I beg commenters to focus on the specific subject at hand. There will be time enough later to talk about the temperature of melting steel or pods beneath the jetliner wings or Why Bush is Bad or whatever other topic you are dying to switch to. This is about American Airlines 77.)
The French edition of Thuerry Meyssan’s The Frightening Fraud -- which posits that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 -- sold nearly 200,000 copies in its first three weeks of publication. No other volume in French history has sold so well in so short a time. The book’s argument comes down to four simple words: Where is the Boeing?
Most Americans were introduced to this argument via a popular web site, where, in photograph after photograph, visual evidence did indeed seem to present an intriguing mystery. None of the photos display any aircraft debris. The collapsed area of the Pentagon's outer wall is substantially smaller than the nearly 125-foot wingspan of a Boeing 757. Only the outermost of the building's five concentric "rings" of offices collapsed, and the width of this ring is smaller than the 155-foot length of a Boeing 757.
"Can you explain," asks Meyssan, "how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour, only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?" The building is five stories high, while the jet is just under 15 yards in height, with the landing gear down. Early photos, taken within the first fifteen minutes, show that the upper floors did not collapse immediately. The hole, in short, seems much smaller than the object which created it.
The French theorist also believes that the Secretary of Defense acted suspiciously when he "deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged..." (The reference here is to the grassy area in front of the impact site.) Meyssan has stated that either a bomb or a missile damaged the building; the actual fate of Flight 77 remains unknown.
His collection of photographs makes for an interesting case, which will persuade only those who close their eyes to certain facts.
Let us first deal with the "sand over the lawn" poser, which has a simple solution. The task of hauling away building wreckage required heavy equipment, and that equipment required a makeshift roadway. No engineer would want to place a massive crane on soft earth -- and no evidence suggests that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally made the decision to re-surface the area.
Anyone studying the crash scene photographs should keep in mind that the Pentagon is not only the largest office building in the world, it is also the most heavily fortified. Each of its five outermost walls features a limestone exterior, placed over a mixture of 100,000 tons of sand and steel-reinforced concrete. Not long before the disaster, the building received further reinforcement -- a "skeleton" of steel tubing, a Kevlar-like wall-covering material, and blast-resistant windows -- to help prevent collapse during a terrorist bombing.
Despite this protection, the Boeing obliterated the bottom two floors of the outermost ring of offices, causing a section of that ring to cave in less than fifteen minutes later. The next ring received substantial impact damage, although it did not collapse. Parts of the plane even reached the middle sector. Aerial photos show that fire affected all five rings over a wide area. (By way of comparison, note that the World Trade Center towers -- only 208 feet wide, with far more fragile outer walls -- “consumed” most of the two jets which ploughed into their sides.)
According to witnesses, the landing gear was not down as the plane sailed across the lawn before impact with the Pentagon, which means the height of the jet was well short of 15 yards. The body of a 757 is in fact less than twelve feet high and less than 14 feet wide. The heaviest portion of the body is the lower half; the top portion – where the passengers sit – is comparatively thin.
This fact goes some ways toward explaining why the initial impact obliterated only the bottom two floors. Real life is not a Tex Avery cartoon, and we should not expect to see the exact outline of a jet punched into the wall. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the width of the total impact zone far exceeded the section which collapsed. A stout wall can be hit hard yet remain upright, as a number of drunk drivers have discovered. Some windows did remain intact – not surprising, since the windows were blast-reinforced.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
The images chosen for Meyssan's web site may not show aircraft debris, but other photos do -- silvery pieces, matching the color of an American Airlines jet. Fans of the “penta-bomb” idea have mooted the suggestion that these photographs were faked. Conversely, opponents of this theory have accused Meyssan of cropping his images in a deceptive fashion. Technology writer Paul Boutin points out: "If you've seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane." (“‘Hunt the Boeing’ Answers”: http://www.geocities.com/killtown/paul_boutin.html; accessed 2003. )
British writer Joe Vialls, a former member of London's Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers and Technologists – whom I quote precisely because he is a 911 conspiracy theorist – sneers at the French theory:
Visit any one of several hundred vertical or near-vertical high-speed crash sites and you will observe a strange phenomenon -- the aircraft all seem to vanish into relatively small holes. There is no easy explanation for this, but rest assured that I speak from direct experience.In a follow-up article, Vialls notes a case offering a direct parallel to the Flight 77 tragedy. (http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/747.html, dated May 2002.) On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a 747 jumbo jet – weightier and larger than the craft which hit the Pentagon -- lost an engine shortly after take-off from an airport in Amsterdam; the pilot managed to keep the craft more-or-less horizontal as it lost power and slammed into a massive apartment block in Bjilmer, an Amsterdam suburb. Although the 747 had a 212-foot wingspan, the resultant “hole” in the building was only half as wide. As in the Pentagon case, photographs of the crash site (taken from a distance) do not show any obvious pieces of the craft. Indeed, those photos depict a scene quite similar to the disaster along the Potomac, even though the Bjilmer apartments must have had far weaker exterior walls.
In the early sixties we were sent out to find the crash site of an English Electric Lightning Mach 2 fighter, which went in vertically at nearly 400 miles per hour during an aerobatics display. Despite having a wingspan of 35 feet, the Lightning impact crater measured only 22 feet across. Did we find the wings lying about in the field next door? No, we did not.
By some strange twist of physics the wings were in the same impact crater, near the top. What was left of the Lightning fuselage lay many feet beneath the wings...
As Vialls notes:
A high proportion of the mass in any aircraft is contained within its fuselage, which presents a very small cross section at the point of impact, relative to the thin but very wide and fragile wings. Thus in both cases the high mass and low cross section caused Flight 77 and Flight 1862’s fuselages to punch holes deep into and through the concrete targets.First-hand accounts of the Pentagon catastrophe confirm this analysis. One eyewitness, a pilot named Tim Timmerman, noted that American Airlines Flight 77 "added power on its way in. The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball." Keep in mind that the Pentagon’s walls received a substantial blow outside the collapsed area.
The wings are a different matter… The problem when an aircraft hits a flat building is that, although the wings snap off, they still have enormous inertia and will continue moving forward if at all possible...
News reports quote numerous other witnesses -- a priest, commuters, office workers, reporters (the USA Today building offers a view of the impact zone), even a gardener. They all tell a consistent tale of passenger-jet-meets-building. None of them speak of bombs or missiles.
John O'Keefe, managing editor of a publication called Influence, was traveling on Interstate 395 when "from my left side -- I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane, I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet. It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading... I thought, 'That's not going to make it to National Airport.' And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black thick smoke." (New York Law Journal, September 12, 2001.)
Omar Campo was mowing the lawn across the road from the Pentagon when the plane came in overhead. "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire." ("Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts," The Guardian, September 12, 2001)
Tim Timmerman, quoted above, also identified an American Airlines jet. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html)
Truck driver Steve Eiden noticed a passenger plane flying extremely low in what he presumed to be restricted airspace. "You could almost see the people in the windows." ("Sept 11, the Day America Changed," The Baxter Bulletin, 2001.)
During his drive to work, Fred Gaskins, an editor at USA Today, saw the jetliner "flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target." (USA Today, September 11, 2001.)
Steve Anderson had a clear view of the tragedy from his office in the USA Today building. "I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug its wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, exploding into a bright orange fireball." (From an essay posted to web page devoted to his university, October 2, 2001)
While driving to Arlington for a funeral, Father Stephen McGraw took a wrong turn which brought him within view of the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building. My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight... There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows." ("Pentagon crash eyewitness comforted victims," MDW News Service, September 28, 2001.)
Aydan Kizildrgli, a Turkish exchange student, described what he saw as a jetliner. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack-usat.htm)
Deb Anlauf, watching from the 14th floor of the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington, told a reporter: “"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window... You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook." (http://www.leadertelegram.com/specialreports/attack/storydetail.asp?ID=7)
Dan Creed, of Oracle software, said “"I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up.” (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html; the link to a Ahwatukee Foothill News account no longer functions.)
The CSPAN website made available an audio record of the D.C. area emergency dispatch system, in which a harried -- but always professional -- operator fields incoming information about the disaster. Within the first minute, a male voice reports that an “American Airlines” passenger plane has crashed. It is fair to presume that this report came from a police or security officer who had witnessed the event.
The NFPA Journal of November 1, 2001 (cited here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html) quotes a firefighter named Defina as saying that “we saw pieces of the nose gear” inside the Pentagon.
Anyone capable of discounting the eyewitness accounts will probably also discount the fact that Flight 77's two "black boxes" turned up in the wreckage ("Flight Data and Voice Recorders Found at Pentagon," PBS Online Newshour, Sept. 14, 2001; “The Tech Behind Black Boxes,” ABC news, Sept. 17, 2001), as did identifiable pieces of a passenger jet – not to mention the remains of the passengers. A team of some 50 forensic specialists from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, working twelve hour shifts in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, managed to identify 64 passengers and crew members, using DNA and other identification methods. (News release, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, January 11, 2002.)
Very few eyewitnesses reported smaller aircraft. A Mrs. Khavkin reported a “small commercial craft.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1540586.stm) However, she was much further away than many of the other witnesses mentioned here – the BBC account quotes her thus: “Our balcony faces the city, with a panoramic view of the Pentagon, National Airport, and the entire downtown area of Washington, DC.” Note too that she says that “the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles,” even though a few conspiracists insist that a jetliner could not do such a thing. Other witnesses who described a small jet are Don Wright, who watched from the 12th floor of a building in Rosslyn, and Steve Patterson, who watched from the 14th floor of a building in Pentagon City. (http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html)
We have hardly exhausted the list of eyewitnesses. Only the loopiest sort of conspiracy buff could envision a squad of American spooks scurrying about on that day, forcing numerous witnesses to change or concoct their stories. Predictably, the die-hard conspiracists react by “swiftboating” anyone who says anything they don’t want to hear. (See, for example, here: http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackWitnessesBlast.shtml.)
Given the location involved, we should not be surprised to see military personnel and USA Today reporters prominent among the witnesses. I do not believe that everyone who works in any capacity for the nation’s military is a born liar. And although I am by no means a fan of USA Today, I cannot believe that everyone who has ever worked for that journal would lie about so important a matter.
If the presumed conspirators could compel such a massive degree of false testimony, if the conspirators command such god-like powers, then why did any “difficult” data find ink? Why, for example, were Khavkin and Wright allowed to have their say in print? And why did one reporter from the hated USA Today suddenly become credible when he uttered words that the “no jet” theorists found convenient?
USA Today’s Mike Walter, stuck in traffic nearby, later reported that he saw an American Airlines jet strike the Pentagon, as CNN mentioned in a story posted on September 11, 2001. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/index.html ) However, Walter became a “good” witness for the conspiracy promoters when he described the craft as coming in “like a guided missile with wings.” People who never attended English class -- and thus never learned that the word “like” signals the onset of a thing called a simile – took these words in an ultra-literal fashion. As Walter told a later interviewer (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html):
I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions. I was very angry about all of this, and I remain angry about it today. I’m also upset that so many people lost their lives that day and while some people who have written about that tragic day have donated any and all proceeds to the victims of 9-11, he has capitalized on it to make an awful lot of money.When Walter said these words, he became re-stigmatized as one of USA Today's liars-for-lucre.
A sufficiently determined conspiracist -- believe me, I’ve known a few -- can impeach anyone. Can the priest be impeached? Sure! A few muttered words about the Vatican banking scandal of thirty years ago will suffice to brand all priests as liars.As for the Salvadoran gardener -- well, obviously, he must have had immigration problems. How do we know that this alleged Turkish student really exists? Those 50 forensic specialists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology must be fictional as well. I suppose I could try to contact one of those specialists via telephone, but why bother? A nay-sayer will simply presume that any interview subject who offers inconvenient testimony must be a liar.
Never forget that a creative mind will find grounds to question your own testimony, should you ever see something that someone else does not want you to have seen. It does not matter who you are or what your background might be. A suspicious person will scour your entire work history and family background until something comes up that sets off alarm bells: You say your cousin worked for the FBI ten years ago? A-HA! You once went to Baylor University? Ah, that’s where the CIA did MKULTRA experiments... And so you join the ranks of the presumed paid prevaricators, even though you're not a penny richer for it.
The theory of widespread witness intimidation and fabricated testimony becomes particularly risible when we compare the Pentagon tragedy to, for example, the JFK assassination. In 1963, the FBI and the Warren Commission desperately wanted to find someone who would place Oswald in that 6th floor window, but the only witness available was a severely nearsighted man who didn’t wear his glasses that day. Pretty pathetic -- especially when compared to the dozens and dozens of alleged “liars” testifying to the Pentagon strike.
Although we have some credible accounts of attempted witness intimidation in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, we nevertheless have the testimony of Jean Hill, the Newmans, Abraham Zapruder, Ed Hoffman, James Tague and many other people whose words damaged the Commission’s conclusions. Compare that situation to the 9/11 aftermath: Not one person has stepped forward to say: "The feds tried to pressure me into telling a false story about the Pentagon strike." Are we to believe that Hoover’s FBI was less intimidating than is the current incarnation? Ridiculous. Are we to believe that Americans are more compliant now than they were then? Ridiculous.
Indeed, I would posit that the Meyssanites are mimicking not the Warren Commission skeptics, but the Warren Commission’s defenders. Any eyewitness offering testimony contradicting the predetermined conclusion must be smeared through fair means or foul. Dan Creed and Jean Hill must go through the same meat grinder. The conclusion remains unmovable; the facts are malleable.
The “no jet hit the Pentagon” belief system marks the point where conspiracy theory becomes an exercise in gonzo epistemology. Reality is what you make of it. You can, if you wish, call into question which teams played last year’s World Series. After all, each person in the stadium offers impeachable testimony. Newspapers lie. Special effects wizards can manipulate the broadcast image.
How do you really know the Cubs didn’t win?
55 comments:
Seems like Cannonfire has been overtaken by the right. Making every effort to spread half-truth about 911.
Sure like to know why the govt won't release ALL the videos it confiscated from the local merchants and let the public decide for itself.
The public isn't stupid and the official story of 911 doesn't add up to anything but a pile of rubble.
ah. joe. compelling, convincing, and concise. perfect.
while i confess my skepticisms have been generally lazy but directed to both sides (this issue always raised the question, so if it was NOT flight 77, then where IS that flight, AND its passengers??), it's been too lazy to do the hypothesis testing you have diligently provided here.
for that - and so much more - many many thanks.
and also for the gonzo epistemology; really like that one, though it applies even better for our deluded de-leaders.
sigh. the first two comments came in while i was typing, and i have to say, 11:22 anon clearly does not have a clue what a logical argument or refuting evidence actually mean. such is the mind of the deluded; they shut down for any facts that don't fit or support their preconceived - and completely NONlogical - position. one wonders just at what paragraph his/her eyes glazed.
take care, therefore anon, that you are not committing the same errors of judgment that you attribute to 'the right.'
as for anon 11:25 (same one??), i'd like to know IF the govt has or has not released all the videos. thought you are right that the public is not stupid. or i should say, not all the public is stupid.
still, some are. again, i urge you to take care that you don't join those ranks by not applying simple logical scrutiny to everything presented to you, instead of doing precisely what joe predicts at both the beginning and end of this piece.
gonzo epistemologue!
Thanks Joseph, your analysis is/was very thorough and much needed. The facts are the facts. I guess if I'd been so unfortunate as to have had a loved one killed in that crash, but who was found and identified, I'd offer up the body as even further evidence. But then, I guess I'd end up being blamed for the death myself if I'd ever played with matches.
I forgot to sign, that was me "Miss P" above in anon 1.38
Very good, Joseph, but then I never took the missile hit the Pentagon idea very seriously. JFK researcher Jack White did a whole series of photo analysis attempting to disprove that a plane hit the Pentagon but it wasn't any more convincing than his Moon Hoax stuff.
I'll say though that you are really shaming me. I've devoted the whole week so far to lesbian Barbie porn.
soap box.
This article, having been written in 2003, is kinda out of date - not many people rely on Meyssan's original research any more, since so many other people have weighed in on the subject.
The prevailing view seems to be that a plane other than Flight 77 was used to crash into the Pentagon - that would seem to fit all the evidence, including the size of the hole, why the FBI confiscated/destroyed all independent security footage of the crash from neighboring businesses, the inability of Hani Hanjour to execute the complex descending turn required to hit the Pentagon (he, like all the other alleged hijackers, had never flown a jet in his life, and was reportedly an inept pilot even on much smaller planes), the fact that all witnesses report having seen an actual plane, etc.
With regard to 9/11 in general, I'm more interested in whodunnit and why, rather than how they did it, so I don't have too strong of an opinion as to exactly what went in there. However, I think the simple fact that the "unidentified flying object" hit the part of the Pentagon that was being renovated should by itself be enough to induce a fair degree of skepticism as to the veracity of the official story. Just think, these evil terrorists could have killed a thousands of top Pentagon officials, but instead they chose to kill a hundred or so low-level chumps and construction workers?
Ask yourself: who benefitted from this attack, and who was harmed?
sofla said:
If one suspects he is dealing with a case of prestidigitation and legerdermaine, one knows he may need to discount the APPEARANCES as reported by even wholly otherwise reliable bystanders, as those APPEARANCES are the frame up for the TRICK. And if the bystanders were possibly shills... This doesn't even begin to address the problems inherent with eye witness testimony, which can be notoriously unreliable, even absent any intentional deception.
('I swear, first I saw the tigers, and then they.... VANISHED! Right before my eyes.' M'kay!)
There was more than one plane in that airspace at that time, and one was a gigantic C-130 cargo plane, mysteriously trolling the highly secure air space despite the order grounding all civilian and military aircraft. Yet, how many of these eye witnesses mentioned the other plane(s)? Did they not see them, or did they perhaps mistake the C-130 for a commercial plane?
Reagan National Airport is all of about 15 seconds flying time past the Pentagon. My operating hypothesis (not original with me, to be sure) is that whatever plane may have been involved, if any, was vectored into a low approach towards the Pentagon, but then pulled out over the top and through the massive fireball to land at the nearly next door airport, relying on the fireball to hide that last leg of its journey. The C-130 was put there for plausible deniability should any have seen the plane continuing its flight after the explosion.
A few facts seem to rule out the official story. One is the phenomenal screaming descent of whatever that was: doing about 500 mph, it descended 9,000 feet doing a 270 degree turn, to a pinpoint near-ground impact. The air traffic controllers are on record with their opinion that they all assumed it must have been a high performance military craft with an expert top gun pilot to be able to do such a maneuver. I've heard such a turn would put a force of 5 gs on those subjected to it, meaning each arm would weight 100 pounds or so. It's not clear that a civilian heavy aircraft could even do that with a highly skilled pilot, and Hamid Hanjour (is that the name? the alleged hijacker pilot that is supposed to have done this?) was the opposite of that, by all the comments on the record.
One of the eye witnesses there, a man with military experience, described the heavy smell of cordite, an explosive material that shouldn't have been in evidence if it had been simply an airplane crash.
Lastly, a civilian got the autopsy reports which allegedly provided exact DNA identification of everybody aboard that plane, from a FOIA lawsuit. No hijackers' DNA was recovered, according to that official legal medical record of the forensic examination of the organic traces recovered at the crash site.
sofla, the same witnesses who reported the smell of cordite were also derided when they reported things that the "no jet" crowd did not want to hear. Cherrypicking the testimony in this fashion is intolerable. At any rate, others did report burning jet fuel.
Nobody quite knows what is possible when attempting a maneuver of that sort. I recall reading somewhere -- was it something Cecil Adams wrote? -- that people once thought it impossible for a 747 to do a barrel role, until some idiot actually conducted the experiment.
Look at how you contradict yourself with your reliance on DNA evidence! If the DNA of the passengers was there, then AA77 hit the Pentagon.
For chrissakes, if AA77 did not hit the building, then where did it go? And why BOTHER to stage an attack on the Pentagon when crashing the jet into...well, ANYTHING...could have pretty much the same societal impact? (See my previous post on the stupidity of the "Oomph" argument.) I guess I'll have to post the rest of the piece, which discusses how stupid and otiose the proposed conspiracy really is.
Oh, by the way: I felt it was cute to be called a right-winger. Looks like my fellow "reactionaries" include everyone from Kos to Bob Fertik to Daniel Hopsicker -- not to mention millions of other folks previously considered progressive. Meanwhile, Chris Bollyn and the Barnes Review crowd are the "left." If that's the new definition of left and right in this country, the world has gone NUTS.
Here's the dilema:
A: A plane hit the Pentagon but our government is doing an intentional mindfuck on the American people to make us stop questioning the warmongerers. (The pentagon being one of the most heavily guarded places in the world MUST have a fucking video of this!)
B. A plane did NOT hit the Pentagon and the government is lying to us.
See the problem? Either way, the guys at the top aren't very trustworthy are they?
Stop asking your readers to suspend disbelief and logic. Ask THEM to tell the truth.
If I see a tiny hole in the Pentagon, no plane and then the government releases 10 frames of UFO video rather than some decent footage from the other 70 fucking cameras surrounding the site, my first impression is hmmmmm.... they are hiding something.
If they really wanted to end this they should lay it all out. But it should be obvious by now that, that is not what they want.
WHAT THEY WANT:
Mindcontrolled milkcows that will obediently hand over their money and lives no questions asked.
YOU are the one who has suspended logic, anon. I'll have more to say about the video anon. In the meantime -- good Christ, did you even read what I wrote?
The Pentagon hit [missile or whatever] is widely considered to be a straw man. Even Alex Jones, Mike Rivero and many other well known 'conspiritards' think so. It's used to debunk and thereby carry the everyone down with it.
Check it:
http://tinyurl.com/l5ojn
Either way though, it's the political uses of 9-11 that are obvious to all and we can watch that every hour of every day.
Hi Joseph,
You have presented the most impressive list of eyewitnesses who claim to have seen not just the plane, but the plane hitting the building, that I have ever seen.
I tend to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon, and that Meyssan was a CIA-funded disinfo campaign. But I don't claim to know. Where did the plane go? Maybe flown into the sea? What about the DNA? DNA delivered to the lab doesn't mean it came from the Pentagon. There should be serial numbers on replaceable engine parts that could ID the plane exactly. Where are the videos?
I read the civil engineer's report. In order to square the damage on the wall with a 757, they had to suppose that the right wingtip was sheared off from hitting a generator, and the left wingtip was sheared off from hitting the ground.
I don't know what happened.
"... need to discount the APPEARANCES as reported by even wholly otherwise reliable bystanders, as those APPEARANCES are the frame up for the TRICK."
-I wish to emphasise on this by adding a link to a text that I held for being cruxial to the understanding how this can be achieved :
-Or otherwise : How to make it, that a gorilla - or anything else, for that sake- in our midst is not being percieved.
-If it is proven -and it had been proven in 1999 -> There is the Document, in which is described the mechanics of such an delusion
"Gorillas in Our Midst ," Daniel J. Simons and Christopher F. Chabris, vol. 28, Perception, 1999, pages 1059-74. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/%7Ecfc/Simons1999.pdf
that and how a majority of people can be lead to realize, or not to realize a -gorilla in their -our- midst, then what would be left to deal with is only a minority of people who are always there and who "dig" the TRICK.
Then what would be left to do is only to divide this minority by adding an outside equallly small amount of people that -being in the know of something, not neccesarily everything, forged by some common interest of theirs, beeing it power,or greed or whatever other cult one might think of- and have them loudly bark in the media and in the "alternative "media" whatever might tactically needed to perform the task of disinformation.
And here we are, those would be knowing that they have nothing more to loose, and those who slowly, but steadily like a mill grinding, through error and contradictionbut until now in the course of history having been always successfull, eventually.
One of that claque, they were always used to start the applause, if nobody else would do so, and whom I remeber I was introduced to in the early days after 11.Sep.2001 is for example
ex-general Singlaub. He is a realy good clown. You fel, he's enjoing humbugging -no thwy call it "hoaxing" people. Remember ?
When they lie to the people, they enjoy mixing in some details of truth.But look at his biography. And this one stands as a type for a ssort of people, its a class really.
Please read that gorilla-document. Its enlightning. Its science.
Its not much different in how priests of all times have fooled the people.
It has to do with art and technics of Illusionism.
- and then this one, that I picked up on blog last week. Its poesie. Its realistic.New think and new speak. :
09.Aug.2006 http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/08/area-911.html#comments 151 Comments: Anonymous said...
" Anonymous One, Warning!
Objects may be closer than they appear.
About the time people pull their heads out of their collective asses,it will be past the point of no return.
The only way to stop this thing is to reboot the whole orb that we are stuck on +
I don't think the PTB will let that happen.
The mindstream is set,we are all along for the ride,
hold on tight,
fiction is now reality.
Soon you will not be able to tell the real from the vividly imagined,
some will not know if they are having a lucid dream or a day dream,that is the point where you detach from the now,later. 10:47 AM
Mourning in America said...
And this :
09.Aug.2006 http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/08/area-911.html#comments
"The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena:
the Videodrome," says the McLuhanesque Brian O'Blivion, referring to the pirate broadcast of a torture and murder circus that contains in its transmission a frequency that triggers the tumorous growth of new organs of perception in the brains of its viewers.
"The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye.
Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain.
Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it.
Therefore, television is reality +
reality is less than television."
For almost all of us, 11.Sep.2001 was only a televised event.
Yet, like Ruby shooting Oswald live in America's livingroom + like Videodrome, it was also a spectacular trauma;
the unscheduled program was also programming,
inducing a national trance to initiate the stage-managed winding down of our familiar world.
But it also created within us fresh capacities of insight +
that too may have been the intent.
09.Aug.2006 http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/08/area-911.html#comments These bastards will get theirs.
Also, if, as your government says, nineteen arab highjackers could have done this,
wouldn't it be then fair enough, if critics argue, that the government of the united states could have done it as well?
Men ! they have ways to calculate what exactlay is happening, when they simulate a nuclear explosion in a computer.
They have calulated the whole evolution of the universe to a present point in time and looked up real galaxies where the model ones had shown them to be.
Who does one make a Hollywood - screenplay?
The theater is in our midst.
And why BOTHER to stage an attack on the Pentagon when crashing the jet into...well, ANYTHING...could have pretty much the same societal impact?
Um, no, the Pentagon is the unambiguous symbol of America's military strength - hitting it is not exactly the same as hitting a Wal-Mart. It conveys the idea that America is facing a very serious threat - very important if you want to drum up support for a protracted "War on Terror" going well beyond Afghanistan.
Now, why exactly did the terrorists choose to hit the part of the Pentagon that was under renovation instead of crashing into the roof, which would have been a much simpler maneuver? Does anyone have a decent answer for this one? And why did the government confiscate all videos of the incident and refuse to release them?
(I guess I'll start using a pseudonym instead of "anonymous" here to make things clearer - I also wrote the 4:44 PM anonymous comment above.)
Wow, did you get threatened for your excellent piece on the two deaths of European techies who got 'suicided'? Man, I was really diggin this blog lately. But I am amazed at this article. This is about the longest artcile I've seen on Cannonfire since... forever.
I suggest you get a hold of a copy of Mae Brussell's webmasters non-narrated all day taping of local and national news, both US and Mexican, and see for yourself. Lots of Pentagon documentation to refute some of your claims.
One thing is good though, you don't totally discount Joe Vialls. I believe Vialls was killed for exposing the man-made tsunami of box-day 2004 and his inside info into our use of various weapons from the Intl Space Station and/or other satellites.
Mike Walters? Yes, he was misquoted I will agree. But he lied. I'm not trying to start a flame or be a troll. There's just no doubt about it. I know once you see this CD from the curator of Maebrussell.com you will see things different. I bet you could email him and talk him into letting you have it for a couple of bucks. It's better than any documentary made because there's no narration. It's welllll worth it.
www.maebrussell.com
Let's just say, Joe, that you have established that an airplane, not a missile, crashed into the Pentagon. What else are you trying to say? That the gov't is therefore telling the whole story of the AA77 crash?
In the past few years I have come to this revelatory insight: that EVERYTHING the government tells us is either a lie, or has such a deliberate spin on it that it may as well be a lie. Not some, not most, but every official story the gov't tells us is a lie. It may be salted with truth, so yes, the flight AA77 may have indeed been flown into the Pentagon. But what good is truth mixed in with lies?
I'm not a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. But I know with moral certainty that they're lying to us about what happened, there at the Pentagon. I know it because that is what they do, they lie.
I suspect that the plane hit that section for a reason. And, I suspect that the plane was guided there, either by a homing device or by someone miles away operating a joystick.
Stop focussing on the truth, and start looking for the lie. It is a sure bet that it's there, and if anyone can find it, you can.
The pentagon crash is one of the most divisive issues among 9/11 sceptics, partly because so much information should be available that isn't. For example, we know that the FBI confiscated a number of videos within minutes of the crash. Some of them will show the crash. Why have they not been released? Is it to promote the continuing controversy or simply because the truth as shown in those videos does not accord with the offfical version? I don't know and until the videos are available I refuse to accept any theories from either side of the fence.
Secondly, given the presumed trajectory of the flight the engines must have gouged the pentagonlawn, but the photos show it to be in pristine condition?
Thirdly, I am reliably advised by aeronautical prople that it is impossible to fly a plane at 500mph a few feet above the ground.
Fourthly, how did the demonstrably incompetent Hani Hanjour pull off a flying feat that is beyond the skills of just about evey commercial pilot?
Fifthly, the recently released NTSB reconstruction based on the plane's black box has it flying more than 300 feet above ground one second before impact. If this is accurate how did the poles come to be destroyed on its official version flight path?
Sixthly, as one of your earlier commentators pointed out, the DNA evidence does not disclose the existence of any Arab persons on the flight.
Seventh, every time the government purports to tell us what happened they give a different version. Why should we believe one or any of them to be true? Their track record in lies is well documented.
This is far from a complete list of the questions that puzzle me. I don't pretend to know the answers. what I do know is that the official version is unlikely to be true becuase of the above questions. If we actually had a real inquiry rather than the sham 9/11 commission maybe we might find out. Until then I will suspend judgment.
If they released the videos we would be seeing the hit on the news ad nauseum. In effect, this would continually remind everyone of how ill-prepared the country was to defend itself, symbolically with the pentagon and otherwise, and it would remind everyone of what Bush and Cheney were not doing that day, it would remind us of many of the failures of this administration. And at this late date there a quite a few more failures we would associate. And maybe, they would rather manipulate fear levels at their own will and not leave it to the news.
I agree there were lies. But I think it's to cover their sorry collective stupid and incompetenct asses.
Miss P.
Joseph, I love you, man, and I'd never call you a right-winger, but, for some reason, when it comes to 9/11 you seem to have a blind spot the size of football field. Plus you ascribe things to others while not noticing how it may apply to you ("Those crazy conspiracy mongers. They're so certain they're right. And they call anyone who disagrees with them 'crazy'").
The entire official story of 9/11 stinks to high heaven and that's just with the scant information we have right now.
I'm just asking you keep an open mind on 9/11, not buy into every theory out there.
how stupid and otiose the proposed conspiracy really is.
Is this the conspiracy involving inept Islamic fundamentalist pilots who like to get drunk at stip clubs?
Well, first of all, the transcript of witness Tim Timmerman's statement proves he is a liar because he claims the plane hit the ground and not the Pentagon:
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw.
TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible...
I don't have the time to look at your other witnesses, Joe, but Dave McGowan already picked them apart ages ago:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
Joe said:
According to witnesses, the landing gear was not down as the plane sailed across the lawn before impact with the Pentagon, which means the height of the jet was well short of 15 yards. The body of a 757 is in fact less than twelve feet high and less than 14 feet wide. The heaviest portion of the body is the lower half; the top portion – where the passengers sit – is comparatively thin.
So where's the tail, and wheres the engines?
Read this:
http://abovetopsecret.narod.ru/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm
From the above link:
While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.
1. An anonymouos someone found it suspicious that I wrote such a long piece. I thought I had made it clear that in 2002-2003 I was working on 911 book, but gave up on the project when dealing with the Truth Movementers proved too irritating. (Which is why I hesitated a LOOOOONG time before getting back into the waters.)
2. I know all about Mae Brussell (more than you could possibly guess!) and Tim Canale. He bases his views on an uncritical acceptance of "In Plane Sight," which even other 9/11 conspiracists recognise as shit. See here:
http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
...and compare what you find on that page to Canale's words here:
http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Dear%20World%20Watcher.html
Here's what Canale has to say about Mike Waters:
"Even though there is a freeway in plain view of the Pentagon explosion, in all my news footage from that day the only witnesses who claimed to see a plane crash were from over-the-phone reporters quoting nameless, faceless people – with one exception: CNN interviewed Mike Walter at the scene (close-up on his face) who said he was in his car stuck in traffic when he saw a plane fly by low and crash into the side of the building. He says parts of the plane are on the overpass. He also says, "And the toughest thing for me right now is I've got a 14 year-old daughter, and a lot of her friends have parents who work in the Pentagon. And I just talked to her on the phone and those kids are going through agony; they don't know if they're okay. So it's tough. I mean this really hits home." Walter shows signs of starting to cry. And by the way, Walter just happens to be a reporter for USA Today.
"Also, the sentence from Walter's story "I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon" is excerpted and included, out of context, in the video "9/11 - In Plane Site" to help substantiate the theory that a missile (or "bunker buster") flew into the building. That's not really what he said."
Uh...where's the evidence that Walter lied?
3. As for the Wal-Mart vs. Pentagon bit -- once again, we retreat to the familiar OOMPH argument, the last refuge of every conspiracist who can't come up with a better answer to the question of "Why bother?" See my earlier "Oomph" comments here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/03/not-last-word-on-controlled.html
4. I'll be looking into the video controversies later. Can we have some quotes along the lines of "They took my video away?" I'm just looking for something definite...
5. Identifiable 757 pieces were found in the Pentagon. See the photos here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Also the bodies were found and identified. For your conspiracy to be viable, you have to presume that the identification was faked. And as mentioned before, would it do any good to interview the specialists who did the work? You would simply dismiss them as liars.
In other words, you are positing a non-falsifiable scenario. In other words, you have exited the realm of fact and entered the realm of religion.
6. Bodies recovered from the sea (as one commenter suggested) would be identifiable as just that. Bodies recovered from another crash site raise all sorts of other questions. Like how could you crash a 757 somewhere else and keep it secret? And again -- WHY BOTHER?
Cah-MON people -- admit it. You're reaching.
7. Nobody knows just how fast the plane was traveling. Stop operating on the basis of presumptions. Besides, the question is whether you can fly that fast close to the ground for a very short distance IF YOU INTEND TO CRASH THE PLANE.
8. "Secondly, given the presumed trajectory of the flight the engines must have gouged the pentagon lawn, but the photos show it to be in pristine condition?" Presumption again. I'm presuming that it stayed just above ground. My presumption is backed by eyewitness testimony.
This is why after almost 5 years, nothing has been acheived in regards to proving a "911 conspiracy", because we squabble about subjective bullshit and lose sight of the fact that something other than officially reported happened on that day. If the gov't was involved, and I feel the Norad transcripts show this, they must be so happy at how the average douchebag's attention can be diverted from one "fact", to the other. Everyone has a price Cannonfire, what was your's, or did someone sit you down and show you a movie of JFK's head exploding from a different view other than Zapruders. Congratulations!
ANd there you have it. You can't win an argument based on facts, so you retreat to your idiotic fail safe mechanism. This is preciesly what I talked about in my previous piece.
Joseph says..
I'm sorry for the typo. I meant Nero Redivivus. It's the standard scholarly explanation for the Book of Revelations. Basically, we know from other ancient documents that there was a conspiracy theory circulating not long after the emperor's death: Rumor held that Nero had survived his assassination and -- once he was sufficiently tanned and rested -- would soon come back to resume the persecutions. In other words, the revived Nero was the Antichrist.
Fundamentalists don't want you to know about any of this. They don't want you to know that the Apocalypse describes a false prediction.
I say..
The spirit of antichrist (Lucifers spirit, ) has ezisted in every generation since the beginning of time as we know it and since the origens of the primitive New Teatament church..post Jesus death (and resurection). Every generation grapples with the scriptures and tries to fathom the mysteries therein. Especially the mystery of Christ and His church. It is our obligation as students of the Word.
Our generation is faced with the same challenges so we "fundamentalists" (those that dare believe in the veracity of the bible), have a responsability to pray and ask God for wisdom, insight, revelations..yes even heavy revvies like we have today with the invasion of Irtaq and the attendant "coincidence"? that the ancient city of Babylon has been rebuilt by Saddam Hiussein over the past almost twenty years, thus fulfilling a huge disconnected dot in bible prophecies.. Today she sits like a wanton woaman (the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelations) waiting for the captains of commerce and the princes of religious delusion, aka, right wing, fascist, Christian, Jews, and Moslems, being wooed into following their "leaders", ala, Pat Robertason, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others to many to list, that support and preach that we have a "rightous",(actually, "self rightousness", the bane of religious seekers all the time and everywhere..and the roots of which killed Jessus through the Pharisees and other reliugious sects of His time), obligation to support the criminal acts of the president in his bully pulpit harangues of hate.
So a large section of the church has, like the little doggie magnets we played with as kids, blithly followed their arch deceivers..operating under the spell of the antichrist spirit. As is detailed in the Book of Revelations, the garish and gory descriptions of the fallen church "The Whore of Babylon". as she is taught to follow their leaders into oblivion and damnation.
But the good news is that Jesus predicted all of what is happening today to "the church" and warned His "true" followers in what we call the Word of God..the bible..and especially the Book of Revelations where everything comes to a Head..first the man of sin himself, the antichrist, (soon to be revealed), and then Christ Himself..which even the orthodox jews look forward to and surprisingly the Koran anticipates..a second coming of Christ.
The bible is our early warning system, no matter what the academics and "scholars" believe. Nostradamus was also privy to visions of the futute and had much to say about our times.."the end times".
3. As for the Wal-Mart vs. Pentagon bit -- once again, we retreat to the familiar OOMPH argument, the last refuge of every conspiracist who can't come up with a better answer to the question of "Why bother?"
So, why exactly did the terrorists whom you believe carried out the attacks decide to hit the Pentagon instead of a Wal-Mart? Was it "Oomph"? And why'd they do 9/11 at all? Did it have anything to do with "Oomph"? What motive, other than "Oomph", can possibly be assigned to the 9/11 attacks regardless of who did them?
And wouldn't you say that the 9/11 attacks did carry a lot of "Oomph", much more than any other previous terrorist attack? And wouldn't you agree that that large amount of "Oomph" has been exploited to pass the Patriot Act and launch two wars, among much else? So, how is "Oomph" exactly an implausible motive for hitting high-profile targets like the WTC and the Pentagon?
And why'd they choose to hit the section of the Pentagon that was being renovated, instead of killing lots of top US military officials by hitting any other part of the Pentagon (including the roof, which would have been much easier to hit)? Your "Oomph" argument doesn't address that. What possible motive could they have had for that?
sofla said...
I know it seems as if I have been cherry-picking eye witnesses' testimony, dismissing or even damning some or most, while relying on others as true or supportive.
That's not entirely untrue, but there is a reason that makes it legit, in my scenario. Many of those witnesses were simply naive consumers of the 'son et lumiere' (sound and light show) special effects, and received the impression that was intended to be made on observers (corresponding to the general audience at a David Copperfield show). They 'know what they saw,' but that was a carefully stage-managed visual and audio presentation.
However, some largish number of those saying they were witnesses there were, per the prior poster's reference to Dave McGowan and his analysis (which see), likely or potentially in-house shills from the military, intel, or professional liar classes (meaning military/intel associated media types, but that would include the prior two groups as well). We've all heard of 'plants' in the audience, typically the ones that are called up to participate in the magic act. Such people have no inherent credibility nor deserve any benefit of the doubt, and rather, the opposite presumption.
Yet, the possibility exists for somebody to see something that doesn't comport with the intended point of the trick. Maybe somebody had a far side sight line allowing them to see the trap door move just before the big flash of light that should have blinded them temporarily. Or saw an artifact indicating a mirror in use. Or smelled an explosive's residue lingering in the air.
It is in the 'outlier' witnesses, the ones that do not agree with the consensus, that such revelatory information might be found. For instance, according to official accounts, that C-130 was definitely circling in that same airspace, yet only 9 of about 70 supposed eye witnesses mentioned it (according to McGowan's account).
Here, the 90% that didn't see it missed something that only the 10% or so caught, even though the C-130 is a very large aircraft that is hard to miss. Why? The trick of the distraction, integral to most magic tricks.
So, just as would occur in a trial situation with varying eye witness accounts, one must weigh what was said for credibility, including giving careful consideration to reasons why some might lie, how they might benefit from a given storyline, etc. (Gannett doesn't publish only US Today-- it publishes all the military newspapers as well.) There is nothing wrong with considering self-proclaimed eye witnesses' backgrounds as to their credibility, and everyday in this country, such associations are used to exclude jury members during voir dire, as that association is presumed to render objectivity difficult or impossible.
Now, the plain underlying fact in all these controversies is that the government has chosen to not prove their position on these events whatsoever, when it should be able to document these facts with airtight evidence.
What possible sense can be made of that failure, other than it is evidence of complicity before or after the fact?
Why don't the hijackers' names appear in any manifest list? If all were traveling under aliases and forged documents, what were the names they used, considering no OTHER Arabic names were listed for the passengers either? And if they were using such forged ids, as FBI Director Mueller admitted might be the case when this issue was first raised, how is it we know their real identities were as claimed? None appeared in airport surveillance cameras, boarding those flights. None were described or named by the supposed cell phone calls (themselves probably impossible and, again, staged affairs. Who calls their mother and identifies themselves with both first and LAST name, and close to death, asks repeatedly if she believes them? They needed a better script doctor for that scene).
911 curious wonders..
And why'd they choose to hit the section of the Pentagon that was being renovated, instead of killing lots of top US military officials by hitting any other part of the Pentagon (including the roof, which would have been much easier to hit)? Your "Oomph" argument doesn't address that. What possible motive could they have had for that?
# posted by 9/11-Curious : 3:21 PM
Well curious..that section of the Pentagon housed auditors.. whose task it was was to analyze the Pentagon budget statitics because just the day before Rumsfeld admitted in a Pentagon press briefing that over three TTTTrilion dollars was unaccounted for. The group tasked with that ponderous task and their computers were oblitterated by the "plain" explosions .
Now we shall never know where all that money has gone.
Just another step in the emptying of our Treasurey by the terrorists?
Which terrorists? You decide..its your money
Well curious..that section of the Pentagon housed auditors.. whose task it was was to analyze the Pentagon budget statitics because just the day before Rumsfeld admitted in a Pentagon press briefing that over three TTTTrilion dollars was unaccounted for. The group tasked with that ponderous task and their computers were oblitterated by the "plain" explosions .
Now we shall never know where all that money has gone.
Yeah, I've heard this argument before. Possibly true, and if so it definitely undermines the official story even further. But either way, the point remains: wouldn't real radical Islamic terrorists want to kill lots of top military guys instead of low-level auditors, etc.?
Missing Trillions
Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." 1
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror."
The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 2 3 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." 4
References to the post about missing trillions in the penatagon that day of infamy.
1. The War On Waste, CBSnews.com, 1/29/02 [cached]
2. Radar Physics Group, sysplan.com, [cached]
3. Flight Termination System, sysplan.com, [cached]
4. Profile, Dov S. Zakheim, rightweb.irc-online.org, 11/22/03 [cached]
Following Zakheim and Pentagon trillions to Israel and 9-11
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Think of this as part two of Recherche du trillions perdu, my Online Journal article on Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch.
Yet on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense. So the dark card was shifted to another part of the deck.
Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov (linked below) tells us Zakheim was/is a dual Israeli/American citizen and an ordained rabbi and had been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. He is, as I described him earlier, the bionic Zionist. In fact, Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.
Judicial Inc also points out that Israel, a country of 4.8 million Russian and Polish Jewish émigrés, flies on one of the biggest Air Forces in the world, thanks to Dov. Conflict of interest here? Depends on what you’re interested in. That is, in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.
More from the resume: Wikipedia points out that Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
As to Dov’s hell-raiser lineage, Judicial Inc points out that Grandpa Zakheim was born in 1870, Julius Zakheim (Zhabinka), in the Ukraine, a Russian rabbi who married a relative of Karl Marx. He was a Menshevik/Bolshevik and played a leading role in the 1905 turmoil that paved the way for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik master plan called for the state of Israel, which was chosen for its proximity to the world's oil and an area of religious significance.
Dov’s Father, Rabbi Jacob I. Zakheim was born in 1910 and reared in Poland’s swarm of Zionist hard guys, read assassins and bombers. His Polish town, near Bilaystok, also brought us Yitzhak Shir, and family friends included Menachem Begin and Moshe Arens. Dov’s father was an active member of Betar, formed in 1923 in Riga, Latvia. Its goal was to control the Middle East (and its oil). It was known that the Jewish people needed their own country and they chose Palestine and claimed it a Jewish state “on both sides of the Jordan.”
Betar was in essence a terrorist organization formed because Zionists were sick of being chased from and arrested in country after country. They wanted both a place to escape and a base for their power. Betar joined forces with the Haganah, Irgun, and Stern gangs. With no prospect of a Jewish state in sight, they argued that armed struggle against the British was the only way. Since Britain occupied Palestine and was containing them they went on a blood feast of bombings that killed hundreds of British soldiers. The British pulled out, but the Zionists continue to maul the Arabs to this day.
For a concise history on the Formation of Israel in 1947, I suggest this link to theocracywatch.org.
For an interesting look at “The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology” compiled from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel by Michael T. Benson, link above. For a rounded look at Israel, see Wikipedia.
Returning to Dov: he was born in Brooklyn in 1943 and attended exclusive Jewish schools, spent summers in Israel Zionist camps, which trained the Zionists of the future. As to Dov’s formal education, he graduated from Columbia University in 1970 and the University of Oxford in 1972. From 1973 to 75, he attended the London school of Jewish studies, described as a “Harry Potter” type cauldron; among the subjects Jewish supremacy, Advanced Bible, Talmud, Jewish Mysticism, Holocaust, Anglo-Judaica, and Zionism. After, he was ordained a Rabbi. From 1975 to 80, Zakheim was an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut.
As he stepped into the Reagan administration, he talked them into funding development of the Lavi Fighter at a cost of $3 billion. The Lavi was a total flop and Israel dropped it, though it owed $450 million in contract fees that were cancelled. Israel, according to Judicial Inc, also created a story that China was eager to buy the Lavi. Zakheim convinced Reagan that China had to be sandbagged. Reagan gave Israel $500 million for its lost contracts. Reagan then threw in a wing of F-16’s as a bonus and sign of good will. Do we see a pattern here, personal, familial, career-wise, of over-the-top Israeli advocacy?
Again, during Zakheim’s tenure as Pentagon controller from May 4, 2001, to March 10, 2004, over $3 trillion dollars were unaccounted for. Additionally, military Information was jeopardized and military contractors billed the US for Israeli items: $50 million dollar fighter jets were rated as surplus and the list rolls on. As the scandal of the missing trillion dollars surfaced and Dov resigned, Israel was handed the finest fighter jets in the US inventory while 15 percent of US jets were grounded for lack of parts. In whose best interest was this?
But Dov is not alone. He is one of an elite group of Jewish Americans/Israelis who inter-marry and enter government. They and their Christian counterparts are called neocons and their sole purpose is directing US policy. Most of them are dual citizens and few serve in the US military. Think of Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Ben Wattenberg, to mention a few. Whether their motivation is anger at the Muslim world, seen as a religious and territorial enemy, or a deep-rooted reaction to the Holocaust, the culmination of European anti-Semitism, their reactionary militarism becomes a world-threatening force unto itself. Hence our concern.
Dov and the World Trade Center
Perhaps not coincidentally in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center. From the '90s through 2001, WTC Security was handled by Securacom, a Kuwait-American firm, on whose board Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, sat. After 9/11, Securacom was let go, changed its name to Stratosec, and was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2002.
According to Conspiracy News.net writers Shadow and ‘Pax’ in Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy, (and I suggest you look at this link) “According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement. (5)
”As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.
“There is a photograph of the Flight Termination System module, from their site.(5). Note it has a cylindrical shape, and is consistent with the size and shape of the object observed under the fuselage of flight 175.
“The Boeing lease deal involved the replacement of the aging KC-135 tanker fleet with these smaller, more efficient Boeing 767s that were to be leased by Dov Zakheim's group. The planes were to be refitted with refueling equipment, including lines and nozzle assemblies.”
(Remember both Flight 175, that hit the South Tower, and Flight 11, that hit the North Tower, were Boeing 767s. Flights 77 and 93 were 757s.)
“In the enlargement of flight 175’s photo, we can clearly see a cylindrical object under the fuselage, and a structure that appears to be attached to the right underside of the rear fuselage section.
”When seen in comparison, it is obvious that the plane approaching the Trade Center has both of these structures-the FTS module and the midair refueling equipment, as configured on the modified Boeing 767 tankers. Of particular interest is the long tube-like anomalous structure under the rear fuselage area of flight 175-this structure runs along the right rear bottom of the plane, as it also does on the Boeing 767 refueling tanker pictured.
”After considering this information, I [the author/s] am convinced that flight 175, as pictured on the news media and official reports, was in fact a refitted Boeing 767 tanker, with a Flight Termination System attached. Use of this system would also explain the expert handling of aircraft observed in both New York and Washington investigations, which has been officially credited to inexperienced flight school students.
“Since the refitted 767s were able to carry both passengers and a fuel load, as shown in this photo, it is likely that the plane designated Flight 175 was in fact a refitted 767 tanker, disguised as a conventional commercial passenger plane.
“As shown in this photo of a 767 being serviced, the FTS unit, when in position, would be small and unobtrusive enough to be fairly innocuous (at least to casual observers, such as passengers). The smallest circle indicates the size and position of the anomaly depicted in the photos of Flight 175. The larger circle, which is the size of the engine housing, shows the size of the anomaly in relation to the engine. Note the size and position of the open hatches on the engine housing, which would tend to discredit the widely held theory that the anomaly is an open hatch or cargo door.
“As the . . . diagram shows, all flights involved in the events traveled very near many military installations, and appear to have traveled in a manner suggesting guidance and possible transfer of the control of the planes among the bases.
”Since the evidence from the World Trade Center site was quickly removed, there is little concrete evidence of the involvement of Dov Zakheim, who has since left his position at the Pentagon. However, the proximity of Eglin AFB to MacDill AFB in Florida and Dov Zakheim's work via SPC contracts and the Pentagon leasing agreement on both of these installations, combined with SPC's access to World Trade Center structural and security information from their Tridata investigation in 1993, is highly suspicious. Considering his access to Boeing 767 tankers, remote control flight systems, and his published views in the PNAC document, it seems very likely he is in fact a key figure in the alleged terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001.”
EDITORIAL RESPONSE TO READERS' COMMENTS:
”In response to some of our readers who have questioned our premise that it was Rabbi Dov Zakheim who 'called for' the Pearl Harbor type of incident, we here at Conspiracy News Net acknowledge that the PNAC document was written by the likes of William Kristol and Donald Kagan, and therefore as the real brains behind the agenda they are the ones calling for it in a literal sense. However, we do stand by our assertion that the Rabbi called for it as well, insofar that he signed his name onto this document. If he signed it he agrees with it and therefore he is calling for it.
”Some of you have argued that we are singling out Rabbi Zakheim because he is Jewish, implying that we are pushing some sort of twisted anti-Semitic agenda while noting that he is not the only one who signed the PNAC document and therefore wondering why our article is about him and not the others. We do not mean to imply that the Rabbi acted alone, our article simply points out that Rabbi Zakheim had access to things like structural integrity, blueprints and any number of important facets of information about the WTC through his work with TRIDATA CORPORATION in the investigation of the bombing of the WTC in 1993.
“That he had access to REMOTE CONTROL Technology through his work at System Planning Corporation (SPC). That he had access to BOEING AIRCRAFT through a lease deal HE BROKERED while working at the Pentagon.
“ . . . Finally that he was part of a group of politically radical Straussian Neo-Conservatives, who, through their association with PNAC, called for restructuring of the Middle East, noting that a Pearl Harbor type of event MAY BE NEEDED to foster the frame of mind required for the American public to accept such a radical foreign policy agenda. In light of all this information we here at Conspiracy News Net stand by our statement that Mr. Zakheim not only called for the slamming of the WTC Towers on 9-11, but he activity took part in their demolition by providing the logistics necessary for such an attack to occur.”
Coda, a Bitter Frosting on the Cake
Whether or not you agree in whole or in part with these findings, here is an eye-opening article originally from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by Milan Simonich. It is titled Army unit piecing together accounts of Pentagon attack, and from it comes this striking information in paragraph six . . ."One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.”
Apart from the question of whether it was F 77 that struck the Pentagon, it is more than ironic that accountants, bookkeepers and budgets analysts, the very people who could pick up the financial frauds were struck. Especially since the hit was directed supposedly at the Office of Naval Intelligence.
Nevertheless, Dov is busy at his Booz Allen job, involved in Strategic Services and who knows what other dark plans as we speak, even as the Middle East is under heavy fire once again from Israel and its fervid ally, the US government.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
this is the website where the previous post was found
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml
more to consider...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x100059#112271
pop some popcorn and kick back and watch this movie.."Who Killed John O'Neal"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x100059#112271
At 9:54 am, Joseph posts:
" Bodies recovered from the sea (as one commenter suggested) would be identifiable as just that. "
Joseph, by conflating the "flight 77 was flown into the sea" theory with the "DNA provided to the lab needn't have come from the Pentagon" thesis you may in your own mind have disposed of both theories, but that's really not reasonable. None of the official investigations have tested WTC debris for explosive residues. So why do you think anyone's been scouring the Atlantic and the Gulf for missing 757s? DNA samples could have been taken from the passengers before the plane was
flown into the sea.
Once again, I tend to believe a 757 was flown into the Pentagon, but I try my utmost to remain rational about all this.
TMI,
First off, I really like this site's content. Rational and not afraid to call it as the writers see it - with truth as the primary agenda.
We (and a host of others) could debate the "plane vs. missile" theories forever, at a fevered pitch, and settle nothing.
These types of forensics, when "debated" by the public for thier evidentiary value in assessing conspiracy, serve only to distract us from the real issues and evidence.
John Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy within the U.S. Government. We don't need the Single Bullet Theory to prove that. In fact, to concentrate excessively on the timing, angles, trajectories, and echoes in Dealey Plaza prevents concerned citizens from examining the conduct of those agencies and officials.
Proof is far messier when you do it that way, but you learn a lot more. You learn not only "who" but the far more important "why".
I've felt this way for a long time, but Michael Ruppert crystalized it for me much more clearly with a long piece on the topic at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html
The most powerful elements in "our" government were involved in the planning and execution of this attack on America. Staring at the Rohrshack test commonly called "physical evience" only clouds the obvious.
Devoting so much space to the topic encourages this distraction, and risks another "History Will Not Absolve Us" being writting about us.
Joseph, as to your "ooomph" question about why "Mr. Evil" could not wait until WTC2 was evacuated, the answer to that is obvious. The fires were going out. FDNY Chief Orio Palmer had radioed from the 78th floor that he was going to "knock down" and couple of "isolated" fires. He didn't say "Oh my God, look at those sagging floor trusses, look at those buckling perimeter columns, look at that blazing inferno--we're all going to die!"
Ok, somebody answer this. Bush could have and perhaps would have started the wars without 911 ever happening at all and his reasoning would have been because of WMD threats. Oh What? You mean that IS his reasoning? Yes he used 911 to his benefit but if he had planned 911 to be "the thing" to justify his wars he wouldn't have flown planes into our buildings. Think about it.
Miss P.
4. I'll be looking into the video controversies later. Can we have some quotes along the lines of "They took my video away?" I'm just looking for something definite...
Here
That wasn't hard.
Thanks Infernal. I will look into it. Until then, note the double standard: Suddenly the Washington Times becomes a reliable source of information! Meanwhile, it is presumed that every living person who ever worked for USA Today (a rather less risible journal) must be a fiendish liar from hell. Or are jouralists considered reliable if and only if they say something helpful to a pre-determined theory?
Another question: If another video ever turned up and it showed a 757 hitting the Pentagon, would you not presume video fakery? In other words, have we not entered the realm of the non-falsisfiable? In other words, has this not become a matter of religion?
Suddenly the Washington Times becomes a reliable source of information!
Well, maybe it's part of Moon's plot to take over the world ;-) Yeah, the Wash Times quote has a feeling of the unreal to it: "A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage..." But the hotel employees were watching it! By the way, which hotel was that?
Take that one with a grain of salt then. The Richmond Times article (in the longer version here at least gives the witness a name (Jose Velasquez)
Asking why the Evil Doers hit the side of the Pentagon where there were no top brass seems silly to me.
There are 5 sides to the building. It was a 1-in-5 chance they'd hit that side (although I know the plane did some loop-de-loops and did not fly directly into the building from the direction it came from).
***
Yes, any "new video" -- whether it is of the Pentagon or the WTC -- makes me quite suspicious. How would be be sure it was shot on 9/11 and not invented or manipulated afterwards?
And could everyone stop with the "no hijackers on the manifests" bullshit?
IT ISN'T TRUE!
I have a printout from the Boston Globe's website from September 13 or 14, 2001 that has a list of passengers from Flight 11 -- and all five named hijackers are on it.
They are not on the lists for the other flights and are usually not included on AA11, but they were on at least one time.
Why the Pentagon was hit is very simple.... can't have the American people blaming the DOD down the road for complicity (as when the 9/11 commission GOP chairman, handpicked by Bush, admitted recently that NORAD so obviously lied under oath to the commission that they seriously considered forwarding this testimony to DOJ for consideration of criminal charges).
WHY did NORAD have at least three different versions of what happened, and the last one STILL is a lie so obviously untrue that Chairman Tom Kean (former GOP governor of NJ) and Co-Chair Lee Hamilton thought they ought to be charged with perjury?
Well, at least THEY couldn't have done it or been involved, or THEY wouldn't have hit themselves. Right? Because nobody could be that diabolical, could they? (Yes, Virginia, they could.)
As for one paper once putting the hijackers on a list of passengers... Was their report of that said to be a report of the exact manifest, or rather 'the people we know were on the plane'? For, by a bootstrapping argument, a paper could take a) the reported manifest list (missing any hijacker names), and b) add to it the names of the hijackers 'we know' were on the plane, for a 'complete' list of those on the plane.
I have read lengthy reviews of what are purported to be all the manifest lists provided by the airlines to media, and none of them have any Arabic names, let alone the supposed names of the hijackers.
Moreover, as we are now talking about the alleged Pentagon attack plane, not the planes that allegedly attacked the WTC, your citation of this claimed listing of hijackers aboard the flight __for Flight 11__ does not prove anything about the Pentagon flight's manifest, let alone that the claim they weren't on it 'is bullshit.'
As a matter of fact, you ADMIT in a backhanded way that the claim you say is bullshit is TRUE (as to the Pentagon airplane). Isn't that true?
Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 14, 2006
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm
Why the Pentagon was hit is very simple
I didn't ask why the Pentagon was hit. I simply don't put much stock in making a big deal about what side was hit.
As for one paper once putting the hijackers on a list of passengers... Was their report of that said to be a report of the exact manifest, or rather 'the people we know were on the plane'?
As you should know, no offical manifests have ever been released. The jpegs of computer printouts making the rounds earlier this year could be accurate, but they could also be manipulated. It's hard to know when they're released almost five years after the fact.
When people say "on the manifest" they must be talking about the lists that were published in newspapers and magazines, because those are the only ones we have. People say the hijackers' names were never on them. That is not true.
For the record, just so we're clear, my personal opinion is that people connected to the US government (most of whom we probably do not know by name) knew exactly what was going to happen (and how and when) and helped it happen (possibly years in advance).
The manifest thing bugs me because it is not true -- and all 9/11 researchers should be 100% sure of what they say has been reported (Atta's passport was not found on the streets near the WTC) so as not to be caught in some game of "gotcha" by others.
Sorry for the off-topic post. Now back to F77 ...
I simply don't put much stock in making a big deal about what side was hit.
Well I do. The side that was hit was the only side that had been reinforced with bomb-resistant kevlar, it was the only side that was under construction (so 80% of those killed on the ground were civilian construction workers), it was quite overtly under construction so the 9/11 plotters should have known to hit another side and it was (some say--I haven't confirmed) the place where the people working on the missing $2.3 TTTTTrillion were officed and/or the offices of Naval Intelligence (Delmart Vreeland was in Naval Intelligence).
[i] If he had planned 911 to be "the thing" to justify his wars he wouldn't have flown planes into our buildings. [/i]
Hi Miss P 6:34.
They wanted to do Afghanistan before Iraq for three reasons: the invasion would go down easier with the UN, it would be easier to claim victory than in Iraq, and they needed to rush so the November opium planting could happen. Osama was thus necessary. Maybe he insisted on bombing the towers. A WMD threat is not sexy without fireballs, and for Osama to set off a WMD attack would not be credible.
Also, a WMD attack would not spread terror like a bus or plane attack. The idea that it could happen anywhere is essential to the terrorist effect. It's easier to convince rubes that some nut might
fly an airliner into their church services than it is that Saddam's agents will plant a bomb. They remember to be scared of planes every time one flies over but after a while you forget to be afraid of being bombed. The airplane threat justifies the "lion dust" security
measures. After a few months without bombings, you figure you can relax on security, but with planes
you can always claim it's only the security measures that prevents an attack.
watch the groovy movie at www.wkjo.com and be thrilled, amused, impressed, stunned, inspired (by the cinematic originality)and educated..all for free.
If another video ever turned up and it showed a 757 hitting the Pentagon, would you not presume video fakery?
Me, personally? No, I'm agnostic on the question of what hit the Pentagon (as I am about most things 9/11).
What I do know is that the circumstances surrounding the Pentagon crash (for lack of a better name) are fishy (FBI agents arrive within minutes to confiscate a videotape from a gas station? And the tape is never heard of again?)
That, and the whole 9/11 thing is fishy enough for several oceans.
Post a Comment