Building Nova Earth: Toward A World That Works for Everyone

9/11 The Pentagon

Sourcebook on 9/11 and its Aftermath

The Pentagon

11 September 2007


Table of Contents

Did Cheney Tell Fighters to Stand Down Before the Pentagon was Hit?

What Hit the Pentagon?

Analysis of Pentagon C-Ring Exit Hole

Pentagon Pilot

Tight Descent and Turn at Pentagon “not by 757”

FBI Confiscates Video from Gas Station

“Some Troops Ready to Mutiny”

The 9/11 Mystery Plane Identified


Did Cheney Tell Fighters to Stand Down Before the Pentagon was Hit?

Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission. I wanted to focus just for a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there a good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice-President.

And we had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Were you there when that order was given?

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta: No I was not. I was made aware of it during the time the plane that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon.

There was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice-President: “The plane is fifty miles out. The plane is thirty miles out.” And when he got down to the plane is ten miles out, the young man also said to the Vice-President, “Do the orders still stand?” The Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said: “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

At the time I didn’t know what all that meant.

Lee Hamilton: The flight you’re referring to is?

Maneta: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation that took place between the young man and the Vice-President, then … at the time I did not really recognize the significance of that. And then later on I heard the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC. But those planes were still about ten minutes away.

And so then at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania. Then I thought, oh, my God, did we shoot it down? Then we had to, with the Vice-President, go to the Pentagon to check that out. (911 Commission – Trans. Sec. Norman Mineta Testimony, Youtube.com, downloaded from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y, 12 Aug. 2007.)

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was “absolutely” already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11.

Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58 — after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted in their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….” (Aaron Dyke, “Mineta: Cheney Ordered 9/11 NORAD Stand Down,” Conspiracy Planet, 7 Aug. 2007, downloaded fromhttp://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=4519, 7 Aug. 2007.)

Here’s an example of a big thing that leaked through. Has to do with the Pentagon’s claim and the 9/11 Commission Report’s claim that nobody in the Pentagon knew that some aircraft was coming after them. And of course the official story is that here was Flight 77 coming back after them, and it went along for about 40 minutes, and gosh none of their radars picked that up. And so it’s an incredible story on its face. But we have actual evidence that they did know something was coming to the Pentagon.

Norman Mineta, secretary of transportation, reports that he was told by Richard Clark to come to the White House. He got to the White House, went in, reported to Clark. Clark tells him he should just go on down to the underground bunker, the presidential emergency operation center, and the vice president’s already down there. And so Mineta said he got down there about 9:20am.

Well he hadn’t been there very long before this young man comes in and says to the vice president that this aircraft is now 50 miles out. And pretty soon he comes back in and he says that now it’s 30 miles out.

And then he comes back in and says that now it’s 10 miles out, do the orders still stand? And the vice president whips his head around and says that of course the orders still stand, has he heard anything differently?

Then Tim Romer, commissioner, asked what time was this, how long it was after he got down there. He said it was about five or six minutes. So Romer asked if that would have been about 9:25 or 9:26? Yeah. Well then the official story is that of course the Pentagon was hit, about 9:37 or 9:38, there’s a big gap in there so there’s a problem, but nevertheless you have the testimony that something was coming towards Washington and that the vice president said yes, the orders still stand.

Now Mineta says he assumed the order was to shoot the aircraft down. But whatever it was, it was not shot down, and why would the young man have asked do the orders still stand if the order was to shoot it down? Of course we would shoot something down that’s coming towards us. So the order must have been not to shoot it down. So it looked like we had testimony there given to the 9/11 Commission about a stand down ordered by the vice president. Don’t shoot down the aircraft. Well what happened to that testimony? Disappears. Does not make it into the 9/11 Commission Report.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission says that Cheney didn’t get down to the underground bunker until almost 10 o’clock, probably about 9:58, so of course they had to delete this whole exchange with Mineta and Romer, because when Mineta got down there at 9:20, Cheney was already there and obviously had been there for at least a few minutes because some conversation had already gone on.

So that fits with what everybody else says, which is that Cheney went down there about 9:15. That’s what Clark says, that’s what the White House reporter says, that’s what lots of people had said. Even Cheney said, shortly after the South Tower was hit—9:03—the Secret Service came, picked me up, carried me down bodily downstairs. Shortly thereafter couldn’t have been 45 minutes later.

So even Cheney had said on Tim Russert’s show, that that had happened. The 9/11 Commission tells this obvious lie that he didn’t get down there until 10.

They do say he went downstairs earlier and then stayed at the end of the tunnel, watched TV for a while, talked to the president for a while, and so by the time he and his wife went down to the end of the hall it was 9:58, but they have him getting down to the downstairs at about, sometime after 9:30,and clearly we had all this testimony that he was already in the operations center by 9:15. So here’s a blatant, obvious lie that somebody on the New York Times staff, somebody on the Washington Post staff has to know is a lie, and either they won’t write a story about it or if they do write a story about it their editor won’t let it run. (“Interview with David Ray Griffin,” Whole Life Times, downloaded fromhttp://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html, 7 August 2007.)

Q: How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or even the more superior type of radar possessed by the US military?

A: Richard Cheney had issued orders which prohibited the incoming jet from being shot down before it reached the Pentagon. A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, however; the NTSB Flight Data Recorder data indicates that a 757 flew over the Pentagon and most probably landed at National. DOJ subsequently admitted that Dulles and National airports had been infiltrated with 94 Israeli spies prior to 9/11. (9/11Truth.org, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 athttp://blogs.albawaba.com/post/2011/73057, downloaded August 6, 2007.)

What Hit the Pentagon?

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tonguereferred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile”. …

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. (Statement of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Patriots Question 9/11, downloadedhttp://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 6 August 2007.)

If a 757 came in as low as the “missile thing” did to hit the Pentagon, the massive 757 engines would have been plowing about 2-3 feet deep into the ground and the plane would have not hit the building without leaving two deep furrows across the Pentagon lawn. Or ripping its wings off and those would have been at the crime scene, but they were not. Karl Schwarz, “What Hit The Pentagon?” downloaded frp,http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/911Pentagon.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. …

We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason! (Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret), Statement to Patriots Question 911, downloaded from downloaded http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 6 August 2007.)

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. …

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. (Col, George Nelson, M.B.A., U.S. Air Force (ret), Statement on patriotsquestion911.com, downloaded fromhttp://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 12 August 2007.)

One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on? (Major General Albert Stubbledine, U.S. Army (ret) on Patriots Question 911, downloaded from http://patriotsquestion911.com/, 1 August 2007.)

When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile. (Statement of Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) on Patriots Question 911, downloaded fromhttp://patriotsquestion911.com/, 1 August 2007.)

The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives. (Statement of Joel M. Skousen, former U.S. Marine Corp fighter pilot, Patriots Question 911, downloaded from http://www,patriotsquestion911.com, 12 August 2007.)

Q: Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

A: The attack aircraft was a Cruise-type missile that emitted a “friend” transponder signal, which Pentagon anti-aircraft systems (actually all defense systems, including fighter aircraft) are programmed to ignore. The system is called IFF – Identification Friend or Foe. This is an automatic safety feature designed to prevent “friendly” aircraft from being inadvertently shot down during combat operations. The absence of a “friend” signal would automatically cause any such aircraft to be identified as a “foe”, and immediately fired upon. The aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not fired upon because it was identified as “friend”. This proves it was a US military craft. (9/11Truth.org, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 athttp://blogs.albawaba.com/post/2011/73057, downloaded August 6, 2007.)

What’s unusual about the five frames that the Pentagon has released is they don’t show a plane skimming across the Pentagon lawn. They just show a white vapor trail.

The date and the time on the Pentagon frames is wrong. One of the most secure buildings in the world and at the bottom of this things they have the word “plane.” It’s like subliminal. The word is there, but the plane isn’t. (Phil Jayhan, Independent 9/11 Researcher, Let’s Roll 9/11.org in 9/11: The Ripple Effect.)

The Pentagon is the nerve center of the U.S. military. When it comes to U.S. security, all roads leads to the Pentagon. Surveillance would obviously be the first step in maintaining safety and security. Take a look at your local Walmart and count the closed circuit cameras surveying the parking lot.

Video cameras can be seen everywhere in our society. Are we to believe that the world’s most secure building was only able to capture the event on video from two cameras at one location? (Dave vonKleist in 9/11: The Ripple Effect.)

Graphics: The FBI currently has over 80 confiscated videos of closed-circuit TV recordings of the attack on the Pentagon. According to a CNN FOIA request, at least one of these videos shows the impact at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon refuses to release any of these videos to the public, claiming reasons of national security. (Dave vonKleist in 9/11: The Ripple Effect.)

A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere. Don Parkal in 9/11: In Plane Site.)

The plane appeared to hold 8 to 12 people (Steve Patterson in 9/11: In Plane Site.)

It looked like a commuter plane. (Don Wright in 9/11: In Plane Site.)

I was convinced it was a missile. (Lon Rains in 9/11: In Plane Site.)

We heard what I thought was a missile. (Tom Siebert in 9/11: In Plane Site.)

[Cut to video segment of interview with unidentified man:] It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion. Great ball of fire. Smoke started billowing out.

(From 9/11: In Plane Site.)

From wing tip to wing tip, a 757 is 124 feet, 10 inches. From nose to tail, a 757 is 155 feet and 3 inches in length. And the height is 44 feet, 6 inches. However when you look at the hole in the Pentagon, you find that it’s only approximately 65 feet across. How does a plane of those dimensions fit into a hole only 65 feet across?

Upon further inspection, we found that the damage to the Pentagon was completely and totally inconsistent with the damage of the planes that had hit the World Trade Center. I mean after all, the planes that had hit the Trade Center created a fire so intense, that it fatigued the steel and collapsed the building, or so that’s what we were told.

And yet when you look at the left side of the Pentagon, you’ll note that there is very little if any smoke damage or heat damage at all. On the 3rd floor it’s very plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor. Neither of them are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk, it hasn’t burned. And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed, a wooden stool with a book that is laying open. The pages aren’t even singed.

Now each of the planes involved in the September 11th attacks had embarked upon transcontinental flights, which means that they had a majority of their fuel left over when they hit their respective targets. That means that approximately 8600 remaining gallons of fuel would’ve been ignited on the 757 that had hit the Pentagon. Again we look at the photograph, and ask ourselves, “Is the smoke and heat damage consistent with that amount of fuel being ignited?”
Miss Therese Aigner, a certified environmental specialist, and a member of the Environmental Assessment Association sent us the following letter after a brief conversation we had on the telephone. She had said to us, “that the amount of fuel that would’ve been left in the aircraft that had hit the Pentagon would basically have reduced that section of the Pentagon to rubble, and would have burned for days.” And that “8600 gallons of fuel had a BTU rate of 86 million.” She also stated that, “looking at the total weight of this aircraft in conjunction with it’s velocity, the Pentagon should’ve been reduced to the thickness of a pancake. Also the fuel spill of 8600 gallons would have posed a very large soil removal and disposal project; since the contaminated soil would be considered HAZARDOUS WASTE under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Another interesting question that is raised is in the photographs of the collapsed area of the Pentagon, if you’ll note the upper floor and roof area, it appears that that area simply collapsed and does not show any impact damage from a tail section that was over 43 feet in height. How could a 757 slam into the Pentagon, and not have an impact area where the tail section would’ve hit the upper floors?

Shortly after these questions were raised and the topic was open for discussion on our radio show, The Power Hour, these 5 frames were released from a security camera at the Pentagon. The only problem is that the release of these 5 photographs, seemed to raise more questions than they answered. First of all, why was the date incorrect on the lower left corner of the screen? Second of all, they really didn’t show that there was a 757 that had hit the Pentagon. And thirdly, many people asked, “Is this the only security camera that was on at the Pentagon?” The Pentagon. This is the nerve center for the United States military. Supposedly the most secure building in the country. And this was the only video footage that was available of the most heinous attack ever recorded at the Pentagon?

Where were all the other security cameras aimed? What about the security cameras in the hallways of the Pentagon? Every inch of the Pentagon is under video surveillance! Where are those video cameras?

We also had a report about a [Citgo] gas station, whose video camera was pointed in the exact direction where the 757 would’ve hit the Pentagon. Shortly after the event, it was reported that Federal officials showed up at that gas station, and confiscated that footage.
In addition to all the magazines that hit the newsstands and the supermarket checkouts, there was a flurry of book releases that hit the local bookstores, and in some cases the book section of your local grocery store. One book, is America Attacked which was released by University Press of California and it was edited by Sarah Jess, Gabriel Beck, and R. Joseph. In reference to the attack on the Pentagon, on page 194 it states, “The jet had plowed a crater 100 feet wide that ripped away the walls of all 5 stories of the building, collapsing the outermost rings, which encircle the Pentagon.”

In this picture we ask, do you see a crater 100 feet wide? Or 50 feet wide? How about in this picture, or this picture? It doesn’t appear that there was any crater at all. They went on to say that it had “ripped away the walls of the 5 story building, collapsing the outermost rings, which encircle the Pentagon.”

Now there should be no question that the outer rings of the Pentagon have indeed collapsed. We’ve seen pictures from one angle, from another angle, and America has seen these pictures. We all assumed that was the damage that was caused from the 757 hitting the Pentagon. But shortly after the release of the article, “From Deception to Revelation” we were sent some photographs that were taken apparently right after the event, and BEFORE the outer walls had collapsed.

When examining these photographs we can clearly see that the area in question had not collapsed. In fact, there is very little evidence of a hole big enough to accommodate a 757. The hole that we do see is approximately 14 to 16 feet across.

Question – How does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole and leave no damage, or wreckage on the outside of the Pentagon? These are questions that deserve serious scrutiny.
Let’s take a look at some of the photographs that were taken BEFORE the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed.

In this first photograph we can see the firefighters pulling the hoses away from the fire truck. In the foreground we can see wire spools that were left in the front lawn of the Pentagon, after all, this section of the Pentagon was under renovation. We’ll use these wire spools as reference points.

Also to the right of those wire spools and on the face of the Pentagon we can see that some concrete facing has broken away. We’ll also use this as a reference point as we examine these photographs. Now to the left of that area where the facing has broken off we can clearly see that the Pentagon has NOT YET COLLAPSED. There are some flaming areas, and that area appears to be the only section where there is a hole approximately 14 to 16 feet.

Question – How does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole, and leave no wreckage o n the front of the building?
We can also see that the roof of the building does show fatigue, but has not yet collapsed.
In this photograph an astonished onlooker sees exactly what we’re seeing. The Pentagon had not yet collapsed. And again, there is no sign of any wreckage whatsoever, no tail, no fuselage, no wings, no wheels, no engines, no seats, no luggage, nothing on the outside of the Pentagon. The Pentagon roofline is clearly visible and again it is under fatigue, but it had not yet collapsed.
As we examine this next photograph let’s take a good close look at the lower left hand corner you’ll see engine 331 from the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, and we contacted the fire chief from this engine company. Chief Plower agreed to come on our radio show along with 2 of his firefighters. But 1 hour before airtime, they cancelled. We were told that the firefighters had been placed on indefinite leave.

When we look at this photograph we can see that the fire retardant foam is being sprayed on the front of the Pentagon, and again, the area in question had not yet collapsed.

And you can see right in the center of the photograph, a big area where some of the concrete facing has broken away, and it appears as if this is the only major hole in the front of the Pentagon. Again, is this hole big enough to accommodate a 757? And where is the wreckage?
In this photograph we again see engine 331 and fire retardant foam being sprayed on the front of the Pentagon. Note clearly in the center of the photograph we see the upper floors of the Pentagon again yet to collapse, but… also notice that there does not appear to be any damage to these upper floors.

Question–If the height of the Boeing 757 was 44 feet 6 inches, there should’ve been some point of impact in these upper floors and yet when we look at these pictures, there doesn’t appear to be any impact whatsoever in the area where the tail, should have hit. And again, there is no wreckage visible on the front of the lawn.

Now while these photographs were being taken videographers from several

different networks were on the scene to capture the firefighters in action as they battled the blazes at the front of the Pentagon.

NEWS ANCHOR: Jim Angle is joining us now from Washington…

SCREEN GRAPHIC Actual collapse of the outer wall.

SCREEN GRAPHIC – Actual collapse of the outer wall – approximately 20 minutes after initial impact

VONKLEIST:

Question – What could have caused this type of damage? What could’ve caused a 14 to 16 foot hole and pierced 3 of the rings of the Pentagon? Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall approximately 18 inches thick of steel reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches or 3 feet of steel reinforced concrete, for a total of approximately 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete.

Question – Could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and left a 14 to 16 foot hole, and no wreckage? If not, what could have created that type of damage?

On our radio program, The Power Hour, we have a lot of veterans and military experts that listen in. And many have called up and agreed that it could NOT have been a 757 that created that damage, but in fact, had to be something else all together. What could have caused that damage? Some call it a bunker buster, or a missile.

Now as this controversy percolated through 2002, in January of 2003 the entire issue was resurrected, when the American Society Of Civil Engineers, released a report entitled, The Pentagon Building Performance Report.

The announcement was made on CNN, and they showed an animated video that illustrated how the 757 slammed into the Pentagon and took out 50 support columns.

Let’s take another look at this computer-generated animation from the American Society of Civil Engineers at Purdue – and as we look at this plane ask yourself this question…

What significant information was overlooked in this computer graphic model from the American Society of Civil Engineers?

Well, first of all, the eighteen and a half inch steel-reinforced concrete exterior wall of the Pentagon was omitted.

Second of all, you’ll note that when the tail section enters the Pentagon, it remains intact.

How is it possible that the tail section over forty feet in height would have remained intact as it entered the Pentagon and left no entry point as is seen in this photograph?

Thirdly and probably the most significant omission of all is that the engines are missing in the computer graphic model. Despite these omissions the American Society of Civil Engineers claimed that the plane took out fifty support columns as it entered the Pentagon

When we again look at these photographs, I ask, do you see support columns that have been destroyed? Which support columns were destroyed? How could it possibly be, that the American Society of Civil Engineers could release such a report, when the photographs clearly show that the entire report is in question?

Now let’s look as a computer-generated animation that was broadcast on the National Geographic program Seconds from Disaster in which they dealt with the attack on the Pentagon on September 11th.

In this computer-generated animation, they show that the wings broke off before the plane entered the first ring.

Question – If the planes wings broke off then why didn’t we see any wing parts in the photographs that we examined earlier?

Furthermore, in this computer-generated animation, it clearly shows the plane almost completely disintegrating as it passes through the first ring.

Question – How could it have continued along its path and pierced another seven and a half feet of steel reinforced concrete – piercing the second and third rings of the Pentagon and leave this hole? You can’t have it both ways.

BOEING VIDEO SEGMENT

A Boeing 757 has two engines.

Each engine is about 9 feet in diameter… and 12 feet in length.

A Boeing 757 uses either a Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series engine or a Rolls Royce RB211 engine. Each of the turbofans used in either of these engines is approximately 7 feet in diameter.

Nothing this large was found at the Pentagon.

Is this an engine rotor … from a Boeing 757?

END BOEING VIDEO SEGMENT

WHITE SCREEN:

It’s not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with.

(John W. Brown – Spokesman for Rolls Royce, Indianapolis.)

VONKLEIST:

You know there are those that see these pictures and hear this information for the first time and, they inevitably ask the question, “Well if the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, where did it go?” The answer is, I don’t know where it went. For all I know it could be sitting in 200 feet of water in the Atlantic Ocean. But then again, I didn’t say that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That was NBC, and CBS and ABC and CNN and FOX and all the other news agencies.

The question should be, if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then WHERE is it? And let’s keep in mind that if we do find someone a group or an agency that is involved in the obfuscation, distraction, distortion or cover up of ANY information about ANY of the events of September 11th, does that not indicate possible involvement and even guilt, in the events of September the 11th? (Dave vonKleist in 9/11: In Plane Site.)

Q: Why didn’t the Pentagon collapse when it, too, was hit by an airplane?

David Ray Griffin: A question you might ask about the Pentagon is, it was allegedly hit by an airplane about the same size as the one that hit each of the towers—why did the seismic measurements not register?

Q: You get a definite impact registration when each of the towers is hit. But when the Pentagon is hit, nothing. Whatever hit the Pentagon did not really shake the earth.

Those seismic reports are available for anybody who wants them, so if you Google “9/11 seismic reports,” you would find it.

Pictures we’ve seen show a hole in the Pentagon just a couple of feet off the ground going through several layers of the building. It seems hardly large enough to have been made by a Boeing 757.

It’s between the first and the second floor, so it means that the aircraft itself had to be extremely low to the ground, If that hole was, as some people say, simply the hole punched by the nose of a Boeing 757, the engines would have been digging into the grass, but there is no damage to the grass whatsoever.

Also, with the force of a Boeing 757, the enormous weight of that going several hundred miles an hour, even a reinforced Pentagon façade would have been much more destroyed than all the photos and eyewitnesses say.

And if it was a 757, the tail, which would go up about 40 feet off the ground, surely would have made some sort of dent, visible mark, above that hole we saw in the façade before the building collapsed.

There are no marks on the side where the wings would have hit, and those would have been very powerful. So it seems like a combination of the amount of damage done to the Pentagon and very little debris—no large, plane-sized things outside, no wings, no engines, no tail, no fuselage, so they had to be inside, and yet when the people inside were interviewed, the fire chief and then the head of the building renovation, both of them said they hadn’t seen any big pieces of airplane.

Q: What about luggage or body parts?

DRG: I’ve seen descriptions of people who were on the scene and saw body parts, but I don’t know if anybody walking through would have been able to distinguish passengers from people working in the Pentagon. I’ve never heard any testimony about luggage.

Q: The Pentagon is one of the best-defended buildings in America. Wouldn’t there have been security cameras trained on it that would have captured the plane or whatever it was that hit?

DRG: I’m sure many cameras did capture the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. But if by hypothesis it was not a 757, the Pentagon is not going to release those videos, and that’s one of the questions we’ve asked.

We know there was a video camera on the Citgo gas station across the highway, and we know that the FBI swooped in within five minutes. You would almost think they had known in advance! You would think the FBI would think, “Oh my God, for the first time in history, the Pentagon has been hit, what’s happened here!” but they had the presence of mind to go over there and get the video.

There have been efforts under the Freedom of Information Act to get that. And also there’s another story that one of the hotels had workers who were actually watching the video and the FBI came in and took it away. So we know at least there were at least two and likely a lot more. That’s one of the many, many, many pieces of evidence that suggest that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757.

Q: If it wasn’t hit by a 757, what did hit it? And if Flight 77 didn’t hit it, where did it go and what happened to those passengers?

DRG: That’s what we need an investigation for. We need somebody with subpoena power and the power to get people to identify those above them who are responsible, and talk about what really happened. They have to be more afraid of prison than of losing their job or getting shot or getting “accidented.”

As to what really hit it, there’s contradictory evidence–some evidence suggests a missile, some suggests a rather small airplane that might have been a guided aircraft, like a Global Hawk, something fairly light that when it hit the Pentagon it would have shattered into fairly small pieces, because we do have witnesses.

Q: Prior to whatever hit the Pentagon hitting it, was there an internal explosion?

DRG: That’s what it’s starting to look like, that there was an explosion and subsequently something did strike it from the outside. So it’s starting to look like all three things may be true: there was an explosion, there was a small plane, and the small plane shot a missile into the Pentagon. That would account for this hole that went through to the C Ring.

If they’d just release the tapes, they could end this speculation. It’s astonishing that mainstream news media isn’t looking at this.

More Americans get the news from NBC than from any other outlet. You’ve got NBC, CNBC, MSNBC. And who owns NBC? General Electric. Who is making billions of dollars off the War on Terror? (“Interview with David Ray Griffin,” Whole Life Times, downloaded fromhttp://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html, 7 August 2007.)

Analysis of Pentagon C-Ring Exit Hole

A great deal has been written about the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11. The focus of this discussion is on the mysterious, and officially unexplained, “C-Ring Exit Hole”. The C-ring exit hole is significant because it is not consistent with building damage from a Boeing 757 impact. The C-Ring exit hole carries a unique signature, which can only be explained by something other than a 757 impact. No explanation is offered for this hole in thePentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF) or the official 9-11 Commission Report.

The exterior C-ring wall is the last wall (the third wall traveling into the Pentagon) that sustained significant damage during the Pentagon attack. On 9/11, a near perfectly round, nine foot diameter hole was cut in the C-Ring wall, known as the “C-Ring exit hole”. It is approximately 310 feet (95 m) from the impact on the outer Pentagon wall (E-ring). The unique features of this hole include: its circular shape, the clean cut hole in the wall with no visible damage to the wall immediately surrounding the hole, and steel rebar is cut by the forces which created the hole. For an overview of the hole, seethis page. …

From the impact on the E-ring wall, to the C-ring Exit hole, is an open office space with only support columns and ordinary construction interior walls. According to the Building Performance Report, there were intact (but damaged) support columns starting at roughly 160 feet (49 m) into the building in the aircraft flight path, indicating that the fuselage of the aircraft had effectively been destroyed by this point. The C-ring wall was constructed of steel mesh and rebar reinforced brick, 8 inches (20 cm) thick. Details are shownhere.

Nose cone theory

The initial explanation offered was that nose cone/fuselage of the 757 aircraft punched all the way from the E-ring wall, to the C-ring wall, to create this exit hole, the “nose cone” theory.

The structural design of the 757 is based on the structural loads of a pressurized vessel (the cabin), and the structural and aerodynamic loads from the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel. The plane is made as light as possible, and not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

This “nose cone” theory was quickly discounted as there was no significant aircraft wreckage found at the C-ring wall, nor would an aircraft impact have cut a clean hole without disturbing any of the surrounding wall. There were also support columns still standing in the flight path of the aircraft.

“At a depth of approximately 160 ft (50 m) into the building, columns 3G, 3H, 3J, and 5J were damaged but still standing, although in the direct path of the fuselage. With a maximum spacing of less than 14 ft (4 m) between pairs of these columns in a projection perpendicular to the path of the fuselage, it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel. More likely, the fuselage was destroyed much earlier in its movement through the building. Therefore, the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft.”

-Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF), p. 40.

‘Circle of energy’ theory

Next, investigators from Purdue University proposed that fuel, airplane material, and momentum from the aircraft created this circular cut out by continuing into the building after the plane had been destroyed. This “circle of energy” concept seems improbable for a number of reasons:

1. The airplane materials included the plane and fuel in the fuselage and wings. This material would have been spread out over a non circular area which included the wings and fuselage.

2. There does not seem to be any historical precedent for this phenomenon to have occurred.

3. There were support columns that remained standing in the path between the impact point and the C-Ring exit hole that would have deflected parts of this “circle of energy”.

4. The impact of this material would have knocked the wall down, or caved it in due to the mesh and rebar reinforcement, not created a clean cut hole.

To have this material and energy “form up” into a circle so as to cause this hole seems extremely unlikely. This “circle of energy” theory seems to have also been discounted.

‘Shock wave’ theory

The National Geographic Channel aired a program “Seconds to Disaster” which depicted the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. This program aired most recently on May 24th 2006. They offered the following explanation for the C-Ring exit hole: secondary explosions from the impact and jet fuel, coupled with the geometry of the inside of the impacted Pentagon, allowed shock waves to cause this circular hole.

This “shock wave” concept also seems improbable for a number of reasons:

1. The interior section of the Pentagon where the 757 impacted was roughly 200 feet (60 m) wide and deep with a significant hole from the 757 impact. Air is a compressible gas, and the forces required to knock down a mesh and rebar reinforced wall are substantial. Shock waves could certainly be present, but these shock waves would be in air, and would be spread throughout the interior section of the Pentagon. The hole in the C-Ring would require extremely localized forces; to have these shock waves form a clean cut circular hole, including cutting rebar, is extraordinarily remote.

2. Any forces impacting the wall from shock waves would be spread over some area of the wall. These forces would knock the wall down or crumple it if they were strong enough. These shock waves would also be influenced and deflected by the support columns. Once again, the clean cut hole defies the explanation of shock waves.

3. There does not seem to be any historical precedent for this to occur, as there are routinely secondary explosions during fires, but this clean cut circle phenomena has not been reported elsewhere.

Note: I asked to be put in contact with the authors of the “shock wave” theory, but the National Geographic Channel merely directed me to the Pentagon Building Performance Report and to Pentagon reconstruction website as sources for the program. Neither of these documents offers any explanation for the C-ring exit hole.

Shaped charge?

So what other possibilities could there be for a hole which has these unique characteristics. I have previous experience with shape charge warheads, and anyone with this experience would immediately recognize the hole to match that caused by a shaped charge warhead or device.

The C-ring exit hole has these distinct features, which would have occurred if this wall was struck by some sort of shaped charge:

1. The hole is circular as the typical shaped charge warhead is round.

2. The hole is cleanly cut, in that the walls surrounding the hole do not appear to have suffered any visible forces as would be expected from the extremely localized and focused energy from the shaped charge warhead.

3. Windows are broken outside of the C-ring exit hole. Shock waves from the shaped charge high explosive are strong enough to break typical glass (but not a reinforced brick wall).

4. The wall beyond the C-ring (towards the interior of the Pentagon) is relatively undamaged, only some light charring. The force of the shaped charge warhead is extremely localized and focused and would have dissipated shortly after it breached the C-Ring wall.

What is a shape charge? In simple terms it is high explosives formed in a very specific geometry so that the explosive force is extremely focused. Some good general information can be found atwikipedia. Look at the hole in reinforced concrete (left) made by aTOW bunker buster. You can see how the wall is undamaged except for the hole; also note how the rebar is cut.

Beyond the similarities in the hole shown in this brochure, are there any other details about the Pentagon that raise more questions about the hole in the C-ring wall. On Russell Pickering’s web site,www.pentagonresearch.com, he has identified mistakes in the classification of damage to the Pentagon near the C-Ring exit hole. In summary, the Pentagon Building Performance Report indicates gradual decreasing support column damage as you travel into the pentagon along the flight path, to where there is limited damage by the C-Ring exit hole, but this is incorrect. The column damage increases again near the C-Ring Exit hole. This would be consistent with a shape charge warhead detonating near or at the C-Ring exit hole. See the detailed write uphere.

Was the Pentagon Building Performance Report team allowed uncontrolled access to the site? Not even close, access was limited and they were escorted, see excerpts from the Pentagon Building Performance Reporthere. Note that the Building Performance Report team was not allowed to see this exit hole. The FBI provided a photo and description. Why would this team not be allowed uncontrolled access to assess building damage? It should be noted that this team never saw any damage to the Pentagon until all of the wreckage and debris were removed.

So how did a shaped charged warhead get this far into the Pentagon? One possible explanation is a multi stage shaped charge warhead device. I do not propose that the following device was used at the Pentagon, but one such multi stage device is describedhere. A page or so into this site describes a weapon called a PAM, or “Penetration Augmented Munition”:

“Although compact and lightweight (approximately 35 pounds, 33 inches long), it contains the power of four explosive charges and when deployed, can effectively destroy bridges, runways, roads, and tunnels”.

It describes a technology where multiple shaped charges are used together, where the first charge creates a hole for a second, and so forth. The successive charges can be set off by separate sensors which detect the impact with a wall. If you were to design a “bunker buster” warhead where you had to penetrate multiple reinforced walls, this would be technology to utilize, to allow you to penetrate further into a multi walled structure than with a single shape charge warhead alone. Due to the lack of walls between the exterior E-ring wall and the C ring wall, it is likely that such a device would travel until it hit a support column. Hitting a support column at an angle could serve to deflect slightly the trajectory of the device. Following this theory, the last charge struck the C-ring wall and created the C-Ring exit hole. Having the device follow a deflect path would also explain how there were still support columns in the direct path of the aircraft to the C-Ring exit hole.

If something smaller than a 757 hit the Pentagon, a multi stage shape charge may have been part of the payload to increase the damage into the building, to better approximate the damage that would be envisioned by a larger 757. A shaped charge warhead would seem to be the only explanation that fits the evidence of a sudden increase in damage to the Pentagon near the C-Ring exit hole and the C-ring exit hole itself. …

The only explanations offered by the “official” community, the “circle of energy” and the “shock wave theory”, have no precedent, and violate some basic common sense and physics. My proposal fits the classic shape charge damage seen from a typical shaped charge warhead. The first time I saw the C-Ring exit hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew that the only way to cut a clean hole in a reinforced brick wall (including cutting through rebar) is with a shaped charge warhead. With any type impact or wave, forces would have caused the wall to crumble or cave in, without cutting through rebar.

Many people have claimed that there is no evidence to doubt the official version of events on 9/11. I guess that really depends on your definition of evidence. With the C-Ring exit hole, we have a hole that is clearly out of place with a 757 impact, we have investigators that are not permitted to see the hole, and we have damage near the hole not accurately presented in an official report. What is your threshold for simply accepting a story from the government?

The C-ring Exit hole is but one small chapter in the unexplained events of 9/11. There are many other similar, unexplained events. Doesn’t the fact that our Republic was forever altered by the events on 9/11 require an investigation that puts to rest all of these questions, no matter where it leads? (Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer, “Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery,” downloaded fromhttp://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_ExitHole.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)

Postscript

For the sake of completeness, we (at 911truth.dk) should add that Popular Mechanics claims that the hole was made by the plane’s landing gear.

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide–not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet’s landing gear, not by the fuselage. (Debunking The 9/11 Myths, March 2005.)

This is all that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ACSE) had to say about the landing gear in theirPentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF), p. 40:

The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft (91 m) into the structure. [Ed. Note: No independent evidence exists that the landing gear was found at the Pentagon site.]

Aside from presenting a picture of the ‘exit hole’ and marking its position on the diagrams, the ACSE says nothing about it, and certainly doesn’t say it was caused by the landing gear. (Postscript to Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer, “Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery,” downloaded fromhttp://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_ExitHole.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)

Pentagon Pilot

October 24, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training exercises called [Navgow?], which simulates a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F-4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participates in this exercise before retiring to take a job at American Airlines where, less than a year later, his Boeing 757 alleges crash into the building. (Loose Change, downloaded fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE, 15 Aug. 2007.)

Tight Descent and Turn at Pentagon “not by 757”

September 11, 2001. 9:38, Arlington, Virginia. Hani Hanour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 533 miles per hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes to crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

[Graphic: “[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall.”

[“The aircraft won’t go that fast when you start pulling those high G manoeuvres. That plane would have fallen out of the sky.” Russ Wittenberg, commercial and Air Force pilot who flew two of the planes used in 9/11, Wing TV.] (Loose Change, downloaded fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE, 15 Aug. 2007.)

A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. (Statement of Barbara Honegger, MS, Patriots Question 911, downloaded fromhttp://www.patrios.com, 12 Aug. 2007.)

The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, … are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and … not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. (Statement of Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret), Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www,patriotsquestion911.com, 12 August 2007.)

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg … argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”…

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.” (Statement of Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from http://www,patriotsquestion911.com, 12 August 2007.)

A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.

Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system.”(Statement of Barbara Honegger, MS, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded fromhttp://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 14 Augut 2997.)

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they’re designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it’s bordering on impossible. (Statement of Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret), Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded fromhttp://www,patriotsquestion911.com, 12 August 2007.)

Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. “The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.” (Statement of Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded fromhttp://www,patriotsquestion911.com, 12 August 2007.)

As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. …

Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled “terrorists”. (Statement of Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded fromhttp://www,patriotsquestion911.com, 12 August 2007.)

Regarding the 9/11 Commission’s account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information:

After I did my own analysis of it, it’s obvious that there’s discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that’s where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. …

The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor’s note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. …

You know, I’d ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I’m a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor’s note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that’s an area that I think deserves explanation. …

The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission. There are several things that can be brought up but it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder. And I can’t think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there. [The film he refers to is Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] (Statement of Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, Patriots Question 9/11, downloadedhttp://www.patriotsquestion911.com/6 August 2007.)

The Commission did allude to one problem—the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was known to be completely incompetent, incapable of flying a Boeing 757, let alone performing the remarkable maneuver reportedly executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The Commission handled this problem simply by saying in one place that Hanjour was considered a “terrible pilot” while saying elsewhere that he was given the assignment to hit the Pentagon because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” The mainstream press has not pointed out this contradiction. (Dr. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 and the Mainstream Press,” 9/11 Visibility Project, 29 July 2005, downloaded fromhttp://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php, 15 Aug. 2007.)

FBI Confiscates Video from Gas Station

Three months ago, on September 11 at 9:38 a.m., a Tuesday, Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead. “I knew something was wrong. The planes come more from the north and west [to land at Reagan National Airport] not from the south. And not so low.”

He was talking on the telephone that morning to a friend who was feeding him gauzy reports about airplane crashes at the World Trade Center in New York. But Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane. …

Velasquez says the gas station’s security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like,” he said. “The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” Bill McKelway, “Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11 Dec. 2001, downloaded fromhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html, 6 August 2007.)

The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. The Commission in particular failed to subpoena the film from the video cameras, confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks, which could at least clear up one of the questions—whether the attacking aircraft was a Boeing 757. (Dr. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 and the Mainstream Press,” 9/11 Visibility Project, 29 July 2005, downloaded fromhttp://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php, 15 Aug. 2007.)

“Some Troops Ready to Mutiny”

Donn de Grand-Pre: (laughs) Yeah, you see there’s a definite cleavage between the military of the Pentagon and the civilian hierarchy – and never the twain shall meet.

Alex Jones: Well, there was an article right after that you talk about in mid-2002 in the Washington Times saying the morale in the Pentagon had never been lower. And you would think it would be high right after 911 and getting together to fight the enemy. But it said that the officers didn’t believe in the “mission” or in the intelligence.

DGP: That is correct. That came out of the Washington Times and I can verify that from Col. Dick Schultz, who is a friend of mine in the Joint Chiefs. Morale was not only low but he said some of the troops are ready to mutiny. If it wasn’t for the fact that the government, the civilian hierarchy, has control over retirements, they would probably be blood in the streets by now. (Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations,” The Alex Jones Show, downloaded fromhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html, 13 Aug. 2007.)

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning [for an attack on Iran] are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi,Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American Conservative, 2 August 2005 cited inMichel Chossudovsky, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” Globalresearch.ca, 22 Feb. 2006, downloaded fromhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032, 27 Aug. 2007.)

The 9/11 Mystery Plane Identified

The morning of 9/11, CNN reported a mystery jet plane flying above Washington, DC. At 9:54 a.m., correspondent John King, who was standing near the White House, reported that about ten minutes earlier (hence, around 9:44 a.m.), there was “a white jet circling overhead.” He added: “Now, you generally don’t see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell.” [1] Shortly after, another CNN correspondent, Kate Snow, also reported having seen a plane, “circling over the Capitol” building at around the same time. She said: “Now whether that may have been an Air Force plane, it’s unclear. But that seemed to be the reason, according to security guards that I talked with, towards the evacuation of the Capitol.” [2]

Yet the identity of this “white jet” aircraft has been a mystery. Indeed, there has been virtually no discussion of its existence, even though it was flying above Washington at a time when America was under attack, and when the only aircraft in the area should have been fighter jets, there to protect against possible further attacks. The 9/11 Commission, which claimed that its aim had been to present “the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11″ appears not to have investigated the identity of this plane, and made no mention of it in its final report.

THE MYSTERY PLANE IDENTIFIED
In his recent Internet article “The 9/11 Mystery Plane,” Mark H. Gaffney presented compelling evidence–including a clear photo and video footage–indicating that this “white jet” had in fact been an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane. These are highly modified Boeing 747s that act as flying military command posts. [3]

Important new evidence corroborates Gaffney’s conclusion, and raises further questions about the role played by the E-4B planes on 9/11. This evidence appears in the 2003 book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism, written by Dan Verton, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and former senior writer for Computerworld magazine, who has written extensively on national security, the intelligence community, and national defense topics. Verton reported that, the morning of September 11, an E-4B was launched from “an airfield outside of the nation’s capital.” (He did not, however, state which specific base.) This plane was carrying “civilian and military officials,” and was going “to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise.” This exercise would involve “the use and testing of the aircraft’s various advanced technology and communications equipment.”

According to Verton, the E-4B launched from near Washington “had only just taken off” at the time of the Pentagon attack, which was at 9:37 a.m. This would mean it could, quite plausibly, have been circling above the White House and Capitol building at around 9:44 a.m., when CNN’s John King and Kate Snow spotted a plane up above. Verton adds that, once airborne, the E-4B “was immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center.” [4]

GLOBAL GUARDIAN
The exercise the E-4B was participating in would have been Global Guardian, which was being conducted at the time by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), to test its ability to fight a nuclear war. TheOmaha World-Herald has reported that three National Airborne Operations Center planes were airborne the morning of 9/11 for this exercise. Following the attacks, all three remained in the air. [5] According to theWorld-Herald, Global Guardian was canceled after the second WTC tower was hit, at 9:03 a.m. [6] This is what we would logically expect, since it was quite obvious by that time that America was under attack, and an ongoing massive war exercise could, presumably, have led to great confusion within the military about what was real and what was just simulation. Yet, according to Verton’s account, it was only around the time of the Pentagon attack that the E-4B launched near Washington was ordered to stop the exercise. This would therefore have been over half an hour after the second attack had occurred. If Verton is correct, we need to know why there was such a delay in pulling this aircraft out of the exercise.

DOOMSDAY PLANES

It is important to note that the E-4B is no ordinary aircraft. It is a militarized version of a Boeing 747-200, equipped with advanced communications equipment, and capable of carrying a crew of up to 112 people. Nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War, E-4Bs serve the president, the secretary of defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In times of national emergency, they can act as highly-survivable command, control, and communications centers to direct forces, execute war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities. The U.S. military possesses four of them in total. One is always kept on alert, with a full battle staff. Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska is the “Main Operating Base” for the E-4B, though there are also numerous “Forward Operating Bases” (FOB) throughout the U.S. [7]

As well as the three E-4Bs in the air the morning of September 11 due to the Global Guardian exercise, what appears to have been the fourth of these planes–presumably the one kept on alert–was apparently activated and launched simply in response to the attacks. Reportedly, minutes after the attack on the Pentagon, it took off from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio, bound for an undisclosed location. The plane returned to the base at some unspecified time later on in the day. [8] Like the E-4B launched near Washington, little attention has been paid to this aircraft and what its purpose was on 9/11. Again, no mention was made of it in the 9/11 Commission Report.

This highlights the fact that, approaching the sixth anniversary of the attacks, we still only really know a very small fraction of what was going on during the day of 9/11. As Mark Gaffney rightly concludes, there is an “urgent need for a new 9/11 investigation: It must be nonpartisan, independent, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses.” [9]

NOTES
[1]“The White House Has Been Evacuated.” Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. The clip can be viewed online at:http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110929-1011.
[2]“America Under Attack: Terrorists Attacks in Both Washington, DC and New York.” Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. The clip can be viewed online at:http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053.
[3]Mark H. Gaffney, “The 9/11 Mystery Plane.” Rense.com, April 5, 2007.
[4]Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. New York: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 143-144.
[5] Joe Dejka, “Inside StratCom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-life Twist.” Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002.
[6] Joe Dejka, “When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making.”Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[7]Stephen I. Schwartz (Editor), Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U. S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998, p. 210;“E-4B National Airborne Operations Center.” Federation of American Scientists, April 23, 2000;“E-4B.” U.S. Air Force, August 2007.
[8]Timothy R. Gaffney, “Wright-Pat Air Force Base Goes to Highest Alert.” Dayton Daily News, September 12, 2001.
[9]Mark H. Gaffney, “The 9/11 Mystery Plane.”

(“New Details About The 9/11 Mystery Plane,” 911 Blogger.com, 6 August 2007,http://www.911blogger.com/node/10441.)

Print Friendly
Share

Comments are closed.