Still The Best 9/11 Pentagon Research Site

I'm sure many are familiar with Russell Pickering's excellent Pentagon Research website. It's been abandoned for over a year, but I haven't found anything as extensive or impartial. This is an amazing effort just for it's compilation of information, articles, photos and diagrams. The archived site examines every possibility of events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Copy and paste web.archive.org/web/20061231184454/http:/pentagonresearch.com/ in the Wayback Machine's search box.

Does anyone know why it was abandoned or if there's a way to directly hotlink to this site?

He abandoned it because his theory was proved wrong so he decided to forgo all further research and even refused to update his site with the information that we obtained together.

This will give you an insight into the level of frustration he reached on our first research trip to Arlington:

(bad language warning)


So after I returned to Arlington 2.5 months later on a follow up trip, obtained all the north side testimony proving the plane could not have hit which explained WHY he was so confused and frustrated, he spiraled out of control and dedicated all his energy to attacking us and the witnesses personally.

He eventually gave up and publicly announced that he quit 9/11 truth forever.

The power of ego is amazing.

He'd rather quit than admit he was wrong.

But I agree, he HAD quite a bit of useful information on his site (mixed with incorrect info as well) and we used to think of him as a decent researcher back in the day.

Too bad it turned out not to be true.












[edit on 19-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


When are you going to come up with a flight path that is aeronautically possible?

Thank you .

:TY:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He abandoned it because his theory was proved wrong so he decided to forgo all further research and even refused to update his site with the information that we obtained together.

This will give you an insight into the level of frustration he reached on our first research trip to Arlington:

(bad language warning)

But I agree, he HAD quite a bit of useful information on his site (mixed with incorrect info as well) and we used to think of him as a decent researcher back in the day.

Thanks, that was pretty funny.

From what I remember, he didn't promote any particular theory. The incorrect info was all part of different possibilities he presented. That's why I liked his site. It was more a thorough examination of the evidence than anything. And in the end, his suspicions will be proven correct, even if every detail wasn't.

Too bad, but after watching that video, I can see why he was so frustrated.