November 5, 2008
It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s Not Flight 77!
Relative newcomers to 9/11 Truth research, Pilots for 911 Truth and the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team have opened up novel and interesting avenues of inquiry on the subject of American Airlines Flight 77. Whether it is analyzing NTSB data or returning to the area around the Pentagon to conduct interviews with eyewitnesses, the scope and depth of this research is not only iconoclastic on the subject of Flight 77, but also lethal to the official 9/11 narrative as a whole.
It wasn’t long after the 9/11 attacks that skeptical eyes were attracted to the incongruous damage from Flight 77’s impact into the Pentagon’s façade. Many thought the damage was inconsistent with the impact of a high-speed commercial airliner. The best known of these skeptics is Thierry Meyssan, a French researcher and political activist. In 2002 Meyssan’s Le Pentagate1 was published, which posits that the Pentagon damage was caused by a missile:
"It is obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could, for some 500 kilometers, escape detection by civil and military radar, by fighter-bomber planes sent in pursuit of it and by observation satellites that had just been activated. It is also obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could enter the Pentagon's air space without being destroyed by one or more of the five missile batteries protecting the building. When one examines the photographs of the façade, taken in the minutes following the attack (even before the Arlington civilian fire fighters had time to deploy), one sees no trace of the right wing on fire in front of the façade, nor any hole in the façade into which the plane could have been swallowed up.
All these testimonies and observations correspond to the effects of an AGM [air to ground missile]-86C of the third (most recent) generation of CALCM [conventional air launched cruise missile -- see picture at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm], equipped with depleted uranium warheads and guided by GPS [global positioning system]. This type of missile, seen from the side, would easily remind one of a small civilian airplane, but it is not a plane. It produces a shrill whistle comparable to that of a fighter-bomber, can be guided with enough accuracy to be directed through a window, can pierce the most resistant armor and can set off a fire – independent of its piercing effect – that will generate heat of over 2,000° Celsius."2
Another early critic of a commercial airliner impacting the Pentagon was Richard Eastman. Eastman concludes from the evidence that an, "F-16 which fired a missile ahead of its own crash into the Pentagon" was responsible for the Pentagon’s damage.3
In 2006 Pilots for 9/11 Truth received from the NTSB, through a FOIA request, an animation recreating Flight 77’s flight path from takeoff to one second before impact.4 The NTSB animation shows that Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon north of the Citgo gas station.5 Now an approach north of the Citgo gas station is inconsistent with the official Flight 77 narrative that has the commercial airliner approaching the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station as repoted by both the 9/11 Commission6 and the Pentagon Damage Assessment Report.7 When contacted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth to explain this discrepancy, the NTSB passed the buck by saying the FBI should be queried, since it was the FBI who was handling the Flight 77 investigation.7
Corroborating the revised NTSB assessment of Flight 77’s final seconds in the air are Pentagon police officers Sgt. Bill Lagasse and Sgt. Chad Brooks who were at the Citgo gas station when Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. Both officers confirmed to the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team that a commercial airliner flew over them to their left, or north of the gas station.9 Furthermore Sgt. Lagasse contradicts the eyewitness testimony of several of the six high level USA Today/Gannett reporters or editors who claimed to have actually seen Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. Interestingly these six eyewitnesses, who worked for the same media giant, were all driving within a .16 mile stretch of Route 27 when they say they witnessed the impact. The problem with their testimony, says Sgt. Lagasse, is that they couldn’t have witnessed the impact because there was a tree line blocking their view.10 Sgt. Lagasse is correct for at least several of the USA Toady/Gannett employees. Looking at photographs11 of Route 27 adjacent to the Pentagon and noting the position of the six witnesses on Route 27, the impact area of the Pentagon is clearly blocked from the view of three of them.
The six USA Today/Gannett employees are Mary Ann Owens, Richard Benedetto, Vin Narayanan, Bob Dubill, Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman. Viewing the positions of these six witnesses on Route 27 (see footnote 10), there is no way that Mike Walter nor Joel Sucherman could have seen Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. As Walters and Sucherman were bringing up the rear of the USA Today/Gannett motorcade, their field of vision of the impact area of the Pentagon would have been totally obscured, as would that of editor Bob Dubill. Interestingly, Mike Walter is on record saying he not only saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon, but that he saw the wings fold backwards!12
The straw that breaks the back of the official narrative of Flight 77 is the eyewitness testimony of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts. Although Officer Roberts recounted his story to The Library of Congress’ September 11, 2001 Documentary Project in November 2001,13 it took another six years for the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team to discover him.
Officer Roberts recounts being just steps from the Pentagon’s loading dock when he heard an explosion. He immediately ran to the center of the loading dock and looked up. That’s when he caught sight of a large commercial airliner, approximately one-hundred feet off the ground over the Pentagon’s south parking lot. The airliner was banking as it flew from his sight.
Without knowing, Officer Roberts has confirmed the fly-over hypothesis that many in the 9/11 Truth Movement see as the only answer that fits the evidence. Roberts explains away this airliner as a second commercial airliner that was flying over the Pentagon reservation. However the actual eyewitnesses who were outside and had a clear field of view all attest that there was only one commercial airliner that flew anywhere near the Pentagon.
Contradictory flight paths are not the only issue to muddy the waters when analyzing the Pentagon attack. The time of the attack is also left up in the air, providing ancillary support for the research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team.
An eyewitness who contradicts the official 9/11 narrative concerning the time of the Pentagon attack was the soon-to-be Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Moller.14 Moller, who just happened to be in Washington, DC on 9/11, heard a loud noise outside his hotel. Looking out the window, which provided a view of the Pentagon, Moller noticed fire and smoke rising from the office building. He immediately checked his watch and noted the time: 09:32. He then informed several colleagues near him that he believed a bomb had gone off in the Pentagon.15
Interestingly enough corroboration of a 09:32 attack on the Pentagon, and not 09:37 as the official narrative has it, came from an unlikely source…future United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales gave an address at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California on August 22, 2002 where he stated, "the Pentagon was attacked at 9:32."16
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Meyssan, Thierry. Pentagate. USA Books, 2002.
2. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html
3. http://physics911.ca/pdf/2003/eastman_decoys_pentagon.pdf
4. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec&eurl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
6. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802, fast forward 8:10 minutes.
7. http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf, p. 19.
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4&eurl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE
10. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802, fast forward 43:50 minutes.
11. http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic3.htm
12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk
13. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@filreq(@field(TITLE+@od1(Interview+with+Roosevelt+Roberts+Jr+,+Waldorf,+Maryland,+November+30,+2001))+@field(RESOURCETYPE+@od1(sound_recording)))
14. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
15. http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/12/11/pentagon-attack-papers-barbara-honegger
16. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
It wasn’t long after the 9/11 attacks that skeptical eyes were attracted to the incongruous damage from Flight 77’s impact into the Pentagon’s façade. Many thought the damage was inconsistent with the impact of a high-speed commercial airliner. The best known of these skeptics is Thierry Meyssan, a French researcher and political activist. In 2002 Meyssan’s Le Pentagate1 was published, which posits that the Pentagon damage was caused by a missile:
"It is obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could, for some 500 kilometers, escape detection by civil and military radar, by fighter-bomber planes sent in pursuit of it and by observation satellites that had just been activated. It is also obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could enter the Pentagon's air space without being destroyed by one or more of the five missile batteries protecting the building. When one examines the photographs of the façade, taken in the minutes following the attack (even before the Arlington civilian fire fighters had time to deploy), one sees no trace of the right wing on fire in front of the façade, nor any hole in the façade into which the plane could have been swallowed up.
All these testimonies and observations correspond to the effects of an AGM [air to ground missile]-86C of the third (most recent) generation of CALCM [conventional air launched cruise missile -- see picture at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm], equipped with depleted uranium warheads and guided by GPS [global positioning system]. This type of missile, seen from the side, would easily remind one of a small civilian airplane, but it is not a plane. It produces a shrill whistle comparable to that of a fighter-bomber, can be guided with enough accuracy to be directed through a window, can pierce the most resistant armor and can set off a fire – independent of its piercing effect – that will generate heat of over 2,000° Celsius."2
Another early critic of a commercial airliner impacting the Pentagon was Richard Eastman. Eastman concludes from the evidence that an, "F-16 which fired a missile ahead of its own crash into the Pentagon" was responsible for the Pentagon’s damage.3
In 2006 Pilots for 9/11 Truth received from the NTSB, through a FOIA request, an animation recreating Flight 77’s flight path from takeoff to one second before impact.4 The NTSB animation shows that Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon north of the Citgo gas station.5 Now an approach north of the Citgo gas station is inconsistent with the official Flight 77 narrative that has the commercial airliner approaching the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station as repoted by both the 9/11 Commission6 and the Pentagon Damage Assessment Report.7 When contacted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth to explain this discrepancy, the NTSB passed the buck by saying the FBI should be queried, since it was the FBI who was handling the Flight 77 investigation.7
Corroborating the revised NTSB assessment of Flight 77’s final seconds in the air are Pentagon police officers Sgt. Bill Lagasse and Sgt. Chad Brooks who were at the Citgo gas station when Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. Both officers confirmed to the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team that a commercial airliner flew over them to their left, or north of the gas station.9 Furthermore Sgt. Lagasse contradicts the eyewitness testimony of several of the six high level USA Today/Gannett reporters or editors who claimed to have actually seen Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. Interestingly these six eyewitnesses, who worked for the same media giant, were all driving within a .16 mile stretch of Route 27 when they say they witnessed the impact. The problem with their testimony, says Sgt. Lagasse, is that they couldn’t have witnessed the impact because there was a tree line blocking their view.10 Sgt. Lagasse is correct for at least several of the USA Toady/Gannett employees. Looking at photographs11 of Route 27 adjacent to the Pentagon and noting the position of the six witnesses on Route 27, the impact area of the Pentagon is clearly blocked from the view of three of them.
The six USA Today/Gannett employees are Mary Ann Owens, Richard Benedetto, Vin Narayanan, Bob Dubill, Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman. Viewing the positions of these six witnesses on Route 27 (see footnote 10), there is no way that Mike Walter nor Joel Sucherman could have seen Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. As Walters and Sucherman were bringing up the rear of the USA Today/Gannett motorcade, their field of vision of the impact area of the Pentagon would have been totally obscured, as would that of editor Bob Dubill. Interestingly, Mike Walter is on record saying he not only saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon, but that he saw the wings fold backwards!12
The straw that breaks the back of the official narrative of Flight 77 is the eyewitness testimony of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts. Although Officer Roberts recounted his story to The Library of Congress’ September 11, 2001 Documentary Project in November 2001,13 it took another six years for the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team to discover him.
Officer Roberts recounts being just steps from the Pentagon’s loading dock when he heard an explosion. He immediately ran to the center of the loading dock and looked up. That’s when he caught sight of a large commercial airliner, approximately one-hundred feet off the ground over the Pentagon’s south parking lot. The airliner was banking as it flew from his sight.
Without knowing, Officer Roberts has confirmed the fly-over hypothesis that many in the 9/11 Truth Movement see as the only answer that fits the evidence. Roberts explains away this airliner as a second commercial airliner that was flying over the Pentagon reservation. However the actual eyewitnesses who were outside and had a clear field of view all attest that there was only one commercial airliner that flew anywhere near the Pentagon.
Contradictory flight paths are not the only issue to muddy the waters when analyzing the Pentagon attack. The time of the attack is also left up in the air, providing ancillary support for the research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the PentaCon’s Citizen Investigation Team.
An eyewitness who contradicts the official 9/11 narrative concerning the time of the Pentagon attack was the soon-to-be Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Moller.14 Moller, who just happened to be in Washington, DC on 9/11, heard a loud noise outside his hotel. Looking out the window, which provided a view of the Pentagon, Moller noticed fire and smoke rising from the office building. He immediately checked his watch and noted the time: 09:32. He then informed several colleagues near him that he believed a bomb had gone off in the Pentagon.15
Interestingly enough corroboration of a 09:32 attack on the Pentagon, and not 09:37 as the official narrative has it, came from an unlikely source…future United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales gave an address at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California on August 22, 2002 where he stated, "the Pentagon was attacked at 9:32."16
1. Meyssan, Thierry. Pentagate. USA Books, 2002.
2. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html
3. http://physics911.ca/pdf/2003/eastman_decoys_pentagon.pdf
4. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec&eurl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
6. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802, fast forward 8:10 minutes.
7. http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf, p. 19.
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4&eurl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE
10. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802, fast forward 43:50 minutes.
11. http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic3.htm
12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk
13. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@filreq(@field(TITLE+@od1(Interview+with+Roosevelt+Roberts+Jr+,+Waldorf,+Maryland,+November+30,+2001))+@field(RESOURCETYPE+@od1(sound_recording)))
14. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
15. http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/12/11/pentagon-attack-papers-barbara-honegger
16. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
Comments
Post a Comment