Neoconservatism, the Israeli Lobby, and other Power Relations - Andrés Perez-Alonso
Political Ponerology - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
94% - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Signs Monthly News Roundups!
Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
and Neither Did a Boeing 757
by Joe Quinn
After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum, "Catherder", at the "AboveTopSecret.com" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article, entitled 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon", was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...
The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.
Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.
Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.
In order to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon that bright September morn.
First, however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in general.
Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.
Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?
The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.
Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.
The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself.
Here is the ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my comments interspersed in blue text.
The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
Look at the hole in the building
Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.
The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!
Again, this is not JUST a "13ft object" by any stretch of the imagination. By now it should be obvious that the author is attempting to subtly manipulate the reader by reducing a large, 82 ton passenger aircraft to "a 13ft object".
Think about this.
Is "a 13ft object" a reasonable description of a Boeing 757? Is it reasonable for the author to reduce a large plane that can carry up to 200 adult human beings to "a 13ft object"? We could take this unreasonable definition one step further and flesh out the image that our author is trying to plant in our heads and say that, according to our author, the Boeing 757 that he/she alleges hit the Pentagon, was comparable to a large SUV, or a similar "13ft object".
While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in no way leave any significant and observable damage.
While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.
Look at this close up of the above photo:
The top of the hole in the middle of the white box is at the same level as the top of the windows of the second floor, or about 23-25 feet from ground. The three windows above this are the windows of the third floor. The foam covered window to the top right is the fourth floor. As noted by the Pentagon report, this area (above the center hole) is where the tail should have struck, but there is no evidence of any damage that we would expect from such an impact. What's more, the tail fin was definitely not dropped on the lawn along with the two 6 TON engines.
Conclusion? The tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.
What does that suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.
Is that logical enough?
However, from the point of view of the author on the ATS forum and the U.S. government, we are not allowed to use such logic. Instead, we must give in to emotional blackmail and then engage in implausible mental gymnastics to try to explain how a 757 really could have been involved in the Pentagon attack; and all because the US government says so - a government that has made lies the core aspect of its domestic and foreign policy from day one.
In terms of the damage that should have been caused by the other parts of a 757 (you know, the large aircraft that our author has reduced to a mere 12ft 4 in wide cylinder), the official Pentagon Building Performance Report stated that:
Indeed, but there is no explanation of why there is no damage to the facade where the wings should logically have struck. Could it be that an aircraft with the wingspan of a 757 was not involved?
No, just the most obvious and logical explanation.
The Pentagon report also made note of the fact that:
That is impossible as the following graphic will show. Note the pink line, where the "13 ft cylinder" is supposed to have slipped "under."
Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!
What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!
Of course, this is not the case, which leaves us with the logical deduction that it is highly improbable that a 757 was involved in the attack on the Pentagon, and that a much smaller and more nimble aircraft was used.
Among those 9/11 researchers that claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon, much is made of the fact that the Pentagon facade was built with "steel reinforced concrete walls". This fact is used to explain the extremely limited immediate damage to the Pentagon facade. But how much credit are we going to give to brick and concrete that has been reinforced with relatively thin steel bars? Is such a wall indestructible? If the tail fin and wings of a Boeing 757 traveling at 400mph+ hit such a wall, could we at least expect them to leave a dent? A little scrape even?
Not at the Pentagon apparently.
Consider the picture below showing the impact hole at the WTC North Tower:
The facade of the WTC Towers were made of prefabricated steel yet as we can see from the imprint of the plane, these steel lattices were in no way strong enough to stop the massive kinetic energy of the entire aircraft impacting the building, including the wings and tail fin and leaving a roughly 757-shaped hole in the facade.
To provide a scale reference, a survivor of the initial impact has been circled in the above photo (click the picture for a close up).
Given that I am no structural engineer, however, I cannot make any claims as to the comparative strength of the steel reinforced brick and concrete walls of the Pentagon versus the steel facade of the WTC towers and will allow for the idea that the wall of the Pentagon was stronger than that of the WTC. We can even theorize that it is due to this comparative strength difference that there is not a similar 757-shaped gaping hole at the Pentagon. However, as noted, the facade of the Pentagon was made of soft limestone 6 inches thick. Can anyone explain why a similar shape as that in the picture above does not appear in the soft limestone facade of the Pentagon?
In fact, there appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage. That's because all press personnel were restricted. We only have photos because a civilian managed to take them in spite of the "cordon sanitaire." What IS clear is that, as the Pentagon report noted, the Pentagon facade bears NO evidence of damage from parts of a 757 at ALL. One notable explanation for this mysterious lack of damage offered by official government story enthusiasts is that by some mysterious force of nature, the wings and tail must have sheared off before impact. Of course, in such a case, we would expect to see at least some recognisable debris of the wings and tail section outside the building. Yet, as anyone who has carefully inspected the evidence at the scene can attest, there is no such debris.
According to official story enthusiasts, the complete lack of any debris from the wings that we are told somehow sheared off, is not a problem: they simply disintegrated on impact and were rendered little more than confetti that blew away in the breeze (I kid you not; this was actually suggested by several "researchers"). But in this unlikely case, how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a 757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged 757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred? (Charred tree branches visible in center of image) What's more, this explanation completely omits mention of the two six TON engines attached to said wings.
Can we now at least accept as a possibility the idea that a 757 was not involved in the attack on the Pentagon?
Why is it so difficult for our author to accept this? The answer would seem to be that since the official government story does not allow for such a scenario, like all good and obedient citizens, our author feels compelled to believe what the government says, regardless of the massive historical evidence showing that, on several occasions in the past, the U.S. government has allowed, facilitated, or actually carried out, attacks on its own citizens and interests in order to achieve some specific goal, usually associated with waging war on other nations - wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, including the attack on the Pentagon. Either the ATS author is such a "good and obedient" citizen, or we must conclude that said author is an agent of said government.
If we peruse other postings made by the ATS author on the subject of 9/11 in general, it seems that he/she accepts the idea that there was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Yet he/she appears to have no problem with using the claims of the same U.S. government to back up his argument that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
For the record, I have nothing against the US government per se, and have no desire to accuse the Bush administration or anyone else unjustly. But in the case of the 911 attacks, there is significant and compelling evidence to suggest that something is not right with the official version of events and that members of the US government are lying about the true nature of those events. In this case, there is a case to answer, and my sole aim is to get at the truth, whatever that truth may turn out to be. In pursuing this objective, I will look at the facts and the facts alone and draw conclusions based on what those facts suggest, alone.
At this point, we are approaching the paradox that is at the heart of the argument of the "no 757 " debunkers. They clearly are well aware that there is a serious problem with the lack of damage and debris at the Pentagon, yet that does not deter them from continuing with their increasingly unbelievable theories in an attempt to prove that the official government story is correct. At the same time, after coming up with bizarre explanations for the lack of damage and debris, they are then forced to deal with the fact that, while the damage to the Pentagon facade is not consistent with the impact of a large commercial airliner, the damage to the interior of the Pentagon is even less so.
Now, let's return to the ATS forum post.
Indeed, aircraft like the 757 are made of aluminium, for the most part, yet that does not take away from the fact that the 757 that is alleged to have hit the Pentagon was over 80 tons and flying at over 400mph, with two six TON steel engines flanking.
(source) We should also make a note of the yellow primer used on the interior of the rear section.
Are we to assume that Boeing is the only aircraft manufacturer to use green primer on the shells of its aircraft? Is it possible that this primer is an aircraft industry standard and that other aircraft manufactures also use green primer? If so, can the fact that some small pieces of debris that were found inside the Pentagon be reasonably touted as evidence that it had to be a Boeing 757 that impacted the building?
Here, I direct your attention to the fact that Epoxy Primer 37035A is just exactly that shade of yucky yellow/green. It is available from Aerospace Coatings Akzo Nobel and is designated as "Epoxy Primer 37035A (green)" or "Epoxy Primer 37052 (green)". It is apparently widely used on many types of aircraft.
Again, we should note that the entire argument of the ATS author seems to be based on the premise that the official US government story about what hit the Pentagon MUST BE correct, despite the fact that he/she ALSO accepts the idea that there was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Again, that is similar to taking the word of a suspected murderer about the very murder he is suspected of having committed. It's just not logical. Could it be that the posts on the ATS forum where "CatHerder" claims to believe that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks are examples of what is known in psychology as "malignant pseudo-identification"?
Malignant pseudo-identification is the process by which a COINTELPRO agent consciously imitates or simulates certain behaviors or beliefs in order to foster the sincere activist's "identification" with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudo-identification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge. The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent and ideas the agent wishes to "plant" through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts. The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. Another is to declare identification with many of the ideas of the activist, and then diverge on the one idea that they have been sent in to debunk. And certainly we can see that the issue of whether or not Flight 77 struck the Pentagon is just such an idea that would necessitate major debunking.
This is a very good question. So which is it? You can make the argument that a 757 was so flimsy that the Pentagon facade was relatively undamaged by the impact, or you argue that the weight and speed of the aircraft was such that it penetrated 3 rings of the building, but you can't have it both ways! Any theory that attempts to reconcile these irreconcilable claims is untenable. But that does not seem to bother our fearless debunker. He/she has already made two assertions (13 ft cylinder and paint color) that in no way whatsoever "prove" any case at all, and now, with the help of the "good folks at Perdue University", our agent - uh, excuse me, author - comes up with a seriously far out theory to explain how a 757 could have caused the damage to the interior of the Pentagon in spite of the fact that most of it "just shredded into chunks" and was scattered all over the lawn.
Examining Ground Debris
While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757? Do other types of aircraft use double rims such as those pictured above? We need to look at the "wheel rim" evidence firstly in the context of there being a massive government conspiracy on 9/11 and secondly in context of the other massive evidence that points to something else having hit the Pentagon. Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the conspirators would have taken the precaution to plant evidence at the scene to cover up the truth of their activities? Could this planting of evidence not include a "damaged" wheel rim from a 757 landing gear? In the final analysis, the only people qualified to make any definitive statement on the "wheel rim" evidence at the Pentagon are those people whose jobs involve designing or maintaining Boeing 757 landing gear and/or those people whose jobs involve the design or maintenance of Global Hawk landing gear.
Keep in mind that there are very few available photos of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gear strut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovated Wedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of the author of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say that the few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.
Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear - note how charred the area around it is.
This landing gear strut is inadmissible as evidence given the fact that the CatHerder does not claim to be an expert on landing gear and cannot verify from which aircraft this landing gear comes. As such, it could be the landing gear strut from any number of aircraft.
Again the alleged "evidence" of debris from a Boeing 757 in the above pictured debris is inconclusive. The fact that the ATS author claims categorically that there is "a large chunk of bulkhead on the left" is somewhat comical given his/her admitted lack of expertise in positively identifying charred remains of any aircraft let alone a Boeing 757. We should note that we are not saying that "no plane" hit the Pentagon, we are simply saying that the damage and debris is inconsistent with a Boeing 757.
Again, for anyone, let alone an amateur like CatHerder, to claim that they can positively identify debris from a Boeing 757 from these mangled pieces of material raises questions about the integrity and impartiality of said individual. Can "CatHerder" be sure that these greenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of the Pentagon or from another type of aircraft? The very fact that all of these parts and bits of "evidence" were NOT trotted out by the government and put on display for the public and experts to examine is more indication that if they had been, someone would have recognized them as something else entirely.
No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has ever been put forward, and the ATS author studiously ignores this fact. The official Pentagon building performance report simply states that:
That's it. The fact that whatever came out through this hole is essentially the object that hit the Pentagon and did the major part of the damage is apparently not deemed important enough, either by the US government or CatHerder, to deserve comment.
The fact is that the above image showing the round hole that was left in ring C is one of the most intriguing aspects of the Pentagon attack. While we might assume that it is unofficially claimed that one of the engines of Flight 77 made this hole (the engine being the only part of a 757 that could possibly be strong enough to pass through three rings of the Pentagon, never mind that it left no evidence of its entry on the exterior of the building), as we have seen, a disk that is verifiably part of the engine of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was found at the front of the building, not in the third ring. This fact strongly suggests that the engine that the disk came from was destroyed in the initial blast at the front of the building. It is highly unlikely therefore that an engine of the plane that hit the Pentagon punched out this hole. Whatever the object was, it had enough force to breach the main reinforced steel concrete outer wall and then travel some 250 feet, passing through five other double-brick walls on the way. Terry Mitchell, Chief of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) was one of the first on the scene at this “punch out” point. In a DOD news briefing about the reconstruction of the Pentagon he stated:
Indeed, it just must have been where part of the aircraft came out, yet there was no evidence of any part of an aircraft that could have made the hole! Never mind that CatHerder has just told us about all the evidence of the aircraft that is just laying all around! Later in the same briefing when referring to the same hole Mitchell must have realised his mistake and stated:
So which was it? Was the hole punched out by some part of the aircraft or by rescue workers? Was the pile of stuff aircraft debris, as CatHerder claims, or was it "all Pentagon metal" as Terry Mitchell says? Look again at the picture of the hole. We don’t need the contradictory statements of Mr. Mitchell to conclude that, due to the fact that the debris is on the outside of the building, the hole was punched out from the inside, yet how could it have been “punched out” by rescue workers when there are scorch marks at the top of the hole on the outside? Did the rescue workers punch out this hole when the fire was still raging inside? Hardly likely. Limiting air flow is part of fighting a fire. You don’t make holes to let in more air while you are trying to extinguish a fire.
Dare we suggest that the OASD chief was lying that day? That he changed his story because the “official” version of events did not include the idea that part of the aircraft made that hole, because it is inconceivable that any part of a 757 could have done so? If so, then a government official is on record as having lied about the events at the Pentagon, yet such does not dissuade CatHerder from trying to convince the public that the official government story about the strike on the Pentagon is correct.
The reader will notice in the above something that CatHerder does repeatedly throughout his/her analysis. When presenting his/her argument he/she pads out the point being made with additional information that is often irrelevant to the point being made, but which is included, it seems, to create the impression that the point being made is well-researched or "factual". For example, what does a link to an online pilot training aid that lets you play around with a 757 instrument panel have to do with identifying the disk in the above picture?
There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above 'It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.' (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military's unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman's subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.
Again CatHerder reveals his/her possible agenda by selective quoting (and without references) in the above paragraph. First of all, the comments by Rolls Royce spokesman John Brown are taken from an American Free Press article written by Christopher Bollyn.
Bollyn undertook the task of trying to find out what exactly the disk in the above photo was. He called Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., where the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757 aircraft is made: “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel”, an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU”
The first point then is that an expert form Honeywell that makes the APU for the 757 has stated categorically that the APU wheel in the photo is not from a 757.
As mentioned by CatHerder, Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), asking if the disk was from a Rolls Royce manufactured engine, perhaps the AE3007H used in the Global Hawk. Brown’s response was:
Next Bollyn called Pratt & Whitney who manufactures parts of the 757’s turbofan jet engines:
So we have another spokesman for Pratt and Whitney, who, along with Rolls Royce, manufacture parts of the 757s main engines (not the APU), who has contradicted John Brown of Rolls Royce by saying that the part MUST be from a Rolls Royce engine, which includes the possibility that it was the AE 3007H which is the engine in a Global Hawk, yet it is NOT the GTCP331-200 which is the APU used on the Boeing 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert.
Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce once more, to inform him that the Pratt & Whitney spokesperson had stated that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine. At this point Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the information.
Asked again if the disc in the photo was a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.
then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H,
which is made at the Indiana plant: “No”, Brown said. “I
don’t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak
for the company.”
We are left then with the likelihood that the disk in the photo IS from a Rolls Royce engine, but NOT from the APU of the 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert. Could it then be a part of one of the main engines of a 757? By all accounts it is far too small to be the disk from one of the 757's main engines, given that they are between 6 and 7 ft in diameter. The disk on the AE 3007H however is a little over 3 ft in diameter, and despite what CatHerder says, the disk in the photo is a very good match for that of a AE 3007H, the engine used on a Global Hawk but never on a Boeing 757.
there can be no definitive statements made on the matter, the available
evidence would seem to suggest that the engine disk in the FEMA photos
is probably too small to be part of a 757 engine and, contrary to what
CatHerder states, according to the Honeywell expert that makes the APU
for the 757, it is definitely not a part of a 757’s APU.
So what is it? It could very well be part of a Global Hawk AE3007H engine.
Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs of mangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are parts from a 757 engine.
In this case, we are provided with a link to a picture of a 757 engine without its casing from which our author can apparently quite easily identify things like the "diffusor section of the compressor" and "one of the pumps" and "some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps".
Ah yes! Those familiar webbed wire wraps, known and loved in every household across the country! The photo below is the reference that our author has used to positively match the mangled and burnt debris above. Well? Can't you see it?! It's right there!! Clearly the debris above is the very same 757 engine in the photo below!
No? Well, obviously you just don't trust enough in the word of the US government and its agent, CatHerder. If you did, you would be able to see the truth straight away. (End sarcasm.)
Again, for the author, in his/her non-expert opinion, to declare that the circular piece of debris in the above photo is "another engine part" is either evidence of extreme subjectivity or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. We are beginning to think it is the latter.
Below: Evidence of the right engine impact on the side of the building is evident on the large pillar being sprayed with fire retardant. (click photo for huge version)
At this point, CatHerder's sweeping statements about damage to the Pentagon and what caused it are getting to be somewhat farcical. In this case, as in almost every statement made by the him/her so far, the claim is spurious to say the least.
Click on the link to view a larger version of the photo. You will see that the chunk of masonry that is missing is a the level of the second floor windows in the Pentagon. If, as CatHerder states, the engine of a 757 did this damage then the nose of the plane would have impacted several feet higher around the middle of the second floor. Yet CatHerder sees no problem with making such a claim while at the same time presenting photographs that show clearly that whatever hit the Pentagon struck the facade at the level of the first floor!
Again, we realize that we have been dazzled with more photos and more unsubstantiated claims.
Indeed, damaged light poles, but was it a 757 that did this damage or another type of craft? We aren't saying that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Hardly anyone IS saying that. The only thing at issue is what KIND of plane was it?
The debris field of small chunks of plane witnesses said debris "rained down for minutes after the crash". (click for larger images)
Again, (and we are sure you are getting tired of this by now) the debris in the upper photos is extremely small and most likely to be masonry from the facade of the Pentagon rather than "small chunks of plane" as CatHerder states. Note yet again that he (or she) is making sweeping assertions without providing any evidence at all for any of his/her claims! Somehow, probably due to the abundance of photos and the authoritative writing style that has very little content, many people actually accept this bit of what can only be called "yellow journalism" as a serious debunking of the "No Boeing" idea!
As noted by Thierry Meyssan in his book Pentagate, even the American government has refused to recognise that the infamous piece of debris in the lower photo on the left above is a part of the Flight 77, yet CatHerder sagely affirms that it is, without doubt, a piece of Flight 77. As for the "eyewitnesses" statements that debris "rained down for minutes after the crash", we do not doubt that it did, but that has little or no bearing on our investigation into whether Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, or whether it was something else.
[Deleted part of CatHerder's analysis of the size of the infamous "piece of plane" given that the point has already been made that the US government officially disowns this as a part of Flight 77.]
Even the black boxes have been recovered, the reason given for not playing the flight voice recorder for the media was that it wouldn't serve any use other than to cause more emotional pain to family members (I agree with them frankly).
Well, again CatHerder is being disingenuous.
Flight data recorders were found at the Pentagon on September 14th 2001. On Feb. 25, 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. [CBS]
Later, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that the data on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable. No further explanation was given for these contradictory statements.
So we see it was not the case that only the public did not get to hear what was on the data recorders, the families of the victims have been left out in the cold too.
So much for wanting to prevent emotional pain!
As an interesting aside on the black boxes, Allyn E. Kilsheimer is the CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, the company responsible for rebuilding the Pentagon under the Phoenix Project. He was the head structural engineer on the rebuilding project and the first structural engineer to arrive at the scene (at the request of the DOD by the way). He stated:
course, the idea that we should give any credit to the words of someone
who was immediately called by the Pentagon to come and "assess the damage"
and who went on to make millions from the reconstruction project is laughable.
Kilsheimer was also the "government's man" at the Oklahoma Federal Building
bombing and the first WTC bombing. Coincidence?
Yet again we have a government agent openly and PROVABLY lying about the events surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, but that again does not give CatHerder any pause for thought before trumpeting the official story as the truth.
In the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, the Associated Press reported that a truck bomb had exploded at the Pentagon. There were other reports that a helicopter had exploded. It certainly seems likely then that something exploded in the vicinity of the Pentagon before the main impact. As noted by CatHerder, there was a diesel generator stationed just to the right of the impact point in front of the Pentagon that was part of the Pentagon refurbishment project. Diesel generators usually have a large fuel tank located somewhere nearby to power them. Photos taken moments after the impact show an already burning fire to the right of the main impact site that is emitting a dense cloud of black smoke.
This black smoke is consistent with burning fuel (diesel), which continued to burn long after the flames and smoke from the main impact had died down.If Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, we would expect there to be a major and prolonged fire from the thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel that Flight 77 was carrying. But in the case that another smaller aircraft was used, the lack of burning aircraft fuel would be evident. It is our contention therefore that the conspirators detonated a bomb near the generator just before or at the moment of impact in order to augment the aircraft explosion claim (complete with thousands of gallons of fuel) and also to provide a literal smoke screen in an attempt to hide the fact that Flight 77 was not involved in the attack.
The author's comment that "if it was banking slightly to port it (a 757) would fit perfectly" is really quite humorous. The fact is that you could "stick in" a tank or a bus or a large two-storey house and they would also "fit perfectly".
The facts are as follows:
There were at least four video cameras capable of recording the attack on the Pentagon. One was on the roof of the Sheraton Hotel, a second was at a gas station across the road from the Pentagon itself, the third belonged to the Virginia Department of Transportation and was stationed on route 27, which the aircraft flew over. The fourth was the Pentagon’s security camera stationed at the opposite one end of the façade from where the plane struck.
The footage from the cameras at the Sheraton, the gas station and on route 27 were confiscated by the FBI and have never been released. The only footage made available to the public was that recorded by the Pentagon’s security camera. According to the Washington Times however, both the DOJ and the FBI denied responsibility for releasing the footage from the Pentagon's security camera:
Of course, a simple denial does not mean that someone within the DOJ or the DOD or the FBI did not release the footage to the public - after all, we are dealing with a massive 9/11 conspiracy and the footage is from the Pentagon's very own security camera. We can assume with a reasonable degree of certainty therefore, that someone within one of the arms of the American military/ political/ industrial complex released the footage and then denied that they did so, and for a very specific reason.
The above photo is the first still from the only video footage of the Pentagon attack that has been made available. It is alleged that it shows an approaching Boeing 757 in the upper right hand corner. Do you see a Boeing 757-200 in this picture?
If we think back to the images and video footage of Flight 11 and Flight 175 hitting the WTC towers, we remember that we all saw both large Boeing airplanes, as clear as day, even though they were flying at over 500 mph and were over 1,000 feet up in the air when they struck the WTC Towers. This provides us with an excellent guide on how such commercial aircraft appear at that distance. The side of the Pentagon is 971 feet long and the plane in the footage is no more than 750 feet (250 yards) from the camera that is stationed near the opposite end of the Pentagon. Remember the indelible images of those huge planes flying into the World Trade Center towers? Even at that distance, even with the size of the WTC towers, the image and size of the aircraft that was burned into our minds from having seen the tapes replayed endlessly, is awe-inspiring.
Now, look again at the above image from the Pentagon Security camera of the plane approaching the building. Ask yourself the question: where is the Boeing 757-200 in this image?
time you are at an airport, take five minutes and go and look at some
planes on the runway. Pick out a large passenger jet that is approximately
750 feet away, preferably one in the process of taking off or landing.
Take a picture of it. Then look at this image from the Pentagon Security
camera again and ask yourself. Where is that Boeing 757?!
Note that the time stamp displays a date and time of September 12th at 5.37:19 pm. The DOD has offered no reason for this discrepancy, which is understandable since they claim to have no knowledge about who released the images. In the footage, the progression of seconds jumps from 19, where it starts, to 21 and then on to 22 and 23 where it ends, meaning that one second and an undetermined number of frames have been cut from the film. No explanation has ever been offered by any official sources as to why this video footage has clearly been “doctored”, why one second and several frames have been removed – frames that would likely show just what it was that struck the Pentagon. Of course, this is very convenient for exponents of the official story. The footage shows something flying into the Pentagon and exploding, and since we were all immediately told that that "something" was a 757, the case is closed, right?
Quite apart from the fact that the doctoring of the video strongly suggests that someone released this footage in an attempt to provide "evidence" to the public that a 757 hit the Pentagon, while at the same time removing the incriminating frames and denying the public the right to actually see what it was, in the images above we see a stream of white smoke that is entirely inconsistent with a commercial jet aircraft at ground level and much more in line with the trail left by a missile launch. Please note however that I am not saying that only a “missile” struck the Pentagon.
Note also the picture of actual impact and explosion.
Have you ever burned oil, or car gas or diesel? It burns with a dense black smoke, as does oil (see above picture of claimed truck bomb). The flame is predominantly red, which, I am told, is due to the low burn temperature of oil-based fuel (see picture of flames from plane explosions at WTC). While there are few bomb or explosive experts willing to weigh in, there have been a few who claim to know about bomb detonations who affirm that this white flame is clear evidence of explosives detonating. In fact, several eyewitnesses to the attack made it very clear that they knew that the explosion involved explosives, not a mere aircraft full of fuel.
He also stated:
Another eyewitness, Gilah Goldsmith said:
So we see that several witnesses, both inside and outside the building, described a shockwave that knocked them to the ground. Several described it as a concussion. Such a shockwave cannot be explained by the impact of an aircraft or the combustion of jet fuel, and indicates the detonation of an explosive. Explosive detonations produce blast pressures thousands of times stronger than hydrocarbon fireballs because explosives are oxidized by chemicals intrinsic to them whereas hydrocarbons rely on oxygen in ambient air for combustion. Consequently the chemical reaction proceeds at a much higher rate in an explosive.
Hydrocarbon fireballs can produce detonation waves if the fuel and air are mixed prior to ignition, but such detonation waves are comparatively weak. The violence of most plane crashes precludes such pre-mixing. In the Twin Tower jet collisions, the columns of the curtain walls diced the fuel tanks in the wings, assuring fuel and air mixing about as optimally as could be imagined in a collision, and yet there were no reports of detonation shockwaves from any survivors from the floors below the impact point.
Cordite is an explosive compound used in aircraft gun ammunition. Several witnesses with the benefit of military experience recognized the smell of this compound. Cordite N consists of three main explosive compounds: nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin. It is cool-burning, and produces little smoke and no flash, but, like other explosives, produces a strong detonation wave.
Back to ATS forum post:
Lets look at the physics involved
Here CatHerder takes us off on a tangent that is wholly irrelevant to the task of analysing the likely physical impact of 80 tons of metal and other solid matter on the Pentagon and therefore to answering the question of whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, because, despite the above heading, the only physics that is employed by the people at Purdue University is that pertaining to the physics of liquid, i.e. the fuel in the wings of the plane and its hypothesised effect on the Pentagon facade and interior. It therefore has little to do with the job of ironing out the problems of the claim that an 80 ton Boeing aircraft hit the Pentagon. We can only assume that it is an attempt to confuse the reader and detract from the main issue - that the totality of evidence at the Pentagon crash site is entirely inconsistent with a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon that day.
Again the author is being less that transparent and omits to specify that the referenced research looks at the impact of the liquid in the fuel tanks and its effect on the Pentagon. In fact it is a testimony to the fact that even those that hold to the official version of events have had to resort to the idea that, in their own words:
And why? Because the damage to the Pentagon, including the 8 feet wide circular hole punched out in ring C is ENTIRELY inconsistent with the impact of an 80 ton 757 jetliner.
The Purdue folks further state that:
But CatHerder conveniently leaves the details out.
Now we can see, through a very competent and valid simulator, what happened in the attack on the Pentagon. Click here to view a video generated by the simulator. Or, click here to read the white paper.
Again, this simulation does not show us "what happened in the attack on the Pentagon"; it shows us the hypothesised effect of the FUEL in the wings on the Pentagon and is an example of the desperate attempts to find an explanation, ANY explanation, for why the impact damage is NOT consistent with the impact of a 757 when the government says it was a 757. In fact, the study above is contradictory if one wants to stick with the "13 ft cylinder" and "confetti-ized" wings theory. You can't have it both ways.
In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.
Indeed, not only does the author's paraphrasing and selective use of data not tell the truth about the real nature and reason for this "simulation", it attempts to distract and confuse the reader by suggesting that an 80 ton solid aircraft was little more than a column of liquid! Again, you can't have it both ways. If you are going to include the wings and fuel tanks, and twin 6 TON engines, then the hole is way too small for all of this together to have created it.
For anyone to try and compare the effects of an 80 ton aircraft crashing into a building at 400mph to the effects of a landslide of rocks and soil is far-fetched at best, yet it is testimony to the extreme lengths that CatHerder must go to to try and prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon when there is simply no evidence to stand on.
If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon then there should be no need for outlandish theories about columns of water. The evidence SHOULD be all there, and it should be a breeze to present facts that would quickly dismiss any attempts to suggest otherwise.
But we see that this is not the case - in fact the exact opposite is true! CatHerder is finding it very difficult to prove something that should be easily provable if the evidence was there for ALL to see.
It is amazing to observe CatHerder suggesting that, on impact with the Pentagon, all of the parts of a 757 broke into pieces - flew everywhere as confetti - then somehow formed themselves into a 9 foot wide 20 feet tall concentrated column of energy (or water-like substance) that broke through 5 walls of the Pentagon leaving a neat 8 ft by 12 ft round hole in the final 6th wall. Understand also that it is to such outlandish lengths that anyone, not just CatHerder, must go to if they want to make a 757 "fit" as the object that struck the Pentagon on September 11th 2001.(Removed two aerial images of Pentagon before and after impact due to a lack of any stated reason for inclusion. See ATS website to view them.)
Note that in the above, the statement that this eyewitness saw an "airliner" is made by the USA reporter who wrote the story, not by the eyewitness himself who only heard a "big boom".
Again, the comment that this eyewitness saw a "commercial airliner" is made by the reporter, not the eyewitness. In any case, an information management specialist working on the Pentagon Renovation Program is hardly a credible witness.
As I have said, I am not suggesting that no plane hit the Pentagon, I am suggesting that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon, because there is evidence of aircraft debris, (however scant that debris might be) and that it was dressed up in American Airline colors, complete with fake windows, in which case, it is possible that eyewitnesses may have concluded it was a passenger plane. Of course, a passenger plane is also the description of an aircraft the size of a twelve or twenty seat private jet, or something about the size of such a jet painted with AA colors.
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over.'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
This testimony is consistent with an aircraft hitting the Pentagon, but not necessarily a 757. The comment that a "huge screaming noise" was heard is contradicted by other testimonies (below)
"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said." - "Hell on Earth." UU World
This eyewitness did not explicitly say that he saw AA Flight 77. His actual testimony is prefaced with the comment by the reporter that "American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car". What the eyewitness actually saw was a "puff of white smoke", which is very interesting. One naturally wonders why the reporter did not quote the witness entirely instead of putting words in his mouth that he may never have said.
"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News
If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubt that this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Notice that he never says that it was a Boeing 757. More "selective quoting."
If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubt that this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Having said that, we note that Gary Bauer was a presidential candidate in 2000 and is an avowed right-winger and Bush supporter, for what it's worth.
CatHerder must be completely unaware of what constitutes a credible witness. Perhaps it escaped him/her that we are dealing with a government conspiracy to murder and the testimony of a Pentagon official can hardly be called impartial.
Captain Defina may well have seen pieces of a nose gear, or some aircraft part that looked like a nose gear, but to which aircraft did these pieces belong? Having said that, it is somewhat surprising that the nose gear from any aircraft would be visible inside the Pentagon if we are to believe that the nosegear took the full force of the initial impact. After all, the nose gear is one of the most fragile parts of a Boeing aircraft, being made out of carbon rather than aluminium, and would undoubtedly be destroyed beyond recognition by the time it reached the interior of the building. Of course, if the nose gear of the plane that struck the Pentagon was not the first thing to impact, then it is possible that some nose gear debris might be found inside.
That's just a small smattering of people who have gone on record as seeing the plane, and the plane hit the Pentagon. I could have included the dozens of people who saw the plane, but didn't see it hit (because it went behind a bridge, a hill, or some trees), but I choose only to post the ones that sounded the most valid and actually saw the plane hit the building. (I included the one firechief who states he saw some plane wreckage during firefighting/rescue attempts.) There are most likely twenty times more that either haven't been publicly recorded as seeing the crash, or simply don't want the attention. You can't honeslty sit there and deny the witnesses, the photographs, the facts, the science, and the reality that there was a terrorist attack on the Pentagon if you look at everything available and not one single tidbit of information at a time.
If that's the best CatHerder can do in assembling testimony, it simply proves our point about the overly anxious and desperate efforts being made to prove something that, if it were true, would not require such efforts.
Notice the subtle suggestion that CatHerder's analysis includes "everything available". Notice also that the two testimonies from Pentagon employees are included in those that CatHerder believes to be the "most valid". Also, having presented us with some dubious and inconclusive eyewitness testimonies, we are told that we cannot deny that these testimonies are proof conclusive that a 757 really did hit the Pentagon! What is true, as CatHerder states, is that there are indeed many more eyewitness testimonies that he/she could have included. However, once you read some of them, you will understand why he/she did not include them.
Lon Rains, an editor of Space.com, was also an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack. He commented:
“In light traffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.”
Allen Cleveland of Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train going to National Airport, to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. "I thought, 'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,' " Before he could process that thought, he saw "a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics."" . . a silver passenger jet, mid sized"
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City:
Kirk Milburn - who was driving his vehicle at the time - said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon, and because he saw it he also said, “I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying”.
What he said next, however, is not in keeping with a 757:
Notice that the witness says, “I guess it was hitting the light poles”. One suspects that he couldn’t see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said, “It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion”. No doubt he saw something, but since he was also driving at the time, it is not certain exactly what he saw.
Two early, primary witnesses have described a sound of a “whoosh”! The second one, when he couldn’t see it, said it was like a “WHOOSH whoosh”, just like the other man who couldn’t see it, but then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely not a 757 flying low over his head.
A 757, under no circumstances makes a sound of “whoosh”, and if the “whoosh” sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the “whoosh” of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there’s a 757 right overhead that’s hitting light poles, and it’s going 460 mph, it would not be “whooshing”! Anyone that has ever spent any time at the end of an international airport runway knows that the sound of a large commercial jet flying low overhead would be more accurately described as a deafening ROAR!
It is true that eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable. Take ten witnesses to an event and it is likely that you will get ten responses that will differ from each other in one aspect or another.
Having said that, given the nature of the events that are alleged to have occurred at the Pentagon on 9/11 - a large commercial airliner crashing into a large building, we might expect most people to concur at least on the basic details. But, as we have seen, that is not the case with the Pentagon attack.
I am of the opinion therefore that the very conflicting nature of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack are important clues revealing the true nature of what happened that day. Imagine that a significant number of people are witness to a large commercial airliner flying extremely low and at high speed over an urban area and crashing into a building. Imagine also that, not long thereafter, all eyewitnesses to the event are told by authorities and the media that it was indeed a large commercial airliner that flew into the building. Now ask yourself: in such a case, how likely is it that there would be any serious discrepancies between the testimonies of those eyewitnesses? How likely is that any of the eyewitnesses would report that what they actually saw was a small aircraft or something that sounded like a missile? Unlikely, I would suggest.
Now imagine that a significant number of people are witness to a drone aircraft like the Global Hawk for example, which also flies very low and very fast over an urban area. While the wingspan of this drone craft is quite large, it is much smaller in overall size to a large commercial aircraft. Imagine also that this drone is painted with the colors and logo of a well-known airline that are only ever seen on large commercial aircraft. Imagine that there are even “windows” painted on the side to make the illusion all the more convincing. Imagine that, not long after witnessing the incident, all eyewitnesses to the event are told by authorities and the media that what they saw was a large commercial airliner flying into the building. Now ask yourself: in such a case, what are the chances that there would be seriously conflicting reports between eyewitness accounts of the incident? Very good, I would suggest.
Eyewitness accounts are indeed useless when one must rely on them as the sole evidence. This is not, however, the case with the Pentagon attack. There is already much evidence - the facts on the ground - to suggest that it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The fact that there are serious conflicts in eyewitness accounts merely serves to back up this other evidence that it was NOT a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. We might also wonder why there are no conflicting WITNESS reports of what hit the WTC towers? All eyewitnesses to the event in New York concurred that two large passenger plane hit the North and South towers. Of course, we were all treated to ad nauseam repeats of the video footage of that event, leaving no one in any doubt about what happened. So why not treat us all to the video evidence from the Pentagon?
There is one very obvious answer to this question: the video footage, held by the US government, would disprove the official story.
911 Tape of EMV responding to the Pentagon - includes video outside and inside the building in some areas. (Real Audio Required)
The above video and audio of EMV responding is completely inconsequential to the investigation at hand, and I can think of no reason why CatHerder would include it, other than to attempt in some subtle way to drive home the official claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
Oh, LORD! Not the dreaded "malignant pseudo-identification" again! You know, the process by which a COINTELPRO agent consciously imitates or simulates certain behaviors or beliefs in order to foster "identification" with him/her, thus increasing the vulnerability to exploitation. Yes indeed, CatHerder is just an "average Joe" like "you and me." And just to make it hit home, the emotional hooks of "family," a "good life," "making a living," and "stable marriages" are tossed in there followed by the final tear jerker, an outrageous reference to the people who died that day. It is outrageous because it is finally clear that CatHerder is, indeed, an agent of disinformation and using such emotional ploys, as this is truly malignant pseudo-identification.
Having said that, let's return to the fact that the point is not that firefighters or police officers were involved in the cover up as CatHerder slickly suggests is the claim of anyone who says that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but rather that any of them that saw something they were not meant to, could have been easily silenced. The most obvious way to silence the "average Joe" who is honest, hard-working and normally patriotic, is to impress on such a person that they must not talk about something due to "national security". If they were to persist in wanting to talk about what they saw, more persuasive methods can be used like threats to their livelihood etc., up to and including murder. But murder is seldom required. A simple letter with details of family and friends and an order to "keep your mouth shut" is more than enough for most people. As CatHerder says: "cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life for their families." They are not likely to risk their livelihood, or the lives of their children for 5 minutes of fame on national TV. They keep their mouths shut. And that's a tragedy that CatHerder doesn't seem to be able to understand.
As regards the "carrying of 60 bodies into the middle of the fire". This is simply more evidence of CatHerder's attempts to confuse and manipulate the reader. I know of no site that suggests that the bodies of the passengers on Flight 77 were carried into or out of the Pentagon after the attack. The identification of the bodies was carried out off site by the state pathologist. We were never shown footage nor did we hear reports about anyone picking up pieces of passengers from Flight 77 from the attack site, we were simply told that all passengers were identified from their DNA from body parts that were in the possession of the state pathologist. It is simply assumed that the state pathologist got the bodies parts from the Pentagon site, because of course, the government told us that Flight 77 crashed there - where else would the body parts come from!? But as I have shown, it is extremely unlikely that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, which makes the question of how the state pathologist got hold of body parts from the passengers a very interesting question.
course, we have not even touched on that most bizarre aspect of the Pentagon
strike - the alleged final approach of Flight 77. Think about this:
no, our intrepid "Arab terrorists" have a much more complicated plan:
how's that for bad luck!
Now that is one fantastical magical mystery of a story, worthy of inclusion in any children's fairy tale.
Review the facts
Initial hole only fits the size of a 757 if you subtract the wings, twin 6 TON engines, and tail fin which somehow did not hit the building. Even then the fuselage would have had to slip into the building leaving a round hole that exactly conformed to the diameter and height of the cylindrical tube. In short, highly unlikely, not to mention the fact that the two 50 feet long wings with twin 6 TON steel engines somehow disappeared and could not be found in the wreckage outside the building.
Rims - IF they were 757 rims - were quite possibly planted or were the rims from another type of aircraft.
Indeed, it may well be an APU. But as noted previously, a Boeing spokesman has confirmed that the APU was NOT the APU from a 757.
This is simply not true. No one has come forward to confirm or deny that the disk seen in photos from outside the Pentagon could have come from a Global Hawk. Given the small size of the disk, it is likely that it did not come from a large 757 engine but rather a smaller-engined aircraft. Like a Global Hawk.
The mangled blue debris could be anything and is inadmissible as conclusive "evidence" of any part of any aircraft.
The only piece of debris showing part of lettering that appears similar to lettering on American airlines craft is pristine, no smoke or explosion damage and has not been accepted by US government as coming from Flight 77. It seems that CatHerder is not only pushing the government line but is going so far as to accept evidence that even the US government wont touch due to its obviously suspect nature.
Our author is a self-proclaimed non-expert in such matters yet sees fit to pronounce conclusively that mangled pieces of aircraft material are definitely parts of a specific aircraft engine. This alone should make any reader of this fine piece of disinformation wary.
The primer is used on many aircraft.
Diesel generator was probably moved by initial explosion as reported in early news releases.
Nonsense. See previous comment.
Multiple eyewitnesses say they saw a private jet sized aircraft, others said it sounded like a missile.
Multiple eye witnesses who announced that they saw an American airliners passenger jet were also government and mainstream media employees and their testimonies are therefore unacceptable.
60+ bodies were not identified. DNA from all of the passengers was identified, which is actually an interesting point. How can it be that the impact and fire were allegedly so intense that they shredded into tiny pieces and disintegrated much of the plane, although not all of it, yet body parts from all passengers were recovered and identified?
It is unlikely that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon because the available evidence is not consistent with the impact of a 757 airliner.
As I have already stated, the best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions would be to wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. If such a person were given all of the publicly available evidence and furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, it is highly improbable that such a person would conclude that a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.
Because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Again I will state that it is only because of the claim by the government and the media that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that anyone would ever try and suggest that a 757 did the damage. The evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is so abundant that we continue to be amazed that apparently intelligent people are nevertheless very capable of ignoring facts and concocting elaborate (and often absurd) theories to avoid having to accept that which is right under their noses.
In the months that followed the 9/11 attacks, it was web sites like Signs of the Times that took on the job of debunking the clearly false official story about 9/11, in particular the attack on the Pentagon. While we certainly expected a response to our efforts from mainstream newspapers and other government shills, it came as somewhat of a shock and disappointment to realise that other alleged 9/11 researchers joined the attack and attempted to debunk our debunking of the official story. The result is that many honest 9/11 researchers are having to engage in the type of "third level" debunking that I have presented above - a debunking of a debunking of a debunking as it were.
Of course, over the course of the past 4 years, we have become much more familiar with the disinformation tactics of government CoIntelPro. In modern day Iraq, it is generally understood that one of the main roles of US and Israeli intelligence agencies is to foment ethnic strife among the Iraqi people. The logic behind this is that if the Iraqis are fighting themselves, they have less time and energy to fight American soldiers. It should come as no surprise then that the same tactics have been used by US intelligence agencies to deal with honest 9/11 research. But the task of getting honest people who share a common goal to fight with each other is not easy. It requires infiltration over a long period of time coupled with subtle manipulation of the parties involved. Thankfully for the intelligence agencies, there is another much easier way: you simply have one of your own operatives pose as a Sunni Insurgent or an honest 9/11 researcher and have him attack his fellow insurgents/researchers. Hey presto! You've just created "division" and "infighting" which distracts and confuses the enemy. In the case of 9/11 the "enemy" are the honest 9/11 researchers and the members of the public who look to them for information.
The question then is: are we dealing with such a manufactured group in the Above Top Secret website and forum?
It's hard to tell. There are without doubt many sincere U.S. and other citizens and web site owners who promote the official story about 9/11 because they believe (or perhaps need to believe) that the government is telling the truth. Equally certain is the fact that there are many US citizens and website owners who know for sure that the government story is false, yet have been consciously recruited to push this story on the public. Members of the latter group are simply doing their job, but their influence is most directly felt among members of the former group who want to believe the official story.
Having said that, after reading through the long ATS thread that followed the posting of "CatHerders" article, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the ATS website is just one more government-funded damage control operation, albeit a very subtle one. I will explain why I came to this conclusion.
CatHerders article was received with much fanfare on the ATS forum, and much debate and analysis ensued with the thread finally reaching 125 pages. As the discussion and debate raged, it became apparent that many were convinced by CatHerder's article, but just as many were not. On the 8th page of the thread, two of the three owners of the ATS website weighed in and attempted to silence the naysayers with some large fonts and guilt trips. For example, "SkepticOverlord", "one of the three ATS amigos and co-owner of Abovetopsecret.com" wrote:
Very moving. Very manipulative, too. "Springer", another Co-owner, then added the following:
Yes indeed, there's nothing like subjecting your subscribers to a little guilt trip to get them in line.
What is clear from reading the thread is that the owners of the ATS site and the author of the article in question are of the opinion that Arab terrorists, as they are presented by the US government, are real and that a group of them hijacked four planes and attacked the US on 9/11. The only "9/11 conspiracy" that these people hold to then is that the US government may have let 9/11 happen, and the fact is that there are many self-described 9/11 investigators who promote the same idea. You could call it "9/11 conspiracy lite", designed for those who lack the stomach for the unsavory reality of what 9/11 actually meant and where it is taking us.
The problem with such an explanation is that it subtly suggests that, in 9/11, what we are dealing with is nothing more than corrupt government or a few corrupt men, and we all know governments are often a little corrupt, right? The obvious solution, of course, is to simply remove the corrupt government or the few men and we can then get on with the job of fighting those damn "terrorists".
What is missing, however, is the awareness that the "terrorist threat" that came front and center after 9/11 is crucial to the entire conspiracy. It is Bush's "war on terror" that plagues the world to this day, long after 9/11 has lost its edge and drifted to the back of the collective consciousness. It is the threat from "Islamic terrorists" that has led the US military to massacre 100,000 Iraqi civilians over the past two years, and you can be sure they are only getting started. Proponents of such a theory expect us to believe that the fact that terrorist hijackers gifted the Neocons with the justification to accomplish their long-held goals is just a matter of good luck!
Anyone that researches the 9/11 event and, most importantly, the background to American and Israeli plans for the Middle East and Israeli government penetration of the American political system, cannot but come to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks, in their entirety, must have been stage-managed by those who stood to benefit most from the attacks. The fact is, if your goal is to sell the lie that 'Arab terrorists' hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, you don't need to involve real Arab terrorists or real hijacked planes. Indeed, it would not even be advisable to do so given the logistics of getting Arab hijackers, or people masquerading as Arab hijackers, to give their lives in service to your plot and avoid the distinct possibility that details of the plot would be leaked. No, all you need to do is to make it appear that way with some well placed evidence and then claim that it is so.
We notice that very few items of so-called "conspiracy theory" have rattled the "Bushes" quite like our Pentagon Strike Flash did. The Pentagon Strike video came out on August 23rd 2004. Probably nobody really noticed it at that point, but it hit a chord of response in the hearts of millions of people around the world. They began to madly download and forward it to their friends and relatives. Latest stats on how many people have viewed it to date are 500 million!
Apparently it even landed in the email box of the Editor of the Washington Post, which is why Carol Morello sent us an email asking for an interview. Or so she said. My suspicion was that the Post was instructed to do "damage control", albeit oh, so gently!
Now, look at this mini-timeline:
August 23rd 2004: Pentagon Strike Video which propagates wildly for a month.
September 11, 2004: CatHerder post to Above Top Secret forum.
September 21st 2004: First contact by Carol Morello of the Washington Post
October 7th 2004: Washington Post articleIt was an interesting feeling to know that if they hadn't seen the Pentagon Strike before, certainly George and Dick, Karl and the gang were watching it after the Washington Post wrote an article about it.
October 19th 2004: George Bush visits New Port Richey - a previously unscheduled "whistle-stop" on his campaign trail. NPR is very small, not likely to be a major target of any presidential candidate, but it just happens to be Laura Knight-Jadczyk's hometown. It was our initial reaction that Dubya's visit to Laura's little home town - certainly of no importance on the campaign trail - was deliberately done to send a message to her. Fact is, her daughter's ex-boyfriend wrote to tell her that he had been among those selected to shake the hand of George W. himself! Now, how's that for a coincidence?
As to exactly what Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote to Laura, here is the pertinent passage which is actually quite revealing:
Notice that she attributes the resurgence of interest in the "Pentagate" problem to the Pentagon Strike video. Can we say "damage control"?
And if there is damage control, then that means there is damage.
Up to this point in time, the only acknowledgement the administration ever gave to such issues was to refer vaguely and dismissively to "conspiracy theories". Now, suddenly, it seems that dealing with the "conspiracy theories" in a direct manner was seen to be imperative. "9/11: Debunking the Myths" came out in Popular Mechanics Magazine in March of 2005, just five months after the Washington Post article. That's pretty fast work.
Under the tutelage of Editor in Chief Jim "Oh look, a tank!" Meigs, Popular Mechanics assembled a team of researchers, including "professional fact checkers" (impressive eh?) to debunk the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists about 9/11. Unsurprisingly, the PM editors claim that, in the end:
In fact, a careful analysis of the article shows that at most, just three of the sixteen claims could have been the result of "reporting error", forcing us to assume that, in the razor-like, emotionally unclouded cerebrum of Jim Meigs, at least 13 of the conspiracy claims about 9/11 are the result of "cynical imaginations aiming to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate".
The sad fact is that, while Popular Mechanics claims to be interested in understanding what really happened that day, their rebuttal of sixteen of the most common claims by so-called "conspiracy theorists" about 9/11 isn't worth the $3.57 of server space that it has so far cost them to publish it.
If there is one glaring hole in the arguments put forward by 9/11 conspiracy "debunkers", it is the fact that such people have never come up with a reasonable argument to explain why, in the wake of 9/11, so many obviously intelligent citizens became gripped by the uncontrollable urge to continually waste their time recklessly and fecklessly "injecting suspicion and animosity into public debate" for no apparent reason. It really is a mystery. Maybe they're trying to take over the world or something.
On the other hand, it doesn't take a degree in psychology to understand the primary motivations of the conspiracy debunkers. You see, the very last thing that many Americans (and others) want to believe is that their government would attack its own people. For 9/11 "debunkers", logic and intellect have no part to play in investigating the question of what really happened on 9/11. It's pure emotion all the way.
In the beginning, on the morning of September 11, 2001 we were all united in our emotional reactions: shock, horror, grief - (and not to forget: jubilation from a bunch of Israeli Mossad agents). As the emotion subsided, most went on with their lives, but a few stood on, brows furrowed, scratching their heads. After considerable digging and research, it became obvious that the official story did not satisfactorily answer all of the questions, and the fact that officials were refusing to answer those outstanding questions, gave rise, logically enough, to a "conspiracy theory".
Not long thereafter, the debunkers stepped in, not because they had the answers to the outstanding questions, but because they had their emotional buttons severely poked by the fact that someone was saying that their government was lying! Sadly, the editors at PM are no different, and their little fear-inspired rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracy theories is of little actual use to anyone, least of all to those who really do want to know the truth of 9/11. Far from approaching the matter with an open mind (which is crucial in any attempt to find the truth), it is clear that Popular Mechanics' "professional fact checkers" began with the premise that the US government was not lying about the main events of 9/11, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. From there, the objectivity and integrity of their research went sharply downhill as they busied themselves with hunting down the very same sources that provided the official story to confirm that the official story was in fact correct. Apparently, in "debunkerland", it is completely reasonable to ask U.S. government representatives to testify that the U.S. government is squeaky clean and then present that evidence as "fact". It is also kosher, we assume, to have a murder suspect double as a credible court's witness in a murder trial.
For those of you who have looked unemotionally at the events of 9/11, it is not unusual to be left wondering how those members of the US government who were clearly complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens can remain so smug and seemingly self-assured. To find the answer we need look no further than the Jim Meigs' of this world. You see, it is people like Meigs who lack any love or appreciation for the truth and worship only their subjective view of the world that make it so easy for big government to commit big crime.
At present there are millions of Americans and others around the world who, aided by the years of social conditioning and media mind programming, drew a very clear line around what they would and would not believe about their government and country. Most of what was inside the line was "feel good" stuff about "greatest democracy on earth" and other jingoistic nonsense, with perhaps a few admissions that "sometimes bad things happen" and "not everyone is a saint". This mindset provided (and continues to provide) a perfect opportunity for unscrupulous US politicians to literally get away with the murder of which most of the US public refuse to believe they were, and are, capable.
The result is that, for all intents and purposes, today there are two Americas:
- The America of the average American citizen which is little more than a government-provided dream world.
- The real America of the corrupt politicians and the select few who run the country, and much of the rest of the world.
Luckily for the select few, this second, real America just happens to lie outside of what many ordinary Americans are willing or able to believe is possible. Lest anyone think otherwise, the setting up of any accusation against government as being the domain of "conspiracy nuts" is not the result of pure coincidence. Conspiracy theories are as old as the first lie ever told and the subsequent attempts by the liar to avoid exposure.
Most people think that "conspiracy theories" are made up by "conspiracy theorists", but the term "conspiracy theory" is most often used by those people who have most to gain from the ridicule of the allegations that are directed at them. The tactic has been used to such great effect over the years that certain high crimes committed by government have become the touchstone by which all other "conspiracies" are measured.
Take the folks at Popular Mechanics. In dealing with 9/11 they simply couldn't resist referencing that other most despicable crime committed by a US government - but of course, to them it's just another "theory":
Did you catch it? The reference to Oliver Stone can mean only one thing: Jim's "fact checkers" contacted the CIA, and they told him straight up that some bullets really can do magic things.
So far, we have been generous to the people at Popular Mechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentioned but misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister, and dare we say it, "conspiratorial" side to Popular Mechanics' "innocent" debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, it turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.
American Free Press' Christopher Bollyn, who dug up the information, also claims that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While there is, as of yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two, it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current Homeland Security Chief, (who, in his previous incarnation as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the release of obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11), happens to be behind a high-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.
So if you happen to stop by the sorry article in question, don't be fooled or intimidated by the word "science" in big bold letters on the Popular Mechanics page. In Europe, McDonald's drink cups have the words "I'm loving it" emblazoned across them in various languages, regardless of what you put in them. Credit by association or juxtaposition is one of the oldest tricks in the book of mass mind programming. Just because "they" say it, doesn't make it so. This simple, logical statement is a salient lesson for us all in these heady days where disinformation masquerades as truth and even "innocent" fun-loving "boys with toys" have become obedient workers in the lie factory.
According to another 9/11 researcher:
This last is undoubtedly a direct reference to Signs of The Times, while avoiding giving a direct link to our website out of fear that the reader might be influenced.
Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas to "bracket" the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from.
That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of many researchers is a testament to the success of the Pentagon Strike Video! It really stepped on a sore toe. And that tells us something important, the same thing Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote:
We notice that never, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed fast on the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever even mentioned by name, nor was our website mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web sites were mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signs of The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous. We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.
Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damage control is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thought that there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike is understood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weak link in their chain of lies.
Debunkers are sent in not to give answers to the outstanding questions, but to push the emotional buttons of the public, to reassure people who really want "a reason to believe" that their government is not lying to them.
It should be clear by now that I am suggesting that there is much more to the 9/11 attacks than most people are aware and what really happened is very, very different from the official story.
Now we get to the interesting part.
If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon what did, and how?
Two emails received by Signs of the Times about one year ago, (identities concealed to protect the correspondents) are quite informative:
From the evidence presented, we can propose that, due to its suitability for the task in hand, it was a global hawk-type craft complete with a payload of one missile with a shaped charge hardened war head and secondary war head that struck the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. The first shaped charge war head opened the main hole in the Pentagon facade, the second war head detonated inside doing the rest of the damage and creating the 'T bar' of the final inverted T shape in the facade. The global hawk was swallowed by the hole and the war head explosion. The hardened war head continued on through the other 5 walls coming to rest in Ring C, leaving that neat 8ft wide hole. The war head was then confiscated, much like the various tapes that were witness to the event.
For its part, Flight 77 landed, probably at a military airfield in Ohio around the same time that the Global Hawk and missile struck the Pentagon. All passengers and crew on board Flight 77 were dead by that time, except for one, two or three people. The bodies were "disposed of", and some of the remains were used for identification by the state pathologist.
Shocked? Outraged? You have every right to be, but not at us, or anyone else that points out the logical explanation of the problem. There exists overwhelming evidence to show that, as a general rule, corrupt people in positions of great power do not flinch at murdering their own citizens if it serves their purposes to do so. In some cases, they will murder their citizens - and others - because it gives them pleasure. Such people also, historically, are advocates and practitioners of torture. If you disagree then you disagree with historical fact. Welcome to the real world.
As Laura Knight-Jadczyk notes in her book 9/11:The Ultimate Truth, the attack on the Pentagon is the Achilles Heel of the entire 9/11 coverup, and for one very good reason: while we all saw repeated footage of Flight 11 and Flight 175 crash into the WTC towers, and we all saw the wreckage of Flight 93 and have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies that a commercial airliner did indeed crash in Pennsylvania, there is no reliable evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. No one has seen any footage that shows Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the tapes that actually exist that could easily and immediately prove what did hit that day, have been confiscated by the FBI and the U.S. government studiously refuses to release them.
The US government claims that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this, yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes that would put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit the Pentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"
There is one very obvious answer.
Don't miss our Comments on the Pentagon Strike
For further reading and access to informative video evidence on 9/11, we recommend http://guardian.150m.com
For those who are interested in our complete analysis of 9/11, you may wish to purchase 9/11:The Ultimate Truth
Fair Use Policy
Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org
You are visitor number .