My Review of – “9/11 Pentagon Attack – Behind the Smoke Curtain” – by Barbara Honegger

by Scott Creighton

Honegger and friends in 1983

Try to ignore her “thermite” comments. Aside from that, interesting info. The fact that she brings up “nanothermite” in her discussion may be understood by taking a look at her professional history:

“Barbara Honegger M.S. served as White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant for Domestic Policy under the Reagan\Bush Sr. Administration. She then served from 2000 to 2011 as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School.” Oakdale Leader, 2015

Her whole thing is that there were “two attacks” and possibly a third on the Pentagon on Sept. 11th, 2001. One at 9:32 and one supposedly at 9:38 when the official story says Flight 77 hit the building.

Though she correctly states the obvious, that Flight 77 did not hit the building and instead, something smaller made to resemble Flight 77 did hit it, her focus on the time frame is confusing and ultimately self contradictory.

Whatever hit the Pentagon was being tracked as Flight 77 and so when it hit the side of the Pentagon, is easily determined by the flight data from the radar tracking services.

According to Barbara, whatever was being tracked was still in the air for a full 5 minutes after something that apparently wasn’t being tracked hit the lawn near the Pentagon to the north of the supposed entry hole. That begs the questions “so what was being tracked, what happened to that flight, how did it make that impossible descent and why wasn’t the drone tracked as well?”

Her overall presentation does include some quality information, but the inclusion of things like “nanothermite” undermine her effectiveness.

The fact that she served in the Bush/Reagan administration and was on the Navy intelligence payroll while she was running around being a “truther” is highly suspect at best.

Notice she applauds the testimony of the CIT “witnesses”… all Pentagon employees they allowed to contribute to the “fly over” distraction.

She praises Dwain Deets at one point, failing to mention he backed the ridiculous “fly over” theory for a while, making a video for the CIT assets.

She always refers to the white “plane” that people saw hit the Pentagon… refusing to call it a drone.

Dwain Deets headed up the NASA program which made drones like the Global Hawk, which I believe, struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11th.

Then she ends her program going into the bullshit “nanothermite” distraction from Steven Jones.

Overall, some good information in this presentation, but it’s flawed as one might expect from someone with her background.


14 Responses

  1. scott what books (if any) do you recommend on 911 and the pentagon specifically? what do think of craig mckee’s work?

  2. I’ve just read Where Did the Towers Go by Dr Judy Wood. Love her or hate her, read her book cover to cover before dismissing her.

    • The “ray beams from space” lady? the “dustification” lady? the “cheetos” lady? uh… no thanks

      • No ray beams at all mentioned in her book. Lots of discussion on the Hutchison Effect and how evidence from the WTC wreckage matches results that Hutchison achieved in the lab. Dustification is one while steel curled or bent without cracks, steel balled up with sheets of paper or other organic materials, coins joined into steel without losing their shape or exhibiting any heat damage are others. It could also account for vehicles spontaneously exploding into flames, round holes cut out of windows without breaking them or the inside pane and many other anomolies. Don’t even mention vehicles with their engine blocks reduced to dust while leaving in some cases glass but often the rubber seals from the windows undamaged!

        Dustification and cheetos are not points to ridicule unless you can prove that the evidence of them is invalid. Several 1st responder testimonies tell of diving for cover because they knew they couldn’t outrun the top of the tower that was falling their way and being surprised when instead of being crushed to death, they were instead just blanketed with dust. Of course nano-thermite couldn’t explain this but neither could conventional explosives.

        Reports of 1100 degree temps under the rubble and how it was melting responders’ footwear were impossible because we all know what happens when you walk into that sort of heat. Even if the responders could survive in the conditions, would their feet survive while their shoes melted? Pictures of molten steel or aluminum, sometimes being picked up by hydraulic driven machines when those machines would fail in those conditions? And how about LIDAR images showing intense heat in WTC2’s location but photos show workmen wandering around in an obviously cool basement

        The cheetos called as such because of their bright glowing color but complete lack of heat based on the fact that paper lying nearby does not catch fire. Is there a better name for such objects?

        Having read many books and articles on this subject, I find that Wood’s presentation of the facts of the case prove what happened based on all of the evidence and suggests factors that could have been involved but she doesn’t deal in things that she cannot prove. She leaves the Who and the Why to others.

        • here. take a look at your truth-teller from back in 2007.

          • Thanks for finding my post! I’ve watched this interview a few months ago and would be happy to watch it again but is their something specific that you’re pointing out? If it’s Judy using the phrase “space laser,” my point is that the book does not discuss space lasers and even though she points out that technology similar to the Hutchison Effect could account for all of the anomalies associated with the destruction of the towers, she only claims in the book that it’s the only known technology that isn’t ruled out by the evidence.

            So consider the possibility that conventional explosives were used to pulverise the building as it collapsed. With that sort of power being applied to the steel outer framework, how is it that an ambulance parked in front of the tower is left undamaged and only surrounded by a scattering of rubble? How did the firefighters survive in the WTC1 stairwell while the building exploded above and around them. How does a firefighter not get blown up just across the street hiding in a doorway? How do cars start blowing up several blocks away?

            I’m not trying to be difficult. I just want fair dues for genuine questions and undeniable evidence.

            • something specific? she says there is no debris falling around the towers as they went down. Says that “maybe someone had some pennies on their window sills that are falling and that’s it”… she held up a picture of the south tower coming down and said “look at the dustification and the dust rising up to the atmosphere” and what she was showing was CLEARLY a picture of the south tower demo with the North Tower still standing and burning behind it.

              She is a disinfo asset basing her theory on absolutely nothing. That’s what you get when you watch the interview. And the fact that she was partnered in the beginning with disinfo assets Steven Jones (“nanothermite”) and Morgan Reynolds (holograms and no planes theory) just goes to prove how she got her start.

              Everyone in this movement knows what she is. We have for a very long time. That video for instance was made back in 2007.

              I’m not going to go over everything I’ve written over the course of the past 8 years explaining what happened on 9/11. But just for the fun of it:

              “With that sort of power being applied to the steel outer framework, how is it that an ambulance parked in front of the tower is left undamaged and only surrounded by a scattering of rubble?” Did you not see all the other vehicles destroyed by the demo? One made it through? OK. So what? 50 didn’t. What does that one prove? Ray beams from space?

              As to the firefighters, I don’t know how two guys made it through the demolition. I know how about 40 of them didn’t. They got blown up. I know what about 150 of em said in their statements talking about witnessing explosions all the way down as the towers were demoed. I know that. So, your one or two guys questions? I don’t know. Lucky perhaps? Damn site luckier than the 2,500 people who got blown to bits.

              Cars didn’t “blow up” blocks away… some burned and when that happens, some ignited the fuel in the gas tanks I guess. But I don’t recall seeing cars “blowing up” blocks away. If you have evidence of that, please share it…. to answer your question… it’s quite simple… PETN, det cord, creates a heat wave flash of over 8,000 degs f when detonated. That heat, with so much det cord used (which caused the “dustification” of the concrete and the vaporization of the metal trusses) flash melted the metal floor pans, trusses, filing cabinets and other such materials (phones, computers, etc). That molten metal in the form of microspheres, traveled in the dust clouds and settled all over the area with the largest of them landing withing blocks of the demolition site. They were still hot when they settled on things like… cars for instance… resulting in the pitting of the paint jobs of ALL of them… and the burning of others.

              See that? no super secret high energy weapons from space needed. Just standard, reliable, conventional controlled demolition. The kind run by the company that was standing there watching the towers come down. The kind run by the company that helped NIST come up with their “official version” of what brought down the towers.

              Please don’t bring up Judy Wood’s bullshit again on my site. I’ve dealt with her crap before and frankly, am tired of it. No Judy Wood, no “mini nukes”, no holograms, no empty shells Twin Towers stories… none of that. We are all very well beyond her type of distraction BS at this point, K? K.

      • Did my lengthy reply about Judy Wood get trapped or trashed? Hopefully trapped because it’s a pain to start over!

  3. While I’m at it, Rebekah Roth, author of Methodical Illusion and Methodical Deception, provides insider insight from her perspective as a career flight attendant. Check her website and check out her YouTube interviews for details.

  4. Are you suggesting that the entire CIT story is a psy op and they’re all in on it?

    • the CIT guys? the ones whom the Pentagon allowed access to their employees for their “truth telling” documentary? The ones who dismissed their own witnesses when they said the thing they saw flying toward the Pentagon actually HIT the Pentagon and didn’t fly over it? You mean the CIT guys were were internet marketing guys prior to being “truthers”?

      You mean those guys?

      Yeah, those guys crafted a stupid psyop in order to distract the movement, divide us within the ranks…. and make us look stupid by association with their “fly over” theory…

      yeah, that’s exactly what I mean.

      • Yeah, I thought CIT was the dumbest distraction back in the day. All of their best witnesses are pentagon employees. They devoted their time to prove that an elderly taxi cab driver was part of the conspiracy. If he was “in on it,” he was in on participating in the CIT games.

        I was so suspicious of them that I started to think that there was a flyover–in some form– just to plant an event that would make conspiracy theorists look like idiots. More likely, of course, is that the story was being planted for the same purpose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: