Barbara Honegger - Behind the Smoke Curtain: What Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11

[R.K. Locke]

This is probably the best presentation I've heard about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/99810

And part 2:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/100023


Well worth a listen.

[Lauren Johnson]

RKL: I think this is the video of the speech.

[R.K. Locke]

Excellent. Thanks for that, Lauren. I will watch the whole thing later.

[David Guyatt]

Barbara's husband was a former intelligence officer as I recall (possibly military intelligence). I first heard about the 9/11 exercise from Barbara who got it from her hubbie. I think they broke the exercise story, in fact (?).

It's a small world.

[Tracy Riddle]

I've watched the DVD a couple of times. I liked it a lot at first, but I've developed some doubts about her theory. This is a pretty good critical analysis of it:

http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/...042916.pdf

[Matt Grantham]

There are several variations on this debate, but for simplicity's sake lets call it the Honegger versus Chandler debate. The only point I would like to raise, is the reports of helicopter activity at the Pentagon just before before the impact there at roughly 9:38. Honegger claims to have a Reagan Airport radar report which shows activity at the helipad right around 9:32. As I recall, Chandler claims the document does not exist, and I believe goes on to discount the helicopter at the Pentagon before the impact theory a bit more in his You Tube video on the subject. The top link, of the two listed below, is from Pilotsfor9/11Truth, which goes into some detail on the subject. A witness to the helicopter at the Pentagon before the impact, is Jeffery Mark Parsons, who is mentioned in that link. Parson's also made comments he saw an American Airlines jetliner take off from Reagan Airport right around the time of the impact at 9:38. That information is provided in the lower link from History Commons



http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-11/my...-there-911


http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?ent...parsons__1

[Anthony Thorne]

I generally like Barbara's work, but these days if someone claims to have' an unseen document it raises a significant red flag for me. UK researcher Tom Secker claims to have numerous documents in his articles too, but you can more easily believe him as he uploads the documents to Scribd and other sites for free download. Barbara may or may not be on the right track, and I was reading a Shoestring article about the helicopter incident just this week, but if BH is backing up her claims with reference to a document that no one else can see or confirm then she's not really giving her arguments the support they may deserve.

[Matt Grantham]

Indeed the supposed document, and Honeggers's willingness to share it, is a key issue. I believe I have seen a picture of it somewhere, but that of course is not the end of the story in terms of verification Chandler, on the other hand, says that no report or document exists on said subject. The cause of this' dug in to my position' kind of thing that happens is so difficult to deal with Maybe it is possible for those outside of the two entrenched camps to make headway towards clarification but it seems like a long road. I would like to see both camps response to the question of their respective feelings on constructive dialogue between the two sides

Admittedly I have a pretty strongly held conclusion that no jetliner hit the Pentagon, and am rather uncertain of Honegger's claim of a plane at 9:32 at the helipad I try to check myself at the door when I listen to Chandler speak on his video. What makes the challenge perhaps a little different, is that I have to say myself that I know Chandler has the general ability to be objective, and he is obviously intelligent For me I always enjoy the challenge of letting my conclusions be challenged, or at least a part of myself strives for such objectivity.But it is always hard to know if one has really gained a sense of objectivity, or just created the illusion of such

Thanks for the response. Glad it was something you had been thinking about recently.

[Peter Lemkin]

It is not just these two positions - or the official lies. I think some of what BH says is interesting and important and a few parts may be incorrect. Personally, for reasons I'm not going to detail, but have before, I believe planes [at least two] were flown NEAR the pentagon, but at least one pulled up and over just at the last minute.....the other certainly did not cause the damage to the building and may or may not have crashed into it some minutes later. The damage was done by a bunker-buster rocket consistent with the size of the initial hole and breakthrough hole and all damage in between. These have depleted Uranium nosecones and explains the hazmat suits people were seen wearing with masks. Whatever planes and rockets were flown certainly were under computer control. The amount of debris is NOT consistent with a plane hitting - nor is the damage to the building [more so the initial damage]. The Pentagon, like the WTC, was a magic show and what you 'saw' was not what you 'got'. The inconsistent stories of witnesses - especially inside the building and the discrepancies with timing and pattern of destruction are key clues. The fact that no passenger plane could hold together to do that flight at the end is another - and does not fit [at all] the pattern of damage to the building. The photos BH showed is different the then one showing the small round hole before the collapse - and I don't know how to explain her photo in time, perhaps intermediate or after second impact. Of course those who have access to the many CCTV cameras, the radar reports and why the AA missiles that protect the Pentagon did not fire would know much of this mystery - but are silent to the public. It is not surprising given the entire day was an inside job and a magic show of deceits and tricks for the eyes. I'm most suspicious of the autopsy reports from that day. We know the taxi driver lied about the lamp posts and they most likely were brought down by something other than what made the round hole. Nothing fits - the firemen doing all the wrong and strange things, the perfect lawn, the small amount of debris, the small hole and then the collapse of the wall [likely pre-planted explosives - perhaps nanothermite as at WTC], the punchout hole no plane could make after six walls and many steel-reinforced concrete pillars...and one can go on. Lies and a magic show. Only a bunker-buster missile of large size could have done what was done. Other damage was done by pre-planted explosives before and after impact. Location of impact is very suspicious as are the movements and words of Rumsfeld.....


This is not the best article and set of videos on the Pentagon being hit by a missile, but it is OK for starters. I'll try to find better and post. https://consciouslifenews.com/911-prove-...e/1145271/

[Matt Grantham]

Thanks Peter Yes I know I kind of simplistically couched this as camp A versus Camp B I find it a bit odd that more researchers do not seem to openly challenge the Chandler group. There is of course this narrative out there that claims we need to stick to the WTC demolitions, and not divide the movement and perhaps that is part of what is going on. On the comments section on Chandler's video on the Pentagon, there is virtually no challenge to their narrative, I knew Ken Jenkins years ago, and I guess it kind of pained me to put some critical comments up on that You Tube page. Part of that effort was again to create dialogue, but it is more likely to just increase bitterness. Oh well. David Slessinger has just made me aware of Dave Coste's You Tube video on the Pentagon, and it is only 5 hours long. I am going to trey to make way through it

Also an FYI. The largest Facebook 9/11 Truth group, just barely allows discussion about the Pentagon They would not allow me to post on CIT's take on the light poles.