Remember The Pentagon Plane Attack Impossibilities

Remember The Pentagon Plane Attack Impossibilities

By Dark Politricks

I have been into 9.11 almost as soon as I saw it on the TV screens of secretaries at my work in 2001. I always thought the "Pentagon Plane was really a missile" story was a fake or government spined lie to discredit the 9.11 Truth movement. If the witnesses at the WTC, thousands who saw a plane or two hit the Twin Towers then why shouldn't the witnesses at the Pentagon be believed just as much.

However after examining it more extensively and with Pilots for 911Truth getting FOI data showing that the plane actually flew over the building and listening to talks from people who saw no plane debris at the "official" impact site, I changed my mind.

The Plane simply does not fit and cannot fly at 550 mph that low to the ground, and this is the supposed exit point the aluminium plane managed to punch through 3 rings of reinforced concrete walls. 

It is impossible for a plane to fly that low, and punch through three rings of concrete building. 

From the video given out to the public only after numerous FOI requests, we are expected to believe that a Boeing 757 managed to fly only a few feet off the ground horizontally, for some time, without down-force crashing it into the ground or it's engines, and for it's huge body to disappear into a small hole on the first floor of the Pentagon before punching it's way through 3 re-enforced walls of concrete and coming out of a small exit hole 3 rings later.

Witnesses, TV crew and employees spoke about the lack of debris, bodies, bags and engine parts when they walked through this 3 ring puncture to escape.

I have a detailed talk from Barbara Honegger, an ex Reagan official who appears in this short video, and I think she puts the pieces together well.

She talks about 2 attacks at the site which get around the problems of the first pictures of pristine grass outside the impact zone and no debris and if you watch her speech in the article she explains it as 2 attacks.

One by a drone, coloured to look like a plane and then the main attack at a different section of the building which was a bomb. This was why there was no debris outside or plane engines buried 10 feet in the ground as they would have been if flying that low to the ground to hit the first floor.

Problems with the official story include:

1. The incompetence of the pilot supposedly at the wings of the 757 to make such a complex maneuver. Something experienced pilots would need many attempts on simulators to get anywhere near right.

2. The official path of the plane does not fit with the witness evidence or the broken light poles on the road.

3. A plane cannot fly at 550 mph at only a few feet off the ground which is required to hit the 1st floor "official impact zone".

4. If you watch this video of a test to see what a plane would do a re-enforced concrete wall like the Pentagon had you will see that the possibility of an aluminium plane using kinetic energy would not punch through 3 walls but be destroyed into tiny bits on the first impact. Notice in the video the plane is on train tracks due to the fact you cannot fly a plane that low to the ground at that speed.

So from all the CCTV that the FBI confiscated which could have caught the plane, drone, missile, or flock of concrete beaked seagulls hit the Pentagon we got a short clip from a CCTV camera that showed a few frames that showed no plane and an explosion.

The FBI must know what happened from other CCTV and their threats to staff who went public but they themselves are as corrupt as every part of the US Oligarchy.

The plane did not nose dive down into the first floor it apparently flew parallel to the ground for a good few hundred yards. This is something when I asked my father who worked for one of the UK's top Air Research Facilities as a chief engineer who designed plane engines how difficult it would be. He said "very", and "almost impossible".

He said the same as many other pilots who said that just the huge turn in the air and path the plane took was impossible for this type of plane.

Many ex military men and pilots have come out to say this. John Lear tried to sue the Government and in his affidavit he explains how planes flying at 550 mph (roughly) could not be controlled in the manner they were as they are designed as cruise ships in the sky at 40,000 feet not Jet fighters performing exotic turns at low altitude.

Conspiracies like the official 9.11 Report show that.

1. The Commissioners lied to the public about outside funding from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia when asked numerous times due to the release of the 28/29 pages which admits Saudi Involvement in the attack.

2. Why did the extensive news coverage on the day about white vans being stopped on the Washington Bridge with Israeli Mossad agents inside along with box cutters and bombs not heard about after the event on the day?

3. How did the "Dancing Israelis" know to park their van across the Jersey river to get pictures and footage of the first plane hitting the WTC. They are on record saying they were "Sent to document the event", so how did they know the event would even happen.

4. Whatever turned the WTC into dust, metal beams just frazzling up as they fell, the lack of seismic data from the buildings hitting the floor, toasted cars a block away with perfectly fine paper from the WTC offices floating about. Nano thermate particles (or rust) found in the huge dust cloud that covered NYC for days and is now giving first responders cancers, from asbestos and other concrete particles or maybe radiation from a mini nuke under the towers as Russian agent and material witness Dimitri Khalezov believes is unimportant. We know from the extensive library of firemen, police, WTC workers and people like William Rodriguez, a janitor who helped many people escape and described multiple explosions below and above him that there was probably a number of fail safe techniques used to ensure the towers fell that day.

These recent articles are all updates for the upcoming 9.11 anniversary. You can find many more on the site.

(I have to constantly find new videos and images for this article due to YouTube taking them down - why, I d0n't know, it's history. However it is a constant battle to keep this page updated)

By Dark Politricks

© 2018 Dark Politricks

Why the hell are we still fighting in Afghanistan

By Dark Politricks



Afghan Police and local residents stand around a mini van carrying the bodies of the victims who were killed by a US soldier

The question needs to be asked again and again and almost on a weekly if not daily basis - "why are we still fighting in Afghanistan?"

As the recent burning of the Korans and now the murderous rampage by a US solider shows, we are doing more harm than good by being there and the people of Afghanistan sure don't want us "helping them" or whatever poor excuse we are using to justify our existence there propping up the corrupt Mayor of Kabul - someone most of the Stan sees as a US puppet up to his eyes in drug dealing and corruption.

The solider who went on the latest killing spree, murdering 16 women and children in the middle of the night, was obviously suffering some form of mental illness, probably from the multiple tours of duty expected by US soliders nowadays.

Maybe it was PTSD that comes from witnessing your friends being blown to bits by IED's. Or maybe he had become so de-senitised from all the death, blood and guts that he'd have witnessed over his multiple tours that he just couldn't funtion as a compassionate human being anymore.

It could happen to anyone. Physcological studies have proved it time and again.

As the Independent said recently:

The soldier had a traumatic brain injury at one point and had problems at home after his last deployment, officials told ABC News.

After returning from his last deployment in Iraq, he had difficulty reintegrating, according to the reports, but officials said he "worked through" those issues before deploying to Afghanistan.

He is accused of walking out of the Zangabad base in Kandahar's Panjwai district early Sunday morning before going on his murderous spree. Nine children were among the dead.

What does it say about the state of mind of our troops in the Stan and all the other covert wars we are not supposed to be but are most definitley fighting around the world when they break down and go on murder sprees for fun, or kill kids and women because they have just witnessed a friend being injured?

When boys are brought up on computer games such as Call of Duty and Medal of Honour and trained from an early age to treat death and war as a game then it must come as quiet a shock to their senses when they actually enter a real war zone.

It must be a life changing experience when you have to hold your dying friend in your arms as he coughs up blood and brain matter and you know there is nothing you can do but look into his dying eyes and hold his hand wishing you hadn't joined the army in the first place. What does it feel like to see your best mates head or limbs ripped from their bodies as they step onto a hidden mine or shot from a snipers rifle through the eye exploding brain matter all over your face. How does that affect you as a human being?

How would you feel if you saw your friends, your brothers in arms, routinely killed and blown to smithereens whilst patrolling the Afghani villiages all the while believing that you are "helping" the locals by weeding out Taliban and Terrorists.

Now reverse that.

How would you feel if you saw your best friend, mother, father or son brutally slaughtered in front of you for doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Killed for just sleeping in their beds and hoping for a better day. One in which a bomb doesn't fall from the sky because some American drone controller things you and your donkey carrying food to your family looks like a Taliban "Terrorist" smuggling arms into Helmand Province.

Would you want revenge? Of course you would!

Would you feel the kind of rage and emotion that can turn the veil of civilitiy that we all like to assume into a more base instinct still within us after million years of evolution. An instinct that can take a person from a well mannered civil human being into a vicious animal intent on death within seconds?

I bet you would. I know I would. I have been there before.

I have seen freinds about to be hospitalised for life and gone from a still silent person into a fighting machine prepared to suffer injury to protect my mate.

When you are in that state of mind you don't feel the punches and kicks raining down on you. In fact you don't feel anything. People have said that they have been shot multiple times and not even realised it until after the combat has finished. Adrenaline does that to you.

Is that how the solider in Afghanistan felt as he moved from room to room hunting for people to kill.

"I heard a gunshot. When I came out of my room, somebody entered our house," a 26-year-old villager named Mohammad Zahir said.

"After that, I saw him moving to different areas of the house – like he was searching." Mr Nazir's father, unarmed, then took a few steps out of his bedroom. Then the soldier fired.

How do you imagine the Afghanistan citizens feel who have just suffered this outrage?

Are they not well within their rights to demand justice and vengeance for the act of barbarity inflicted on their wives and children?

Would you not expect the same if you were in their shoes?

The longer we stay in Afghanistan, the more of these incidents will occur.

We have already had torture of innocents at Bagram, the "kill squad" who killed civillians for jollies, the multiple instances of Korans being burned insulting millions of peoples religions by our callousness and carelessness.

We have had soldiers kill livestock for fun and now we have soldiers killing people for fun - is that just a logical progression or is it what our "leaders" want us to do. To de-humanise us and turn us into killing machines that can murder whole families of children and women without even a second thought?

The reason we went to war in Afghanistan is now over and has been for many years.

We killed bin-Laden - in fact he most certainly died a natual death in 2001 but whether you believe that or not is beside the point.

We are not fighting al-Qaeda in Afhanistan, they can be counted on one hand and even then they are probably all linked to black ops from various intelligence agencies. Used like Sibel Edmonds claims as a perfect excuse to cause instability in a region so that we can come in and restore "order".

How much "order" exists in Afghanistan at the moment? Not much by the looks of things.

We are killing more civillians, less al-Qaeda (due to their not being there anymore) and creating more resentment, anger and people willing to fight for the Taliban with every drone attack and murder spree we go on.

From the Guardian's report on Afghanistan Civillian Casualties.

"Anti-Government Elements increased their use of IEDs and suicide attacks against obvious civilian targets. In incidents where intended targets appeared to be military, those responsible for placing or detonating IEDs showed no regard for the presence of civilians and no evidence of distinguishing between civilian and military targets in violation of the international humanitarian law principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality. Anti-Government Elements also deliberately targeted and killed civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities, mainly individuals who supported, or were perceived as supporting the Government of Afghanistan or international military forces"

This table shows some statistics.

Year	Anti-gov forces	Pro-gov forces	Other	Total	% change	% killings by Taliban
SOURCE: UNAMA
2006	699	230		929		75.24
2007	700	629	194	1,523	63.94	45.96
2008	1,160	828	130	2,118	39.07	54.77
2009	1,630	596	186	2,412	13.88	67.58
2010	2,037	427	326	2,790	15.67	73.01
2011	2,332	410	279	3,021	8.28	77.19
TOTAL, 2007-2011	8,558	3,120	1,115	12,793		66.90

We are not fighting a "just war". We went to war in the Stan after 9.11 because the Taliban were allowing al-Qaeda to train there.

The Taliban were willing to hand over bin-Laden and the other terrorists if only the US would provide some modicom of proof that bin-Laden and co were responsible for the attacks.

Did we? Of course not - we don't need proof, not when the culprit has already been proved guilty in the court of public opinion and an expensive oil pipeline requires building.

Even without real proof and only doctored and false evidence including fake videos of bin-Laden and ones of him talking about 9.11 with his words mistranlated and taken out of context (something we have become experts at - see Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map) we still waged war on a 7th century country.

Even with an interview with bin-Laden where he absolutley denies all involvement in the attacks of 9 .11 and actually according to Sibel Edmonds still was working closely with the CIA (I wonder what he was doing for them), we still went to war against a country that had not put one hijacker on the 9.11 planes.

They were mostly Saudi Arabian, still one of our best friends despite their awful human rights abuses, feudal system, mistreatment of women. But then they have oil and let us use their country as a base for our wars of aggression.

The war with al-Qaeda was won quite quickly and the Taliban sunk back into the shadows becoming the civillians they always were, biding their time waiting for the US to take their eye off the ball. They didn't have to wait long.

As soon as another phony war in Iraq was set in motion the Taliban began the most successful tactic when fighting large powerful armies - gureilla combat and insurgency.

Civilians that are also your enemy are hard to fight as Vietnam proved.

With every civillian the US/UK axis of war killed another two or three Taliban supporters were formed.

We have basically killed so many civillians in that country that we are no longer fighting terrorists or even the Taliban but Afghani citizens.

We will never win this battle.

Therefore it comes down to a simple thought experiment and a question that I pose to you.

If China invaded the USA or UK and bombed the hell out of us before installing a corrupt heroin dealing regime in Washington or London what would we think - would we great them with open arms, as saviours coming to remove our existing corrupt leaders only to replace them with others that served different masters.

Would we be happy with a duplicitous regime that pretended to be pliant puppets of their foreign masters but at the same time supported the insurgency fighting them. Would you see the thousands of bombs dropping from planes and drones on your families weddings and funerals as the Chinese "helping to restore democracy" or as a great recrutiment tool that made you want to fight the foreign invaders even more.

What if the Chinese kept burning bibles and going on killing sprees for fun?
Throwing grenades into houses for a laugh and shooting up whole villages because they were drunk and suffering from PTSD. Would we forgive them with open arms?

What would you do if a Chinese soldier broke down your family home's door in the middle of the night and killed your wife, kids and parents in front of you?

What if you escaped with your life from such a killing spree. Would you hand yourself over to Chinese troops or pick up a gun and fight the people who had ruined your life.

Would you still accept your new Chines overlords with open arms or would you find the nearest militia or band of rebels prepared to fight the invaders to regain their country and put your life on the line to gain revenge?

I know what I would do. What about you?