9/11 Again by Popular Request, Did a Plane Really Strike the Pentagon?
with 8 comments
Picture unrelated. OK, at a friend’s request I reviewed this YouTube video: Major General Blasts 9/11 Cover-Up. In the video, one retired US Major General Albert Stubblebine
gives his opinion on what happened on 9/11. He had more than a thirty
year career in the army, and was deeply involved in the
counter-intelligence game. He retired from the army in 1984. A few years
back he was interviewed, as shown on the video. Do I recommend the
video? Well, not really. This post is going to be written assuming
readers haven’t watched it and aren’t going to watch it, watch it now if
one has an aversion to spoilers. I watched it, and it felt like I’d
watched an episode of Ancient Aliens. I will try to deconstruct it
impartially, but I clearly am prejudiced.
The first third of the video is the man
establishing his credentials. The good general’s long and august career
in military intelligence, all the amazing things he had done and
participated in. Every word true I am sure, the man had been at the
heart of the beast, the inner circles of the USA’s intelligence
community in his time. Unfortunately, none of this has any bearing on
his arguments or his credibility. Arguments have to stand or fall on
their own merits, the person making them is not relevant. I knew I was
in trouble at this point, to spend a third of an interview pumping up
the interviewee’s credentials bodes ill for what follows. I was not
disappointed, the august general then raised the old “a plane didn’t hit
the Pentagon” stuff that has been circulating since a French
opportunist wrote a book about same shortly after 9/11. Nothing that I
hadn’t heard before.
Still, let’s look at this a bit further.
While his military intelligence credentials were long and impressive, he
apparently has zero expertise in aircraft crash scene analysis. So no
matter how credible his opinion might be in some regards, his opinion
about the damage to the Pentagon is at best lay speculation. And like
the collapse of the WTC towers, analysis of aircraft crash scenes is not
“high school science,” it’s something best left to the experts. And the
experts have no problem with the airplane caused the damage to the
Pentagon scenario. That doesn’t completely settle the issue of course,
experts have been wrong, but it’s not a promising start.
And if we are going to look at the
general’s past to give credibility to his testimony, another problem
crops up. The general has been deeply involved with the paranormal,
UFOs, and what-not all his life apparently. This in particular I thought
interesting: “A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved
in a U.S. Military project to create “a breed of ‘super soldier'” who
would “have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through
walls”. Stubblebine reportedly attempted to walk through walls himself,
without success.” It certainly suggests to me that however effective
Stubblebine was at his job, he certainly had an attraction for
outlandish theories. Lastly, has there ever been any issue with
Stubblebine’s loyalty to the government and army? Not that I’m aware of.
Is it possible that he is simply playing his role to this day? The
government loves 9/11 Truthers, nothing like keeping the
Russians and Chinese guessing about what’s really going on in America.
And much better than them investigating the real conspiracy, to use 9/11
as justification for countless endless wars and military spending that
have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Lastly, I have some problems with the “a
missile hit the Pentagon” theory. First of all, one has to discount the
numerous witnesses that saw the damn airliner fly into the building. One
has to believe that the conspirators not only planted hundreds of
witnesses with false testimony, they also prevented any witnesses, and
there would have been lots of them, testifying about seeing a missile,
not an airplane, strike the Pentagon. Then there’s the problem of what
possible reason would the conspirators have for using a missile? And
what happened to the plane and its 64 occupants? 125 people were killed
in the Pentagon as well, including a general. The plotters didn’t want
to kill the people on the airplane, but didn’t care about the people in
the Pentagon? And this crash site was swarming with rescuers within
moments of the crash, many of whom testified about seeing parts of an
airplane and human remains.
In other words, if a missile did hit the
Pentagon, we are talking a conspiracy that makes a Mission Impossible
episode seem realistic in comparison. Hundreds of fake witnesses,
hundreds of real witnesses silenced, fake damaged light poles struck by
the plane in its final approach installed instantly after the crash,
fake phone calls from the doomed airliner, a whole airliner and 64
occupants disposed of somehow, fake airliner parts placed at the crash
scene moments after the impact … for what? What possible reason could
plotters have for a plot so vast and insanely complicated? I can’t think
of one, and I haven’t seen a conspiracy site even take a stab at the
problem. If you’re going to dispose of the plane and its occupants
anyhow, what’s the point of substituting a missile for the plane?
So General Stubblebine, no disrespect intended, but I am not persuaded by your testimony. I am impressed though, his story was beautifully
crafted to have tremendous appeal to people who were already suspicious
of the US government and harbored doubts about 9/11. (I didn’t even go
into that aspect of the video.) By accident or design, the good
general’s testimony has earned an honored place in 9/11 Truther lore.
Good for him.
(The above image is claimed as Fair Use
under US copyright law, being yet another image making the rounds on
Facebook. I have no idea who holds the copyright. Trust me, it’s funny
of one gets the joke. Show it to your kids if you need it explained. )
