Tuesday, November 21, 2006

The Pentagon and 9-11 -- Did you know? A Sufi Perspective

- Did you know that, initially, the military listed the time of impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon as around 9: 43 a.m. on September 11, 2001, and although this initial time of impact has been pushed back to 9: 37 a.m. (the 9-11 Commission Report), the actual time of the Pentagon event may actually be 9: 32 a.m. because that is when a number of battery-operated wall clocks in the west wing of the Pentagon, as well one at the heliport, near the west wing, stopped due to a violent event of some kind?







- Did you know that the official government account of what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is that the west side of the building was struck by Flight 77, a hijacked American Airlines 757 Boeing airplane?







- Did you know that the US military maintains that Flight 77 hit the ground floor of the Pentagon?







- Did you know that although a number of lamp standards near the Pentagon were knocked down because they were allegedly in the flight path of the Boeing 757, there were other objects (for example, a construction site surrounded by a high chain link fence, a large generator, and tall spools of wire) in the same projected flight path of the Boeing 757 that were untouched?







- Did you know that there are photographs of the Pentagon showing that the rear portion of the first and second floor are still intact while the upper three floors were demolished?







- Did you know that the Pentagon is a concrete -- not steel-framed -- building which is 5 stories or 77 feet tall at the highest point of the roof?







- Did you know that a Boeing 757-200, the American Airlines version which supposedly hit the Pentagon, is 155 feet long, has a wingspan of 125 feet, and measures 18 feet from the bottom of the engine to the top of the fuselage, with a fuselage that is 13 feet in diameter, engines which are nine feet in diameter, and there is a distance of 45 feet from the bottom of the engine to the top of the tail?







- Did you know according to the US military and press reports, the object which struck the Pentagon hit at an oblique, 45 degree angle, which, if true, means that the surface area of the Pentagon that allegedly was impacted by a Boeing 757 would have increased to about 177 feet?







- Did you know that even if the engines of a Boeing 757-200 were dragging along the grass, the plane is tall enough that it would have impacted at least two floors of the Pentagon?







- Did you know that there is absolutely no evidence of a Boeing 757 having made contact with any portion of the grass which is in front of the Pentagon, and this means, depending on how high off the ground the Boeing was when it allegedly hit the building, more than two stories of the Pentagon should have been impacted by the plane?







- Did you know that the impact hole in the front exterior of the Pentagon building was estimated to be between 15 and 18 feet wide – that is, not even as wide as the collective diameter of two jet engines, and, more importantly, not as wide as the collective width of such engines plus the portions of the wings and the fuselage that separate the engines from each other?







- Did you know that even after a portion of the Pentagon collapsed from the collective forces of fire and firefighting techniques, the collapsed section, which is broader than the original impact hole, only measures half of the wing width of a Boeing 757?







- Did you know that there are photographs of the Pentagon which were taken just after the collision showing an intact wall, approximately 25 feet above the ground which is just over the point of impact on the west side of the Pentagon, and this intact wall shows no evidence of having been struck by the tail of a commercial jet (and the distance from the bottom of the engine to the tip of the tail is 45 feet) traveling at some 3- 400 miles an hour?







- Did you know that Francois Grangier, who is an expert on air crashes, and who examined photographs of the Pentagon crash site, has stated that no Boeing 757 airplane caused the observable damage to the façade of the west wing of the Pentagon?







- Did you know that a Boeing 757 weighs some 60 tons when empty and that luggage and human beings add many more tonnage to the weight of the plane?







- Did you know that there was, with one exception, no evidence of any debris resembling engines, wings, fuselage, luggage, or body parts to be found outside of the Pentagon near the point of impact?







- Did you know that an engine, a portion of the fuselage, as well as landing gear survived at the World Trade Center collisions?







- Did you know that one piece of skin, bearing some of the colors of an American Airlines vehicle, was supposedly recovered on the lawn outside the Pentagon but the manner in which this coloring is configured cannot be made to match any portion of the exterior of an actual American Airlines Boeing 757?







- Did you know that the aforementioned piece of debris shows none of the black coating, soot, or fire damage which would have been characteristic of an object that had been exposed to a jet fuel fire?







- Did you know that while the official government account of the Pentagon event maintains that the Boeing 757 completely disintegrated on impact, there is absolutely no plausible or technical explanation which is provided that would account for how the above mentioned piece of debris would have been able to escape the disintegrating fate which befell the rest of the 60 ton Boeing plane and, thereby, been available to be found all by itself on the lawn of the Pentagon?







- Did you know that a photograph was published in conjunction with the Pentagon event on 9-11which purportedly depicted the turbofan of a 757 but, subsequently, a team of researchers, led by Karl Schwartz, identified the photographed item as a front-hub assembly of a front compressor from an IT8D turbojet A3 Skywarrior jet fighter which is much smaller than a 757?







- Did you know that prior to 9-11, A3 Skywarriors, although normally a piloted plane, were retrofitted at the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport in Colorado to serve as remote controlled, missile-carrying aircraft?







- Did you know that there is a photograph of a nearly round exit hole along the ground, which measures about seven feet in width, that appears in an interior ring of the Pentagon – a hole which the US military claims marks the point of innermost penetration of Flight 77?







- Did you know that the nature of the exit hole seems to indicate it was pierced not smashed?







- Did you know that there is no identifiable debris of an airplane to be found near this exit hole?







- Did you know that there are no scorch marks around the hole as one might anticipate from a jet fuel fire?







- Did you know that the size of this hole is too small to be caused by a jet engine (9 feet in diameter), or the fuselage (13 feet in diameter)?







- Did you know that the nose of a Boeing, referred to as the radome, contains electronic navigation gear, and it is made of carbon fiber so that it can permit passage of electronic waves?







- Did you know that the radome is far too fragile and lacks the sort of density which could have penetrated a succession of concrete ring-walls at the Pentagon to have caused the above mentioned exit hole in the interior C-ring of the Pentagon?







- Did you know that following the Pentagon collision, there were a group of about 20 uniformed men, none of whom were from the National Transportation Safety Board, who were photographed scouring the grass in front of the west wing of the Pentagon and, eventually, taking away a large, but relatively light, tarpaulin-covered object?







- Did you know that in the case of all air crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board has primary jurisdiction and that removing evidence from a crash site constitutes a prosecutable felony?







- Did you know that despite being a crime scene in which hundreds of people were murdered and millions of dollars of damage inflicted, all forensic evidence was removed from the scene of the crime, in and around the Pentagon, within a matter of days?







- Did you know that because the Pentagon is situated in Arlington County, Virginia, jurisdiction for fighting the fire should have belonged to the Arlington County Fire Department, but their fire fighters were not permitted to get near to the primary impact site and, instead, had to fight the fire from a distance?







- Did you know that the Arlington County firefighters were kept away from the location where the airliner was supposed to have been by the Urban Search and Rescue Team of FEMA?







- Did you know that within minutes of the Pentagon event on 9-11, all external surveillance videos covering the west façade of the building were confiscated by the FBI?







- Did you know that surveillance video was confiscated from most, if not all, of the area businesses on the west side of the Pentagon, including the Sheraton Washington Hotel, a gas station directly beneath the flight path of the object which struck the Pentagon and, as well, another gas station some hundred yards to the west of the previously noted gas station?







- Did you know that with the exception of five frames of a video released by the military on March 7, 2002, purportedly showing the Pentagon crash event of 9-11, none of the confiscated video has been released to the public by the FBI?







- Did you know that the five released frames show an incorrect date stamp of September 12, 2001 and, as well, the time stamp for the released frames indicates a time of 17: 37 rather than 9: 38 a.m. or thereabouts when the actual event took place?







- Did you know that Pierre-Henri Bunel, an artillery and explosives expert who served as an ally with General Schwartzkopf during Desert Storm, has examined the foregoing video footage as well as other photographic evidence concerning the Pentagon event and has concluded that the Pentagon event gave evidence (such as the color – indicating temperature -- of the fireball, its manner of expansion, the kind of fire equipment used in combating the fire) of a high-yield explosive denotation at the Pentagon and not the sort of deflagration which would have arisen from a jet fuel fire caused by the impact of a large commercial airliner?







- Did you know that during the press conferences held at the Pentagon between September 12 and 15, 2001, no one reported seeing any large pieces of evidence (such as fuselage, engines, or the like) indicating that the Pentagon had been struck by a Boeing 757?







- Did you know that the voice and flight data recorders which were purportedly from Flight 77 were found on September 14, 2001, along with a light beacon, but that, allegedly, the two recorders were too severely damaged by the fires to yield recoverable data?







- Did you know that Ed Plaugher, the fire chief for the Arlington County Fire Department, who originally reported (between September 12 and 14, 2001) seeing no large portions of a 757 Boeing in the fire debris at the Pentagon, subsequently (some 6 months after September 11, 2001), changed his account to say that he recollects having seen portions of wings, fuselage, engine, landing gear, seats, and one of the two black boxes from the airplane?







- Did you know that according to the official government account of the Pentagon strike on 9-11, the impact was of such intensity that not only did the plane disintegrate but the aluminum portions of the plane melted when, reportedly, the temperature of the fire reached more than 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit?







- Did you know that there has been no technical explanation forthcoming of how the foregoing disintegration would have occurred and still produced a small exit hole in the interior, third ring of the Pentagon?







- Did you know that when 60-plus tons of melted plane were not found at the Pentagon event, the story began to circulate that at 5,400 degrees Fahrenheit, aluminum turns into a gas, and, so, one would not find much aluminum tonnage remaining?







- Did you know that no one has come up with a plausible explanation of how temperatures of 5,400 degrees were reached, let alone sustained for a sufficiently long period of time, to gasify the aluminum from the alleged Boeing plane?







- Did you know that even if someone were to come up with a plausible explanation for the generation of such sustained temperatures, there is no concomitant explanation for why this sort of extensive temperatures and heat did not do more damage to the rest of the building surrounding the hole of impact or why the grass outside of the west side of the Pentagon remained un-singed?







- Did you know that there is photographs of office equipment which is visible near the point of impact and which should have been incinerated if there were temperatures in the building that were high enough to gasify all, or large portions, of the 60 tons of aluminum and metal portions of the plane as some have tried to argue?







- Did you know that even if someone were to come up with a plausible explanation for the generation of sustained heat capable of liquefying and gasifying 60 tons of aluminum, nevertheless, they have not been able to account for how – given the presence of such heat – that authorities were able to identify some of the people who died in the wreckage from their fingerprints?







- Did you know that despite the accounts of disintegration, liquefying, and gasifying of the Boeing 747, the FBI claims that it was able to recover a large portion of the 757 debris and that this all has been marked with the serial number of Flight 77 and has been stored in a warehouse – although pictures of this catalog of debris have never been released to the public?







- Did you know that there were witnesses to the Pentagon event who claim that there were identifiable pieces of debris some hundred yards, or so, from the Pentagon which were supposedly photographed, but till this day, few of these alleged photographs have been made public – one exception being a photograph by Mark Faram which was of the aforementioned piece of American Airline-like colored portion of airplane skin – a piece of debris that has problems surrounding it concerning its authenticity?







- Did you know that one of the first people to claim that a plane had hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who claimed that the walked the 2000 feet from the east side to the west side of the Pentagon to examine the damage and who, supposedly, saw thousands of pieces of debris which were identifiable as from an airplane?







- Did you know evidence presented by Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies, as well as during his testimony before the 9-11 Commission, directly contradicts the foregoing account given by Secretary Rumsfeld, because according to Clarke, Rumsfeld was participating in a teleconference with him during this time?







- Did you know that on the day before 9-11, Secretary Rumsfeld reported that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon accounts?







- Did you know that the west wing contained the financial management sections, accountants, financial data which were to be used in trying to track down the missing 2.3 trillion dollars?







- Did you know that April Gallop, who had Top Secret security clearance and who was employed by the Army in the administrative section situated in the west part of the Pentagon, testified that she heard and felt a bomb go off, smelled no jet fuel, and saw no debris from an air crash inside the Pentagon?







- Did you know that when April Gallop was recovering in the hospital, she was visited by men who never identified themselves but who strongly suggested that she take the package from the Victim Compensation Fund, keep her mouth shut, and who emphasized again and again that a plane had hit the Pentagon?







- Did you know that an Army employee, who was on temporary assignment in accounting at the Pentagon and who was just returning to a south wing office that was adjacent to the west wing, stated that a number of people came running by yelling “bombs” and a “bomb went off”?







- Did you know that a number of Pentagon witnesses indicated that they heard two explosions on the morning of 9-11?







- Did you know that a number of witnesses at the Pentagon indicated that they smelled cordite, not jet fuel, following the initial explosion?







- Did you know that it is possible that an initial explosion could have produced a heat signature which could have served as a homing device for a subsequent heat-seeking guided missile?







- Did you know that on 9-11 there was a taxi driver who was one of the last people to be let on to I-395 which overlooks the west face of the Pentagon before the highway was closed by police, and this taxi driver said that he saw no evidence of either an airplane crash that had impacted the Pentagon or visible plane debris on the grounds in front of that building?







- Did you know that there are conflicting eyewitness accounts of whether what was seen and/or heard near the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, was an American Airlines Boeing 757, a small 10-seater jet plane – possibly with American Airlines-like coloring, or a missile?







- Did you know that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld referred to the object which hit the Pentagon as a “missile” during an interview with Parade magazine?







- Did you know that Major General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD had ordered a fighter jet which was in the vicinity to fly over the west face of the Pentagon shortly after the explosion on September 11, 2001, and the pilot indicated there was no evidence that a plane had struck the Pentagon?







- Did you know that some people may have confused the aforementioned fly-by of a fighter jet with Flight 77, and this could be why the 9-11 Commission Report cites 9: 37 a.m. as the time of impact rather than the time of 9: 32 a.m. which is indicated by the battery-operated wall-clocks in the west wing of the Pentagon that stopped at 9: 32 due to a violent event?







- Did you know that no one seems to have asked Major General Arnold the following question: namely, if there was a jet-fighter close enough to inspect damage just shortly after 9: 32 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, then, why was this plane not able to shoot the Boeing 757 down prior to hitting the Pentagon?







- Did you know that according to the 9-11 Commission Report the Pentagon did not know it was under attack until 9: 36 a.m., and, therefore, just a minute or two before impact?







- Did you know that according to military officials since they only had one or two minutes of prior notification before the Pentagon event at 9: 37 a.m., and, since, apparently, the only asset in the vicinity at the time was an unarmed C-130H cargo airplane, it was ordered to locate, identify, and track the suspicious object appearing on the radar screens?







- Did you know that the pilot of the C-130H was able to accomplish all of the foregoing plus watch the plane crash into the west wing of the Pentagon, and, then, report all of this to the Pentagon?







- Did you know that, apparently, none of the military officials specified where in the air, precisely, this cargo plane was in relation to the Pentagon or Washington DC, or, how, all within a minute or so, the pilot of the cargo plane was able to locate, identify, follow, and watch the crash of a plane that was doing a 270 degree downward spiral through 7,000 feet?







- Did you know that, apparently, none of the military officials have been able to reconcile the reports of this C130H cargo plane pilot watching a plane crash into the Pentagon at 9: 37 a.m. with the report of the Major-General-Arnold-ordered-fly-by of a jet fighter over the west wing of the Pentagon shortly after 9: 32 a.m., and why the jet fighter rather than the cargo plane was not ordered to pursue the approaching object, or why nothing was said by either the C130H cargo plane pilot or the jet fighter pilot about the existence of one another since they would have been flying near the west wing of the Pentagon at about the same time?







- Did you know that American Airlines Flight 77 originally went off course and displayed other characteristics of a possible hijacking as early as 8: 46 a.m.?







- Did you know that, supposedly, all civilian contact with Flight 77 was lost around 9: 09 a.m.?







- Did you know that the US military is not dependent on the FAA to know the whereabouts of planes within US air space?







- Did you know that the Pentagon was reportedly hit at 9: 43 a.m. (and later 'fixed' at 9: 37 a.m. by the 9-11 Commission Report), and this is nearly an hour after Flight 77 displayed characteristics of an airplane which required investigation from both the FAA and NMCC (National Military Command Center)?







- Did you know that the transponder for Flight 77 was cut off more than 40 minutes prior to the Pentagon event, and that by cutting off the transponder this accomplished two things: (1) it drew attention to Flight 77 as a very likely hijacking that needed to be intercepted by jet fighters; (2) when a flying object is missing a transponder signal, it becomes an automatic object of interest to the military?







- Did you know that no one has been able to explain why the transponder was shut off because this would not have prevented either the military or the Secret Service from being aware of the plane's location via radar systems which are far superior to those of the FAA?







- Did you know that radar logs indicate that the object which was reported to be Flight 77 performed a downward spiral, of roughly 270 degrees, that dropped approximately 7000 feet in two and a half minutes before skimming along the top of the grass prior to allegedly striking the Pentagon on the first floor?







- Did you know that this sort of aerial maneuver would have been a challenge to even the most experienced of pilots?







- Did you know that well-experienced air controllers who were watching the Pentagon-related object on radar said that the pivot of the object was so tight that it reminded them of a maneuver that might be made by a jet fighter?







- Did you know that Hani Hanjour, the purported hijacking pilot of Flight 77, was by all accounts a terrible pilot who, after several lessons at the Sorbi Flying Club in San Diego, was advised by the instructors to quit because he had no understanding of what he was doing in a cockpit, was subject to panic attacks while in the cockpit, and couldn't even properly draw a picture of the plane … configuring the wings in a backward position?







- Did you know that according to reports filed by The Prince George's Journal in Maryland Hani Hanjour had visited the Bowie Maryland Freeway Airport in mid-August of 2001 in order to be permitted to rent an airplane but on three different occasions he was judged by those at the airport who checked him out to be too clumsy and inept a pilot even in relation to a Cessna 172, which is miniscule compared to a Boeing 757 and far easier to operate, to be given rental privileges at the Bowie Maryland Freeway airfield?







- Did you know that Flight 77 was reported to have flown for 35 minutes through US air space on a heading for Washington, D.C. without being detected?







- Did you know that despite the fact that the transponder for Flight 77 was not turned off until the plane had made a U-turn from west to east, nonetheless, air traffic controllers continued to hunt for Flight 77 on the radar screens in a westerly direction rather than in an easterly direction?







- Did you know that whatever problems the FAA may have been having with their secondary radar systems -- which cannot track planes whose transponders have been turned off -- nevertheless, the FAA also has primary radar systems distributed around the country that are able to track aircraft irrespective of whether their transponders are on or off, and, as well, NORAD and the Secret Service radar systems also can track air traffic quite independently of transponder identification?







- Did you know that Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation, testified that he witnessed reports being given to Vice President Cheney as early as 9: 25 or 9: 26 a.m. in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center beneath the White House in relation to an approaching aircraft headed for Washington, and, that, therefore, rather than a mere moment or two of prior notification, officials in the government had some twelve minutes, or so, of advanced warning concerning the in-coming flight even if one were to accept the rather implausible account that previous to its detection near Washington, D.C., Flight 77 was able to fly across the United States for 35 minutes undetected by the military?







- Did you know that Secretary Mineta's testimony was not included in the final 9-11 Commission Report?







- Did you know that the autopsy reports for the body remains found in the Pentagon show no evidence of there being any individuals who were among the dead and found amidst the ruins of the Pentagon who displayed genetic markers indicating Arab descent?







- Did you know that there are batteries of anti-aircraft missiles deployed around the Pentagon?







- Did you know that these missiles were not triggered by an in-coming aircraft despite the fact that this plane's transponder was supposedly turned off and, therefore, could not be identified as a friendly craft by the electronic identification program of the missile system?








If you wish to read further on these matters, then, there are a number of books and web sites which not only corroborate the material covered in the foregoing "Did you know" queries, but, as well, these books and websites critically analyze many more issues surrounding the events of 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond. Even if one wishes to adopt a skeptical stance concerning the implications of the foregoing queries (or the following books/websites), there are a vast array of crucial questions which are left that still require answers -- too many questions of substantial, abiding importance to just let slip away.







Crossing the Rubicon - Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers


The New Pearl Harbor - David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press


Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 David Ray Griffin, John Knox Press


The 9-11 Commission Report David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2005.


The War On Freedom - Nafeez Mosaddaeq Ahmed, Tree of Life Publications


The War on Truth - Nafeez Mosaddaeq Ahmed, Olive Branch Press


Behind the War On Terror - Nafeez Mosaddaeq Ahmed, New Society Publishers


9-11 Synthetic Terror: Made In the USA, Webster Griffin Tarpley, Progressive Press, 2006.


Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9-11, Barrie Zwicker, New Society Publishers, 2006.


Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid, 2002.


The Terror Conspiracy, Jim Marrs, The Disinformation Company Inc., 2006



In addition to the foregoing, you may want to visit the following web sites:


9-11 Video - Raises a lot of important questions


From The Wilderness


911 Truth


Global Outlook - The Magazine of 9-11 Truth Movement


9-11 Research


9-11 Citizen's Watch





12 comments:

Conspiracy Smasher said...

I'm not surprised that another muslim scumbag wants to blame someone other than his co-religionists for this massacre, but you at least need to get your facts correct.

Every single on of your factoids has been debunked. Every one.

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

http://911myths.com/

Anab said...

I am always amused by individuals who so bravely, but anonymously, go into name-calling diatriabes about other human beings whom they do not know and, yet, about whom they have formed biases, prejudices and assumptions which are so firmly rooted in nothing but declarative sentences devoid of any evidence. You claim that every single one of the factoids which appear in the recent posting to Sufi Amanesis have been debunked, but you offer absolutely nothing in the way of proof or argumentation or logic or persuasive reasoning or even any reference to a work of scholarship within the framework of your diatribe that would corroborate what you are claiming.

Apparently, everyone should accept what you say because you have proclaimed yourself to be the "Conspiracy Smasher". I wonder if your self-appointed title comes with an appropriate superhero outfit -- perhaps with CS on the chest as well as a secret decoder ring which permits one to invent cryptic codes as ways of translating and distorting that which has not been said in posts which you wish to reject because they are are inconsistent with one's own dogmatism.

More specifically, if you bothered to read the recent posting which has so unnerved you that you feel it necessary to give expression to incivility -- and your remarks make it very clear that you have not read much, if anything, of what was said in my posting with very much reflective care or judicious deliberation -- then, you would have noted that at no point did I either try to blame anyone -- whether Muslim or non-Muslim or excuse anyone from consideration with respect to the tragic events of 9-11. Instead, I asked a lengthy number of questions which are informed by a substantial amount of research which suggests that whatever you -- and others who think like you -- may believe, the full truth of 9-11 is something other than it has been depicted to be by people -- in the government, the media, or academia -- who ought to know better.

Perhaps, you are subscriber to Scientific American or Popular Mechanics who both came out with woeful attempts to debunk what they label as myths concerning the 9-11 truth movement. In reality, all they managed to do is to demonstrate that some people who purport to be scientists or who are influenced by the scientific method are not very rigorous or objective in their alleged search for the truth of a matter, and that like some of the so-called scientists who sometimes represent certain pharmaceutical companies, or who lobby the FDA or the EPA or who work for tobacco companies or the chemical industry, all their debunking activities do is to embarrass themselves as well as betray their own integrity as human beings with its concomitant duty of care which they owe to others.

You have done yourself proud. I am sure there may be some who find what you are doing heroic, but I don't see much value in the way you have substituted bombast for intelligent conversation and dialogue.

If you want to have a real debate about 9-11 issues, then, let us argue the facts, and this means that you will have to stop hiding behind name calling and do something more than allude to alleged facts and proofs which remain completely unspecified.

Anonymous said...

I suggest a new bumper sticker:

"Where's the Boeing?"

Jack Burton kgrffzb said...

Did you know---That I worked in an office building at 1655 Fort Myer Drive on the 10th floor and was sitting at my desk and actually saw a 757 or 767 hit the Pentagon--saw the fire ball and lost a friend on the flight?? You are an idiot!!!

Jack Burton kgrffzb said...

Did you know---That I worked in an office building at 1655 Fort Myer Drive on the 10th floor and was sitting at my desk and actually saw a 757 or 767 hit the Pentagon--saw the fire ball and lost a friend on the flight?? You are an idiot!!!

Anonymous said...

AS AN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY EMPLOYEE I COULD LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AT THE PLANE THAT HAD CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON FOR DAYS. ON THE DAY OF THE CRASH, EVERYONE SAW THE PLANE AS IT BURNED. WE COULD SMELL THE FIRE. SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE CRASH. THEY HIT THE GROUND BECAUSE THE PLANE WAS SO CLOSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO GET HIT. I HAVE PICTURES. AMERICA A PLANE CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON ON SEPTEMBER 11.

Anab said...

Dear Jack,

I have a bit of problem knowing what to make of your comment. My problem is this.

There are quite a few other people who also have given direct 'I-was-there' testimony concerning the events at the Pentagon on 9/11, and their testimony tells a different story than you do.

I don't know you, Jack, and I don't know those people. But, this I do know, someone is not telling the truth -- either intentionally or due to the sort of unintentional errors that occur everyday in courts all over the country with respect to eye-witness testimony.

Some of the people who have given direct testimony were war veterans who knew the difference between the smell of cordite and the smell of burning jet fuel. These were people who were near those portions of the Pentagon that were damaged at the time of the 'incident' [or, possibly, incidents since there is some evidence that several explosions may have taken place rather than just one], and these people said they smelled cordite not jet fuel.

In addition, although the video which was released by the Pentagon concerning the 5 frames that, allegedly, showed part of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 did not show any trace of either a commercial jet liner or any other kind of rocket and/or plane, nonetheless, the flames in those frames have been analyzed by an explosives expert who says the shape, color, and rate of expansion of the fire ball were all consistent with a high-yield explosive device, and not consistent with the sort of explosion one gets from a plane crash in which jet fuel ignites.

In addition, there is a lot of further contradictory evidence concerning the Pentagon event. Some people say one thing, and other people say something else.

So, the problem remains ... whose testimony does one believe? This is the sort of issue which should have been openly and rigorously explored in hearings concerning 9/11, but, unfortunately, this is just one of many things which should have happened in that regard but did not.

Moreover, even if one were to agree that Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon, there is still a huge problem surrounding the issue of whether Hani Hanjour could have flown that plane in the way that it was supposedly observed to fly by flight traffic controllers at Dulles. Your alleged eye-witness testimony does absolutely nothing to clear up that problem -- and this issue remains a huge matter of contention because if Hani Hanjour did not fly the vehicle that hit the Pentagon, then, the question becomes: Who did fly it? If someone besides Hanjour flew it, then, this leaves open the possibility that there may be more people involved in the events of 9/11 than the 19 who were identified by the FBI.

If it makes you feel better, you are perfectly welcome to refer to someone like me as an "idiot", but you should know that there are many people who lost people on 9/11 -- both at the Pentagon as well as elsewhere -- and these people are interested in finding out the answer to some of the same questions and issues that are being raised here and which have not, to date, been adequately answered by anyone. So, I take it that by referring to someone like me -- who simply has asked a few questions -- as an idiot, then, by implication, you also are referring to those people who lost loved ones on 9/11 as idiots as well, and if you are, then, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You are not the only one who had something about which to grieve on 9/11. Moreover, your point of view is not the only one in existence that was based on 'I-was-there' considerations concerning the events of 9/11 involving the Pentagon.

Anonymous said...

dude you sound like you against everything that the majority believes. i think you pretending that you some hot shot protestor. we dont need protestin dumbass. go read a mad mag or somethin. chillout!

Anonymous said...

And how are you liking Magnolia?

Anab Whitehouse said...

To the brave anonymous dude:

As Anatole France once said, "If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, this does not make it any less foolish." The fact that many people in America believe what they have been told to believe by their masters and keepers only demonstrates that people are still susceptible to the techniques of undue influence which were practiced by Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, some seventy years, or so, ago.

The purpose of the 'Did You Know' series was intended not as a protest but as a gentle nudge to disturb the sleep of those who may still be caught up in a delusional dream that they actually understand what went on prior to, on ,or following 9/11 -- despite the fact that most of these 'dreamers' have never read The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, the FEMA report, the Underwriters Laboratory report, or the wealth of books which have been written on 9/11.

Your advice to chill out is resonant with the advice of people who are deeply enthralled by their addiction and seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that their indifference to the destructive effect which their addiction is having on everyone around them is one of the biggest allies of the pushers who are feeding them with a constant supply of addictive ignorance.

Keep on dreaming your delusional dreams dude. Enjoy your condition. Ignorance is surely bliss.

quaheedus said...

There are many things in most of your"Did you Know" comments that just are not true.. maybe you have changed your view about some of the comments you have made.. I do not know?. If you have you should post them. Here is just one thing you have said, that is clearly not true-
"Did you know that although a number of lamp standards near the Pentagon were knocked down because they were allegedly in the flight path of the Boeing 757, there were other objects (for example, a construction site surrounded by a high chain link fence, a large generator, and tall spools of wire) in the same projected flight path of the Boeing 757 that were untouched?"
Clearly this is not true!... below are many images of the destroyed generator on fire and after...the fence is destroyed and some of the spools moved.. at least one spool is on its side and bent(these are steel spools weighing thousands of pounds)..others are leaning over.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/8.jpg
Generator On fire below
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/033.html
Generator and fence image, close up and smashed
http://www.earth-citizens.net/damage/moteurDroit-l.jpg

Anab Whitehouse said...

Dear quaheedus,

To say that "there are many things in most of your [i.e., my] 'Did You Know' comments which just are not true" is an assertion devoid of substantive data. If there are things which you believe to be untrue, then, by all means state what they are and we can get into specifics rather than empty generalizations, but I trust that whatever considerations you may offer in the future will be of more compelling quality than what is expressed in your current comment.

For example, although I appreciate your posting links to the photos of the Pentagon, this doesn't offer anything with which I am not already familiar. Nobody disputes that the generator trailer caught fire ... rather, the issue is what caused the fire?

The fact of the matter is that the generator does not appear to have been hit by a 200,000 pound plane going 400-plus miles an hour, and if the generator had been hit by such an dynamic bundle of kinetic energy, there would have been considerably less of the generator than is the observable case, and, as well, there would have a great deal more Boeing debris on the outside of the building than anyone apparently found ... although whether there was, or wasn't such debris, we may never know because whatever was there has been taken away and kept out of public sight and analysis ... a matter of national security I am sure.

Also, as several of your photos clearly show, there are a number of 6 foot cable spools in the pictures, and it doesn't look to me like they have been hit by a 200,000 pound jet flying at around 400 miles per hour despite the fact that the spools are in the alleged flight plan of the hypothesized Boeing 757 and despite the fact that if one is to accept the Pentagon Building Performance report as accurate on this point, then one must explain how a Boeing 757 jet can hit the first floor without touching the lawn and without either the body of the jet or the jet engines touching those spools ... and if they had been 'touched' by a 200,000 pound jet, they would not just have been upset a little so that a spool merely was turned on its side or dented a little ... they would have been substantially displaced and more than a little dented, but neither of these factors was the case.

Similarly, although the chain fence in the pictures for which you provide the links is damaged, it doesn't appear to me -- nor to lots of other individuals -- that the chain fence was hit by a 200,000 pound Boeing flying at 400 miles per hour.

You have shown a generator trailer on fire and have assumed that a Boeing 757 did that. You have shown some cable spools which are banged up a litte and one which is turned over on its side, and you have assumed that a Boeing 757 did that. You have shown a damaged chain link fence, and you have assumed that a Boeing 757 did that.

However, in all of these ssumptions there is a problem with the believability or plausibility of the supposition being made in each instance ... namely, that one should believe that a 200,000 pound aircraft flying at 400 miles an hour could proceed through the area occupied by the generator, cable spools, and chain link fence and leave behind so little evidence of impact by such a very large source of kinetic energy. The first floor -- three rings deep -- of the recently, dramatically rebuilt and reinforced Pentagon would be decimated, yet, somehow, cable spools, a generator trailer and a chain link fence don't look all that much the worse for wear ... although there is fire damage to the trailer and the chain fence is ragged in places, and one of the spools has a dent in it and another is lying on its side, and so on.

Of course, one could take all of the foregoing and say something akin to the following: you see the glass of evidence as being half full with respect to the theory that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, whereas I see the glass of evidence as being half empty with respect to that same theory, and the truth of the matter is that both of us are merely generating a hermeutical framework to interpret the photographic evidence which is available. However, given the evidence displayed in your photos, I do not think that your 'evidence' lends a sense of overwhelming conclusiveness [in fact, I find the data to be underwhelming] to the idea that a 200,000 pound Boeing 757 flying at 400 miles an hour went through the space occupied by the spools, generator trailer, and link fence and, yet, did not do more damage to those objects and did not leave any substantial parts of itself behind [outside the Pentagon] after allegedly making contact with those objects.

Furthermore, in none of my 'Did You Knows' did I come to any final conclusions about what went on during 9/11 at the Pentagon ... or anywhere else for that matter. Rather, I raised, by implication, a variety of questions concerning anomalous data that remain unanswered if one accepts the so-called 'official theory' concerning what hit the Pentagon. I don't find the Pentagon's explanation of what transpired on 9/11 to be plausible, and I do not find your citing of photographic evidence constituting anything which I would consider to be compelling evidence in support of the idea that a 757 Boeing crashed into the Pentagon. There are still too many unanswered questions.

The FBI confiscated video tape from the Virginia Department of Transportation, a hotel rooftop video, and a gasoline station which had a clear view of the West facade of the Pentagon. Previously, they have claimed that they cannot release such tapes because of the on-going trial of Moussaoui. Well, that trial is over now, and, yet, the FBI still has not released any of the video or returned the material to the respective owners.

If the FBI has definitive video proof of what crashed into the Pentagon, then, why not release that material stop all the discussion? If there is nothing on the tapes, then, why not release the tapes? Why does the FBI continue to resist FOI requests for the release of that material?

But, in many ways all of the foregoing issues and points are beside the point. I'll give you three more 'Did You Knows' that no matter how one interprets the photographic evidence which you cite, the information in these 'Did You Knows' completely negates the perspective which you seem to be championing:

---------------

(1) Did you know that if Flight 77 -- the Boeing 757 jet which is alleged by some to have crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001 -– were to have been flown, as estimated by the Pentagon Performance Report, at around 400 miles per hour less than 20 feet above the ground [which would have been necessary if the plane were to have hit the first floor of the Pentagon as claimed], then such aerodynamic factors as downwash reaction, ground effect energy, jetblast effects, vortex compression, and wake turbulence would have come into play, and such forces would have made accomplishing such a feat [that is, crashing into the first floor of the Pentagon at an angle which was roughly parallel with the lawn in front of the Pentagon] impossible to do?

--------------------

(2) Did you know that forces such as tip vortices, downwash sheet, and the compressibility effect which would be created by a 200,000 pound commercial jet flying close to the ground at approximately 400 miles per hour [the claimed speed of the Flight 77 when it allegedly hit the Pentagon] would prevent such an aircraft from getting any closer to the ground than about 60 feet, or roughly half the distance of the commercial aircraft’s wingspan?

--------------------

(3) Did you know that due to the foregoing set of aerodynamic forces, a commercial jet the size of Flight 77 could not possibly have crashed into the first floor of the Pentagon as claimed by the Pentagon officials unless there were a substantial reduction [of more than several hundred miles per hour] in the 400 mile per hour speed of a commercial 757 aircraft, and, yet, the Pentagon Performance Report insists that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the first floor while traveling at a speed of around 400 miles per hour?

---------------

Thanks quaheedus for your interest in the issues.

Bill Whitehouse