..anybody would vote this down, although I understand many people don't like what folks like me and James have to say.

I hope this will be discussed at the Toronto Hearings... it deserves to be up there with the rest of the evidence, it's irrefutable. Bush and Rumsfeld (The National Command Authority or "NCA") went AWOL so that the planes would never be intercepted. They knew any order by Cheney would be disobeyed, because Cheney isn't part of the NCA and therefore equally qualified giving "shootdown" orders as the secretary of agriculture. This is treason.

Sometimes it's a bonus to have video blocked at my work.

But I already know the claims and I don't think they add anything to anyone's understanding of what happened, and instead, have already been undermined by Frank Legge's analysis, worth reposting here:

Notes on Barbara Honegger
Posted on 30 January 2011

Cause of Damage to the Pentagon: Witness Testimony
Frank Legge, July 2011
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?s=honegger&x=0&y=0

. . . It follows therefore that, if explosives had been detonated prior to the arrival of the aircraft, there would have been two explosive events.

A search of eye witness testimony finds that many people were in a position to have observed two explosions but none appear to have reported anything which can be interpreted as a destructive explosion followed by the explosive plane impact (see appendix below). There are some who report multiple explosions but these are in the context of minor events following the plane impact; presumably gas bottles exploding due to heat.

Honegger is one of a number of authors who provide a great deal of information about events and people which raise suspicion about the accuracy of the official reports, but it appears that there were not two explosive events at the Pentagon, nor was the Pentagon struck by a smaller object than a Boeing 757. Whether the impact was accompanied by the use of explosives is not clear. There is some evidence that it was, but it is not compelling. There appears to be little doubt that the massive keel of the plane and the heavy cores of the engines, travelling at 556 miles per hour according to the FDR file, would have enough energy to penetrate the wall. With so many witnesses watching the low level approach of the plane, and seeing its impact, there can be no doubt that the bulk of the plane did enter the Pentagon.

The most probable explanation for the substantial time discrepancy is that the official account of the time of impact is incorrect. As Barbara points out there were several variations of the impact time initially reported, suggesting faulty data handling. The final official times are in reasonable accord with the FDR file, with the last frame not decoded.

It may seem surprising that the FDR file would not have the correct time. One might assume that the time would be derived from GPS, as would be the case now, but the NTSB reported that GPS was not operating. Probably it had not been fitted. The clock may have been defective or set carelessly by the Pilot. Regardless of the cause of the discrepancy in the times, there can be no doubt that there was only one explosive event.

Summary and Conclusion

The two speculations which arise from Barbara Honegger’s work are (1) that the Pentagon may have been hit by something smaller that a Boeing 757 and (2) that the damage, at the same moment or earlier, was caused by explosives.

There is very strong witness testimony and physical evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a large commercial plane, which rules out the first speculation, and there is no evidence whatsoever for two separate substantial explosive events. This rules out the idea that the explosion and impact were separate events but leaves in the possibility that explosives were used to enhance the impact damage.

The discrepancy between the official impact time and the time reported by witnesses may have been due to the official time being based on the FDR data file and that the clock in the aircraft was incorrect, or simple mishandling of data. There is no proof in Honegger’s work that a large passenger plane did not hit the Pentagon

Snowcrash alleges: "About Barbara's (And apparently Aidan Monaghan's) "three exit holes" claim"

I have never claimed that there were 3 Pentagon C-ring exit holes. I have said previously that there is more evidence of internal Pentagon fire south of or to the left of the noted C-ring hole, more indicative of AA 77's impact via a NoC path, as opposed to the official path.

Please pay closer attention in the future before making allegations.

You have also previously denied the documented fact that the 2 9/11 FDRs did not have inventory control serial numbers attributed to them. This fact has been known to many for years.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-04/new-paper-refutes-pentagon-flyover-claims#comment-252709

http://911blogger.com/news/2008-02-26/911-aircraft-black-box-serial-numbers-mysteriously-absent

You should have been banned on the spot when you said that. Alas. It was Barbara Honegger who brought NPT to the Toronto hearings, not me.

Edit: I don't have an anti-CD agenda, and I don't want to sink to your level.

Dog comparison's? You are out of control. SnowCrash's comments are extremely relevant to a discussion about the hearings! Anti-cd?? Where do you get that from? Any evidence? Of course not because SnowCrash is perfectly open about discussing it as a possibility.

And since you brought up Griffen, allow me to say that I feel SnowCrash and Jim are far more valuable assets to those seeking justice for the 9/11 attacks. Griffen's continues to assert debunked and baseless theories about fake hijackers and phones calls and pentagon alternatives, even though he has been shown over and over and over again that these theories are outdated and bankrupt. This not only makes him a weak asset, it makes him a detriment to an important cause. That's right! On the other hand if it is pointed out to Jim or SnowCrash that their facts are off, they are willing to change. This iss a critical difference between people like you (BMAC) choose to attack and insult, and DRG.

Also read the article I posted in my comment above. Keep immature insults out of it and try bringing something to the table. SnowCrash and Jim have...

What is the point of the thread, to talk about the weather in Toronto?

The Toronto hearings I presume are discussing many parts of 9/11 research and evidence.

BMAC - I strongly disagree with your statement, I won't take away from the thread anymore about it than that.

The discussion of thorough research related to 9/11 fits on this thread entirely, that is the point of the Toronto hearings.

Try not to get too frustrated folks, important days are ahead.