Sunday 18 March 2018

Media Business Middleman Was Shown an Unreleased Video, Which Revealed That 'Something Other Than a 757 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11'

The Pentagon crash site

Larry Garrison, a leading "story broker" whose job is to deliver tabloid stories to television news programs, was sent a video in the months after 9/11, which clearly showed that the Pentagon was hit by something much smaller than a commercial airliner--perhaps a missile--on September 11, 2001. However, when he passed copies of this video on to news organizations, they refused to broadcast the footage and instead sternly warned him to cease trying to get it released.

While a few videos showing the attack on the Pentagon have been released in the years since Garrison received this footage, they appear to be different to what Garrison was sent. Furthermore, none of them have been of sufficient quality to determine conclusively what hit the Pentagon on September 11. The type of aircraft involved in the attack has therefore remained a subject of controversy.

If Garrison's account is accurate, though, and the video Garrison was sent was authentic, the implications could be huge. If the Pentagon was hit by something other than a Boeing 757--the kind of aircraft that, according to the official narrative of 9/11, crashed into it--this video could reveal that the public has been seriously deceived. And if the footage was made public, its release could lead to a complete reassessment of the 9/11 attacks.

The Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m. on September 11 by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, according to the official account of 9/11. [1] This plane had taken off from Dulles International Airport in Washington, DC, at 8:20 a.m. that morning, bound for Los Angeles. But at 8:51 a.m., the pilots communicated with air traffic controllers for the last time and in the next few minutes, it is believed, the plane was hijacked. [2] The five alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the hijacker who allegedly took over the plane's controls was a 29-year-old called Hani Hanjour. [3]

After previously heading west, at 8:54 a.m. Flight 77 veered off its assigned course over the Ohio-Kentucky border and flew south. Two minutes later, radar contact with it was lost. Minutes after that, it turned eastward. Then, at 9:34 a.m., as it approached Washington, the plane began a 330-degree turn and descended toward the headquarters of the Department of Defense. Three minutes later, it crashed into the west wall of the Pentagon at the first-floor level, at approximately 530 miles per hour. [4]

A total of 189 people died in the attack, 64 of them on the plane and 125 working at the Pentagon. [5]

While this account seems quite straightforward and was accepted as true in the 9/11 Commission Report, Garrison received a video that indicated it was false and something other than Flight 77 had crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.

Larry Garrison, president of SilverCreek Entertainment in Los Angeles, is what is known as a "story broker." Story brokers "place themselves as middlemen between the supply of human drama and the demand for it--so news organizations have to do business with them," according to the New York Observer. [6] Garrison "gets paid to bring tabloid stories to TV news programs," The Atlantic reported. [7]

He is the "king" of his line of work, according to numerous sources at the ABC network. [8] He has decades of experience in the media business, and has produced and brokered major news stories for ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, NBC News, and other major media organizations. [9]

In his memoir, The NewsBreaker, Garrison recalled that a few months after 9/11, he received a curious e-mail from someone who referred to himself by the pseudonym "Carl." Garrison was initially suspicious about Carl, assuming he was just a hoaxer trying to cash in on the tragic events of September 11. However, Garrison wrote, "when he told me he had a video of a missile flying into the Pentagon, not a passenger jet, I listened." Carl stated that he would like to meet Garrison and show him the video. He added, however, that "the FBI was trying to stop him from showing it to anyone."

Although Carl's claim was extraordinary, Garrison felt this man was trustworthy. "For the most part, my 20-plus years of experience helps me weed out the fakes; this guy sounded real," he has commented. He apparently talked with Carl on the phone after receiving the e-mail and "could feel the sense of urgency in his voice, and the sincerity." [10]

After researching the attack on the Pentagon and noting various anomalies that had been highlighted by commentators on the Internet, Garrison wanted to get hold of the video that Carl said he possessed. Although he was unable to persuade Carl to meet up in person, Carl did e-mail him a copy of the video. It turned out to be devastating.

Although the footage was less clear than the story broker would have liked, Garrison recalled, "it left no doubt whatsoever that what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't a 757." While the quality of the image made it impossible to determine for sure what crashed into the Pentagon, the object in the video "looked like a smaller plane or [a] cruise missile."

Upon consideration, Garrison decided it was more likely a missile, since he felt there had been greater damage to the reinforced walls of the Pentagon than a small plane could have caused. He concluded: "When I look at some of the news archives and compare the damage to the Pentagon to other concrete buildings that have been hit with a cruise missile, I have no doubt in my mind that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11." [11]

Garrison initially felt certain that once he passed on this astonishing video to the news networks, what it showed would become a major story and the "media machine" would then "mobilize all of its resources to discover, or uncover, what really happened." He soon found that his assumption was wrong.

After receiving the video from Carl, he contacted a couple of major news organizations. When he explained to them what he had, the people he talked to replied enthusiastically: "Oh, my God! Get that tape over here right away!"

He sent them copies of the video and then waited for a couple of days, expecting to see the footage appearing and being discussed on the news. Instead, however, the people at the news organizations called him back and warned him to abandon his efforts to get the video released to the public. He was told: "Larry, you need to listen to me on this. The video never existed. You never saw it. This could cause some real trouble if you pursue it any further." [12]

Garrison had initially been determined to help the public understand what had happened on September 11. On the day of the terrorist attacks, he recalled, "The one thing I did know was that I would find answers sooner than most and I felt obligated to make sure that [the public] knew everything I knew." [13] But what he was now being told and the manner in which it was said led him to have a change of heart.

"I remember hanging up the phone knowing that I could be putting my family and myself at risk if I tried to push the issue, and I knew there was no way to protect myself," he wrote. Therefore, he added, "I backed off." [14]

In the years since Garrison was sent this revelatory footage of the Pentagon being hit on September 11, a number of videos that show, or relate to, the attack on the Pentagon have been released, but these appear to be different to what Garrison received. This means a crucial piece of evidence related to the 9/11 attacks is still being withheld from the public.

Two videos showing the Pentagon being hit were officially released by the Department of Defense in May 2006. [15] They had been recorded by security cameras north of the crash site, at a checkpoint that cars went through on their way to a parking lot at the Pentagon. [16] However, Garrison apparently referred to these in his memoir and made clear they were different to the video he saw.

He mentioned another video, besides the one Carl sent him, that had been "recently released" and showed "something that to many does not look like a plane" crashing into the Pentagon. [17] His memoir was published just a few months after these two videos were released and the videos indeed showed "something that to many does not look like a plane" hitting the Pentagon. The Washington Post described the object in them as "a silver speck low to the ground" while the Associated Press described it as just "a thin white blur." [18]

Five frames from a video that showed the Pentagon being hit were released unofficially to news organizations in March 2002. [19] These, however, were just excerpted from one of the videos that were officially released in May 2006. [20] They were therefore unrelated to the video Garrison was sent.

A few more videos related to the Pentagon attack were released by the FBI in late 2006, but these were also apparently different to the video Garrison received. Unlike Carl's video, they either didn't show the Pentagon being hit or didn't show the attacking aircraft--or missile--flying toward the building.

Among them was footage, released in September 2006, recorded by six security cameras at a Citgo gas station near the Pentagon. [21] The video had been confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the Pentagon attack. A supervisor at the gas station had said the security cameras there were "close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact." [22] However, this was apparently not the case. Judicial Watch, the public interest group that obtained the videos from the FBI, noted that the videos showed that "the Citgo cameras did not seem to capture the actual attack." [23]

The final video related to the Pentagon attack to be made public was recorded by a security camera on top of the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Virginia, and was released in December 2006. But this too failed to shed any light on what crashed into the building. The image quality was poor, and a "close examination" of the recording by CNN revealed only "the subsequent explosion and no image of the jet" that supposedly flew into the Pentagon. [24]

Larry Garrison's claim that something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11 is supported by various pieces of evidence, in addition to Carl's video, that cast doubt on the official account of the Pentagon attack. Indeed, Garrison has indicated that a reason why he wanted to see the video Carl described to him was that he had considered some of this evidence.

He was suspicious that no footage had been released showing Flight 77 as it rapidly descended toward the Pentagon. "From the day of the attacks, I was bothered that not one picture or video was captured of the jet that flew at a very low altitude near our nation's capital and targeted the center of our country's military might," he wrote. While several people had come forward claiming to have witnessed the Pentagon attack, "not one piece of video for the networks to play over and over in the days after the attacks" had surfaced. Video that aired showed the aftermath of the Pentagon being hit but not the impact itself.

Having visited Washington and its surrounding areas many times, Garrison commented that he felt "very safe in saying that there are more reporters, cameras, and video cameras per capita there than any place in the world." He therefore found it "hard to believe that not one camera captured the 757 screaming above a very densely populated area toward the Pentagon." [25]

Garrison also questioned whether Hani Hanjour, the hijacker who allegedly flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon, had the necessary skills to carry out the attack and whether it was even possible to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon in the way that supposedly occurred.

A few weeks before he received the e-mail from Carl, a man had phoned him and claimed that "he had evidence that it was impossible for the damage at the Pentagon to be caused by a passenger jet, because it was impossible for a plane of that size to fly at an altitude that low, at that speed."

A few days later, Garrison questioned one of the pilots of a 757 he was about to board for a business trip. Garrison asked the pilot, who said he had accumulated thousands of hours of flying time in his career, "if he had the skill to fly a 757 10 to 20 feet off the ground at a speed of over 500 miles an hour," meaning in the way that Flight 77 was allegedly flown toward the Pentagon. "Chuck Yeager couldn't do that!" the pilot replied. (Chuck Yeager was a flying ace and test pilot who became the first man to fly faster than the speed of sound.)

The pilot explained that planes the size of a passenger jet "do not react in an instant" and "the control inputs take longer to change the plane's altitude." The large surface areas and the weight of the plane "would make it impossible to have the degree of control you would have to have to fly at that altitude without crashing into the ground," he said. "I really don't think it would be possible," he concluded.

Garrison then asked the pilot what he thought the chances were of a novice with very limited training--i.e. someone like Hanjour--being able to hit a target with pinpoint accuracy. "Zero," the pilot replied. He added that a passenger jet's autopilot "isn't even that good and, if it were on, it would not allow the plane to fly at a low altitude, let alone treetop level." [26]

In fact, not only was Hanjour a novice who'd never flown a jet airliner before September 11, people who met him found him to be a hopeless pilot with nothing like the level of skill necessary to fly a commercial aircraft across America and then crash it into the side of the Pentagon.

For example, a flight instructor who trained him for about four months in 1998 recalled that Hanjour had "a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation and poor judgment, combined with poor technical skills." [27]

Instructors at a flight school he attended early in 2001 found his piloting skills "so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine," according to the New York Times. One person who worked at the flight school at the time commented: "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." [28]

And an instructor at a flight school in the Washington area, which he arrived at just under a month before September 11, described him as a "poor student" who had "particular difficulty landing the aircraft." [29]

Garrison was also troubled by the fact that, in photos, the impact site at the Pentagon seemed inconsistent with how one might expect the location where a large plane had crashed to appear. To begin with, he wrote, "the grass right in front of the impact point was not burnt at all," even though "a hundred tons of plane and jet fuel had crashed and exploded a few yards away." "In fact," he commented, "it looked like the landscapers had just cut it."

Secondly, he thought the hole in the building supposedly made when Flight 77 crashed into it appeared too small. "The jet's wingspan is over 123 feet," but, he wrote, "the hole isn't [that wide]--not even close." He noticed that windows were unbroken "where there should have been holes caused by the wings and engines."

He spoke with experts about this anomaly and all of them told him that "it is impossible for there not to be any signs of impact points from the 12,000-pound engines on the side of the building." The photos of the Pentagon, he concluded, looked "like a missile hit, instead of a plane crash site."

Garrison was also surprised at the lack of debris at the scene of the attack. "In the pictures that were broadcast of the Pentagon, there was very little of the aircraft shown," he noted. "In my mind, a plane weighing 220,000 pounds at takeoff should have left more than a few pieces of wreckage," he commented. [30]

We can see that, aside from Carl's video, there are numerous reasons for questioning the official narrative of the Pentagon attack.

A question worth considering is where was the camera that recorded the video Garrison was sent located? It has in fact been reported that dozens of videos related to the attack on the Pentagon exist, besides the two released by the Department of Defense in May 2006, and the videos from the Doubletree Hotel and the Citgo gas station.

After the Defense Department officially released the two videos showing the attack, in May 2006, CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported that there were "at least 80 other tapes" related to the Pentagon attack "that the government is holding onto." Carl's video might have been one of these. CNN was told, however, that the videos "don't really show much." [31] Indeed, a list that has been released, of videos related to the 9/11 attacks that the FBI possesses, reveals that many of the videos related to the Pentagon attack were recorded only after the attack occurred. [32]

However, "sources" told CNN that "at least one of the tapes from a security camera at a nearby hotel may have captured the plane [that hit the Pentagon] in the air." [33] Indeed, the Washington Times reported that a "security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon," and the hotel's employees had "sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation." [34] Whether this footage came from the Doubletree Hotel or another hotel near the Pentagon was unstated.

Additionally, a camera operated by the Virginia Department of Transportation may have captured the attack, so this could have been the source of Carl's video. Reporter Sandra Jontz, who was at the Pentagon on September 11, was escorted out to an area in front of the crash site following the attack. While there, she recalled, she noticed "a Department of Transportation camera that monitors traffic backups pointed toward the crash site." [35]

It is also plausible that, in addition to the two cameras at the checkpoint that cars went through on their way to a parking lot at the Pentagon, at least one more of the Pentagon's security cameras captured the crash. The Washington Times noted that the attack "occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring." [36]

However, the camera on the building that was closest to the point of impact was destroyed when the Pentagon was hit. And a camera on the heliport was also destroyed when the attack occurred. These two cameras were found to provide no information related to the attack, according to Steve Pennington, a private consultant responsible for the Pentagon's security cameras. "We looked and there was nothing there," he said. [37]

Connectivity to other cameras on the west side of the Pentagon that overlooked the area where the crash occurred was cut when the building was hit, according to John Jester, chief of the Defense Protective Service--the law enforcement agency that guarded the Pentagon. A colleague in his communication center, where the cameras were monitored, told him just after the building was hit that the cameras had been "knocked out." [38] It seems plausible, though, that at least one of these cameras could have captured the approaching aircraft--or missile--in the moments before the attack occurred, before getting disconnected, and this camera might therefore have been the source of Carl's video.

Curiously, some of the Pentagon's security cameras, which were in the right positions to have possibly captured the attack, were out of operation on the morning of September 11, supposedly due to construction work that was taking place at the time. [39] "Other cameras would normally look at that area [where the attack occurred]," Pennington recalled, "but because that area was being renovated, a lot of the connectivity of those cameras and the infrastructure that allowed those cameras to be connected back to the building had been removed or destroyed." Consequently, he commented, these cameras "weren't capturing images and offering fields of view." [40]

If Larry Garrison's account of being sent unreleased footage that disproved the official narrative of the Pentagon attack is true, the implications are devastating. It means an important video exists, which quite clearly shows the Pentagon being hit on September 11, but this video has been withheld from the public. It means the Pentagon was hit by something much smaller than the Boeing 757 that was officially claimed to have crashed into it, such as a missile. It implies that people who claimed they witnessed a large commercial aircraft crashing into the Pentagon were either mistaken or lying. And it means the public has been lied to about the events of September 11.

If the video Garrison received indeed shows something other than a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon, this gives rise to many questions that need to be addressed. In his memoir, Garrison stated some of these. For example, he asked, "What really happened to the 757 and its passengers that no one caught on tape or on film, crashing into the Pentagon?" [41]

Partly based on his inability to get Carl's video shown on television, he asked, "Why would the media organizations refuse to report on valuable pieces of these important stories" such as the events of September 11? "Did the news programmers not believe the evidence that was put in front of them?" he wondered or, "Did higher-ups in the government put pressure on the networks to not follow up on these leads?"

Clearly, Garrison's account could be explosive. "The implications that over 3,000 people lost their lives [in the 9/11 attacks], and the news that has and is still being delivered to the public may not be entirely true, is outrageous," Garrison wrote. The repercussions of members of the public finding out they have been seriously misled about the 9/11 attacks would likely be huge.

All the same, if footage exists that disproves the official account of what hit the Pentagon on September 11, this footage needs to be released as a matter of urgency. "It is [the media's] responsibility, with the trust that we put in them, to report what the truth is, even if we don't like the answers," Garrison commented. [42] The FBI must be aware of the video that Carl sent to Garrison, if Carl's claim that the bureau "was trying to stop him from showing [the video] to anyone" was true. Presumably it has a copy of the video, which it could release to the public.

Once members of public have seen this video, we will be able to decide for ourselves whether we think the official account of the Pentagon attack is correct.

[1] Paul F. Mlakar et al., The Pentagon Building Performance Report. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003, p. 12; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 10.
[2] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 8.
[3] "The Hijack Suspects." BBC News, September 28, 2001; "September 11th Hijackers Fast Facts." CNN, August 28, 2017.
[4] Arlington County, Virginia, report, Titan Systems Corp., Arlington County: After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon. 2002, p. 9; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 9-10; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007, pp. 12-17.
[5] Anthony Summers, "The Eleventh Day." New York Post, September 11, 2011.
[6] Rebecca Dana, "Fixer, Story Broker Larry Garrison Books Ramsey's Non-Killer." New York Observer, October 16, 2006.
[7] Sheelah Kolhatkar, "The News Merchant." The Atlantic, September 2010.
[8] Rebecca Dana, "Fixer, Story Broker Larry Garrison Books Ramsey's Non-Killer."
[9] Sheelah Kolhatkar, "The News Merchant"; "SilverCreek Entertainment." SilverCreek Entertainment, n.d.
[10] Larry Garrison with Kent Walker, The NewsBreaker: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the News Media and Never-Before Told Details About Some of the Decade's Biggest Stories. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006, p. 103.
[11] Ibid., pp. 105-107.
[12] Ibid., p. 107.
[13] Ibid., p. 102.
[14] Ibid., pp. 107-108.
[15] "Original September 11 Pentagon Video: 1 of 2." Judicial Watch, May 16, 2006; "Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video: 2 of 2." Judicial Watch, May 16, 2006; Robert Burns, "Video Shows Plane Hitting Pentagon." Associated Press, May 17, 2006; Jerry Markon, "Videos Released of Plane Crashing Into Pentagon." Washington Post, May 17, 2006.
[16] "The Stories Behind the Stories." On the Story, CNN, May 20, 2006; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, p. 161; List of videos related to the 9/11 attacks. Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.
[17] Larry Garrison with Kent Walker, The NewsBreaker, p. 104.
[18] Robert Burns, "Video Shows Plane Hitting Pentagon"; Jerry Markon, "Videos Released of Plane Crashing Into Pentagon."
[19] "Bush Will Send Special Envoy Zinni Back to Mideast; Accusations of Greed Over 9/11 Fund." NewsNight with Aaron Brown, CNN, March 7, 2002; "Pentagon Photos Released." Associated Press, March 8, 2002.
[20] Robert Burns, "Video Shows Plane Hitting Pentagon"; Jerry Markon, "Videos Released of Plane Crashing Into Pentagon."
[21] Randy Hall, "Cameras Near Pentagon Missed 9/11 Attack, Group Says.", September 15, 2006; "Citgo Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack." Judicial Watch, September 15, 2006; "Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Citgo Video." Judicial Watch, September 15, 2006.
[22] Bill McKelway, "Three Months on, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon." Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 11, 2001.
[23] "Citgo Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack."
[24] "Hotel Security Video Shows 9/11 Pentagon Blast, But no Plane." CNN, December 3, 2006; "FBI Releases New Footage of 9/11 Pentagon Attack." KWTX, December 4, 2006; "Judicial Watch Obtains Security Camera Videos From Doubletree Hotel That Show 9/11 Attack on Pentagon." Judicial Watch, December 7, 2006; "Doubletree Hotel Video of 9/11 Pentagon Strike." YouTube video, April 6, 2007.
[25] Larry Garrison with Kent Walker, The NewsBreaker, pp. 103-104.
[26] Ibid., pp. 104-105.
[27] Statement of [Name Redacted]. Canfield, Shapiro, Baer, Heller & Johnston, LLP, May 1, 2002.
[28] Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence." New York Times, May 4, 2002.
[29] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Benjamin L. Connor." 9/11 Commission, April 12, 2004.
[30] Larry Garrison with Kent Walker, The NewsBreaker, pp. 105-106.
[31] "The Stories Behind the Stories."
[32] "Declaration of Jacqueline Maguire." Scott Bingham v. United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, September 7, 2005; List of videos related to the 9/11 attacks.
[33] "The Stories Behind the Stories."
[34] Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside the Ring." Washington Times, September 21, 2001.
[35] Chris Bull and Sam Erman (Editors), At Ground Zero: 25 Stories From Young Reporters Who Were There. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2002, p. 281.
[36] Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside the Ring."
[37] Brian Austin and Steve Pennington, interview by Diane Putney. Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, November 9, 2006; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, p. 153.
[38] John Jester, interview by Alfred Goldberg, Diane Putney, and Stuart Rochester. Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, October 19, 2001; John Jester, interview by Diane Putney. Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, January 31, 2006; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, p. 153.
[39] Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, p. 244.
[40] Brian Austin and Steve Pennington, interview by Diane Putney.
[41] Larry Garrison with Kent Walker, The NewsBreaker, p. 108.
[42] Ibid., pp. 112-114.


Pecosin Rat said...

Now that everyone knows he has had a copy (and may still be in possession of it), why doesn't Garrison release it himself?

Kung Fu NoVa said...

No video, just the claims of a self-admitted story broker. The evidence that an airliner hit the Pentagon is considerable - no public evidence that anything else happened.

Hoax revealed said...

Hi Pecosin Rat, KBDC and other viewers.

There is evidence that the official narrative is NOT true.

I.e. the cab driver lying his teeth out about what happened to his cab and even admitting the big boys did it and the big thing "was planned".

(His wife also happens to work for the intelligence service)

Also many wittnesses confirm the other flying path! for the what ever flying object it was than is officially said making it impossible to cause the "damage path" seen in the Pentagon.

I am sure that the "renovation" "coincidentally" in that very section of the Pentagon had the sama purpose than the elevetor shafs "renovation" just weeks before the explosions both in Pentagon and WTC towers: to PREPARE the fraud and install explosives inside the buildings.

Mike S said...


maybeperfect said...

I suspect that if Bill Barr makes a concerted effort to squeeze the perps he's tasked with investigating finely enough, that they will cite all the relevant facts about 9/11 as justification for their behaviors in the coup matter. After all, Mueller's right smack dab in the middle of the cover-up operation. Also madam Clinton is sure to grasp at any port in a storm, once the thumb screws start getting torqued down nicely. The key is handing down as large a raft of indictments as humanly possible.
Military tribunals are in order, and in an effort to save their own skins, they will have little compunction about throwing w and Darth Cheney to the wolves. Herbert was the one they were all terrified of because JFK, and he's gone on to the lake of fire.
Wouldn't be surprised to see up and coming Intel lining up to volunteer for "damage control" duty, as official policy, so that any further embarassing questions will be deemed moot, due to no one being left to prosecute. Time should tell.

SupremeLaw said...

Executive Summary to U.S. Coast Guard Investigations, San Diego:

SupremeLaw said...

p.s. The methods we used to estimate the overall length and wingspan of the "incoming" were summarized briefly in testimony given in a closed hearing at the U.S. District Court in Wyoming. The missile was an AGM 12-C "Bullpup" with a 2-stage warhead. The leading warhead was a wall breaching charge which created a hole for the secondary charge and fractured airframe to enter the Pentagon. That AGM was launched from an underwing pylon of a heavily modified U.S. Navy A-3 Skywarrior. The AGM launch was most probably triggered from the E-4B Airborne Command Center that was photographed circling D.C. on the morning of 9/11/2001. Russians have claimed their surveillance satellite photographed the A-3's launch from the flight deck of the USS George Washington, which was anchored off the coast of Long Island, New York, that morning. Reportedly, inside the Naval Command Center, Captain Gerald DeConto was on the telephone to the Secretary of the Navy, to request verbal authorization to "engage the incoming". DeConto must have realized that the Pentagon's automatic fire control system was standing down, probably because the incoming A-3 was broadcasting a "friendly" transponder beacon. The Secretary of the Navy kept DeConto on the telephone long enough for DeConto to be incinerated by the explosions. We suspect that signal latencies delayed the AGM's launch just enough for the incoming A-3 to encounter the initial shock wave when that shock wave was still intense, fracturing the fuselage amidship and blowing the back half away from the Pentagon's exterior facade. The cctv frames published by CNN, BBC et al. were re-sampled to a lower pixel resolution, destroying crucial details. We found the high-resolution originals and forwarded those to the Coast Guard. There are lots of debris photos, if you know where to look. Hope this helps.

911Redpill said...

Does this refer to the old fake missile video?

Ruby Gray said...

No, that doesn't help at all.
It raises more questions than it answers.

Shoestring said...

I am sure this doesn't refer to the "old fake missile video." Larry Garrison seems like a smart guy. I think he'd recognise an obvious fake video for what it was right away.