most often-cited in developmental psychology .
Further investigations into infants ’ abilities to differentiate emotional expressions have revealed that within the first six months , babies learn to recognize emotion and distinguish physical characteristics associated with those emotions.20 In one study , scientists found that babies spend more time looking at the mouth of an angry face just after hearing a happy voice .
The researchers believe this is a reaction to hearing something different from what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrate the ability at an early age to understand emotional information based on what is heard and seen.21 Educators have long known that many young children have difficulty when masks are worn .
At some elementary schools , masks aren ’ t allowed during Halloween , as the children become stressed .
Kang Lee , Ph.D. , from the University of Toronto , says that children don ’ t have full facial recognition abilities until they ’ re about 14 years old.22,23 Until that time , children see individual features rather than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use masks , it becomes more difficult for children to recognize individuals and understand emotional signals .
This is especially difficult for children on the autism spectrum who often have trouble understanding and reading nonverbal cues .
Young children also look to their parents and caregivers to interpret new situations .
This reliance on facial expressions and even tone of voice is distorted by a mask and may make it challenging for them to regulate their response .
Psychologists call this “ social referencing ” and it develops in children through the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Communication ?
Interpreting nonverbal cues and communicating while wearing a mask in public can be challenging .
However , there are several strategies you can use to help yourself and your children .
Consider these tips from Brookings:25 Many adults are having difficulty wearing a mask in public .
While simple strategies may not be useful to completely allay anxiety , there are some things you can do to improve the situation:26,27,28

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com
You may improve communication using more nonverbal cues and increasing your voice volume when muffled behind a mask; consider techniques to calm yourself if you become anxious
Infants learn to differentiate emotional expressions within the first six months and young children use their caregiver’s expressions to interpret new situations
Masks have reduced our ability to use visual cues to communicate; we study the whole face to process information
Poor air quality and the use of face masks have been a daily fact of life for many living in China. Since the 1950s, some in Japan, China, and Taiwan have worn masks as a means of protecting themselves against air pollution. They also wear them for other reasons, specific to culture.1
In Japan, people wear masks when they feel sick and women wear them when they go out without makeup. Bradley Sutton is an American who lived in Japan. He told a reporter from VOA News that wearing a mask in Asia is ingrained in their culture, so doing it for reasons other than air pollution is easier.2
Despite the problem with air quality before the first SARS outbreak in China in 2002, masks were not a regular part of every Asian’s life. It was only after SARS that they were used consistently. Manufacturers in East Asia are now producing up to 20 million masks each month. Before SARS, people living in Taiwan believed masks marked them as being severely ill.
Since then, the Taiwanese have embraced the use of a mask. In a commentary in China Under the Radar, the writer believes young Chinese are wearing them to build a “social firewall” and avoid being approached by others, “just as sunglasses or headphones would.”3 While real-world testing indicates that masks used for air pollution vary widely in their effectiveness, they have become a staple in Asian life.4
After the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic, masks have become more commonplace around the world. Since science and testing have not yet caught up, many are choosing to wear a mask in public to allay others’ fears. Whether or not they are effective, it’s important to recognize the communication problems they introduce and to know how to address those problems.
Decoding Facial Actions Helps Categorize Emotion
Masks have removed a crucial way in which people use visual cues to communicate and understand each other. Smiles, cheek twitches, and lip movements are all lost under a mask. These visual perceptions of expression are part of how people recognize and understand communication.
In a paper published in Current Opinions in Psychology, one professor from The Ohio State University hypothesized that to interpret emotion, the visual system, including the eyes and brain, attempts to identify muscle activation in the face.5
Based on computational, behavioral, and imaging evidence, he believes humans are able to effortlessly infer an emotional state by reading facial expressions. This is different from the categorical model that proposes there are six distinct and universal emotions that are communicated across cultures. These are happiness, anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, and fear.6
The second theory is related to a dimensional model that suggests there are varying dimensions across emotions that are not distinct. Researchers have found evidence that supports the use of more than one way to categorize expression. While this may be highly interesting to psychological researchers, what does it mean in terms of our ability to communicate, when we can’t see most facial expressions?
When adults were tested, they did not have to acknowledge they had seen a face for their brain to recognize the expression.7 While this is a good indication of how quickly the visual system communicates with the brain, when facial expressions are not fully visible, this recognition is hampered.
Rebecca Brewer from the Royal Holloway University of London points out that humans process a person's whole face rather than paying attention to a singular feature, such as the eyes, nose, or mouth. “When we cannot see the whole face, such holistic processing is disrupted,” she says.8
Brewer adds that this happens even in countries where the women wear veils in public. Children and adults learn to interpret information from the whole face; expressions on others’ faces, even furrowed brows, are used in several cognitive processes.9
Your Face Is an Effective Communication Tool
Aleix Martinez is a researcher from Ohio State University. He has been studying the recognition of facial expressions while programming machine learning algorithms.
He believes that relying on facial expressions can also be misleading and explains that the key to interpretation is the study of the entire body posture, motion, and context.10 Yet, your face communicates more than what’s coming out of your mouth. The authors of one paper described it this way:11
“One of the richest and most powerful tools in social communication is the face, from which observers can quickly and easily make a number of inferences — about identity, gender, sex, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical health, attractiveness, emotional state, personality traits, pain or physical pleasure, deception, and even social status.”
In countries where facial coverings are new, many are struggling with the ability to communicate and find it hard to breathe. While this may be difficult for lots of people, it can be overwhelming for those with communication difficulties or psychological trauma. For example, people who are deaf can no longer read lips, which severely hinders communications with a person who doesn't know sign language.12
Masks Can Trigger a PTSD Episode
Yet another concern with widespread mask-wearing is related to people who have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and those who may be traumatized from the pandemic. Yuval Neria of the New York State Psychiatric Institute runs the institute’s PTSD program and told the American Heart Association that mental health professionals are in uncharted territory in predicting the effects of this pandemic:13
“I don't think the mental health consequences will be limited to PTSD only. In fact, I think we should expect other mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse and potentially increase in suicide. They are already there and kind of showing themselves.
Disasters are usually limited to space and time. And there is an onset of a disaster – which may take some time – but there is an end. But I think viruses have their own way to inflict adversities on us. The threat is ambiguous. (It) is everywhere and nowhere. It's ongoing. It may take a long time.”
There is concern that the pandemic is also affecting those who have a history of trauma. PTSD is not limited to people who served in the armed services. Men and women who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault may have significant difficulty wearing masks.
In 2018, the number of self-reported rapes or sexual assaults of people older than 12 doubled from 2017.14 In 2015, 1 in 5 U.S. women reported having experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time in their life. Physical violence from an intimate partner has affected 33% of women and 25% of men, and 14.3% of women have been injured.15
When these experiences involve choking, smothering, or the attacker wearing a mask, it can be even worse. Psychiatric nurse practitioner Adam Barkeloo spoke with Channel 9 News, expressing concern about how this can trigger a PTSD episode:16
“The one we worry about the most is trauma. Sexual trauma, an attack. What might not seem like a big deal to you or I might be a really big deal to a kid or an older person or a female.”
Dawn Nau told her story to a reporter from the Altoona Mirror. She had been a bank teller during a robbery during which a man wearing a bandana pointed a gun in her face. The reporter wrote:17
“Last week, Dawn Nau of Williamsport went to the grocery store for the first time since wearing a mask became mandatory in her state. For someone with post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, this was a huge task.
‘To be honest, I thought I was being brave,’ she said. ‘The first time I came up an aisle, there was a man there with a mask on.’ Dawn had to tell herself to breathe. She went into the next aisle and took her mask off.
‘I was in the store maybe five minutes before I had to take my mask off,’ she said. ‘It feels like I’m suffocating, like I can’t breathe. It panics me.’ She wasn’t in the store long, but by the time she left, she was soaked from sweat.”
Dawn’s story is not unique. It is similar to that of Lori Perkins18 and thousands of others who live with anxiety related to PTSD that was caused by traumatic events in their lives.
Still Face Experiment Demonstrates Early Facial Recognition
Children are also experiencing distress from adults wearing masks. This short video demonstrates the role that facial expression plays in infant interaction. It’s called the “Still Face” experiment, which was first performed in 1975 by Edward Tronick, Ph.D., who continues to conduct research on how a mother's stressful behavior may affect the emotional development of infants and children.19
The study may be one of the most often-cited in developmental psychology. Further investigations into infants’ abilities to differentiate emotional expressions have revealed that within the first six months, babies learn to recognize emotion and distinguish physical characteristics associated with those emotions.20
In one study, scientists found that babies spend more time looking at the mouth of an angry face just after hearing a happy voice. The researchers believe this is a reaction to hearing something different from what they're seeing and that it may demonstrate the ability at an early age to understand emotional information based on what is heard and seen.21
Educators have long known that many young children have difficulty when masks are worn. At some elementary schools, masks aren’t allowed during Halloween, as the children become stressed. Kang Lee, Ph.D., from the University of Toronto, says that children don’t have full facial recognition abilities until they’re about 14 years old.22,23
Until that time, children see individual features rather than the entire face. When adults and children use masks, it becomes more difficult for children to recognize individuals and understand emotional signals. This is especially difficult for children on the autism spectrum who often have trouble understanding and reading nonverbal cues.
Young children also look to their parents and caregivers to interpret new situations. This reliance on facial expressions and even tone of voice is distorted by a mask and may make it challenging for them to regulate their response. Psychologists call this “social referencing” and it develops in children through the early preschool years.24
How Can You Adjust to Public Communication?
Interpreting nonverbal cues and communicating while wearing a mask in public can be challenging. However, there are several strategies you can use to help yourself and your children. Consider these tips from Brookings:25
•Introductions — Before going into a public place, show your children a face mask. Allow them to handle it and play with it. Explain that you’ll be wearing a mask in public and others will be wearing them too. Put it on your face in front of your child. Children may have less anxiety when they can anticipate events. •Games — Play “peek-a-boo” by covering and uncovering your mouth with your hand and mask. Tell them you’ll be smiling under the mask, even if they can’t see it. Use “guess-my-expression” to help them look for clues for expressions. Wearing a mask, ask them to watch your eyes and eyebrows, and guess what expression you’re making. Take off the mask to let them see if they got it right. •Talking — Talk with your child through the mask at home. Adjust your tone and pitch so they can hear you.
Many adults are having difficulty wearing a mask in public. While simple strategies may not be useful to completely allay anxiety, there are some things you can do to improve the situation:26,27,28


consciouslifenews--2020-09-10--9/11 MUST SEE: “I can prove that it was NOT an airplane” that Hit the Pentagon – Major General Alber

9/11 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 At the time of the interview , Albert N. Stubblebine III was a retired Major General in the United States Army .
( Sadly , Albert passed away on February 6 , 2017 . )
He was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stubblemine reveals the following information ( what he calls “ dots ” ) about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11 , 2001 : • Stubblebine initially believed the official story regarding 9/11 .
• Then , he saw the hole in the Pentagon .
He can prove that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 .
DOT .
• All of the sensors around the Pentagon were turned off except one .
That one sensor captured an image of the object that hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stubblebine said there must have been intelligence information to know that an attack was coming and we did n'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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 could n't prove it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ca n't prove that , I do n'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 sensors had been turned off , which is kind of interesting – is n't it ?
That day , why would all of the sensors around the Pentagon be turned off ?
That 's strange .
I do n'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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 – can not be gotten to a melt point with the fuel that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 did n'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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Is n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Do n'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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , I have a question I guess .
The real story to me is : who was the real enemy ?
Who participated in this ?
Who planned this attack ?
Why was it planned ?
Were the real terrorists the people in Arab clothing ?
Or , were the real people that planned this the people sitting in the authority in the White House ?
Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757 The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video footage : • Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris .
You ca n'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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 does n't look like a Boeing 757 ) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked .
DOT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ( a ) American Airlines Flight 77 ( a Boeing 757 ) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared ; ( b ) instead , a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult maneuver and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down ; ( c ) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile .
You Can ’ t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a 757 .
• The story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon is absurd – by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour .
AA Flight 77 Was Lost From Radar For 36 Minutes , Then a Smaller Military Plane Appeared On Radar That Was NOT AA Flight 77 Please continue watching the next segment of the documentary Zero : An Investigation into 9/11 : • According to the official account , the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77 , under the control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that there is a zero possibility that they could pull off an impossible maneuver on the first try .
CNN Reporter : “ There is NO Evidence of a Plane Having Crashed Anywhere Near the Pentagon ” Jamie Mcintyre , CNN 's senior Pentagon correspondent at the time , was at the Pentagon shortly after it was hit .
Here ’ s what he reported : “ From my close-up inspection , there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick up in your hand .
There are no large tail sections , wing sections , a fuselage , nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse .
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed , that did n't happen immediately , it was n't until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Footage ) Indicating That No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 In the video below , pay close attention to the aerial footage that begins at the 4:25 mark and especially the closeup shot at 4:50 .
Where is the plane debris ?
The footage shows exactly what McIntyre described : there was no plane debris .
Also , have a look at the following video containing analysis of the damage to the Pentagon showing that a fully-fueled Boeing-757 could not have possibly hit the Pentagon : Donald Rumsfeld said that a MISSILE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 .
Timothy Roemer , Former 9/11 Commission Member , said that the Pentagon was “ pried open by a MISSILE ” In an interview in September 2006 with CNN ’ s Miles O ’ Brien , former 9/11 Commissioner member , Timothy Roemer , says that a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and then quickly corrects himself to line up with the official story .
O'Brien : “ At any point during this day were you just , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roemer : “ There was — there were many times , Miles , that you were afraid .
You were — you were worried , especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night , seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile , an airplane , thinking about the number of people that probably died on the plane and on the ground… ” Click on the link below to see the above exchange between O ’ Brien and Roemer : Analysis of Pentagon video indicates that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he saw the original video tape showing object that looked like a missile hitting the Pentagon , and then the tape was altered .
Below is an analysis of the video footage that allegedly shows Flight 77 exploding as it impacts the Pentagon .
The frame-by-frame analysis shows the fuselage is still in view when the explosion occurs .
In addition , the brief footage of the nose of plane certainly does not look anything like a Boeing 757 .
Watch it here : Have a look at the following video about an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hitting the Pentagon ( Note : we have no way of verifying that the leaked footage is authentic ) : Expert claims that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicates that a “ depleted uranium warhead may have been used ” The missile hypothesis is supported by physical evidence .
Dr. Janette Sherman , a well-respected radiation expert , used a Geiger counter to measure radiation levels from about 12 miles downwind of the Pentagon shortly after the attack on 9/11 .
Sherman reported that the Geiger counter reading was extremely high , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 ] Although Sherman ’ s findings are not conclusive , Dr. Leuren Moret , formerly a scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory , stated : “ I 'm not an explosives or crash site expert , but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination .
What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious , leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used.
” [ 3 ] The missile theory was echoed by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military expert : “ When you look at the whole thing , especially the crash site void of airplane parts , the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile 's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls , it looks like the work of a missile .
And when you look at the damage , it was obviously a missile.
” [ 4 ] Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001 April Gallop and her child survived the ‘ impact ' at the Pentagon .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the building sitting at a computer when the explosion occurred .
After escaping through a hole in the Pentagon wall she waited on the grass near the road before being taken to the Hospital .
She did not see any plane debris or experience any jet fuel or any other evidence of a plane crash .
USAF Witness : There was “ a strange lack of visible debris…moments after impact ” Karen Kwiatkowski , PhD , U.S. Air Force ( retired ) wrote that there was a lack of debris moments after impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon on 9/11 , was a contributor to a book titled 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out , in which she wrote that there was “ a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn , where I stood only moments after the impact .
.
.
.
I saw .
.
.
no airplane metal or cargo debris.
” [ 5 ] Another Pentagon Witness : I was convinced it was a missile .
Lon Rains , who was an Editor for Space News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving his car near the Pentagon when it was hit by a missile on 9/11 .
In an article titled Eyewitness : The Pentagon , published on June 30 , 2005 , Rains wrote : “ That morning , like many others , the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon .
With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o ’ clock on the dial of a clock , I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard a very loud , quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left .
In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion .
The next thing I saw was the fireball .
I was convinced it was a missile .
It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.
” [ 6 ] Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , part 1 of 8 : Part 1 of the video contains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioning the official story of Flight 77 : • Lack of debris , plus what a crash site should look like • No evidence that a plane actually hit the Pentagon Next , the official version of the Flight 77 flight path ( as specified by the 9/11 commission and the alleged “ black box ” data released by the NTSB in 2006 ) is established as being south of the Navy Annex and south of the former CITGO gas station .
This is key information that has to be true in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused the physical damage to the Pentagon .
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , part 2 of 8 : In part 2 , we are shown images and animation of the path that the plane must have taken in order to knock over five light poles and damage the Pentagon in the manner that it did , which is the official story .
The location of the downed light poles is important because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first two witnesses ( Edward Paik and Terry Morin ) , who were positioned on the south side of the Navy Annex ( vantage point # 1 ) as the plane flew over .
Both Edward and Terry saw the plane fly directly over the Navy annex to the north of the “ official ” path .
Of particular significance is the interview with Morin , an aviator and a program manager for SPARTA Inc at the Navy Annex .
Initially , Morin was between the wings of the Navy annex , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it “ flew over the top of me.
” Morin than ran over to get a better view and watched the plane for 13-18 seconds .
Morin , as an aviator , disputed the official report that the plane was flying 460 knots .
Instead , Morin says that the plane was only flying at a speed of around 350 knots .
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , part 3 of 8 : Part 3 contains interviews with three witnesses who were at the CITGO gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 9/11 when a low-flying plane flew by .
Robert Turcios , CITGO station employee , saw the plane on the north side of the station and initially thought the plane was going to crash onto the street between the station and the Pentagon , but saw the plane “ lift and go up a little bit.
” He did not see the plane hit the Pentagon .
In addition , Pentagon Police officers Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse each confirm that the low-flying plane flew by on the north side of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , part 4 of 8 : Morin and Lagasse independently draw a nearly identical , flight path lines showing an approach to the north of the CITGO station .
Next , an interview with a witness who was located on the north side of the Navy Annex ( vantage point # 3 ) on 9/11 is shown .
William Middleton Sr. , an Arlington Cemetery employee , said that he plane was coming straight down Southgate road on the north side of the Navy annex .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plane dropping in altitude and that it came so close to where he was standing that he could feel the heat from the plane .
In addition , Middleton said that the plane was travelling at a “ slow ” rate of speed , corroborating what Terry Morin had said .
After the interview with Middleton , interviews with Arlington Cemetery employees Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather , who were positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings ( vantage point # 4 ) on 9/11 are shown .
Both said that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that after barely clearing the Navy Annex building , the plane continued descending and at the same time was banking to the right .
The banking of the plane to the right is irreconcilable with NTSB data , physical damage to the Pentagon , and the Pentagon security video .
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , part 5 of 8 : This video segment starts with an interview of another Arlington Cemetery employee , Donald Carter , who was also positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9/11 .
Carter ’ s testimony is similar to that of his co-workers , Stafford and Prather .
Next , an interview with Sean Boger is shown .
Boger , a heliport air traffic controller , was in the Pentagon heliport tower that is located directly in front of the Pentagon ( vantage point # 5 ) on 9/11 .
Boger said : “ I just happened to be looking out the window .
And , as I was looking out the window , I could see a plane… The plane was coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the ground and I covered my head.
” Boger stated that he saw a plane come over the Navy Annex and bank right toward the Pentagon .
Based on the amount of time he watched the plane after he first saw it , the plane was travelling significantly slower than 460 knots .
From five vantage points , 13 eyewitnesses independently and unanimously confirm a north side approach .
A drawing is shown depicting the paths drawn by the witnesses .
The eyewitness testimony contradicts the official reports that are required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the eyewitnesses have worked in the area for many years and are therefore very familiar with the topology and landmarks .
Since the release of their interviews in the public domain , all have been made aware of the implications yet stand by their stories as reported .
None have claimed that their accounts have been misrepresented .
Most of the witnesses could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape , and admit to running , dropping , or flinching for cover .
This explains why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away and assumed that it had hit the Pentagon because of the explosion .
The independent and unanimous placement of the plane on the north side and banking to the right amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did fly away without hitting the building because the damage to the Pentagon required a south side approach .
Although the witnesses presented so far did not see the plane fly away , some did ( and are documented in the next video segment ) .
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 of 8 : Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane fly away immediately after the explosion .
He was at the Pentagon south parking lot loading dock , only a few steps inside the building during the explosion .
After hearing an explosion , he ran outside , looked up , and saw a plane flying around the south parking lot .
Roosevelt describes seeing a commercial jet that was banking and flying away at less than 100 feet above the ground within 10 seconds after the explosion .
Roosevelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plane that all of the other witness reported seeing on the north side flight path .
There is additional evidence that more people saw the plane continue past the Pentagon .
Arlington National Cemetery employee Erik Dihle was officially recorded by the Center for Military History on December 13 , 2001 .
Although he personally did not see the plane , he said the first thing that other people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet flew by and kept on going : “ A number of us were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explosion… we got up and ran outside… Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.
” Multiple witnesses have testified to seeing a banking , low-flying plane approach the Pentagon from the north side of the former CITGO gas station .
This means that the damaged light poles , of which one allegedly went through the windshield of a taxicab , had to have been staged .
Although there are photos of a bent pole laying on the ground and a broken windshield , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 foot , 247 pound pole inside the cab .
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , Part 7 of 8 : Taxi cab driver , Lloyde England , initially claimed that a silent stranger helped him remove the light pole from his car .
A 247 pound light pole knocked over by a 90 ton Boeing 757 traveling 530 miles per hour certainly would have caused massive damage had it hit Lloyde ’ s taxi .
However , the only visible damage to the taxi is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxi was unscratched , which makes absolutely no sense .
However , don ’ t forget that testimony from multiple witnesses has proven that none of the downed light poles could have been knocked over by the incoming plane .
Therefore , the lack of damage to the taxi does make sense .
After Lloyde was confronted with the information provided by the witnesses indicating a north side approach ( and that therefore the downed light poles must have been staged ) , he had a very strange reaction .
Lloyde then changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his taxi was on the bridge next to the downed light pole , where it appears that photos of both Lloyde and the taxi were taken .
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , Part 8 of 8 : Lloyde goes on to explain that history has nothing to do with the truth and that he was used by people who have money .
He then essentially admits that the downed light pole was staged and pre-planned .
But , he was cautious not to outright confess .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitting that the staging was planned .
Conclusion : The Pentagon was hit by a MISSILE , not hit by a plane The lack of any evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon , eyewitness testimony of a banking , north side approach , eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying “ jet ” fly past the Pentagon that “ kept on going , ” plus Lloyde ’ s confession that the downed light pole was preplanned and staged all provide ample evidence proving that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flew past the Pentagon immediately after it was hit by a missile in order to appear as though a plane did the damage .
[ 2 ] Greg Szymanski , Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used ; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon , Not Commercial Airliner , August 18 , 2004 https : //web.archive.org/web/20060111183631/https : //www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2005.html [ 5 ] Karen Kwiatkowski , PhD , USAF ( ret ) , 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out , Edited by David Ray Griffin and @ @ @ @ @

“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
At the time of the interview, Albert N. Stubblebine III was a retired Major General in the United States Army. (Sadly, Albert passed away on February 6, 2017.) He was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. In this compelling interview, Stubblemine reveals the following information (what he calls “dots”) about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:
Stubblebine initially believed the official story regarding 9/11.
Then, he saw the hole in the Pentagon. He can prove that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. DOT.
All of the sensors around the Pentagon were turned off except one. That one sensor captured an image of the object that hit the Pentagon. It looked like a missile. But, after he went public, the imagery was changed to look like a plane. DOT.
The collapse of the twin towers was caused by controlled demolition – not the fuel from the airplane. DOT.
Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, admitted that building 7, which was not hit by a plane and had only a small fire, was intentionally “pulled” – which is word 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 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 a 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. Where 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 Silverstein video, which you can see here. The video is a PBS interview with Silverstein that was shot sometime after 9/11. The footage of Building 7 going down is historical footage, not live during the interview. Nonetheless, Silverstein does say that he gave the order to “pull it.”
15:00 All of the air defense systems in that part of the country had been turned off that day. All of the air defense systems had been turned off… Why would you turn off all of the air defense systems on that particular day unless you knew that something was going to happen? It's a dot. It's information. But, it's strange that everything got turned off that day. DOT.”
15:50 There was an exercise that was designed for the air defense systems that was an attack on the towers by airplanes. Isn't that strange that we had an exercise that mimicked what really happened? Strange that we had planned an exercise that was exactly what happened. And, at the same time, the air defense systems were turned off. Don't you find that strange? I find that really strange? DOT. Just a piece of information.
16:50 “But how does it correlate with everything else? So, you see the dots. You have all of these dots. They're just bits of information. But, that's exactly how the intelligence world works. You get a bit of information here. A bit here, and a bit here. And, pretty soon you've got a picture. To me, what does the picture say? The picture says that what we heard and were told in the newspapers, the media, was not the real story. There's enough doubt in the official story where the story is absolutely not consistent with what happened. They paint a different picture than the one that was given to the media.”
17:45 “How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government to ‘Oh My God! What's going on?' That's exactly where I went in all of this. Because my belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point. I did it because I wanted to do it – because I believed! And then going to the military academy and serving, defending…
18:30 The real story was, I have a question I guess. The real story to me is: who was the real enemy? Who participated in this? Who planned this attack? Why was it planned? Were the real terrorists the people in Arab clothing? Or, were the real people that planned this the people sitting in the authority in the White House?
Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757
The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in detail below, most of which is video footage:
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.
CNN Reporter: “There is NO Evidence of a Plane Having Crashed Anywhere Near the Pentagon”
Jamie Mcintyre, CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent at the time, was at the Pentagon shortly after it was hit. Here’s what he reported:
“From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately, it wasn't until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”
More Visual Evidence (Including Aerial Footage) Indicating That No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11
In the video below, pay close attention to the aerial footage that begins at the 4:25 mark and especially the closeup shot at 4:50. Where is the plane debris? The footage shows exactly what McIntyre described: there was no plane debris.
.
Leaked Footage of What Actually DID Hit the Pentagon
(“National Security Alert – 9/11 Pentagon Event” originally released on 15 Jun 2009)
Citizen Investigation Team offers this compilation of independently verifiable evidence exposing the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a psychological black operation of deception. Consider this a non-violent call to action as everyone is encouraged to copy and distribute this conclusive evidence to media, political, and authority figures while first requesting, and then demanding a response. Inaction by authorities and media to this information amounts to a crime of obstruction of justice so it's time they are held accountable. This is particularly the case as more innocents are slaughtered and additional billions of dollars are spent on a fraudulent “war on terror” perpetuated under any other name. Please visit CitizenInvestigationTeam.com for full resources and a step-by-step strategy as to how you can take action on this critical life or death information.
See ALL of the videos by the Citizen Investigation Team HERE.
Below are some of the key findings by the Citizen Investigation Team:
We are shown images and animation of the path that the plane must have taken in order to knock over five light poles and damage the Pentagon in the manner that it did, which is the official story. The location of the downed light poles is important because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot.
Interviews with the first two witnesses (Edward Paik and Terry Morin), who were positioned on the south side of the Navy Annex (vantage point #1) as the plane flew over. Both Edward and Terry saw the plane fly directly over the Navy annex to the north of the “official” path.
Of particular significance is the interview with Morin, an aviator and a program manager for SPARTA Inc at the Navy Annex. Initially, Morin was between the wings of the Navy annex, so he could only see the plane as it “flew over the top of me.” Morin than ran over to get a better view and watched the plane for 13-18 seconds. Morin, as an aviator, disputed the official report that the plane was flying 460 knots. Instead, Morin says that the plane was only flying at a speed of around 350 knots.
Interviews with three witnesses who were at the CITGO gas station (vantage point #2) on 9/11 when a low-flying plane flew by.
Robert Turcios, CITGO station employee, saw the plane on the north side of the station and initially thought the plane was going to crash onto the street between the station and the Pentagon, but saw the plane “lift and go up a little bit.” He did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
In addition, Pentagon Police officers Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse each confirm that the low-flying plane flew by on the north side of the CITGO station.
Morin and Lagasse independently draw a nearly identical, flight path lines showing an approach to the north of the CITGO station.
Next, an interview with a witness who was located on the north side of the Navy Annex (vantage point # 3) on 9/11 is shown. William Middleton Sr., an Arlington Cemetery employee, said that he plane was coming straight down Southgate road on the north side of the Navy annex. Middleton also said that he could see the plane dropping in altitude and that it came so close to where he was standing that he could feel the heat from the plane. In addition, Middleton said that the plane was traveling at a “slow” rate of speed, corroborating what Terry Morin had said.
After the interview with Middleton, interviews with Arlington Cemetery employees Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather, who was positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11 are shown. Both said that a plane was coming directly at them and that after barely clearing the Navy Annex building, the plane continued descending and at the same time was banking to the right. The banking of the plane to the right is irreconcilable with NTSB data, physical damage to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon security video.
This video segment starts with an interview of another Arlington Cemetery employee, Donald Carter, who was also positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11. Carter’s testimony is similar to that of his co-workers, Stafford and Prather.
Next, an interview with Sean Boger is shown. Boger, a heliport air traffic controller, was in the Pentagon heliport tower that is located directly in front of the Pentagon (vantage point # 5) on 9/11. Boger said: “I just happened to be looking out the window. And, as I was looking out the window, I could see a plane… The plane was coming directly at us… You know I fell to the ground and I covered my head.”
Boger stated that he saw a plane come over the Navy Annex and bank right toward the Pentagon. Based on the amount of time he watched the plane after he first saw it, the plane was traveling significantly slower than 460 knots.
From five vantage points, 13 eyewitnesses independently and unanimously confirm a north side approach. A drawing is shown depicting the paths drawn by the witnesses. The eyewitness testimony contradicts the official reports that are required to make the official story plausible.
All of the eyewitnesses have worked in the area for many years and are therefore very familiar with the topology and landmarks. Since the release of their interviews in the public domain, all have been made aware of the implications yet stand by their stories as reported. None have claimed that their accounts have been misrepresented.
Most of the witnesses could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape, and admit to running, dropping, or flinching for cover. This explains why they did not see the plane fly away and assumed that it had hit the Pentagon because of the explosion.
The independent and unanimous placement of the plane on the north side and banking to the right amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did fly away without hitting the building because the damage to the Pentagon required a south side approach.
Although the witnesses presented so far did not see the plane fly away, some did (and are documented in the next video segment).
Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane fly away immediately after the explosion. He was at the Pentagon south parking lot loading dock, only a few steps inside the building during the explosion. After hearing an explosion, he ran outside, looked up, and saw a plane flying around the south parking lot. Roosevelt describes seeing a commercial jet that was banking and flying away at less than 100 feet above the ground within 10 seconds after the explosion.
He was at the Pentagon south parking lot loading dock, only a few steps inside the building during the explosion. After hearing an explosion, he ran outside, looked up, and saw a plane flying around the south parking lot. Roosevelt describes seeing a commercial jet that was banking and flying away at less than 100 feet above the ground within 10 seconds after the explosion. Roosevelt could have only seen the same banking plane that all of the other witnesses reported seeing on the north side flight path.
There is additional evidence that more people saw the plane continue past the Pentagon. Arlington National Cemetery employee Erik Dihle was officially recorded by the Center for Military History on December 13, 2001. Although he personally did not see the plane, he said the first thing that other people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet flew by and kept on going:
“A number of us were working building 123. Right after the explosion… we got up and ran outside… Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.”
Multiple witnesses have testified to seeing a banking, low-flying plane approach the Pentagon from the north side of the former CITGO gas station. This means that the damaged light poles, of which one allegedly went through the windshield of a taxicab, had to have been staged. Although there are photos of a bent pole laying on the ground and a broken windshield, not a single photograph exists showing the 40-foot, 247-pound pole inside the cab.
Although there are photos of a bent pole laying on the ground and a broken windshield, not a single photograph exists showing the 40-foot, 247-pound pole inside the cab. Taxi cab driver, Lloyde England, initially claimed that a silent stranger helped him remove the light pole from his car. A 247-pound light pole knocked over by a 90-ton Boeing 757 traveling 530 miles per hour certainly would have caused massive damage had it hit Lloyde’s taxi. However, the only visible damage to the taxi is the broken front windshield. Otherwise, the taxi was unscratched, which makes absolutely no sense.
A 247-pound light pole knocked over by a 90-ton Boeing 757 traveling 530 miles per hour certainly would have caused massive damage had it hit Lloyde’s taxi. However, the only visible damage to the taxi is the broken front windshield. Otherwise, the taxi was unscratched, which makes absolutely no sense. However, don’t forget that testimony from multiple witnesses has proven that none of the downed light poles could have been knocked over by the incoming plane. Therefore, the lack of damage to the taxi does make sense.
After Lloyde was confronted with the information provided by the witnesses indicating a north side approach (and that therefore the downed light poles must have been staged), he had a very strange reaction. Lloyde then changed his story and refused to admit that his taxi was on the bridge next to the downed light pole, where it appears that photos of both Lloyde and the taxi were taken.
Lloyde goes on to explain that history has nothing to do with the truth and that he was used by people who have money. He then essentially admits that the downed light pole was staged and pre-planned. But, he was cautious not to outright confess. He distanced himself from the planners while admitting that the staging was planned.
You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide
Watch this 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?”
’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?” One theory is that the Boeing 757 was vaporized due to the speed and the force of the crash. The engines are made of a titanium steel alloy that would not vaporize unless they hit a temperature of 3,286 degrees Centigrade. That did not happen. Plus, the engines would have caused significant damage upon impact. Yet, there is no indication that the engines impacted the Pentagon.
After a period of time, various photos of airplane debris began to appear in newspapers and on the web did not appear in any photos shown in the days following the event.
The Pentagon had numerous cameras that had complete and separate recordings of the incident. The FBI was immediately on the scene and confiscated many video tapes from the Pentagon and nearby buildings. Yet only four videos were released after 2006 when FOIA requests compelled them to release them. Only two showed any useful information. But most experts believe the white image in the videos is too small to be a 757.
The story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon is absurd – by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour.
AA Flight 77 Was Lost From Radar For 36 Minutes, Then a Smaller Military Plane Appeared On Radar That Was NOT AA Flight 77
Please continue watching the next segment of the documentary Zero: An Investigation into 9/11:
According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. Hanjour was known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.
An experienced pilot with thousands of hours would probably require 10-20 attempts to pull off the maneuver that was performed with the Boeing 757 on its way to the Pentagon. “You just can’t do that with one of those big airplanes.” –Robin Hordon, flight controller and flight instructor
AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”
No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would be allowed to approach the Pentagon.
The official report of the final half mile of Flight 77 before it allegedly hit the Pentagon is aerodynamically impossible. “I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere: give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for half a mile. CAN’T Do. It’s aerodynamically impossible.” – Nila Sagadevan, pilot and aeronautical engineer.
“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.
Donald Rumsfeld said that a MISSILE was used to damage the Pentagon
If no plane hit the Pentagon, then what did? In an interview with Parade Magazine in October 2001 (of which a transcript was posted on the U.S. Department of Defense website, defense.gov), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked “How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?” Rumsfeld replied:
“There were lots of warnings… It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.” [1]
Note that Rumsfeld indicated that both a plane and a missile were used on the Pentagon, which matches up perfectly with the evidence presented in the video, Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Timothy Roemer, Former 9/11 Commission Member, said that the Pentagon was “pried open by a MISSILE”
In an interview in September 2006 with CNN’s Miles O’Brien, former 9/11 Commissioner member, Timothy Roemer, says that a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and then quickly corrects himself to line up with the official story.
O'Brien: “At any point during this day were you just, in a very base way, afraid?”
Roemer: “There was — there were many times, Miles, that you were afraid. You were — you were worried, especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, an airplane, thinking about the number of people that probably died on the plane and on the ground…”
Click on the link below to see the above exchange between O’Brien and Roemer:
Expert claims that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicates that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”
The missile hypothesis is supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman, a well-respected radiation expert, used a Geiger counter to measure radiation levels from about 12 miles downwind of the Pentagon shortly after the attack on 9/11. Sherman reported that the Geiger counter reading was extremely high, 8-10 times greater than normal. [2]
Although Sherman’s findings are not conclusive, Dr. Leuren Moret, formerly a scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory, stated:
“I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used.” [3]
The missile theory was echoed by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert:
“When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” [4]
Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001
April Gallop and her child survived the ‘impact' at the Pentagon. She was a Pentagon employee who was inside the building sitting at a computer when the explosion occurred. After escaping through a hole in the Pentagon wall she waited on the grass near the road before being taken to the Hospital. She did not see any plane debris or experience any jet fuel or any other evidence of a plane crash.
USAF Witness: There was “a strange lack of visible debris…moments after impact”
Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (retired) wrote that there was a lack of debris moments after impact. Kwiatkowski, who was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon on 9/11, was a contributor to a book titled 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, in which she wrote that there was “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.” [5]
Another Pentagon Witness: I was convinced it was a missile.
Lon Rains, who was an Editor for Space News at the time, happened to be driving his car near the Pentagon when it was hit by a missile on 9/11. In an article titled Eyewitness: The Pentagon, published on June 30, 2005, Rains wrote:
“That morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” [6]
Conclusion: The Pentagon was hit by a MISSILE, not hit by a plane
The lack of any evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, eyewitness testimony of a banking, north side approach, eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying “jet” fly past the Pentagon that “kept on going,” plus Lloyde’s confession that the downed light pole was preplanned and staged all provide ample evidence proving that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but instead a smaller “jet” merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after it was hit by a missile in order to appear as though a plane did the damage.
References
[1] Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine, News Transcript, October 12, 2001
https://web.archive.org/web/20041118063828/https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html
[2] Greg Szymanski, Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner, August 18, 2004
https://web.archive.org/web/20060111183631/https://www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2005.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, USAF (ret), 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 2006
[6] Lon Rains, Eyewitness: The Pentagon, Space News, June 30, 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20060210130450/https://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html


consciouslifenews--2020-09-10--Report Finds So-Called US War on Terror Has Displaced as Many as 59 Million People

The ongoing U.S. “ war on terror ” has forcibly displaced as many as 59 million people from just eight countries in the Middle East , Africa , and Asia since 2001 , according to a new report published Tuesday by Brown University 's Costs of War Project .
“ U.S .
involvement in these countries has been horrifically catastrophic , horrifically damaging in ways that I do n't think that most people in the United States have grappled with or reckoned within even the slightest terms.
” —David Vine , American University Titled “ Creating Refugees : Displacement Caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( pdf ) , the new report conservatively estimates that at least 37 million people have “ fled their homes in the eight most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in since 2001.
” The latest figure represents a dramatic increase from the Costs of War Project 's 2019 report , which estimated that 21 million people had been displaced internally or forced to flee their home countries due to violence inflicted or unleashed by U.S.-led wars over the past two decades .
That report also put the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 801,000 and the price tag at $ 6.4 trillion .
The new report argues that “ wartime displacement ( alongside war deaths and injuries ) must be central to any analysis of the post-9/11 wars and their short- and long-term consequences.
” “ Displacement also must be central to any possible consideration of the future use of military force by the United States or others , ” the report states .
“ Ultimately , displacing 37 million—and perhaps as many as 59 million—raises the question of who bears responsibility for repairing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to the tens of millions displaced by U.S. military actions in Afghanistan , Iraq , Pakistan , Yemen , Somalia , the Philippines , Libya , and Syria , the report notes that millions more have been displaced by “ smaller combat operations , including in Burkina Faso , Cameroon , Central African Republic , Chad , the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Mali , Niger , Saudi Arabia , and Tunisia.
” “ To put these figures in perspective , displacing 37 million people is equivalent to removing nearly all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or all the people in Texas and Virginia combined , ” the report says .
“ The figure is almost as large as the population of Canada .
In historical terms , 37 million displaced is more than those displaced by any other war or disaster since at least the start of the 20th century with the sole exception of World War II.
” Tags : `` featured , cost of war on terror , costs of war on terror , Costs of War Project , featured , so-called US war on terror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US military , war on terror , War on Terror fraud

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams
The ongoing U.S. “war on terror” has forcibly displaced as many as 59 million people from just eight countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia since 2001, according to a new report published Tuesday by Brown University's Costs of War Project.
“U.S. involvement in these countries has been horrifically catastrophic, horrifically damaging in ways that I don't think that most people in the United States have grappled with or reckoned within even the slightest terms.”
—David Vine, American University
Titled “Creating Refugees: Displacement Caused by the United States' Post-9/11 Wars” (pdf), the new report conservatively estimates that at least 37 million people have “fled their homes in the eight most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in since 2001.”
The latest figure represents a dramatic increase from the Costs of War Project's 2019 report, which estimated that 21 million people had been displaced internally or forced to flee their home countries due to violence inflicted or unleashed by U.S.-led wars over the past two decades. That report also put the death toll of the so-called war on terror at 801,000 and the price tag at $6.4 trillion.
The new report argues that “wartime displacement (alongside war deaths and injuries) must be central to any analysis of the post-9/11 wars and their short- and long-term consequences.”
“Displacement also must be central to any possible consideration of the future use of military force by the United States or others,” the report states. “Ultimately, displacing 37 million—and perhaps as many as 59 million—raises the question of who bears responsibility for repairing the damage inflicted on those displaced.”
In addition to the tens of millions displaced by U.S. military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria, the report notes that millions more have been displaced by “smaller combat operations, including in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Niger, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia.”
“To put these figures in perspective, displacing 37 million people is equivalent to removing nearly all the residents of the state of California or all the people in Texas and Virginia combined,” the report says. “The figure is almost as large as the population of Canada. In historical terms, 37 million displaced is more than those displaced by any other war or disaster since at least the start of the 20th century with the sole exception of World War II.”
Kudos to @CostsOfWar & @QuincyInst boardmember Catherine Lutz for this crucial study. The blob assumes there's something fundamentally wrong with the Middle East. Few acknowledge America's role in the instability and refugee flows. It's massive…
https://t.co/5EGmqFUpBL — Trita Parsi (@tparsi) September 8, 2020


consciouslifenews--2020-09-10--You’ve Got to Live Life With a Sense of Urgency (Motivational Video with Les Brown)

In this highly inspirational video , Les Brown urges all of us to develop a sense of urgency about our @ @ @ @ @ make sure we do what we came here to do and fulfill our mission : @ @ @ @ @ to develop a sense of URGENCY .
And we want to make a conscious , @ @ @ @ @ start living life with a sense of urgency and USING what we ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ sharing what we were brought into the universe to share , because if we don @ @ @ @ @ will !
” – Les Brown Learn how to distinguish who you are from what @ @ @ @ @ persistent in your actions and reach for the stars .
Watch this video to gain @ @ @ @ @ : achieving goals in life , becoming a better person , featured , Les Brown @ @ @ @ @ got ta be hungry , morning inspiration , overcoming pain , sense of urgency

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.
The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.
Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.