Attack at the Pentagon! (Part 2)

Why were there multiple trajectory exit holes?

The trajectory of the official story

(Photo:  www.geoffmetcalf.com).

This photo shows just how ridiculous it is to believe the government story.  Here, we have to believe that some of the pieces from the fuselage and landing gear penetrated (2) steel reinforced walls and numerous masonry interior walls and columns.  All this… with hardly losing one meter of altitude.

(Photo: twf.org)

A part of landing gear that was found inside — this along with the nose cone — the government claims made the exit hole.  However, they never had a really good consensus on what really caused the massive hole.

Lee Evey’s “wingless plane” trajectory

(Photo: defenselink.mil).

Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager claimed:

The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.

Lee Evey also made this ridiculous statement:

The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground.  The impact cracked massive concrete columns far beyond the impact site, destabilizing a broader section of the building than contractors had originally thought.[i]

Yes, the official fable becomes quite laughable at times.  It is no wonder that so few people believe the government this day and age.

[Note the terms “punch out” and “exit hole” are used interchangeably in various reports.]

            The ASCE claimed that the planes “blackbox” was found at the most forward position of the debris field, at the exit hole.  The only problem — the black box is mounted in the rear of a 757, in the tail section!!!

            The deception just goes on and on…  In the next photo, our friend, Lee Evey, demonstrates with the “wingless plane” just how the theory works!  If you can not account for the wings…  Just cut them off.  That’s the government’s solution.  The wings really look that way — because “big brother says so!

How did the entire nose of a plane that is about as flimsy as a coke can, manage to make its way through reinforced steel concrete in walls and columns?

The Pentagon’s “wall smashing” nose cone is a hollow

cover (Photo: Gregg Stansbery/airliners.net).

Another explanation by the Military District of Washington on Sept. 26, 2001, goes as follows:

On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley.  An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane.  The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire.[ii]

However, there was never an engine assembly found, nor engine parts in the area of the exit hole. Chief of Audiovisual Division Terry Mitchell stated:

This is a hole in — 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 here is all Pentagon metal.  None of that is aircraft whatsoever.[iii]                              

It seems Mr. Mitchell is speaking more to the truth, as we shall see.

What went through that hole?

The “Exit” hole #1, lines up with the official trajectory.  We know that what ever breached that wall should have been out in the A-E drive somewhere.  Unfortunately for the government, the landing gear didn’t get that far, so it is excluded, as a potential candidate.  We need to inspect the debris outside the exit hole.

This is the first known photo of the exit hole (hole #1). 

There is only Pentagon debris piled up outside it

(Photo: Arlington County After-Action Report).

This is the best photo of the exit hole.  An aircraft hitting the building can’t explain this hole.  This is really a blast hole, evidenced by the abundant amount of Pentagon junk that went hurling through it.  The photo was taken while smoke is still trailing out and before fire hose lines were even laid.  No aircraft parts are apparent.  [Note: it is important to find the very earliest photos possible, prior to evidence tampering.]

An excerpt from an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Wilson where he describes his findings:
 

As I was in between two of the rings on the access road in between, I noticed that there was a wide gaping hole in the office wall.  And through that hole I could see the building was on fire.  It was the remnants of an office.  You could see desks, telephones, and office instruments.  There were papers scattered around, and the smoke was coming out pretty thickly, dark, thick black smoke.²⁴⁶

It seems that he didn’t mention much about all that aircraft debris, even though he notices telephones and office instruments.  Evidently, there are a lot of papers that somehow survived a metal-melting fire that vaporized the Boeing 757.

This is the second known photo; notice that now there is a piece of fuselage that wasn’t in the previous photo (Photo: army.mil).

An aluminum-looking non-charred unbent piece of aircraft fuselage is now lying on some sheet rock!  How could this delicate piece move through several walls of the Pentagon comprising of dozens of feet of steel reinforced concrete.  Regardless, of the absurd notion that this piece had knocked down the steel reinforced concrete and brick wall — it clearly was planted!

Photos hereafter show the debris removed

(Photo: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA News Photo).

Photo shows someone was breaking the brick from outside

(Photo:  911review.com).

Why were there multiple trajectory exit holes?

Was there three exit holes or three blast holes?

(Photo: www.geoffmetcalf.com)

Would we need three trajectories for an explanation?

(Photo:  www.spaceimaging.com)

Exit hole #2 and #3, don’t agree with official trajectory

(Photo: 911review.com).

Do multiple explosives offer the most reasonable explanation?

Is there explosive evidence in inner ring “C”?  The windows have been blow out — whatever nailed that wall had quite an explosive effect.  A piece of aluminum like above or a piece of landing gear would not cause such an explosive effect to blow all that debris from inside as well as blow out windows from upper floors (Remember that they are separated by steel reinforced concrete floors). 

These patterns of blast damage cannot be accounted for with a piece of landing gear or by a flimsy piece of aluminum.

Blast damage extends throughout “C” ring.  Damage was in isolated pockets.  Not easily explained by one aircraft crash (Photo: 911review.com).

The entire 3^rd to 5^th floor exterior wall was blasted off.  There is

just no logical explanation for this, other than controlled demolition

 (Photo: globalsecurity.org)

Blast Hole #2 — Windows were blasted out of the “C” ring 2^nd floor level

(Photographer: unknown).

To believe the government story, a portion of the aircraft went through numerous walls and rooms like these.  That’s hard to swallow 

(Photographer: unknown).

It appears that the “exit” holes were blown with charges, and not the result of an aircraft or missiles.

Why is it? …that in the early photos there is no visible aircraft debris.

Early photos, that show views from all directions, previous to, and during the collapse at about 10:10 am, have no aircraft debris!  After the collapse of the upper section the lawn will get salted with bogus debris.  Let’s look at some of the early photos — you can see for yourself. 

The Immaculate PentaLawn (Photo: nfpn.org).

An anonymous airline pilot remarked after seeing the evidence, “…I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings…”

Golfers Paradise (Photo: 911review.com).

Another angle, still nothing.  Early photos are consistent

 (Photo: Will Morris/ Associated Press).

Pentagon lawn is “clean as a whistle” (Photo: Mark Faram).

The supposed fireball didn’t leave a damage trail — of any sort.  There was no scorching or even sooting to suggest that the immense fireball of the parking lot video was factual.  One would at least expect to see concussion damage like blowing over the nearby construction trailers, or window damage to the control tower.  The windows of the building are not even broken as would be expected (there are no blast resistant windows in wedge 2).  In any event, it was clearly NOT 5,000 gallons of jet fuel, burning out of control. 

EARLY photos show NO DEBRIS, –– NONE!

Real Aircraft Crashes

Rescue workers inspects debris of the plane after an Air France Concorde en route to New York crashed in Gonesse, outside Paris, shortly after take off, slamming into a hotel.  It crashed shortly after take off on July 25, 2000.  And why didn’t the concord debris vaporize?

(Photo: Michel Lipchitz/AP)

Numerous large pieces of debris are seen, including an

intact engine assembly (Photo: Pascal Rossignol/Reuters).

What does the seismographic data show?

Only seismographic data for 3 min. was released around the official time.  As we would expect there was no seismic signals detected of a large 100-ton airliner crashing into the Pentagon.  Keep in mind that the WTC crashes of smaller jets at 70-plus stories aboveground was detected at seismographic stations even further away.  How can that be explained?  The simple answer is, as we have already shown, there is no credible evidence that supports the official time.  This was only an arbitrary time chosen by the Bush Administration’s 9/11 cover-up Commission to collaborate with the Ted Olson “my wife called me” fable.  They therefore fixed the time at 9:38 a.m. despite all the evidence to the contrary — like two frozen clocks (both stopped at the same time).

Clocks stopped 9:31:31 a.m. (+/– 4 sec.)

 (Photos: Smithsonian and navy.mil).

Was there incriminating data on the seismographic data strips?  Would the seismographic data around 9:31 a.m. show numerous signals that would be consistent with the powerful explosions of a controlled demolition?  If there were no abnormal signals at 9:31 a.m., then why not show it to the public?

If the official story had the aircraft striking the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m., then why are there no seismographic signals?

On the next page are the data strips that should show a signal for the government’s claim, but don’t.

Seismic Recordings around the Pentagon from 9:38:09 – 9:40:09 a.m.

(Image: Maryland Geological Survey)

Seismic Recordings around the Pentagon from 9:36:30 – 9:39:30 a.m.

(Image: Maryland Geological Survey)

The fact that no seismic signals had detected a large 100-ton airliner crashing into the Pentagon furthered weakened the government’s position.

Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum, both working for the government, stated in their report:

We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon.  Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal.[iv]

Seismographic data indicating a strong event was posted at a USGS station near the Pentagon.

Interesting seismic data was found posted on a University of Arizona website by [professor?] Wallace.  It had data from USGS seismic station CBN (Soldier’s Delight, MD — 38 miles from the Pentagon).  The University of Arizona, 9/12/01, announced: “The impact produced a seismic signal that was recorded at the USGS station CBN.[v] Later, the time-stamp was removed [???] and a retraction statement accompanied the data graph:

Recording of energy originally thought to be from the collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon at USGS seismic station CBN.  The energy is dominantly surface wave energy, and gives a back azimuth roughly consistent with the Pentagon, later work showed that this is an unrelated event.²⁵³

Why would they retract?  Were they told to?  Notice that the author used yellow to block out the time — he was not subtle about it.  Did it show a different time than the government report?  If it weren’t incriminating, then why wouldn’t it be a problem for the experts to see it and decide for themselves?  It was obvious that someone was trying to quiet this up. 

The bottom scale it appears is in seconds; 650 sec. to 790 sec.

 (Image: Wallace/U of AZ).

According to the scale this probably was stamped at 10:10:50 – 10:13:10 (Hr: m: s)  A strong signal appears at 697 seconds that would correspond to a time of 11 min. and 37 sec.  Could it be the collapse signal? … Or more precisely is it the detonated explosion that caused the collapse?  It is hauntingly similar to the WTC detonation signals that caused its collapse.  CNN reported, “[at] 10:10 a.m. — A portion of the Pentagon collapses.”  Could it actually have collapsed at 10:11 a.m.?

Why do Gerard Baum and Wong-Young Kim, in their report, not speak about this recording?  Is it the smoking gun for controlled demolition?  Why did Wallace have to yellow out the time stamp?  Was it that incriminating?  Yes.

Why or why not use a Boeing 757 to strike the Pentagon?

It would make sense that if the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Murrah Building of Oklahoma were brought down with controlled demolition — they would use the same formula on the Pentagon.  The setup would be similar to “Oklahoma City bombing” with trailer and car bombs outside and the building laced with explosive charges on the inside.  The towers of the WTC were much larger buildings — therefore the Pentagon attack would be essentially a small-scale version of the WTC strikes.  Perhaps a full-scale airliner was too much for the Pentagon.  If using a real airliner was discussed, it may have been opted against for several possible reasons:

• It was risky, those are Rumsfeld’s and Wolfowitz’s neocon friends were talking about.  What if the 757 missed a wedge or two?  Maybe Rumsfeld could have seen the nose cone for himself.  Unlike the WTC, which you literally can’t miss (with the airliner), the Pentagon, by its geometry, is similar on all sides, and one side could be easily mistaken for another (Worse errors have been made in combat situations).
• The aircraft hit needed to be very precise, just the right angle, and location.  It shouldn’t hit the inner rings or say the helipad, if all their demolitions were in a different location.  The aircraft impact would have to agree with the demolition effects, or it would make people suspicious.
• The Pentagon sits in P-56 prohibited airspace, and an attack by a rogue 757, especially after the WTC hits, might be hard to pull off.  What about a Custom’s Black Hawk helicopter pilot with an anxious trigger finger, a F-16 out off Andrews, or SAMs?  If they foiled their plan, it might be hard to explain why the Pentagon wedges 1 & 2 were packed with explosives and jet fuel (if someone found out, for instance).
• It’s possible that the perpetrators couldn’t get their hands on another large airliner for their devastating plan.  A standard 767 costs between $100 million and $112 million.  The cost of a KC-767 tanker is somewhere between $150 million and $225 million.  A drone would be substantially less expensive.

Demolitions setup (ala Oklahoma City):

• The attack would be timed with an American Airliner landing at Reagan National Airport.
• The (3) trailers in the front of the impact zone were loaded with explosives and jet fuel (or something that burns similar).  As well as, the generator and another trailer behind it.  Some cars and the new fire truck out front were rigged to blowup as well.
• Several vacant rooms in wedge one and wedge two (both were essentially empty due to renovation projects) loaded with explosives/fuel.
• Select columns on the ground floor were prepared with cordite to blow in an angled pattern simulating a plane crash.
• Timed with a regular fly over by the American Airlines airliner at 9:30 a.m., an EC-130 would guide a drone (UAV) into the Pentagon.  Just after it impacted, the explosives were detonated, giving a convincing illusion of a “hijacked” airliner strike.
• The Pentagon didn’t collapse as much as they had predicted, due in part to the strong columnar design.
• The pull back may have been used to troubleshoot the problems and possibly ignite more charges to cause partial collapse of upper levels (what everyone saw eventually).
• Just like the WTC there would be a planned grand finale with the delayed collapse and destruction of the complete outer three rings between the two wedges.
• The “punch out” hole was created to provide the “exit” hole to rationalize an aircraft trajectory.  Other holes and blowout damage were caused by charges in an attempt to weaken the structure.  There were detonations around all the square sides of the two wedges.
• However damaged, the Pentagon didn’t collapse any further.
• Random and illogical fuel type fires were detonated, even from third story levels.  The fires were ignited throughout the night.
• Firefighting was minimized to a handful of men and a couple of trucks to minimize suspicion (Look what happened to NYFD, now some are talking now about what they saw and heard).
• Causalities were minimized to just 124 of Pentagon personnel (Compare that to it’s 5,000+ employees in the two wedges hit).
• Lampposts that were previously cut down at the base to provide a path for the UAV were thrown back on the road and photographed as proof of a “path” of an airliner.
• Rumsfeld and his cronies visit the site — he tells everyone (who were confused about what happened) “that a hijacked airliner struck the Pentagon”.
• Agents probably “Israeli MOSAAD” assisted in the preparations and eventually videotaped the “airliner fly-over” to claim it was the hijacked airliner.
• FBI, Secret Service, and other agents, were already on site (their excuse was President Bush was arriving at the Pentagon).  They quickly secured the entire area.
• Agents brought in “debris” (under blue-tarp containers) and salted the lawn with it.
• Government photographers took photos of the site and debris, while the mainstream media was told to keep out.
• Certain eyewitnesses (most were government connected, selected, or produced) made assertions of seeing an American Airlines 757 hitting the Pentagon.
• FBI conducted several debriefings on rescue personnel before they made statements.
• A C-130 military aircraft, probably of electronic warfare unit (as per eyewitness) was seen at the time of, or right after the strike.  It may have manipulated radar signals with jamming gear while it guided the UAV into the Pentagon.  Many people also reported, that at the time of attack their cell phones and other communications weren’t working, perhaps from the jamming.
• After the strike, the stand down is rescinded and F-16s appear over Washington.

[Note: Sequence is not in chronological order.]