The Pentagon Attack - 9.11By Dark Politricks
If you know my thoughts on 9.11 then you know I have gone back and forth on the events many times. Initially when the 9.11 attacks happened, like many people I started off believing the official conspiracy theory.
Then after a lot of reading up on the subject, discovering the questions over WTC-7, the Israeli spy rings following the terrorists around the USA, the repeated warnings about the attacks, The ABLE Danger Program and evidence of the stand down order provided by Norman Mineta I went the other way.
Recently I have been reading a lot more about building 7 and have been swaying back again due to the multiple computer program simulations they used to "prove" the collapse (by fire).
However I am still not convinced and it still leaves a massive co-incidence theory instead of a conspiracy theory stuck right in my throat.
One I am still not prepared to fully give up. What I have always wanted is a proper, subpoena powered, proper investigation into the events of the day. Also proper logical answers to all the questions that remain, or haven't been asked.
Until that happens I am going to be raising questions and asking for answers. When people put reputations on the line to raise questions then they should be listened to and numerous ex Government officials, intelligence officers, military men, first responders and families of the victims all have raised these questions.
Remember, this is not to say that these questions don't have perfectly reasonable and logical answers to them, it's just that many people including myself haven't heard the answers, or that the provided answers don't fit together to explain the events.
So until the point a new investigation is held I will always have a lingering doubt about the events of 9/11.
This is especially due to the fact that you only have to look at the state of America now to see how the war on terror has been used to attack all our liberties and freedoms. Whether the attack was a false flag attack or not, it certainly was taken advantage of, and used to implement what looks like a high tech police state in the once free America.
The PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, Prism, TRAPWIRE, Assassination Squads, Drones, Constant War, should I go on....
Here are just some of the "coincidences" and unanswered questions I still have are below - and God knows this is only a small subset of them!
- 3 Steel framed buildings, the first to collapse from fire alone, all owned by the same person collapse in the same day, just after being taken over by a new owner and having massive insurance for terrorism put on them.
- This is along with the hijackers all successfully taking over 4 planes with only rudimentary weapons. Not one of their planes being challenged in the sky, even after the first attack on New York was known about.
- The Israeli spy rings that were following some of the hijackers about the USA. Did they tell anyone? We know Mossad has controlled al-Qaeda rings before (even setting up fake rings) - was this a controlled ring or a co-opted ring "allowed" to commit the attack. Both FOX News and German newspapers reported on this.
- Why did so many Israeli agents get arrested in the aftermath of the attacks, held for months, then let go?
- What did the Israeli's caught filming the attacks across the river know about the attacks and why did they say they were sent to "document the event"? What foreknowledge did they have and why were they so happy to see the WTC burning?
- Even if the attack was "allowed to happen" this is still a state crime as it means someone in the US Government had to order a stand down to NORAD.
- We know the CIA / Mossad have had close links to al-Qaeda and bin-Laden, even the CIA visited him in hospital soon before the attacks. What was his real role apart from patsy in the attacks?
- We also know the US consulate in Yemen was providing passports for jihadists to come to the US to be trained and then sent off to fight elsewhere. Why were the CIA engaged in such behaviour and what were the links to the Miami airports that were CIA "green zones", areas that CIA planes were allowed to bring in drugs and arms. The links between the US intelligence community and our supposed enemy al-Qaeda are always murky and unclear. Who knows whether certain factions in the Government or the intelligence community knew the attacks were about to happen.
- We know false flag attacks are a reality. We also know the PNAC document was written by the same people who were in government at the time. People who co-incidentally were involved in a massive financial scam involving the ex-USSR (see video below).
- Dick Cheney is not exactly an angel, having talked about using false flag attacks in the Staits of Hormuz to go to war with Iran, plus his own assassination squads. If a stand down order was put out to NORAD then it was probably him who ordered it. The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta seems to corroborate this and it is strange that this was left out of the 9.11 commission report.
What about the ABLE Danger program that had identified the 9.11 hijackers months before the attack occurred and the many other warnings given by foreign intelligence as well as domestic agencies about the attacks. What about the warnings given to key politicians not to fly that day?
- What about the ISI chief who wired money to the lead hijacker who was coincidentally meeting with top US military figures on the day of the attacks.
- What about the planes which looked unlike commercial airliners, who were expertly piloted into the WTC by non-expert pilots. Were these planes remote controlled?
- What about the white planes who were seen in the air over the White House when all planes were supposed to be grounded, who was flying these planes?
We know that dozens if not hundreds of people arrested after the 9.11 attacks were from Israeli origin.
After many weeks in detention they were all let go without charge.
Why were they held in the first place?
Who forced their release?
As for the Israeli's caught across the river filming the attacks, caught hi-fiving each other, before being arrested. Why were they so happy to see the carnage unfold?
This is a clip from an interview they did on Israeli TV.
How did these Israeli's, with links to Mossad, know to "document the event"? If they didn't have pre-knowledge of the attacks then what event were they sent to document?
The 9.11 Commission
The 9.11 commission was a farce.
Not only did they leave out the reasons that the terrorists themselves claimed that they attacked the USA, which is the USA's foreign policy and their support for Israel, but they ignored evidence and questions such as the one posed above about the Israeli connection.
They also ignored key evidence which suggested a stand down order by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and instead used the commission to push for war with Iraq. #
Even 6 of the 10 commissioners have made statements that seem to suggest they were not happy with the outcome. Some even went as far as to suggest the White House lied, the CIA covered up evidence and even blocked access to key witnesses. Some of these statements included:
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest”.
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.. This is not spin. This is not true.”When no-one was even sacked or demoted due to the failings of intelligence which were supposedly the cause of the attacks and instead promoted then you must ask whether these people were doing their jobs correctly or not.
If doing your job badly, leading to the worst terrorist attack on mainland USA, leads to your promotion, then logically you have to consider that their job was to allow the event to occur. Promoted people such as:
- Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11.
- Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11.
- Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director.
- Brigadier General Montague Winfield.
- Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11.
- Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney's task force on problems of national preparedness.
- Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit.
- Pasquale D'Amuro, in charge of counter-terrorism in New York.
This video is one I watched the other day and it gives some new context to the events of 9.11 as it infers that the attacks were co-ordinated to cover up a massive financial fraud involving the fire-sale of post USSR Russia in the 90's.
Whether this is true or not only detailed investigation would prove but it is does a worthwhile job putting the pieces together and includes detailed links to names, aircraft bases and companies all possibly involved in the attacks. Project Hammer - view on youtube.com
The Pentagon Attack
When it comes to the attack on the Pentagon I also still have doubts about that attack even though at first I thought it was one of the least suspicous parts of the story.
Even though I know many witnesses claim to have seen the plane hit the re-inforced walls of the Pentagon there are many questions that remain unanswered.
This is mainly due to there not being any photographic or video evidence of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon and the refusal of the Government to release all the CCTV and other camera footage that would have caught the planes impact and lay these questions to rest.
Whilst I used to be on the side of those who believed the Pentagon "missile" attack was a diversion from the real conspiracy in New York I still want to know what exactly happened and how.
How did a plane that big, flying so low and fast by an inexperienced pilot, making expertly executed turns at speeds far above the planes supposed fastest speed manage to punch through 3 rings of the most secure building in the world - without being caught on a single camera?
I used to believe that witness statements should be given their due. If witnesses claimed to hear bombs go off in the WTC, or hear a countdown at WTC-7, or see cutter charges go off then they shouldn't be dismissed at the Pentagon for claiming to see Flight 77 hit the building.
It was just unfair to admit some witness testimony because it backed your argument then dismiss others that went against it.
However we all know that after big events, especially traumatic ones, witness statements often don't match and even conflict with each other.
Therefore a plane could have easily flown low across the Pentagon giving the impression that it was about to hit it before a missile or bomb went off. The plane then could have rose up through the explosions and fire. It probably wouldn't be seen or even if it was it would soon be forgotten about due to everyone concentrating on the flames and smoke rising from the Pentagon.
The only CCTV camera evidence from one of the most photographed and surveyed areas in the world has only revealed 5 frames of nothing but a flash from one camera. #
It doesn't prove that Flight 77 hit the building at all.
If the Government wanted to kill conspiracy theories around the Pentagon once and for all they would release all confiscated camera and CCTV footage that was collected by investigators in the aftermath of the attack.
By not doing so they only lend credibility to conspiracy theories. This then assumes that they either want these theories to go on or don't care about them as they offer some form of cover.
Evidence That A Plane Didn't Hit The Pentagon
Not only do many pilots claim that the manoeuvre that was carried out by Flight 77 was impossible. Both being too fast for the type of plane to accomplish without falling apart but also too hard for even seasoned pilots to manage, let alone an amateur, but evidence exists that suggests the plane did in fact fly over the building.
Analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which supposedly hit the Pentagon shows a so far unexplained discrepancy between the altitude of the plane and what supposedly happened. Basically it means that the lamp posts which the plane supposedly hit would have had to have been 440 feet high for the plane to have brought them down - an impossibility!
It also suggests that the plane flew over the Pentagon NOT into it.
This is data which has been released by the National Transportation Safety Board and it means that the planes altitude is in direct conflict with the only CCTV footage that has been released of the impact.
Either the data from the black box is wrong somehow (e.g it was edited before being released) or the plane didn't actually hit the lamp posts and then crash into the Pentagon.
Which data-set is correct?
I don't know but it is a question that needs answering.
Then there is the size of the impact hole which was very small.
To the sides of the hole there were no signs of wing marks or the huge engines that should have hit it. Even if the wings had folded back and crumpled into the body the huge engines should have been visible on the unscratched grass of the Pentagon.
The dimensions of the hole do not seem to fit those of a Boeing 757 and there is no sign of plane parts either in the hole, as attested to by witnesses at the scene, or on the grass outside which is evident from the first film footage shot of the aftermath.
This footage was not requested by the 9.11 commission as the Jesse Ventura video at the bottom attests. What Happens When A Plane Hits Concrete?
Here is a video which shows a test to prove whether a Japanese nuclear power station could withstand an airplane hitting it. In the test they used a rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour which is the same speed that Flight 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.
Notice how the plane does NOT go through the wall but disintegrates into chunks on the outside of the wall.
This is unlike the Pentagon attack where we are asked to believe that not only were the huge engines of a Boeing 757 not found imprinted on the wall of the Pentagon, they were seemingly not found at all.
In fact only small parts of a plane (or missile) were found and even Boeing employees when asked claimed that these parts did not belong to the suggested plane. Also there is the question of how a plane made out of very lightweight materials could have a nose so strong that it punched through three rings of concrete as it supposedly did at the Pentagon.
Whereas the plane in the video above crumples up on impact with the concrete wall we are asked to believe that Flight 77 managed to punch it's way through 3 rings of concrete at the Pentagon. Something a missile would do very well but a Boeing 757 isn't capable of due to the weakness of the planes nose.
To go with this we are expected to believe that no passenger bodies were found at the scene. Instead only bodies of people from the Pentagon were recovered. It was only later at another location that the passengers were supposedly identified. These could have easily been faked.
We also have witnesses from within the building who claim not to have seen any signs of a plane at all, even being threatened (or "corrected") in their assertion that a bomb had gone off (as the later video shows). At other plane crash sites, bodies are found still in their plane chairs, however none were at the Pentagon.
Multiple witnesses and journalists made statements that no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon could be seen on the grass or even within the hole that many witnesses walked through on their way to safety.
Then there is the question of how a plane of that size reportedly flew 400 mph at only 30ft above the ground to hit the first floor of the building without hitting the ground first.
If experienced pilots claim this feat would have been impossible for them to accomplish, then how could an inexperienced pilot such as Hani Hanjour, someone who had been denied the usage of a small Cessna 172 because he was such a bad pilot, make such a manoeuvre.
Others believe that the the immense down-force from the plane would have prevented it from flying so close to the ground at such speeds and that it would have crashed into the ground leaving marks on the untouched Pentagon lawn way before the walls that it reportedly hit.
I have personal contact with someone who worked with aircraft all their professional life, working with Rolls Royce aircraft engines.
When asked how a plane that size could fly so fast and so low to the ground without toppling over due to the huge down-force he replied - "with difficulty and a great deal of skill".
Something which we know the pilot reportedly had none of. Whether you think it's a distraction or not lots of questions remain about the Pentagon.
In fact lots of questions remain around 9.11 as a whole.
With the recent Prism scandal we should always remember that it was the events of 9.11 that has led to our current high tech surveillance state. This is Jesse Ventura's look into the Pentagon attacks.
View the original article "The Pentagon Attack - 9.11" at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com