posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:40 PM
I studied this a whole lot before I ever heard of ATS. So far I have heard (from news sources): "there were curiously few eyewitnesses." and later
read a page of eyewitness testimony. I have seen photos of the Pentagon lawn both covered with aircraft debris during firefighting operations, and
photos of the Pentagon lawn at the same area during firefighting operations with zero aircraft debris. On the morning of 9-11 the news suddenly
switched to a live anchor at the Pentagon who said there was a fire alarm somewhere but nothing else was happening. Looked like an error in a script
or timing. Was it really? I can't say.
The 757 routinely comes with it's fuel tanks in the wings. There is an option to increase range by installing extra fuselage fueltank. Physics
seems to tell us that a fuel-laden airplane wing will not lever backwards and slide into a concrete building, they will smash on the outer surface of
the concrete and either burn there or leave a hole where they punch through. Neither was seen. I presume (and here may be my error) that fuel would
routinely be used first in the fuselage tank for crash safety reasons, and then the fuel in the wings used later. The last option is that the pilot
pumped the wing fuel into the fuselage tank berfore striking the Pentagon, and the wing tanks were empty, and indeed folded back as if on hinges,
exactly the same on both wings, and disappeared into the hole. Or bounced back onto the lawn. Or something.
If I had say $30 million I could get a lot of eyewitness testimony, especially if they worked for me.
I vote for a Rumsfeld psyop, either to sugar-coat by misdirection the actual shoot-down of the PA plane, or else as stated above, to confuse the
enemy. As we ALL know, the other scenario is that it was part of the planned coup-de-etat. That one is fanciful. The oddities surrounding the
Flight 77 story are not.