Podcast Summary:

Redacted News, Episode 5
Title: CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene | Redacted
Air Date: September 21, 2025
Host: Clayton Morris
Guest: Adam Eisenberg (Operation Noble Eagle responder, Alpha Company, 3rd U.S. Infantry)

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, specifically challenging the official narrative that a Boeing 757 (Flight 77) struck the building. Host Clayton Morris interviews Adam Eisenberg, a military responder present at the Pentagon site in the weeks following the attack. Eisenberg offers a detailed first-person account, raising significant doubts based on his direct observations and subsequent research.

The discussion covers military eyewitness experiences, the lack of physical airplane evidence, issues with the official investigation, and broader implications regarding who may be responsible and what the true motives could have been.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Military Eyewitness Account and Initial Anomalies

• Deployment and Duties:

  • Eisenberg describes being part of the initial military response (Operation Noble Eagle) after the Pentagon attack (03:56).
  • He notes being assigned guard detail at Fort McNair with an unloaded rifle and no ammunition—an unusual and troubling order (04:08).
    • Quote:

      “I was not given any live rounds and I wasn’t given any ammunition whatsoever to do that. So I was handed a blank magazine and told, here you go, go out and report to guard detail.” — Adam Eisenberg (04:07)

• Non-Disclosure Agreements:

  • Members of Eisenberg’s unit were forced to sign NDAs prior to entering the Pentagon, despite the urgency and chaos, and not all members signed (06:47).

2. Arriving at the Pentagon: What Was (and Wasn’t) There

• Eyewitness Observations:

  • No large aircraft debris, no visible fuselage, wings, or tail section (09:52).
  • The impact hole and the actual damage appeared far less significant than expected for a 757 crash.
    • Quote:

      “We expected to see aeronautical parts all over the place. We expected to see a lawn that was totally destroyed... And it was very small.” — Adam Eisenberg (09:52)

• Official Narrative vs. Actual Observations:

  • Eisenberg, with later experience as an aeronautical parts specialist, affirms he saw nothing indicative of a large commercial airplane inside or around the impact site during 240 hours on-site (13:40, 14:47).
    • Quote:

      “There’s absolutely no way. What we pulled out of that building... we weren’t pulling out airplane parts.” — Adam Eisenberg (14:38)

3. The Missing Evidence: Debris, Bodies, and Parts

• No Plane, No Bodies from a Flight:

  • Eisenberg states all bodies recovered appeared to be building occupants, not airline passengers (19:46).
    • Quote:

      “Everything that I found looked as if it was a body that was inside the building... I never saw any bodies that looked like they were in an airplane.” — Adam Eisenberg (19:49)

• No Luggage, No Personal Effects:

  • No luggage or personal effects typical of airline passengers were found.

• Aircraft Parts Handling and Chain of Custody Concerns:

  • Reports indicate anomalous handling of any potential aircraft debris, including soldiers donning DEA shirts to transfer supposed plane parts in unmarked box trucks—circumventing standard evidence procedures (29:29).

4. Challenging the Official Narrative

• Flight and Hijackers:

  • Significant skepticism about the alleged hijackers’ ability to conduct such a maneuver and inconsistencies in the available airport footage (15:57).
  • Only a single, dubious video surfaced out of the hundreds of cameras at Dulles Airport.

• Witness Accounts:

  • Reference to research by the Citizen Investigation Team documenting flight path anomalies—witnesses stating the object approached from a different angle than the official account (23:50).
    • Quote:

      “As soon as witnesses start talking about a north–to-the-Citgo approach, it’s all over.” — Adam Eisenberg (24:11)

5. Broader Connections and Anomalies

• Links to Shanksville and Other 9/11 Sites:

  • Noted similarities in absent debris fields at the Pentagon and the Flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania, both missing expected wreckage for large aircraft crashes (26:48, 27:03).

• Anthrax Attacks:

  • Eisenberg’s company at Fort McNair was reportedly targeted in the anthrax attacks post-9/11, yet there’s little to no public record or follow-up investigation for this (32:54).
    • Quote:

      “All I know is that our mail started to go through this different process... then all of a sudden, everything kind of went back to normal, and we weren’t given very many details.” — Adam Eisenberg (33:23)

6. Speculation on Perpetrators and Motives

• Who Is Responsible:

  • Eisenberg explicitly points to possible involvement by elements within intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, DIA), rather than foreign terrorists (35:40).
    • Quote:

      “My research shows, and it’s without question, that these individuals are likely in the FBI, they’re likely in the CIA, the DIA, the DEA, and several other agencies that basically have to do with intelligence.” — Adam Eisenberg (35:40)

  • The operation aligns with creating pretext for war and expansion of the military-industrial complex, paralleling historic “false flag” strategies (37:18).

• Weapon Used at the Pentagon:

  • Eisenberg rules out a standard missile due to observed effects and casts doubt on a directed energy weapon or nanothermite—aspects currently unresolved (41:45).
    • Quote:

      “As soon as we can just say that it wasn’t a Boeing 757, it’s all over.” — Adam Eisenberg (42:41)

7. The State of Public Debate and Continuing Research

• No Official Interest in Dissent:
  • Eisenberg states he’s issued public debate challenges (with a $5,000 prize), but no qualified defenders of the official story have taken him up (43:01).
• Current Work:
  • Eisenberg is preparing a book to document anomalies and developments; he continues to advocate for more information and public transparency (39:53, 40:57).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On lack of aircraft debris:

  “We weren’t pulling out airplane parts. There’s absolutely no way.” — Adam Eisenberg (14:38)

• On lack of airplane passengers:

  “I never saw any bodies that looked like they were in an airplane.” — Adam Eisenberg (19:49)

• On who’s responsible:

  “My research shows, and it’s without question, that these individuals are likely in the FBI, they’re likely in the CIA, the DIA, the DEA, and several other agencies that basically have to do with intelligence.” — Adam Eisenberg (35:40)

• On the official narrative crumbling:

  “As soon as we can just say that it wasn’t a Boeing 757, it’s all over. That’s really it.” — Adam Eisenberg (42:41)

• On investigating and debating:

  “I put up a $5,000 debate challenge. And so many people, all the experts, have not taken me up on it yet.” — Adam Eisenberg (43:01)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:06 – Clayton Morris introduces Adam Eisenberg and the premise of the episode.
• 03:56 – Eisenberg describes military response and first anomalies.
• 06:47 – Non-disclosure agreements and lack of official documentation.
• 08:44 – CNN eyewitness report: “no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”
• 09:52 – Eisenberg’s first-hand account at the Pentagon site.
• 13:40 – Eisenberg’s aeronautical expertise and plane parts discussion.
• 19:46 – Details on what was (and wasn’t) found in the rubble.
• 23:50 – Flight path anomaly and conflicting witness testimony.
• 26:48 – Shanksville and Pentagon crash similarities.
• 32:54 – Anthrax attack affecting Eisenberg’s unit.
• 35:40 – Eisenberg directly implicates intelligence agencies.
• 39:53 – Eisenberg’s ongoing research and future book.
• 41:45 – Discussion on potential weapon types used; ruling out standard explanations.
• 43:01 – Failed debate challenge and closing remarks.

Conclusion

This episode delivers a provocative, insider’s challenge to the official 9/11 Pentagon narrative. Eisenberg’s direct experience, reinforced by technical expertise and research, raises numerous unresolved questions—chiefly, the absence of credible aircraft evidence and the handling of the aftermath. The conversation encourages continued investigation, skepticism, and public debate, especially about the alleged roles of U.S. intelligence agencies and the broader geopolitical motivations behind 9/11. Eisenberg’s upcoming book promises further revelations.