Good news: The 9/11 timeline will be published as a book soon!

While browsing the net, I found that the work of Paul Thompson (supported by some other people) to create the extensive Complete 911 Timeline has been acknowledged by a well-known publisher, Harper Collins.

The timeline will probably be published in September. Many DUers around here know Paul Thompson (a DUer as well) and will recognize the quality of his work -- to which some of the people here have contributed.

:party:

:toast:

:-)

I don't know why thompson allowed his work to be used in "The New Pearl Harbor" as he clearly does not advocate the silly "missing pentagon plane' foilfest that undermines any good that book could have done.

the timeline is the real deal.

Big-Ass Pictures of the Pentagon Right After the "Boeing" Hit It, Posted In Really Hi-Res So You Can See The Details.

Notice the windows above the "hole" that the "Boeing" made.
Notice that white foam from the fire trucks is sticking to them.
Notice that this means that the glass is still in those windows.

You'd need a tinfoil hat to believe that a "Boeing" made that hole.



Here is another pic for good measure, since I can see you are not conviced.

or ANY credible 9/11 advocate.

this theory is pure bullshit and cheapens legitimate investigation of 9/11 failures.

you 'no plane' people always omit the fact that this area of the Pentagon building was heavily reinforced against attack, unlike the relatively flimsy WTC towers. <SIGH>

I hadn't seen them that close-up before...Wow....

However, I have seen other tape from the parking lot or some such that shows a Boeing sized plane descending into the Pentagon so how do you (or anyone else) account for the apparent discrepancy?

I don't care how well reinforced a structure is, when it is hit by an object weighing several hundred tons flying at a high rate of speed there is going to be SIGNIFICANT damage..and windows would be blown out by the impact and subsequent explosions....that doesn't appear to be the case here....

Now, try this one on for size....We KNOW they were doing a drill that day, specifically simulating an attack by a plane as a missile, let's say it went horribly wrong and there was an explosion of massive proportions...wouldn't that explain the lack of plane parts lying around?

I'm just as confused as everone else and I'd like some straight friggin answers, but whilst I wait for hell to freeze over or the * administration to tell the truth (whichever comes first) I'd like some answers/theories from you guys...

TrueBrit

It is direct photographic evidence.

When you say "oh well, a plane is missing, therefore it must have hit the pentagon", you are discounting direct photographic evidence
in favor of an indirect implication.

You are also believing a chain of reportage regarding flight 77 which you cannot confirm save for... believing that very same chain of
reportage.

These photographs are something that you can view with your OWN EYES.

If you in fact looked at the pictures, please explain to me how the windows immediately surrounding that relatively small hole are still
intact.

"heavily reinforced against attack" does not mean "able to suspend the laws of physics".

The tail-fin and wings didn't even leave a mark.

As Doyle said, When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

It is impossible for a Boeing 757 to have done this damage.

Here is a perspective picture.



If you still believe the mainstream story after this, you demonstrate that you believe the media-whores' spin over your own eyes.
It is downright Orwellian. I get nasty chilly goosebumps when I realize that some people, even after having seen these photos,
still believe the conventional story. This boggles my mind, and frightens me, because hell, what ELSE might they be able to convince
you of?

Here's a bonus pic. Animation of something hitting the Pentagon from a surveillance camera.



PS. these pics are from one of MANY MANY that document these facts:
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm

You might be right, as well as not.

It is still not fully explained how the Boeing-hypothesis is consistent with the observed facts.

One year ago there was an elaborate show on the German tv to disprove "conspiracy theories". They had the known simulation from a US university how the Boeing literally dissolved on its way through the Pentagon. However, they did omit the question how the round exact exit holes were produced. Because in the simulation the Boeing was shreddered to tiny pieces as it reached the C-ring.

So as long as these questions are not resolved, it is not fair to cry bullshit too quickly. This is not an honest discussion style.

you REALLY believe that FOUR jets were hijacked and ONE of them was sent into the Stargate so they could launch a missle at the Pentagon... yeah, that's a logical plan.

it's bullshit. TOO MANY PEOPLE WATCHED THE PLANE (or do eyewitnesses get in the way of BS 'theory' like all those pesky people, inc. lots of KIDS on a trip, that were vanished to...

uh, WHY did they substitute the hijacked plane with a "missle" for THIS target again???

Paul doesn't touch it because he wants to keep his hands clean.

next you'll be telling me it was a CD that brought down WTC7!

I only stated that without clear evidence -- that has not been presented up to now -- it is premature to judge the No-Boeing-hypothesis as bullshit.

Once again, don't jump to conclusions and don't imply what I believe. My post referred to your technique of argumentation, that's all.

It is wise for him only to compile mainstream media sources if he wants to get access to public discussion. That is an important first step. By discussing Boeings not hitting the Pentagon, he would become too vulnerable.