"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."
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
in an interview with Parade Magazine on October 12th, 2001,
from inside the Pentagon
This slide is played for more than 40 seconds,
apparently for dramatic emphasis.
Evidence for the missile theory? -- Hardly.
A jetliner used as a weapon is often referred to as a missile.
Alternatively, Rumsfeld's remark may have been calculated
to seed the no-plane hoax.
9:38. Arlington, Virginia.
Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330-degree turn at 530 miles per hour,
descending 7000 feet in two and a half minutes
to crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the ground floor of the Pentagon.
Loose Change hints at but fails to explicate
a set of facts about the attack that are undisputed --
facts relating to the
location of the strike.
The daring maneuver resulted in the plane hitting
the newly renovated, sparsely occupied portion of the Pentagon,
"[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds
which they said it did without going into a high speed stall."
"The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those
high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky..."
-Russ Wittenburg, commercial and Air Force Pilot who flew two of
the planes used on 9/11, WingTV
Russ Wittenburg did not fly two of the planes used on 9/11,
he flew Boeing 757s and 767s -- two of the types
of planes used on 9/11.
Its final approach took it directly across Interstate 395,
knocking light poles out of the ground and
bouncing off the lawn before impact.
Although a few of the
numerous eyewitness reports
suggest that a portion of the plane hit the ground before impact,
neither the official story nor the crash evidence
support the idea that the plane "bounced off the lawn" before impact.
attacks this straw man argument repeatedly as if it's
a key underpinning of the account of Flight 77's crash.
First, Let's meet Hani Hanjour.
Hanjour had come to Freeway Airport in Boui Maryland
one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, when Hanjour went on three test runs
in the second week of August,
he had trouble controlling, and landing, a single-engine Cessna 172.
my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway.
Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him
is... He showed at the airport and wanted to get
checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified
he didn't come to us for flight training.
Yeah, he already had a pilot's license.
He already earned it,
it was private, instrument,
commercial at a school in Arizona.
I don't remember the name of the school.
He already had certificates in hand and
we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us
that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft.
Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?
This was the case of Hani,
he wanted to get checked-out as we call it to rent our aircraft.
And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors
to be found competent to rent.
And that was the process that he was going through.
And consensus was, he was very quiet,
average, or below average piloting skills,
English was very poor.
So, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his demeanor.
At that time very uneventful from my perspective.
The flight instructor's interview isn't very informative --
not nearly as interesting as the
words of another instructor
reported by the New York Times:
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon.
He could not fly at all."
Regardless, air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport
that were tracking Flight 77
all thought that it was a military plane.
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned,
we all thought ... all of us experienced air traffic controllers,
that that was a military plane"
-Danielle O'Brien, ATC at Dulles International Airport ABCNews (9/14/01)
This is misleading because it omits context.
O'Brien goes on to say
"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe,"
making it clear that the air traffic controllers' opinion
was based on the way the plane was being flown.
The implication that the maneuvers were beyond the capabilities of a 757 is
Second, the lightpoles ...
On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet on route to Houston to pick up
George Bush, Senior
clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing
at Houston's Hobby Airport.
The wing ripped off upon impact, scattering debris over a hundred yards.
And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear five light poles
completely out of the ground,
without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.
Instead, they seemed to have just popped out of the ground.
does not support the idea, implied by Loose Change,
that the Gulfstream II crashed because it clipped a lamp-post.
(The plane crashed 1.5 miles from the airport.)
But even if it did, the Loose Change's errors would include:
Ignoring the differences between the two crashes:
small (Gulfstream-II) versus large (Boeing 757) aircraft;
low-speed (150 mph) versus high-speed (530 mph) impact;
and potential differences in composition of the lamp poles
at the two different crash sites.
Asserting without evidence
that Flight 77's wings weren't damaged by the lamp poles.
Claiming that the lamp poles near the Pentagon weren't damaged,
when the very photographs it displays
clearly show that poles are severed off.
Implying that lamp poles breaking off at their bases is peculiar,
when in fact they are built with breakaway bases for the safety of motorists.
Third, you only have to look at photos from that day
to realize that whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off the lawn.
If Flight 77 had crash landed and skidded into the Pentagon,
it would have looked like this.
This is a straw man argument
based on the baseless claim that the plane bounced off the lawn.
However, parts of the plane did hit obstacles on its low-angled approach.
The left engine apparently clipped a retaining wall,
whose damage can be seen in the far right of the adjacent photograph.
Instead it looked like this, without a single scratch on the lawn.
In the photograph Loose Change features (shown above),
the chain-link fence behind the firefighters appears close to the building.
However, it is actually about 100 feet from the facade.
The photograph to the right shows that the lawn within 100 feet
of the facade was not "without a single scratch."
Fourth, Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?
You know, it, it might've appeared that way
but from my closeup inspection there's no evidence
of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only sight is the actual side of the building that's crashed in,
and as I said the only pieces left that you can see
are small enough that you can pick up in your hand.
There are no large tail sections, wing sections,
a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate,
that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon ...
To the contrary, there are many traces.
Available photographs show engine parts, landing gear parts,
and scraps of fuselage that match the livery of an
American Airlines Boeing 757.
The unidentified FOX reporter may not have realized that the plane
was going 500 mph or had any familiarity with the results of
high speed plane crashes.
The plane did not crash near the Pentagon, it punctured through
its first-floor facade.
numerous photographs of aircraft debris
show areas that may not have been visible to the reporter.
The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel
vaporized the entire plane.
Indeed. From these pictures,
it seems that there is absolutely no trace of a Boeing 757.
This is another straw man argument.
Although someone may have said the plane was vaporized,
it has never been the official explanation.
Building Performance Study
describes the plane plowing into the first floor.
The extent of the facade punctures meant that the impact
injected the vast majority of debris inside the building,
where it was not readily visible.
The very photograph that Loose Change
uses to claim there is "no trace of a Boeing 757"
shows a great deal of crash debris.
And other photographs, such as the one on the right,
show scraps identifiable as pieces of an American Airlines jet.
But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo-jet
then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 people
found at the Pentagon?
The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory,
which was responsible for the task,
was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville.
Keep that in mind for later.
Even ignoring the fact that
a 757 is not a "jumbo-jet,"
and that the plane was not "incinerated,"
the idea that even severe fires render bodies unidentifiable is not supported.
The 2003 Station Night Club fire in Rhode Island
killed 97 people, but did not prevent their identification.
Even if the conditions of a jetliner crash created especially severe fires,
the flames would not be uniformly distributed,
and bodies, which are 70% moisture,
would tend to outlast aluminum, which burns fairly easily.
So what is a Boeing 757 made of? I called Boeing to ask, but ...
The operator informed me that Boeing refuses to give out
any information regarding the construction of their aircraft.
Due to the attacks of September 11th.
The point of this being?
Is it a suspicious secret what planes are made out of?
But what we do know is that a 757 has two Pratt & Whitney engines
made of steel and titanium alloy
which are nine feet in diameter
twelve feet long and weight six tons each.
This oversimplifies the size of a turbofan engine and its parts.
Only the fan has a diameter of (slightly less than) nine feet,
while all of the other compressors and turbines have only
a fraction of that diameter.
Titanium has a melting point of 1688 degrees Celsius.
Jet fuel, also known as kerosene,
is a hydrocarbon, which can retain a constant temperature
of 1120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes, but only if the fuel is maintained.
The fuel would have burned off immediately upon impact.
Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel
and titanium was vaporized by kerosene.
This is a straw man argument (no one claims the engines were vaporized)
following two errors:
Jet fuel won't burn at 1120 Celsius unless it's
burned in pre-heated or pressurized air.
The jet fuel did not burn off "immediately"
but burned for several minutes.
Likewise, the two engines should have been found relatively intact
at the Pentagon.
Instead, there was a single turbojet engine
approximately three feet in diameter
found inside the building.
No, a turbine rotor (not engine) was found outside the building.
Perhaps "engines should have been found relatively intact"
if the Pentagon were made out of bamboo.
Since when has an engine survived a 500-mph impact with
a masonry building relatively intact?
Furthermore, a number of other engine parts
were not only found, but documented in photographs.
The 3-foot-diameter rotor in the photograph was outside of the building,
consistent with a Boeing 757.
After this photo was published by American Free Press
readers wrote in to suggest that the turbine was a piece was
auxiliary power unit (APU) mounted in the tail section of a 757.
Chris Bollyn contacted Honeywell in Phoenix, Arizona,
the manufacturer of a 757's APU.
An expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity told him that:
"There's no way that's an APU wheel.”
Bollyn then contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce,
the two companies that manufacture 757 engines.
Pratt & Whitney pointed Bollyn towards Rolls-Royce
and John W Brown a spokesman for Rolls-Royce told Bollyn that:
"it is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with,
and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."
Why? Because Bollyn had contacted the Indiana plant
that makes engine parts for small planes.
Not working in a factory that services 757 engines,
Brown wouldn't be expected to be familiar with the part.
In an article written by Karl Schwartz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC
and I-nets Security Systems,
He believes that the piece is a JT8D turbojet engine from
the US Air Force A3 Skywarrior.
The piece in the FEMA photo is the front shaft bearing housing.
Jet engines have a center shaft which must be balanced
as well as bare seals on the front and back.
The [FEMA] photo shows the front seal and a rotor hub
missing its fan blades.
These blades are easily removed in a collision
such as the one found at the Pentagon.
The graphic at the right shows that the photograph that Karl Schwarz
tells us is from an Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine obviously is not.
Nor do A-3 Skywarriors have JT8D engines --
they have J57-P-10 engines.
The United States Air Force has only a few A3's left in operation,
And they're stored in Van Nuys California at Hughes Aircraft,
which is now better known as Raytheon.
So if this piece didn't come from a 757,
then where? And where are the engines from Flight 77?
This digression into the A-3 theory is a product of a chain of errors.
Mis-describes a turbine rotor as a turbojet engine.
Cites a sensationalist story in
American Free Press
suggesting that the rotor isn't from an APU or
AE 3007H (the kind of engine used in a Global Hawk).
Showcases the pet theory of Karl Schwarz,
whose only qualifications mentioned are being President
and Chief Executive Officer of two companies of questionable existence.
presents no evidence for the A-3 Skywarrior theory
but does show us a picture of an A-3 firing a missile.
The second identifiable piece of debris was allegedly
a piece of the fuselage.
Skeptics have claimed that this is proof
that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
But this piece could have come from any American Airlines plane.
And why is it not singed or scratched after a 530 mph impact
and a subsequent fireball?
The second of how many pieces?
To listen to Loose Change
one would think there were exactly three pieces of aircraft debris
at the Pentagon crash site.
Should the piece have been singed by the crash?
It's not difficult to find photographs of unsinged pieces
in other jetliner crashes,
such as the remains of a DC-10 in the photograph to the right.
The third piece of debris is a diffuser case.
Lets look a little close at the diffuser case of a 757.
Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings?
Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the Pentagon.
Loose Change shows a diagram of a diffuser case that
doesn't match the diffuser case debris in the photograph.
But what engine does their diagram illustrate?
Is it either of the two types that 757s come equipped with:
Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engines or Rolls-Royce RB211 engines?
Flight 77 apparently had RB211-535E4B engines.
The diagram at the right shows an RB211-535 series engine,
whose diffuser case does appear to match the debris.
The remainder of the debris was light enough to have been carried by hand.
Some of the parts that Loose Change
fails to mention include
landing gear wheel hubs,
a landing gear shaft,
and pieces of fuselage about the size of a person.
And employees at the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box
shrouded in a large tarp.
Why the mystery?
In fact, the blue object is a tent,
not a box with mysterious plane parts,
as Russell Pickering has pointed out on PentagonResearch.com.
Other photographs show views of blue-and-white tents
that clearly match the light object being carried by the men.
If Flight 77 was vaporized on impact,
it would be the first time in aviation history.
For example. August 15th, 2005.
Helios Airways Flight 522, a Boeing 737, en route to Athens, Greece
crashed into a hillside at full speed.
121 passengers, all dead.
Fire. Tail sections. Wing sections. Engines. Cockpit. Bodies.
Catch my drift?
continues to work the 'vaporizing plane' straw man.
The Pentagon crash may have left less large debris
than the Helios Airways crash, but it's hardly surprising,
given the estimated 530-mph speed of the Pentagon crash.
Press reports of the Helios Airways crash do not appear to support
assertion that the 737 hit the ground "at full speed."
Fifth, why is the damage to the Pentagon completely
inconsistent with a Boeing 757?
[computer graphic crash simulation]
Damage to facade fitting the frontal profile of a 757,
with punctures in the paths of the densest parts of the plane,
and breached limestone in the paths of the wing ends.
Damage to a swath of columns inside the building,
with the columns consistently bent in the direction of the plane's travel.
Damage to the generator and retaining wall consistent with
the paths of a 757's two engines.
Fires spread far along the facade immediately after impact.
These photos were taken before the roof of the outer ring had collapsed.
The only damage to the outer wall is a single hole,
no more than sixteen feet in diameter.
This is wildly inaccurate.
Pre-collapse photographs clearly show that the facade
was punctured for a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor.
To make its point Loose Change
shows you a photo in which fire spray conceals the broad
and reveals only the 18-foot-wide second floor damage.
A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high,
has a 124 foot wingspan, and weighs almost 100 tons.
Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole,
without leaving any wreckage on the outside?
No, the vast majority passed through the punctures in the first-floor facade,
which extended more than 96 feet in width.
Parts that didn't penetrate the building comprise the debris fields
outside the building.
The graphic used by Loose Change
is misleading because fire foam spray conceals the broad
Why is there no damage from the wings,
the vertical stabilizer,
or the engines would have slammed into the building
Remember how big the engines were?
If 6 tons of steel and titanium slammed into the Pentagon at 530 mph,
They would bury themselves inside the building,
leaving two very distinct imprints.
And yet, the only damage on the outside of the Pentagon is this single hole,
with no damage from where the engines would have hit.
In fact, the engines would have easily cleared the 96-foot-wide
impact punctures on the first floor.
As for the ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer,
there was extensive damage to the limestone facade far to either side
of the primary impact puncture,
and scored limestone on the fourth-floor facade --
easily consistent with the impacts of such light components
of the airframe.
Again Loose Change displays a photograph in which smoke obscures
most of the first-floor punctures.
To say there was no damage from where the engines would have
hit is a blatant falsehood contradicted by even that photograph.
Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact?
Why are the cable spools directly in front of the hole completely untouched?
First, the cable spools were not "directly in front of the hole."
They were between 25 and 80 feet from the facade.
(The photograph at the left, taken from about 100 feet from the facade,
gives a sense of the distances between the spools and the facade.)
The spools appear close in the previous photograph
because of the foreshortening caused by the
photographer's distance of about 500 feet.
Second, the spools were obviously not untouched,
one being visibly damaged and knocked over.
The others may have been disturbed as well.
And as for the inside of the Pentagon,
there's another hole approximately 16 feet in diameter,
found on the other side of the C ring, three rings from the impact.
For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77,
the Boeing would have had to smash through 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete.
No, the C-ring punch-out hole is 12 feet in diameter, not 16 feet.
And its being made by the aircraft
didn't require that the aircraft punch through several walls
as the passage implies.
In fact, the debris that made the hole didn't have to smash through any
steel-reinforced concrete, since only the columns were of such construction,
with the infill being brick backed by Kevlar.
The debris would not have to penetrate any intervening masonry walls,
C-, D-, and E-rings were merged on the first and second floors.
The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of light-weight carbon.
This is what usually happens to the nose of a commercial airliner
in a plane crash.
If the nose caused this hole, where is the rest of the debris from the plane?
This is another straw man,
since the official story does not blame the nose
(which, by the way, is only the frontmost portion of the
fuselage, which is about 150 feet long, and contains many materials
heavier than carbon).
The photograph shown by
shows the punch-out hole at a time after
the considerable debris that was originally piled around it
had been removed.
So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon,
smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete
and leave another 16 foot hole?
A cruise missile.
This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like
after a Tomahawk cruise missile had hit it.
See any similarities?
After repeating two gross errors flagged above
(16-foot hole, and 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete)
proposes an idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever,
by selectively showing the Pentagon's second-floor damage
and highlighting its superficial resemblance to two window bays
in a Belgrade building destroyed by a cruise missile.
Sixth, the eyewitnesses.
Some saw a huge hundred-ton commercial airliner.
And I looked off, I was, you know looked out my window I saw this plane,
jet, American Airlines jet coming.
Some saw a small, 8- to 20-passenger commuter plane.
[Witness not near Pentagon]:
So it looked to be maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet,
no markings on the sides, come in at a shallow ...
of the breakdown of reports of sightings of a jetliner (over 30)
versus a commuter jet (2 -- both from far away).
The second witness presented by Loose Change
may be Don Wright, who was in Rosslyn.
And some saw a United States Military helicopter.
... when it occurred, he said that he saw a helicopter circle the building.
He said that it appeared to be a US Military helicopter,
and that it disappeared behind the building
where the helicopter landing zone is.
And that he then saw a fireball go into the sky.
And what does the presence of a helicopter have to do with
what kind of plane hit the Pentagon?
So who's telling the truth? Take this into consideration.
April Gallop was working in the Pentagon's west side when it was hit.
In Jim Marrs' book Inside Job, April claims...
While in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once.
They never identified themselves or what agency they worked for.
They didn't tell her what to say, just made suggestions.
For example, to take the compensation money and shut up.
They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building.
They repeated this over and over.
But I was there, and I never saw a plane, or even debris from a plane.
I figure this story is to brainwash people.
Jim Marrs' book contains additional details about Gallop's
experience during the attack.
She was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit,
which she thought was a bomb.
She describes being buried in rubble.
Since April didn't see the crash, and may have been injured,
it is not surprising that she "never saw a plane":
many people who witnessed the crash were surprised
not to see recognizable plane pieces.
So if a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then what did?
Eyewitnesses inside and outside the building were thrown to the ground
by what they described as a shockwave.
At that instant, a tremendous explosion ... shook the room.
Mr. Murphy ... was knocked entirely across the room, while
[a coworker] was jolted into his office.
-Peter M. Murphy, on the fourth floor of the E-Ring, above the helipad
"... the blast of the impact was so tremendous, that from his vantage point,
it threw him backward over 100 feet slamming into a light pole
causing him internal injuries."
-Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda, 150 feet from the point of impact
"Then, about 5 seconds later, the whole hotel shook.
I could feel it moving."
-Jeff Anlauf, on the 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel
Even the Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 miles away was rocked by the blast.
A number of military personnel at the Pentagon
specifically mention smelling cordite.
"Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite.
I knew explosives had been set off somewhere."
-Don Perkal, MSNBC
"We saw a huge black cloud of smoke, she said,
saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke."
-Gilah Goldsmith, Teh Guardian
Cordite and jet fuel have two very distinct smells.
Cordite is a compound used in ammunition,
which is comprised of nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin.
It is cool-burning, produces little smoke and no flash,
but produces a strong detonation wave.
And, eyewitnesses described a bright silvery flash.
"There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark,
mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building."
-James S. Robbins, National Security Analyst & NRO Contributor
Jet fuel combustion, i.e. the planes that struck the Twin Towers,
is bright yellow at best.
[Footage of the Boeing 720 crash on a runway]
A massive smoldering fireball, no silvery flash, no shockwave.
And at the Pentagon, a tiny bright silvery flash,
which shakes nearby buildings.
reports of a concussion, smell of cordite, and silvery flash
suggest a blast may have involved more than just the deflagration of jet fuel.
However, if, explosives were involved, for example,
it is in no way inconsistent with the crash of Flight 77.
There are any of a number of possibilities,
including that the jetliner was hit by an anti-aircraft weapon
just as it collided with the facade.
Loose Change fails to credit Eric Bart,the French researcher
who compiled the extensive eyewitness collection
from which the above accounts were apparently culled.
Whatever it was, it might have been related to the two planes
that were in the air after the crash.
The first one was uniformly identified as a C-130.
"Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane --
started turning away from the Pentagon."
"The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130,
which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft."
-Anonymous, from the Naval Annex
The second plane was an unmarked white plane flying over Washington DC.
[CNN footage voiceover]:
Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park directly across from the White House,
perhaps about 200 yards from the White House residence itself
about 10 minutes ago there was a white jet circling overhead.
Now you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House,
that is restricted airspace.
No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes,
but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.
It is out of sight now, best we can tell.
It's possible that the either or both of
the C-130 that tailed the jetliner,
and the four-engine jet high above
(which may have been a KC-135), had something to do with the attack.
But this is pure speculation.
At 9:25, Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, initiated a national ground stop,
which prevents further takeoffs and requires all planes in the air to land.
The order, which hasn't been implemented since 1903,
applied to almost every single kind of a plane:
civilian, military, or law enforcement.
Certain military flights were allowed to fly during this time,
but the FAA isn't talking.
Why were these two planes allowed in the air when everyone else had to land?
It's doubtful that there was a ground stop in 1903, before aviation existed.
The 9:25 "ground stop" prevented planes from taking off.
The order for all planes to land came at 9:45,
seven minutes after the Pentagon attack,
as indicated by this
And finally, why did people keep reporting a second explosion at the Pentagon?
[FOX NEWS footage voiceover]:
Well, I can't tell you about that,
but I was just here in front of the capital,
which by the way has been evacuated,
and back toward the Supreme Court area we just heard a low muffled thud.
It sounded like a small explosion.
[FOX NEWS footage voiceover]:
There have been unconfirmed reports of second explosions here at the Pentagon,
we have not confirmed that, but again ...
Where did this fireball come from?
Secondary explosions aren't uncommon in building fires.
Seventh, surveillance from a gas station, the Sheraton Hotel,
and the Virginia Department of Transportation captured the entire thing.
However the FBI was there within minutes to confiscate the tapes,
including a warning to the employees not to discuss what they had seen.
If the government wants to prove once and for all that Flight 77
hit the Pentagon all they would have to do is release one of those tapes.
Maybe there are people in the government who don't want to prove
that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
The no-jetliner hoax has served very effectively
to hobble the '9/11 truth movement' for four years now.
Video of the crash was reportedly played for the jury in the Moussaoui trial.
Instead, they released 5 frames from a camera across the heliport,
even though none of them show a 757.
These frames may have have been selected and
to hide the 757, or may not show the plane because
it passed between consecutive frames.
The frames were leaked by an unknown source,
and helped to feed the no-Boeing theory,
possibly the goal of whoever leaked them.
And finally, why do satellite photos taken four days before 9/11
show a white marking on the front lawn,
marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon
four days later?
The path is separated from the attack trajectory by at least 10 degrees,
and appears to be related to underground services.
"The area ... had blast-resistant windows, 2 inches thick
and 2,500 pounds each, that stayed intact during the crash and fire."
-Los Angeles Times (09/16/01)
And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit
in the only section that was renovated to withstand that very same
kind of attack, and the Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office
on the opposite end of the building?
A good question indeed, based on an undisputed fact:
the location of the attack.
Unfortunately the viewer might miss this point since it follows
on the heels of a red herring -- the path in the lawn.
If the government has nothing to hide,
why are they so afraid to answer a few questions, or release a few videos?
Are government insiders
afraid to release evidence that would put an end to questions
about the Pentagon attack,
or are they having fun keeping the Pentagon