Monday, 29 August 2011
9/11 - Part 6: "The Smoking Penta-gun"
The events at The Pentagon provide us with damning evidence of a story that contradicts the ‘official’ account. It is perhaps obvious, for reasons that will become apparent, why the debunkers tend to shy away more from this aspect of 9/11 or why they only give it a cursory acknowledgement.
Many have pointed out the lack of video surveillance camera footage, as an indication of the US military and intelligence agencies protecting national security. A full disclosure could hamper the capacity of those that work at The Pentagon or endanger it’s assets. I actually believe that if you look at the evidence, as well as the lack of footage, there is a different picture to be painted.
On March 7, 2002, the first footage of The Pentagon event was released to the media. A set of five frames taken from a security camera include: one showing a white blurry shape and the last few showing an erupting fireball. Much more of this footage from two angles (a few feet apart) has been released over time. Apart from a brilliant white flash, which is only visible from one camera, the footage shows absolutely nothing more (relating to the event) than the original five frames. There has been little more footage from others sources. On September 15, 2006, The U.S. government released a CITGO gas station security video that barely shows the Pentagon explosion and does not show a plane. On December 2, 2006, The FBI released a Doubletree Hotel security video that showed an explosion coming up from the Pentagon. Again, it did not show any plane, or even the Pentagon which was blocked out by an overpass. It therefore falls to the structural damage analysis and eye witness testimony to tell the reality of this story.
Before the event, Pentagon medic Matt Rosenberg was on the phone with the FBI talking about who had command of the MASCAL emergency plane crash plan if a plane were to hit the Pentagon and emergency equipment for the MASCAL emergency plan was already out it’s storage areas for an inventory check. A large number of fire and medical service units were dispatched to a high-rise building fire near the Pentagon, but the fire was already reported out by the time the first responder arrived which made most of the units available to help at the Pentagon. Other key rescue workers were available within minutes. While much of this could be labelled coincidence, it is odd that many of these workers had been involved in MASCAL training exercises and commented how “eerily alike” they were to the real life events of 9/11.
The damage at The Pentagon contradicts the ‘official’ account in numerous ways. Will Jarvis (operations research analyst, Office of Secretary of Defence) said: “There was just nothing left. It was incinerated. We couldn’t see a tail or a wing or anything”. Maybon Pollock (Sergeant First Class, NCOIC Logistics in the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic) said: “I was more impressed, I was truly impressed, with how the building stood up, after they told me the size of the plane. And then I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane. It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building.”. Eileen Murphy (Head Nurse of the Minor Surgery Clinic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic) said: "The building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, “Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn’t there”.
Even CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported live from the Pentagon, that there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the building. "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse“. He was obviously remanded as a result because, later in the day he was changing his story (even though subsequent evidence continued to support his initial view). In the days that followed, he tried to deny he’d ever said it. When footage showed his gaff, he tried to explain it away as ‘heat of the moment’.
Amongst the debris that was recovered, was a fuselage section that was a fuselage section that was rectangular in shape (Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and they’re fuselage at the time was round), a small cockpit window piece (inconsistent with 77), a J52 turbine wheel (engine part) found inside the Pentagon was never installed in a 757 and an engine rotor photographed on the lawn was approximately 3 foot wide (757’s twin engines are 9 feet diameter/12 feet length, Pratt & Whitney PW2000 or Rolls Royce RB211 engines with a 7 foot diameter turbofan). This rotor does not match the 757 engine specifications and it is revealing that when John W Brown (spokesman for Rolls Royce Indianapolis) was shown this part, he said: “It’s not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with”.
The fire damage sustained by The Pentagon appears to be rather less than claimed. Witnesses commented on the lack of fire and smoke damage severity. The photographs taken after the collapse show some real oddities. Aside from two clocks that appear to have frozen at the exact moment of impact, there is also the strange matter of a book perched on a stool (right on the edge of the collapse section) which appears totally untouched by smoke or fire damage. It wasn’t even budged by vibration from the collapse or the spray of water from fire hoses putting out the remaining flames.
Photographs before the building collapse show that column 14AA remained intact… bizarre considering that the American Society for Civil Engineers Report concluded that the impact took out 50 support columns including 14AA. They also show a pre-collapse hole of 14 - 16 feet. The foundations suffered no damage from the left engine pod which, according to the official flight path angle, would have gauged into the ground. Subsequent ‘official’ reports and investigation solved this problem in animated simulations by pretending that the plane had no engines at all!
Pre & Post-collapse shows no damage from the tail impacting the front edge of the roof (at the position it allegedly struck) and windows were still intact where vertical stabiliser would have ploughed through. If, as some have claimed, The Pentagon was suitably reinforced to withstand this… where is the tail/vertical stabiliser in the outer debris? Was it pulverised by jet fuel, yet again?!! This would be a very selective fire, if you consider that The Pentagon’s super-reinforced lawn suffered no scorching after the debris was cleared…
Most bizarre are the images from the inner courtyard, which reveal a puncture hole created by the nose of the plane. 757 nose cones are made of fibreglass (see also: The Twin Towers) as it contains the radar guidance system. Signals from which would simply bounce straight back if the nose was made of metal. What a super vehicle: Flight 77! Consider this: the plane hits the section that recently had reinforcement work completed. It impacts…and proceeds to plough through several ring walls: each 3 foot steel reinforced concrete (a total of 9 feet). After which the fibreglass nose peeks out the other side, disappears from existence and leaves a man and a half sized hole in it’s wake…
There is speculation that the real means used, was possibly an A3 Sky Warrior (consistent with the engine parts recovered) or a bunker buster type, piece of ordinance. This could have been in missile form or launched to precede the impacting craft. This possibly ties in with theories about ‘Smack Sonic Insulation’ which allegedly reduces the aircraft and contents to the consistency of super heated plasma, therefore explaining the bizarre pattern of structural damage.
Whilst it is difficult to say what it WAS that struck The Pentagon, it would probably be safe to say that it wasn't Flight 77.
To Be Continued…