Can the Pentagon Attack finally be solved?

Is The Pentagon Attack Finally Solved?

By Dark Politricks

I recently wrote a piece called the Pentagon Attack which contained a number of videos. However, it also contained a number of questions related to the 9.11 event as a whole. This article is a summary containing the events regarding the Pentagon attack alone.

If you have the time I suggest you watch all these videos, as together they can be used to make a reasonable conclusion about what really happened at the Pentagon. Even if the first documentary has one conclusion please watch the second talk as it will explain the evidence piece by piece and can be used to explain why the first documentary comes to it's conclusion.

Why is the Pentagon Attack such a point of contention?

There are a number of reasons including:

1. The conflicting witness accounts. Some witnesses claim to have seen a plane fly over the building, some into it. Others claim to have heard the explosion first and then seen a plane in the sky.

2. The physical evidence. Some witnesses and photos show a clean front lawn outside the official impact zone. Other photos show plane debris. Witnesses claim to have walked through the holes in the wall and to have not seen any evidence of a plane at all.

3. Pilots and aircraft experts claim that the manoeuvre made by Nawaf Hazmi, the alleged terrorist, was too complicated and fast for even expert pilots to have made let alone an amateur with poor piloting skills. Other people claim the flight path could have been made even if it would have meant a huge plane flying at high speeds just metres above the Pentagon lawn, something engineers suggest is impossible.

Due to the US government refusing to release all CCTV and camera footage that may have caught the impact of the plane and put conspiracy theories to bed the Pentagon attack has been used by believers of the official story to beat many 911 Truthers over the head with. Many people see the Pentagon attack as a way to discredit the whole 911 Truth movement by claiming that they are ignoring physical evidence and witness accounts. If you can be dismissed at the Pentagon then your theories over the WTC and the whole event can be dismissed as well.

Any talk of missiles, no planes, holograms, lasers from space or mini-nukes are all used to label anyone who looks into the events of 9.11 as crazy. To the uninitiated, it doesn't matter if any of these theories have merits or not because just hearing these theories can make the whole movement look like tinfoil hat-wearing loons. Due to that, people unwilling to question their government can easily dismiss any uncomfortable facts.

Therefore questions about the evidence regarding the Pentagon needs to be looked at and answered if possible. Hopefully these two videos which look at the witness evidence in detail and then a talk by an ex Government official who slots all the pieces together will help.

The facts do not fit the evidence.

The impact zone that is supposedly where Flight 77 hit the Pentagon does not fit the evidence for a number of reasons.

1. The supposed impact zone is the first two floors of a wedge of the building that would have been impossible for a huge Boeing 757 to hit at 400 mph. Not only could a plane not fly that fast and low to the ground without crashing first. The dimensions of the plane do not allow it to create such a small hole.

Many pilots, aircraft specialists, engine designers have all gone on record to state that the down force of a large plane flying that fast and low to the ground would mean it would have crashed way before the walls of the Pentagon. If that had happened the grass outside the impact zone would have been scorched and covered with debris.

The whole plane would NOT have entered the walls of the building.



2. There is a lack of evidence outside this "official" impact zone. No big parts of nose cones, no huge multi-ton engines, and no damage to the lawn in front of the damaged building. In fact, the debris which was found was further along the building in front of a totally different wedge. This is explained later. 

Notice how this supposed impact one is on the the first floor, an impossibility for a plane to hit without coming down vertically and not horizontally as we are expected to believe. Notice how there is hardly any plane wreckage outside the building.

3. A plane is made from lightweight materials. It cannot punch its way through 3 rings of re-enforced concrete as it supposedly did at the Pentagon. The following video shows what happens when a plane going at the speed of 475 mph hits just one reinforced concrete wall.

Notice how the wall remains solid and the plane disappears into small pieces. This speed is basically the same speed as Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The Official Impact Zone Before The Pentagon Walls Fell In.

Witnesses Dispute Official Story A number of witnesses who claim to have the seen the plane fly in towards the Pentagon provide contradictory evidence to the official story.

These are all people who have worked in the area of the Pentagon for years. Either Policemen, Arlington Cemetery workers, or aircraft specialists from the Pentagon itself.

The official story relies on a Southern approach to the hole in the wall that is the supposed entry point for Flight 77. However, all these witnesses claim to have witnessed:

-A north bound approach with the plane flying to the right (or over) the Navy Annex in a totally different manner to the official report which requires it to fly to the left of that building.

-A slower speed of the plane. Not a fast 450 mph plane approach as the official story claims.

-A plane that was wobbling, "banking" and correcting its angle - not a direct, fast, straight trajectory.

-All of these witnesses whilst in positions to see the plane come in admit they couldn't see the impact. Most were running away from the direction of the planes impact, covered their heads or were not in a position to see the impact.

-All have refused to change their testimony since it has been revealed to them that it directly contradicts the official story and whilst many now refuse to give further interviews they claim their story is correct.

-The one piece of evidence that corroborates the official story is the testimony of a taxi driver, Lloyd England, who claims to have been hit by the tall light pole that was supposedly bent by the plane as it flew the official trajectory.

However leaving aside the fact that a 450 mph plane hitting a goose or bird can cause a crash, let alone a large metal pole, the witness when confronted with his evidence and how it contradicts all other witness accounts tries to change his story to make it fit with the other witnesses.

He is also caught off tape many times making contradictory statements to the location of his taxi in direct conflict with the physical evidence and photographs which prove his exact location on the day.

He refuses to admit his car was where it was photographed and off camera alludes to the fact that:

"It has nothing to do with the truth it's his story"

"This is too big for me man this is a big thing"

"Man you know this is a world thing happening. I'm a small man."

"I'm not supposed to be involved in this."...."This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff."

"I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I have nothing."

"It was planned."

He seems to be alluding to be part of a story he has no control over, "a small man in a rich mans story" and he seems to admit to being part of a "story" to make the official story fit the facts. His wife also works for the FBI, although whether that has any importance I do not know.



 

Watch the 9/11-The Pentagon Attack Documentary

This video is from an independent report by Citizen Investigation Team which uses data from the Pilots For 911Truth. 

National Security Alert VOSTFR Pentagone 11 september 2001 from Kropotkine on Vimeo.

The conclusion of the documentary is that the plane the witnesses saw didn't hit the Pentagon. The witnesses who saw the incoming plane should be believed in that the trajectory of the plane was wildly different to the official story and that because they couldn't see the impact of the plane due to it flying over the Pentagon. This conclusion would fit with the official analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which shows a discrepancy between the altitude of the plane and the official story.

For this plane to have hit the lamp-post which Lloyd England claims happened the plane would have had to have been 440 feet high! 

This is obviously an impossibility. What is clear from this documentary and the witness statements is that the official story doesn't even fit with the witness statements who are on record seeing a plane fly towards the Pentagon.

Ex Government Official Put Pieces Together

This talk from an ex Reagan administration official, Barbara Honegger, puts the pieces together meticulously in this talk to explain how the witnesses are right, the hole without debris is also correct and that a plane DID hit the Pentagon. An overview is this: 1. A plane, probably a drone painted in American Airlines colours, did fly into the Pentagon but it flew in the trajectory that the witnesses in the Citizen Investigation Team documentary claimed.

2. The drone was either destroyed before impact or hit the Pentagon causing all the debris that was found near the Heliport terminal. Remember this is NOT the official impact zone which is many yards around the building.

3. The official impact zone was caused by explosives inside the building. This explains why there is no debris outside on the grass. No debris was found inside and why witnesses who walked through the hole to safety claimed to see no evidence of a plane.

4. This second explosion WAS reported on TV, by witnesses and Pentagon employees. The official story had to make this second explosion the plane impact even though the timings were out and the flight path didn't match with the witnesses. However, there is no logical or physical way the damage from this second explosion could have been caused by a huge Boeing 757 flying 400+ mph into the first floor of the Pentagon.

5. Therefore the cover-up involved making this 2nd impact zone the official entry point for the plane even though a plane could never punch its way through 3 huge concrete walls as the video above shows.

6. This also explains perfectly how witnesses saw a plane hit the building, how other witnesses could claim to see no evidence of a plane at the impact zone and why people claim to have seen debris and others NO debris. There were TWO impact zones. One from a plane (drone) and one from an explosion.

Watch the video below to see how she puts all the pieces together and provides the reason for the attack. Without it, no declaration of war could be made which meant that the Pentagon attack WAS the main attack on 9.11.  As she points out, it was George W Bush himself that said that it wasn't until he saw the Pentagon attack that he realised the country was really at war.

Watch Barbara Honegger put the 9.11 Pentagon attack pieces together

By Dark Politricks

© 2021 Dark Politricks

The 9.11 Pentagon Attack

The Pentagon Attack - 9.11

By 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 coincidence 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 such as Barbara Honegger who has pieced together what she believes really happened at the Pentagon,, 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....  

Some Questions

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?

The Israeli Connection

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 video that talks about removed news on Israeli orders such as Carl Camerons 4 part series on Israei spying within the US, more extensive than even the USSR at the height of the cold war. As one reporter mentions to another about the report on Israeli spying he says is "it's more about when they put it all together (the evidence), it's more a question of how could they have not known (about the attacks)." If you want to scroll just to the part where the Israeli Mossad agents caught filming the attack and arrested by NYC police celebrating the attack, you can scroll to 06.01 in the film where they are on Israeli TV talking about how they were sent to "document the event".

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.

So yes I still have massive amounts of reservation before I can conclude that the official story is correct and until a proper investigation is held we will never know.  

Project Hammer

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 suspicious parts of the story.

Even though I know many witnesses claim to have seen the plane hit the re-enforced 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.

By Dark Politricks

© 2013 Dark Politricks