A Missile, Not Flight 77
|
|
|
Defense Secretary:
"This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?" Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness. First, he admits what few else dare: "There were lots of warnings." Immediately after this sentence, though, the Secretary starts to qualify it. He subtly plays the "we didn't connect the dots" card: "The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find." Although he doesn't directly say it, it would seem that Rumsfeld is insinuating that the poor, understaffed, shoestring intelligence and defense establishments can't put together intelligence in a timely manner. Now things get really bizarre. After admitting that there were plenty of warnings, he says it was up to the FBI and especially state and local law enforcement to deal with the imminent terrorist attack: "And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues." To sum up Rumsfeld's explanation: 1) The warnings were there; 2) the Defense Department and the intelligence community couldn't figure them out; but anyway 3) it was up to the FBI, state law enforcement, and local police to uncover and prevent the worst terrorist attack in US history.
And here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement: "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them." "Missile"? What missile would that be? Did he let something slip? Or was this just a gaffe? A bad choice of words? A transcription error? Until we know for sure, it deserves scrutiny. The article based on this interesting interview was "We Have to Defend Our Way of Life" by Lyric Wallwork Winik in Parade, 18 Nov 2001. The only part of the above exchange to be included is this: To Rumsfeld, the Sept. 11 attacks did not come as a complete surprise. "There were lots of warnings," he says bluntly. "The only way to deal with this problem," he continues, "is by taking the battle to the terrorists and dealing with them." Now, it is pretty bold for Parade to quote him about the warnings. Of course, the magazine then skips Rumsfeld's subsequent shifting of blame and use of the word "missile," jumping right to the innocuous final sentence of the exchange. Full text of the interview also available on
the Defense Department's site
here.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html or
if it has been removed I've archived it
here Here's a Flash Summary of the anomalies at the Pentagon "Attack" on 9-11 So now we can look at the evidence for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
The Bush Administration was just connecting the dots, perhaps? Flight 77 did disappear from the radar screen after turning back toward Washington, DC and then "something" hit the Pentagon. Was it Flight 77? The discontinuity in the tracking leaves a huge hole in the evidence. Another problem is the trajectory in the video clip of the plane/missile hitting the Pentagon. According to several researchers, including JP Desmoulins, there is no way that any plane OR missile could fit below the cover of the yellow box. They would have to be flying below the surface. Clearly the video is faked. The plane/missile would have to come in at a much higher trajectory. Besides, there are also missing frames to the sequence because there is something that should not be seen lest the ruse be laid bare.
Some observers said they thought it had the markings of American Airlines
but some said it was a small aircraft, others a missile or jetfighter.
"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into
the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN.-CNN.COM, "Up to 800
possibly dead at Pentagon", September 12, 2001 DNA is an organic molecule that is very fragile, easily destroyed by high temperatures. Not finding the large metallic pieces that would indicate a Boeing 757, the government explained that they were burned up in the intense blaze that consumed the aircraft. Then how does human tissue survive when 600 lb metal engines cannot? Can't have it both ways. So how trustworthy can thegovernment evidence be?
The New York City medical
examiner's office, using DNA analysis, has managed to identify slightly more
than half of the 2,792 people killed in the attack on the WTC towers, and it
is feared that the remains of as many as
1,000 victims may never be identified. Given the fire and collapse of
the two towers, this is not surprising. What is surprising is the contrast
between the DNA identification process in New York and the DNA
identification process that took place with respect to the victims of the
Pentagon crash. Again, there was an horrific crash and a terrible fire, but
authorities report that they identified remains of
184 (or
here) people who were aboard Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including
those of the five hijackers, but could not match the other remains with any
of
five
people
who were also known to be on the flight. In fact, the Armed Forces Institute
of Pathology claims to have identified the remains of all but
one of
the passengers on Flight 77. If they achieve their goals, the New York
investigators hope to achieve a 65% rate of identification. That is in a
situation where many bodies were found intact as many of the victims died
due to the collapse of the buildings and not due to fire. Identifying 184
out of 189 Pentagon victims is a 97% success rate in a case where we are to
believe that heat was sufficient to vaporize the fuselage and engines of the
plane, a vaporization needed to explain the almost complete absence of
wreckage left behind of the plane, but not degrade the DNA of the passengers
inside the plane. How do we reconcile a 50% rate of identification in New
York, or 65% if they achieve their goals, with a 97% identification rate in
Washington, especially where much of the DNA obtained in Washington had to
be obtained from the area where the fuselage surrounding the passengers was
before it was vaporized by the heat? The entry point was very tiny, especially just after it happened. Later, firemen brought the facade down and the hole looked bigger. Judging from the windows the entry point for this event would be approximately triple the width of the Pentagon windows. Through this hole the Bush Administration wishes for us to think that a Boeing 757 penetrated the Pentagon. You can imagine the magician that could do this trick. To make it easier look at the graphic below showing a 757 in scale with the Pentagon.
Remember, the 757 must fit into a hole the width of three windows, not the gaping hole from the later activities of the firemen. Note also that no damage to the building occurred at the points where the wings would have struck the outer wall....at over 400 mph. (A 737 would fit the damage profile better.) The fuel tanks would have increased the momentum of the wings creating a hammer-like blow to the facade. No evidence of that. Then how did all that aircraft squeeze into the relatively small hole in the Pentagon shown above? Some hypothesize that the wings became crushed against the side of the fuselage and followed it into the hole. That still doesn't explain why no damage to the exterior of the Pentagon at the point of hypothetical wing impact. Besides, the fuel tanks inside the wings should have burst and most of the fuel exploded outside the building as the plane was extruded through that small hole. Once the tanks are ruptured in the extrusion, the fuel would be squeezed out. But no problem...Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "...and the missile to damage this building..."
About the only photographic evidence of the moment of impact that remains available to the public is a very short segment in which only one frame shows some kind of object just before it hits the Pentagon. It was taken from a surveillance camera at a service station near the Pentagon. Just above the middle orange pylon can be seen a light-colored horizontal object, the heliport and above that a dark gray horizontal object. Above the yellow cabinet to its right might be imagined a tail. But just so you can see the lie without being hit across the forehead with a 2 X 4, you'll notice the date stamp in the lower left hand corner. Oops! Also, you will notice the shadow of the cabinet in the center has been sharpened up a bit with a border. You have probably noticed that shadows don't usually come with a darkened border. Much more of the analysis of the photos from this camera is available at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html and he'll show you some of the other tricks played with this video shown on CNN and authenticated by the Pentagon. Jerry Russell in an article, "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island: An analysis of the Pentagon explosion on 9-11" suggest the possibility that the surveillance video was intentionally enhanced to create a storm of controversy among critics about what actually hit the Pentagon:
So then what kind of aircraft would do the job? Here is a photo showing what a Tomahawk cruise missile did to the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1998. More on this from Xymphora. In June 2001, NORAD conducted a military exercise in Florida called 'Amalgam Virgo', a simulation of a cruise missile attack against an American military base. It was NORAD that inexplicably failed to stop any of the September 11 attacks. Well, following Secretary Rumsfeld's lead let's look at what kind of missile would enter by such a small hole, penetrate 6 walls and several intervening columns to create a nice round exit hole. There are several variations of the cruise missile, one of which would carry a hollow charge to blast the entry hole and a "depleted" uranium charge to explode inside the target.
"BROACH technology is innovative in that rather than simply using mass and speed to penetrate targets, as with conventional warheads, approximately 1/3 of the mass of the warhead is used for a large shaped charge. This "Augmenting Charge" detonates first, cleaving the target with a high speed plasma jet. A "Follow Through Bomb" then penetrates and detonates inside the target structure." See http://defence-data.com/paris99/pagep31.htm The AGM-86D Block II program is the Precision Strike variant of CALCM. It incorporates a penetrating warhead, updated state of the art, near-precision, GPS guidance, and a modified terminal area flight profile to maximize the effectiveness of the warhead. The penetrating warhead is augmented with two forward shape charges. To maximize the warheads effectiveness against hardened targets, the Block II will maneuver and dive onto its target in a near vertical orientation. The updated guidance system will increase the systems lethality by obtaining a less than 5 meter CEP. The Precision Strike variant of CALCM was successfully demonstrated in December 1996. A CALCM modified with a new precision GPS implementation flew for 4.5 hours, performed a newly developed steep terminal dive, and impacted the target within 2.5 meters of the aim point. The demonstration clearly showed that CALCM is capable of delivering it's warhead with precision accuracy from extremely long standoff ranges.
Another possible aircraft is an Global Hawk outfitted with a Broach hollow charge. At 350 kts it would be easy to confuse a missile laden Global Hawk with a passenger aircraft. The Mobile Microwave Landing System (MMLS), designated AN/TRN-45, is a portable, ground-based microwave transmitter that provides a mobile, precision approach and landing capability for MLS equipped aircraft.
Which part of a 757 did this wing section come from? It seems to have a remarkably similar profile to that of Global Hawk. Wing debris in the Pentagon matches the profile of a Global Hawk. Other debris photographed at the Pentagon seem to match Global Hawk parts and materials. Runway 15 of Reagan International Airport is on the opposite of the Pentagon and lines up quite accurately with the trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon. More images and information at http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh/pentagon.htm
Very interesting here, beyond its capacity to penetrate heavy fortification is its capability to be guided by remote to obtain an accurate navigation trajectory beyond the capability of Hani Hanjour who had never flown a large aircraft before and who had failed to convince instructors at an airport that he had the skills to land a Cessna 172 he wished to rent.. Also very interesting is the navigational ability, as of '97, of the CALCM to drop into a steep dive on its target. If, four years later, the cruise missile navigation technology has been modified to pull out into level flight to strike at ground level, then this would fit the parameters of the air strike on the Pentagon. One witness described a plane at several thousand feet making a combined dive and 270° turn to come to street level. That certainly is not a typical maneuver for a Boeing 757 and certainly not within the capability of the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour. But it might be within the capability of the CALCM 88
The lawn on the west side of the Pentagon was not damaged by the crash or
the blast. See the lawn at the Pentagon after a 100-ton Boeing 757
plows into the Pentagon. Not a scrape, not even a singe. Several
witnesses observed that the aircraft had hit the ground and then crashed
into the Pentagon. Perhaps this grass is GMO
http://www.koolpages.com/killtown911/pentalawn2000.html So why did they
cover it with several feet of sand later? If there was a "depleted" uranium
warhead used, it would leave a deadly blowback trail of fine radioactive
dust that would cause many health problems for the firemen, the
reconstruction First responders were not wearing decontamination clothing and masks until later. Absent any warnings about the dust on their clothing and boots, they probably carried a lot home with them to settle into the carpet and furnishings. Over time, the dust will begin to produce symptoms similar to Gulf War Syndrome. Or perhaps they were just bringing in very heavy equipment for the excavation of the mess. I am looking for an updated photo of the lawn on the west side of the Pentagon. Is it paved or grass? In "Decoys and the Pentagon Attack" at http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/articles/18 Dick Eastman several aircraft involved in a carefully choreographed maneuver as "distractions in a mass-murder psy-op conducted by top leaders in the White House, the Pentagon, the FAA, the FBI and the CIA." Aerial Distraction #1 -- From the west came the C-130 following behind the Boeing and over flying the crash, actually going through the column of smoke, just 30 seconds after the the explosion -- supplying a "plausible-deniability" answer any who might later claim to have seen more than one plane at the crash or to have seen a large plane over fly the crash. Want a BIG distraction in the sky? The C-130 is the very best choice they could have made. However, big as it was, think how few witnesses or news reporters mentioned the C-130 over flying the Pentagon crash site just 30 seconds after the attack! Aerial Distraction #2 -- In the east, a four-engine large jet doing dives over the Capitol Building in restricted airspace leading up to and immediately before the moment of the the crash drawing all eyes to that quarter and away from the vicinity from which the real killer jet, flying only six feet above the landscape and at more than 700 mph, would sneak up upon the Pentagon. Many thought that this was the airliner that hit the Pentagon -- all witnesses who spoke of a steep dive may have only seen this aircraft ...Joe Vialls found the ...BBC video tape of this same plane while in the same dive that he had recorded on September 11 -- except that Joe believed the BBC that this was the real plane, and used this clip from the broadcast to "disprove" the small-plane thesis. But, as investigators immediately pointed out this is a four engine plane and the wings are swept back too far and the root of the wing is far too close to the cockpit for this to be a Boeing 757. BUT IT DID MAKE A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE DISTRACTION WHILE DIVING OVER THE CAPITOL AFTER EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE WTC ATTACKS EARLIER THAT MORNING. And each of these three distractions did their part in concealing the approach and identity of the real killer jet. The F-16 which fired a missile ahead of its own crash into the Pentagon. Discussing September 11 in his recent book, My Jihad: The True Story of an American Mujahid's Amazing Journey from Usama Bin Laden's Training Camps to Counterterrorism with the FBI and CIA (Guilford, Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2002 by Aukai Collins says on p. 248, "I was very mistrustful about the fact that Usama Bin Laden's name was mentioned literally hours after the attack. When I combined this with the fact the FBI had no apparent desire to accept what I brought to the table, I became very skeptical about anything anybody said about what happened, or who did it. I thought back to when I was still working for them and we had the opportunity to enter Bin Laden's camp. Something just hadn't smelled right. There were also the details I knew personally about Hani Hanjour, one of the 'hanky-panky' hijackers on the Pentagon flight. He wasn't even moderately religious, let alone fanatically religious. And I knew for a fact that he wasn't part of Al Qaeda or any other Islamic organization; he couldn't even spell jihad in Arabic." We are supposed to believe that this 'hanky-panky Arab' was so full of commitment to jihad that he piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition of witnesses telling that Hanjour didn't have the requisite skills to handle a Cessna much less a "heavy" such as a Boeing 757, Stanley and Russell note that "a high-speed attack directed at the first floor of the Pentagon would have been difficult to carry out accurately because of turbulence and ground-effect...". Leaving aside the fact that Hani Hanjour wasn't nearly skilled enough to have piloted that plane into the Pentagon, he also clearly wasn't anywhere close to being pious enough to give up his life for a religious cause. He fails the test as a Mujahideen. Stanley and Russell suggest that leaving the results to the imponderable variables of real world physics might have lead them to hedge their gamble with a missile at the Pentagon and demolition at the World Trade Center. On Sept.13-14 the FBI explained that "Flight 77" did not fly to New
York, but had hit the Pentagon instead. Then they also changed the time from
9:30 to 9:43 (or 9:45). Then there is the large plane identified by some eyewitnesses as a C-130 flying above the plane/missile before it struck the Pentagon.
'HORRIFIC' IMAGE STILL HAUNTS SURRY WOMAN DISASTER VIEWED FROM ARLINGTON
HAMPTON
ROADS WOMAN SAYS SHE, TOO, SAW PLANE FOLLOWING JET THAT HIT PENTAGON
The Pentagon denied that any C-130 was near the flight path of "Flight 77" until one month later. http://www.the-movement.com observes: "Over a month later Pentagon officials finally decided to deliver a convenient story that the mystery plane WAS in fact a C-130 that flew out of Andrews Air force base and just happened to see flight 77 on its way to destruction. It followed the plane on a request from air traffic control. If this is true, surely you'd think that a fighter from the same base could have intercepted the plane instead of having to ask a C-130 that just happened to be in the area to have a look? C-130 CREW SAW PENTAGON STRIKE,
OFFICIAL CONFIRMS An article originally from the New York Times gives a similar explanation of what the c-130 was doing there. At 9:36 a.m., National Airport, which was on Flight 77's flight path, asked a military C-130 cargo plane, taking off on a scheduled flight from Andrews Air Force Base - in Maryland, on the other side of the District of Columbia - to intercept and identify the fast-moving target. The crew of the C-130 said it was a Boeing 757, moving low and fast. Again http://www.the-movement.com observes: "All of this certainly adds a lot of fuel to the popular theories that the planes were being flown by remote control, especially now we have evidence to suggest that an unknown plane or flying object has been sighted at the WTC, flight 93 and now at the Pentagon." Please note the article by Joe Vialls at Fly a Jumbo Jet in Ten Easy Lessons and the report of a Portuguese investigation that did not get reported in the US media at US Government accused of 9-11:
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of
Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has
concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved
in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft. Finally, although it is only circumstantial evidence, the behavior of the US Government in swooping in quickly to took all surveillance videos and not ever releasing this information seems highly suspicious. The only reasonable explanation is that these silent witnesses to the attack on the Pentagon might have shown what really happened and that would not coincide with the Official Conspiracy Theory. It's not yet a slam dunk. Except for a few anomalies such as a landing strut and a gear from a rotary actuator of a wing slat, much of the evidence points toward other types of aircraft other than the Boeing 757. Both of these artifacts could have been planted, may not have been photographed in the debris, or the person who identified the Boeing 757 piece could have been a disinformationist. It's so hard to be sure. One can only look at the evidence available and draw provisional interpretations. Some of the evidence for a missile, specifically a cruise missile, cannot be easily refuted or questioned. You must decide if the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, lied about the missile, or lied that an American Airlines Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. I think he slipped and admitted it was a missile. When telling lies, it is so easy to forget which is the fact and which is the lie. The truth will out nevertheless and we, the People, must often read between the lines, or, more accurately, read between the lies.
See also:
Clues to the Murderers of 9-11
August 11, 2004
September 8 2004 For an excellent analysis of what did or did NOT happen at the Pentagon on 9-11 see Dave McGowan's careful analysis at http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr7.htm
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
|
|
New information
on accessible
|
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by
Lyric Wallwork Winik (yes, that's her real name), a columnist for Parade,
the magazine that comes in many Sunday newspapers across the US. Although
Parade is one of the most mainstream magazines imaginable (think
People meets the Saturday Evening Post), Winik blindsided
Rumsfeld with a question that few reporters/interviewers have the guts to
ask:
The "something" that hit the Pentagon slammed through six walls before
it left an exit
hole approximately twelve feet across. Can you imagine something in an
aluminum aircraft that could remain intact through six walls, multiple
pillars and leave an exit wound so small. It can't be one of the engines
because there is only one hole and the exit hole is consistent with the
trajectory of the fuselage, not an outboard turbine. Besides, this is
too near the opening and an engine would not have burned up in a fire in the
open courtyard. The nose cone of the 757 is made of a very hard carbon
compound that could not be expected to survive crashing through all that
structure
and still have enough momentum to blast a twelve foot hole in the heavy wall
in the Pentagon. It's starting to seem as though Secretary Rumsfeld
might be right!
crews and the workers at the Pentagon. To stabilize the situation,
sand would provide a barrier that would keep the radioactive dust in place.
A clue that will begin to show up almost immediately would be health
problems of the firemen and their families.
