Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Many of the issues raised in this thread, plus several others, are dealt with in some detail in a recent Australian radio interview with Dr. Frank Legge: mp3 audio file.

He makes the point that (unlike the demolition of the twin towers) there's insufficient evidence to determine conclusively that the Pentagon official story is a lie, but the authorities have the evidence to prove otherwise and refuse to release it. It is also clear that there was a stand-down of normal defensive procedures. He believes a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon but evidence to prove it is held back in order to muddy the waters - and would be released if public pressure demanded a new investigation in order to deflate and confound critics of the official story.

I lean towards something along the lines of Pappie54's theory - that 9/11 resulted from a convergence of inside and outside conspirators, possibly originating as a conventional terrorist plot intercepted and co-opted by state actors. In this scenario, participants may have had a partial or false understanding of their role in the plan and the plan itself encompassed diverse aims.

Johndor asks "Why would they stage an attack on the Pentagon when they already had all they need to go to war?" - but these kind of questions assume a total unity of purpose in the attacks. It seems more likely that a complex multifaceted (and to some degree self-conflicted) plot was unfolding on 9/11.

On November 2000, a simulated a crash with some planes on a miniature model of the Pentagon was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon's Command Emergency Response Team.

Reinforcement to the area that was struck (and only that sector) was being completed on 9/11: The Pentagon Renovations Completed on 9/11/2001

It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars [and blast-resistant windows] to withstand bomb blasts.... While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there.

Los Angeles Times

Having miraculously evaded interception on the journey to the Pentagon, the whole mission was placed in jeopardy by not flying straight into the building but skirting around it, executing a 320-degree descending spiral before diving into this less occupied area.

This manoeuvre increased the chance of interception and required remarkable flying skill. It does not appear haphazard, but a quite deliberate detour - so why was it undertaken? The original flight path was on target to take out military top brass, but instead the more difficult route to the Naval Command Center was taken.

Ignored by the Bush administration, 9/11 Commission and mainstream media:
Dr. Janette Sherman, a radiation expert and medical doctor who lived about 12 miles from the crash site recorded and reported Geiger counter readings showing a level over eight to ten times higher than normal, downwind from the Pentagon on 9/11.

Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates Depleted Uranium Used



[edit on 1-9-2009 by EvilAxis]

I hope I'm not being redundant but it makes absolutely no sense for the Pentagon to have NOT had surface to air missles to protect it.

In Gulf war I Israel had patriot missles to intercept incoming SCUD missles. 10 years later and we don't even have missles to shoot down an aircraft?

Our most important military installation had NO MEANS OF DEFENSE other than interception by planes? I can't believe that for one thin minute.

reply to post by EvilAxis


and thank you for that post, and information. Very interesting observations...I also thank you for the links... and intend to fully examine this theory.

As you have shown with these ideas, and links...there is more than the official story for sure.



[edit on 1-9-2009 by burntheships]

reply to post by Asktheanimals

To protect against suicide 757's? It would make sense if it was NOT equipped to do that.

Let's do a quick assessment of lost items...Securities and Exchange Commission records in Bldg 7 that could have had dire implications for the Bush S&L scandals, FBI Field Office Records in Build 7 that could have implicated Bush's in anything from the Nazis to several Kennedy killings, Pentagon accounting office and Naval Intelligence, who would know a bit about where Bush and Cheney were spending our money.

The time has come to put Bush, Cheney, the 2001 head of the FAA and others directly involved on the stand under oath to answer direct questions about these crimes!

Originally posted by really
reply to post by warrenb

 

"nd everyone forgets the convenient fact that the office that was struck was
...the ill-fated Pentagon accounting office, most of which was obliterated along with Naval Intelligence that day, both keepers of many lost secrets.

onlinejournal.com...

Just what was contained in that room?
I would love to know"

Well, considering that Rumsfeld came out on 9/10 and said over 2 trillion dollars could not not be accounted for in the Pentagon budget, I'm guessing destroying the accounting office would be a good idea. I mean it all should be backed up on a hard drive somewhere but, destroy the originals and you can change what's been put on a computer without worry.
Just a theory.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Many of the issues raised in this thread, plus several others, are dealt with in some detail in a recent Australian radio interview with Dr. Frank Legge:

Whether or not he talks about some of the off topic stuff he does not directly address any of the evidence revealed in the OP of this thread via the presentation National Security Alert proving the plane did not hit.

He simply dismisses it with a hand wave while floating a LUDICROUS "plane bomb" theory that has no evidence to back it up whatsoever such as a crater in the ground where the "plane bomb" would have exploded.

Not only that but he misrepresented the positions of CIT and P4T in the latest version of his opinion piece article on the Pentagon attack published in J.O.N.E.S.

Legge presents no evidence whatsoever and his faulty logic and misrepresentations were addressed after the first version of his paper was released beginning of August.

Those who are interested can view our preliminary response here.

reply to post by mappam



underground military bases...prisons...etc...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig/CIT made this video so thorough, so detailed, and with such care, that anyone who can not see the TRUTH that the plane flew in from the north side, banked right and then flew over the pentagon is quite foolish.

Thank you Craig, you are a real hero.

[edit on 9/2/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


Wow thank you man.

It means a lot to hear that people get it and appreciate it.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Craig/CIT made this video so thorough, so detailed, and with such care, that anyone who can not see the TRUTH that the plane flew in from the north side, banked right and then flew over the pentagon is quite foolish.

Thank you Craig, you are a real hero.

[edit on 9/2/2009 by JPhish]

You missed that easily I demonstrated that Ranke's supplementary video on the "flyover" claim simply contradicts his own claims and does not in any way whatsoever demonstrate any "flyover."

It's easy to see Craig Ranke's screw-ups and he could not rebut it at all:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CIT will be facing many questions at the NYC conference in 2 weeks., including about his own contradictions, CIT's complete inability to provide any positive evidence whatsoever of any "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon" will be the focus of questions from many participating skeptics of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Thanks for your contribution to this thread, and also for your continued work investigating and reporting.

If you have time and are so inclined there were some questions buried in this thread...

I am just getting familiar with some of your other threads,
TrueAmerican pointed us to.


bts~


[edit on 2-9-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by AceOfAces

 

And how disappointed the "truth" movement will be when they find out that, yes, a group of Islamic terrorists managed to pull off the attack that day........

What you will find out is that the men and women that have been serving us in the Congress over the last 30 years managed to hamstring our agencies enough to create the conditions needed to hurt us like we were on 9/11.

www.blacklistednews.com...
www.wedemandtransparency.com...
Former High-Ranking Intelligence Officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11

David Steele is a former 20-year USMC and intelligence officer, #2 civilian USMC Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer.

"The Pentagon was hit by a missile.."

"Pakistan briefed Cheney [about the plans for the terrorist attacks ahead of time] …nations also got wind of this and warned the CIA... "

He added Cheney used a training exercise to divert air defense / cripple NORTHCOM.

reply to post by GovtFlu


Utter garbage!

There was no Northcom in 2001 as it was created in 2002. There was no such thing as a normal response to a flight path diversion by NORAD.

Steel simply spouts typical "truther" crap, which has been proven false for years.

i suggest you hide this to avoid looking even stupider than is typical for "trythers already. This is a gross *FAIL*

reply to post by burntheships


Thank you for posting the thread.

I'm very pleased to see how well it has taken off!

The response to our press release has been overwhelming so I'm sorry that I haven't had time to participate as usual.

In fact I will be traveling starting today and throughout the weekend because of a family emergency so unfortunately I won't have much time the next few days either.

But if you put together the most pertinent questions you would like me to address in one post and perhaps pm me a link to that post and I'll try to eventually get to it.

Most questions are answered on our FAQ page and a couple of really important new ones will be posted soon so definitely go through and keep an eye on that: FAQ page.


Thanks again!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


For your FAQ page:

How do you square the argument that no one saw the flyover because nobody in the area takes note of planes flying by due to the nearby location of the airport and the counter argument that all your witnesses, with regular jobs right next to the runway, all just happen to look up in time when they heard a jet and did so in such a concerted manner that they were able to absolutely determine in the blink of an eye the exact path of the plane. Would your witnesses not have been pretty immune to the distraction of low flying planes like the folks on the highway would have been as you have argued?

reply to post by hooper


The topography and landscape is complex and you would not be able to see the entire event go down (plane approach, alleged impact side of wall, explosion, and fly away) from most locations. This is why confirming actual POV's (points of view) with witnesses first hand is so important so you can verify what they would have been able to see.

The plane approaching the Pentagon on the west side at tree top level was off the course of normal air traffic and most people were already aware of the fact that planes had hit buildings in New York therefore their minds were preconditioned to believe this is what was happening.

The timing of the explosion with the approach of the plane would divert the attention of and deceive many on the west side into believing the plane hit as the citgo witnesses have demonstrated.

The Pentagon is a virtual city in itself because it is so large so people on the west side can not see the east side and vice versa.

There aren't many good views from the east side due to the fact that the Pentagon is right next to the river.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23aae21456a.jpg[/atsimg]

The plane flying away however would be over the river in seconds and therefore in the same air space as normal air traffic.

So while it was NOT in the same airspace as normal air traffic on the approach it was right there during the flyaway.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07668e3964a6.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06a150d31435.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5958b9b11f2.gif[/atsimg]

The people who happened to be located in the perfect position to see everything while paying attention at the exact right time were taken care of with a very deliberate and fraudulent 2nd plane cover story. This is VERY key and extremely critical to the operation and we believe why they flew the plane on the north side in the first place. So they could blame it on a "2nd plane" to those who saw it fly away.

The gist of your question will in fact be covered in a lot more detail in one of the new FAQ's to go up soon titled: Wouldn't there be 100's of witnesses to a flyover?

Stay tuned.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by hooper

 

The topography and landscape is complex and you would not be able to see the entire event go down (plane approach, alleged impact side of wall, explosion, and fly away) from most locations. This is why confirming actual POV's (points of view) with witnesses first hand is so important so you can verify what they would have been able to see.

Craig Ranke knows that's a fib. See:

Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

Craig Ranke also knows how gullible some 9/11 Truthers really are. That's why fibbing about a supposed "flyover" has never bothered him.

But it should bother everyone with any concern for the actual truth.

well great then you have my star and flag ^_^

reply to post by mappam


I believe "loose change 2nd edition" had reports that the planes off loaded in Cleveland shortly after disappearing (no transponder signals) over Pa.

The hole in the Pentagon always looked like a missile impact to me.People ask how can the military be convinced to attack their fellow citizens? when people are convinced that they are acting for the common good then they will be determined to see it through to the end as another poster has pointed out.It's pretty convenient that they targeted the budget offices of the Pentagon right after Rummy announced the "disappearance."of a couple of trillion dollars.I won't get started on the demolition of WTC7 and the offices of the FBI and SEC...

[edit on 123030p://5026 by mike dangerously]