9-11 - THE "IMPOSSIBLE" ATTACK
Part 2
TO: PART 1
The WTC AttackTO: PART 3
Flight 93 - The Pennsylvania CrashTO: PART 4
The CONSTITUTION & Police State Laws
THE PENTAGON ATTACK
Look at some basic facts about the Pentagon attack and Flight 77. Among the alleged "wreckage," no tail, no wings, and no damage consistent with such a crash. Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged; it's not consonant with the "fireball" shown on the security camera videotape.Seismic monitors didn't reveal anything indicating such an aircraft impact. Only the reports AT the Pentagon.
In contrast,
the horizontal strike on the WTC towers, a thousand feet up, registered a major seismic spike - but nothing registered at the Pentagon.
Start with the actual crash of an aircraft carrying thousands of gallons of Jet-A fuel -
Observe the fireball in the WTC attack. Nothing similar was seen at the Pentagon.
Consider the "official" story: a 757, traveling at 300 Knots, dove over a batch of construction equipment immediately adjacent to the Pentagon wall, leveled out, then did a totally perfect strike conveniently at the "Least-Risk Point." Then it morphed its way through three rings of the Pentagon, turning left and right through the linking hallways, leaving aircraft pieces which defy accountability. And without damaging or burning the Pentagon lawn at that. All that by a pilot known to be an idiot at the controls of a small plane. It's a pretty absurd explanation.
There's another strange matter - the collapsed portion of the Pentagon wasn't in the alleged path of the purported 757 center-of-mass; yet that portion which allegedly was in that path didn't collapse!
In the elementary physics of the purported strike, according to the proposed impact angle, the aircraft tail would have rotated to the left, breaking off major pieces of its structure - including the tail section.
Try to imagine a trans-continental flight with hardly any passengers and no cargo. The flight reversed course and arrived back in the D.C. area unexpectedly, yet there is no record or even 'tales' - of ATC directing aircraft away from the "rogue aircraft," no ATC warnings, no pleas for other aircraft to look for the "missing" aircraft, no continuous calls from ATC continuously attempting to establish contact on any frequency. There were no TCAS alarms, with aircraft in a busy terminal area scattering for clear airspace. Nor were there any secondary TCAS alarms from the otherwise expected chaos.
The FAA order for all aircraft to land had only been in place for three minutes, when the supposed 757 hit the Pentagon; there would have been an abundance of conflicting aircraft at the Dulles and Reagan airport areas.
The TCAS (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System) system allows the transponders of different aircraft to electronically warn each other of a collision threat with computerized audio and visual warnings in the cockpits of the planes involved. "Hard" warnings command pilots to climb or descend to evade a collision.
Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield a digital display, indicating the altitude. In the world of facts, they can't have it both ways. The transponder was either on or off. All of that assuming that the aircraft was factual. If there was an aircraft actually involved, an Air Force fighter for example, it made a low pass; it didn't hit the Pentagon!
Again, if the purported 757 transponder had been ON, it would have caused ATC and TCAS warning chaos with innumerable aircraft within the Baltimore/Dulles/Reagan Airport areas, as the aircraft approached the Pentagon. Yet, there were no questions asked about that discrepancy!
The witnesses -
The witnesses who came forward were rather typical of all aircraft accident witnesses - they described what they believed was true. It's nearly impossible to have an aircraft crash that someone doesn't see it on fire - in the air; often with an associated explosion. That's just an accepted quirk of human nature. Witness testimony is always corroborated against physical evidence - if such exists.
Typical was one eloquent witness who poisoned his own statement by describing his having "heard" the aircraft pull up; a maneuver would not make a noise.
Given the physical magnitude of the event, the physical evidence would corroborate reliable witness accounts - yet, the physical corroboration is 100% lacking.
Some witnesses may have actually been casual individuals, versus "plants." We'll never know, for sure. But, there is one detail which eliminates 99% of the "witnesses," instantly - what they DON'T describe!
No one described being terrified by the noise of a low-flying aircraft.
The aircraft was alleged to have passed low over major buildings, yet no one describes it as "big;" certainly not "deafening." A B-757 is supposed to have passed low over so many people, yet no one was frightened by the overwhelming noise of a 757, doing 300 Knots.
The approach-departure "Doppler Effect" would have left a frightening impression, as the frequency of the engine noise built, then faded. Still, there are no such descriptions.
The required path would have taken the aircraft extremely low over a major highway. Yet, there aren't hundreds of witnesses who saw ANYTHING. Drivers eventually stopped for the Pentagon fire; they didn't stop for a low-flying aircraft.
Nor did any group of people abandon a building or even run to a window to see what had to be a major event of some sort. Nor do you hear of any sounds of the crash. One bang; that's about it. A 757 hitting the Pentagon would have made one hell of a racket. For all the recorders in the Pentagon, there is no trace of an audio recording of the event.
THE SILENT WITNESS -
RADAR! The data is recorded. Does anyone remember the Defense Radar on TWA-800 and Egypt Air 990? What radar imagery couldn't be discerned by human eyes in real-time was available for later review, and documentation - whether FAA or military radar data.
The public was presented with imagery to suggest 9-11 radar data, but the imagery was only a visual emulation of the purported flight paths.
While the FAA primarily depends on aircraft having a transponder (yielding such things as a digital altitude readout), they can also "see" a certain amount of raw "Primary Returns." Only the Defense Department radar can discern altitude from "raw" returns. The military radar is oriented around "seeing" primary returns, sneaking into our airspace, and maneuvering within. Yet, the military and FAA radar systems - of all indicators - are the silent witness.
The Pentagon - of all institutions - failed to provide such a record. WHY? If the radar data didn't support the "official" account, that would be a likely reason. The PR value of radar verification of the crash would have been overwhelming. But, as if trying to perfectly control the PR, no one mentioned the radar records. For some reason the media wouldn't question the obvious. WHY?
It would have been a major story in itself that the airborne fighter planes did not intercept the wayward airliner. All questions about that were dodged as "national security" - not a good way to build the story's credibility. But that supposed negligence of the fighter planes is beyond the impossible. At a minimum, we know from documentation that the fighters which were launched to the Pentagon were in no hurry; just a routine patrol. If they saw no planes to intercept, of course they would be in no hurry - on this we can only speculate.
SO MANY BOOKS AND ALL THOSE PICTURES -
First we ought to look at an early view of the airport fire trucks, attacking the blaze. Note the wall of the building - and that the firemen are obviously not concerned with the building's occupants. No hand-lines are deployed and oriented toward the building. The firemen are not wearing the aluminized protective hoods used to penetrate a jet fuel fire in a rescue attempt. No suggestion of an aircraft crash.
In the picture below, the vehicle tracks identify these fire trucks as the first to the scene. There is no suggestion of an aircraft crash and the expected fuel fire. The firemen should be in aluminum-colored suits, with handlines extended to the building, to "penetrate" the fire, looking for survivors of the building or the aircraft. The background smoke is that of a structural fire, coming from the interior rings - not a fireball from jet fuel. 
(Picture not available as of this writing. URL is: http://home.earthlink.net/~flight77/images/pentalawn/pl1.jpg )
Because the reaction to 9-11 has involved possible war crimes and violations of Constitutional Law, it is morally necessary for us to look at EVERYTHING behind the 9-11 attacks for any possibility of fraud. After the legacy of Nazi Germany, we can't hide behind the excuse, "We didn't know!"
BOOK REFERENCES
Next, go to the famous Associated Press photo (next picture) from the cover of "The Big Lie" - Thierry Meyssan. (The contents of that book is a MUST for any serious American.)Second to this book is "The War on Freedom" - by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. They each provide concise, well-documented facts that debunk a lot of the assertions made by the mainstream media.
The second Thierry Meyssan book, "Pentagate," adds to the issues, and further demonstrates discrepancies that should NOT have escaped any law enforcement agency or official.
A THOUSAND WORDS... WORTH
Look at the picture below. As later pictures will illustrate, the left-hand column of smoke is coming from a burning car. The right-hand smoke column is coming from a large portable generator-like unit. Where's the "aircraft" smoke? The column of smoke to the interior of the building comes from a hole in the "C" ring, far from the supposed exit hole of the "aircraft."Pictures demonstrate that there are three holes in the "C" ring. [Third ring from the building exterior.] Those three holes are sufficiently distant from each other to make any person wonder what actually happened.
Other photos show the airport fire-trucks having been at the fire scene, putting down the fire - with the roof line intact. In the photo above, the roof has collapsed and the airport fire trucks have withdrawn. In theory, there may be survivors in the building. Any un-burned jet fuel - if there was a jet - could re-ignite. Yet the crew who can do the most good - the airport firefighters - has withdrawn. 
The picture shows a lull in the Pentagon fire sometime after the initial fiery explosion, as illustrated in the questionable Pentagon security video. Among other things, we can see fire equipment and ambulances standing by - as though waiting for something to happen. How long had they been there? Look closely: the roof has collapsed. What was going on that would cause them to wait? Why wouldn't fire equipment be rushed toward the fire on the Pentagon, of all buildings?
Notice that the column of dark smoke on the right roughly marks the alleged impact point. Notice the third-floor windows behind the heliport "control tower" cab in good condition; later they will be pouring out flames - mysteriously. Note the number of windows from the smoke damage to the "columns" to the far left - behind the heliport tower "cab." Later fire will pour out of these: How? - with all that fire equipment just sitting there?
Even with a report of another aircraft inbound, the equipment is too close to be in a true "evacuation" position.
The most revealing part of the pictures associated with the Pentagon is that there is clearly no attempt to penetrate the interior: so as to save aircraft(?) occupants or building occupants.
Just imagine, there isn't even a well-developed fire, yet there is no major attempt to extinguish what fire there is - NOR to try to rescue anyone - even though a rescue would be relatively easy. By any reasonable standard, this picture should show columns of water pouring into the flaming windows - yet there are none! The lawn should be crowded with fire trucks and ambulances. No 'aluminum-clad' suits are seen, as would be used in the purported hydrocarbon fire. What did they know at that moment? 
For that matter, on a Tuesday, where were the contractors? There's an interesting question, by itself. Was this another event on the order of the BATF people getting the morning off in the Oklahoma City bombing?
Giving this some thought, it should be clear that the emergency crews had no reason to think that an aircraft had hit the Pentagon. The "usual" pieces were not in evidence. The area was under construction; probably reported to be free of workers, or other occupants.
In the pictures of the collapsed portion, offices above the strike zone are free of fire damage, with offices far distant in full blaze. Are we to believe that the sprinkler system worked at the impact zone, but not further away?
Notice the obvious lull in the "fire," in this picture. The collection of Pentagon pictures illustrates a strange delay in attacking the fire. For the Pentagon, in particular, there is something very strange in that. They have no history of such delays.
In viewing this particular image above, it is essentially impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. There is no distinctive impact damage to the faηade of the building from the high-speed impact of the wings and tail. The damage behind the construction fence demonstrates that nothing could hit that low without taking out the fence, equipment & buildings in the construction area.
The post-collapse photo, above, also makes it clear that there was no damage to indicate a 757 strike. Remember that the damage is essentially at ground level. The construction trailers stand in the way of the alleged 52-degree wing path; but they are untouched! Even an 8-foot high cable spool, immediately to the left of the construction fence is untouched.
Notice the three trailers behind the fence. They will later burn to the ground - with the fire department on site!
The maneuvering of the fire trucks on the lawn attests to the hardness of the ground. Yet, almost immediately, gravel would be put over the entire lawn, hiding any remaining forensic evidence. BUT WHY?? A "special" access road to the damage site is conceivable; why the ENTIRE lawn? Note in the right-hand picture the material conveniently available for that ground cover. That's asking a lot of "coincidence!"
Look at the evidence provided by basic geometry: From the bottom of the 757 engines to the mid-line of the wing spar is right at ten feet. Add eight feet for the fence / cable-spool height & you have a wing impact at 18 feet - absolute MINIMUM! That assumes a one-inch clearance of the fence and/or cable spools. Any such impact would be on the second floor - that is, IF there had been a 757! 
According to the "official" ASCE report, the 'fuselage' damage indicated a pattern consistent with an impact angle of 52 degrees. Thereafter, one has to question why the primary impact zone did NOT collapse - but the single peripheral zone did. In the "official" theory, the wings "folded;" they supposedly were threaded into the building, along the side of the fuselage. Then, how does one account for that collapse damage, far to the right side of the impact centerline? And why isn't there something similar seen on the left side of the purported fuselage strike zone?
Neither the reasonably anticipated aircraft impact damage NOR the fire damage - from the spreading of fuel - is in evidence.
In the various pictures, notice the open fire station stall door - no splattered jet fuel to torch the building. Most importantly: the Pentagon-released photos showed a fireball, yet notice the green leaves on the tree next to the Pentagon wall - AFTER the impact!
In the picture below, the fire coming from the interior of the Pentagon makes one wonder what the fire departments were doing all day. Notice how far from the purported impact zone the fire is located. The Pentagon should have had incredible fire-fighting resources brought to bear. The continuation of the fire is utterly bizarre! We can only speculate that the "burn" was unusually methodical, since no alternate, rational explanation is given.
The very fact that the "crash" occurred at that construction site is just too "convenient" to be a "coincidence" for a "random" terrorist strike. Imagine a terrorist picking the "Least-Risk Location" - even by chance! Yet, we're to believe that there were THREE such "least risk" strikes. If we weren't so blinded by the emotions elicited by the attack, we would otherwise see the "impossibility" of this scenario.
No pilot would claim to be able to maintain such a narrow trajectory required to pinpoint a spot such as the Pentagon base under any conditions and certainly not in a 757 doing 300 Knots. For this feat to have been accomplished by amateur pilots, as alleged, is impossible.
Add the aerodynamic issue of "Ground Effect." A high-speed wing would create a compression layer between the wing and the ground. The wing could NOT descend into that "Ground Effect" region, without being in a pronounced dive - which is an impossibility - with respect to the official story. Such a dive would have left a distinctive seismic impression.
If the aircraft had magically leveled off at the last second, and the wings had hit that low, the engines would have broken off: leaving an impact impression in the lawn, with the nose of the aircraft plowing a ditch into the building.
More impossible is that an amateur pilot decided to slip a B-757 through the ground floor window of the Pentagon construction site, versus taking the easy and extended target of the roofline - guaranteeing that the strike would do the most damage both structurally and to human life.
Any terrorist sophisticated enough to crash a 757 into ANY target would naturally scope out the most desired points to get the intended effect.
In all pictures of the Pentagon damage, the exterior columns are broken next to the ground - impossible for to a "wing" strike, which should have been above the first floor.
Note the lack of "effort" in the photo immediately below. Not a hose line or a ladder truck to be seen; and no ambulances - keeping in mind the top priority given the Pentagon.
In the images above, note the vertical column, next to the purported entry hole on the second floor. Not even a small plane could have hit this location without destroying the column inwardly. Note the good condition of the windows: This is not what the impact zone of a B-757 would look like. Most close-up pictures of this area - portraying the ground floor - display the complete exterior columns - on the right of the damaged section - being broken uniquely to the side; they are not pushed inward. See below.
Also, notice the fire on the floor of the second story, where the aircraft is supposed to have impacted. If the floor is present, it's certain that an aircraft didn't enter there. It's also certain that the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizers of the jet would never have morphed their way past that point.
The exterior columns on the left of the damaged exterior section - below - are shattered, with the dangling rebar bent outward.
Then we have to ask, "Then, what DID cause that damage?" The same question goes for the interior damage.
The predominant smoke color in the photo (immediately above) is NOT the kind that arises from burning jet fuel. That discrepancy is present in all the photographs of the Pentagon strike and also for Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. In all pictures of the Pentagon fire, the ONLY prominent "thick black smoke" emanates from the generator unit within the construction area fence: not from anything associated with an aircraft. An aircraft full of fuel, crashing at 300 Knots will NOT "smolder," but result in an explosion from the full burning of its fuel. This isn't a case of "Backdraft," as when caused solely from the burning of materials making up the building.
Notice that in the first of the photographs above there is another fire going behind one of the innermost rings of the Pentagon. LATER - the fire which we're to believe broke out from a 52-degree "aircraft" strike will appear. BUT, in the first fire shown, the fire is the wrong location for the alleged 52-degree "aircraft" strike.
In the various pictures of the Pentagon on 9-11, the wall of the "C" ring (immediately above) shows three burn holes in it. The biggest of these - with the most smoke evidence - is to the left of the narrow bridge, and far from the alleged "punch-out" hole (farthest to the right), with the scattered aircraft parts - some burned, some not. The supposed exit hole has the least smoke-staining on the wall. 
In the pictures of the "official" exit hole, it's apparent that what few parts are shown, there isn't enough metallic mass to account for the hole. The incongruous fire patterns of the three exit holes are highly suspect by themselves. The aircraft parts didn't split to the left and right, then blast two more holes, 90 degrees to their diverted direction of travel. Without being able to see the damage continuity from the outer ring to the "C" ring, we'll never be sure.
Comparing it to the image of the WTC aircraft strike, notice the minimal impact and consequent fire damage on the Pentagon from such a severe crash. An impossible situation to explain.
MECHANICS OF THE STRIKE THE
Let's examine the basic mechanics of the strike, from the images -HERE - www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/skydrifter/index.html
and:
also;
The events from an elementary point of view:
In the image above, the placement of the equipment and cable spools attests to the factual wing damage - IF - the 'official' account was accurate.
NOTE: The object placement is according to the photos of 9-11, not outdated satellite imagery.
Above, the impact dynamics are shown.
Above, if the engines and wings had cleared the obstacles, the "dive" impact damage would be apparent: by giving off an accompanying seismic signature. Impacting at such an angle would cause a "cartwheeling" of the aircraft, causing more vertical damage to the face of the building. At a minimum, the tail would have survived the impact. The fire from the fuel would have been external, with evidence of the burned fuel in the form of a huge burned area: which is missing. 
Above, the "Level Flight" dynamics are shown. In level flight, the aircraft would have destroyed the fence. The generator unit would have been struck by the engine, tearing the engine off the aircraft. If the engine had cleared the obstacles, the majority of the damage would have been predominantly above the second story.
In a bank - alleged by the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Report - the right engine would still snag the construction area fence - which didn't happen. The primary damage would have been on at least the second floor. If the left engine had contacted the ground, it would have snapped off, per design. The impact would have left a prominent impression in the lawn, with some form of damage from its forward inertia.
In level flight, the right engine would still snag the construction area fence. Again, the primary damage would have been on at least the second floor.
The maximum damage is approximately 20 feet from the fuselage. That portion of the purported "wing" mass should have easily sliced inward.
The same way people accept "Politically Correct" language control, Americans have been conditioned to detest the term "Conspiracy Theory." Yet around the world, America is seen as a global conspiracy instigator. As to the 9-11 events, it looks much too suspiciously like there were some great psychological theorists behind the scenes. PERCEPTION CONTROL!
Let's suppose - just hypothetically - for a moment, that if someone on the "inside" wanted to stage an event such as the Pentagon strike, what would the American public expect and accept?
1. Violent impact.
2. Explosion.
3. Fire.
4. Debris.
5. Witnesses.
6. Photos/Videotape.
7. Authoritative and Logical Presentation.
8. Drama.
9. "Emotional Identification."
10. "Insulation." (Consistency/Denial/Safety/Revenge)
It would seem that a "simple" fire at the Pentagon wasn't enough: so there was an airplane, riding in the wake of the huge WTC attack (which had the public's full attention at that time). For "proof," there had to be some photographic record of the brief fireball the Security Camera! Besides capturing the world's attention, there was another reason that an "aircraft" was chosen as the stated source for the Pentagon damage: Emotion!9-11 came at a horrible cost. But it also had all the same ingredients as a horrible soap opera: with the tragic difference that it was reality. But there is a major problem with 9-11. The government's assertions all fall apart. The documented facts - NOT opinion and innuendo - tell the opposite story: "Perception Control" is the emotional lever that has won over the public, making them believe things that clearly do not ring true. What "official" 9-11 claim actually holds up in the face of even elementary tests for evidence? It's something to think about - long and hard.
then... what DID happen? So
So, what did happen within any reasonable probability? The answer is quite ugly - as someone who's believed in the official explanations of our current political leaders.
POSSIBLE CAUSES:
At best, it was a missile allegedly captured by the Pentagon security video camera in some fashion - that hit the Pentagon, at approximately a 90-degree angle. The type of missile & warhead are uncertain. Perhaps a shoulder-fired device? A "Recoilless" gun? If there was a missile, it was most likely fired from a truck in the vicinity of the trees, directly away from the strike point. That scenario would correspond to the high contour of the terrain away from the target wall - and the location of the ACTUAL damage to the Pentagon. Its obvious size if there is any truth to the purported security video - says that it was NOT a 757.
Why a Missile?
The idea of a missile hitting the Pentagon must be treated as a "possibility." By any account, there is a random pattern to the Pentagon damage, such as three holes in the "C" ring. The pattern suggests blast effects trying to navigate their way through the interior columns, experiencing a "pin-ball" randomness.In the ASCE report, a "raised section" of the interior floor is cited. That could only have come from an explosion. Fire alone would have, at best, collapsed the floor. The explosion, suggested by the raised floor section, might represent an independent explosion, accounting for the perfectly round "official" blast hole in the "C" ring; with the unaccountable scattered aircraft parts.
It is also possible for the extra two holes in the "C" Ring to be a function of the back-blast of internal "cutting charges" as well. One must remember that the collapsed section contained some very stout cement columns. So far no one is saying, and the necessary evidence was quickly destroyed.
The smoke damage on the external wall of the Pentagon is obviously legitimate. However, the purported security videotape presentation of the aircraft (missile?) strike strangely displays a time-date stamp, which is a day-and-a-half later than the actual event. Perhaps that was the "preparation" time of the videotape, versus the purported "capture" time and date. Yet, the imagery is, strangely, issued as an official Pentagon release. By any reasonable standard, that tape should have been "sealed" primary forensic evidence - not bait for morbid curiosity. The videotape's detail is unbelievably sloppy. Yet, the imagery was successfully sold by the media without any questions being asked. In the CNN presentation of the security camera video, the time-date stamp is "mysteriously" NOT displayed!
For those not convinced, look to the photo below; the supposed fireball didn't... CONTINUE...
TO TOP
