Everything You Can Imagine We Already Know How To Do....
By Dark Politricks
Lockheed Skunk Works director says we can take ET home
As recently admitted by the DOD and the Pentagon that UFO's or UAP's are a reality and are regularly spotted by Naval and Air Force crossing our skies and waters, it is fitting to hear these words from one of the developers of top secret planes and probably other craft for the US Government.
Ben Rich the head of Lockheed Skunkworks who developed the Stealth Fighter plus many other known and unknown top planes for the US Military was quoted shortly before his death that:
“We already have the means to travel among the stars but these technologies are locked up in Black Projects…and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”
“We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars.” – Ben Rich shortly before his passing.
He was also asked how UFO propulsion functioned and his reply was remarkable. “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?”
The man asking the question of Mr. Rich said – “All points in time and space are connected?” Ben Rich then replied, “That’s how it works!”
There has been more than one confirmation of Ben Rich’s words on the subject of UFOs or UAP's as the Pentagon and DOD are now calling them after the release of a 700 page report on them to Congress and a 3 page heavily redacted report to the public.
Here is one:
William Hamilton wrote, “Rich Andrews was a close personal friend of Lockheed’s “Skunk Works” CEO Ben Rich, the hand-picked successor of Skunk Works founder Kelly Johnson and the man famous for the F-117 Nighthawk “Stealth” fighter, its half-pint prototype the HAVE BLUE, and the top secret F-19 Stealth Interceptor. Before Rich died of cancer, Andrews took my questions to him. Rich confirmed:
There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build, and ones THEY build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual “Hand-me-downs.” The Government knew, and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that information. After a 1969 Nixon “Purge”, administration was handled by an international board of directors in the private sector.
Richard Dolan, author of the UFO's and the National Security State, and an investigator of UAP's/UFO's for decades released a video regarding the classified part of the report that we were not allowed to see.
However even with these comments from probably one of the builders of UAP's for the US Government and the release of a 700 page report on them to Congress how many people actually have heard this news?
Our mainstream news is failing and it is no wonder people turn to alternative news, which is slowly getting cleansed off the web and public spheres of talk on the Internet e.g Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, with even the head spokes person for the Biden administration today saying that if someone is banned from one online site they should be banned from all of them.
Jen Psaki just suggested that people spreading misinformation be banned from other/all platforms if they're banned from one. pic.twitter.com/SlNXJTXi0I
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.
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 wasGeorge 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
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 afake 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)
9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles
By Dark Politricks
This is an updated version to the original piece on my old site, plus it has the old comments added to the bottom of it so you can read the old debate I had with doubter. Plus we now have even more evidence from the deathbed confession of someone involved in WTC7's demise. A CIA demolition expert who worried the job looked too "real" and too much like a controlled demolition. He is right!
Despite directly contacting 9.11 skeptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven't managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don't even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.
Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you're not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime?
Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons. Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.
Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.
You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day.
Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:
4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practice.
Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skyscrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn't hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost free-fall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.
This is not to say that all these coincidences couldn't have occurred just that before 9.11 the most sophisticated coordinated Al Qaeda attack had been the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya which involved a couple of truck bombs. Therefore the jump in the level of complexity between the usual Modus Operandi and the attacks of 9.11 was immense.
Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn't not mean that either Al Qaeda didn't or couldn't carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.
A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means "the database" and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.
As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent bin-Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe bin-Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.
As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn't rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden's cave in Tora Bora.
We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain.
For a start we should ask ourselves the following:
1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia?
Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:
Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.
You can read all about their desire for such a scenario in the infamous Project for a New American Century reports. This is the same document that asserted that such a plan would be impossible to implement without a major "New Pearl Harbour" event taking place. It can be argued that 9.11 was exactly this event as these plans were then implemented. The question is was this purely co-incidental or linked somehow.
So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place.
The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.
Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn't mean they staged 9.11. It's one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn't otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.
You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it's own people for political expediency. The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.
More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it's own people including:
Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it's citizens to be blamed on the far left.
The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Chechen separatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Unfortunately these are just three proven incidents out of many however the one thing they all have in common is the misuse of intelligence agencies. A False Flag attack is undeniably a commonly used tool that is used to blacken ones enemies and invoke sympathy for otherwise unsavoury actions.
One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it's bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:
Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast fake messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake Intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi's adopted daughter.
The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it's supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.
Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilized humans who would never consider such tactics.
You cannot be serious? Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way.
This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:
Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:
"A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war."
Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war with Iran.
Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to "Sweep it all up. Things related and not" as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.
Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.
Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:
The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately "ignoring" the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.
Unlike some of the more far fetched theories surrounding 9.11 such as the "no planes" theory which would have involved hundreds of people including many civilians and the media being in on the secret both of these plans would only require a small number of people to be involved.
If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.
The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know.
We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.
Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn't I hear about this on the news?
Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK.
The reason you didn't hear about it or the CIA agent who confessed to demolishing WTC7 on the news is just one example of how the main stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:
No sooner had the towers collapsed than bin-Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the "official" story was released.
Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.
Okay so the Mainstream media doesn't report on wild conspiracy theories and prefers to only report stories backed up with provable facts. One thing is for sure and that is if members of the government or intelligence community deliberately failed to act on received Intel that showed an attack was imminent then they would have been found out and punished.
You would think so wouldn't you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.
In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:
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 counterterrorism in New York
These are not the only people, there are many more. In any world where blame was appropriated accordingly and people held account for failures which resulted in the deaths of 3,500+ people these high ranking members of Government would not have been promoted for their mistakes but punished. Logically there can only be a couple of reasons for this.
Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was, or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.
Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.
Did it though?
6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commission to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.
"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". - Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.
The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it's case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90's including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.
Also the 9.11 commission wasn't fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.
So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it's report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.
The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:
We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.
Surely you can agree with these points and that if it is proven that one of the buildings fell due to a controlled demolition that logically this infers some high level of government collusion as even if a powerful terrorist group or foreign intelligence agency had been able to plant the explosives or bring down the buildings some other way they would find it very hard to control the conclusions of subsequent investigations without government influence at a high level.
Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.
Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
So both the Twin Towers and WTC-7 displayed all of the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of those associated with a progressive fire induced collapse.
However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the "smoking gun" of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11.
The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.
Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous "pull it" comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
"I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard....Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:
Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.
The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won't release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.
They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed. The first video was removed so I had to get a recent backup.
However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!
If WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.
Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!
NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.
The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.
It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.
Many people who follow the official line have tried to combat these studies by saying that the particles found within the dust were only by-products from the various office furnishings and other building materials.
They have also claimed in a number of documentaries that the amount of Thermite / Thermate explosive required to bring down a building would be too large and would have required a large scale operation to install however numerous people have carried out their own experiments to show that this is not the case.
As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, physical experiments and scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.
Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.
Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale.
Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.
WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built upon. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition.
We also now have a deathbed confession from a CIA agent who took part in the demolition process and he said that the destruction of the building looked "Too much like a controlled demolition" and thought people would start questioning it. You can read my article on it here.
If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.
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).
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 Kerreysaid 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 NORADon 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 conspiracytheories 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 conspiracytheories. 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.
