The flight data recorder and credible witness testimony are compelling evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon on 9/11.
These facts explained below have been hidden under our proverbial no(i)se for 17 years.
Every citizen on earth has a civic duty to study this information. The intentional wars and destabilizations that have followed 9/11 for example in the Middle East, the migration invasions, the divisive politics tearing apart the U.S.A, as well as the possible coming nuclear war between the USA and Russia has been perpetrated by the global
elite[mafia] who masterminded 9/11. I wrote:
This cabal is the puppeteer of the DEEP STATE […] doing all this shit [also] perpetrated 9/11. It’s the same cabal that for example manipulated Russia and the Russian year 2000 elections [as well as financed the rise of the Communists that have caused more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century].
Cambodians understand to this day how real this megadeath and starvation was.
The famous comedian Jim Carrey’s ignorant myopia (his delusion the country was improving until Trump arrived) exemplifies the apathy towards civic duty.
First view the photos and details in some comment posts (←PLEASE CLICK) on my recent prior blog about 9/11.
The subsequent sections are more verifiable, yet first an anecdotal witness. I have a friend of very high ethics who was laying tile (artistically) for a State department employee on the morning of 9/11 about 4 miles away south off of route 395 in Alexandria, VA.. That client had received a phone call not to report to work that morning before the first plane hit the WTC. I don’t know if this phone call was before the planes were suspected to be hijacked. My friend says he was down in the basement to shut off the water and he felt the foundation of the house (4 miles away) shake from the explosion at the Pentagon. Rumor is that key eye witnesses on the scene such as trucker Dave Ball who saw what they weren’t suppose to, have hence mysteriously disappeared (c.f. also and also). Destruction of the key testimony of air traffic controllers is documented.
Citizen Investigation Team’s Craig Ranke wrote:
- Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony1 about Cheney’s [countdown] discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
- Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?
- Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
- How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
It is true that from “very early on” many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized about “what hit.”
However, “what hit” is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building [also confirmed by PilotsFor911Truth]. The very question of “what hit” the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) “hit” at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years […]
In fact, we feel that the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down this incorrect “what hit” path. For example, we do not think that the alleged “leak” of the dubious five frames video [obviously Photoshopped and with the wrong time] was a real “leak” at all, but rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus on missile and drone theories of “what hit.” Likewise for Donald Rumsfeld’s supposed slip of the tongue during an interview with Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as mentioning “the missile” which “damaged this building” (the Pentagon). The DoD itself mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the proliferation of missile theories.
That obviously Photoshopped security video resulted in such absurdly false theories such as the following video (excerpted from the investigative film September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco) which claims a background tree is the tail of the airplane and that the blurry white smudge is trailing “smoke”:
The alleged-to-be smoke trail is inconsistent with reality because none of the witnesses (that saw the plane) had stated it was on fire before the explosion.
1 A biased attempt to discredit Mineta’s testimony. Although Mineta stated that (normal) travel time from his DOT office to the White House is 7 minutes (confirmed by Google Maps), his journey was accelerated by “ran down to the car, red light and sirens, went over to the White House”, “drove into the White House grounds” and “drove onto the sidewalk.” It’s inconclusive whether Mineta couldn’t have been informed (via his chief of staff John Flaherty) by the CEO of Delta Airlines until after 9:30, because the FBI has expressed suspicion of Delta flight 1989 at 9:03. Richard Clark’s testimony and any information from the goverment or 9/11 Commission can’t be trusted. Also “‘Monte, bring all the planes down!’—Monte had already done so” is inconsistent with “So Monty said, ‘We will get them all down,’.” Were both Monte and Mineta duped? Secret Service had the initial evacuation beginning at 9:18. Yet it’s plausible the countdown applied to the Shanksville, not the Pentagon.
Farcical C-Ring “Punchout” Exit Hole
How does the airplane made mostly of low-density metals such as aluminum travel in a virtualized tube — that is much narrower than the distance (on impact) between the titanium engines — through so many still intact concrete walls and columns over such a huge distance to make that relatively tiny exit hole? It can’t. Impossible.
Fig. 7. Earliest known photo, by a DoD photographer, of the near-perfectly-round 9- to 12-foot diameter alleged “exit” hole in the inner wall of the third-in or ‘middle’ C Ring. Even if all or part of the debris were from a plane, which the Pentagon's own spokesman said it was not (see below text), the quantity is clearly too little and the density too low to have created the force required to explode out such an opening.
As for claims that any part of the debris seen in these photos was from a plane, the Pentagon’s own Terry Mitchell of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Audio/Visual Division, who was given early access to the A-E Drive between the C and B Rings into which the hole opens, showed reporters a photo like the above to the media at the Pentagon’s 9/15 news briefing and clearly explained: “This is a hole in [the C Ring]. There was a punch out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn’t see any evidence of the aircraft down there…This pile [of debris outside the hole] here is all Pentagon [i.e. no plane] metal. None of that is [from the] aircraft whatsoever […] they’ve punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out.” […] 23 […]
The fact that a data file was downloaded from the alleged plane’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR) four hours before the official story says that FDR was “found” just inside this C Ring hole25 and that the data fields that could have definitively identified it as having come from the plane that flew as Flight 77 on 9/11 — or not — were intentionally “zeroed out”26 proves that this most important piece of “wreckage” was manipulated and then planted to make it appear that part of a plane had penetrated to the C Ring. This was almost certainly done by the federal agency in charge of all evidence at the Pentagon, the FBI — the same FBI whose 9/11 investigation code name is PENTTBOM[B].
[…] In addition to former NASA Dryden Flight Research Center/Research Engineering Division Chief Dwain Deets having shown that all possible straight paths between the alleged E Ring “impact” point and alleged C Ring “exit” hole had multiple steel-reinforced columns still standing, such a “slurry” would had to have reconstituted and refocused itself after being progressively shredded and dispersed from impacting multiple intervening columns, finally forming itself into a perfectly-focused cone of energy capable of exploding a near-perfectly-round hole in the inner C Ring wall. As shown by Fig. 8 from the Purdue University simulation study below, just the opposite is what would have occurred if the official story were true.
Fig. 8. Screen capture from the Purdue University simulation study showing the progressive shredding and dispersal a plane would undergo if it could have penetrated the newly-hardened outer E Ring wall specifically upgraded to withstand bomb blasts and high force lateral impacts..
As Craig Ranke alluded at the start of this blog and as quoted below, the C-Ring is obviously a psyop to proliferate the kooky “missile” theory so as to discredit sincere, astute truth seekers in the eyes of the general public. Basically 9/11 is a test of how gullible the “sheepeople” public are. As I recently cited from the Corbett Report, another example of such psyops is that in the Arab world “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” has the colloquial meaning “I’m going to the toilet.” It’s implausible that ‘the toilet’ could be the name of an Islamic movement. It’s fiction invented by the CIA (c.f. also, also, also, also). Al Qaeda was the (derogatory) name of our base and covert assets in the Middle East. Another example of this sleight-of-hand (c.f. also), Dick Cheney employs legalese to deceive by not making it clear that when he refers to the “link between Iraq and Al Qaeda” that he actually means the CIA’s former relationship with Saddam Hussein (and not some other ressentiment-based islamophobic meaning of Al Qaeda that the interviewers and viewers assume)!
What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?
Sure, this is a good strategy for opponents of "the Movement" (including "the perps" themselves [as well as all the “dupes” who promulgate “alien ray beams”]), generally speaking.
The propaganda psy-ops (aka psychological warfare) is even more sophisticated. Because regardless that a real plane actually did hit the WTC south tower, by releasing the blatantly altered Pentagon video, they (including allegedly complicit FBI director Robert Mueller) encouraged proliferation on the Internet of n00b delusion such as imagining that realistic true 3D “holographic” projection is viable or that an indestructible landing gear or aircraft engine ejected from the south tower (and landed without cracking the concrete?) is instead the easily shattered nose of the plane. Which paints all truthers as such extreme kooks that the general public ignores (tunes out, becomes callous to) all truth seeking. Psyops demoralize and desensitize the populace.
North Side Approach, Flyover
Although perhaps inconclusive as an isolated fact, it‘s notable that seismologists found no signal of a plane impact at the Pentagon.
As shown in the following linked video, the NTSB and FAA/ NORAD flight animations for United Airlines flight #77 conflict with the 9/11 Commission’s flight depiction. The former have the plane flying north of Citgo gas station. This north path — which has been well supported by the excellent Citizen Investigation Team (aka CIT, formerly Pentacon) and further supported by my explanation of the utter lack of credible conflicting witnesses (c.f. also the §No Credible Conflicting Witnesses below) — requires a bearing (i.e. compass angle) trajectory which (as depicted above) is impossible to match the farcical C-Ring exit hole at the inner atrium of the Pentagon.
The complete NTSB flight animation (shown and linked below) is presumably based on the flight data recorder (FDR) recovered at the Pentagon. The NTSB flight animation terminates with the displayed altimeter reading 180 ft without ever crashing into the Pentagon:
The following is a speculative yet plausible holistic explanation of this and other related anomalies. The perpetrators have ostensibly woven a web of disinformation cleverly obscuring their goal of avoiding provably involving the NTSB in a cover-up, whilst seeding the proliferation of incorrect kooky psyops disinformation theories (so as to bury the truth in a media circus of kooky noise). The following is the first time I believe you will have read a coherent and concise attempt to unravel the cleverness of perpetrators of this “inside job”. Pay attention to the revealing details below.
Hidden Data, North/South Side Bearing Duality
Independent hobbyist investigator Warren Stutt discovered 4 additional seconds (not “6 or 8”) in the raw, binary FDR file received from the NTSB via his FOIA request. This extra data wasn’t incorporated into NTSB’s animation. Stutt posited it was because — as he discovered that — the error correcting codes were missing from the FDR file. Surely the experts at NTSB noticed this anomaly. Yet this cleverly provides a convenient alibi for the NTSB. The L3 Communications Aviation Recorders third party ROSE software supplied to the NTSB had a bug which ignored (i.e. silently didn’t decode) subframes that are missing error correcting codes. But the NTSB ostensibly didn’t use the ROSE software. This didn’t deter others from quoting employees of the NTSB to imply the NTSB had not noticed the extra anomalous data because they adhere to standard procedures with standard software:
The NTSB explains how they generate an animation from the FDR:
Dan Bower is an Aerospace Engineer at the NTSB who is directly involved with analyzing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders. Unfortunately, there are many different formats this information can take. The FDR data, says Bower “is different for each airplane and each style of Flight Data Recorder.” Because of that, he adds, “as soon as we have an accident, we call the airplane manufacturer to get the conversion algorithms... On Bower's PC, which runs the Windows NT Operating System, he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways. “We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three, four and six degrees of freedom,” explains Bower. Within that software and other packages, Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs, using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time. While these animations don’t offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI, they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible. The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI-based animations. Once the data is moved to that machine, one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible. For this process, detailed models are used, backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene. A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation.”
After discussing an important related issue, I will delve deeper into this surreptitious, extra 4 seconds of data recovered from the FDR file obtained from the NTSB. Yet first we can speculate on motives. By corrupting the last 4 seconds of data from which NTSB must model the flight path such that the usable data terminates before an impact which (as proven in this blog) never occurred, the NTSB is relieved of culpability for not being more explicit about (i.e. not overt announcing) the undeniable, irrefutable fact that a north side approach is inconsistent with the bearing of approach required to match the alleged physical evidence of impact, such as the previously explained farcical C-Ring hole and faked downed light poles. Although I have difficulty explaining how the NTSB is not culpable for not more aggressively announcing the anomaly of the missing airplane serial number from the header of the FDR file.
Additionally the data in the FDR file (including the portion decoded into the CVS file and animated by the NTSB) indicates the barometric altimeter was set to standard atmospheric pressure. Thus in the above animation, the NTSB displayed the legitimate raw uncorrected altimeter data such as the end point 173 ft (rounded up to 180 ft). Although legitimate, that’s an intentional deception because the true altitude corrected for actual atmospheric pressure was actually ~473 ft above sea level at the corresponding end point of the animation. Ironically this 173 ft is also the true altitude at end of the extra 4 seconds of data! The duality duplicity strikes again (c.f. also below on the magnetic vs. geographic bearing declination issue)! Clever bastards. This enabled the NTSB to faithfully model the data they could decode with the standard manufacturer provided ROSE software (or by declaring the extra 4 seconds to be corrupted data even if employing the RAPS software from Flightscape Inc.) even though the totality of the data places the plane on the north side (which disallows for impact with the Pentagon that could match the observed physical damage), while also giving the impression to the naive that the plane was closer and lower at the end of the animation than it really was in reality. Presumably n00bs in the general public would be duped into the impression that the plane was close to impact and that the FDR was disrupted at that point by the impending impact. This even confused Legge and Stutt and provided an excuse for the 9/11 Commission to make the “mistake” of using the NTSB’s data end of recording time as the impact time.
This multifaceted deception drowns the search for truth in unfruitful directions that included such confused vitriol as TEN DEGREES FROM TRUE: The NTSB Animation is Flat Wrong and Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path “Contradicts” Official Story according to “Black Box Data”. Those linked bloggers are complaining that the data in the FDR file indicates 70 degrees bearing which also matches the official south side approach, yet the NSTB animation depicts an 80 degrees declination from magnetic north when considering the displayed orientation of the Navy Annex, Citgo, and Pentagon buildings as depicted in the animation.
There’s two simultaneous deceptions going on here. First, the 80 degree bearing shown above is w.r.t. magnetic north, yet we should note at the Pentagon’s location on earth, 80 degrees declination from magnetic north is also simultaneously 70 degrees declination w.r.t. the geographic north pole!
Which ‘north’ does a FDR typically record declination relative to? Magnetic or geographic? Would the Automatic Data Computer (ADC) display geographic north which doesn’t move slightly ever year? Presumably the FDR records magnetic declination because that is the metric measured by the physical compass. Thus those bloggers claim the NTSB is incompetent. But not necessarily incompetent and more likely complicit, because there’s a second deception intertwined.
The highly credible CIT witnesses which support a north side approach tend to draw a 70 magnetic declination bearing until the plane is past the Navy Annex and begins its hard turn to the right (starboard) south side and power up over the building (as described in the CIT witness videos). Which also concurs with the FAA/NORAD animation that has the plane flyover the (and emerge from over) the north edge of the Navy Annex and also fly on the north side of the Citgo gas station.
(cyan line above should be labeled “9/11 Commission flight path” not “NTSB flight path”)
Thus given the data which the NTSB decoded ends with a true altitude ~473 ft and 4 seconds before the Pentagon lawn, the north side approach theory could be consistent with both the 70 magnetic declination up until the end of the data the NTSB animated (which would place the plane roughly over the north edge of the Navy Annex) and subsequently the 80 degree magnetic declination (which is equivalent to 70 degree geographic north declination). The latter 80 degree bearing (when the plane makes a hard turn to the right and powers up over the building, as described in the CIT witness videos) as depicted by the yellow curves drawn on the photo above, wouldn’t begin until after (passing the Navy Annex which was) the end of the data decoded by the NTSB! This enables the presentation of the honest data from the FDR file to be highly confusing without making the NTSB provably complicit in a cover-up. Very clever!
Yet the perpetrators were even more clever. They ostensibly removed the error correcting codes from that extra 4 seconds of data at the end of the FDR file to seed sufficient confusion that enables the alleged disinformation infiltrators (c.f. §No Credible Conflicting Witnesses below) such as Frank Legge PhD to successfully publish an incorrect analysis which attempts to discredit the north side approach. That propagandized, psyops “analysis” is probably convincing to n00bs who have not read my corrections below.
In that paper Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Legge and Stutt erroneously claim that the apparent discrepancy between the true altitute (recorded from the barometric altimeter that measures atmospheric pressure) and the radio altitude (recorded from the radio altimeter that measures distance to the objects “below” the plane via phase shift modulation) can be entirely explained as error in the barometric altimeter:
They note that the discrepancy is 124 ft at the end of the 4 seconds of extra data recovered, compared to the average of 52 ft (or 63 ft?) for the discrepancy of the prior landings at major airports for the same FDR. They presume all of this extra 73 ft of true altitute is error in the barometric altimeter. Their justification is vacuous:
The general consistency of the radio trace over the last few seconds, shown in the graph below (Fig. 13), together with the very uniform descent shown by “true” altitude, totally rules out any possibility that the last unadjusted radio height, 4 feet, was recorded while passing over the Pentagon, as has been suggested.
The lack of upward turn in the true altitute could possibly be explained by the data ending too early. Or possibly explained by lag error at low altitude with the plane operating so far outside its designed normal use case (e.g. landing) velocities at that low altitude. And especially if the turn upwards began say only in the last 2 seconds of the data in the FDR file, because the barometric (aka pressure) altimeter was recorded only every second:
The file contains a vast amount of data, including the following essential information: the vertical acceleration every eighth of a second; longitudinal acceleration, roll angle and pitch every quarter of a second; air speed, ground speed, pressure altitude, radio height, heading and position every second; all finishing at points within the last second.
In fact, they make an assumption which is contrary to fact:
While it may be argued that the radio altitude can have a significant error under cruise conditions, the likely error close to the ground, less than 1 foot, is well established and confirmed here by the study of data in the FDR file, produced while the aircraft was taxiing, as described above.
They studied the prior error in the radio altimeter at normal approach landings velocities and taxiing. The performance of the radio altimeter at those very high speeds can’t establish its error when the plane is operating egregiously outside its rated limits. The airplane was accelerating to 480 knots as it reached the Pentagon!
Pilots for 9/11 Truth explained this factual error:
A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.
Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.
The NTSB didn’t even include the radio height data in the decoded CSV file they provided in response to FOIA requests. So the NTSB knew and indicated that the radio altimeter data was erroneous; thus implicitly admitting that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Note the “outside the capabilities of a standard 757” referred to in the quote above is not related to the “pull-up after passing over the VDOT radio antenna tower” g-forces issue which Legge and Stutt rebutted.
Legge and Stutt thus presume all the 73 ft of excess discrepany is error in the barometric altimeter:
This analysis clearly shows that the claim that the FDR file provides evidence that the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon is without foundation. It is true that the altimeter indicated that the plane was too high but the radio height system did not. Based on the data and analysis presented above, there is no reason to distrust radio height but there is ample reason to distrust the altimeter on descent at low altitudes, especially at very high speeds.
There’s ample reason to distrust the radio altimeter operating egregiously far outside its designed maximum speed limits (given it’s normally only employed near the ground at low speeds, and not at cruise altitute with high velocities). Also as the plane accelerated upward to flyover the Pentagon as seen by the CIT witnesses, the radio altimeter could be potentially measuring echos off the heliport tower and/or trailers that were placed in front of the Pentagon. Sean Boger was the air traffic controller in the Pentagon heliport tower right next to the alleged impact point. He was originally duped by the deception. Sean later clarified that the plane was headed directly at him while he was in the tower and he ducked so couldn’t actually see if it hit or flew over.
Legge and Stutt admit that the plane is under extreme aerodynamic stress at that juncture:
The vertical acceleration shows a curious pattern. It is not possible for the plane to be controlled in such a way as to produce a motion with the observed high frequency of reversal. It therefore seems likely that some part of the plane is fluttering, as occurs with excessive speed. It is interesting that this does not appear till about 4.5 seconds before impact, at which point the plane has accelerated to about 470 knots, significantly above the “maximum dive velocity”, 410 knots. As fluttering will eventually damage or destroy an aircraft, this observation may give an indication of the size of the air speed safety margin, a figure which does not appear to be available to the public.
In fact the FDR file recorded that the wheel of the plane turned very hard to the right during just after 8 seconds before the end of the file, and the plane began to roll to the right. The pitch of the nose even began to turn upwards at 2 seconds remaining.
As well the vertical, upward lift g-forces started to increase just after 4 seconds remaining as the plane decelerated vertically and plausibly began to turn upwards in the last 2 seconds as the g-forces peaked at just under the 2.5g design limit of the airplane.
Legge and Stutt claim that the negative horizontal acceleration (i.e. deceleration of forward direction) is indicative of impact:
The longitudinal acceleration shows a severe negative deviation at the end; the maximum value possible in the data file, as would be expected from collision with a substantial object.
Since the error correcting codes are missing and given the “maximum possible”2 longitudinal acceleration value of -1g is written in the last record in the file compromising an incomplete frame (i.e. chopped off), we can’t be sure that it’s not an erroneous value. Also the vertical acceleration suddenly increases and should instead be abruptly decreasing if there’s impact. And even if it was not erroneous, 1g deceleration is inconclusive because even NIST stated the average deceleration was 30g. Which means the peak deceleration on impact would have been greater than 100g (if it had occurred). Negative 1g deceleration is equivalent to maximum braking of a car. Perhaps it’s plausible to achieve a momentary -1g horizontal deceleration in flight with a combination of lurching the pitch of the nose upward, activating the spoilers, and at least on some airplanes the ability to activate reverse thrusters in flight. And remember that CIT has documented that the plane which approached the Pentagon was a military plane and not UAL flight #77.
2 Is that a
0xFF hexadecimal value which also can signify invalid data?
Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon
Secretary of Transportion Norman Mineta said, “Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon.” And he said, “And then pretty soon he said, ‘Oh-oh, we just lost the target.’ And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, ‘Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon.’”
National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (also Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs and Chairman of the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board) Richard Clarke said, “Ralph Siegler stuck his head into the room. ‘There has been an explosion in the Pentagon parking lot, maybe a car bomb!’”
The FBI knows that explosives are central to the real 9/11 plot
The FBI’s code names for terrorist investigations known to have been carried out by means of bombs or explosives end in BOM[B] — for example, the acronym for its Oklahoma City bombing investigation is OKBOM.1 It is therefore highly significant that the official FBI code name for the investigation of the September 11 attacks is PENTTBOM, which stands for Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing. In this acronym, the abbreviation for Pentagon comes first, followed by that for the Twin Towers, with the notable absence of an abbreviation for Pennsylvannia. Robert Mueller, who was FBI director on 9/11 [c.f. also and also], confirmed this to Time magazine: “The [FBI's] SIOC [Strategic Intelligence Operations Center] filled to capacity on 9/11 and remained that way through PENTTBOM, the FBI’s cryptonym for ‘Pentagon,’ ‘Twin Towers’ and ‘Bombing’,” reconfirming Newsweek’s report in the immediate wake of the attacks.2
Despite the clear inference that the 9/11 investigation, the largest in the agency's history,3 was focused on bombs or explosives, FBI briefers lied to the "Jersey Girls," whose husbands were killed in the Twin Towers, when they asked why the investigation was called PENTTBOM. They were told that it was because "all the FBI's investigations [code names] end in BOM."4 This is provably false; even the acronym for the agency's investigation of the 9/11-related anthrax letter attacks is AMERITRAX, not AMERIBOM. Further evidence that the FBI knew the core of the 9/11 attacks was bombs or explosives is that the acronyms for its investigations of prior major terrorist attacks known to have been carried out by bombs did end in BOM(B) -- for instance, OKBOMB for the Oklahoma City bombing.4a
Secretary Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson of ABC News that his first thought was that a bomb had gone off, and when Donaldson asked, “What did you think it was?” Rumsfeld replied, “A bomb?”
Reports of primary Pentagon explosions throughout the chain of command
[…] Pentagon eye- and earwitnesses gave testimonies to official Defense Department historians and the mainstream media that they experienced massive explosions at the Pentagon, some more than five minutes before Flight 77 is held by the government's narrative to have come anywhere near the building […]
Many other military officers and enlisted personnel inside the building also experienced and reported explosions. Lt. Nancy McKeown, who was in the Naval Command Center on the first floor of the second-in D Ring, said, “It sounded like a series of explosions going off... It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off.” […] McKeown yelled “Bomb!” when she heard and felt a major explosion, after which tiles fell from her office ceiling.7 Lt. Col. Thurman, who was on the second floor of this same second-in D Ring said, “To me, it didn't seem like a plane. To me, it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me. It seemed like there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time.” Army Lt. Col. Victor Correa, who was on the second floor in the Army Personnel area just above the alleged impact point, said, “We thought it was some kind of explosion, that somehow someone got in there and planted bombs because we saw these holes.”8 John Yates, a security manager for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs who was in the same area as Correa just above the alleged impact point, said, “There was no noise. I mean, I did not hear a plane. Just suddenly the room just exploded, and I was blown through the air.”9 Even a local mayor who was at the Pentagon that morning had a similar experience, reported by the Frederick (Maryland) News-Post. Thurmont Mayor Marty Burns “was leaning against an office doorway when an explosion rocked the Pentagon...Pentagon employees assumed it was a bomb... ‘Where's the next bomb?’ Burns and his Pentagon colleagues wondered. Even outside the building, Burns saw no indication that a plane had caused the [internal] damage.”10 Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell, who had just come out of a restroom off Corridor 4 in the vicinity of te fourth-in B Ring, said, “I heard the sound of a very loud explosion. In my number of years in the artillery community, I hadn't heard anything that loud. I thought it was a bomb.”11 And standing outside the Navy Annex about three football fields’ distance from the building, Terry Morin recalled, “I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2,000-pound bomb going off…”12 Though Morin had just experienced a large plane fly overhead […], he nevertheless described what the official story alleges to have been an impact, which he acknowledged could not see, with bomb-related references.
I conducted an interview with the above-mentioned Ft. Monmouth Army financial auditor Michael Nielsen, who had been in the Army financial management area on 9/11 only minutes before the explosion, part of the building soon to be among the most destroyed in the attack. He had just returned to his temporary duty office on the ground floor near the building's cafeteria when he heard and felt a massive explosion. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor and out the exit, yelling “Bombs!,” “A bomb went off!,” “It was a bomb!”
Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, the highest ranking military officer in the U.S. military chain of command, [is adamant that he] experienced what had to have been the residue of explosives. On page 434 of his biography Without Hesitation, General Shelton noted that upon his arrival at the Pentagon he was struck by an overpowering smell of cordite, a substance used in bombs that has a very distinct and different odor from burning jet fuel. “The smell of cordite was overwhelming,” he said. Pentagon worker Don Perkal told MSNBC, “People shouted in the corridor outside [my office] that a bomb had gone off. Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.”13 Department of Defense attorney Gilah Goldsmith reported that immediately after hearing “an incredible whomp noise,” she “saw a huge black cloud of smoke” that “smelled like cordite or gunsmoke.”14
Army witness April Gallop, who experienced a massive explosion as she pressed the ‘on’ button on her computer in Room 1E517 in Wedge Two off Corridor 5 more than 100 feet north [Gallop said, “50 feet from the impact zone”] of the official story alleged impact point (see Fig. 1, below), also smelled cordite and thought that it was a bomb. “Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath,” and it sounded and acted “like a bomb,” Gallop told the author in an under-oath videotaped interview.15 She also restated this in a formal court filing and in a videotaped interview with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura for a TruTV episode on the Pentagon attack aired December 17, 2010.16 The force of the explosion and/or the impact of debris falling upon her stopped her wrist watch at or just after 9:30,17 which is almost 8 minutes before the official story claims Flight 77 came anywhere near the building. Though cordite produces a strong detonation shock wave, it is cool burning, which would explain why Gallop experienced a major explosion and yet remain unburned (see Fig. 2, second below).
[…] Gallop stated that there was no jet fuel and no fire on the floor as she walked out. “I had no jet fuel on me...I didn't smell any jet fuel...I didn't see any airplane seats. I didn't see any plane parts...I didn't see anything that would give me any idea that there was a plane [in the building],” she said under oath […] The only fires Gallop did see were “flames coming out of the computers” on desks around the perimeter of the large Army administrative area in the outer E Ring where she worked. In her original interview with an Army historian soon after the attack, Gallop said that her computer “blew.” This was also experienced by other workers closer to the alleged plane impact point further south in Wedge One. As everything went black, witness Tracy Webb, whose office in 2E477 was on the second floor of the outer E ring off Corridor 4 effectively above the alleged impact point, also saw her computer suddenly “burst into flames.”19
April Gallop also stated she didn’t see any plane parts of the lawn.
Gallop also emphasized that her superior demanded she rush in and bring her baby with her instead of dropping him off first at the daycare center. Upon her arrival, he left her there and said the urgent matter could wait until he returned. And she and others in those affected wedges of the Pentagon weren’t given any warning even though we know from Norman Mineta’s testimony1 that evacuation had already begun and the command center was aware a plane was incoming. Could it be that some people knew about the plan but fearing for their life (or due to their own unfortunate complicity) were unable to speak-out, and so instead — knowing which adjacent wedges of the Pentagon weren’t rigged with bombs — were scheming to make witnesses of the deception available? Do those with a conscience possessing inside knowledge, know something we don’t which prevents them from taking action? Would the global
elite[mafia] launch a nuclear winter if they were challenged?
There Was Major Fire and Destruction in the Innermost A and B Rings — Far Beyond the Alleged C Ring “Exit” Hole
Perhaps the most compelling evidence against the official story that a plane caused the internal damage at the Pentagon is that there was major fire and destruction in the two innermost B and A Rings — one and two rings further in towards the center courtyard than the alleged C Ring “exit” hole that was the alleged furthest point of penetration and internal destruction from of any part of a plane.
The author interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews, a former Green Beret and the top civilian official then in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In this position, Andrews oversaw the Special Operations Command, one of whose operations was the Al Qaeda-tracking-and-data-mining “Able Danger” group which identified three of the four alleged 9/11 hijacker cells more than a year before the attacks and was ordered shut down shortly after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took office […] My sworn affidavit as to the content of the interview with Robert Andrews has been provided to the panelists and organizers of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings.
According to Andrews, immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03, he and an aide left his office and ran down to Rumsfeld’s west section Counterterrorism Center (CTC). While they were in the CTC, a sudden violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read c. 9:35 but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32. He and the aide then immediately left the CTC to join the Secretary Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. En route to the ESC, Andrews said that when he and his aide entered the corridor on the innermost A ring of the west section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the central courtyard. This A Ring is two rings further in towards the center courtyard than the alleged “exit” hole in the C Ring which the official story says was the furthest any part of the plane or damage from it penetrated.
In addition to the deaths, and by inference the violent events that caused them, encounteted by Andrews and his aide on the inside of the innermost A Ring, there also was massive damage and fire on the inside of the fourth-in B Ring. This, again, is one ring further in towards the center courtyard from the official story alleged plane "exit" hole on the inside of the third-in C Ring. The day after 9/11, the Washington Post reported that “the attack destroyed at least four of the five ‘rings’ that spiral around the massive office building...A 38-year-old Marine major…said he and dozens of his colleagues rushed to the area in the Pentagon that appeared most heavily damaged — the B Ring between the 4th and 5th corridors.” The major said that the B Ring area “was decimated” and “that heat and fire, it could eat you alive in three seconds.” In his interview with the Army’s Center of Military History, a lieutenant who was in Room 2C450 in the middle C Ring at the time of the attack, said he saw “the windows in the B Ring [first] go out and [then] come in — like the pressure, the blast made the windows go out,”30 consistent with a massive internal explosion inside the B Ring. Also, members of the Pentagon Rescue Team told the Washington Post that “When we got into the building, we started to feel the heat right away, and as we walked deeper down the hallways [i.e., further towards the center], it got hotter and hotter. It was just fire everywhere. Not so much smoke, but just fire all around us. You couldn’t see a plane, just [office] debris everywhere you looked.”31
It is physically impossible for any impactor, whether a plane or otherwise, that allegedly penetrated only to the middle C Ring as the official story holds, to cause massive damage, fire and deaths in the two rings further in.
Readers should read the rest of Barbara Honegger’s exposé, which goes on to explain how construction in that section of the Pentagon prior to 9/11 (mentioned also in my prior blog) is plausibly how the explosives were planted. Evidence cited includes the photo that the blast proof windows were only installed on the section that has the alleged impact hole:
Hardening of the exterior wall and windows being necessary of course to prevent the evidence of an explosive force from inside the Pentagon expelling office items too far out onto the lawn to be implausible for an incoming plane impact. Note the placement of the trailers in front of the alleged impact hole (to prevent expulsion and to house bombs) that was curiously confined only to the ground floor:
Her exposé also outlined the likely motives for 9/11 including the Zionist mafia links (not most Jews!) that Christopher Bollyn has detailed, which she further elaborates in her Behind the Smoke Curtain presentation. She noted that Ted Olsen — the husband of Barbara Olsen who was alleged to make the (proven to be impossible by Japanese Asahi TV investigators and according to Honegger now admitted to be nonexistent by the FBI) cell phone calls aboard the alleged hijacked flight 77 — helped to steal the Florida election that put the Neocons in power so they could achieve 9/11.
I still vividly remember that some grave threats that effectively forced Ross Perot to bow out of the 1992 presidential election.
Honegger’s theory that a plane did hit the Pentagon nearer to the heliport, can’t be correct because there’s no such evidence of impact on the Pentagon wall and very credible witnesses such as Sgt. Lagasse clearly saw the large plane (c.f. below). The debris strewn onto the heliport likely was ejected from the windows of wedge 2 which as previously shown weren’t blast proof unlike the windows in wedge 1. Honegger refers to witnesses such as Penny Eglas who aren’t credible as I had explained in my prior 9/11 blog. Honegger has apparently been duped and set up to propagate the UAV psyops deception. Very high IQ actor James Woods was duped (c.f. 1, 2) by the acting performed by alleged Israeli Mossad agent Mohamed Atta.
In a different interview remarking that at least 6 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11, Honegger tied in the covert financial dealings of the global mafia which seems to run the intelligence agencies around the world (c.f. also the “Ptech story” below) to a $100,000 payment to alleged hijacker Atta. For more on this, also refer back to the Corbett Report’s episodes on Al Qaeda linked from §Farcical C-Ring “Punchout” Exit Hole.
…this blog is continued in Disembarkment of the 9/11 Passengers
Disclaimer: some of the sources I linked to (especially for example where I linked to a specific mark in a video where I intend only the intended portion to be referenced) contain some (for example) debunked disinformation which I’m not espousing.