911 Commissioner Slips Up: Pentagon Struck by Missile
The Existentialist Cowboy
January 11, 2009
Tim Roemer has let the cat out of the bag, referring as did Donald Rumsfeld to a 'missile' that struck the Pentagon. In addition, there were the early news reports before 'officialdom' was able to insist that the media report ONLY the official conspiracy theory. Those early reports consisted of anchors like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings talking about 'controlled demolitions,' field reporters declaring that no airliner had struck the Pentagon, and, of course, the famous BBC report that WTC7 had fallen even as it was seen still standing behind the reporter.
9/11 commissioner slips up: Missile hit Pentagon
Earlier, FBI Director Robert Mueller said, there is no evidence to connect the 'said' 19 'hijackers' with the events of 911. Indeed, several of the 'hijackers' were interviewed by the BBC after they were said to have died in the attacks. A very serious 'nail in officialdom's coffin' is the fact that Flight 77 was at at altitude of 273 feet at the time of the so-called 'crash' into the Pentagon. That puts Flight 77 over 200 feet ABOVE the Pentagon within about half a second of the impact.
The only plausible explanation is that whatever really struck the Pentagon approached by way of the light poles and at an altitude that, in fact, allowed it to strike and damage the poles enroute. Whatever that was it was not Flight 77 which was higher up at the time and on a completely different trajectory.
A missile might have taken a route that clipped the light poles enroute to the Pentagon. Certainly, Flight 77 approached from another altitude and at an angle that would have completely missed the poles even if had been at the lower altitude. This is a critical point.
A single aircraft could not have damaged BOTH the poles AND the Pentagon from the trajectory that the flight data recorded for Flight 77.
Flight 77 was, in fact, too high at 273 feet. The DOD witnesses, in fact, did not, could not have seen whatever it was that struck both the poles and the Pentagon. The light poles, only about 40 feet high, are about 50 meters from the Pentagon. At this point the 'Reagan [airport] beacon' and the raw flight data confirm that Flight 77 altitude was never lower than 273 feet. The speed of Flight 77 at some 50 meters was over 500 mph. Even if Flight 77 had been on a trajectory to strike the poles, it would have flown over them. Flight 77 would have flown over the Pentagon on either trajectory.
Could Flight 77 have simply leveled off? Bluntly --no! Flight 77 had only a half second to two seconds in which to dive a couple of hundred feet and then level off thus accounting for both the light pole damage and the hit into the Pentagon. [Aerodynamics Simulation Software] Such a maneuver is outside manufacturers specifications, simply, impossible in that aircraft. Moreover, had that happened the 757 would not have been seen by the eyewitnesses who could ONLY have seen it on the other trajectory.
Calum Douglas presented his investigation into the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
the Indian YMCA in Fitzroy Square, London on 8th June 2007.
It is also 'outside the performance envelope' of one Hani Hanjour who 1) trained on a simulator and, in fact, had never set foot inside a 757; 2) was said by the Washington Post to have never boarded Flight 77 in the first place. Again --to make the point: there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour was ever on Flight 77.
The Washington Post said that Hani Hanjour did not have a ticket! Nor was his name on the original flight manifest. Flight manifests are not official. They are simply a head count done by staff. It is doubtful that a flight manifest would be admissible in court. A coroner's report, however, is considered to be evidence. It's official.
Hani Hanjour is not listed among those who were autopsied. Even idiots of the GOP must admit that nothing can be in two places at the same time unless the laws of physics as described by both Einstein and Newton have been repealed.
There are two reasons for believing Bush, his NEOCON co-conspirators, various Pentagon brass, and complicit murderers inside the MIC are responsible for perpetrating the treasonous, murderous crime of 911:
1) Bush has never told the truth about 911;
2) Bush has consistently and deliberately tried to cover up the crime with identifiable instances of obstruction of justice, lies, and overt intimidation.
Bush had method. He had at his disposal the US military and the intelligence apparatus of the CIA in order to 'pull off' 911. His 'old man' --Bush Sr --had been Director of the CIA and most certainly had 'connections,' perhaps a constituency loyal to him and powerful elites to whom the senior Bush may still be beholden.
Bush had motive. He benefited from 911 as no other single person could have. A 'base' of filthy rich elites got even richer short selling airline stocks. A neocon base benefited in numerous ways but primarily the elevation of their radical politics to policy. The oil companies that made up Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' may have benefited most of all. They were prepared to carve up the oil fields of the Middle East.
Bush had the opportunity to order and 'supervise' 911 by way of co-conspirators Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. That's method, motive and opportunity --more than enough to get you a lethal, injected cocktail for much less ambitious and malevolent crimes in the fascist, gulag state of Texas. Bush's opposition to the creation of the 911 Commission, his orders to destroy evidence at the Pentagon and at 'ground zero,' his interference with the 911 Commission, his ongoing cover up are not the actions of an innocent man. Had Bush wanted the truth out, he would have supported a complete, fair, and impartial investigation. That was, of course, the last thing Bush wanted.
[See: Northrop-Grumman: RQ-4 Block 20 Global Hawk] There are no hijacker names on the pathologists report released in response to an FOIA request. There is, therefore, no evidence that Hanjour's remains were autopsied, no evidence that his remains were even recovered or buried in Arlington National Cemetery. More to the point, there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour was at any time on any flight connected with 911. As pointed out, the Washington Post reported that Hanjour was not on Flight 77 because he did not have a ticket. It's hard to imagine short, skinny Hanjour forcing his way on board and having done so, taking over the controls with force and a boxcutter! It's a ludicrous story on its face. It simply did not happen and there is not a shred of evidence in support of it --let alone proof. You don't get past the gate without a boarding pass. You don't get a boarding pass without a ticket. The 'official' account is pure and utter bullshit.
A 757 airliner is a civilian craft, not a nuclear powered craft. It does not carry a nuclear war head or hardened nose cone. Had a 757 crashed the Pentagon there would have been no need to order decontamination procedures. No such procedures were carried out in New York, but were carried out at the Pentagon. Clearly, 'officials' knew at the time that a civilian airliner had not crashed the Pentagon. The only scenario that fully explains the necessity of decontamination procedures is that of a military craft crashing into the Pentagon. It is my belief that that is what happened in fact. Don't try to tell me that such procedures are just routine. They were not routine in New York and were not carried out! A set of related facts are explained by 'theories' which must, of necessity, explain every relevant fact. Theories inconsistent with proven facts must be discarded as false. Bush's theory explains nothing and is inconsistent with established science. By contrast, a technology called 'Global Hawk' may very well explain the seemingly inexplicable events of 911 and, at the same time, point an accusing finger.
The Global Hawk is operated by remote control. The US, in fact, outfitted an aircraft with Global Hawk technology and flew it --without a pilot --from California to Australia by remote control. No Arab hijackers were required! The Global Hawk, moreover, would have had no problems with the maneuver credited to Hanjour but which experienced pilots say is impossible in a 757.
A Global Hawk has only one engine rotor and it is of the size of the ONLY rotor to have been found in the Pentagon debris. Had a 757 crashed into the Pentagon TWO rotors each about three times that size would have been found. They were not! And that's because a 757 DID NOT strike the Pentagon. The burden of proof is upon those who have asserted that an airliner struck the Pentagon. It is time for those who continue to make that assertion to prove it, or, at the very, very least support it with a scintilla of verifiable evidence. The black-hearted liars who continue to espouse that absurd theory have not only no proof but no evidence in their support.
With a wingspan of over 116 ft the Global Hawk would have had no problem clipping the four damaged pole, skimming just above the pristine lawn, crashing into a portion of the Pentagon that was undergoing extensive renovations at the time. At the very instant of the crash, Flight 77 as above it all at 273 feet.
It's not enough that the Bush administration actively covered up evidence even as it sought to quash every investigation of 911, Bush and Condoleeza Rice would lie about the event after the fact, specifically, both Bush and Condo stated that the crashing of airliners into buildings could not have been foreseen, were not foreseen. [Bush: No evidence that US could avoid 9/11] Bush lied! And so did Condo Rice.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald prints an extract from Shenon's book which provides further details about Rice's incompetence. "Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats" before 9/11, Shenon writes.
In fact, just such a 'scenario' was the basis for security when Bush attended the G8 Summit in Italy, July 23, 2001 [See: "Italy: Bush Targeted at G8." New York Newsday 19 Sept 2001, unsigned; "Extremists 'Planned Genoa Attack on Bush,'" BBC News, 27 Sept 2001]. Secondly, Dick Cheney supervised precisely that scenario on the very day that it happened in fact --a highly improbable coincidence' that would repeat later in Britain on 7/7. Cheney supervised what are called 'exercises' within a bunker --the Presidential Emergency Operations Center --located under the White House. There is damning testimony against Cheney from former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who contradicts 9/11 Commission Report's Account of Dick Cheney's timetable. The Probable Cause to Charge Dick Cheney With Mass Murder, Terrorism, and High Treason
That's not all. Cheney had already been put in charge of a 'domestic terrorism study group' [See: 911 Coincidences], a clever cover from which to commit high treason and mass murder. Since those events, the Bush administration has worked overtly, assiduously to quash and interfere with every effort to investigate fully the events of 911. Only guilty people do that.
Condoleezza Rice, 9/11: For The Record," Washington Times, March 22, 2004: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free US-held terrorists."
Also see "Promoting Icon Condi" in the August 4, 2003, Daily Howler. --National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - SourceWatch
Rice's statements were bald faced lies and only the guilty try to cover up their crimes.
If the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least deliberately allowed by the Bush- Cheney administration and the Pentagon, then the motivation to cover up this murderous and treasonous act would be unlimited. No expenditure of time and money would be considered too great." --Professor David Ray Griffin , The True Story of 9/11: Part IV
By this time, everyone in America should know that alleged 'plane crashes' into the Twin Towers could not and did not result in their collapses. Descriptions by numerous witnesses, including that of professional firefigters describe controlled demolitions and thermite/thermate fires which burned for weeks. Ordinary fires can be extinguished with sand by robbing the fire of oxygen, but if one covered a thermite fire with tons of sand, the reaction, the fire would not stop. Certainly that was the case at WTC where the fires burned 'slowly and more moderately for weeks'. Jet fuel fires are spent very quickly. They do not continue to burn for weeks. I've covered airliner fires but never one which continued to burn for days, let alone weeks! Most fires were spent by the time reporters arrived on the scene. That fact alone disproves the official bullshit story.
On videos, molten steel can be seen streaming down the outer walls. The relatively cool kerosene fires were already spent by this time and could not have melted steel in any case. In summary, the first reporters on the scene at both the Pentagon and the so-called 'crash site' in PA were correct. There was NO airliner debris at either location. The narrow ditch at PA could not have accommodated a 757 and, in fact, did not. The ditch was most probably created by the backhoe that was seen in the very earliest photos from the PA crash site. It is LUDICROUS to suppose that Flight 93 buried itself underground leaving mere scraps topside. [See: Hoodwinked at Shanksville]. If Flight 93 buried itself like a gopher, then let's excavate that site. Let us find out where all that missing debris is. If there is an airliner down there, let's dig it up. We have the technology to do it: backhoes and shovels. In the meantime, check out how the Bush government's 'best case' for the Flight 93 scenario is proven to have been a cynical fraud:
BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!
There are no longer any reasons to believe any aspect of the Bush official cover story. Only idiots --on the one hand --and guilty conspirators on the other will put forward the official conspiracy theory with a straight face. On 911, our 'government' declared war on the people of the United States and, thus, became illegitimate. As Che would have put it: the peace is already considered to be broken. Thomas Jefferson would have already declared 'our' independence of a cabal that has, in effect, already destroyed the 'legitimate' government of the United States. I am not sure that the election of Obama is by itself enough to restore legitimacy. Perhaps, if every traitor and every traitorous, criminal accomplice were charged and brought to justice!
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. --Article III, US Constitution
The word treason covers the more egregious acts of betrayal or disloyalty to a sovereign or nation. Under the US Constitution and, in Britain by common law, sovereignty resides with the people themselves. What had been called the "United States" no longer exists. It was, in fact, overthrown in Bush's coup d'etat, and since that time systematically subverted and dismantled by Bush and his gang of treasonous usurpers. Accomplices who must certainly stand trial with Bush and Cheney will include Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and various Pentagon brass. There is, therefore, no admissible evidence that supports the absurd cover story that 'Arab hijackers' pulled off 911. At the Pentagon, for example, the 'official coronorers' report was released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request. There was not a single 'Arab' or hijacker name on the list. While there is no verifiable evidence to support Bush's version of 911, there is probable cause to indict Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and numerous others for the crimes of mass murder and high treason. Let's get on with the indictments, arrests, and trials. We tried Nazis at Nuremberg. Will we prove to the world what heinous hypocrites we are if we let 'out own' get away with precisely the same crimes?
911: Inside Job Update [Thanks, windharps]!
The Journal of History - Spring 2009 Copyright © 2009 by News Source, Inc.