Dennis Cimino (with Jim Fetzer)
Among the most fascinating aspects of 9/11 research has been the on-going controversy over whether the absence of evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon should or should not be publicized within the movement, especially by Jim Hoffman, who has published several articles maintaining that the physical evidence as well as the witness reports supports a Boeing 757 having hit the building.
One of the more bizarre aspects of his defense of the “official account” of the Pentagon attack is to cite the Sandia test, in which an F-4 was strapped onto a rail car frame and run at around 500 mph into a nuclear-resistant concrete barrier.
The plane blew apart into millions of tiny pieces, implying that that was what ought to have been expected of the Boeing 757 at the Pentagon.
The building consists of 12 inches of concrete, 8 inches of brick, and a facade of 4 inches of limestone, which is a very porous stone. Even Major Gen. Albert Stubblebine, USAF (ret.), concluded that no Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon for the obvious reason that he could discern no imprint of the wings on the building.
Stubblebine, of course, was the NSA’s signals intelligence image analyst, but that has not deterred Jim Hoffman, who has also argued that discussing the Pentagon “might be a trap”, since the Pentagon might release some of the more than 80 videos it possesses that would show “what really happened” as opposed to the five frames it has released, one of which shows the image of a small plane that is about half the size of a Boeing 757.
Why anyone should take Hoffman seriously about any of this is beyond me, because, based upon my personal experience, he has gone out of his way to manipulate the 9/11 Truth community, even to the extent of creating an elaborate pretext to excuse Larry Silverstein from having made an obvious concession to the controlled demolition of WTC-7 with his “pull it” remark during an interview with PBS.
He has had some effect, it would appear, since even David Ray Griffin, perhaps the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has avoided pushing the Pentagon front-and-center, where it properly belongs. As Dennis Cimino explains, the “official account” is a fantasy, where the American public would benefit from knowing that even the Pentagon attack was a fabrication and a fraud.
The Pentagon attack is a fantasy
On September 11, 2001, we were told by the U.S. government that at 9:38 a.m. on that day, a Boeing 757 jetliner impacted the building at a speed of approximately 465 knots after executing a 330 degree turn for no apparent reason any sane person can think of, as the building is highly distinguishable from virtually any altitude above 2000 feet for several miles.
The official story has the flight path just to the side of the west wing of the White House, which in any person’s estimation is a significantly more important target than is the building that houses the military managers who run the Military Industrial Complex. We were also told that nobody could have foreseen this type of attack, even though just a year earlier, a drill was held, and a nearly identical B-757 American Airlines plane was flown by Chuck Burlingame himself, as the Pentagon ran a preparedness drill to simulate such an attack.
“Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise”, 24-26 October 2000
Unfortunately, many people in America are unaware that the Washington, D.C. area has Raytheon “Basic Point Defense” missile battery armament embedded on several building rooftops there, using Sea Sparrow air defense missiles, much in the same fashion that Moscow has a system that NATO code named ‘Yo Yo’ that maintains radar surveillance and provides protection to the Kremlin and other high value targets from military incursions.
In other words, the Pentagon was protected not only by these missile batteries, but also had in place a number of adjacent fighter bases which provided a fairly high level of protection given the fact that the plane inbound to the Pentagon from the east was not supersonic as are the adjacent fighter jets based in the area, and therefore easily could have been intercepted and at the very least, temporarily deflected off course if not shot down, if need be, long before it reached the target on the building, known as ‘The Catchers Mit’ due to recent renovations which added several inches of KEVLAR armor to that face of the building to protect the occupants.
For those of you who are not familiar with Kevlar armor and how it works, the only much more vastly superior but significantly more expensive armor is ceramic in nature and is often used jointly with Kevlar to protect personnel from high energy armor piercing rounds fired by tanks and other anti armor weapons such as are mounted on most military attack helicopters, for instance, such as the 30mm cannon and the infamous Obama well used ‘hellfire’ anti tank missile system.
In addition, there is a system, known as “Identification Friend or Foe” aka I.F.F., which uses a special MODE 4A feature that only military aircraft use, whereupon special encryption. Additionally, a mission specific MODEX aka SEDSCAF number for each plane is assigned and if it does not meet the PLAN OF THE DAY for the area, IT STILL IS NOT GOING TO PASS MODE 4A MUSTER. It would be shot down. No “if”s, no “and”s and no “but”s!!!!
The proper MODEX / SEDSCAF NUMBER is what enables an aircraft them to penetrate prohibited or military restricted airspace such as that which surrounds both the White House and the Pentagon, as well as a number of military installations around the globe.
This feature is necessary to prevent the possible mis-identification of a civilian aircraft by military air defense personnel who man radar scopes in the Washington, D.C. area, 24/7, watching for unauthorized aircraft who do not have the proper MODE 4A response capability or code in use with their on board transponders. Only military aircraft have this Mode 4A capability, or what is often referred to as ‘crypto Beacon Video’ military ATC specialists.
The “hit point” on the ground floor
In any case, the reason I mention this is that there are several echelons of protection which allegedly all summarily ‘failed’ us on Sept. 11th., 2001, and allowed an unidentified plane hurtling towards Washington, D.C.’s protected airspace, long after the First targets in New York had already been seriously damaged. To be honest, it is simply not possible for virtually every one of these systems to have been overcome by 19 guys wielding no more than box cutters. It took a lot of sabotage or unplugging on the ground to do that.
In any case, there was plenty of warning that an ‘unknown’ and presumed ‘hostile’ target was inbound to the Washington, D.C. area from the area around West Virginia to the east, and more than sufficient time existed to scramble fighters and or light off the Basic Point Missile Defense or BPDMS radar systems (AKA as N.S.S.M.S.) and missile defenses that are installed in rooftops there in the Washington, D.C. area since the mid 1980’s.
Basic Point Defense uses a CW target illuminator radar to allow the semi-actively guided Sea Sparrow missile to radar home on reflected energy coming back from the target aircraft after the radar has locked onto the target. Though these are short range, they are so effective many high value targets in the Navy use this system, with it’s infamous MK-112 Fire Control radar system.
It’s known that NATO’s Sea Sparrow was in place in the mid 1980’s in Washington, D.C. as point defense against air attack. It’s not unreasonable to assume that an updated version of N.S.S.M.S. / Mk 112/MK-115 would be there in September, 2001., by any stretch of the imagination. In all likelihood, it would be a version of the PAC-3 ‘Patriot’ Missile system, another Raytheon toy.
One more point would like to make is that the White House, which this aircraft would breeze right past, had agents on the roof with shoulder fired STINGER MISSILES, and on this particular day, you can rest assured that with the unknown target hurtling toward Washington, D.C., those agents were on that roof with those STINGER MISSILES out of their cases and on their shoulders as they scanned the clear morning sky for the coming intruder plane. Why did they not fire at it?
So, on September 11, 2001, what took place was a plane that was not a scheduled air carrier flight, per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or BTS database, departed Dulles International from a departure gate that does not match the coordinates transmitted by FDR data stored in the CPM provided by the N.T.S.B., flight data recorder records, on that non-scheduled American Airlines flight, aka ‘FLT 77’ per the government’s submission, where this flight allegedly left Dulles with a hijacker on board who was capable of flying a very sophisticated and complex airplane that even the average pilot in the F.A.A. pilot registry could probably not really fly with such precision.
This plane took off, climbed to it’s cruise altitude, and then over W. Virginia, was hijacked in 3 minutes time, and then executed a ‘standard rate’ turn which no hijacker would have performed with such precision, and immediately turned inbound to the perfect heading that would take it directly to the Pentagon, even though for hijackers to do this, would have meant they would have had to know exactly where the aircraft was immediately — and I do mean, IMMEDIATELY
— and then have the requisite knowledge of how to re-program the complicated FMS computers in the aircraft to display target area data to them, because as you might have guessed, they did not bring their own GPS system with them on the planes that would have given them immediate positional information as well as a much more immediate way of turning the plane onto a magnetic heading that would take it to Washington, D.C. from that nice precise standard rate turnaround in the skies over West Virginia. Impressed? I sure am, as would be many B-757 line captains who fly this airplane every day, especially with the level of complexity the FMS or Flight Management System on that airplane has, that has on at least one occasion, led to the crash and destruction of a similarly equipped American Airlines B-757 in the mountains just outside of Cali, Colombia just a few years before this.
What was more alarming that day is that during the ‘3’ minute hijacking interval, neither the cockpit door opened (reported via the Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit or DFDAU as it is known as) and the autopilot did not disengage.
Now imagine yourself being Captain Chuck Burlingame and his copilot, sitting in their seats, when these hijackers slid under the door crack on the floor and re-constituted themselves as full fledged box-cutter wielding terrorists, who then proceeded to cut the heads off these two airmen who’s job is to protect their aircraft and it’s passengers at all costs.
Neither of these guys were 98 pound weaklings, yet in three minutes they had been incapacitated and were out of their seats without touching either the yokes or the rudders, which would have immediately DISENGAGED the aircraft’s autopilot system which was flying the machine at that time.
The plane did not yaw, roll, pitch or otherwise change any flight parameter but remained perfectly on course, and for some reason, two minutes later the hijackers finally decided to turn OFF the transponder to make it a bit harder for ATC to be positively sure this plane was the same one they were watching before the hijacking took place.
Now, one more thing you need to know is that for either of the flight crew to either push the talk button on the yokes or to change the transponder code to one that tells the ATC personnel monitoring the flight that they were in a ‘hijack’ situation, would have taken mere seconds to do.
Yet, this was not done. And the autopilot did not disengage though it is presumed the two pilots would have resisted and fought for their very lives and at least kicked the rudder pedals and or moved the yokes.
Yet they did not do any of these things. Merely holding the push to talk button and screaming whilst having one’s head cut off would have gotten someone’s attention, I do think.
Too many ways the crew could send a duress message to the ATC en route centers, and not once was this attempted. Why? The best and most reasonable reason is that these were not hijacked planes at all, but planes flown by military personnel or crews who thought they were innocently participating in the drills. And as such, these would NOT have been passenger flights, as it is illegal to use passengers in military exercises under any circumstances, due to the risk involved.
This is another clue that points to the fact that no hijacking took place in this aircraft at all, because had that been the case, they had plenty of time to use a duress system to alert ATC that they were under attack in that cockpit.
In any case, the precision turn executed and the immediate orientation onto the course to the Pentagon is kind of indicative of a professional pilot and not a hijacker being at the controls, because the crew who flew that plane knew precisely where the plane was when they turned directly onto a course which would then take them directly into the target, which that morning was the Pentagon.
Given the fact that it is quite impossible for these freshly in the cockpit hijackers to know where the plane was when they took it over, and furthermore, to know the exact on course heading back to the Washington, D.C. area to attack the Pentagon, is again quite telling of who really was still at the controls of this plane. It surely was not a hijacker who just got into the cockpit a couple minutes ago, based on this immediate orientation and turn onto course to the target.
This process would have taken several minutes. It did not take several minutes. It was immediate. Mighty clairvoyant airmen these guys were, and powerful too, to overcome the crew in three minutes time while ensuring the autopilot never disengaged even for a split second, nor had the cockpit door opened to let them in. (See cockpit door diagram below)
Then, later as they got closer in, they did something puzzling for a crew of neophyte hijackers. On their way down thru Flight Level 180, or 18 thousand feet, they magically, without having listened to the ATIS or automated terminal information service, broadcast from Dulles International Airport that morning, these guys somehow knew the barometric pressure reported on that automated broadcast though no controller passed that information to them, and they set that in the Kollsman window on BOTH of the cockpit altimiters, simultaneously.
That’s not only clairvoyant, that’s SYNCHRONIZED knob twisting going on there, by any pilot’s standards. Machine precision out of hijackers turning two knobs at the same time in perfect, instantaneous fashion, is extremely unlikely for these guys, yet that was exactly what took place when both the hijacker and his co-hijacker buddy, who must have gotten VERY lucky to pick those barometric pressure numbers for DCA that morning out of their asses, because they had no way of knowing them otherwise…as no radio in the cockpit was tuned to the ATIS frequency, as that is recorded in the FDR data and not reflected in the data the N.T.S.B. released from that plane’s Flight Data Recorder.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of this kind of coordinated crew work, it really ranks as one of the most glaring issues of the morning because the crew could not have known those numbers they put into both altimeters via the Kollsman setting knobs that morning on their descent. They could NOT know them nor could they have so precisely guessed them.
And then they did something quite unusual. They were able to penetrate that highly protected airspace without the proper MODE 4A military I.F.F. response, and no communications with ATC of any kind, no clearance issued of any kind, and they flew a nice leisurely 330 degree turn after passing right past the White House, the more desirable high value target, than their intended Pentagon target could ever dream to be.
After they completed the turn, they managed to accelerate the aircraft well beyond 150 knots faster than it could ever possibly fly at that altitude, even full throttle.
They did this without touching the rudder pedals for even one moment after their hijacking of the plane several minutes earlier, too! Needless to say, to perform a coordinated turn as the N.T.S.B. flight data recorder data shows, they would have had to use rudder inputs, but they never touched the aircraft rudders once during their entire time in the cockpit after they slid under the crack below the cockpit door to gain entry. Was this because neither of them had legs?
They walked onto the plane and did not require wheelchairs, so is it not a little strange or odd they never ever once touched the rudder pedals in that plane?
After careful analysis of the flight data recorder stuff provided to us by the N.T.S.B., in their recreation, we see the fact the rudders and the yoke were not moved nor did the autopilot disengage while the crew fought for their very lives in that cockpit. And, at no other time did the rudders ever get so much as a passing foot kick.
At the very least, these guys would have probably inadvertently tested them a bit with their feet, yet they never touched them. And to do the nice 330 degree turn into the building, they would have absolutely NEEDED TO USE THE RUDDER to carry this out in what is called COORDINATED FLIGHT without slipping or skidding the plane in three dimensional space that morning.
We know they flew a perfectly coordinated turn because the data the N.T.S.B. released to us shows us that. To do this, the rudders would have absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, been needed to accomplish this. No accomplished pilot could do that ‘flat footed’ with his or her feet not on the rudders. Impressive performance here, execution of coordinated high G turns without rudders used at all by the hijackers.
The government maintains that the radar track for this aircraft was ‘lost’ over a ‘radar hole’ that exists in the radar coverage map over W. VA., and that as they neither had radio contact with the crew, nor a valid Radar Beacon or IFF code sqwawk coming from the aircraft’s transponders when the track was lost going west, one has to ask how the track was lost and why it was impossible for the continuous tracking by at the very least, PRIMARY RADAR did not happen that morning.
Directly under this airplane’s wonderful fantasmagorical RADAR HOLE the track was lost over, was a long range, height finding military radar system known as FPS-117.
This radar, mounted right on top of a ridge, was virtually directly underneath FLT-77 when the radar track was lost. This radar has a nominal range of 200 miles, and has the capability to be in ‘redcap’ or reduced capability mode without full power output of it’s transmitter, and still offer short range primary or skin paint track of aircraft flying within 80 nautical miles of it.
This radar station was in operation on Sept. 11, 2001, and was not called out in any documentary evidence as being out of commission or off-line that morning, yet the government asserts that a ‘radar hole’ existed in it’s tracking or service volume area that morning, and nobody reported this long range height finder radar as either in low power final driver or ‘down’ for maintenance.
How can this be? How can we have lost track of this target over W. Virginia that morning with a very powerful, very capable long range height finding air search radar below that did not need MODE C to get a rudimentary and somewhat less precise altitude resolution from it’s multi beam array scanning the skies there that morning? Very very good question.
YouTube – Veterans Today –
In any case, as nobody really had ascertained that this plane was, in fact truly the same one that was tracked outbound into the approximate vicinity of this FPS-117 radar site, it is astonishing that virtually everyone in official channels automatically assumed this unidentified airplane which had no transponder replies, and had no communications with ATC of any kind, was still the one and the same airplane seen on radar going the other way.
Based on this assumption, a whole lot of ATC specialists have been wrongly trained because their protocols prohibit making an assumption like this without specific NORDO or NO RADIO procedures that tell ATC that the crew has heard transmissions from the ground and has followed instructions issued so ATC can now state that this plane is in fact the one they lost radar track on and had lost communications with. Those protocols for identification of unknown air targets have been in place and used very successfully for many decades and yet they were ignored and this unknown track was decried as ‘FLT 77’ by everyone on the ground.
Mighty convenient that a radar hole that should not have been there allowed this window of uncertainty to be there, and then a nonsensical non-standard supposition as to who the target indeed was, superseded tried and true protocols for target identification in lieu of two-way radio contact or transponder replies from the target.
This is mighty smelly stuff here, regarding the radar hole and the assumption that this was still FLT-77 with no empirical evidence to support that assertion of any kind. In other words, NO air traffic control person has the right to make that assumption under any circumstances, but this was instantly done on Sept. 11, 2001 for some unknown or heretofore unknown reason that morning. Why?
An ATC specialist named Danielle O’Brien was watching this radar target track inbound at a high speed, and in her official statement about it, she cited not only the drastically higher speed inbound but an unusual degree of target maneuverability, more or less telling her colleague, another controller, that to her it looked too fast and maneuvered to abruptly to be a commercial airliner.
In light of this, designating this plane as the one and the same which was NORDO and lost track on the outbound leg just before the infamous radar hole over W.VA, becomes even more questionably nonsensical to two experienced ATC personnel watching it fly into the Washington, D.C. class bravo restricted airspace that morning.
In any case, this observation by Ms. O’Brien and her co-worker seems to at least on it’s face indicate that whatever aircraft that was on the inbound track certainly was much more maneuverable and significantly faster than a B-757, even as the official RADES 84 data contradicts her and her colleague.
How can this be? Is it that the controllers were in fact ‘wrong’ and the later produced RADES 84 radar track data much more correct? Both of them cannot be correct. One is blatantly incorrect and intentional disinformation. But which one is telling us the truth? The same people who told us the radar hole existed over W. VA, on top of an operational long range 3-D height finding radar system?
In any case, the plane continues inbound, without interception. And by all indications, the manner in which the aircraft is being controlled tends to reflect skilled airmen at the controls and not neophytes who had difficulty controlling a Cessna 172 Skyhawk and were denied rental of one due to their inability to pass a pre-rental checkout for that.
Is anyone seeing the big picture here yet? The took over the plane in a scant 3 minutes, without disturbing the asleep crew and pulled their slumbering inert bodies out of the seats and did not touch either the yokes or the rudders during the time they removed these snoozing crewmen who were so asleep at the wheel they didn’t even use any of the simple and very tried and true duress procedures to alert ATC they were being interfered with. Somehow I don’t think so.
In any case, the hijackers then descended, and flew right by the White House and a contingency of secret service agents who had to at that point been standing on the roof with the over the shoulder STINGER missiles at the ready, waiting for them to come into firing range. FLT 77 was indeed well inside STINGER firing range as it whipped past the White House on the way into the Pentagon that morning.
Were those agents taking a nap? Or had they simply been told not to fire on this plane? I know that in 1987, the secret service crew who guards that building were armed with STINGER MISSILES because an ATC specialist warned me to not fly lower than 1,000 feet over that building on my way further north that evening or risk getting one up my, uh, tailpipe. So we know someone dropped that ball that morning, or did they get told to hold their fire?
And then the hijackers fly the oh so notoriously ridiculous 330 degree descending turn, which not only puts them at more risk for a shoot down, but makes no sense because their job was to fly that plane into the building. Why the turn? The couldn’t possibly not seen it as they whipped past the White House that morning. The skies were clear. There was no fog or cloud cover. Did someone get lost suddenly?
What we know from the FDR recreation the N.T.S.B. provided to us, is that this plane executed a very high speed descent at a vertical descent rate that was at the very least, 4,400 feet per minute, easily 3,000 feet per minute faster in the dive than normal landing aircraft typical do on their final approaches to a runway.
This equated to a terminal velocity in the end of more than 150 knots beyond the never exceed speed for this aircraft at this altitude. Oh, I know, I have seen in the blogosphere the ‘hogwash, these planes fly at 585 miles an hour all day long’ said over and over again, so therefore this speed limit we cite clearly must be ‘wrong’ and not correct. Is it?
The sad reality for those same people who cite this 585 miles an hour speed, is that this speed can only be achieved and maintained in less dense air, at very high altitudes.
Down low, in very dense air with significantly higher drag coefficients applicable to the plane down so low, the plane’s cannot achieve these speeds. And the only limit is not just the drag limitation, but the fact that with the increase in speed in a banked turn, comes the increased force of gravity or ‘G’ forces. On September 11th., this aircraft pulled ‘6’ G’s on it’s turn into the building that day, at a speed more than 150 knots beyond it’s design limits at this altitude.
We know this because we called Boeing and asked them if these impossible speeds were even possible at these altitudes. Their answer, was a laughable; “Uh, no!” by their spokesperson.
But to get back to the turn and the necessity of one when the building was clearly right in front of the hijackers faces as they descended, is anyone’s guess. But some of us surmise the turn was necessary because the imperative was not just to whack the building just anywhere, but to strike it in a particular location.
That location, is known as the recently heavily reinforced and renovated ‘Catchers Mit’, and the portion of the building that was hit was filled with Navy comptroller’s office personnel who were tracking the missing 2.3 trillion dollars cited during hearings on Capitol Hill on the prior morning, held by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
We can only wonder at this point what the rationale was for circling and exposing this plane to shoot down, hence preventing it hitting it’s target. Nevertheless, the hijackers circled. But they did so in a fashion that absolutely flies in the fact that extremely unskilled and untrained pilots were at the controls.
They executed this high speed turn and somehow managed not to lose control of this plane in a region of it’s control capabilities that would absolutely mandate that the pilot have exceptional flying skill to do this maneuver without losing control of this aircraft. Do you still believe that Hani Hanjour was in the cockpit flying this plane now? That is a stretch, in any reasonable persons estimation to still believe that, if we can trust ANY of the data the N.T.S.B. released to us from the FDR on that aircraft. But this was not the end of the superb airmanship exhibited by Hani that morning. He got better at it!
What is so much more impressive is that Hani flew the plane so low that he clipped ‘6’ light poles on the approach to the building at 460 plus knots, but when he did this, the leading edges of the wings did not shed a single piece, nor were the fuel tanks ruptured, which at that time were more or less full of highly flammable JET A fuel.
We know ‘5’ of the six poles were sheared, yet no huge fireball explosions as wings were impacting the poles, and nary one piece of leading edge components such as the leading edge slats, were even damaged or left the plane. Now that is mighty impressive flying! That Florida instructor pilot who declared him to be incompetent and quite incapable of safely renting a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, surely had him pegged wrong, didn’t he? Didn’t he?
Anyway, what is even more phenomenal, is this aircraft was flown down in a region less than ½ wingspan from the ground, known to any experienced pilot as ‘ground effect’ region or zone.
The importance of knowing this, is that no airplane at full throttle flown in ground effect, would want to continue to descend further. Matter of fact, at 465 knots, the plane would have, without full nose down pitch (which the flight data recorder shows was not the case) would have been required to overcome the ‘ground effect’ cushion and lift coefficient going on, and the plane would have had no choice but to climb.
To force it into the building more or less at the base of the wall where it hit, on the ground floor level, the hijackers would have had to be using FULL NOSE DOWN PITCH to do this.
Not true, says the FDR data given to us by the N.T.S.B. No aircraft in GROUND EFFECT wants to descend further into it at high speed. They all want to climb and even with 10 or more degrees of commanded nose down pitch, a plane of that class would still want to climb out of ground effect due to a huge surplus of lift it was generating. Any pilot wants to challenge this, be my guest.
Simply is not disputable here. It cannot be done. This particular aerodynamic fact is irrefutably the most damning road block to the whole cockamamie story about the final portion of this outrageous flight.
Interestingly, the N.T.S.B. gave us two sets of data. One set shows that the FL-180 reset took place per their recreation (and I will get to that again here in a second) and furthermore, the derivative data they provide to us shows that this reset did not take place at all, per the FDR data.
How can this be? According to the N.T.S.B., the .csv or comma separated variable data was a derivative of the Crash Protected Memory file in the L-3 Model 2100 Flight Data Recorder on this airplane. Yet, this clearly is not the case at all.
YouTube – Veterans Today –
The last data record the N.T.S.B. has from this recorder places the aircraft INSIDE THE OUTER WALL at a height of 380 feet above ground level. This is extremely problematic for the official story, because we know that per their version, the plane did not nose dive the building from on top of it, but impacted the outer wall after hitting ‘6’ poles on the approach that did not fold over or shear because they were made out of balsa wood that morning.
The poles were not made of balsa wood. They were heavy aluminum. They are a trajectory record. A record that belies the fact that a B-757 could not fly the profile the FDR data set says it did, and still strike those poles at those heights.
The plane was simply TOO HIGH to strike those poles if we are to trust the FDR data even a little bit. So what gives with the poles? If they were planted as some assert, then why plant something that destroys your FDR premise totally?
Very good question here, at the very least, it infers someone snuck the pole through the window of the taxi cab that the one pole narrowly missed pegging the driver of that morning as it flew off the ground after it was hit by ‘something’ and then driven through the windshield of that taxi. People like to cite the fact these poles have blowtorch marks on the bases of them and were planted.
Were they planted. Know anyone who can javelin throw one of these poles through the windshield of a taxi cab? I don’t.
Now one thing I had not mentioned so far is that there is one problem with this altimeter setting that took place, well beyond the fact the hijackers had no constructive way of knowing the proper number to put into the Kollsman window. Remember how I told you that after the hijacking they had waited a number of minutes to turn to ‘off’ the aircraft’s transponder? Well, when they did that, they just negated the main reason for any aircrew doing the altimeter reset to the local barometric pressure setting the crew had no way of knowing what it was because as I stated, they neither tuned in the ATIS frequency for Dulles airport, nor had they gotten this from ATC that morning, and to my knowledge, ATC had not broadcast this to anyone on that frequency the plane’s radio was set on.
So first, I have two questions. How did these clueless hijackers so very perfectly twist both Kollsman window knobs on both altimeters and set them to the heretofore unknown DULLES barometric pressure without knowing what that number was, and second, why would they bother with the primary reason they’d do that, turned to the ‘off’ position way back long ago over Pennsylvania?
They were not going to execute a landing at Dulles, so precision on the altimeters was neither necessary, nor was it done to allow the plane’s MODE C or altitude reporting via the transponder, to allow ATC to warn other traffic about the American B-757’s altitude as it descended through very congested airspace.
Needless to say, only an experienced line crew would have done this step, and certainly not after turning OFF the transponder, which was the last way ATC had of knowing the altitude of this plane as it barreled into the Pentagon at an impossible 465 knots, well beyond it’s capability.
How did the hijackers know this number to set, and how did they both set both altimeters exactly at the same moment in time, per the FDR record? On the climb through FL-180, that’s easy to do, it’s a mere button push to put in the baro reference of 29.92 for everyone at high altitude to be using THE SAME REFERENCE. Not so on the descent. This required precision well beyond the capability of these neophyte and highly inexperienced, incapable airmen.
Well, from an experienced pilot’s standpoint, going back to W. Va. Where they executed the standard rate turn that no hijacker would have bothered with in the first place, that was one of the first clues beyond the impossibility of entering the cockpit without opening the door, or hijacking the plane without the crew either changing the transponder code to ‘hijack’ and broadcasting it on the radio. Second, the no disengage of the autopilot doesn’t work for me, as the crew would have kicked the rudders and the yokes and the autopilot would have disengaged during any STRUGGLE to take the plane over.
And for the rudders to be static and non moving for the rest of the flight, except for small deflections attributable to ‘air loads’ or deflection by the relative air movement against them, the rudders were for all practical purposes, ‘dead’ meaning the hijackers legs were not working, or both hijackers exercised EXTREME body control and kept their feet off of those pedals. And they executed a 330 degree COORDINATED turn without slipping or skidding the plane, at an impossible 465 knots airspeed, when an accelerated stall most assuredly would have been the likely result of such a course of action on their part.
We know the rudders worked on the climbout as Burlingame used them to compensate for thrust related yaw on takeoff, and that’s reflected in the FDR data record. After the hijackers took over, the rudders might just as well have been dead weights down there under their feet, because they simply were never again used. Why? Or more appropriately is ‘How?’ with regard to the total lack of rudders by the hijackers, while maintaining COORDINATED FLIGHT?????
When the last known FDR records show the plane 380 feet above the ground, well inside the wall of the building, position wise, and I might add, at a height that would have precluded nailing those ‘6’ poles on the way in without shedding leading edge parts or causing massive fuel tank ruptures and fireballs, I have to say; “uh no” to all of this foolery here.
The initial claim by the government as to ‘why’ the FDR record ends too high and inside the building’s perimeter is that the recorder failed ‘6’ seconds before impact. Oh really? By the very standards the recorder must meet, it could not be so far behind recording the data as this, as it would by those same standards probably still be recording for at the very least, 500 milliseconds after building impact, even if the sensors feeding the DFDAU had ceased to exist due to impact destruction with the outer wall. For the government to claim that the recorder was simply ‘not caught up’ as they asserted, or had suddenly without explanation, failed, without the plane having hit anything yet, as it clearly was too high, is both absurd and ridiculous.
Time after time the excuse is the FDR just couldn’t keep up with the data being pushed into it from the DFDAU. In reality the FDR is in fact capable of keeping up.
It has to faithfully and accurately store data in a fashion that allows accident investigators to determine what happened to the plane in it’s final moments of flight, hence it cannot be hobbled in a way that makes it a ‘historical’ artifact collector of the plane’s better moments before impact.
It’s job is to tell investigators right up to the moment of aircraft breakup, what the plane was doing. In this case, for at least 400 to 500 milliseconds (half a second) after building impact or total airframe disintegration and power loss. That’s per it’s mandatory specification it must meet to be certified for use on Part 23 category aircraft.
Many discrepancies existed with that Flight Data Recorder record and the N.T.S.B. recreation. First, the final flight path of the plane the government says was flown, does NOT MATCH this record. This is not an assertion. This is a fact.
Second, the FDR itself was found ‘twice’ at the Pentagon. Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the actual location of the unit on the American Boeing 757 aircraft, it is in the tail of the plane to preserve it for as long as possible as most planes do not crash ‘tail first’ into anything even if the government claims the box can quit without provocation or reason, six seconds before impact with anything.
The unit was found both at the entry hole, and deep in the building, underneath more or less ‘intact’ pilot seats. This is a bit problematic in the sense that the box itself has insufficient mass to penetrate the building on it’s own without help after the severe deceleration of the plane as it struck the heavily reinforced ‘Catcher’s Mit’ outer wall with the Kevlar jacketing and, furthermore, how did it get found ‘twice’ when only ONE flight data recorder exists on this plane?
What is even a better question, is how did the data in the crash protected memory module get downloaded from the crash protected solid state memory a full DAY before the discovery of the unit on the premises? That’s right from the time stamp on the data given to us by the N.T.S.B. Now I know that you’re thinking; “oh, someone forgot to set the time on the system that downloaded the data then, obviously.”
Well, unfortunately there is a very precise process for setting the derivation bench system to take that data from a crash system and download it, and part of that process means you cross check the time the system says it is at. And most assuredly, there are many many other safeguards that are done to ensure that the data is not written to. Unfortunately for this data record set, it was written to. And that was not accidental.
The reason we know this, is that the only way data in the file header or preamble could be erased or reset to ‘zeroes’ is that the requisite jumper wire required on the bench setup that would be used to dump the CPM or crash protected memory data from the recovered CPM module, had to be in place when it would have been both not normally there at all and an intentional ‘addition’ by someone, and second, the bench unit used to talk to or communicate with the CPM module would not have any AIRCRAFT ID or FLEET ID data loaded into it as a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit., and upon connection with the never ever ever in place jumper wire EXCEPT FOR INTENT TO WRITE operations which would be prohibited by any reasonable data extraction protocols for a crash unit, the jumper had to be there to ERASE these two critical links to the plane itself that would not otherwise be blank.
On this unit’s FDR data, both fields are inexplicably ‘blank’ or zero’d out.
On bootstrap, the FDR does a BIT TEST or built in test function. Part of this BIT test is to validate the header / preamble data in the front of the file in the non-compressed portion of the CPM memory data, against the FDR UNIT’s own ROM values for AC ID and FLEET ID.
In the case these do not match on bootstrap, the FDR sends a ‘FDR FAIL’ or command priority message to both EICAS flight displays in the cockpit. Furthermore, the pre-download checklist used by ANY agency downloading CPM memory module data stipulates that the requisite PIN JUMPERS to enable a CPM module write operation be verified ABSENT or NOT IN PLACE to prevent accidental record modification or data erasure.
The only way the AC ID and FLEET ID data could be zero’d out on this box is that the jumper on the bench unit used to extract the data, was, in fact, there.
That was the LAST linkage of that file to the airplane known as N644AA, other than serial numbers the F.B.I. and N.T.S.B. repeatedly refuse to provide to us under very specially and properly written F.O.I.A. requests.
In any case, if this data was somehow erased or zero’d out by some technician before that aircraft took off, the unit would have failed BIT on power up on the airplane’s essential bus, and that is a ‘no go’ situation.
Only a not for flight unit would write ‘zero’s to that header and preamble data, and only a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit would ignore the BIT failure due to masking in the BIT ERROR MAP of the unit. In all likelihood, on this particular airplane, the FDR would have been a Sunstrand model 700 FDR, versus the L-3 Model 2100 unit, based on data from other aircraft in the production string.
Are we to believe that this machine got the L-3 unit and the sister ships produced on the line got the others by accident? I don’t think that’s too very realistic, although it is possible. An FDR FAIL message is a “no push-back” for any Part 23 airplane, prohibiting flight.
We have covered the flight to the building pretty well, but notwithstanding these issues I have mentioned, we now have a big problem. The dearth of airplane wreckage, and for that matter, copious amounts of unburnt fuel that would have been splashed all over the lawn after the light pole hits,which would have deeply embedded those poles into the wings at the very least to the fuel tanks.
A 465 knot airliner full of JET A hits light poles full of fuel and the wings don’t rupture and explode on impact with these poles? Only in a roadrunner cartoon could this be like this, folks. This is NOT reality.
In addition, the hole in the building was a single hole. No engine penetration holes, no wing entry slots, and no fuel anywhere. Where did the wings and significant parts of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers go?
Where did 5,300 gallons of JET A fuel go? Where were the bodies the luggage, the parts of the plane that COULD NOT HAVE PENETRATED THE BUILDING go to? How did ‘2’ Rolls Royce, 7 ton hurtling engines with the equivalent mass of a locomotive engine at that speed, not punch holes in the building and yet only ONE engine is found in the building, after presumably taking a back door in because it surely didn’t go through the front wall with no entry hole, for sure!!
The entry hole was 16 feet across. Vertical and Horizontal structural members were visible right after impact. The fuselage of a B-757 is significantly wider than this.
The two, nearly 7 ton, RB-211, Rolls Royce engines on this plane were an every so solidly predictable 48 feet apart, meaning we could easily know where they’d penetrate the building given this fact.
There are no holes there at those locations. The floor slab there at the place an 80 ton plane moving at 465 knots final speed has impacted, is not chipped, cracked or damaged in any way. How can this be?
Well, to any reasonable person, this cannot be.
It is not reasonable to state that the lion’s share of an 80 ton aircraft could totally disintegrate. Fire could not consume it all, as the fire post impact was not really that intense because computer monitors and open books were neither melted nor singed post fire. Matter of fact, until the building collapsed, the minimal damage at the Pentagon was almost laughably NOT possibly from any airplane impact.
A Toyota Tercel with fifty gallons of jet fuel in it would have created more damage, in all likelihood.
An 80 ton airplane with more than 5,300 gallons or nearly twenty tons of fuel hits the building and no fuel is there all over the premises, no wings, no fuselage, no body pieces?
In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th, hijacker, the government presented photographs of the dead occupants of FLT 77, the non-scheduled, per the BTS flight that allegedly hit the building that day.
None of the bodies were really dismembered in any photos they presented, nor were they burnt. They were for the most part, fully UNBURNT and INTACT human beings. These people hit a heavily reinforced building in an aluminum airplane at 465 knots, and maintained their body integrity? I don’t think so. I truly don’t think so.
Years later, N644AA was stricken from the F.A.A. registry, after remaining, just like the other ‘3’ aircraft, as viable registrations in the F.A.A. database, until 2005. To date, there has been not one single component per the requisite aircraft production ‘trailing documents’ Boeing requires to build airplanes and certify them, positively identified from any of the wreckage recovered, far less than a ton, by the way, from an 80 ton airplane.
What is interesting about the ‘wreckage’ the government touts is from N644AA or the non-scheduled flight 77 from the Dulles Airport that day, is that one piece (shown below) being handled by presumably F.B.I. agents (with badges in their pockets, by the way!) at the site that morning, has corrosion streaming from rivet holes that had rivets in them moments earlier.
Another larger piece has jungle vines still wrapped around it. A pilot who’s flown this particular American Airlines plane identified the one part on the lawn as having come from a much earlier version model B-757-200, same genus as the one that crashed near Buga, Colombia in 1995. Hmmmm???
In the end of December 1995, an American Airlines B-757, on a night approach into Cali, Colombia, got lost on the approach due to improperly programming the same FMS system the hijackers so adroitly reprogrammed on Sept. 11, 2001 and turned onto course using, and the plane’s crew failed to retract spoilers on the missed approach and slammed into the mountain there in what is called Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
All but one soul were lost on that plane’s crash.
There was very little post crash fire, and the wreckage sat in the Buga, Colombia jungle for months before it was fully recovered and shipped to the U.S.
Piece of fuselage James Hanson, J.D., traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995
More than one person has asked the F.A.A. and N.T.S.B. to show us the wreckage of both aircraft, but the U.S. government cannot tell you where the wreckage is from the Buga, Colombia crash. Certainly it didn’t dissolve. Or walk off. Or get lost on it’s own.
The government asserts that they have the wreckage safe in Iron Mountain, locked up. If so, why not show us both sets then. We’d love to see them, and the Boeing production trailing documentation that shows every single serial number of these components, With so many clues that exist that point to out and out ‘fraud’ and ‘lying’ by the U.S.
government about the nature of what happened at the Pentagon that day, they failed to tell the American public that depleted uranium was detected and decontamination procedures for D.U. as it is called, were taken at the Pentagon that morning. Why?
First, the renovation to ‘The Catchers Mit’ did not incorporate D.U. for obvious reasons. Second, for it to be there, it means a form of ‘munitions’ was used in the Pentagon attack or it would not be there.
Oh, I know, Boeing used it in the construction of N644AA when they built her, so that explains it. No. The only known use of D.U. in any civil Part 23 or transport category airplane in U.S. registry is on the McDonnell / Douglas DC-10/MD-11 aircraft. It is used as anti flutter ballast in the horizontal stabilizes of that aircraft type.
Not used in B-757, or any other commercial airplane other than the DC-10 / MD-11 genus aircraft. Post cleanup of the Pentagon / Department of Defense poured as much as 24 inches of gravel and aggregate in the approach area where the blow-back from the impact with that wall was known to contain D.U. contamination. How the D.U. got there is a big mystery.
One of the more peculiar things about the well photographed ‘C’ ring ‘hole’ is that we have a nice symmetrical, even, cookie cutter ‘hole’ in the brick wall, several wall layers deep in the building.
Now we know that the airplane the government says did this was a standard, run of the mill, right-off-the-production-floor without enhancements, B-757-200 series jetliner.
It wasn’t a Titan ICBM, and it surely wasn’t a tunnel borer with wings, either. Logic would dictate that the very frangible and flexible fuselage of N644AA, the alleged airplane that punched this hole, would have long before the ‘C’ ring, accordioned like the frangible metal tube that it is and at the worst, had it truly been able to pentrate that deep, made a very ragged and quite uneven hole at this location.
And surely the words, “PUNCH OUT”, would not have been pre-painted there in that location before aircraft impact by any Pentagon employees.
It’s a bit of a stretch to surmise that this airplane was so very rigid and sturdy as to make such a nearly perfect hole in the wall, after being torn asunder by the ‘E’ and then the ‘D’ rings, respectively, as it faced incredible mechanical resistance, post impact with the KEVLAR jacketing in place on this section of the building.
Furthermore, post crash, there’d be no need to “Punch Out” anything there, except maybe the idiot who photographed the neat cookie cutter hole for release to the press, with “PUNCH OUT” painted adjacent to it. It does really fly in the face of probability here, does it not? This is more than hypothetical guesswork. It wouldn’t happen that way.
I don’t think I need to tell you what conclusions to draw here, but from a number of very valid stand points, the entire government story about the Pentagon attack is completely not adding up.
It cannot add up. It never did add up. Not for a second. If we are to believe the official story, a number of very very impossible breaches of physics, aerodynamics, airmanship and common sense took place on September 11, 2001. Interceptors were not launched and directed to this flight as it came in over West Virginia–and hurtled toward the building. No possible way the plane could possibly have the proper MODE 4A reply to the military radars scanning the skies over Arlington that day.
The issues cited about the flight itself are both nonsensical and unreal to any trained and experienced pilot. And to be certain, it’s laughable and sad that people can see the pristine, no parts from the pole strikes, no jet fuel from tank ruptures, lawn, and the total bulk of an 80 ton airliner not present when it could not have possibly flown through the hole and left the vertical and horizontal structures still in that entry hole, with no engine or wing penetrations or vertical or horizontal stabilizer structures, body parts, luggage and other components all over the lawn there.
After the initial explosion, there was very little visible wreckage there. A fighter pilot dispatched to overfly the scene reported back that there was no evidence of any aircraft impact there of any kind. Not until a ‘spook’ U.S. Navy C-130 Hercules overflew the place. Later this pilot stated he never got within 4 nautical miles, when in fact eyewitnesses saw him directly overhead. Why did he lie?
What was his real purpose for being in the air that morning? You don’t just jump into a C-130 and fire it up in a minute and launch. Just the pre-flight would have taken several minutes to perform. In other words, it had it’s orders long before it launched that day because it was not a fighter with a crew sitting in it ready to intercept someone intruding in that airspace.
This was a specially equipped ‘spook’ bird, an intelligence asset bird, and like the orbiting E-4B which was in the sky before it all went down that morning as a part of ‘Amalgam VIRGO’ and other Richard Cheney exercises, this plane too was also an exercise asset. But for what purpose? For what purpose?
April Gallup, a Pentagon worker who carried her son through the hole the plane allegedly disappeared through, saw not one body part, not one plane component, and smelled zero jet fuel when carrying her son on her shoulders out to safety that morning, just moments after the plane hit. At the very least, April would have been wading through pools of unburnt jet fuel, blood, and viscera, and working her way through miles of wiring from the plane.
As it worked out, she saw no evidence of any aircraft, body parts, other signs that N644AA had just flown in there and disintegrated into small pieces as the government asserts.
YouTube – Veterans Today –
Of the more than 80 video cameras that would have let us see N644AA’s final flight to the Pentagon that day, the F.B.I. has chosen to show us ‘5’ frames of video that do not show a B-757 just prior to building impact.
And interestingly, eyewitnesses who worked at the Arlington National Cemetery and who were interviewed extensively after the event, substantiate a de-facto ‘flyover’ of the building by a very large transport category aircraft, one eyewitness, identified as ‘NEIT-428’, describes a scene where he could see the face of the pilot just after the explosion from whatever struck the building, banking away and flying towards Washington, D.C., and his testimony is NOT the only testimony that supports the flyover.
The very data the N.T.S.B. provided to us proves that the airplane or aircraft the data may have come from absolutely was over the roof of the building at a height well above it before the data record ended for no apparent reason, because the plane simply had at that point impacted NOTHING YET and was too high for an impact with the Pentagon. Why?
When NEIT-428 was questioned about ‘why’ the government seemed to be unconcerned about his steadfast unchanging testimony about the flyover he witnessed that day, he simply stated; “they must not think me to be important enough..” Of all of the eyes that were there that day, his were the most uncolored by technical issues.
He simply saw what he saw. He saw the pilot’s face as the aircraft flew over the Building after the explosion, and banked away towards Washington, D.C. Even though the interviewer constantly tried to lead him other directions, he steadfastly stuck to his story.
He refused to be deflected or convinced to tell something different. The investigator who was sent to interview him repetitively lead him in the questioning and this man steadfastly refused to have words put into his mouth. And he was not alone.
The government cites so many eyewitnesses who swear almost on a stack of bibles that they saw the plane impact the Pentagon that day, but to the last person, these eyewitnesses neither were in position to see the impact, or were otherwise proven to not be able to see that airplane strike the building that day like NEIT 428 and his co-workers were from their exceptional view at the cemetery across the highway.
You’d think that Based on all of the controversy, the F.B.I. would just release some of those videos to prove NEIT-428 and the hosts of others who saw the flyover, totally in error, wouldn’t you? Seems reasonable to me.
And it should seem reasonable to you if you believe that the job of the F.B.I. is to protect something called JUSTICE in this country. Clearly their job is something quite different based on the nice clear pictures of their agents with badges in pockets strewing weathered wreckage from the 1995 Buga Colombia B-757 crash that morning.
They most assuredly seemed to have been pre-positioned to grab those videos so fast that morning so we would never ever see them. We got 5 frames out of miles of tape recorded on almost 90 cameras. Why?
Someone has been lying to us about what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Dennis Cimino, A.A., EE; 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer
Insurer Caps WTC-Demolition Asbestos Payout at 10 Million
Chutzpah, Thy Name is Silverstein! Larry Wants More Billions for Blowing Up the WTC
Wolves On Prowl for a Few Good Marines
Why Did Pentagon Completely Confuse China?
Larry “Satan’s Slave” Silverstein invests in 666
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=192616
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Mar 13 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11, Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Editors Picks, Government, New World Order War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
March 13, 2012 – 6:33 pm
Charlotte NC Bill
March 13, 2012 – 6:55 pm
Come on Trowbridge…Argue in favor of the 757 crap…I triple-dog dare ya’..
March 13, 2012 – 10:27 pm
Oh hum… I suppose this is what inevitably happens when one let’s the media imprint images and absurdities into the brains of people who watch tv and internet videos.
The bright evil ones end up by controlling the discussion with “red herrings”. Planes? What planes? The above long-winded “analysis” is accurate.
Why not stop the incessant talk about planes, hijackers, building collapses, urban moving systems, cell phone calls, etc.?
We can expose those responsible for the nutty narrative by focusing on the supposed victims of that day: dob, last known address, tax records, etc. If complicity of the media doesn’t then surprise you, check out the corporations that document “lost” employees. It’s an American nightmare. Then let’s do what we can to clean house.
March 13, 2012 – 10:30 pm
Congratulations on another disassembly of the official narrative. When all are placed together, the picture that emerges is one where the authors of 911 really thought they had all the bases covered. Of course they didn’t.
Enough evidence exists right now to thoroughly discredit the whitewashing of 911, yet the work has only just begun. The next stage must involve the uncovering of the guilty parties.
Evidence points to an internal conspiracy. Who else but the gov’t. has the power to play the type of games that created 911? Who else has the connections to work with Israel?
Certainly Silverstein was a player. He admitted building 7 was “pulled”.
It is imperative that the investigation continue to the guilty parties themselves. 911 was the excuse for the police state, the abrogation of the constitution, justification for wars of occupation and nation annihilation. Certainly the sham is now exposed. Can the light of truth, falling upon the guilty, be far behind?
March 13, 2012 – 11:59 pm
There is nothing to argue about. This is essentially rubbish aka throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Of course, the government explanation of the tragedies is badly flawed, but to claim that there were no planes and passengers in the 9/11 attacks, especially at the Pentagon, is absolute rubbish, long-winded crap I won’t waste my time reading.
If you want names of passengers killed in the plane which struck the Pentagon, here are some: Georgetown Professor Charles Falkenberg and his wife Professor Leslie Whittington and their two small daughters. What happened to them, and why would the University build a memorial for them and others? Just another hoax, and they are all alive and well, living I guess in Castro’s Havana, all expenses paid for some reverse of Operation Northwoods?
Or what about Swarthmore’s Professor Lynne S. Schofield whose mother, Norma Lang Steuerle as I recall,
died on the flight, and who has held a memorial for her every year up until now. Check her story on the internet. Just another hoax?
And I could go on and on about the victims, and what their survivors have gone through, and would confirm it if I thought any decent-thinking person thought there was anything to your sick rubbish.
You need help. And stop challenging me as I have left this crazy site, as best I can. because of its support of Fetzer and his loonies about the JFK assassination, 9/11, the Tohoku earthquake, etc.
Charlotte NC Bill
March 14, 2012 – 2:34 am
Were there remains found at the Pentagon? Or their luggage? No? Then you have a problem..( With the truth)
Charlotte NC Bill
March 15, 2012 – 9:55 pm
Were THEIR remains found at the Pentagon…Listen neo-con Pete….Flt 77 never flew into the Pentagon…There were no hijackers….The WTC Towers were mid-air pulverizations and it was all done by your neo-con buddies…so don’t pass go..just go to lala land!
March 16, 2012 – 3:33 pm
You aren’t giving this a lot of serious thought. There are dozens of photographs that show the clear, green lawn with no evidence of a plane having crashed there. To quibble about one or another specific photograph is merely a distraction from the most important findings about 9/11:
(1) The BTS data base shows that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day.
(2) FAA records show the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered until 28 September 2005.
(3) Pilots has shown that Flight 93 was in the air but over Urbana, IL, at the time of its alleged “crash” in Shanksville, PA.
(4) Pilots has also shown that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time of its alleged “entry” into the South Tower.
(5) David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown that all of the alleged “phone calls” from the planes were faked.
(6) Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never proven any hijackers were aboard the planes.
(7) The videos in New York show the use of what appear to have been simulated airplanes.
So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed?
And how can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later?
And how can the same planes–Flights 93 and Flight 175–have been in two places at the same time?
Charlotte NC Bill
March 16, 2012 – 3:47 pm
So now I suppose it’s our fault that we weren’t on the scene as it was happening like the Dancing Israelis video-recorder in hand..( And that’s the part that bothers people like Peteand Trow-pointing the finger at Mossad and their allies/assets/agents ) Do you know what would be missing in a hundred photos? The wreckage of Flt 77…that’s what..
Charlotte NC Bill
March 18, 2012 – 2:13 pm
Damn Pete… Your neo-con Mossad approved lies fool no one… The Washington Post quoted several people who said they saw what looked like “a small commuter plane…” When asked minutes afterwards… Which is exactly what you would think a missile was if you were a 1/4 to a mile away… The NTSB FDR data showed Flight 77 never flew low enough to hit the Pentagon… Gen. Stubblebien said no plane hit the Pentagon… The NTSB reported that the cockpit door was never opened after takeoff… You’re just upset that this blows the official version to pieces..
Charlotte NC Bill
March 18, 2012 – 2:26 pm
It blows the ENTIRE version to pieces…Because if the “hijackers” ( there weren’t any “) were able to take-over and fly these planes for a thousand miles why weren’t they able to fly them into a target in DC?! Because Larry Silverstein didn’t hold an insurance policy on the Pentagon? Or the WH? If he did then surely they would have been a goner….And if you don’t want to visit Charlotte Pete it’s your loss…
Charlotte NC Bill
March 18, 2012 – 6:25 pm
Don’t know where “FDR” came from…BTW did some of you “debunkers” actually read the article?
March 16, 2012 – 10:27 am
No “wingloaded” airliner can do over 200 knots at ground level without disintigrating immediately. I have published the air force tests of the 5 b2 and the tests done for 9/11, the video.
wing turbulance destroyed the first b521 at 300 feet at 300 knots
the 757 is incapable of any but landing speed, slow as a snail, at Pentagon height. even a fast, 200 knot, flyover, would have not been possible.
a short “dip” to 240 knots left one in a shambles and that was at altitute where it was more than double the height of the ROOF of the pentagon.
March 16, 2012 – 10:37 am
You believe that a missile hit the Pentagon correct? I pretty sure I saw video of you on Press TV talking about the alleged video of a missile strike on the Pentagon.The damage pattern seems to suggest this is a likely scenario(or a small plane shooting a missile). Though I dont know about that grainy video.
March 14, 2012 – 12:24 am
Here is a CNN story about Professor Whittington which I meant to add to my previous post:
Remembering economist Leslie Whittington
“All of us resisted that it was a reality. And it gradually sank in.”
Judy Feder, dean of public studies at Georgetown University in Washington, had driven into work as usual on Tuesday morning.
“I really was thinking, ‘What are the odds?’” as news of targeted plane crashes began moving.
A keenly respected friend and colleague, Leslie Whittington, was leaving that day for a sabbatical in Australia. With her were her husband Charles Falkenberg of ECOlogic Corporation and their daughters Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. The family was on American Airlines Flight 77, the Boeing 757 that at 9:43 a.m. EDT crashed into the Pentagon. Whittington, her husband and daughters were en route to a connecting flight in Los Angeles.
“I was at work,” says Feder, “and gradually, personally — well, some people were thinking of it. But I thought, ‘Not possible.’
“And as the course of the day went forward, we tried to find out whether anyone we knew was aware of their itinerary.
“An alum called American Airlines and was told that Leslie was on the plane. And then a couple of others of us checked because we couldn’t believe it — and we got semi-information, so we were getting more and more scared.
“There was an e-mail from a friend-of-a-friend who had heard from Leslie’s stepfather — and I tracked down her stepfather and spoke with him” to get the confirmation she hadn’t wanted.
“We’ve been doing a lot of remembering and thinking about her.”
Whittington was an economist and professor, headed for a stint of several months as a visiting fellow at Australian National University in Canberra.
She’d worked closely with Feder for the past couple of years as associate dean of Georgetown’s Public Policy Institute and was an associate professor of public policy. After taking a BS in business from Regis College in Denver, Whittington did her master’s work and took a Ph.D. in economics from University of Colorado at Boulder.
Just more of the gigantic hoax?
Charlotte NC Bill
March 14, 2012 – 2:37 am
Trow..until you lose your Ozzie and Harriet view of this country the truth of what this country has become will never be accepted by you..
March 14, 2012 – 5:11 pm
I must have missed the part of the article that claimed that the civilian passengers on the original flights didn’t die. Of course they did. If you don’t believe a government will herd their own citizens into a room and gas them, you should read up on history.
March 14, 2012 – 12:54 am
Yes, there appear to be some permanently missing passengers from at least one of two aircraft the Govt claims crashed into the twin towers, aircraft still in service over one year later.
What about all the rumors of the passengers taken to the back room at Cleveland Airpoprt, never to be seen again? What about all the now proven fake aerial phone calls which were obviously morphed with high tech spectrographic sound equipment?
Here is the problem, when the Govt lies repeatedly and is caught at it over and over again, with 100% certainty, it becomes very difficult accepting or believing any single part of their narrative and its claims. Fetzer and Cimino have hit a grandslam homerun with this article.
Anyone with any basic common sense at all knows that the Govt’s refusal to release the 80+ HD videos of the “pentagram attack” by claiming it would harm “national security” it so insufficient that it raises many additional serious questions such as what is the Govt hiding, why, and is the Govt serving as an “accessory after the fact”, and is the Govt part of a larger criminal conspiracy to mass murder Americans in order to stimulate primal fear in the mass mind (conscience collective, in order to provide a pretext for entering unConstitutional, illegal, unprovoked Mideast wars that would otherwise never be tolerated?
The information Cimino presents on basic aircarft identification and required instant interception procedures is well established and is devastating in its implications for the Govt being responsible for the 911 attack at the Pentagram and central part in the cover-up. As of this moment in time, the Govt has failed to provide even a single claim about the 911 Pentagram attack that has been verified or substantiated.
So far their story is nothing but a bundle of poorly prepared, thinly disguised lies, using “national security” as a false cover for mass murder of Americans.
And yet due to the basic incredulity of the public when expereinced investigative researchers attempt to inform them of Govt responsibility for this clearly apparent false flag/standown attack, the public at latrge is near completely unable to accept that the Govt did this mass murder as a deep black covert op.
The public’s basic incredulity provides almost complete and ongoing cover for these most serious crimes of state which include conspiracy to mass murder, mass murder, and accessories to mass murder after the fact.
Articles like this by such esteemed investigative researchers are a service to the American Public and the World. Commendations for such fine work are appropriate here. The 911 Onion is sowly but surely being peeled back thanks to the likes of these writers and others, such as the national heroes, Dr. Steve Pieczenik and Dr. Alan Sabrosky who dared to expose the perps and cutouts.
Charlotte NC Bill
March 14, 2012 – 2:29 am
They’re dead….but their 757 known as Flt 77 didn’t fly into the Pentagon….Anyone who still believes that it did after reading this article will never have a clue..
Charlotte NC Bill
March 14, 2012 – 2:33 am
Yeah, the actual photos of the missile hitting the Pentagon would harm “national security” ( in their minds anyway “) bc no one would believe ANY of our propaganda…( Iraq WMD..Iran’s program…Putin…etc ) ever again..
March 14, 2012 – 2:55 am
long-winded crap I won’t waste my time reading says trowbridge ford… Unfortunately, that’s the main problem with the believers of the official story of events. A reluctance to even check out the alternative views of events. Must be great spending your life with your head stuck down a hole…
March 14, 2012 – 5:22 pm
demolition: The microscopic chips of undetonated thermate, iron microspherules, and molten steel, all suggest temperatures associated with intentional demolition than a traditional fire.
missiles: aircraft cannot attain the speeds and accuracy that is suggested by the official story, only smaller, rc “missiles” can. Rumsfeld stating that a missile had struck the Pentagon, as opposed to airplanes striking the WTC.
space rays: wtf are you talking about?
Also, the government has NEVER tried to cover up where they failed. In fact, they repeatedly depend on their own ineptness to explain what happened (despite the glaring fact that no one was ever reprimanded or punished for said ineptness).
Charlotte NC Bill
March 15, 2012 – 9:57 pm
We saw molten metal pouring out of the goddamn towers! Go peddle your stuff somewhere else…
March 15, 2012 – 10:00 pm
What do you think that was, NC Bill? I have discussed it several place, but what do you think it was? I only ask because it has been claimed to have been molten steel, while I believe it may have been lead.
Charlotte NC Bill
March 15, 2012 – 10:12 pm
I think the columns on certain unoccupied floors were laced/sprayed/wrapped ( I’ve heard the process described in these ways ) with Thermite..I believe Dominic Suter’s imported demo boys did that to sufficiently weaken the structure before the RDX ( or a little more given all the multiple cancers afflicting the first responders ) was deployed….
Charlotte NC Bill
March 16, 2012 – 3:54 pm
I’ve installed IPS systems and neither their destruction or the “melting plane” ( good grief ) would do that….You’re just a neo-con bothered by the fact that the slime trail of evidence leads to Mossad who you mistakenly imagine to be the good guys…Semper Fi Duff and Jim…Old MArines like us are tasked to fight all enemies foreign/domestic until we die..
March 18, 2012 – 2:18 pm
Wow, pete, I’m not sure how to conduct a scientific discussion with someone who isn’t scientifically literate. If you “blanket” a heat source (a combustion reaction), the heat will take longer to bleed off. Blanketing a heat source will NEVER cause the heat to increase.
This should have been a basic concept in 9th grade physical science. There is a maximum temperature any thermal reaction can reach; contain that reaction when it reaches that maximum, and it can get no hotter; it will simply take longer to cool. This is why thermoses don’t explode.
This is why kitchen ovens don’t need a cooling system to maintain a temperature; no matter how well insulated they are, the temperature can never increase just from thermal insulation. And this is why, when NIST was confronted with the NASA thermal imaging, their reaction was simply awkward denial and distraction. Unfortunately for them, we have the temperature data, and we saw the lava.
Steven Jones was the first to test the dust. Then he got an international team (from the Netherlands I think) to verify the results. Again, to my knowledge, no one has tested it and found nothing, but I could be wrong. It’s not too difficult to imagine a government funded study that would find nothing. Again, the point is moot. The temperature data alone guarantees that thermitic material must have been at play. Class A and B fires can’t get that hot.
I believe the demolition is just a distraction though. If pressed hard enough, the government will admit that the WTC buildings were pre-wired with explosives, since they were deemed to be high-value, strategic government buildings that couldn’t be allowed to be taken by a foreign enemy.
The thermite charges must have gone off accidentally with the destruction and the fires. And that will be the end of 9/11 Truth. They will admit one indiscretion, and clear themselves of the rest of their guilt. They’re not stupid. The thermite and obvious demolition of those buildings is an elaborate insurance policy to the crime; they’re probably just amazed they haven’t had to play that card yet.
Fly ash isn’t composed of iron and aluminum. Fly ash is small and round; you get points for that I guess.
March 14, 2012 – 3:14 am
As long as you keep bringing me into your loony rants, I shall keep replying that the 9/11 attacks where committed by 19 highjackers taking over four planes, crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and into the countryside in Pennsylanvia, killing all their 267 occupants or so who had called many of their relatives and friends while the suicide bombing were in progress, and their bodily remains were recovered in the last two crashes, and destroyed, as this link discloses:
Pentagon: 9/11 Victims’ Incinerated Remains Disposed in Virginia Landfill
Pentagon report has revealed that the unidentified remains of some 9/11 victims were incinerated and disposed of in a Virginia landfill.
The Associated Press reports that remains from an unknown number of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attack on the Pentagon as well as remains from those who died aboard a hijacked airliner that was crashed into a Pennsylvania field were cremated, then passed on to a biomedical waste disposal contractor who incinerated them and left them in a Virginia landfill.
(Photo: Cedric H. Rudisill, USAF)
These human remains “could not be tested or identified,” according to the report.
“We don’t think it should have happened,” retired Gen. John Abizaid, who chaired the committee which prepared the report, said of the landfill disposal at a Pentagon news conference.
The independent committee was formed following an investigation last November that revealed “gross mismanagement” at the Dover, Del. mortuary facility which handled the remains of U.S. troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That Air Force facility was also guilty of disposing of the remains of hundreds of U.S. war dead in the Virginia landfill.
A 2008 policy change led to the shocking practice being discontinued.
It is not currently known whether or not the families of 9/11 victims knew that human remains were being dumped in a landfill.
You ranters are wrose than the crappy government when it comes to the truth about the cockups.
March 14, 2012 – 5:25 pm
It must be true if the prime suspect says it is.
March 14, 2012 – 4:49 am
A great (if necessarily a little long) write up on the huge pile of inconsistencies regarding the Pentagon thing…
Might also mention, since we’re mostly veterans, the results, career-wise, for the lifer who was in charge of North American airspace on that fateful day. The C.O. always takes the hit for colossal clusterf**ks like this, dontcha know.
Which makes it laughable that Dick My Ears was promoted to Chairman of the joint smoking indian chiefs with staff infections.
Hey Trowbridge, what? Do you write for lifetime network or what? You’re rebutting a pretty well laid out argument of FACTS with a bunch of thought clouding emotions here…yeah, lots of folks had family members who were murdered on that day, WHICH is why so many of us “ranters” continue to point out that justice hasn’t been done, in fact it was circumvented on that day. How does the CV of the deceased clarify anything about the acts of murder which took their lives. Silly boy.
You write like a limey, I thought you were leaving…
Back to the article, would be nice for some links, footnotes, “further reading” etc.
Keep up the good light,
March 14, 2012 – 5:21 am
Not concerned about inconsistencies about unimportant or irrelevant matters – e.g. alleged people who helped hijack the planes being found alive after 9/11 since Muslim names are even more common than ours and passports are easily stolen and faked, pilots who say that the planes couldn’t have done the damage despite what we saw on the day in question and later,
IT experts who say that there couldn’t have been any calls when all kinds of calls were reported in the media right after the tragedies, there were no planes since ones with the alleged numbers were somewhere else at the time or were reported operating later, and most important that they had no innocent passengers since there were, it seems, no planes but about which 250 deaths were reported with their names, locations, relatives expressing their grief, memorials, etc.
I was one of the first to write about the tragedy in Eye Spy magazine’sn Issue Eight – what editor Mark Ian Birdsall said counterterrorists in Washington said hit the bulls eye, and required me to supply a lot of references to avoid any kind of suit – what has never occurred. Buy a copy of it, and read the extended article.
I don’t have links to other ones which support my case cause I am not interested in all the false and disinforming stuff that has been provided.
I am not a limey but an American with a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University who has published dozens of refereed articles, and three books about English legal figures.
Have meant what I said about leaving as I have taken down all my articles here waiting for review when Fetzer et al. can post their pulp with impunity.
Stop challenging me, and I am well and truly gone.
March 14, 2012 – 7:36 am
Trowbridge – Phony internet obits, tributes, and memorials can be cited for all supposed 911 victims. The extent of disinformation is mind-boggling. See, for example, http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm
With regard to the Falkenberg family (husband, wife, & 2 kids) aboard the “Pentagon plane”, some exposure of the hoax appeared on 911researcher.com but, unsurprisingly, that site no longer exists.
It read, ‘This guy (Charles) was listed as the media person for ECOlogic/Datazen before 9-11. Charles Falkenberg is not listed as an employee of Ecologic before 9-11 and it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with NASA or data for that matter.
I know it is the same ECOlogic I have looked up county records and am following the same names and addresses. ECOlogic is supposed to be a scientific organization, what would this guy be doing? In the social security death index there is a page of obituaries and one of them starts out with Combs Founder Falkenberg, it is an Ontario newspaper. Was there another story for Charles they switched to Ecologic? In Denver where he is supposed to be from there is an architecture firm with the name Combs.”
The famous quote from Jefferson’s 1826 letter to Roger Weightman comes to mind: “The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
The Falkenberg story goes as follows: The unfortunate couple is said to have married in Denver. They sold the family home before heading to Australia and dying on AA-77 in the horrible Pentagon crash on 911.
Did these people ever exist? It is increasing evident that the burden of proof now lies on those who claim that they did. After diligent investigative work on the part of new researchers, wherever you may be, that burden for what Jefferson called “the favored few” should become unbearable. Is the idea of experimenting in democratic representative government worth the effort it will take to continue it?
March 14, 2012 – 8:12 am
Excellent post. Early in 2006, a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I founded late in 2005, contacted me to say that he had studied the Social Security Death Index and the Survivors Benefit Fund for 9/11 victims, specifically, in relation to the 19 passengers who allegedly made calls from the planes. He discovered that only one of their names appeared on the SSDI and that none of their “survivors” received any benefits.
We now know that all of those alleged phone calls were faked, as David Ray Griffin has explained in “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924, where another article worth reading is Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11
I am organizing a conference in Vancouver, 15-17 June 2012, The Vancouver Hearings,
, which will address this and other controversial aspects of 9/11 that others within the movement are unwilling to address. Check out, for example, “The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings”,
March 14, 2012 – 10:10 am
I found the ‘VicSim’ thesis — that most of the 3,000 ‘victims’ of 9/11 were computer-created photos and personalities — and analysis very interesting:
http://septemberclues.info/vicsims/9-11-9%20the%20Vicsim%20Report.pdf RIGHT CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
Their other point — that NYC 9/11 was a series of controlled demolitions, with all of the footage originating from one central location, then broadcast on CNN, ABC, Faux, etc. — seems plausible from their video, ‘September Clues’: http://septemberclues.info/
Yep, these guys have gotten really good, moving way beyond their Apollo hoax days!
March 15, 2012 – 12:48 pm
Sadly, I cannot be proved to have worked at Nellis AFB. I was told it would be unprovable and tax records would also no longer exist on the day my contract was up. Never again will I work for the USG. 32 other civilians also didn’t get payed their 9k bonuses. We were all told this the second to last day. I only held a low clearance. Screwed again.
March 14, 2012 – 8:59 am
Okay, Ogilby, so you won’t give up on your inconsistencies, dismantle this page of victims of the Pentagon attack, as the burden of proof is on you, showing that they either did not die or did not exist:
I N M E M O R I A M A D V I T A M Æ T E R N A M
V i c t i m s o f t h e AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
American Airlines Flight 77,
from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles, California
crashed into the Pentagon
with sixty four (64) people (5 of which were hijackers) on board.
C R E W
Charles F. Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane’s captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.
David Charlebois, who lived in Washington’s Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. “He was handsome and happy and very centered,” his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. “His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day.”
Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son.
Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis.
Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.
Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.
P A S S E N G E R S
Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.
Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California.
Bernard Curtis Brown II, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc.
Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. Asia was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
Zandra Cooper: see Zandra F. Ploger
James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington. He was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas.
Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp., a software engineering firm. He worked on data systems for NASA and also developed data systems for the study of global and regional environmental issues. Falkenburg was traveling with his wife, Leslie Whittingham, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3.
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.
Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.
Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society’s geography education outreach program in Washington. He was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. A Mississippi native, he joined the society in 1987.
“Joe Feguson’s final hours at the Geographic reveal the depth of his commitment to one of the things he really loved,” said John Fahey Jr., the society’s president. “Joe was here at the office until late Monday evening preparing for this trip. It was his goal to make this trip perfect in every way.”
Wilson “Bud” Flagg of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot.
Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm.
Stanley Hall, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department.
Steven D. “Jake” Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc., a wireless data and messaging company.
Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society. She was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. Society President John Fahey Jr. said one of his fondest memories of Judge is a voice mail she and a colleague once left him while they were rafting the Monkey River in Belize. “This was quintessential Ann — living life to the fullest and wanting to share it with others,” he said.
Chandler Keller, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California.
Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. She joined the firm in 1993 and was part of the its telecommunications practice. She was married to Peter Batacan.
Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, was the associate director of clinical research for a biotech firm.
Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, was president and chief executive officer of Work-Life Benefits, a consultation and referral service. He was married and had two children. Newton was on his way back to Orange County to retrieve his family’s yellow Labrador, who had been left behind until they could settle into their new home in Arlington, Virginia.
Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN and was married to U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. She twice called her husband as the plane was being hijacked and described some details, including that the attackers were armed with knives.
She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday. She worked as an investigator for the House Government Reform Committee in the mid-1990s and later worked on the staff of Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles.
Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer.
Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems.
Robert R. Ploger III, 59, husband of Zandra F. Ploger, of Annandale VA, was a software architect at Lockheed Martin Corp. They were on their Honeymoon to Hawaii, one day shy of their 4th month wedding anniversary.
Zandra F. Ploger (listed also as Zandra Cooper), 48, wife of Robert R. Ploger III, of Annandale VA, worked for IBM for about 20 years.
Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme, a biotechnology firm. She was from Great Falls, Virginia, and was married to Stephen Push. She worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on developing a new policy governing cellular therapies, announced in 1997. She also worked on other major health-care legislation.
Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, was a tax and business lawyer.
Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, was a women’s gymnastics coach at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She had just gotten the post August 31 and was making the trip to California to start work.
Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York.
Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia.
Sandra Teague, 31, physical therapist, Georgetown University Hospital
Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland. The professor of public policy at Georgetown University in Washington was traveling with her husband, Charles Falkenberg, 45, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. They were traveling to Los Angeles to catch a connection to Australia. Whittington had been named a visiting fellow at Australian National University in Canberra.
John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
| AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11 | AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 |
| UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93 | UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 |
| PENTAGON | WORLD TRADE CENTER |
| HOME PAGE |
In Memoriam Online Network
NatureQuest Publications, Inc.
PO Box 381797
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02238-1797
March 14, 2012 – 12:49 pm
Not worth the time or effort responding to you, TF. You are either utterly ignorant/naive, or you are a malicious propagandist. Nobody said people did not die. I believe that people did die, but not as the result of a plane crash at the Pentag[ra]m. Have you seriously considered the possibility of planted obits?
A brief personal note. I used to think I was well informed. I used to respect W.F. Buckley, I used to watch Faux News and listen to Limbaugh, Hannity et.al. and read WND and I thought Israel was the tworldwide venom and terrorism, and I thought Obama was the worst President ever…etc.
Log in to Reply
March 14, 2012 – 12:59 pm
[continued]….(I hit the Send key accidentally)….UNTIL I discovered VT, which has set me straight.
Our biggest enemies are ignorance and those (especially Zio-fascist/neocons) who perpetuate ignorance.
March 14, 2012 – 1:07 pm
[sorry for typo]…
I used to think Israel was the victim and target of worldwide terrorism and that Isra[H]el[l]is an ally of the U.S.
Log in to Reply
March 14, 2012 – 10:40 am
Towie, trust me – the truth will out.
March 14, 2012 – 11:39 am
Dizzying, well done. That radar hole in W.VA had some company at nearly the exact same time and that flight didn’t exist either. Nealy at the same time both of those imfamous flights (5minutes apart) had a hijacking. Without communications, no idea of where they could possibly be in the air let alone from ground reference, they too killed 2 pilots without a problem. After they intersected eachother, had near simultaneous and flawless hijackings, they both turned and reapeared on scope(s).
I didn’t know there was a radar station in that hole, very interesting and convenient for them.
I have to wonder why you didn’t attach the new video I sent you of the pentagon strike. I have to say, several of us were waiting for that entry. I suppose you’re vetting and sparing that ‘ace in the hole’ for later use?
March 14, 2012 – 12:00 pm
Why don’t you link it here? I think that would be an excellent idea. I will try to track it down myself. Thanks.
March 14, 2012 – 12:42 pm
I can’t wait for the troll responses. I can hear it now….word for word. Let thy post act of thy lightening rod of thou troll’ers.
March 14, 2012 – 12:58 pm
See that little white (missile) coming in real low just over the overpass, dissapear for a frame or two then smack into the pentagon? They washed the pentagon out for some reason, or it’s a camera oddity. There are no roads leading into the petagon there, not at that angle, so it’s not a car driving at 500knts. It sure is a lot smaller than that half sized moving van on the overpass, I just wish the angle was higher to see the C-130 herc. come in after it at 300′. It’s easy to trace its travel speed to coincide with the explosion after it leaves view there at the end. I just don’t see AA’s there that day.
March 14, 2012 – 1:59 pm
Ahhhh, and the perps continue to frame the discussion. Trowbridge – when was the last time you set out to prove a negative? LOL. I wonder why you persists in copying the internet obits, etc. as proof that these people truly existed. Logic demands a bit more. There is developing a huge amount of very odd inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions, etc. as the past existences of individual simulated 911 victims are diligently sought. The opposition to increasing skepticism about these Vicsim is oddly emotional. People find it very difficult to shake off authoritarian based narratives when the resulting conclusions shake the very foundations of their emotional security. What if there were, if fact, no deaths resulting from the actual events the occurred on 911? How would you handle that? Probably by simply dismissing the question itself, right?
March 14, 2012 – 3:19 pm
I have a feeeling about the Raytheon guys that died on 9-11, that’s where I’d start. I almost went to work for those evil bastards at one time. Can you tell me where I can find out info on the investigations? This intriques me a great deal….I’d like to be a part of that.
March 14, 2012 – 4:38 pm
dirtus – It doesn’t take an atomic or rocket scientist to relatively quickly discover that there are radically wrong things about any “victim” of your choosing. A pattern emerges after you have tried your very best to “flesh out” a few. Ignore online narratives other than for specific data you intend to verify.
Check out public records including county tax rolls for addresses of “victim” and next of kin. See what birth records you can obtain.
Get last known addresses and visit neighbors. Work back into school and college records through archived real yearbooks. Find and query classmates contemporary with your “victim”. It is easier if you pick one located near you. Then join guys who have been doing this for awhile at http://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=18.
If you are legitimate and honest you will be welcomed. Naturally, that forum becomes a target for fakes sowing disinformation. If you happen to be the latter, these guys have heard it all and you won’t be there for long. Before you tackle the Raytheon guys, see what may have already been done about them. You MUST take time to review the VICSIM REPORT at
http://septemberclues.info/vicsims/9-11-9%20the%20Vicsim%20Report.pdf RIGHT CLICK TO SAVE Download all 4.67mb to your hard-drive and go through it at your own pace. If you discover a 911 victim who really existed and who died that day, submit your evidence to Mr. Simon Shack. We will all be very interested if you find such a one and can submit proofs of actual existence that would be acceptable in a court of law.
March 14, 2012 – 5:39 pm
I’ve heard an interesting theory about the lightpoles and the 330 degree turn, and I apologize that I don’t remember the name of the person who came up with this. Someone on the inside of the conspiracy got nervous, and at the last minute planted the knocked-over light poles. This forced the airplane to hit the pentagon at a specific trajectory. Not only did it have to approach at a particular angle (not from above), but also hit a specific part of the building. This would be an “insurance policy” by someone who was IN the Pentagon at the time (Donald Rumsfeld is my guess), and was worried that the missile would be intentionally shot over the target and at his office on the other side. The light poles ensured the plane could not strike any other portion than it did. Unfortunately, he didn’t realize how hard it would be to even come close to the exact trajectory he laid out – and it didn’t.
March 15, 2012 – 6:03 am
See the taxi driver’s testimony to independent investigators, explanatory to say the least.
March 14, 2012 – 7:22 pm
VERY interesting article,however this article states that the Government presented photographs of dead occupants from flight 77 and that none of the bodies are dismembered or burned…I have all the dead body exhibits from the Messaoui trial EXHIBIT # P 200045 P 200047 P 200048 P 200042 They are all dead body of Pentagon employees completely burned….None of them being Flight 77 passengers bodies claimed in this article can you give me the EXHIBIT number of the so call “Passengers bodies ” and on which Site can they be found ? and also What do you think happened to Captain Chuck Burlingame the pilot , if flight 77 was not involved in the crash.
I do not dismiss that the Government lied about 9/11 but it seems to me that research is one thing THE TRUTH AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS WHAT ‘S COUNT….CAN YOU REALLY TELL ? DEBUNKING THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS NOT ENOUGH It is a good start but it is over 10 years that we are…..starting to discover…
March 14, 2012 – 7:33 pm
Well, try “20 reasons the ‘official account’ of 9/11 is wrong”, “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”, “The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings”, and then visit http://www.911vancouverhearings.com for the program of our forthcoming conference 15-17 June 2012. Those were all published here at Veterans Today. Search “Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer”.
Have you read “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”, addressing some of the issues you have raised? For example, Pilots has established that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air that day, even though Flights 11 and 77 appear not to have been, where 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was “crashing” and 175 over Pittsburgh at the time it was allegedly entering the South Tower.
March 15, 2012 – 12:23 am
Just more of your pathetic nonsense, Ogilby.
I gave you a chance to prove that at least one of the alleged dead passenger of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon did not die or never existed, and you fell back on the difficulty of proving a negative.
Here you are trying to explain away 3,000 negatives – i.e, the victims of the 9/11 attacks whose existence can be established, and whose disappearnce all goes back to the attacks, establishing that they were all killed and burned beyond recognition during these events – what unbiased, sensible people certain accept.
All you have left is Falkenberg’s case, who you dismissed as a nobody, and said did not seem to have any connection with NASA? Well, it turns out that he was a such a success at NASA as a scientist that it established an annual award in his honor, as this link establishes:
An award commemorating a remarkable scientist who died in the 9/11 attacks was presented today to a man deemed a revolutionary at using satellite data for the good of humankind.
This year’s Charles S. Falkenberg Award commends Daniel E. Irwin, an Earth scientist from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., for creating an unprecedented monitoring and visualization system that’s shared among scientists, scientific agencies, and governments in Central America and the Dominican Republic and that harnesses Earth imagery from space for the benefit of that part of the developing world.
Since Irwin pioneered the system in 2003 with funding from NASA, this system—known as SERVIR (“to serve,” in Spanish)—has been used to promote environmental sustainability through innovative application of space imagery and has enabled satellites to support responses to hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, algal blooms and other disasters across Central America.
A Central American environmental leader recalled in a letter supporting Irwin’s award nomination the “incredible support” El Salvador received from Irwin and SERVIR in response to an earthquake, the eruption of the Santa Ana (Ilamatepec) volcano, and Hurricane Stan.
Irwin is now working to build similar systems and international collaborations in other developing regions of the world, such as East Africa.
“Daniel Irwin is leading a revolution in the application of Earth science information for sustainable development,” said Woody W. Turner, NASA’s program manager for ecological forecasting.
Irwin accepted the award today at the 2008 Summer Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) Conference, which is taking place from 15-18 July 2008, in Durham, New Hampshire. The Falkenberg Award, given jointly by ESIP and the American Geophysical Union (AGU), honors “a scientist under 45 years of age who has contributed to the quality of life, economic opportunities, and stewardship of the planet through the use of Earth science information and to the public awareness of the importance of understanding our planet.”
Charles S. Falkenberg was a computer scientist who advanced techniques for collecting and visualizing earth and environmental science data. He, his wife, and their two young daughters lost their lives when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
A NASA research scientist, Daniel Irwin has more than 15 years of experience in using satellite remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Central America. He is currently the NASA Project Director for SERVIR, which was developed at the NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. A SERVIR operational facility is located in Panama at the Water Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean (CATHALAC) and is supported by the US Agency for International Development. SERVIR is considered an early achievement of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) — a 70+ country effort to develop a 21st century network for earth observation systems.
“On behalf of the entire SERVIR team, I’m deeply honored and humbled to receive the 2008 Charles S. Falkenberg Award,” said Irwin today. “It’s a real privilege to be able to transition valuable NASA Earth observation data and models developed by NASA and other partner agencies to improve the quality of life in the developing world.”
While Irwin is not from the Central American region, he is “of the region,” according to one of Irwin’s colleagues from Panama. Irwin has developed numerous satellite remote sensing and GIS workshops and trained hundreds of Central American scientists and researchers.
Prior to joining NASA, Irwin developed GIS laboratories for conservation organizations in Guatemala and for the Guatemalan government. On his own time, he created playgrounds and the Viva La Selva (“Long Live the Forest”) library for children in Guatemalan villages. He also founded an Internet café and other small businesses as economic alternatives to tropical rainforest slash-and-burn agriculture.
Still, SERVIR is the focus of Irwin’s award. Turner called it “an entirely new approach to environmental management.” With SERVIR, “Dan Irwin and his team have shown all of us that managing our environment and resources on a regional scale is no longer a dream for the future but a reality today.”
About AGU: AGU is a worldwide scientific society of Earth and space scientists with more than 50,000 members. The organization advances, through unselfish cooperation in research, the understanding of Earth and space for the benefit of humanity. AGU conducts meetings and conferences, publishes journals, books and a weekly newspaper, and sponsors a variety of educational and public information programs.
ABOUT ESIP: The Federation of Earth Science Information Partners is a network of researchers and associated groups that collects, interprets and develops applications for satellite-generated Earth observation information. Founded in 1998 under a grant from NASA, the consortium includes more than 100 member organizations, spanning NASA’s and NOAA’s data centers, government research laboratories, research universities, education resource providers, technology developers, and nonprofit and commercial enterprises.
Are you suggesting that NASA made it all up now? I doubt it, but who can be sure with one of your ilk.
So why do you libel all the victims of the 9/11 tragedies, especially those killed at the Pentagon? Are you so sick and/or are you paid to disseminate such terrible insults of innocent people who were killed by the gamble the government’s leaders took with their lives in the hope of catching the hijackers red-handed?
You keep it up, and I will start doing inquiries of the survivors of the dead, starting with a widow I am acquainted with whose husband died in the WTC attacks, to see if she or more of them will open a civil action
for damages against you and others who so claim for only Washington’s purposes.
In my book you are worse than the neocons who caused the cockups as all you are doing is helping cover them up simply at the expense of the poor victims. You are despicable.
Charlotte NC Bill
March 16, 2012 – 4:02 pm
Spoken by someone covering for the actual perps..
March 17, 2012 – 12:58 am
The missing millions upon millions of dollars is being used as the pay offs. Wagging the dog. How long before bin laden was mentioned. Minutes. George Bush and his “I did not want to frighten the children” as the biggest walking target of an enemy attack. He should h ave ducked and covered but he did not. He sat there and appeared to be considering. The WTC 7 was rigged in advance. My father being an explosives expert would agree. And all to enter the middle east in full battle formation, check a world map and tell me what you see. Who could pull this off? Men with money and people who would do anything for 10 million bucks perhaps. The attitude of the regime moving around in the middle east, toppling govts and destroying military capabilities is that of disregard for consequences. The American people deserve the truth. It’s a media, political and monetary system all polluted by the interests of another nation who is hell bent on killing every Arab alive. The hate is thick and vile, and it’s spewed forth without apology, kill them all. It’s a pathological mindset that if not corraled will end it for us all. The free press is missing and that is the stake in the heart of democracy. Soon the internet will be censored into a fairy tale to please whoever happens to be in charge at the time. Someone needs to put a stop to this nonsense and soon. Before it is too late.
March 15, 2012 – 6:21 am
Have you read “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’” yet? Perhaps not on principle? The FAA did not de-register the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 until 28 September 2005. So how can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? Dean Hartwell, J.D., has recently published PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS (2011), and will be addressing this question during The Vancouver Hearings. See, for example, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com
Several of the comments here offer clues for your consideration. In the meanwhile, you might want to read some of the following related articles:
Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11″ http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html
David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”
Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”
“New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″
March 17, 2012 – 9:22 am
‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is PULL IT. And they made that decision to PULL and we watched the building collapse.”
–Lucky Larry Silverstein
March 18, 2012 – 10:15 am
These episodes are very interesting. I’m glad I could witness this.
March 15, 2012 – 10:58 am
There is a type of approach we once called (maybe still do) HITAC (high tacan) or “flame-out” approach. This came to my mind immediately, years ago, upon seeing the flight path of AA77 to the Pentagon.
HITAC, basically, is passing high over the airfield, then turn and spiral down to the runway. There is a VORTAC located on the airfield at Reagan National. So, essentially, what I see is a standard type of military approach for fighter aircraft that may be readily available in the form of pre-programmed, or “canned,” software.
Viewing a diagram of AA77′s flight path, I can see a HITAC approach that, if uninterrupted, puts the aircraft on Runway 19 at Reagan National. The interruption, or deviation, I see is an easily implemented change in the canned software that, at some point near the end of the flame-out approach, redirects the aircraft to touch down at the Pentagon.
By the way, for those who doubt the accuracy of remote control, we had an automated system in the US Navy in 1970 called Link 4A, which was for aircraft carrier landings. It was so exact that the software had to be occasionally tweaked to change the touchdown point on the carrier deck. The aircraft were hitting the deck so precisely, and so regularly, that there was concern for overstressing the steel.
Lastly, I was once a full-perfomance-level ATC at Dulles when the tracon and tower were still co-located. I was also a combat air controller on a US Navy carrier. And, I believe none of the Government’s stories about 9/11.
Log in to Reply
March 15, 2012 – 1:07 pm
The string of comments here fall primarily into two categories. Trowbridge “proves” that roughly 3000 people alleged to be killed on 911 actually existed by quoting online narratives, seeming to forget that it is very easy to post anything by anybody online. Dirtus brings us back immediately to the commercial crash story in the search for “911 truth”. Let’s all strive to really “flesh out” one victim. With nearly 3000 to work with, this should not be at all difficult. Everything else in the official 911 narrative doesn’t appear to be honest. Why should discovering the 911 victim-narrative to be fake surprise anyone? I guess in this confusing world we just have to believe in something, right?
March 15, 2012 – 1:10 pm
And be sure to check out the latest, “The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?”
Charlotte NC Bill
March 15, 2012 – 9:59 pm
Yet we saw it happen??!! You saw WHAT!!!?? YOU SAW Flt 77 fly into the Pentagon…Well, you’re the only one…..for every planted “witness” I can give you twice as many that they saw a “small commuter jet”….You saw what!!??
Charlotte NC Bill
March 16, 2012 – 4:00 pm
If the person you’re talking to doesn’t care about ( or feels threatened by ) the truth then nothing you say will ever matter to them…( “the melting plane” or batteries fm the IPS system )….Good Lord….Say anything but don’t blame Mossad ( even though Mossad Chief Michael Hariri has bragged about being the chief engineer of the 9-11 flying circus/smoke & mirrors show)…turn out the lights..
March 17, 2012 – 10:01 am
Charlotte NC Bill,
Thanks for your posts. I discuss some of the controversial evidence regarding 9/11, including the molten metal and hot spots, in a presentation in Portland, OR, 11 December 2009, “Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories”, archived at “Conspiracy Theories: A Triple-Header”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html
March 19, 2012 – 9:44 pm
That round hole shown in the Pentagon is the exit point, I believe, not the entrance hole. If you read the technical analysis of the damage the aircraft strike inflicted to the Pentagon’s interior, it’s pretty convincing. In fact, it’s one of the few convincing details of the entire 9/11 affair. Perhaps a large anti-ship missile like the Russian “Granit” (which is normally nuclear-tipped) could do similar damage?
What is less convincing is the entrance point damage and how different the Pentagon damage looked compared to the Twin-Towers with their tremendous explosions. At the Pentagon, offices were completed undamaged only few feet away from “Ground Zero” while at WTC the buildings were turned into dust clouds and caldrons of melted steel which burned at tremendous temperatures for months after the building collapses.
One oddity at the Pentagon on 9/11 was the line-up of nearly 100 FBI officers on the front lawn later in the afternoon (which was shown live on CNN). They were standing shoulder to shoulder and paceing slowly along and picking up every little fragment of debris, even as small as a toothpick. I thought this was odd at the time. What could be so crucial on the lawn that they wanted to pick up every shred of evidence? Everyone knew it was a 757 airliner which hit the Pentagon, why was this fragmentary evidence so important to the FBI that day?
Another oddity was the FBI did personal interviews and “de-briefing” with many the victim’s families of the four crashed airliners on the afternoon of 9/11, according to court documents. This is either an example of amazing efficiency by our law enforcement agencies or perhaps of some pre-planned knowledge? Too bad NORAD, our Air Force and the Pentagon “shield” was so less prepared to defend our airspace that day.
Also unexplained were the tremendous hotspots under each collapsed WTC tower; or the 1000 oddly-burned vehicles near WTC 1 & 2 collapses; or the almost complete absence of office contents in the rubble of the WTC towers. In the official “pancake collapse” theory, most of the filing cabinets, steel fire doors, ect, should be in a pile on the ground, perhaps dented or crushed, but not turned into microscopic dust, which seems to be the case. What force could have turned most of the structural steel and metal office contents in the 3 buildings into dust? Not so at the Pentagon, despite it being hit by airliners in an identical manner to the 3, oops…I mean 2 WTC towers.
Also odd was the requirement for all Ground Zero cleanup workers to wear Dosimeter badges (which monitors radiation exposure although they weren’t called that) which tracked and limited their exposure time on the site. Also odd the incredible heat source from under the collapsed buildings which reportedly melted some the boot soles of the Ground Zero staff. Not your typical pancake collapse.
March 19, 2012 – 9:50 pm
Well, a hole in the C-ring could not possibly be an “entrance” unless the plane swooped down and crashed INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. The point about it is that, being perfectly symmetrical, it would not have been created by an airplane part that hit it from the inside at an angle, because the hole that would have been created would have been ragged and blow-out, not symmetrical and contrived. I would have thought the note “PUNCH OUT” spray painted on the wall would have been a huge clue to the fact that this was one more indication that the Pentagon attack was also fabricated.
Join Our Daily Newsletter View Newsletter ARCHIVE
© 2012 Veterans Today. All Rights Reserved. Veterans Today Network –