"OLD" 270° LOOP EXPLAINED [FINAL]

THE 270° LOOP AROUND RUMSFELD
WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Posted July 25 2007
last updated 12/9/07

Note: This article deals with Steve Koeppel's loop map only. Arabesque has also posted an excellent post partly on this article, related with the three planes-confusion (FL77, a C-130, and an E-4B "doomsday plane," all verified in the area at the time), later expanded to cover other areas.
Note 12/9: Steve Koeppel himself (I presume) has popped in here to help explain some things (see comments below). "I did state that I had been an Air Force and Reserve navigator (I am NOT pilot in the military! Would somebody clear that up?!?)" Yes. Koeppel was not an Air Force Pilot as cited by The Power Hour. He was an Air Force navigator. "AT THAT TIME (early 2002) my intent was get suggestions on why there weren't any tourist photos (of Flight 77) [...] I made no claim to creating the unimpeachable analysis," he clarifies, "nor was that my intent; that's why I put so many qualifiers in my post." Good. Among the scant evidence he called on to create his path, one escaped my detectors and still does: "after disappearing from the radar scope the aircraft had had reappeared approaching D.C. from the north and was thought to have been aiming at the White House..." See below for full comment.
---
For years after 9/11, as controversy swirled over the details of the Pentagon attack, a working draft of the highly suspicious reported 3/4-circle loop in the flight path became widely used to cast doubt on the official story. This grand loop over Washington became one of the unifying points of agreement between Hunt The Boeing Pentagon no-planers and remote control-757 advocating “plane-huggers.” The general gist was eloquently summed up by Nila Sagadevan in early 2006:

“[T]his fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot […] found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway” [1]

While this sounds compelling, the flight path he’s talking about never existed. It was bolstered and seeded in the movement, above all, by this map:Those who cite this precise angle of turn, point out the lack of White House defensive fire as the plane passed within a mile or two of it, or of the plane going out of its way to avoid Rumsfeld’s office, for which it was headed, are probably referring to this map, if to anything specific. Russell Pickering’s Pentagon Research.com used it to illustrate; “you can see where the White House was passed.” He also carefully cited the map’s originator, which makes it easy enough to look up and double-check. Author: Former Air Force Pilot Steve Koeppel, Palm Springs, CA [2]

This led me to Koeppel’s undated piece, from way back, some time in 2002 it seems (it was mentioned by Hufschmid in Painful Questions, released 2002). The map and explanation of it were hosted originally by The Power Hour, producers of 911 In Plane Site, which is among the worst 9/11 videos ever, often dismissed as a too-long joke on the Truth Movement. Whatever the merits of his hosts, Koeppel's piece there explained how he reasoned out the map; none too promising is how he starts out with (apparent) inexplicable ignorance over the general contours of the flight:

“It was fairly simple to find the WTC routes, but I have yet to see a map showing the route flown by the aircraft that was said to have hit the Pentagon. So I read some of the reports and put together the attached maps. […] I'm surprised that I haven't seen this map — or ANY map — of the Pentagon airplane's approach. Given all the information that we were deluged with in the weeks after the attacks, it surprises me that this graphic was omitted.” [3]

The flight path of Flight 77 was not omitted by any measure, and it was not hard to find – even I knew the general outline of the flight, as : first published in Time, Newsweek, etc in the days after the attacks. Yes, the return path was a dotted line back then, estimated obviously, and too vague yet to show 77’s final loop, which was apparently his main question. But all these paths have proven broadly accurate in that the 757 headed west, turned south over the WV-KY-OH border area, lost transponder, and returned, heading east straight to the Pentagon. “Guardian” was one of the few that noted of Koeppel’s path “that this is a very strange flight path for an aircraft coming from the east and planning to crash into the Pentagon.” [4] It’s at least as odd for Flight 77, which was coming in from the southwest and finally impacted from the southwest, to wind up swooping down on the Pentagon from the northeast as in Koeppel’s map.

As an ill-fated aside before explaining his sources, Koeppel pointed out “what's surprising is how many news sources got the information wrong. For example, look at this graphic from Reuters, which has the attack on the wrong side of the Pentagon:”
Above is the graphic he used [right-click, new wiindow to enlarge], labeled “The Pentagon Attack” and featuring a six-point timeline of events, along with a grossly incorrect impact point shown. What’s at least as surprising, in my opinion, is where Koeppel explains “I based my map of the attack path on a description of the attack (see Pentagon Attack) which said the plane was initially picked up on radar east-southeast of Dulles heading at high speed toward Washington.” [5] Red flag! He introduces the erred Reuters graphic, and then tells us his whole analysis is based on a single account, and it’s this same graphic.

Another wrong point in it he (understandably) failed to catch was its understatement of the loop by 60° – it was indeed to the right (south) but was actually 330°, nearly full circle, a descriptor widely used outside of the source he chose. As for how he came up with the southward swoop, Koeppel explained it as starting from “the 270 degree right turn” leaving him “puzzled.” A “near-circular” turn to the right, off an approach from the west, to hit the Pentagon at the final angle he gave no clue of being aware of, Koeppel might’ve guessed something like the official and logical connecting loop (here in yellow). Instead, he decided to bring it in from the north; “I realized that [the 3/4 loop] would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot. Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol,” and then, as the Reuters guy said, make a 270 degree right turn and hit the far north edge of the west wall at the fourth-floor level. So thinking like a novice pilot, he found an arbitrary 270° line of landmarks in that area that might guide one to the target, and then presumed that to be the most logical flight path that he felt “meets all the conditions in the description.” Below is a map that helps clarify that his entire red arc is indeed east-southeast of Dulles, barely, and this seems to be a plausible path – if we disregard the official and logical flight path up till then (blue).

If the final loop Koeppel arrived at (red) was to be connected with the official story path (blue), that would necessitate the purple arc, or something similar, to connect the two. Since he was generally aware of the plane's position before turning (blue asterisk in the center of my map, actually pretty close to the official flight path, and nowhere near "the Potomac river north of town"), he in fact was implying the purple arc. However, he fails to explain or illustrate this turn to the left/north around and over DC, which is nowhere in his Reuter’s graphic or any other account. He made no mention of the full implied loop of roughly 400° from there needed for his loop to work.

In short, despite his ignorance of “ANY map of the Pentagon airplane's approach,” Koeppel was able to place the plane properly before its turn, but then invented the wild purple and red maneuver and only explained and illustrated the second half of it. He called this analysis and map “my contribution to the effort to try to make sense of an insane event. I don't know if it adds clarity or static, but it seems a part of the puzzle that has been missing.” [6] Looking at the method that gave us that half-map, it was clearly static he added. What’s surprising is that no one apparently caught on and this map became almost gospel. It was so widely used and believed to explain the oddity of the Pentagon attack (which is still odd enough) that it was interpreted by “Guardian” as possibly official; “the claimed flight path of flight 77 over Washington. […] In reality, flight 77 never existed.” [7]

The real loop, 330° to the south off an easterly approach, was new to some of the top 9/11 Pentagon researchers in mid-August 2006. At the Loose Change forum, Killtown showed the NTSB yellow-line loop map, seen in the just-released Flight Path Study. He labeled this as “new,” compared to Koeppel’s map, labeled “old.” Pickering, who had promoted the “old” map by featuring it on his site and working it into his other material, responded “the new flight path data does not change everything,” but it did help indicate to him that “I have a lot of re-writing to do these days!” Another member noted Pickering’s reliance on Koeppel’s map, and wondered of Koeppel “what he based his information on?” The question was not answered there, but I hope this analysis helps shed some light on the subject. [8]
---
More people who had fallen for it at some point (besides me, not that I even looked close until now): Jim Hoffman at one point used Koeppel's map to illustrate how a "Spiral Attack Maneuver Avoids Top Brass."
The bastards at Judicialinc captioned the map "NORAD's story that Hani Hanjour flew a 757 doing 600 MPH at 7000' and went into a 270 degree decending turn and hit the Pentagon, is absurd."
---

Sources:
[1] Segadevan, Nila.“The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training.” Looking Glass News. Feb 20, 2006
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php? storyid=5115
[2] Pickering, Russell. “Analysis of Flight 77 Flight Path” Pentagon Research.com. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/017.html
[3], [5], [6] [Koeppel, Steve. Analysis of Flight 77: Flight Path by a Former Air Force Pilot.” The Power Hour. Undated. http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm
[4], [7] Guardian. “Flight 77 and the Pentagon. What Really Happened?” Undated. http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/911-flights.htm
[8] Pickering, Russell, Terry Zarzoff, and Killtown. Comments posted August 12 2006. Loose Change Forum -> The Pentagon -> "New Flight 77 Path Different (of Course)." http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t10366.htm

9:32 EVENT EVIDENCE ADDRESSED

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 3: 9:32 EVENT EVIDENCE ADDRESSED
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 5 2007 3am
last updated 8/10/09

All The 9:32 Duckies Lined Up
In the previous post I established the overall logic (found wanting) of the claims for a 9:32 attack at the Pentagon, vs. the official time of 9:37:45. Now it’s time to analyze the evidence that is behind all this theorizing; something got people wondering ‘what happened at 9:32?’ We’ve looked at the two frozen clocks a bit, and will return to them by the end, so let’s start with the yet-unexamined supporting evidence first. If some major violence happened at that time and was covered up, it might leave traces pointing at some kind of coherent reality. Until he was temporarily banned and then seems to have stayed away, LCF member Terral hammered away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact [1], based on Barbara Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing at about that time [2]. Analyzing the two together and dismissing those that have nothing to do with a set time of about 9:32 I have identified seven points, including the clocks combined as one point. Supports attempted for 9:30 I have disregarded as too early to fit this model and will be addressed separately in a later post.

The meat and potatoes of 9:32 evidence is as follows, as debunked as I care to try for along the way:

1) An Early FAA Chronology: A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) document called Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 reported that at “0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.” [3] Assembled just six days after the attacks, this official report’s stated time has since been amended – cover-up or correction? ATC (air Traffic Control) means radar; they don’t see things crashing, just disappear from screens, which happens when it drops below a certain altitude. In the case of the Pentagon attack, it appears the plane dropped off screens at 9:37:15, 30 seconds before impact, not the 5-6 minutes before required for this report to be correct. Many have taken this as a temporary slip and admission of reality - but one still openly available despite its damning implications.

Another likely possibility is that this report was somehow wrong, perhaps a confused report reflecting, for example, the 9:34 call mentioned by Gaffney in the previous post– “American 77's lost […] they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.” [4] It seems likely to guess it crashed – perhaps this report was hasty and based on some initial report to this effect without double-checking – and not necessarily a clue of anything.

Regarding early FAA reports from 9/11 and their relevance on timeline questions, for Flight 11 they reported (at one point, it's also since been revised) a shooting of passenger Daniel Lewin at 9:18 am (it had crashed at 8:46, documented and uncontested) and then “at 9:25 am, this flight crashed directly into one of the towers of the world trade center.” [5] Compared to AA’s flight 11 mix-up (possibly the origin of the ‘Phantom Flight 11’ that distracted defenders from the real threat of Flight 77), a single mis-citation of 77’s crash time is quite mundane.

And besides, it seems highly unlikely that ATC with their radar screens would report a non-plane related 9:32 explosion, however they may have heard about it, as evidence for the disappearance of a plane they were tracking - So this evidence’s connection to Honegger’s case is less than clear.

2) Per Stig Møler: The son of two Danish parliamentarians and a member of Det Konservative Folkeparti [6], Møler was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11, two months prior to his being appointed Foreign Minister of Denmark. The morning of the attack, Honegger recounts, “he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.” [7]

This seems to be good evidence; one would think if his watch was five minutes off, he'd know that and correct for such a momentous occasion. Or is he simply embellishing the watch check, and actually filling in the time based on some flawed source? [The FAA’s chronology would not be released or days, so that’s not a possible culprit]. Or is Honegger inserting the watch embellishment herself, while Møler only ever said it happened at 9:32? Her sources was listed as “interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time.” The excerpt she included said “I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” That in itself doesn’t clear things up, and being disinclined to find the original audio and get it translated, I’ll leave this point as vague at best.

Update: Someone named Josarhus from Denmark checked out the interview, joined and started a thread at the JREF forum about this:

Further more Per Stig Møller CLEARLY states that he thinks the time was around 9:32-9:34 based on when the meeting was supposed to end. The meeting was supposed to end at 9:30, but he didn’t look at his watch. In other words the time could very easily correspond with the official time of the crash.

To make it short, if anybody in the future claims that Per Stig Møller said that he heard an explosion and saw smoke and flames 5 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, tell them that the claim is based on an incorrect translation by the Dane Henrik Melvang and on deliberate distortions by Barbara Honegger.

3) Robert Andrews Top Civilian at Pentagon and director of “Special Operations” under Rumsfeld, Andrews shared with Honegger another wristwatch recollection. He told her in an interview that he had been in the Pentagon’s basement when “a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.” [8]

Barring another embellishment by the author (who does seem unable to provide direct quotes where witnesses clarify they got the time from their watches), this is quite specific and good evidence – almost too good. A Rumsfeld aide tells us the event occurred at 9:32. I'm starting to wonder if there really is a pattern behind all this evidence besides coincidence, but that it’s closer to Pentagon disinfo than emerging reality. If so, Rummy's 'missile-transcription” set the trend. Does ‘special operations” include disinfo work? Otherwise, maybe he just misspoke and said 9:35 when he meant to say 9:45. Then he could be referring to the 9:38 plane impact or to the later explosion around 9:43, depending on just how far ahead his watch was.

4) Al Gonzales Before becoming Attorney General, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales gave a lecture at Honegger’s Naval Postgraduate School in which, as Honegger noted, “Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. [9] It’s matter of public record and probably true that he indeed said this, but I don't see why it necessarily means anything. He may have just read an erred report – like the FAA’s cited above – while doing his background research for the speech. Or if there were an official effort to seed this idea, as suggested by Honegger's Andrews interview, there's no good reason to rule out Gonzales deciding to affirm it almost to Honegger's very face for her later use. For the moment I'll stick to the more innocent explanation.

5) The Doubletree Video Timestamp:
Neither the Pentagon nor the plane that hit it are visible in the Doubletree security video; with its view blocked by the raised roadway nearer the camera, only the massive column of fire and smoke in the distance gives us a clue that the Pentagon was struck at – 9:32? The video is very glitchy; an onlooker in the lot also blinks in and out of the screen twice and a totally different camera view of another parking lot comes and goes and later wrestles for dominance with the main view. The time-stamp is as jumpy and flickery as the picture but moves unsteadily along a natural timeline stamped 9:34. As the explosion rises at 9:34:42, the timeline then flickers to 9:32:43, which hold for one second until rolling back to 9:34:44. [10] A minute change precisely at the second rollover, simply showing a 2 instead of a 4 during that slot seems just a glitch; the date field also changes for one second at different points. 09-11-2001 briefly turns to 9-03-2001 (at 9:30:54). No one has yet claimed this as evidence of an explosion at the Pentagon eight days early.

Passing up the chance to make a fool of herself again, Honegger failed to include this anomaly of the minute space as evidence for here case, but 9:32:43 was taken up enthusiastically by Terral and analyzed (see above, his graphic) as another solid proof of his 9:31:39 event. “The proof is in the pudding,” he explained. “The Double Tree Security Video shows signs of monkey business. :0) I cannot tell you ‘why,’ but can show you ‘what’ the evidence clearly reveals from the 9:32:43 AM recorded explosion taking place […] This is another case of the ‘evidence’ supporting my 9:32 AM “first explosion”” hypothesis.” [11] Terral clearly is implying it was altered from 9:32 except for that frame, but as I asked him, “why would they 'alter' the time of the 9:32 blast to look like the 9:38 blast, but change the time to 9:34 instead and then let it flicker back to 9:32 at the end? What on Earth can this prove?” [12] Proof by glitch as further 'corroboration’ of a 9:32 event. He even used the quotes himself, and included that trademark clown face emoticon. This is just how seriously the case deserves to be taken.

6) April Gallop’s watch: A third wristwatch recollection related by Honegger Is that of April Gallop, an “Army employee with a Top Secret clearance,” had stopped by her office with her newborn son Elisha when her section exploded. Honegger’s point in including this curious witness was that “Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30.” [13]

April certainly went through hell that day, with her baby, and suffered serious injuries to her right leg I believe, so it’s possible her watch was mechanically stopped by something that hit her arm as well. And if so, we have another stopped clock showing a time closer to 9:32 than 9:38. Given what Gallop went through, it may seem cold to cast aspersions, but of all the points on this list, she is in my opinion the most compromised by mis/disinformation concerns. Among the oddities of her account(s), she later told Jim Marrs “I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel […] I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.” [14] She’s also helped promote the PentaCon, and has described climbing out through the entry hole, which she has elsewhere incorrectly verified as “perfectly round” and “didn't appear to be big enough for the 757.” [15]

Even Terral knew not to touch this point, and she was not included in his five-point list. He explained “I omit Ms. Gallop’s testimony from my work entirely, because the other ‘clock damage’ appears to be from the ‘concussion’ of the explosions and not from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That means Ms. Gallop needed to strike her wrist against something at this critical time to stop the movement mechanism, OR my EMP suspicions are inaccurate.” [16] Okay, perhaps credibility was not his reason, but it should have been.

7) Those Clocks:

The pivotal evidence that started the whole search for a 9:32 event is that double-corroborated time recorded on those two famous clocks. This point has also proven the hardest to debunk with certainty. Since I have no solid rebuttal, and since this post is already too long, I'll just summarize what's up with that. Pickering seems to suggest mechanical damage after 9:32, with the diesngaged minute hands falling with gravity towards - but not quite to - the six, and proferred a challenge for anyone to try it at home and videotape the results. [17]. To my knowledge no one has taken him up (I have a clock but need to borrow a camera). In short, I have no sure answer for the clocks showing the wrong time. Just on their own strength, the possibility that they're right must be considered. Therefore, these seem to me the main possibilities:

1) Both clocks were about right and stopped at the impact time around 9:32
2) Both clocks stopped around 9:38 but were six minutes behind by sheer coincidence
3) Both stopped at 9:38 but the mechanism was broken so the minute hands only swung back towards the 6 or something to that effect.
4) Subtle psyop to confuse people: “be sure to move than hands back to 9:32 before the museum guys pick it up…”
5) Combinations and permutations – one was six minutes behind, the other broken, etc.

Why Not 9:32?
Some might wonder why I would bother dismantling this timeline construct. After all, if 9:32 were proven, a massive lie would be uncovered that could unlock yet more secrets. The problem with this case is that no matter how solid it seems at first glance, compared to the 9:38 case, it absolutely fails to hold water. With so little supporting evidence that pans out to suggest anything in particular happening at that time, two clocks does not a valid alternate make. Even if we ignore Honegger’s silly and unsubstantiated bombing/A3 attack, or Terral’s missile/flyover-and-A3 attack, just taking the first explosion at 9:32 as from the 757 impact (ala Gaffney), dozens of points of data had to be shifted ahead to around 9:38 for no good reason I myself can see. The next post in this series will endeavor to show just how much corroborating data would have to have been coordinated to bolster the official timelie. It’s really quite a bit…

rest coming...

Sources:
[1] Posted by Terral. Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16133&st=0
[2] [7] [8] [9] [13] Honegger, Barbara. The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie. Appendix to The Terror Conspiray by Jim Marrs. Published September 6, 2006. html link - PDF link
[3] Federal Aviation Administration. Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 September 17 2001.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf
[14] Marrs, Jim. Inside Job. Origin Press. 2004. Page 26.
[17] Posted by Russell Pickering, September 20 2007, 12:32 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Clock Question - Did Internal Explosions, Stop the clocks 5 to 11 minutes before…” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15994
rest coming...

BARBARA HONEGGER

THE PSYCHIC MUNCHKIN BEHIND THE HOLY GRAIL
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 15 2006

Perhaps the oddest case in the small but fertile world of government functionary-9/11 Truth crossover is that of Barbara Honegger, a dedicated but elusive and little seen 9/11 warrior with murky roots (apparently military and intelligence). She was allegedly into weird parapsychic stuff, channeling voices of supercomputers from the future and whatnot, [1] before she went to work in the late 1970s for a rising star named Martin Anderson at the Hoover Institute (where he remains as a Senior Fellow). She then followed Anderson to the White House as an assistant to join the Reagan-Bush transition team in 1980. Anderson advised Reagan on everything from foreign intelligence to education, finance, and arms control, probably worked for Bush sr., and during the Clinton Years focused on teaching classes at Stanford (home of the Hoover Institute and where Condi Rice was briefly provost). Anderson was later an advisor to George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign, [2] and eventually became a member of Rumsfeld’s influential Defense Policy Board in 2001. [3]

Muchkin Honegger smiling with Reagan and Bush in the White House.

Honegger herself had split off from her Republican benefactors early; she only served the Reagan White House as a researcher and policy analyst until she resigned in 1983 under unclear circumstances – either over sexual discrimination or something else. In May 1985 Newsweek ran a piece on Honegger titled “The Munchkin's Musical” that stated “White House aides began whispering that Honegger was a believer in ESP who claimed she'd ridden on Halley's comet.” [4]

At the time she was also among the first to have leaked details of the “October Surprise” scandal, much of which was later verified by numerous involved parties. The deal was allegedly made by George Bush and William Casey to delay the release of the hostages in Iran - a delay that cost Carter the White House and gained it for Reagan and Bush. [5] Her charges culminated with the 1989 book “October Surprise,” predating Gary Sick’s work of the same name (which does not mention her) by two years. In the end, the scandal cost Reagan nothing, covered up by an investigation headed by a certain Lee Hamilton, who would go on later to 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group fame. Honegger later left a small mark on the Iran-Contra scandal, carried out as it was by largely the same networks responsible for the October Surprise, continuing to weave a picture of Bush-centered intrigue.

Despite all this, she not only remained alive but went on to tie Bush's son and former Defense Secretary in with carrying out 9/11, her works on which carry the disclaimer "all of Honegger’s research and publications on September 11 are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement." This is because in 1995 she was given a cushy job as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, which she holds till the present, writing about such things as a cyber-defense exercise in 2002: “all the National Security Agency’s Trojan horses and Air Force and Army’s info-warriors couldn’t break through the cyber walls erected by the Naval Postgraduate School’s ace “Blue” Team,” she wrote. [6] How ironic then that what some suspect of being NSA Trojan horse 9/11 arguments should have eventually broken through her psychic shields and into her research.

Honegger’s role in the 9/11 Truth movement is huge and will perhaps go down as her crowning achievement, for good or ill. Her legacy here is centered on revealing to Mike Ruppert inside info on the War Games of 9/11 which scrambled the defense and were probably co-ordinated by a Maestro working for Dick Cheney. These revelations formed what Ruppert called “in my opinion – the holy grail of 9/11 research,” and a key point for the smarter edge of the movement at large. [7] Her credentials thus seem solid, but her later works I’ve seen are sloppy and full of holes and leaps. In October 2004 she reportedly told a forum in Los Angeles that “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was really Osama bin Laden, who apparently dyed his hair, trimmed his beard, removed a few wrinkles and turned himself in as it were by trying to ignite his shoes on a trans-Atlantic flight. [8]

Honegger’s later works include "The Pentagon Attack Papers," published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ “The Terror Conspiracy,” 2006, taking her squarely into this blog's turf. In her Pentagon analysis, she argued against a big plane and for a traditional bombing. This, she's certain, happened at 9:32, with anything happening at the official time of 9:37 being some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757.” She cites a mixed bag of evidence, from hard fact like a stopped clock to repeated government “slips” to irrelevant coincidences, and has cited war games at the Pentagon that morning, which are unverifiable but likely incorrect. [9] (I will post on this theory in more detail sometime soon).

She has also tied the alleged original pilot of Flight 77 before it was hijacked, Captain Charles Burlingame, to “a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building.” She appears to be the source of the similar charge laid out in Loose Change, second edition’s opening segment. It’s an intriguing possibility, but it doesn’t help her tentative case that she then finds it “extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that […] Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.” [10] Maybe that parapsychic training is helping her to fill in the gaps with right-brain impulses or insights from the future that make it all make sense…

No more promising is her citation of “the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:" “the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width," "no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building," "wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757.” [11] Of course my debunkings are legion as well, or getting there. "The small hole" - the unmarked lawn - the plane parts - The A3 Sky Warrior Theory.

While her reputation in the movement is generally sterling and I don’t know enough to cast large stones, these aspects of Honegger’s works – her unexplained leaps, need to tie Cheney in personally, and especially disagreeing with me over the Pentagon evidence - are deeply flawed. Whatever her intentions, she has served as a useful and strangely credible-seeming source, and also a comet-riding psychic moonbat in the employ of the US military pushing among the worst 9/11 theories. That doesn't prove anything but it's worth considering.

Sources:
[1] http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn202b.htm
[2] “2001: Mr. Hoover Goes to Washington?” Myszewski, David. Stanford Review. Volume XXV, Issue 6: January 2001
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXVII/Issue_7/2001/
[3] Martin Anderson: Keith and Jan Hurlbut Senior Fellow. http://www.hoover.org/bios/anderson
[4] Source lost... I'll check at the library and get back...
[5] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhonegger.htm
[6] Honegger, Barbara. “NPS Aces Second Annual DoD Cyber Defense Exercise.” http://www.nps.navy.mil/PAO/Internal/Cyber_Defense.htm
[7] Ruppert, page 336.
[8] Propaganda Patterns: Official Stories, Limited Hang Outs, Best Evidence, Distracting Disinformation
a political map of political collapse and possibilities. http://www.oilempire.us/propaganda.html
[9] Honegger, Barbara. “THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to THE TERROR CONSPIRACY by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006 http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html
[10] "War Games" by the US military on 9/11: paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks? who coordinated these efforts?” http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
[11] See [9].

RUMSFELD'S MISSILE "ADMISSION"

CREATED IN TRANSLATION
Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud

As in the predecessor video "911 In Plane Site," Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe chose to open their improved Loose Change, 2nd Edition with coverage of the missile attack at the Pentagon. They saw this as the strong point, and placed it up front - that is, after twelve minutes of introductory info-montage, credits, and spooky music. The opening segment opens with the following text hovering on a black screen for thirty seconds (ironically, over the sounds from inside a jet plane).

“Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, October 12 2001.

That's a good clue to hit the stop button and here's why:

On October 12 2001 Rumsfeld indeed sat down in the Pentagon with interviewer Lyric Wallwork Winik of Parade magazine to go on the record for the one-month anniversary. Once printed, the interview indeed bore this "slip." To the skeptical and sloppy mind, his mention of an "American Airlines jet" AND a "missile" seems to delineate two separate objects: one presumably American 11 that hit the North Tower in Manhattan, and the other, obviously, the missile that hit the Pentagon. He was apparently a tad senile and simply let on more than he meant to. It wouldn't be the last time.

But... Problems with the audio transcription are evident or else there wouldn't be a "similar (inaudible)" involved. So I zoomed in on the second “and” that created the impression of two separate objects and tried replacing it with the similar sounding “as” and got “using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens AS the missile to damage this building.” This makes the whole statement make more sense, and is exactly what the government has always said.

Problem solved, and all it takes is imagining that someone with the esteemed name Lyric Wallwork Winik would hear "as" and type "and," apparently unaware of the confusion this would cause and how wide it would spread. In fact, Parade admitted in September 2004 that "a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet." Those pesky conspiracy theorists. I google searched the prhrase to see who was responsible for this diffusion and found that the #1 source most people have visited to pick up and pass on this flawed evidence is the DoD website, where the complete uncorrected interview is still prominently posted as of late 2006. In this case at least, the Pentagon itself is primarily responsible for perpetuating this retarded delusion.

PRE-9/11 PENTAGON PREPAREDNESS

OF FORESIGHT AND ANCHOR CHAINS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 23 2007
Updated 5/3/07

Although most Pentagon workers in the area hit on 9/11 were still sitting at their desks doing their usual work as Flight 77 came crashing through their office doors, there were well-established and practiced procedures for “exactly” such an event. The Washington Post reported shortly after 9/11 the account of a Pentagon medic who was sitting and reading the just-printed emergency response manual for what to do in case the building was struck by a civilian airliner at the precise moment that happened. [1] But unfortunately these procedures don’t seem to have helped much, given no radar track of the incoming plane, no warning, and thus no time given to implement any such measures.

Dennis Ryan's photo of a mock-up used for MASCAL (slightly filtered for artsy effect)

Among the emergency drills they’d held was one in October 2000, less than a year prior as part of what the Military District of Washington News Service called at the time "several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room." Author Dennis Ryan provided photographs as well for one of the scenarios, the "Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise" (MASCAL) the mock passenger plane crashed into the mock Pentagon courtyard appears to be a big one but probably not a 757 as Loose Change claims. One participant explained as far-fetched as the MASCAL scenario may have seemed, “you have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.” [2] Navy Capt. Charles Burlingame was allegedly part of this drill, though the charge is unsubstantiated. If you don't know the significance of that already, check this post.

Whether the MASCAL crash was supposed to be an accident or an attack didn't seem to matter - it was all about the aftermath. But in the next noteworthy drill conducted eight months later, the preparations were getting more specifically 9/11-related. As US Medicine magazine, "the voice of Federal medicine," reported in October 2001:

"Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May. In fact, the tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic here in the Pentagon trained jointly in May to fine-tune their emergency preparedness, afterward making simple equipment changes that would make a difference Sept. 11 when the hypothetical became reality." [3]

This is amazing; according to this article, they were looking at a hijacked 757 strike four months before that happened on 9/11, preparations that "made a difference." Of course the best difference would have been to simply evacuate the building well before the plane arrived (35 minutes after it became clear the nation was under attack), or to have worked out air defense plans, perhaps with NORAD, to stop any such weaponized aircraft short of the building.

A possible third drill may have been planned to that end in conjunction with a proposed mid-2001 NORAD exercise simulating suicide hijacking attacks. USA Today famously reported on April 18, 2004 that "in the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, [NORAD] conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." They had the 9/11 targets in mind; earlier drills had focused on such an attack against the WTC, but when the planning turned to the Pentagon, the story reported, "that drill was not run after defense officials said it was unrealistic.” [4]

The original source for this was an e-mail from a former NORAD official obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, which explained that NORAD "wanted to develop a response in the event that a terrorist group would use an airliner as a missile to attack the Pentagon, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic." [5] This was in April 2001 POGO reports, a month before they prepared for defense against an unobstructed hijacked plane/missile hitting their building, and five months before 9/11, when they had no capabilities in place "to protect the Pentagon," but at least they had the aftermath covered well enough.

Buth even with just the two drills plus whatever else went in to the process, the Pentagon's bureaucracy had just enough time to get the emergency procedures ironed out and printed before the precise "unrealistic" scenario envisioned four months earlier came crushingly true. But there was apparently not enough time to fully integrate the plan with things like useful warning procedures - a tragically stalled process that would help illustrate Rumsfeld's charges that pre-9/11, the Pentagon was "tangled in its own anchor chain." How conveniently illustrative of his and his colleagues' known desire for a 21st Century "process of transformation" there.

Sources:
[1] Oil Empire. http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
[2] Ryan, Dennis. "Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies." Military District of Washington News Service. November 3 2000. Accessed at: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/ContPlan.html
[3] Mientka, Matt. Pentagon Medics Trained For Strike. US Medicine. October 2001. http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=272&issueID=31
[4] as passed on by US Rep. Jan Schakowski: http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/press2004a/pr4_20_2004mis.html
Also at 9-11 Research: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/commission/usatoday_noradx.htm
and the original still up at USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
[5] Project on Government Oversight. "Joint Chiefs of Staff Rejected "Airplanes as Missiles" Scenario Five Months prior to 9/11." April 13 2004. http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/ha-040401-homelandsecurity.html

THE BMDO WITNESSES

The Ballistic missile Defense Organization (BMDO) is an offshoot of the Reagan-era “Star Wars” program. In 2001, new Defense Secretary Donald "General Star Wars" Rumsfeld took the helm in the bunker, and with his new plans for a space-based missile defense shield and whatnot, things looked up for the BMDO. In mid-2001, they moved from their offices in Crystal City, just a few blocks south of the Pentagon, to new venue at Federal Office Building 2, aka the Navy Annex, about the same distance east-southeast of the military’s nerve center. The move was just finishing up in early September, with Ballistic Missile Defense Organization people settling in just in time for 9/11. That morning at 9:37 am, a ballistic missile called AA77 took their new building's line towards the Pentagon in its final seconds, after encountering no organized defense, and exploded into Rummy's bunker and helping unleash the power surge that would achieve his plans for a "new American Century." Just ironic?


At least two of the most astute eyewitness accounts of the attack come from BMDO people at their new HQ:

- Albert Hemphill
Creds: A Ballistic Missile Defense Organization staff member
Location: the new BMDO office at the Navy Annex, “with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon.”
Account: Apparently seeing the new office for the first time, at 9:37 he “stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon" by chance, and "as I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft [...] seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike […] All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.[...] He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed [Route 27] he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5."
Notes: his account is a bit suspicious: He just happened to be looking that way at that moment and then saw the whole thing in incredible detail like fellow-BMDOer Morin did. His line "I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk" is a little funny. That's a pretty amazing window. We'll take his story with a grain of salt...
(source: e-mail by Albert Hemphill, TML September 2001 archive, lists.travellerrpg.com, 9/12/01. Found via Penny Schoner)

- Terry Morin: The astute witness
Location: mid-south side of Navy Annex/Federal office Building 2. More precisely, "approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4"
Account: "I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. [...] The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). [...] Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. [...] As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). [...] I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise "
Notes: "As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view." See map - treeline blocking his full view in his blue. A straight path along the south edge of the annex would require only the slightest turn, a tad to the left actually, to hit the building properly and clip all five poles, passing just south of the Citgo station on the way. The map shows the closest straight line to his account, and it's damn close. Even from a distance he sees the flash of a light pole popping; not an explicit up-close view, but this is what he felt made sense and he's probably right.
(source: Eric Bart.)

OLD MILITARY FRAUDSTERS WITH WEIRD NAMES

With their specialized training and lifetimes of dedicated service to country to call on, the military retiree crowd was much sought after by those seeking to push their interpretations of 9/11, and there was a steady stream of “defectors,” curiously consistent especially regarding the attack on the Pentagon. Dave Von Kleist, producer and host of 9/11 In Plane Site, is apparently not military himself, but is married into it via his wife Captain Joyce Riley Von Kleist (US Army, ret.). Herself a Gulf War vet and a nurse interested in health and natural cures, she’s the founder of American Gulf War Veterans Association, crusading for justice over Gulf War syndrome (or “biological warfare conducted on U.S. military members, and corporate bio-genocide levied on the planetary population.”) [1] It was perhaps Joyce who introduced Dave to the AF Colonel and Army General he has cited as supporting his views. Their curiously relevant expertise has lent credibility (in some minds) to the otherwise ludicrous theories expressed in 911 IPS.

Stubblebine giving his “where is it?” interview

Major General Albert Stubblebine is President of the Natural Solutions Foundation, for natural health and longevity, now retired after a 32-year Army career. He’d been Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), 1981-84. Reportedly an oddball who's previously created Remote Viewing for the purpose of Army intelligence gathering, [2] helped wreck the UFO movement in the 1980s, and reportedly believes he can walk through walls. He styled himself an evil Yoda to the Army’s Luke Skywalker, once giving, as James Lippard put it, "a seemingly very poorly received talk to the heads of the Special Forces at Fort Bragg about the need to train the troops to perform psychic healing, levitation, invisibility, and bursting the hearts of animals with their minds. Shortly after the talk, Stubblebine resigned in humiliation." [3]

But despite his eccentricities, his sharp eye and keen mind were highly valued; in addition to heading INSCOM, Stubblebine was once the head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. “I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job,” he explained in an interview for William Lewis' 2006 IPS follow-up video One Nation Under Seige. With this background, he looked at photos of the hole in the Pentagon “and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole.’ So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?” [4] Who am I? (Sorry, couldn’t resist). He can walk through walls no problem, but for a plane to fly/pour through that hole is simply too much to ask of the old man.

Von Kleist dropped Stubblebine’s esteemed name during an interview with Glenn Beck on CNN, as well as pointing to the testimony of retired Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, as supporting his claims regarding 9/11. This means something, since Nelson has behind him a 34-year USAF career, including as an aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. In addition to core-member status in Pilots for 9/11 Truth and having a permanent top-post status at one of LetsRoll911’s forums for “Colonel George Nelson Confirms Pod” (on the second plane to hit the WTC), he also noted in a a well-written and presumably well-researched essay:

“[N]ot one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. […] With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. […] a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.” [5]

These are just the tip of the iceberg. There’s also Capt. Russ Wittenberg, a Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions under his belt. More relevant is his 35 years of experience as a Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines, flying all Boeing models and allegedly the very two United planes (allegedly) hijacked on 9/11 Regarding the Boeing 757, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, “the airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous.” Beyond this, he had stock contributions to the Fraud. “It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.” [6]

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army, is the retired former director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. Regarding the impact at the Pentagon he has said “when you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” [7] Well, if all these esteemed, independent and retired experts agree a missile did it, I must be wrong after all. How on Earth could the Pentagon get to a bunch of retired military guys to partake in Rumsfeld’s obfuscation plot? It’s not like they’re sworn to do his bidding, at least not since they all went “rogue.”

Col. Donn de Grand Pré on the watch for barbarians inside the gates

Finally there's Col. Donn de Grand Pré, USA (ret.), who served in Burma and China during World War II and was twice wounded commanding combat forces in Korea. Later, under then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he was chief arms negotiator for the Middle East. He oversaw the sale of over a hundred billion dollars worth of military equipment, and was still a Pentagon arms negotiator in the 1970s under President Ford. [8] Soon after the second attempt on his life, Ford told Donn “something has gone terribly wrong in our country when a president can no longer walk among the people.” An official, BTP Holdings/AFP-connected website explains:

“This jarred Donn from his heady pursuit of striving to become the world’s leading arms peddler. Disillusioned with our government’s course, both at home and abroad, Donn exited Washington, DC for his farm in Virginia where he began an intensive program of research which slowly unmasked a deadly “Bolshevik” peril to our Republic […] “hidden Barbarians” already inside the gates; an enemy totally dedicated to the destruction of our sovereignty as a nation-state and the enslavement or extermination of all who might block their plans for World domination.” [9]

Since 1975, Colonel de Grand Pré has written a number of books, including his three-volume novel series Barbarians Inside the Gates, released in 2000. 9/11 apparently fit right into his mythos, and after that pivotal day his list of questions expanded: “was the official version of 9-11 a gigantic hoax? Did the War Party, led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and other Neocons lay the groundwork for a major Mideast War? Did they trigger the 9-11 tragedy?” [10] In February 2004 de Grand-Pre outlined for Alex Jones “how 9/11 was carried out by order of an inside group of Neo-Cons.” He claimed to personally know the pilot who shot down Flight 93. On the same show, he was asked about what hit the Pentagon and answered “it was a cruise missile. It could have been a Global Hawk. It was not a commercial aircraft."[11]

[1] "Gulf War Syndrome: Biological Warfare Conducted on U.S. Military Members, and Corporate Bio-Genocide Levied on the Planetary Population." Natural Health and Longevity Resource Center. A Lecture By Captain Joyce Riley in Houston, Texas on January 15, 1996 http://www.all-natural.com/riley.html
[2] Stubblebine bio. http://www.undersiegemovie.com/bio_stubblebine.html
[3] From "The Men Who Stare at Goats" By Jon Ronson. http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2005-04-17.htm
[4], [5], [6] Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Critics of 9/11 Commission Report U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
[7] Szymanski,Greg. "High-Ranking Army Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon: Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings
Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates Depleted Uranium Used." Rense.com. August 19 2005. http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
[8], [9] http://www.neoconned.com/index.php?id=124
[10] http://btpholdings.com/barbarians.html
[11] "Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations.” Feb. 29 2004. http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html