No Fires? a Stool Sample of IPS Evidence

last updated 10/13/07

We’re told Flight 77 took off with about 11,500 gallons of jet fuel for its transcontinental journey, and that this fuel was contained in its wings, which span 124 feet. So if it flew into the side of the Pentagon, we should expect to see a line of jet-fuel fire at least 124 feet wide across the façade, and yet more burning fuel exploding forward through broken windows into the building with the plane’s momentum and burning everything in its path to cinders. From the outside, it'd probably look like this:


911 In Plane Site, for one, is certain that an airliner was not responsible and it was not even well-faked. In his narration, IPS writer/poducer/host Dave Von Kleist cited as evidence a relative lack of fire damage near the attack point on the ground floor. While some of the pictures he showed clearly indicated massive fires, he zoomed in on a post-collapse photo of the upper floors and calmly pointed out “On the 3rd floor it's plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor. Neither of them are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk, it hasn’t burned. And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed, a wooden stool with a book that is laying open. The pages aren’t even singed.”


Dave knows that the Pentagon has five floors - the 5th has no exterior windows and the 1st is not visible in the shot above, which is precisely the picture he chose to use. Look just to the left of the building's peak and count down - 5, 4, 3… there's that miraculous stool, one floor slab above the impact site and a floor above any fire. The file cabinet Von Kleist cites on the third floor is actually on the 5th, and the wooden desk from the 2nd floor is actually on the 4th. His careful analysis of the public evidence completely subtracted two floors, one of which – the second floor - is clearly visible in this shot and looks rather seriously burnt.

Don't think I'm just nit-picking here. As critics point out, you don't level charges this serious without good evidence, and it's major blunders like this stool sample - and there are perhaps hundreds in IPS alone, that can derail people without adequate bullshit detectors. The video that has bragged “September 11 changed the world. This video will change September 11,” on closer analysis, looks more like a parody of 9/11 skeptics than an authentic effort at what it claims.

Other examples of the stool sample used to question the jet fuel fire:
911 Review.org
Pentagon Strike (video)
Glen Yeadon

More on the book in question reveals the 'stool' as a likely bible lectern:
""Yet, as he (Mark Williams) looked up into the black chasm torn into the symbol of the mightiest military on earth, Williams saw a sign of hope. On a second floor, right next to where the jet sheared off a section of the building, was an undisturbed stool. And on it was a thick, open book. Fellow searchers who had gotten a close look said it was a Bible. It was not burned. Nor was anything around it or on the two floors above it. "I'm not as religious as some, but that would have me thinking," the soldier said. "I just can't explain it."

It sure does look odd, but the reason nothing there burned was by being on the third floor. This site thinks it's some other kind of book. Must've been important to get its own lectern in the corner. If it was a bible, I'd like to know what page it was left open to. If there's a message of 'hope' here, I doubt it's from God.

NINE FEET OF STEEL REINFORCED IDIOCY

PLANE PENETRATES 155', FRAUD LOGIC PENETRATES NOTHING
Adam Larson/The Frustrating Fraud
December 2006
Last updated 7/22/07

In another post I eplained the suspected depth of penetration of the attack craft as explained by Holmgren, Hufschmid, and Raphael Meyssan. Initially they and others had believed only the outer "E" ring was damaged, leaving not nearly enough space to fit a 757. But this was soon shown as false evidence. The Pentagon is indeed comprised of five concentric rings, from the innermost “A” ring to the outermost “E” ring, the outer wall of which is of course where the plane - or whatever - first hit. Each ring is about fifty feet wide in the cross-section below, and comprised of five floors. There is an open, ground-level roadway between the B and C Rings called the “A-E drive.”

But... while the upper floors of each ring are separated by spaces for light and air, floors one and two are completely roofed over and the ring distiction is meaningless. The attack plane is alleged to have penetrated three rings (E,D,C), all at the first-floor level, a single, enormous, open area with support provided by spaced columns, and variously divided by weaker internal walls. The plane and all its damage would be within the gray area in the cross-section below, concealed beneath the building’s roof and at least one more ceiling beneath that - clearly invisible from above.


Eventually the "punch-out hole" on the inside of ring C became the focus, indicating a deep burial of the plane through three rings (or at least fakery indicating such). Eventually the one-ring-damaged construct and its 757-couldn't-do-it implication faded and were replaced with the line put forth in 911 In Plane Site, where host Dave Von Kleist looked at the damage to three rings, where such a plane could fit, and again decided a 757 couldn't do it. "Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall," he said. "Each wall is approximately 18 inches thick of steel reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches or 3 feet of steel reinforced concrete [...] Question – Could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and left a 14 to 16 foot hole, and no wreckage?" Likewise, Loose Change cites "another sixteen-foot hole on the inside of the "C" Ring" (the punch-out hole, which is actually more like eight feet by ten). Narrator Dylan Avery concludes "for that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete." While disregarding the exact math, no-planer Killtown also doubted that "the fragile nose of Flight 77" could "penetrate all the way through 3 reinforced concrete/steel hardened rings and punched out a hole through the inside wall of Ring C.”

First, the exterior walls of the Pentagon are not 18" of steel reinforced concrete, as these sources imply. The exact construction the plane was up against is not entirely clear, but I'm nearing completion on a post to explain this.

Second, as I explained earlier, the lower floors were undivided, and so the remainder of the six such ring-defining walls pierced simply do not exist, except the last one. Below, see rooflines of the E, D, and C rings superimposed over the inerior layout of the impacted area, as released by the Pentagon. The red zone is the damaged area, and numbers 1-6 represent the six thick ring walls Von Kleist and Avery are looking for (though in reverse order).

They do not seem to play into the layout of the ground floor, which is where the attack happened. With the exception of walls 1 and 6, these heavy walls essentially do not exist at that level, and the plane would only have had support collumns and weak internal walls to deal with. It could bounce and tear between the pillars, like a deadly game of shrapnel ping-pong. The landing gear making the neat hole inside the C-ring is still a little suspicious, but it's a fairly minor point in the big picture, and a failry minor hole compared to the impact. So only the outer wall was pierced by the majority of the attack plane, leaving us with a not-so mysterious situation: Question? How does much of a 757 crash through the outer wall of the Pentagon?

Answer: with a running start.

But the no-757 theorists have laid down their own rings of fatuity, each with their inner and outer walls adding up to nine feet of steel reinforced idiocy that our bullshit detectors must pierce. Many peoples' aren't even switched on of course, and so this blatant misunderstanding has richocheted around within the Truth movement's head and will probably continue to do so for as long as it stumbles along. By the way, many of the little bubbles clustered in and around the red zone represent dead bodies that were recovered near the end of the trajectory and along its edges. Question - how could a cruise missile or Global Hawk plow a pile of corpses like that?

911 IN PLANE SITE - PARTIAL REVIEW

IN PLANE SIGHT OR JUST PLAIN SHITE?
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 13 2006


When Versailles, Missouri-based Dave Von Kleist saw the Meyssan-produced “Hunt the Boeing” website out of Paris, he decided it “drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon.” Von Kleist aired his concerns via the Power Hour, his daily radio show with his wife Joyce Riley, and later wrote, produced, and hosted a documentary video clumsily titled 911 In Plane Site (911 IPS) – “The FIRST 911 Video to Present VIDEO EVIDENCE – Not Theories.” Directed by William Lewis of "Police State 21" and first released in mid-2004, IPS promised “September 11 changed the world. This video will change September 11.” Others agreed and promoted it; famous writer, comedian, and brilliant civil rights activist Dick Gregory plugged for it (“everyone in America should see this video”) and millionaire 9/11 truth financier Jimmy Walter funded its wide distribution and helped it get local showings and press write-ups nationwide; it proved remarkably successful and largely dominated the field - at first.

Lurid, cluttered, and unbalanced: who says you can't tell a DVD by its cover?

This video was not a wise investment for Walter’s stated cause of bringing the truth to the people, which is clear from the opening montage of 9/11 crash and collapse replays underpinned with über-serious synthesized orchestral music that drags on way too long. It hasn’t improved much before the several agonizing minutes spent examining the “attachment” beneath the windowless “military cargo plane” known as Flight 175, and of the odd-looking video of yellow flashes on the WTC’s façade before – not after but just before - the planes hit. Jeremy Baker at OilEmpire put my own thoughts well, doubting the planners would be so stupid “as to attach a large, highly visible incendiary device to the bottom of a plane that they knew would be showing its belly proudly on every TV set on the planet.”

Dave Von Kleist on the set of 911 IPS

I’m not scientist enough to totally dismiss Von Kleist’s allegations (traceable back to LetsRoll 911 at least) that the planes were firing yellow-flashing missiles from these pods, but the official explanation seems to make more sense: the pods were simply wing faring, an ordinary thing on these two aluminum planes (if distorted by glare high in the brilliant sky). The planes then gave off yellow flashes, as aluminum would do, upon impact, not before (it’s not as easy to precisely read shadows from half a mile away as he thinks). Yet at the video’s conclusion Von Kleist specifically cited his worst evidence – the pods and yellow flashes - as hard and final proof of the otherwise compelling case that “terrorists with box-cutters” were not to blame for this event. He ended by asking his viewers after seeing his great epic “where’s your line in the sand?”

While the video finds irrefutable proof of remote control airliners at the widely documented battle of the World Trade Center, when presented with a lack of evidence of the attack vehicle at the Pentagon, the video’s logic runs wild and latches onto Meyssan’s case, opening its exploration with what Von Kleist thinks is his strongest point, that the Pentagon was not hit with one of the windowless, pod-equipped, missile-firing military drones used in New York, but with a simple missile. All in all, the case is poorly made, focusing mostly on the hole in the outer wall, the plane’s alleged entry wound, giving two drastically different sizes for this hole, both of which he feels were too small to allow a 757 to pass.

One particularly embarrassing mistake in the video is Mike Walters’ partial quote describing Flight 77, “it was like a cruise missile with wings,” which was cited as evidence of a missile. But in the full interview he said clearly it was an American Airlines jet that was like a cruise missile, I guess in the sense that it was flying through the air and was being used as a weapon to pierce a bunker. Any idiot could verify this with a quick Google search, as I did, yet Von Kleist and his entourage were so proud of this evidence they sent everyone who bought IPS a free copy of CNN’s “America Remembers,” so we could see how that video also only played that part of the interview.

As with the attacks he claimed to be unmasking, I doubted so many mistakes could be made on sheer accident, and began to suspect intentional sabotage. Jeremy Baker at Oilempire, a 9/11 Truth site, agreed and wrote of widespread concern that “the producers of this film may be operatives attempting to sabotage and derail the 9/11 visibility movement from within.” Baker bemoaned the effect of this video, amplified by its wide viewing, on the larger movement:

“You don't often see so many glaring blunders in serious documentary film-making, and if you think our detractors won't hop on each and every one of them you‚re wrong. These screw-ups, like it or not, reflect on the entire community of 9/11 activists (especially the ones who so strongly support this video) and could go a long way to alienating the fence sitters we can and should be trying hard to woo.”

With nary a true claim in it, 911 In Plane Site was eventually too widely ridiculed to serve as the vehicle for “changing September 11;” I actually found Fintan Dunne’s dismissal of it as “the In Plane Shite movielet” to be mildly clever. Someof hismoreegregious 'mistakes"in the WTCanalysis arewell-covered in this anonymouly-produced video "Not In Plain Sight." Perhaps even worse, Von Kleist was too old, conservative,and Missourian to effectively reach the teeming masses of the young, urban, and gullible. Both of these problems would be addressed as the Frustrating Fraud and the other flawed seams wound their way into another video try at setting loose the change Von Kleist was unable to.

Sources:
> 911 In Plane Site, the Director’s Cut. 2006. Power Hour video. Directed by William Lewis. Writtem produced and hosted by Dave Von Kleist.
> Baker, Jeremy. “911 – In Plane Site: A Critical Review” Undated, copyright 2004. article copied from: www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/baker1.html

LOOSE CHANGE, “A FINE PIECE OF DISINFO”

A SLICKER PRODUCT HITS THE MARKET
updated 2/5/07

Loose Change started as a hazy idea in 2002 in Oneonta New York with Dylan Avery, a hopeful filmmaker and recent 9/11 skeptic, who had just graduated from High School. His suspicions of conspiracy, while not serious, were clear enough by then to suggest the first version of Loose Change. He visualized “a fictional story about myself and my friends, basically, doing what we've done now; doing our research and discovering that 9/11 was done by our own government, and then, you know, taking the steps to release this information, you know, get chased by the FBI, you know. Just a fun film.” Then in a bizarre and unexpected twist the script came to life and the movie about breaking the truth became them actually breaking the truth as Avery and his friends saw more and more evidence coming to light.

Avery’s childhood friend Korey Rowe was by this time an “Army specialist” [not in disinformation, we presume] who had served in uniform in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Avery described his friend’s disillusionment and evolving thought process on the “war on Terror” and the attacks that underpinned it:

“He goes to Iraq, and that's when things really started to click in his head, where he was like, ‘Wait a minute, I just invaded one country, and now they're telling me I have to go and invade another country, and neither of these countries have the person that we were originally supposed to be going after.’ And I think that's when things really started to click with Korey's head, when he realized he was not an army of one getting the terrorists, but a pawn on one of the biggest chessboards that we've ever seen.” [1]

The Loose Change crew: L-R, Rowe, Bermas, Avery

Rowe then went “rogue” as the producer of Loose Change, and the team was completed with their friend from college Nick Bermas, joining them as the movie’s "fact" researcher. On the title they chose, one may think it a reference to the reported budget of $6,000, but Avery clarified “it actually means the change is loose, you can't stop it - you know, again, it's just one of those titles that, to me, it just seemed perfect. I didn't think that there could have been a better title.” [2]

As for the effectiveness of their project, that depends on just what their real motive and message is. If they meant to convince people of an inside job as is generally presumed, they seems to have done so, and quite well, but largely for the wrong reasons. If they meant to research and present all the disinfo and expose it, they did a fairly good job, but the sarcasm was not clear enough and no one's caught on. If they employed disinformation in a coordinated plan to create false belief in the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" that can be easily discredited, as many suspect to be the case, then they're right on the mark. It's spread wide, it's convinced many, and it's currently being discredited point by point in the minds of anyone willing to face the obvious.

Dave Von Kleist, the mastermind of In Plane Site, called Loose Change “the best damn 9-11 documentary out there,” and the others on his tangent, like the pod people at LetsRoll 911, saw it as an improved and repackaged version of Von Kleist's masterpiece of misinformation. Indeed it is much better, notably in the graphic and musical presentation. They also ignored some of the worst evidence like the pods on the WTC attack planes and their yellow flashes (at least by the newest edition; I recall the first edition paused the video to point them out). They also included at least some of the compelling circumstantial evidence ignored by IPS that can trigger real and rewarding insight to those who follow the leads; the 1962 Operation Northwoods, a long and informative timeline of the development of remote control flight, the PNAC’s September 2000 call for “a new Pearl Harbor,” and a dead-on de-bunking of “Osama’s” 2001 confession video, among others.

As for their take on the Frustrating Fraud of the planeless Pentagon attack, Loose Change corrects IPS on the Mike Walters quote, playing a different part of the interview and citing him specifically as witnessing an “American Airlines jet.” But now he’s a witness they don’t believe and they still chose to put the most weight behind a Cruise missile theory, opening their coverage of the Pentagon with Rumsfeld’s 2001 missile “admission." Point five in their analysis was a virtual copy from IPS: “the damage to the Pentagon [is] completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757.” A rather silly point is where Avery says “the only damage to the outer wall is a single hole no more than sixteen feet in diameter” while the shot on screen has the spray from a fire hose completely covering both this hole and the 65-foot-plus damage area around it that even IPS showed. That's because they were looking at the wrong floor, as explained in the "Entry Wounds" post.

Many errors, like their initial inclusion of the pods and yellow flashes, were “caught” and changed in the second edition, but others were not excised; producer Korey Rowe claimed in an interview “we know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves.” [3] So far they’ve given their viewers no hints which eggs are rotten, and some folks have swallowed the whole basket. Perhaps it’s meant as a cover for any further "mistakes" that are spotted; “oh yeah, we meant to include that. Good job, you found one!”

And there were mistakes, many of them. Even in the second edition. Mark Robinowitz at Oil Empire titled one review of the video “Loose (with truth in an effort to prevent social) Change.” Between “errors of fact,” “Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies,” and other categories, he counted a total of 426 “flubs” in less than an hour and a half – that’s over five per minute on average, or one every 12 seconds. Oilempire also noted its links to IPS, calling it a “reworking” of that train wreck, and noting three major differences: “more true claims in Loose Change than in IPS, which makes the fake parts more believable,” “new hoaxes (and more of them),” and its targeting “toward a younger audience” with its “hip and slick” marketing. He summed it up in the same terms assigned to IPS: “Loose Change is a hoax - a real conclusion using fake evidence.” [4]

Whatever their motives or the quality of their arguments, the video closed, as IPS had, with a call to arms: “Are you angry yet? You should be. […] Why are they hiding from us? What are they hiding from us? And what’s it gonna take until people in this country give damn and do something about it? America’s been hijacked – not by al Qaeda, not by Osama bin Laden, but by a group of tyrants ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep their stranglehold on this country. So what are we gonna do about it? Anything.” Indeed, an “anything” sort of desperate flailing is the primary acitivity spurred by this video – Avery told his viewers it would be up to them to “get the word out,” of course meaning their word. We would have to “ask questions,” preferably the hard ones they had just presented, and to “demand answers,” preferably the ones Avery and crew had just laid out.

Among the video’s critics, 9/11 Truth warrior Mike Ruppert was perhaps the most explicit, calling it “a very fine piece of CIA disinformation.” [5] Avery called such charges “ridiculous.” “The idea that three kids from a hick town in upstate New York are part of a CIA disinformation campaign would just show how desperate our government is.” [6] Or the video’s success could show just how desperate certain 9/11 Truthers are for final “proof” of their suspicions.


Sources:
[1] "9/11: Truth, Lies, and Conspiracy." Interview with Dylan Avery. Canadian Broadcast Corporation. August 22, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911avery.html
[2] See [1].
[3] Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29
[4] Robinowitz, Mark. Loose Change: Loose (with truth in an effort to prevent social) Change. Oil Empire. Posting Date Unlisted. http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html
[5] Green, Michael B. "Loose Change, an Analysis. 911 Research. August 3 2005. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
[6] Sales, Nancy Jo. “Click Here for Conspiracy.” Vanity Fair. August 2006. http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060717roco02

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