What Really Happened to the Pentagon on 9/11? Video

Barbara Honegger, one of the key researchers into the Iran-Contra affair, and author of The October Surprise, has done it again. The following is a long, but riveting presentation that she recently did on what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. She's bold, meticulous and has been working on this for a decade.

I am in the middle of watching it, so I can't give you a complete synopsis. But this investigative reporter and author has been studying the Pentagon for ten years, as I said, and she has some interesting things to report. It's 3 hours long!

When you finish watching this please post a synopsis, I just don't have 3 hours to watch it. If that is,there is any new info, such as where is the plane so many witnesses saw flying at low level toward the pentagon.

Okay. I'm sorry. I promise I will.

So far, she is talking about how the Hollywood Producer Aaron Russo was approached by a Rockefeller and was told that there was going to be an "event" soon. If he participated in the event, he would be spared the surveillance state that would result. He would be protected from it.

This was a year before 9/11.

This woman, though, has her facts.

I am mesmerized.

I promise to give a really good synopsis soon.

reply to post by MRuss


Why does it even matter...clearly it was a conspiracy to eliminate a paper trail of trillions of dollars....I know what didn't happen that day...a full size plane did not hit the Pentagon. Also, why begin a thread without watching the entire video first?

Wow. I'm surprised it took 2 posts for someone to be snarky.

I don't know.

I guess I thought someone might be interested in watching it.

She talks a lot about comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor and how Rumsfeld was handing hundreds of books about Pearl Harbor before 9/11.

reply to post by MRuss


Downloading to watch at leisure. Listened to part of the introduction. Can't wait. Thanks....

I can't stress enough how incredibly amazing this video is. I really hope you will all watch it. I plan to do a synopsis tomorrow. I'm really sick right now but I hope my lack of a synopsis thus far won't turn you away. This is the best thing I've ever seen about 9/11. She is an award winning investigative journalist and one of the best...

Watched half, will watch other half tommorrow and post proper reply.

Thanks for sharing.

I'll flag and bump for now because you've brought us a lot of good stuff in the past. 3 hours is hard for me right now, too, but I'll give it a shot and try to watch it in chunks.

I watched the first 10 mins. And wow, what a bunch of crappy arguments. Just some points from those 1st 10 mins.

1st argument: PNAC called for "new pearl harbor". That’s a lie. They didn't call for it, they explain in a document that it would decrease the time it would take to execute certain plans. Which is of course, very obviously, a correct analysis. Secondly, if they were really behind it, does it make sense whatsoever that they go write about it in advance? No. This argument is pure rubbish from any perspective.

2nd argument: A member of the family that built the twin towers told a film producer some fantastic stuff of which this film producer has no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. But at least he has a YouTube video. Excellent investigative journalism. Tabloids do better most of the time. And besides, nothing of that so called plan he was told ever came true.

3rd argument: Then she claims that Rumsfeld handed out books about Pearl Harbor. Without any source to back the claim up. Even if true, so what. Then there is some unrelated talk about a movie. With a suggestive image that compares a single frame of the movie to a frame of 911 videos. Associations that make sense is not this woman’s strongest point.

4rth argument: The pentagon had to be attacked too, as without an attack on a military target, they could never have justified any war. Right.... as if the total mayhem in new york would not be enough. As if the pentagon attack really made the difference. Really, what a bunch of nonsense does this women produce.

It’s really a painful rehash of all the old truther nonsense. Not going to waste my time on the rest. If anyone is going to watch it all and finds a refreshing argument that isn’t as bad as the ones above, I would be interested to hear it.

I can't believe anyone would take this seriously. It's incredibly insensitive and derogatory.

Lets see:

"After the first World Trade Center bombing federal officials said there were not enough deaths so the roofs of both towers were permanently locked so more people would die next time"

"Kami Kazi sic Kamikaze pilots were used to attack Pearl Harbor". Can't spell a historical term most school kids can and The Japanese Navy attacked with torpedo bombers and phosphorus impact bombs. There were no suicide pilots or planes. Those lost were shot down by American anti-aircraft fire.

The "purpose of the evil plot" is somewhat hysterical.

Terrorize the US into putting Israels interest ahead of it's own-treason!

Effect Israels goals using American blood and treasure.

OK lets see if I understand this. Some Jew(Dov Zakheim)[her words not mine] was the CEO of SPC specializing in plane and remote control 'terminal' destruction drones used in military exercises and, what we have seen, is exactly what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Man that is funny stuff and what a great way to make a couple of million enemy's in the mainstream. Guess that is why no one was there. If anyone cared-they don't- you could make a good case for federal civil rights intimidation and violation of infringement upon those rights for such a hate speech and psychobabble filled rant.

Some of my old Nazi buddies are going to love this.

I'm not that cynical.

Here's the dish, if you're old enough to remember. This is a highly respected reporter. She uncovered the Iran-Contra affair and heads rolled because of it. She was a reporter for the military and has access to high level people as a result--many of whom shared some interesting tidbits of information---if you watched it far enough to see it.

Furthermore---if you think the government is capable of murdering 3,000 people, you don't think they're capable of locking a few doors? Oh, I see. They wanted to kill 3,000 people, but they didn't want to be overly mean about it. Seriously? Do you come from a perspective that informs you that the cabal---the real government of the united states--is a compassionate entity?

This reporter has done her homework. She is highly regarded. She has studied this for 10 years.

I think I'd prefer to entertain her views rather than some of the pundits on this site. She has more credibility--unless of course you can rattle off some credentials that will impress us.

You also seem to come from a place that everyone who investigates 9/11---especially those who are subject to your highly tuned criticism-- are just in it for the money.

But I don't post for people who refuse to have an open mind. I post for the people who don't eagerly shoot every messenger that comes along---just for sport.

There are some interesting tidbits of information on this video----some of the video is from the mouths of high ranking people who have been included., But you might not know that because you didn't watch all 3 hours.

I did.

A plane hit it.

Originally posted by MRuss
I'm not that cynical.

Here's the dish, if you're old enough to remember. This is a highly respected reporter. She uncovered the Iran-Contra affair and heads rolled because of it. She was a reporter for the military and has access to high level people as a result--many of whom shared some interesting tidbits of information---if you watched it far enough to see it.
.
.
.
There are some interesting tidbits of information on this video----some of the video is from the mouths of high ranking people who have been included., But you might not know that because you didn't watch all 3 hours.

I did.

All of that is fine and dandy, but I'm not about to watch a 3 hour movie for the sake of some 'interesting tidbits'. If there's no new information here, just say so. If there is new information, please give us a succinct summary. Otherwise, thread's dead.

I might be interested in discussing this, but I'm not going to spend 3 hours of my life watching a re-hash of the same old stuff.

But I don't post for people who refuse to have an open mind. I post for the people who don't eagerly shoot every messenger that comes along---just for sport.

I have as open of a mind as anyone-and I have gotten my fair share of criticism for it over the past 30 years or so. This is a hate speech that violates every principle of personal and individual freedoms that this country stands for. I should know my perceived 'pro Nazi' viewpoints have lead to censure in both the print and publishing media. Just because I point out the war crimes committed by the Americans and the British in the Second World War I have resorted to a hate crime based on my German heritage and political incorrectness.

It matters none what someones credentials are you simply can't accuse an entire race of people of mass murder based on personal hatred of these individuals.

The big picture here is that no one cares what this woman has to say. It the same old nonsense with an added twist of a Zionist conspiracy that has taken over every faucet of American government, military and civilian life.

You can skip the first 2 1/2 hours that is just the rehashing of all the same outrageous planted explosives, fake planes and government cover up involving thousands of corrupted souls . Then you can see and hear the great Jewish plot and how they have take over the world through mass murder.

I guess what irks me about this is I could have never gotten away with anything coming close to this blasphemous hate filled filth. I guess my problem was I was based on concept of relevance.

This obviously is not.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I watched the first 10 mins. And wow, what a bunch of crappy arguments. Just some points from those 1st 10 mins.

1st argument: PNAC called for "new pearl harbor". That’s a lie. They didn't call for it, they explain in a document that it would decrease the time it would take to execute certain plans. Which is of course, very obviously, a correct analysis. Secondly, if they were really behind it, does it make sense whatsoever that they go write about it in advance? No. This argument is pure rubbish from any perspective.

2nd argument: A member of the family that built the twin towers told a film producer some fantastic stuff of which this film producer has no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. But at least he has a YouTube video. Excellent investigative journalism. Tabloids do better most of the time. And besides, nothing of that so called plan he was told ever came true.

3rd argument: Then she claims that Rumsfeld handed out books about Pearl Harbor. Without any source to back the claim up. Even if true, so what. Then there is some unrelated talk about a movie. With a suggestive image that compares a single frame of the movie to a frame of 911 videos. Associations that make sense is not this woman’s strongest point.

4rth argument: The pentagon had to be attacked too, as without an attack on a military target, they could never have justified any war. Right.... as if the total mayhem in new york would not be enough. As if the pentagon attack really made the difference. Really, what a bunch of nonsense does this women produce.

It’s really a painful rehash of all the old truther nonsense. Not going to waste my time on the rest. If anyone is going to watch it all and finds a refreshing argument that isn’t as bad as the ones above, I would be interested to hear it.

edit on 24-7-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

So in other words she offers ZERO evidence of any actual impropriety concernign the 9/11 attack against the Pentagon. Her entire presentation is linking Pentagon attack A with sinister secret conspiracy C through a convoluted roller coaster ride of imagined he-said-she-said connections B of her own making.

Wow, like that never happens in the conspiracy world.

I watched the entire video, I liked some of the stuff she pointed out like the helicopter being in the area but with the proof she used (and I use that term very loosely) I can't agree with her conclusions. I think the biggest problem is that she's trying to use stopped clocks without having any proof that the time was accurate in the first place. The idea of multiple explosions minutes apart just doesn't add up. Also, something hit the pentagon on the side, witnesses saw the object come in, this isn't really for debate. She uses columns pointed outwards to suggest explosives inside caused the damage, yet something still flew into the building.

However, I do think she made a strong enough case to raise serious questions about the wing impacts. The wing remaining attached after hitting 5 street poles is extremely unlikely given all the examples she listed. At the same time though, that raises the question of what hit those poles, because they were damaged by an impact.

that part of the equation was to cover up the 2 trillion that went missing.

Originally posted by spartacus699
that part of the equation was to cover up the 2 trillion that went missing.

Except 2 trillion never went missing, nor did anyone state any money was missing...... apart from that you are correct!

Funny how comments are disabled for the video - she is obviously afraid of people calling her out on her crap!

scienceof911.com.au...