Question: What Hit the Pentagon?

source: Journal of 9/11 Studies
dateline: July 31, 2009

Answer: a) Nothing should have b) Show us the tapes c) All of the above

by Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D.

The position I hold is simple. In answer to the question “What hit the Pentagon?” I say I don’t know and attempt to turn the discussion to the more fundamental question “Why was the Pentagon hit?”. It should not have been. It should have been well defended. Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was the third plane hijacked, so there was ample time to confirm that real hijackings were taking place, not a war game, and ample time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were also anti-aircraft defenses round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.

Important to this debate is the video testimony of the Secretary for Transportation, Norman Mineta, to the 9/11 Commission. He came into the bunker under the White House and saw that the Vice President, Dick Cheney, was already there. A young man came in and said to Cheney “The plane is 50 miles out”, then he came in again and said “The plane is thirty miles out”, and when it got down to 10 miles out the young man also said “Does the order still stand?” and Cheney angrily confirmed that it did. Shortly after this something dramatic happened at the Pentagon. There is little doubt that Cheney had it in his hand to shoot down this plane but had a reason not to do so.

There is also little doubt that those who were following this object on radar did not think it was anything other than a plane. Its speed alone would have indicated that it could not have been a missile. It is also worth noting that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission, denying that he was in the bunker at this time. This is grounds for a fresh investigation by itself.

There are now several theories about what hit the Pentagon. One is the official story, that a 757 approached at a low angle, striking light poles, then struck the Pentagon. Many eye witnesses confirm this path. The outer masonry wall was destroyed to an extent sufficient to allow the heavy parts of the plane to enter and slide into the Pentagon at ground level, between the supporting steel-reinforced columns, many of which were bent and broken. The trail of damage was in line with the damaged light poles. The lighter parts that failed to penetrate the wall would have been fragmented by the high velocity impact.

The early alternative theory was that a missile hit the Pentagon. This concept apparently originated from observation of the small circular hole in the inner wall.

Finally we have a theory based on a flight data recording which came into the hands of the 9/11 truth movement. Calum Douglas gave the first presentation on this at Ipswich, as will be discussed below. This flight data describes a path which is too high and at the wrong angle to have produced the observed damage. Claims have been made that several eye witnesses support this path.

There has been heated debate about what hit the Pentagon. At first glance it appears that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because there appeared to be too little debris, and too little damage at the impact site. It is very attractive to find evidence to support these claims because, if true, it would prove once and for all that the official story is a pack of lies, and many people have tried very hard to do so. However if you look at the evidence carefully you will find that it cannot be conclusively proved that no 757 hit the Pentagon. This doesn’t matter in the overall 9/11 analysis, however, because there is ample evidence that explosives were used at the World Trade Centre, and that is sufficient to prove that the official story is false and that the NIST report is nothing more than an artful cover-up. The first thorough scientific exposition of the evidence for explosive demolition was that of Professor Steven Jones in 2006. An updated version is here. A summary of some of the scientific milestones in the development of the explosive demolition theory is presented here.

[Read more…]

Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York

source: History Commons

The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.

The undated document, entitled “NORAD EXERCISES Hijack Summary,” was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the National Archives at the start of the year. It was found there, and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd, by History Commons contributor paxvector, in the files of the commission’s Team 8, which focused on the failed emergency response on the day of the attacks. The summary appears to have been drafted by one of the commission’s staffers, possibly Miles Kara, based on documents submitted by NORAD.

Read Full Story

Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York

Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York
by Kevin Fenton
historycommons.org

The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.

The undated document, entitled “NORAD EXERCISES Hijack Summary,” was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the National Archives at the start of the year. It was found there and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd by History Commons contributor paxvector in the files of the commission’s Team 8, which focused on the failed emergency response on the day of the attacks. The summary appears to have been drafted by one of the commission’s staffers, possibly Miles Kara, based on documents submitted by NORAD.

In the September 9 scenario, the fictitious terrorists’ goal seems to have been to kill New Yorkers with the rain of debris following the plane’s explosion. However, in the exercise, the military intercepted the plane and forced it away from the city. When the terrorists realized they were not near New York, they blew the plane up “over land near the divert location,” leaving no survivors. The military unit most involved in this scenario was NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), which also played a key role in the air defense response to the 9/11 attacks, two days later.

[Read more…]

NORAD

One of the MAJOR problems with the official account. One that needs to be resolved.

The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed

The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed
by Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research, September 27, 2007

Information regarding military exercises is classified and difficult to research. Though there was unusually high and confusing drill activity on 9/11, this strange coincidence has not gained much public notice. This essay quotes military officials from their own magazines, and compares their statements to what the 9/11 Commission wrote about the so-called surprise factor, and also to the Commission’s position that the drills aided the response.

Though both the 9/11 Commission Report and members of the Bush Administration repeatedly stated that the use of planes as weapons could not have been predicted, other official sources indicate that military exercises had been underway to counteract this very possibility.

3-f-18s.jpg1. Was it a Surprise that Hijacked Planes Were Used as Weapons on 9/11?

The element of surprise has been widely given (and quoted) as the reason why the 9/11 attacks were so successful against the world’s greatest military power.

Before proceeding to the statements on both sides of the issue, the context for these attacks should be understood in light of three defense procedures which were unusually and significantly changed in the months preceding 9/11:

1. A May 8th 2001 Statement by the President gave responsibility for coordinating, training and planning all national defense programs related to weapons of mass destruction to Vice President Cheney, whose office was not part of the National Command Authority. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he was present and observed Dick Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center tracking the position of Flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon.1 “Based on Norm Minetta’s testimony and other information, it appears that the military have regarded Cheney as a ‘Deputy Commander-in-Chief’. They also understand that he is the real power behind the throne…It appears that Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of all the many air defense exercises that took place on the morning of September 11, 2001.”2

2. The 1997 hijacking scramble protocol CJCSI 3610, which distinguished emergent situations (requiring immediate action between the FAA and the military) from non-emergent situations (requiring decision input from the highest levels of the DoD) was rewritten June 1, 2001, as ordered by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.3 As a result, the number of fighter-interceptor scrambles fell from the usual average of 7-8 per month before the rewrite, to zero during the 3.3 months before September 11th, and to zero on September 11th itself.4

3. Changes in the dates of annual and semi-annual military air defense exercises resulted in an unprecedented concentration of air drills on September 11th, and included hijackings and drills in which planes hit buildings. These will be explored later.

The transfer of two line defense roles to senior members of the Bush-Cheney Administration, paired with the concentration of air drills on the day itself, raise serious questions regarding the success of the attacks.

[Read more…]

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Despite the fact that I have retired from producing the podcast, I still receive 4-6000 downloads a month from people who are still finding this information useful.  Current stats show that the podcast has received almost 1.25 million downloads and I still get emails from listeners on a monthly basis thanking me for making this information available.  My goal is to keep these podcasts available long past my time here on earth, however, I need your help.  Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.