[Conspiracy - 911 Wtc] Spencer, Leonard - The Attack On The Pentagon.pdf - WTC 9.11 - ru77

The Attack on The Pentagon

Página 1 de 12

The Attack on The Pentagon

by Leonard Spencer

z Introduction

z The Seismic Evidence

z The Eyewitness Reports

z Damage and Debris

z The CCTV Frames

z Piecing It All Together

Introduction

Of all the terrorist incidents that took place on September 11, the one that underlines most starkly the poverty of the

official account is undoubtedly the attack on the Pentagon. While the strikes on the Twin Towers in New York

require a little investigative digging before their true and disturbing nature is uncovered, in the case of the Pentagon

it isn't necessary to look at a single scrap of evidence from the scene of the crime. Even the most cursory review of the

events leading up to the attack soon makes it abundantly clear that an unanticipated attack of this kind could not, in

reality, happen at all.

The Pentagon, in common with the nearby White House, is one of the best-protected public buildings in the USA. It is

equipped with its own battery of surface-to-air missiles and the airspace above it is the subject of a permanent overfly

ban in respect of commercial aircraft. Its security personnel are trained and equipped to respond swiftly to attempted

acts of aggression, including attacks by aircraft. Indeed the Pentagon was particularly aware of the dangers posed by

an attack of this kind; only a few years earlier a disgruntled citizen ruffled a few feathers by flying his light plane into

a Pentagon wall, an incident that led to a thorough review of the building's emergency procedures. On September 11

however, not a single anti-aircraft missile was fired in the Pentagon's defence. So was the attack so sudden and

unexpected that Pentagon staff simply didn't have enough time to take necessary action? Well no. Let's look at that

timeline.

American Airlines Flight 77, the plane we have been led to believe hit the Pentagon (though the recent findings of

Gerard Holmgren suggest it may never have left the ground), supposedly departed from Washington's Dulles airport

at 8.20 am. With the exception of a yet to be explained looped deviation at around 8.46, it flew normally towards its

intended destination of Los Angeles until around 9.00 when it did a 180° turn near the Ohio state border and began

heading back towards Washington. A minute or two later its transponder signal ceased. At around 9.05 West Virginia

flight control noticed an eastbound plane entering its radar space with no radio contact and no transponder

identification. By now of course two apparently hijacked planes had already crashed into the World Trade Center in

New York. This third plane had changed course and switched off its transponder just like the first two. And it was

heading straight for Washington, the US capital and home of the White House and the President! Over twenty

minutes later therefore three fighter jets were scrambled to investigate the mystery plane. Unfortunately they were

scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia rather than the nearby Andrews AFB in Washington so were still over a

hundred miles short of their target when 'Flight 77' eventually hit the Pentagon.

It's pretty unbelievable stuff but your disbelief has to be suspended for a while longer yet. Having made its way back

to Washington unchallenged for over half an hour, the plane was picked up by Washington ATC for the first time at

9.33. By this time it was flying well in excess of 400 mph and on a trajectory that put it directly on course for the

White House. Before getting there however the plane suddenly executed a left-hand descending turn, turning almost

a complete circle and dropping 7000 ft in two and a half minutes. This complex manoeuvre levelled out perfectly in

line for a direct hit on the Pentagon and it flew the last few hundred yards just a few feet above the ground, clipping

trees and lamp poles before ploughing into the Pentagon at an estimated speed of 480 mph.

The official commentary on what happened at the Pentagon does not encourage us to ponder why fanatical terrorists

would allow Flight 77 to fly for forty minutes or so away from their target before getting round to taking control of

the plane, nor how they were then able to fly the plane over two hundred miles, at a time of such high alert, without

being intercepted. It offers little by way of coherent explanation as to why, when a response was finally authorized,

F-16s were scrambled from an airbase 130 miles away when fighters were ready and waiting at a base less than ten

miles from the capital, nor why not a single missile was fired in the Pentagon's defence. There is a deafening silence

as to how the plane was able to achieve its final dazzling manoeuvre, even though that high-speed descending turn

was well beyond the capabilities of both its alleged pilot (who could scarcely control a Cessna) and indeed of a

commercial Boeing 757. Yet this mixture of B-movie hokum and blundering incompetence that would make the

Keystone Cops blush is still accepted by many as a sober and accurate exposition of events at the Pentagon. To my

mind however one of the most telling indications that the attack on the Pentagon was a carefully contrived internal

military operation is that it happened at all.

It is not really surprising that events at the Pentagon have generated considerably more debate and analysis than all

the other incidents on September 11 put together. It is also the case however that, easy as it is to point out the gaping

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

11/11/2004

The Attack on The Pentagon

Página 2 de 12

holes and inconsistencies in the official account of what happened, arriving at a satisfactory alternative hypothesis —

one that takes into account and explains all the known facts of the case — has proved a particularly elusive task. Over

two years since the debate and analysis began there are few issues on which the sceptics have achieved anything

approaching a consensus.

The reason for this is straightforward enough. It's because the sum total of genuine hard evidence in the public

domain is rather small, much smaller than is the case for the attacks on the Twin Towers. There is considerably less

evidence than one might reasonably expect of an incident that occurred in broad daylight in the centre of the capital

of the USA. In particular there is no photographic or video record of the plane itself or of its impact with the

Pentagon. The true character of these crucial details remains a matter of speculation. Although the Pentagon attack

was witnessed by hundreds of people — from their cars, from the sidewalks, from the windows of surrounding office

blocks and apartment buildings — it seems none of them pointed a camera at the incident in the moments leading up

to impact. There were no documentary crews in the area fortuitously to catch the event on tape and nor was the

world's media in attendance. Images and footage of both the plane and the impact do however exist. As befits a

building as well protected as the Pentagon it is monitored by a large number of security cameras, several of which

undoubtedly captured both plane and impact. Curiously, with the exception only of five rather dubious and

inconclusive CCTV frames (which I shall consider in some detail later), none of this footage has been released into the

public domain.

So what evidence is available? It falls into four main categories. Firstly there is the interesting (and rarely considered)

seismic evidence as provided by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. There are the numerous

eyewitness reports supplied by those individuals present at the scene. There is the evidence, photographic and

otherwise, recording the damage and debris caused by the plane, the explosions and the subsequent fire. Finally

there are those five frames of security camera footage, the closest we have to a record of the impact itself.

Much of this evidence is inconclusive and some of it is apparently contradictory. Because it is also incomplete it

throws up a very intriguing paradox. Before attempting a review of the main evidence as it currently stands, I'd like

to underline this basic paradox because it lies at the heart of all the enquiries into the Pentagon attack.

It is encapsulated clearly and succinctly by the following photograph. It shows the facade of the Pentagon after the

attack but before a section of it collapsed. It was taken at time when the fire truck on the left had stopped spraying

foam at the damage, thus giving us a reasonably clear view of the building's facade at the point of impact, which is

indicated by the arrow. Reels of electrical cable (this section of the Pentagon was being renovated at the time) lie

undamaged and largely undisturbed immediately in front of the impact point.

Clearly a Boeing passenger jet travelling at over 450 mph has not penetrated the building at this point. There is no

scar or entry hole that could possibly support this scenario. Neither is there any wreckage to be seen in front of the

building. Precious little wreckage was found inside the building either. The plane — or whatever it was that hit the

Pentagon — seems to have vaporized prior to impact and vanished into thin air. Planes are not generally believed

able to do this.

A moment before the impact, a suitably placed observer at the scene should have seen something like this, a to-scale

simulation of a Boeing 757 about to strike the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

11/11/2004

The Attack on The Pentagon

Página 3 de 12

How could a plane of this size travelling at 480 mph cause so little damage and vanish so completely? It's probably

time to take a look at the evidence.

The Seismic Evidence

In the case of the other three incidents, the seismic studies produced by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth

Observatory have proved to be a reliable and often quoted source of some hard 9-11 facts, not least of which has been

the precise time of each event. Its findings in respect of the Pentagon attack are cited less frequently. The findings are

available at: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf . Of the Pentagon attack the

scientists conclude:

"There appears to be strong seismic signals around 09:38:52 at station MVL (Millersville, Pa; ∆ = 139 km),

but the signals are too high frequency (5-10 Hz) and too high amplitude (328 nm/s at 139 km). Hence, it

appears to be noise perhaps due to electrical disturbances. Otherwise, there are no clear and consistent

seismic wave arrivals in this time window".

Despite a major signal at 9.38 in the Washington area, this is not believed to be a genuine seismic reading. We might

conclude therefore that the events at the Pentagon generated no seismic activity whatsoever. Yet a major impact or a

big explosion would certainly be expected to register. Taken at face value, the seismic study informs us that there was

no substantial impact and no big explosion. I am ill-qualified to question the author's judgement regarding the

possible 'electrical disturbances', but cannot help wondering what may have given rise to these disturbances, if that is

what they were.

The seismic data is potentially very valuable, but on this occasion I believe the Earth Observatory has let us down in

one crucial respect. The problem concerns the time window alluded to in the final sentence of the above quote. For

some reason the Earth Observatory decided to analyse only data that related to the period 09.36.30 to 09.39.30, a

rather narrow window of three minutes. Although most authorities now agree that the Pentagon attack occurred

within these times, this has not always been the case. In the first few months after the incident it was not uncommon

to see the time given as 09.42 and some reports even quoted as late as 09.45. It is unfortunate and frustrating that the

Observatory chose not extend its study to cover a wider time window that incorporated these times. A twenty minute

window between 9.30 and 9.50 would have been satisfactory. That it did not do so means that we must take these

findings with caution.

The Eyewitness Reports

Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. On the one hand they can be intentionally misleading. Without

wishing to cast aspersions on the honesty of any single witness that day, it is a point of fact that a large proportion of

the witnesses to the Pentagon attack were, not surprisingly, military officials and other Pentagon personnel. More

surprising perhaps is that so many employees of mainstream media organisations were also in the area that day.

Eyewitness reports can also be unintentionally misleading. This is particularly the case when the event witnessed is

sudden, short-lived and singular in nature, which is certainly the case with the Pentagon attack. In these

circumstances many people have difficulty accurately processing in their own minds what they have seen and may

unconsciously rearrange or embellish events to make their subsequent account sound more rational and plausible.

True to form, the eyewitnesses of the Pentagon crash offer an almost comical mishmash of contradictory accounts.

Some for instance claim that the plane hit the ground and turned cartwheels before hitting the building, others that it

made a clean strike. Some believe they could see passengers through the plane's windows while others are convinced

the window blinds were down. Some say the plane impacted with a huge, ear-splitting explosion, others say they

heard very little and could only feel the shockwaves.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

11/11/2004

The Attack on The Pentagon

Página 4 de 12

The wide discrepancies between the different accounts mean we should resist the temptation to give preference to

any one report over another. In the absence of other corroboratory evidence it is not possible to determine which

eyewitness reports are the most reliable, even though some may sound more plausible than others. The eyewitness

reports do nonetheless form a valuable source of evidence because there are so many of them. Over 150 eyewitness

reports are in the public domain and this is enough for them to submit to basic statistical analysis. The more

unanimously eyewitnesses agree on certain details, the more trust we can usually place in the reliability of those

details.

One matter on which the eyewitness reports provide important guidance is the basic question of the size of the plane.

Disregarding hearsay reports, I have found 157 eyewitness statements relating to the Pentagon attack. A near-

exhaustive list is collated at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/witness.html . Of these, 111 were made by witnesses

who actually saw the aircraft and, of these, 49 give some indication of the size of the plane they saw. All but three

describe it as being a large or medium sized passenger jet and many could make out the American Airlines livery. Of

the three who said the plane was small, one, Steve Patterson, has not been heard of since and is not known at the

address he gave, while another witnessed the incident from a tower block several miles away in Rosslyn, Virginia. A

total of 43 people saw both the plane and the impact. All agree that the plane they saw was the one that hit the

Pentagon. No-one says the plane flew over or past the Pentagon, and some witnesses, particularly those on the upper

floors of high-rise buildings, had a panoramic view of the whole thing. Against unanimity like this and in the absence

of compelling material evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to argue that anything other than a medium to large

sized passenger jet flew into the Pentagon that day. I shall look at that material evidence in some detail later.

A number of smaller details recur with persuasive regularity in the eyewitness reports. One is that the plane hit lamp

poles, trees and even a traffic sign as it approached the building, an observation that is confirmed by photographs of

the material damage. Interestingly, many of those who saw these impacts noted also that afterwards the plane

returned with uncanny precision to its original course, the engines gunning up perfectly to regain speed and the

controls employed to correct roll, pitch and deviation. Five witnesses report seeing the plane emit a brief flash just

before it struck and several more say that they heard two or more distinct explosions on impact. Ten saw a second

plane circling round the scene during and after the attack and the Pentagon has subsequently stated that a military C-

130 was in the vicinity.

Although I said earlier we should resist the temptation to favour one witness statement over and above another,

there is nonetheless one witness whose testimony I believe deserves particular mention. Actually this witness wasn't

an eyewitness at all because she did not see the incident directly. Nevertheless her account is of particular

significance because her exposure to the incident was not as a shocked and surprised observer. It took place within

the context of her everyday professional work. Danielle O'Brien was on duty that day as an air traffic controller at

Dulles Airport and tracked the approaching Flight 77 on radar as it entered Washington airspace. Of the incoming

plane she reported to ABC News :

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us

experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane....And it went six, five, four. And I had it

in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense

of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and

to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second".

So while the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses were convinced they saw a regular Boeing passenger jet,

professional air traffic controllers were convinced they were tracking a military plane. If this puzzling contradiction is

to be resolved we must turn our minds to the other evidence.

Damage and Debris

Photographs of the Pentagon and the activity around it in the

immediate aftermath of the attack paint a curiously tranquil scene.

Three or four fire engines make light work of the initial blaze. Shirt-

sleeved investigators go quietly and methodically about their

business. The lawn appears pristine and verdant, spared for some

reason the blazing skeleton of a Boeing 757, the huge trenches

gouged out by its engines, or indeed anything else that might suggest

that a hundred tons of passenger jet travelling at over 450 mph and a

few feet above the ground had recently passed that way.

Yet although much has been made of the absence of aircraft

wreckage resulting from the Pentagon attack, it is not true to say that

there was none at all. There was for instance the much-discussed

fragment of fuselage (shown right) that appears to bear the American

Airlines logo. The origin of this piece of wreckage is unclear but it is

difficult to believe that it had recently been ejected from the midst of

a massive explosion and fireball. It has no burn or scorch marks whatsoever. It is too pristine and looks, frankly, as

though it has been cut out with a can opener. Whether it ever formed part of the fuselage of the plane that hit the

Debris on the Pentagon lawn

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

11/11/2004

The Attack on The Pentagon

Página 5 de 12

Pentagon is open to question. There was other wreckage however and some of it is visible in the same photograph.

Several eyewitnesses speak of a shower of white confetti-like debris that rained down after the explosion and some of

this can be clearly seen in background. The identity of this wreckage is uncertain, but there seems too much of it for it

to have been surreptitiously introduced after the impact.

Photographs from within the Pentagon show occasional nondescript piles of

rubble and there is even a picture of aircraft engine parts supposedly found inside

the building (left). If this item of debris was deliberately planted then someone

made an elementary mistake because the parts shown have little in common with

those of the much larger Pratt and Whitney turbofan used on Boeing 757s. It

probably would have been a good idea also to ensure that two engines were

found and not just the one, but perhaps that's being pedantic.

According to the White House of course, the incident at the Pentagon offered up

far more evidence of the plane than this. It claims for instance that, unlike in the

case of the other three planes, an intact black box recorder was found in the rubble

and that this yielded nothing more interesting than 'basic flight data'. It claims too

that body parts of each and every person on the passenger list were found and

that DNA analysis was used to identify these body parts. On the other hand, to

my knowledge neither of these highly significant 'finds' has been confirmed by the release of corroboratory evidence

so we are required to take the White House's word for it. Why have the black box recorders not been released to the

civilian authorities? Were those body parts returned to the next of kin for burial and if so why have there been no

funerals for the alleged people onboard?

The material damage to the fabric of the Pentagon itself and its environs offers up far more substantial evidence of

what really took place on September 11 in Washington. That damage however was so minimal that, if the official

account of what happened is true, we must pay fulsome tribute to the architects and engineers responsible for the

building's near-miraculous design and construction. It is remarkable that in New York two Boeing passenger jets

were able to reduce to dust two of the largest and strongest buildings in the world, yet in Washington a similar plane

in a comparable attack could inflict only a modest fire and minor structural collapse on a considerably smaller

building. This point is tacitly conceded by the American Society of Civil Engineers whose Pentagon Building

Performance Study concludes in its executive summary:

"The BPS team recommends that the features of the Pentagon’s design that contributed to its resiliency in

the crash — that is, continuity, redundancy, and energy-absorbing capacity — be incorporated in the

future into the designs of buildings and other structures in which resistance to progressive collapse is

deemed important".

Which is to say that the ASCE is as surprised as everyone else that the building sustained so little damage in the

incident, in marked contrast to the catastrophic performance of the World Trade Center. The ASCE's full report on

the damage to the Pentagon can be found at http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf .

The Pentagon was hit on the side facing north east. Damage was

confined to two sections (or wedges) of the building — Wedge 1,

which took the brunt of the impact, and the adjoining Wedge 5.

As already demonstrated, the photographic record shows that the

initial damage to the Pentagon's facade was minimal. The plane

appears to have entered the building through a ground floor

doorway, yet the glass in windows immediately adjacent

remained intact. About half an hour after the impact and with the

fire well under control, a small section of the building, measuring

around 24 metres across, collapsed. Photographs taken of the

collapsed section show that offices on either side sustained

astonishingly little interior damage, given their proximity to the

impact and fireball. In this picture (right) note the pristine walls

and the immaculate wooden stool and open book. How odd that

several Pentagon employees who survived the blast in this section

of the building speak of the incredible heat, so intense that it melted window panes.

Undamaged offices immediately

adjacent to impact point

Behind the outer ring of Wedge 1, the Pentagon suffered very distinctive damage. As the first of the photographs

below shows, fire spread extensively along the outer ring of the wedge and along the entire length of the main

dividing sections running crossways. The fire was clearly less extensive in the rings contained within this area. Aerial

photographs showing the inner wall of C Ring however do reveal three interesting exit holes, as shown in the second

of the photographs below and in closer detail in the two that follow. The exit hole I have labelled number 1 is widely

documented and discussed. Some have suggested that it was caused by the plane's port engine propelling itself like a

missile through the building, though it seems too large to have been caused by the engine that was found. Others

have argued that it is far more reminiscent of an exit hole caused by a real missile. The other two exit holes have been

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

11/11/2004

Engine parts found in the Pentagon

[Conspiracy - 911 Wtc] Spencer, Leonard - The Attack On The Pentagon.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: