9-11 - THE "IMPOSSIBLE" ATTACK
Part 3
NAVIGATION PANEL :
TO: PART 1
The WTC AttackTO: PART 2
The PENTAGON AttackTO: PART 4
The CONSTITUTION & Police State Laws
(The Pentagon Attack - Cont'd)
For those not convinced, look to the photo below; the supposed fireball didn't leave a damage trail of any sort. There was no scorching, or even sooting, to suggest that the fireball was factual. One would at least expect to see the closest construction trailers blown over from the concussion. The windows of the building are not broken out in a wholesale fashion, nor are the windows of the heliport tower cab broken, or even sooted. A blast of that magnitude should have created a shadow of the Tower / Fire Station building; none there.OK, let's pause a bit before this starts to sound like "conspiracy hysteria". Besides the photographs, why would any rational person believe it could be a missile? - Because Donald Rumsfeld let it slip out during an interview with Parade Magazine, on October 12th, 2001; catching himself in one of his famous Freudian slips. Remember his Freudian view of draftees?
Rumsfeld: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."
To be fair, it must be noted that the word "missile" is used in technical lingo to describe ANY airborne object, such as when an earthquake knocks an object off of a tabletop & sends it sailing across the room. Nevertheless, such a statement from the Secretary of Defense begs for scrutiny.
Return to the released security camera image:
The sequenced "action" security camera image - now mysteriously difficult to find - shows a forward-traveling blast. It appears to be gaseous, moreso than a conventionally explosive event, considering the inexplicable lack of damage to the wall. Fire damages upward, not downward. The color of the flame is inconsistent with burning jet fuel - compare the fire images of the WTC - below. 
As you view the earlier Pentagon picture from the Thierry Meyssan book (photo from AP), the "missile" clearly did little more than scorch the Pentagon wall at best - assuming one believes the imagery is factual. The "fiery blast" might have come from the purported missile; or possibly from something such as a propane tank on the ground. The damage to the Pentagon is clearly slight, relative to the magnitude of the pictured fiery blast. The vast majority of the windows in the path of the blast are not broken. The explosion would have to have been very brief. In any event, it was clearly NOT 5,000 gallons of jet fuel burning out of control. And keep in mind that there is no supporting seismic data:
In the fireball picture, note that the flame is clearly in front of the wall.
However, note the lack of fire trucks in this picture. Assuming the picture is unretouched, it is probably one of the earliest shots. Note also - again - that the thick black smoke comes from the construction equipment area, with the fence still standing. The construction area fence lies well within the alleged 52-degree aircraft path. 
Notice something else - look at the windows; no significant fire from within the building. What little fire there is, clearly is normal structural fire: not jet fuel!
Notice also the light pole lying to the side, behind the railing. Certainly, the fire is an early picture. There has been no opportunity for the pole to be moved out of the way - for any reason. Yet, it lies to the side - not propelled toward the building. Its location is even incorrect. No damage to the railing is shown, as though the pole could somehow have been "propelled" into place: tripping over the railing in the process.
There is no "300-Knot" damage to the pole - or any of the "downed" poles. If it's to be believed - at all - the security camera video shows the missile flying at very low level; too low to simply "clip" the top of the pole.
The central flame, in the picture above, is clearly a "jet" of fire. Possibly the fire comes from an underground gas main; perhaps a propane tank. Certainly it was not a pool of jet fuel burning. If the flame comes from exploding jet fuel - which RISES - how does one account for underground damage? And remember the pristine condition of the lawn.
The flame color and propagation is wrong & the tell-tale column of thick black smoke is missing. Again, what black smoke is seen in the various photos comes from the construction equipment area not from the supposed impact point.
And, what of the fire to the left and right of the jetting flame? What would otherwise fuel such a fire?
Look at the picture below. The construction area fence isn't torn down by what should have been the outer 30 feet of the left wing. Notice the brick pattern above the hole behind the car this is the left extreme of the purported impact hole.
Notice also that the fire - what little there is - comes from the second-floor windows. What happened to all that fuel which is supposed to be spilled on the ground floor? No evidence of any prominent fire in the normal pathway for something as volatile as jet fuel. The geometry of a B-757 places the wing spar approximately five feet above the hole - IF the engines are one inch above the obstacles! Between the surviving fence and the cable spools, the impact would otherwise have to be above the first floor! Note that the rebar [a steel rod used to reinforce concrete structures] of the columns behind the car is bent outward - away from the 300 Knot impact. Any post-impact blast powerful enough to shatter concrete would have blasted out all adjacent windows! Probability: "No Way!"
Think about what the picture above shows. The Pentagon - of all buildings - is burning. There are no security people or firemen on the scene: But a photographer is!
The purported Pentagon security camera video images clearly show a blast occurring in front of the wall that would require a sophisticated "proximity fuse" if the blast was factual. That blast imagery sets the stage for another conclusion: If that had been a B-757, the "pristine skin," photographed on the Pentagon lawn -
- would have been destroyed, as it comes from the front end of a 757. Yet that "pristine skin" shows a shearing force in its damage, not compression or burn damage of any type. Then, there's the business of the blue-gray paint, versus the "normal" shined and polished natural aluminum skin. To be clear on the facts, aircraft N644AA had polished aluminum, not the blue-gray background paint. Did this piece even come from a 757? If so, the skin to the right of the lettering on the material suggests that it came from the right side of the aircraft. Thus, the skin is on the wrong side of the lawn. In any case - IMPOSSIBLE! 
TO TOP
Witness the polished aluminum of the factual aircraft
- versus the purported "pieces" found at the site.
Also notice the aircraft is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB-211 engines.
Later pictures of the "struck" light-poles show them adjacent to their mountings not radically bent and propelled forward by the velocity of a jet. Their mounting plates are not damaged from the mounting bolts being "pulled through" from an impact. The poles don't show any predominant "strike" damage. The only "bent" pole was hit by a taxicab, far from the alleged 42-degree angled path. There is no damage to the side of the cab, nor to the top of the hood. In all likelihood, it "fell" from the back of a truck, ahead of the taxi. Given the location of the "bend," the engines of a 757 would have hit cars on the road.
In the various photograph collections of 9-11, many pictures display the white office walls to the left of the collapsed section. 
The walls are free of the smoke damage, soot & heat of the "intense" fire that supposedly took place within the building - at the hottest point! The furniture is in good condition in its original place. Heat rises, especially when it's "thousands of degrees." But, the upper offices are nearly untouched by any damage, whatsoever. IMPOSSIBLE!
BUT Notice something else in all these pictures: there is no path for the wings of a 757 going in at 52-degrees!
The "ground level" / "engine dragging" scenario assumes either a "diving" crash - - or that the laws of aerodynamics were suspended on 9-11: as, at the supposed speed and it's associated "Ground Effect," the aircraft would have been at least ten feet higher.
With respect to the prominent ground-level damage: if the aircraft was to have flown into the building in level flight, as described, the nose of the aircraft would have plowed a trench, given the geometry required to overcome "Ground Effect." Otherwise the laws of physics and aerodynamics would keep the aircraft approximately 30 - 50 feet above the lawn.
Again, in the close-in imagery of the damaged Pentagon wall -
- note that the columns are broken uniquely to one side. Observing the structural continuity, they are broken at the base and displaced to the left - not inward. The face of the columns display nothing to suggest damage or the effect of an inward impact force from a 300 Knot wing strike. The rotation "break" at the top of the columns is clearly to the side, as well.
Note the volume of "outpouring" of debris from WITHIN the building. That isn't "impact" damage.
Note the forward location of the generator unit; it will be moved during the night for a photo-op that goes along with the official story.
The aircraft parts in the various Pentagon interior photographs are shown fully exposed - not buried under rubble. The parts are too small and too few; clearly "salted," in the parlance of miners - providing "gold" nuggets of apparent "evidence" for a frightened public eager to accept any assurance that our officials were trustworthy in a crisis. But the site was too-obviously staged. The photos within the building, displaying the planted aircraft parts all too clearly show the missing debris of "collapsed" floors. Note the unburned and un-sooted appearance of the green anti-corrosion coating, "zinc chromate," on so many parts.
In another "official" account, the bulk of the aircraft is supposed to have melted! However, it must be remembered that the aircraft skin is a tough aluminum alloy: it in no way resembles the thermally "frail" stuff of a beer can.
Many photos display a scattering of aircraft "confetti." The material is found far too distant from the building to have been caused by a 300 Knot impact.
In a news video of the day, a "military muster-style" line of people is shown picking up aircraft pieces. Note their distance from the pentagon.
The pieces are not photographed while in place, nor documented for a true forensic investigation - they are just collected.
Notice that the landing gear strut (below) is clearly rusted from weathering - not recognizably "oxidized" by flames, though some fire damage is present.
The official "punch-out" exit hole in the "C" ring is much smaller than the other two holes in the "C" ring, and it shows precious little fire damage, compared to the two larger holes displayed well to the left of the "punch-out" [as viewed from the center of the Pentagon]. The question for us remains, what was actually factual in the whole damage scene - determined by the remaining "unmentioned" two holes?
Again, the pieces on the lawn (below) could not possibly have survived the impact without severe "crumpling," or at least smoke damage (sooting). What parts are shown are quite real, however. But since the damage shows no real evidence that an airliner was involved, we are left to speculate: Are these remnants from the 1995 Cali, Colombia crash? American 587 in New York?
The alleged aircraft was supposed to be equipped with Rolls Royce RB-211 engines. What engine has such a "combustor section," shown in the photo, immediately below? Is it an early version of the GE CF6 engine?
COMPARE:
Pentagon Engine Section (above)
LATER MODEL CF6-8082 FROM WTC DEBRIS (above)
GRAPHICS CONTRAST: They are certainly similar, but ....
Some of the pictures above display weather-corrosion (as though the parts had been retrieved from idle aircraft) rather than fire damage. 
The "thousands of degrees" would not confine itself to the outer ring-section of the Pentagon. The fuel would not explode AFTER the projection of the parts.
Those images pose another mystery. In later photos, the third floor offices to the left of the impact, behind the heliport control cab, are in full blaze. Imagine the adjacent exposed offices being safe from fire, yet offices far down the hall & insulated from the roof by the fourth floor are in full blaze. Something is very seriously wrong here, just in that imagery.
A cheap motel fire would have gotten a more thorough response from fire-rescue, than the Pentagon apparently had.
Visualize the fireball imagery of the WTC strike - then compare it to the pristine lawn. Something very important is missing in this picture!
TO TOP
THE CLAIMS ARE RUBBISH!
93 - FLIGHT
The Pennsylvania Crash
Besides the Pentagon hit, there's the curious business behind the crash of flight 93 in Pennsylvania. What are the odds of a second crash site with no tail, no wings, minimum parts and a missing tell-tale black column of burning jet fuel? A second trans-continental flight with hardly any passengers and no cargo. A major coincidence, to be sure. More like an IMPOSSIBLE coincidence!
Amazingly, few have asked the obvious questions about this crash!
An Obvious Ordnance Blast (Flight 93) Ordnance Blast (Iraq) The flight 93 photographs show a relatively shallow and obviously pre-existing earth "berm" [soil covered with sod placed in an irregular shaped mound] containment crater (look to the convenience of the road and noticeably dated "dirt-work") and a partially burned tree line, inconsistent with approximately 6,000 gallons of jet fuel. The burn pattern is wrong: it's symmetrical, not elongated. There isn't enough burn area to account for the aircraft fuel. The suggestion of what little damage there is would have the world believe that the aircraft came down perfectly vertically - like a laser-guided lawn dart. The lift of the wings at the purported speed would have effected a minimum lateral velocity of 50 knots. Yet there is zero suggestion of horizontal movement of the aircraft.
Look at the picture above: Note all the unburned grass and the green trees so close to the alleged impact point. That's not the impact point of an airliner carrying approximately 6,000 gallons of Jet-A fuel. The "crater" is approximately 70 feet in diameter. There is no evidence of parts tearing down trees as they scattered from forward speed or the explosion. No wings, No tail. No engines.
A 757 would not have just morphed into the ground, leaving no trace of parts. Not at ANY velocity!
Once again, the "smoke" photograph of the crash (below) is that of ordnance, not jet fuel. There is no evidence of "scorched earth" from the burning jet fuel, and there is no sign of wings hitting this site, either.
Clearly, the blast came from the ground. The aircraft was NOT shot down. Nor did the aircraft break apart in the air, to come down in pieces from either structural breakup or a bomb. Seismic data clearly demonstrates that as well. If the aircraft had been shot down, there would have been a huge area of scattered burning debris. Also, the wings, cockpit and tail section would have survived, as this would have resulted in "big" pieces. Such an in-flight breakup would have left a distinct "trail" of parts, corresponding to the final flight track of the aircraft.
The "distribution pattern" of the few aircraft parts and debris is inconsistent with a crash site. Some parts were found miles away in the wrong directions. The impact site and tree line fire do suggest the direction of the aircraft's travel; yet the distant parts and debris are in the wrong location and most of them too far away as well. Aircraft crash debris doesn't "bounce." However an ordnance explosion WOULD distribute those small parts and debris in this way.
It must be noted also that the "pieces" of an entire 757 were so shattered that they were extracted in buckets. Yet, they assert that a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) - located in the "missing" tail section of the aircraft - survived in sufficient condition to yield evidence (yes, "black boxes" CAN be destroyed - and are not expected to survive crashes of this apparent extremity). Curiously, the only "evidence" provided by this black box was commentary that dissuaded families from questioning the "Flight 93 Story." The family "closure" was even manufactured.
AND, the question is.... The natural question to all this is, "What IS the fate of the actual aircraft & occupants the real mystery in this story? Common-sense guestimation is the only response available for the moment. The planes and occupants are gone - in some fashion. Did the aircraft actually take off? Who can be certain? If they did, where did they go? What of the people/bodies?
POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS:
One must speculate that both the Flight 77 and 93 aircraft did take off. Possibly they flew some portion of their flight plan. Then at some point they turned off their transponders & possibly flew to a closed Air Force Base or private airport, to be hidden in a hangar probably during the " land now!" chaos. This would require a 5,000 foot runway, and a hanger with a 130 foot door. A Canadian airfield shouldn't be ruled out. Afterward who knows? Are there approximately 110 people with a new identity, face and country of residence? Unfortunately, there are no prominent clues. ("Wild stuff," to be sure. But when the evidence doesn't add up, all possibilities have to be considered). While "rumors" suggest that the two aircraft may have slipped into the Cleveland airport, the needed level of secrecy and security tends to discount (but not exclude) that as a possibility. Thus, pragmatic speculation almost exclusively rules out that scenario.It's not inconceivable that the passengers on all four hijacked aircraft, including the Pentagon & Pennsylvania flights, were asphyxiated via cabin de-pressurization, using the standard cockpit controls. It would be a simple matter to disable the passenger emergency depressurization controls by pulling their circuit breakers. Thereafter, the cockpit's emergency oxygen would be sufficient for the survival of the hijackers. It's quite possible for the pilots to have gained the cockpit jump-seat, even in flight; that's common [In the cockpit, there is an extra fold down "jumpseat" for free-traveling off-duty pilots]. If a pilot were to send up a quality "airline" or "FAA" ID card with the flight attendant, with a request to "visit the flight deck" as a courtesy reflex, the captain says, "sure."
Dead passengers & crew would make things easier versus having 240 story-tellers emerging from the flight. And if it turned out to be a *hypothetical* inside plot, any team who could purposely kill thousands in the World Trade Center wouldn't wince at a few more. Remember: none of the hijackers' names are yet known to be on the associated passenger manifests. Approximately 7 of the purported "names" are reported to be still alive (no "official" questions being asked). The aircraft have probably been disposed of in some manner. Given all that, only speculation can be made as to the details.
THOSE PHONE CALLS
Look just to the phone call of Barbara Olson, wife of the Solicitor General. A few days after the event, he violates what had to be "national security"... CONCLUSION...
TO TOP
