A wakeup call for non-violent
New Blog! www.crookedshepherds.wordpress.com
New pentagon overflight evidence: www.thepentacon.com
The Five-Sided Fantasy Island
An analysis of the Pentagon crash on 9-11
By Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell version 2.1 (10/12/2004) Page 5
Aluminum Siding Saves Money when Remodeling and Reinforcing (your scams, that is...)
Pentagon "limestone" facade? (Source: http//www.af.mil/photos/images/bombing09.jpg ; also see http://www.af.mil/photos/images/bombing01.jpg; now gone from the Web; local cache: bombing01.jpg, bombing09.jpg)
·The Pentagon crash took place at the site of the 'renovation' effort which was ostensibly 5 days from re-occupancy. Of course, we have no idea what the renovators were really up to there, for all we know they could have been building a "Hollywood fake front". (Note the shoddy workmanship of the so-called "limestone" facade above, and the peculiar sheet-metal siding underneath this "limestone" veneer. Or could this be fire or impact damage?? Also note the many small black specks, which appear to be some sort of explosive residue -- as is more clearly visible in the original high-resolution version of the photograph.) Many more of these rectangular sheet metal pieces are visible in other photographs, although it's not clear whether they are in fact siding from underneath the limestone, or whether they come from the roof of the building, or whether some pieces might have been in use as temporary walkways around the renovation.
High-quality limestone work a few yards further away. (Source: http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp photo 4418.)
A further indication of explosive residue is that there were reports of the smell of cordite; for example, this from Don Perkal:
Gilah Goldsmith also smelled cordite:
The Knight of the Smoking Chimp
The British firm "Asset Management and Engineering Consultancy" (AMEC) "had just completed a project to strengthen and renovate a section of the Pentagon, Wedge 1, when the building was attacked" and "was paid some $752 million for its 2-year renovation and clean-up at the Pentagon", according to Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press:
AMEC's CEO is Sir Peter Mason, and they run offshore oil platforms for Shell and BP. BP is now the owner of ARCO of which George HW Bush (Sr.) was a major shareholder. AMEC's British partner in the WTC cleanup was Bovis Lend Lease, run by Sir Frank Lampl, a Czechoslovakian immigrant to Britain, who somehow managed to become a British knight according to Bollyn's report.
Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani was also
knighted by Qeen Elizabeth II on Feb. 13, 2002, perhaps in recognition of all his
services during the World Trade Center attacks and their aftermath.
We've named the participants in the drama, but have failed to conclusively prove any wrongdoing...
Red Fire Truck Riders of the Quantum Stage?
·The permanently assigned red helipad fire truck which was claimed to be severely burnt during the initial impact fireball was seen to be moved around into various locations with respect to the column 1 wedge abutment doorway to the left of the impact zone. It was not mistaken for a different red fire truck as no other damaged fire truck can be seen between the 'moving' fire truck and the helipad garage further to the left.
Brad M. argued that, strangely enough, this fire-belching, half-blasted Mad Max contraption seems to have gotten around quite nicely. While foreshortening of perspective in telephoto views might be responsible for some of the apparent movement of the truck, we do not believe this effect is sufficient to fully explain the movement.
Other Interesting Anomalies
·Column 19AA on the second floor is deflected to the right. Why? Perhaps a local explosion...
·The impact also occurred at such a lateral location as to take perfect advantage of the expansion joint between different building sections at column 11 (the double columns - one for each side of the joint). This made the later collapse more plausible as weight was not able to transfer into the columns to the east of the expansion joint. Having the impact zone collapse conveniently limited the area that could be photographed in the coming days.
·Note the presence of numerous rectangular sheets of metal strewn across the area in font of the impact zone and up onto the rooftops of the D and C rings. These relatively pristine metal sheets appear to be roughly the size of the various facade masonry pieces.
·Firemen stated that the most externally observed fire was coming from the contractor's trailer.
·Odd metal frames were sticking up in front of the impact zone before the collapse, some of them appeared to have gas bottles mounted inside of them. Might be firefighting equipment.
If the various anomalies are taken to indicate that no 757 hit the Pentagon, there are a variety of reasons to believe that pyrotechnics (Hollywood "special effects") were responsible for the damage, rather than an "attack plane".
·If a smaller impact plane and missile was used then significant externally observed lateral damage had to be fabricated. If the missile failed to strike the building, or if incompatible debris were revealed, there would be significant spin problems for the perpetrators.
·The flight mission as detailed in the 'official story' is also highly risky and prone to failure.
·Because of the prior two items, 100% demolition and pyrotechnics becomes preferable. Mistakes can be corrected.
· A green SUV located very close to the crash site, was shown with its green paint intact in several photographs taken during the initial fire. Yet it was inexplicably reduced to a burned-out cinder-colored hulk much later on, after the bulk of the fire had died down. What happened? Why did this SUV catch on fire? For that matter, how did the SUV survive the initial onslaught of the airplane crash, in such excellent condition? Perhaps it was parked in that location after the crash.
·The military had recently completed an Emergency Response Plan covering the case of an airplane impact with the Pentagon.
·Operation Vigilant Guardian was concurrently underway during 9/11 covering the case of airliners being flown into buildings. This is claimed by some to be a reason that the NORAD intercept command chain in the Pentagon's National Military Command Center was slow in responding, as they were confused by the similarity of the counter-terror exercise with reality. Or perhaps more likely, the training exercise served simply to provide cover. In any case, this and the prior item belie the government claim that no one had thought of planes being crashed into buildings prior to this time.
·FAA radar data is, like the black box data, 'unavailable' to the public to confirm any version of the flight trajectory, or the presence of other aircraft in the area.
· Victim and hijacker DNA is identified despite claims that much of the 757's aluminum has been consumed in the ensuing fire. Claims of extremely hot fire were probably spurious, so DNA could have survived.
·And early on it was claimed that the 757's nose had been responsible for the large 'punchout' in the back of the C ring (despite the fire consuming the aluminum). Sarah Roberts showed a photograph of something purporting to be from the nose cone, found at this punchout. However, this is in total disagreement with Sugano and Purdue. After 300 feet of travel through the floor slab and all the columns, and the facade the material that had traveled that far should be shredded and diffracted considerably over a much wider area such as not to produce a hole this specific size and shape. A nice egress hole has psychological import: this evidence eliminates the need to show damage to each and every wall of rings E, D, and C.
A word about motives
Eyewitness testimony establishes quite definitively that a Boeing 757 was seen flying over Washington and then approaching the Pentagon along a flight path near the Sheraton Hotel in Arlington, and over the Naval Annex of Arlington National Cemetery. Thus, the perpetrators of the attack had this 757 at their disposal, and could easily have crashed it into the Pentagon. We are arguing that they chose not to do so, but rather that they might have perpetrated an elaborate hoax -- thus taking the risk that their deception might have failed, or been detected. Why would they do this?
Our analysis suggests three possible albeit highly speculative motives, if in fact the perpetrators were working for New World Order intelligence agencies :
(1) A real 757, crashed into the Pentagon, might have failed to penetrate the limestone, brick and reinforced-concrete facade of the building. Instead, it might have been crushed like a bug on a windshield, especially if the speed was held to a reasonably low level. With an excellent pilot (or a remote control system) at the helm, the challenges of mounting an attack at 400 mph might not have been insurmountable -- but certainly the chances of a snafu would be greatly reduced using the pyrotechnic approach.
(2) As pointed out by Carol Valentine and Dick Eastman, the first floor of the western wedge of the Pentagon was occupied in part by the office of the "Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot", who had moved into their new offices (early) and many were killed, as reported by the Washington Post, 1/20/2002 (quoted by Valentine, not independently confirmed by the authors.) Valentine noted that this Naval Intelligence office was responsible for breaking open the Jonathon Pollard affair, and Eastman speculated that had they survived, they might have had the responsibility to mount an independent investigation of all the events of 9-11 and its associated "intelligence failures". Valentine also noted a remarkable lack of enthusiasm in rescue efforts. Is it possible that the some of the individuals who had just occupied these newly remodeled offices, possibly on an earlier schedule than most occupants, were specifically targeted by the perpetrators? Of course, this motive would also apply if the perpetrators used a 757 -- although it presumably would have been just as easy to send the targeted personnel to their deaths in new offices in the second or third floor.
Furthermore, it should be noted that Commander McCollum of the now infamous McCollum Memorandum (8 point Japanese incitement plan for Pearl Harbor) worked for Naval Intelligence. Thus, it would be reasonable to object that the characterization of Naval Intelligence as the last bastion of honorable men within the military establishment, is hardly based on consistent good behavior on their part. And if there were problems with renegades at ONI who where inclined to put true patriotism ahead of the demands of the Neo-Con agenda (that is, the newly infamous NPAC report referencing a need for another Pearl Harbor to further their aims), wouldn't it have been more expedient to deal with them by means of demotions, or work assignments to Zambia?
But if what we are saying about the overall nature of the 911 attacks is correct, then a certain ironic sense of cruelty may well be part of the psychological makeup of the perpetrators. And it is not impossible that some opposition to the New World Order might have been lingering in the halls of the Pentagon. One can almost hear the sinister "Dr. Evil" laugh of the planners as they finalized this aspect of their diabolical scheme.
(3) The passenger list of Flight 77 included a surprisingly large number of aerospace professionals and government officials. By over-flying the Pentagon (rather than striking it), it may have been possible to save the lives of these individuals, and perhaps to give them new roles and new identities. This could also have been accomplished by keeping those people off the plane in the first place -- but allowing them to board Flight 77 in accordance with the Official Story would have provided a note of realism. As Gerard Holmgren has noted, Flight 77 did not appear in a government database of scheduled flights, and we are not aware whether or not there is any civilian eyewitness testimony of the flight's boarding and departure. The theory of the non-existence of Flight 77 is probably another red herring in our view, considering the number of eyewitnesses to an American Airlines jet approaching the crime scene.
Another possible problem with this hypothetical motive is that if indeed these aerospace professionals were involved in planning and carrying out other aspects of 9-11, then actually crashing Flight 77 into the Pentagon might have presented a convenient way of eliminating any possibility whatsoever that these people might become "whistle blowers". And indeed, the opportunity to eliminate potential squawkers would seem to be a potential benefit of many aspects of the 911 mayhem. However, by controlling the boarding process, and then saving the plane in an overflight -- this option could even have been exercised on a specific, individual-to-individual basis.
Our choice to study the Pentagon was based on the hope that we would find the "smoking gun", the unanswerable argument that would persuade any open-minded person that the US government was complicit in 9-11. We don't feel that we succeeded in that goal, and certainly we did not find a conclusive "sound byte" or "elevator pitch" that is as easy to explain and understand as the insider trading scandal, the Air Force failure to respond, the black ops intelligence connections of the "terrorist" patsies, the forewarnings from governments around the world, or the appearance of controlled demolition at WTC Building Seven. We do believe that we have put together a web of evidence that, taken all together, represents sufficient "probable cause" to call for a criminal investigation, and sufficient "preponderance of evidence" to call for a conviction in the court of public opinion.
Many other otherwise quite plausible aspects of the events of 9-11, including not only the Pentagon attack but also the possibility of explosive demolition of the WTC towers, or remote control of aircraft, fall into the category of "Stranger than Fiction" for the less contextually discerning, casual, and / or more trusting citizen. Whether or not these possibilities are worth discussing, depends to some extent on the audience, their openness to radical ideas, and the standard of proof they are likely to apply. Some cautious individuals would say that when it comes to ideas like the use of explosive charges at WTC 1 & 2 -- or a Hollywood special effects display at the Pentagon -- that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Others will argue, with equal validity, that in the wider context of the entire 9/11 milieu, the subsequent War on Terror, and the much wider war pretext for profiteering aspect, that a preponderance of combined evidence should be sufficient.
A significant problem with the Pentagon crash, as a motif for use in general public outreach, is that such a wide variety of evidence comports with the conclusion that a 757 impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing a 757 approach the Pentagon, and some claimed to see that same aircraft impact the facade. A C-130 cargo plane is also reported to have been flying close behind, which might account for some of the confusion in other eyewitness testimony, or allow for the spawning of ever more alternative scenarios to cover the tracks. Contrary to much of the Internet analysis, the impact hole is also quite possibly consistent with a 757 -- even though it superficially appears to be too small, and if specific questions about the problematic aspects of the damage can be neglected. The light-pole evidence is consistent with a 757 aircraft (if the poles were rearranged by passers-by within seconds of the attack, or if some other reasonable explanation can be found for the odd distribution of the poles) and the "engine fingerprints" appear to require an impact by a twin-engine aircraft with the exact engine spacing of a 757.
On the other hand, the insufficient debris, the official evasiveness and prevarication and the shifting "official story", the eyewitness inconsistencies, the quantum flight path, the shoddy "movie set" appearance of the Pentagon facade, the missile plume and the appearance of explosives (rather than a kerosene fire) in the "security video", and many other aspects, all point to the likelihood of a hoax. Much of the observed physical evidence in the photographs also comports with full demolition, which would have provided orders of magnitude better operational surety of proper completion without the undue risk associated with an impact plane missing its target, either using terrorist hijackers or domestic agent provocateurs.
A more detailed summary of reasons to doubt the "official story" would include the following points:
Although we believe the complexities of such a sham are well within the capabilities of our government's intelligence agencies, with their annual budgets of $70 billion or more -- we must also acknowledge that for most people, the idea that a government bureaucracy could conceive and then carry out such a plot is simply beyond hilarious. Politically, there is a possibility that an emphasis on Pentagon questions will simply be taken as evidence of insanity on the part of the "conspiracy theorists". Is it wise to focus more attention on this Pentagon topic, while there are so many clearly proven, indisputable grounds to show that the US government is acting as a criminal enterprise? There's plenty of room for activists to disagree about issues of emphasis, even among those who would argue that the Pentagon attack was definitely a fraud.
We do hope that we have given our readers an appreciation of the subtle complexities of this case -- and that the possibility of a pyrotechnic "magic show" at the Pentagon will be increasingly recognized by 911 skeptics.
References for page 5:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html "Vigilant Guardian"
http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm DNA identification of fatalities
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0514_coincidence.html Capt. Burlingame and the "Emergency Response Plan"
http://www.misternet.org/nerdcities/Pentagon/oddity.htm Green SUV, red fire truck
http://pentagon3.batcave.net/fire-truck.html Brad M's fire truck page
http://www.public-action.com/rescue.html discussion of Office of Naval Intelligence -- gives "Washington Post, January 20, 2002, front page of Style section" as the source of the information that people from this office were killed.
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/5425/index.php Gerard Holmgren's discovery that a Bureau of Transportation Statistics database didn't include Flight 77.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm Sarah Roberts discusses claim of a nose-cone
http://www.achsah.com/pent.html List of Pentagon casualties
http://www.defendamerica.mil/remember/remember_a.html biographical info on Pentagon casualties
discussion forum on Barbara Olson call -- especially see Post #23 for many
UPDATE (rev. 2.1, 10/12/04 -- version 2.0 was originally posted 3/12/04):
Based on information at http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0514_coincidence.html (an article by Jon Rappoport), we had previously claimed that Capt. Burlingame, the pilot of flight 77, was an author of the Pentagon emergency response plan. According to Rappoport, this report can be traced back to a Washington Post article of 9/16/2001. However, apparently the Post did not make any such claim; see