CITYBLOGGER..PENAFIAN Laman ini tidak bertanggungjawab atas hasil penulisan yang dipetik dari sumbe

Video proves 911 was inside Job This new video of interviews of eyewitness accounts reveals a decoy airliner was definitely involved in Pentagon hoax, and this decoy aircraft COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been the aircraft that impacted the pentagon. This evidence helps us piece together the apparent contradictory "eye witness" testimony, where some stated they saw a large commercial craft with "AA" markings, while others recalled a small grey and/or "off white" aircraft, and still others a C-130 transport. In fact, only 3 of 14 witnesses interviewed describe an American Airlines plane. What we can now say is that the events of that day were a well coordinated "smoke and mirrors" illusion whereby a large commercial type aircraft overflew the pentagon (at near right angles), while a smaller remote controlled aircraft evidently struck the pentagon at about the same time, from a much sharper angle. What is particularly fascinating about this video, is the certainty with which each witness states their case, and none more so than the two Pentagon police officers who seemly feel their testimony supports the official story, when in fact it proves it is a complete fabrication. This is explosive testimony because it proves evidence was STAGED, and this proves the government was involved in a deception of the events. This video proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. 911 part II What does all this mean? The perpetrators of this hoax want you to think a hijacked commercial aircraft impacted with the pentagon... but what they did instead was perform a rather simple magicians slight of hand. The commercial airliner seen by witnesses flying low over the Navy Annex building that day simply provided the distraction.... meanwhile the impacting aircraft (whether a global hawk or military jet) came in at a more southerly direction. Watch the below videos to see how this was done. Column 14 was located at the center of the second story gap between columns 13 and 15. This means the building impact needed to be significantly further to the left -- unless the flight path was slightly deflected back towards the right by the forces of the engine impact with the retaining wall. Both the ASCE study and the Desmoulins study show the alleged "fuselage impact" near column 13, in order to comply with the engine fingerprints (which notably do not match that of a 757 and would have to have obeyed a different law of physics than the light weight low mass aluminium fuselage). Yet we can see the presence of a hanging window between columns 12 and 13 before the collapse. While some claim a real 757 might have had trouble completely penetrating the blast-reinforced windows and concrete, the contrast between the behaviour of the second-story walls between columns 11 and 13, and between 13 and 15, is quite surprising if in fact the fuselage impact was at column 13, not at column 14. This is speculation and goes against known physics, but it is worth touching on because some have put forward the theory of the fuselage being the source of the hole [that went through 9 feet of bomb reinforced concrete] and it is important to emphasize ALL the inconsistencies associated with the highly implausible government conspiracy theory. Aside from showing a VERY uncharacteristic and unexplained lack of debris directly in front of the starboard wing impact with the Pentagon, this image [above left] shows that the wire spools do indeed appear to be bent-up and tossed, supporting the 'light pole' flight path shown in below pictures. Other photos show no landing gear or engine scaring on lawn directly in front of SMALL entrance hole of object that struck pentagon; below photo shows [point 1&2] light poles knocked over, as consistent with flight path of approx 50 degrees to pentagon face. The approach of a "757" towards this building leaves a lot of questions unanswered (realism of the approach trajectory, position of the impact point, no track of the landing gear (which lowers automatically near ground) or the two below wing outboard engines, on the grass or fence in foreground. A picture is worth a thousand words, and clearly these pictures tell a much different story than that put forward by the government. [See below pictures, showing roofline is intact shortly after impact.] Remember also that the wings of this "757" would have been carrying approximately 8,000 gallons of kerosene jet fuel [adding to their mass more than 56,000 pounds alone] yet we see fire concentrated well inside the pentagon, and relatively little, if any, fire on the lawn or face of the pentagon building. Thus we must not only ask where are the wings and where are the engines.... but where is the fuel fire and pools of jet fuel? Want to know why this trajectory is so important to the government's conspiracy theory? ALL the eye witnesses refute the official story... that's why. The government version of events simply CAN NOT be true.. Please watch below video presentation to see why this exposes the fact the government's theory is a blatant lie. [Other videos follow, highlighting related points] New American 77 Flight Path video from Pilots for 911 Truth This animation supplied by NTSB via a FOIA request, does not match the "official" flight path, according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. According to this animation, apparently derived from Flight 77's FDR, "Flight 77" did not [COULD NOT] hit the light poles. The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways: The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. For complete member list please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html 9/11 Blogger | October 22 2006 Video proves 911 was inside Job This new video of interviews of eyewitness accounts reveals a decoy airliner was definitely involved in Pentagon hoax, and this decoy aircraft COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been the aircraft that impacted the pentagon. This evidence helps us piece together the apparent contradictory "eye witness" testimony, where some stated they saw a large commercial craft with "AA" markings, while others recalled a small grey and/or "off white" aircraft, and still others a C-130 transport. In fact, only 3 of 14 witnesses interviewed describe an American Airlines plane. What we can now say is that the events of that day were a well coordinated "smoke and mirrors" illusion whereby a large commercial type aircraft overflew the pentagon (at near right angles), while a smaller remote controlled aircraft evidently struck the pentagon at about the same time, from a much sharper angle. What is particularly fascinating about this video, is the certainty with which each witness states their case, and none more so than the two Pentagon police officers who seemly feel their testimony supports the official story, when in fact it proves it is a complete fabrication. This is explosive testimony because it proves evidence was STAGED, and this proves the government was involved in a deception of the events. This video proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The PentaCon: Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed Google Video - Saturday, February 24, 2007 Citizen Investigation Team presents this explosive documentary regarding the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon revealing quadruple corroborated testimony proving the plane flew on the north side of the CITGO station making it impossible to have toppled the light poles and damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report. Visit www.ThePentaCon.com for more details. _____________ Mysterious "white aircraft" flying over Whitehouse is now identified as US Air force's 250 million dollar E-4B's National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) aircraft, which is a modified Boeing 747. This aircraft was seen in the area of the Whitehouse and pentagon before, during and after the pentagon attack. It is also referred to as the "doomsday plane" due to its complete package of communications relays. It is the perfect platform from which to co-ordinate either attack or defence commands, and can also refuel fighter aircraft. First two below pics are from September 11/2001. Third is file photo. Read full details at the following RENSE link - 911 Mystery Plane ________ Now if this is still not enough proof that events of 911 were clearly scripted and staged, have a look at how the BBC announced the collapse of WTC building 7 a full 20 or more minutes BEFORE it collapsed. This video is so incriminating of the proof of a staged event that as soon as the word got back to google and the BBC they cut the feed. You can still read the screen shots, and this video will undoubtedly be rebroadcast in other venues. BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Prison Planet Monday, February 26, 2007 (UPDATED 3:49PM CST) An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Stanley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. Click here for latest on this above story..... RELATED: BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost BBC, CNN Employ Magical Psychic News Announcers New Documentary exposes BBC's selective and distorted coverage of 911 facts in special "911 conspiracies" hit piece. More photos.... what about the damage and debris? Both pics taken shortly after impact confirm puzzling lack of damage, and height of impact hole in pentagon, which is little higher than firefighters just visible in foreground. [Note grass in front of impact is free of skid marks from landing gear or engines] Perhaps some of the most compelling evidence supporting both the angled trajectory and so-called "missile" theory is picture [left] of small diameter exit hole, which passed through several layers of reinforced concrete at the pentagon [strongly suggesting a hardened warhead of some kind, as can be fitted to a Global Hawk or other aircraft drone, was used] Note [photo insert] fireman in foreground, and windows immediately above, suggests exit hole is barely eight feet in diameter. The "aircraft" had to neatly cut through NINE FEET of bomb reinforced concrete to reach this exit point. This exit point is where engine parts were located, begging the question of how did engine parts end up here given the fact the FRONT of the building would have had to have sheared off the wings (with engines attached outboard) given the relative diameter of the hole? See page one for in-depth examination of this vital issue. THE HOLE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL - examination by Gerard Holmgren A Pentagon worker holds what is believed to be a piece of the aircraft The plane weighed about 100 tons, so 1 ton of alleged wreckage would represent 1% of the plane. The fragments claimed to be wreckage of the plane would be struggling to represent 0.01% of the plane. [Photo below shows pentagon security personnel carrying away wreckage suspiciously hidden under blue tarp] We know that something hit the Pentagon, that there was an interior explosion, and that where there is an explosion there will be debris of some sort. To argue that this provides any evidence for either side of the argument is witchcraft trial logic. “You must be a witch, because you wouldn’t have been accused if you weren’t.” “We know that a 757 was there. That proves that this is debris from a 757. And the fact that this is debris from a 757 proves that it was there ...” This debris is totally unidentifiable, and its volume is too insignificant to address the problem of unaccounted for wreckage -especially either of the 9000 pound hardened steel engines that would have hit well outside the hole, on the face of the relatively intact outer wall of the pentagon. Supporters of the government's "757 theory" claim this fragment (below) to be wreckage from AA 77, citing the "AA colours" as "proof". In fact, it is the alleged AA colours which prove conclusively that this cannot possibly be part of the alleged 757 plane. Has American Airlines invented a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to the dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments shown in the above photo. And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion catastrophic enough to nearly vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and perhaps burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, much of the plane may be destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonably intact wreckage ALWAYS remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted fragment survived is irreconcilable with their claim that 99.99% of the plane was vaporized. This is 'about as believable' as the kooky government stories that the alleged hijackers were identified by the discovery of their miraculously unscathed paper passports at crash sites which cremated the planes and occupants. The metal is also shiny and new looking, and there is no sign of grass singeing from the heat in the area where it landed. It is quite impossible for this to be from an aircraft which had just been reduced to a pile of ashes. There’s an even greater problem with this piece of wreckage. The colours are wrong anyway. Take a close look at the colour scheme used by American Airlines. First, note that the alleged wreckage has a thin white stripe next to red which is of a larger area than the white stripe. Note the absence of any blue stripe. Now let’s look at an actual AA plane photo and you’ll see that that this colour scheme isn’t used. Except possibly in the American Airlines lettering itself on the top front part of the fuselage. Hold that thought..... Note that the striped colour scheme which this crude fake has attempted to copy does not appear on the wings or tail fins. That rules out the possibility that this piece of the plane was sheared off during the approach, before the explosion, by hitting a light pole. If there’s any possibility that it’s a genuine AA colour scheme, it can only have come from part of the American Airlines lettering, on the top and front part of the fuselage, which means that this piece could not have been sheared off on the way in, and therefore must have been subject to the explosion. And that is impossible, even if we were to pretend that such an explosion was generally possible. Furthermore the only part of the plane which it could possibly have come from is towards the front. If the explosion occurred in the middle of the plane, debris from the front area would have been flung forwards into the building not away from it. And if the explosion occurred in the front part of the plane, making it possible to blow this piece backwards, then this area of the plane would have been subject to the most powerful part of the blast, so if we were going to see surviving pieces of debris flung backwards, (especially with paintwork still intact ) they should be from the rear of the plane. And if it's alleged that it was thrown forward with such force that it hit something else and bounced back all this distance, wouldn’t the paintwork, be just a little scratched, rather than pristine? Whoever designed and planted this fake, didn’t think it through, and you shouldn't be fooled by it. Ok, so that's just one piece the government conspiracy kooks rely on to defend their position - is there anything else? One of the government apologist sites called "abovetopsecret" and several others boldly claim that the wheel hub found at the pentagon is from a 757 wheel. Lets take a closer look. Snapshot at extreme left shows pentagon wreckage of a commonly used double rim wheel used on various high performance jet aircraft. Government apologists claim the shape of the spokes is the same as that on the 757, and therefore presumably couldn't have come from any other aircraft. Evidently, however, they neglected to notice the fact that the wheel found at the pentagon has only 8 spoke holes, while the wheels used on the above pictured 757 have 10. The best way to count these holes (given the damage to the pentagon wheel) is to line up opposing holes, then count the holes either side. We've included a blow up (below) to make it easier for you. These pics were taken directly from the "Abovetopsecret" website..... NOTE wheel (above) found at pentagon has EIGHT HOLES Boeing 757 wheels shown above clearly have TEN HOLES....... oops! Then of course there is this below photo we took of an actual Boeing nose wheel... and this shot of another type of Boeing main gear.... But if you think that's humorous, here are a few more that we'd like to mention, mainly for their comic relief more so than any need to refute the patently absurd. So we now direct your attention to the following photo.... According to government conspiracy nuts, this photo [their highlighting] proves "once and for all" that flight 77 hit the pentagon - well, err, at least some Boeing product made of aluminium. Evidently, this photo shows a substance known [only to government conspiracy kooks] as "Boeing green paint" on the aircraft parts at the exit hole. Problem with this theory.... Zinc Chromate, which is a ubiquitous primer pigment widely used on aluminum aircraft surfaces, is typically olive GREEN. It is a common zinc based primer that dates back to before the second world war... and is regularly used to "passivate" all standard 20XX series aluminum, which is commonly used on virtually all aircraft made worldwide. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING exclusive to Boeing about this green primer. Don't believe us..... take a trip to your local airport [or industrial paint supply store] and ask for a quart of zinc chromate primer - now open the can and paint some aluminium - HEY, whatayaknow... it's green! Why heck, Billy Bob, it musta come from a boeing! The next guffaw also revolves around the above area of the pentagon. Evidently this hole was not made by "the aircraft", despite their claim of the "Boeing green" we just talked about, and the aircraft parts they proudly identified. No, they claim it was made by the firefighters, and even claim somehow that this too proves it was a 757(?). Notice the smoke damage above the hole? This means the hole was made prior to the extinguishing of the fire, and therefore we are supposed to believe they battled their way through the fire to make this hole, all the while dragging "Boeing plane parts" with them. How far these parts needed to be dragged is up to you to determine.. Either this hole was made by the "aircraft" that hit the pentagon; was in close proximity to damage and the hole was made (or enlarged) to evacuate smoke and debris; or the firefighters punched out the entire hole with axes, then dragged wreckage from the first RING(S) [according to some] of the pentagon, to this exit. Click here to again examine this exit hole from an aerial perspective..... note how it fits the fly trajectory rather nicely. _________________________________ [Outside Link] WERE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DIFFERENT ON SEPT 11? Can Kerosene fuel explode and cremate an aircraft? There’s no evidence that an explosion of the type and power alleged to have cremated AA 77 or the WTC planes has ever happened to any other plane, or ever could in the situation of a normal crash. Although the political circumstance behind the Sept 11 crashes, and (in the case of WTC crash 2) the spectacular imagery involved was unprecedented, there was nothing unusual in the impact physics of the crashes. Planes regularly crash into mountains, streets, the ground, buildings and other planes, and are not cremated. _________________________________ What Would Flight 77 "Eyewitnesses" Have Actually Seen? Video simulation of 500 mph flyby suggests 'passengers in windows' comment is a fraud [NEW STORY BELOW confirms above hypothesis] Proof That 'Flight 77' Eyewitness Report Skewed 'I saw faces of passengers' man furious with newspaper for twisting his words. _________________________________ Watch Video at below link.... You may need to install Macromedia Flash Player in order to view this animation. Click here to install it. http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_en.swf [video should load fairly quickly, depending on quality of your connection] _________________________________ 9/11 Prior Knowledge and Government Complicity - MASSIVE ARCHIVE LINK [You will need days to cover all this material] _________________________________ Scholars for 9/11 Truth under Attack Member's children threatened by name, teacher's position under assault. Clearly the truth is eroding their foundation of lies. Are there any aircraft in the US Air Force Arsenal that could possibly fit ALL the available evidence? Do we assume it was a cruise missile, or perhaps it was a similar type of remote controlled or piloted aircraft? There are two main competing theories about what could have hit the Pentagon: One is that it was a RQ-4A Global Hawk like pictured below, or some other type of military drone aircraft such as the A-3 Sky Warrior as some have suggested. We at BC Revolution now strongly believe the culprit aircraft was indeed the RQ-4A Global Hawk..... read on.. RQ-4A Global Hawk is a high altitude, single inline turbine, long endurance unmanned aerial reconnaissance system powered by the high pressure low bypass Rolls Royce designed AE 3007 which produces over 7,000 lbs of thrust. In April 2001, Global Hawk made aviation history when it completed the first non-stop flight across the Pacific Ocean by an unmanned, powered aircraft, flying from Edwards AFB, California, to the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Edinburgh, South Australia. The Global Hawk is the first UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to be certified by the FAA to file its own flight plans and use civilian air corridors in the United States with no advance notice. The Global Hawk weights 26 thousand pounds, and can carry a sizable payload (missile 'high explosive' warhead) if fitted to do so. Global Hawk also has flexible hinge polymer composite wings of considerable length and narrow span - something referred to as 'high aspect ratio'. In fact, the Global hawk has nearly the same wingspan as a 757 - the Global Hawk's wingspan is approx 116 feet, while the 757 has a wingspan of approx 125 - or a difference of just ten feet. This aircraft most closely fits ALL of the available evidence put forward. Most particularly with regard to the location of a SMALL SINGLE turbine at the EXIT hole, which TOTALLY rules out any wide bodied commercial aircraft using OUTBOARD wing mounted engines!!!! Furthermore, the turbine found AT THE EXIT HOLE is consistent with the diameter of turbine used in the Rolls Royce engine fitted on the Global Hawk - approximately 24 inches. [More photo evidence examined below surrounding wing wreckage.] Flight Specs for RQ-4A Global Hawk (note max speed) Ceiling: 19.8 km Payload 2,000 pounds (3,000 for "B" version) Length: 13.4 m Weight: 11,600 kg Wingspan: 35.4 m * Velocity: 250 km/h (cruise); 636 km/h (max) Endurance 31 hours (33 for 'B' version) *Note that a "newer" version of the Global Hawk called the RQ-4B also exists which has a wingspan of 39.9 meters (or approx 130 feet) and can carry a 50 percent larger payload (explosive) than the RQ-4A. The Department of Defence officially claims to have "restructured their acquisition strategy to include the RQ-4B" as of March 2002, but as these people are known for keeping military secrets, we can't rule out this model being active or available in September of 2001. As part of their 2002 "acquisition strategy" the DOD planned to purchase a staggering 51 Global Hawks, with 44 being the larger RQ-4B, and only 7 of the RQ-4A. This policy "triples the budgetary requirements" of the Global Hawk program. The Global Hawk is available in two major variants, the RQ-4A, which is the original variant, and the RQ-4B, which is somewhat larger, and has a 50% greater payload capacity. The U.S. Air Force has begun focusing on this newer version. Scaled Composites and Northrop Grumman are also offering a 50% proportional shrink of the RQ-4A, currently known as the Model 396, as part of the USAF Hunter-Killer program. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk Is this what some people saw slamming into the pentagon at a VERY low altitude, and very high rate of speed? Both pics are of Global Hawk. It should specially be noted that, according to official US Pentagon statements, there are TWO Global Hawks that went "missing" from inventory in what they described as "ongoing missions". Strange, don't you think, that two such sophisticated and FAA trusted aircraft, under constant GPS precision tracking by the military, would simply go "missing". Pull the other one guys!!!! Lets also take into consideration this very interesting photo (below) taken at the pentagon, which clearly shows a high aspect wing section precisely matching those of the Global Hawk. The Boeing 757 does not have this long thin wing design, so this is pretty compelling evidence in support of the fact it was a Global Hawk that struck the pentagon... ___ So what about the idea that a missile 'contrail' can be seen in the released [partly censored] Pentagon surveillance video? Do these remotely piloted vehicles normally carry missile launchers that might explain this white trail? This photo [at left] shows the port wing of the much smaller "predator" type drone aircraft, and shows a normally fitted missile harness for a laser guided missile. Larger versions of similar missiles can readily be fitted to the Global Hawk. This photo clearly shows a thick white vapour trail [below white arrow inserted in left pic] coming from the aircraft that shortly thereafter struck the pentagon. This type of white smoke is consistent with a solid fuel missile, and inconsistent to an aircraft equipped with hi-bypass kerosene burning jet engines. Wing tip vortices can also be ruled out, as they only occur at high angles of attack (like steep high speed turns, landings or take off roll) coupled with conditions of high humidity (moisture) - NOT level flight. These trails also could NOT have been caused (as someone's recent computer animated simulation laughingly suggests) by an engine compressor stall caused by impact to light poles, as compressor stalls create a condition of 'UNBURNED kerosene and re-ignition', which creates large orange flames, not pure white puffs of smoke. Some have further suggested that the often used black/white nose of a Global Hawk can just be seen peeking beyond the box in the foreground. [For a larger version of this picture, click HERE] However, what is readily obvious is the fact that a 757 could not be hiding behind the object in the foreground, and is furthermore most unlikely to have caused this trail of thick white smoke. Below is a scaled animation of what a 757 would look like from this (known) angle and distance. [Need we AGAIN remind you of the engine problem.... AND all the problems we haven't even gotten to on this page, like back at the WTC ? There is a big picture we need to see, not just a few trees.] FACTOID: Three of the four planes allegedly used for 911 had top level Raytheon experts as passengers. Those sort of odds are highly improbable for random flights; but what is most interesting is the fact that Raytheon is a supplier of the remote control systems used (for example) in the Global Hawk. Here is an example of how even large commercial aircraft can be remote piloted at least as far back as 1985.... read about the "Crash in the desert" If such a large aircraft were to strike the pentagon at the height indicated by the video, and damage evidence, we should see some kind of damage on the pentagon grass immediate in front of the impact area. So take a look for yourself... Aside from the damage done by the fire trucks, this lawn looks like a putting green. So why did the pentagon spend thousands of dollars filling in a hole [below photo] that clearly doesn't exist? To get rid of any forensic evidence that would indicate the suspect aircraft was actually a Global Hawk, parts of which are made of composite polymer? What other reason is there? Not only was there no damage to the grass, NEITHER of the 9,000 pound outboard engines caused so much as a scratch to the pentagons foundation. Where did these engines go? Above pic is from outside facing center of impact, and bottom pic gives us a close-up of where the left engine SHOULD have impacted the concrete at (according to the government) an astonishing 450 knots+. For a more in-depth analysis of this issue please click HERE..... Two hour video "Terror Storm" exposes government sponsored terror campaigns against its own people throughout history. [Now you can also watch the final cut version with approx 20 more minutes of documented and verified evidence of government sponsored terror in our recent history.] EX-CIA Ray McGovern "Cheney let the 'plane' hit the Pentagon" You Tube | January 10, 2007 C-SPAN Camp Casey interview with Ex-CIA Ray McGovern. He talks about running into Norm Mineta and confronting him on his testimony before the 911 commission and why did Dick Cheney hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 Click Link to continue....... Part III or goback to first page Are secretive societies shaping our world and creating chaos? Please help us spread the truth, and defend your precious Freedom and Liberty with a donation of your choosing... Click 'make a donation' button below. Thank You so very much!