|
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 | How strange it is... (updated) GET THIS. The USA government has released video tape of what it claims is Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. As some of our readers know, my own analysis of crime scene photos has determined that there was no jetliner involved in that incident. That is to say, I don't buy the official story that a jetliner hit the military headquarters of the free world an astonishing one hour after the attacks began at the World Trade Center. Let's forget -- for a moment -- that the tapes were released in our Flea Wagging the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm moment, when any distraction from reality counts for extra. Let's forget that the government claims this is are video of an airplane crash; the fact that Defense Dept. officials are participating in the discussion just begs the question. Finally. From what I can see, the tapes are the same as the security camera footage that came out (in the form of four or five selected frames) shortly after Sept. 11, showing a small, white projectile flying near the ground, and then apparently (judging from the fireball) hitting the building. But it does not look like the tall, elegant, shiny aluminum tail fin of a jetliner going by. It looks like a little missile. Which would be consistent with something, some kind of conventional (that is, not nuclear) bunker buster warhead, puncturing three of the Pentagon's rings. Photos of the puncture holes in brick walls several rings into the Pentagon's structure exist for anyone to see, and they are not in doubt. They are part of the official story. A missile would also be consistent with the lack of skidmarks, the lack of wreckage (such as huge titanium jets or landing gear, which are not destroyed in a crash), the lack of a fuel spill on the lawn (which is green right up to the little road next to the building), the lack of a jet wake flipping cars over, and the fact that the damage to the Pentagon is an exit wound rather than an entrance wound. That is, when you look at a photo, notice which way the debris falls. Imagine 100 tons of aluminum, fuel and titanium slamming into a brick wall. Which way should the bricks go? Um, they should go in the direction of the airplane -- not the opposite direction. There would also be a fuel spill and a big messy fire. Instead, there was a perfect, tight little explosion inside the Pentagon, blowing up through the roof, that destroyed the infrastructure of the building, before the façade fell outward. Note, the front face of the building stood intact as the building burned for 29 minutes before collapsing outward. [Photos below.] That is the really weird part. For half an hour, all that was apparent was a fire. Then, the building fell, outward. Now, you can twist that in your mind into a hijacked jetliner piloted by Arab terrorists with box cutters, angry about our way of life, crashing into the building, but that doesn't make it so. Seeing images of other jetliners hitting the World Trade Center all day long made it easy to fill in the rather large blanks. Let's not forget the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77, could barely fly a plane, according to his flight instructors. Let's not forget how whatever hit the Pentagon was maneuvered in a high speed, spiral descent with extreme precision before hitting the building (on the newly renovated side, far away from Donald Rumsfeld) -- not so easy in a very large aircraft with an inexperienced, incompetent pilot. At the beginning of this discussion nearly four years ago, I recall how nobody wanted to believe that anything but Flight 77 could possibly have hit the Pentagon. It felt like standing up in a crowded church service on Easter Sunday and screaming that God is a big hoax. Which is an apt metaphor because 9/11 was quickly made into a god we had to obey at all costs. Sometimes I write for a media criticism journal called Extra!, and when I tried to discuss this in March 2002, my editor there would not even listen to me for 30 seconds. He was incredulous. It HAD to be Flight 77. He looked around the Internet and could find no photos of wreckage, just one little description, sans image to go with it. A spokesman for the Air Traffic Controller's Union in D.C. who I called the same week, to ask him a few basic questions, was so angry, he was screaming at me, and slammed down the phone. Even as late as April 2004, when I was having dinner with a bunch of scientists at Jonathan Cainer's house, I could hardly drag anyone into Jonathan's office to look at the official Department of Defense photo I had put up on his iMac, to get them to show me where they thought the airplane was. One guy sat there on the office couch, refusing to get up and look, saying, "I'm not an expert on airplane crashes." Which is what lots of people were saying at the time. Yes, and if one abandons one's common sense, then anything you hear about on TV becomes the gospel truth. There was one person who would talk to me: Steve Inskeep of NPR. I knew Steve from when we were both on the New York State Capital press corps in the early 1990s. It was Steve's familiar and friendly voice, reporting from the Pentagon, that was the only reassuring thing those first days after 9/11. He was soon assigned to Afghanistan to cover the invasion of that country. When I finally spoke to him six months later, I asked him: If you had arrived at the Pentagon not knowing what happened, not being told it was a plane crash, what would you have thought it was? He said, "That's exactly what happened." He originally got in a taxi that morning, headed for the Pentagon, based on a report of an explosion -- not a plane crash. And he said the scene did not look like a plane crash, but that he had been to others that didn't look like plane crashes, either. Still: as we all know, no obvious wreckage; no obvious airplane crash. He wished me luck on the story, which he thought was worth pursuing. But most people get quite uppity at the suggestion there was no jetliner. We might ask why this kind of defensive reaction, and we might ask what the effects would be of having a situation that nobody will, or would at the time, even consider the possibility of being different than we are told. Here is why, I think. On the eve of my birthday in 2002, six extremely intense months after the 9/11 incident, I decided to take a week off, to pursue my hobby of writing erotic fiction. So much for that plan; that evening, an email came in with a link to the "Find the Boeing" presentation created by http://asile.org/ in France. I did try to Find the Boeing, and I could not. The link is below. This is the first but definitely not the best presentation on this issue. And then I clicked through to the high resolution Department of Defense photos and looked them over carefully, inch by inch, day and night, for a week. At the end of a week, I concluded that it was an obvious lie that a jet liner had hit the Pentagon, but somehow it had been perpetuated. Then I had my second revelation: if that was not true, then everything else was in doubt. For one glorious evening, I felt free. The whole façade of 9/11 crumbled. The problems is this: it is metaphysical. The notion that Nothing Is True pretty much removes the ground of so-called reality that most people stand on. You need some experience to hold that thought in your mind and not be plunged into extreme fear. The bits and pieces of the 9/11 story that we still cling to are like trying to float on a the cork of a champagne bottle after the cruise ship has already sunk. But as it took T.S. Eliot to say, "Human kind cannot bear very much reality." Nobody is doubting that something hit the Pentagon; the question is what. And the question is what this implies, because it points to something much deeper. We do have the question of what happened to Flight 77, and I have personal knowledge of one life that was lost. I think we need to be looking for a fifth crash scene that day on the Kentucky-West Virginia border. - - - Crash scene photos: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html This is what a 757 hitting the Pentagon would look like, for size comparison. Contrast with recently released security camera image of missile hitting Pentagon. http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg - - - Mandy Hall, our news editor, is hunting the story, and apparently the government producing the video tapes is the result of a long battle under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law called the FOIA, that requires government disclosure of public information. Under the Cheney-Bush regime, the FOIA has suffered worse abuse than it has at any prior time, but there have been some unusual successes, too. From what I am gathering, after the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui ended, they could no longer claim secrecy on the Pentagon "crash" tapes -- even though they were not used as evidence against Moussaoui. She writes: They've got two clips looks like they're shot from two different cameras but basically at the same place. - Links with interesting visuals: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/scenemap.html http://killtown.911review.org/flight77.html http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/video.html http://www.pentagonresearch.com/029.html Find the Boeing! http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm Were It So by Eric Francis (from March 2002) http://ericfrancis.com/articles/wereitso.html | ||||||
|
