Rumsfeld-Bush-Pentagon-911

Nothing to see here folks!
The 9/11 attacks 'changed the world' because they were used to justify the 'projection of American military power' around the world, a desperate last push by the self-styled 'reality creators' in Washington to maintain their global dominance. But people are always the architects of their own fortune, and by launching an imperial war of aggression thinly disguised as a 'war on global terror', the USA provoked Russia and China to take the steps necessary to usher in the downfall of the inglorious Empire.

The 9/11 attacks themselves bear all the hallmarks of a self-inflicted wound, which makes complete sense from a pathological military strategy point of view. The real authors of the 9/11 attacks broadcast their intentions one year in advance when in September 2000, PNAC published a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, a blueprint for US foreign policy in the near-future. In referring to the Middle East, and citing particularly Iraq and Iran, the report stated:
"While the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein," and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. Even if US-Iranian relations should improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in US security strategy given the long-standing American interests in the region"
To achieve this goal of retaining US military bases in the Middle East, the document highlights the core requirement of "transforming the US military," but notes:
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward-basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals."
Therefore the conclusion was reached that, in order to transform the US military, it must:
  • "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars" and
  • "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;"
So these policy-makers had a pretty clear plan: invade the "critical regions", i.e. the Middle East, to "protect US interests", which means doing everything possible to thwart Russian and Chinese expansion. But they recognized that they needed a plausible justification to sell their plan to the public and American political and military big wigs:
"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
And luckily enough, 9/11 provided that justification.

Much has been said and written about the problems with the official narrative around the attacks, but after 15 years, does anyone care anymore? The FBI does. For some reason the feds recently re-released 27 images from the attack on the Pentagon, 6 years after the same images were made public on the Bureau's web site. According to an FBI spokesperson, the images disappeared after they were first released in 2011 and the FBI only recently figured that out, hence the republication with new time stamps. All of that sounds a bit fishy to me, but it was good enough for the mainstream media to carry the story and images, a reminder perhaps to the Western public of the founding event of the new dystopian reality in which we all live.

The images themselves aren't much to write home about, unless you're new to 9/11 research, in which case you might be wondering where the plane is, or how a plane punched an almost perfectly circular hole through 3 rings of reinforced concrete walls. Consider a few examples from this new/old batch of photos:

Pentagon overhead

A nice neat 'shaped charge' kind of hole in the reinforced concrete exterior of the Pentagon
Pentagon hole

There is nothing on a 757 that can punch a round hole through 3 rings (5 walls) of the Pentagon
And a few other images already long in the public domain:

Pentagon after impact

The Pentagon facade immediately after impact
Pentagon facade collapse

Fires put out, and facade collapsed
Pentagon first floor

And after the facade collapse had been removed. First floor still standing!
The question of what made that round hole in the 3rd 'C' Ring of the Pentagon is central to the question of what hit the facade of the Pentagon, given that they must both be one and the same thing. In the years since, several 'expert' opinions have been offered.
A) The nose of the plane caused the hole in C Ring. Lee Evey, the Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman stated, "the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit."

Donald Rumsfeld stated, "I'm told nose is - is still there."

B) The hole was made by one of the plane's engines. A "nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane." MDW News service.

C) The hole was created by a shockwave from the plane's impact. National Geographic special, "Seconds to Disaster."

D) A "circle or ball of energy." Purdue University.

E) Popular Mechanics claimed that the hole was created by the plane's landing gear. "The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide, not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage."

F) In the History Channel Documentary, "9/11 Conspiracies Episode: Fact or Fiction", Allyn Kilsheimer's explanation was, "The plane became almost like an artillery shell or tank round."
All of which merely prove that there is no credible authoritative account of what hit the Pentagon (or what really happened at the WTC and Shanksville - Flight 93). Instead, what we have are theories, and rather suspect ones at that.