Was the Pentagon Actually Hit by Pre-planted Bombs?

[spooked911]

The information here comes from a workshop run by Barbara Honegger at the Truth Emergency Convergence meeting on Sunday July 24, 2005 at American University in Washingon DC.

I have decided to break the info I learned from Barbara Honegger (BH) into two separate posts. This is part two. Part one, about what time the Pentagon was hit is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49414&mesg_id=49414

BH was an official in the Reagan administration and resigned in protest over his policies. She has written a book, "October Surprise", about the Iran-Contra affair:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0944276466/qid=1122600244/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_1/104-2345147-1582354
She is a self-described former whistleblower and is now a military-affairs reporter. She worked with Mike Ruppert on his "Crossing the Rubicon" but does not endorse all of Ruppert's conclusions-- particularly about Cheney being the mastermind behind 9/11 (and I agree with her).

BH describes the Pentagon hit as the "Rosetta Stone" and the "Holy Grail" of 9/11 because what happened there was very important for understanding 9/11 in general.

A key point is that the hit on the Pentagon, the killing of military personnel, was critical for engaging the military in this new "war", as opposed to 9/11 merely being a larger version of the Oklahoma City bombing.

In this post, I am NOT going to try and validate everything BH says, merely present what she presented. At the end of the post, I will add other pieces of evidence that support her thesis.

To cut to the chase, BH thinks the Pentagon was NOT hit by flight 77, but rather sets of bombs, a truck bomb (on a green fire-truck) and bombs planted inside the Pentagon as well. She this was perhaps followed by a heat-seeking missile. She does not claim to know exactly what hit the Pentagon, but doesn't think it was flight 77.

So why does she think this?

First, where the Pentagon was hit is highly suspicious, the "violent event" precisely took out two groups of people: the naval Command Center and the Army's Financial Auditing Office (this is significant because shortly before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced that huge amounts of money had been lost by the Pentagon).

Second, the dearth of airline debris that was found.

Third, the size of the initial hole inthe Pentagon facade was too small for a 757.

Fourth, the initial report from Associated Press of what happened at the Pentagon described a "booby-trapped truck bomb".

Fifth, she describes the account of Robert Andrews, who was the Head of Special Operations at the Pentagon at this time (note: I have verified this). He says after he heard of what happened at the WTC on 9/11, he went to a special counter-terrorism center in the basement of the Pentagon (near where the "violent event" was). While he was in there, monitoring the situation, he says at 9:32am there was an explosion that almost completely destroyed the counter-terrorism center. He managed to escape and here is where is gets really interesting: Andrews said he emerged out on ground level at the innermost A ring of the Pentagon and he saw dead bodies on the ground there. This was a face-to-face interview between Honegger and Andrews, and BH said that immediately after Andrews said this, he blushed, as if he had said something he didn't want to say or mean to say.

6) After the violent event at the Pentagon, people started evacuating the building, and many people wer eloadly saying a bomb had gone off.

7) An Army auditor from Fort Monouth was working at the Pentagon during this time, and he said on 9/11 when he got off the Metro subway at the Pentagon, he saw bomb-sniffing dogs. This was the only time he ever saw bomb-sniffing dogs at the Pentagon. This auditor also confirmed that the violent event happened at 9:32am.

So this is the extent of what Honegger said relating a bomb event at the Pentagon. I don't think she is a complete flake, and I take what she says seriously. She was one of the first people to report about the military wargames on 9/11 and she was completely right about that.

Here are some other pieces of evidence that fit the explosives theory:

At least two witnesses smelled "cordite", a product of high explosives.

The linear path of damage through the E-D-C rings of the Pentagon never really made complete sense to me for plane damage, particularly considering all the pillars and inner walls in the way.

In the damaged area, one section of the roof is blown out, see orange rectangle here:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/045.html
Note how the columns are more heavily damaged here than before and after-- almost as if there was a specific explosive event here. This piece of evidence has been noted by Dave McGowan here (scroll down):
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68d.html

US Congressional Representative John Murtha had an early report that a bomb went off at the Pentagon.

I have heard that there was some sort of terror exercise at the Pentagon on 9/11 (hence the bomb-sniffing dogs), but I don't have any reference for it.

The French author Thierry Meyssan, famous for his missile-into-the-Pentagon theory, actually initially proposed that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb.

The web-site 911-strike deals with what happened at the Pentagon and entertains the idea of pre-planted bombs:
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm

Finally, there is the testimony of April Gallup (this was related at the workshop by author Jim Marrs who interviewed her), who was at the Pentagon when the violent event happened-- she actually crawled out of the hole in the E ring where the plane supposedly went in, and she saw no evidence of a plane. When she was in the hospital, she was visited by government-suit types who wouldn't say where they were from but kept drilling it into her head that a plane had hit the Pentagon. Marrs thought that they were "debriefing her" and getting her story straight.

So what to make of all this?

Of course, skeptics to this will always say "What happened to the real flight 77?" "What about all those eye-witnesses of a plane?"

My answer is a) I don't know, but there are several possibilities, and b) they are lying or they saw something besides flight 77, such as a missile or they saw an AA jet fly over the Pentagon as the bombs went off.

One possibility we can't rule out is that there were planted bombs AND that flight 77 also hit the Pentagon. This might account for the evidence best-- particularly the massive confusion over when the Pentagon was hit, although it is really just a theory like anything else. And I have gone over on this site many times why flight 77/a Boeing 757 is unlikely to have hit the Pentagon.

I strongly think that something happened at the Pentagon besides a plane strike.

The planted bombs and a heat-seeking missile strike is feasible, but there is little evidence for a missile, really.

In general, I think it is quite possible that the evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon, such as airplane debris, was planted. The best way to do this would be to package bombs with the airplane parts in different parts of the Pentagon. While this may seem absurd, remember this section of the Pentagon had been recently renovated and non-military people had access to the building. The planting of the 757 parts may have been done in conjunction with the renovation. I know it sounds absurd, but I think it is possible that all the evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon is a massive illusion-- including the downed-light poles on the highway. This would mean the eye-witnesses again, are either lying or they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon at the same time the bombs went off.

I have links that I didn't put in for some of these pieces of evidence-- if anyone wants them, let me know.

[MercutioATC]

1. No.

It wasn't.

[spooked911]

4. How do you know? Were you there?

None of the things in the post gave you any pause at all?

[MercutioATC]

9. I wasn't, but it's a sloppy essay.

When somebody makes that many sloppy mistakes, I tend to take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

[philb]

5. What caused major fires on top floors far north of the impact area?

What caused the major fires on the 2 top floors far north of the impact area?

Is this where most of the Naval Intelligence workers were killed. Is that correct? Or is the auditors area?

[philb]

7. It seems the $2 trillion lost by Rumsfeld,etc. has been forgotten

$2 trillion seems a rather large amount to just be forgotten because a few auditors and intelligence people were killed in the Pentagon crash.

Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2 Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

[MercutioATC]

10. Thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel?

...of course, that's just a guess :eyes:

Fires spread...the fire in your picture is only 100'-150' from the center of the impact site.

(and, the picture you posted is a post-collapse picture...it took a while for that collapse to happen...plenty of time for the fire to spread)

[demodewd]

14. from the initial blast

The fires you see on the buildings exterior far to the north from the entry point were a result of flying debris and flames from the initial blast which apparently was centered at the very fore of the building. This is why the fires are not seen in the lower two floors in the extreme north area but are higher up. These fires were not a result of a massive burnout in the interior but as I said were caused by the flying debris and fire onto the building's exterior at the blast's onset.

[MercutioATC]

16. Ok, so flaming debris...

...but not bombs planted inside.

[demodewd]

18. A-E drive hole

Something caused the hole into the A-E drive and it wasn't the nose-fuselage and it wasn't the landing gear.

[Kevin Fenton]

21. What was it?

It's certainly unlikely to have been the nose, but why can't it have been landing gear?

Also, what about the shockwave?

[MrSammo1]

26. A fire That didn't burn

the wooden stool on the third floor?

Have you even seen the pre-collapse photos?

[MercutioATC]

29. I've seen pre-collapse phosos, but I don't know to which one you are

referring.

I do know that a popular CT technique used by some is to show post-collapse photos (showing newly-exposed areas that weren't involved in the fire) and use them as "proof" that the fire wasn't as severe as claimed.

[MrSammo1]

31. Pre-collapse wall

I'm talking about the two photos that show definitively that no 757's vertical stabilizer mark is on the wall.

[MercutioATC]

37. Well, your "definitive" photos might not show it, but it's there.

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

The entire stabilizer did not impact the building before it collapsed, but there WAS vertical damage.

[petgoat]

39. Dimensions of the Pentagon and 757

So how did the top part of the tail avoid damaging the facade? By the
time the tail reached the wall, the hole in the wall was presumably as
big as it was going to get. One supposes the aft part of the plane went
in relatively intact.


This part interests me, too. The damage to the wall is only 120 feet
wide, corresponding to an angle attack of a plane only 90 feet wide.
The 757's wingspan of 125 feet requires that they posit that the end of
the right wing was torn off by hitting the generator, and the end of the
left wing was torn off by hitting the ground.

[Kevin Fenton]

40. Fuel-laden

"The 757's wingspan of 125 feet requires that they posit that the end of
the right wing was torn off by hitting the generator, and the end of the
left wing was torn off by hitting the ground."

It doesn't. A light, aluminium wing cannot penetrate steel or limestone. The wings made big holes in the WTC and Pentagon because of the weight of the fuel tanks that were built into them. The fuel tanks don't go all the way along the wing, so the lighter wingtips and tail could not penetrate the buildings. The wingtips of American 11 and United 175 were clearly diced by the WTC, whereas the central part of the wings penetrated it.

[petgoat]

42. wingtips and tail could not penetrate the buildings

The plane approached at an angle. Every analysis I have seen says it
punched through the wall without "refracting" its course. Thus
the right wingtip should have been the first part of the wing to hit
the wall. Even if it didn't penetrate, it should have left a mark.
It didn't, so I guess they have to suppose the tip was sheared off by
the generator.

[Kevin Fenton]

44. Various

Preliminary question:
In an earlier post you said, "The damage to the wall is only 120 feet wide," Where did you get this from? I thought it was only 90 feet wide. I got this from here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

"Thus the right wingtip should have been the first part of the wing to hit the wall."
I'm not so sure about that - it depends very much on the angle. When you look at this picture:

It seems that the first part of the right wing to hit the wall must be either the wingtip or the engine. The 45 degree angle is obviously an approximation and I have seen sources which say the angle was slightly different, meaning that the engine would hit fractionally before the wingtip. However, I'm not sure this is that important, as, even if the engine hit first, the wingtip should not disintegrate completely.

I guess you've seen photos which show the part of the facade where you think there should be a mark, but isn't IYO - could you post them so we know exactly which photos we're talking about?

My understanding of the generator impact is that it seems to have been hit by something under the wing - perhaps the engine pod and the flap canoe (whatever that is) - I suppose this may have affected the wingtip, but I find it unlikely and I don't see how the wingtip could have caused the gouges on the generator. However, there were several objects on the lawn, if the wingtip was damaged why does it have to have been by the generator?

The same applies to the left wing - some of the heliport installations may have been hit by the plane and this could account for the wing tip. Also, the left wingtip would be entering the building relatively late - there's not nearly so much of a problem accounting for the lack of a wingtip mark (if one cannot be found) in this case.

My problems with the alternative theories are that, if the plane was swapped for a 737 (or other smaller plane) then what is the point of this? Why not just swap it for the same type of aircraft? Also, I find the idea that plane was exploded just before entering the building to confuse conspiracy theorists to be just too far out there for me. Plus, if the plane exploded in front of the building, I don't think it should have made such a big hole.

[MercutioATC]

47. Look here, Kevin:

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20)."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

It goes on to say: "The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft."

This is the definitive measurement, IMHO...people who were actually there and measured it, not guesstimations made from smoke-obscured photos.

[Kevin Fenton]

48. Thanks,

I hadn't seen that before. 120 feet it is then.

[MercutioATC]

49. I think the 90 feet comes from the projected length when squared

to the building. Some people have misinterpreted that to mean 90 feet along the wall.

[MercutioATC]

45. Beats me, I'm no crash investigator.

I'd imagine that as the bottom of the vertical stabilizer hit the wall (accounting for the damage up to 25 feet) the top was torn off.

[yodermon]

41. sorry I'm so dense.

I read

The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail.

and I think "how can the WINDOWS not even have broken?"

oh never mind, they were "blast resistent", carry on, carry on.

[MercutioATC]

46. You DO know how thick those blast-resistant windows are, don't you?

"The blast-resistant windows, installed on the outer E-Ring of Wedge 1, weigh 1,600 pounds each with glass that is an inch-and-a-half thick."

http://www.disaster-resource.com/content_page/fac104.shtml

In addition, "The answer was to weld the tubes to long, narrow plates running along the floor and ceiling. These plates connect to their counterparts on floors above and below with through-bolts, using 3/4"-diameter A36 threaded rods. To maintain good connection to the slab for constructibility and to compensate for variations in tube length, the vertical tubes are also welded to opposed double gusset plates, which in turn are welded to the floor/ceiling plates. This solution connects the window frames from floor to floor. This design directs dynamic horizontal blast forces through the flexible tubes into the floor diaphragms. This approach was uniformly applied to the window panels on the second, third and fourth floors."

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pentagon-retrofit.htm

Thus, the impact load was transferred from the windows to the horizontal slabs. The windows are a lot more than thick glass...the entire window structure is designed to transfer loads to the strongest part of the building, the slabs.

[MrSammo1]

51. Was that

Blast resistant Limestone facing too?

You aren't serious are you?

Damn! They should have made the WTC out of limestone instead of steel!

[MercutioATC]

56. Why do you insist on changing the topic?

The question was "how can the WINDOWS not even have broken?"

That's what I responded to.

[MrSammo1]

59. limestone

is what is surrounding those windows.

Are you suggesting that the windows at the pentagon are also stronger than steel?

[MercutioATC]

62. Did you even READ the link I posted?

The windows are tied, floor to ceiling, into the horizontal slabs. Depending on the thickness of the steel, they very well might be stronger (it's less about strength than transferring loads).

[MrSammo1]

50. Well.......if it's there

Show it to me!

You can't!

Do you think a 757 rolled into the wall? 45 feet?
Come now........a 757 didn't hit that wall at all!

[MercutioATC]

57. You're honestly going to debate this issue based on a PICTURE??

...especially when people actually went to the site and measured the damage?

Me, I'll use exact measurements over smoke-obscured pictures taken from a distance any time.

[MrSammo1]

60. That picture

is what is known as physical evidence. Now maybe your a myth mind and accept hearsay over physical evidence, but the 10% of us who think analytically don't!
The physical proof of the lie is what this is all about.

[MercutioATC]

61. Wouldn't a first-hand observation be even more valuable?

I mean, we ARE talking about physical evidence....

[spooked911]

52. Here's an annotated version of that top picture

Red dot is supposedly where the fuselage went in.

It's really hard seeing a 757 going in through that hole.

Something that just struck me-- it's odd how the whole lower wall is gone to the left of the main hole when supposedly only the wing hit there. That damage pattern would seem to fit more with explosives than a plane wing.

[hack89]

54. The wing from the engine to the fuselage

has as its core a massive steel structure designed to support the landing gear and the weight of the engines. Outboard of the engines the wings are relatively flimsily. It is approx 90 feet from engine to engine - which funny enough is about the horizontal width of the hole in the Pentagon. It also explains the entire lower wall being gone.

As to the size of the hole - the fuselage of a 757 is 13 foot wide which would fit nicely in that hard to see, obscured by smoke hole.

I don't understand the explosive reference - what identifies it as the result of an explosion and how does it differ from the damage you would expect a very mass moving at a high speed to do?

[spooked911]

65. Ummm, what about the 60 foot gap between the engines then?

The wall shouldn't have been busted through there. Particularly since the engines hang down about five feet below the fuselage.

Read the original post if you don't understand the reason to think it was explosives.

[hack89]

71. Let me be clearer...

The wing spar between the engines and the engines together would create a 60 foot wide hole - which is what you see.

[MercutioATC]

58. Wouldn't explosives have blown building debris onto the lawn?

I don't recall seeing anything on the lawn in any of the pics that looked like rubble.

[spooked911]

67. First of all, there was plenty of building debris in front of the Pentagon

But second of all, as far as rubble, it depends where the bombs was placed. If the bomb was placed just outside the wall, then it would blow stuff INTO the building.

[MercutioATC]

68. Bombs just outside the wall and nobody noticed?

Wouldn't that be kinda risky? Why DO that when you're gonna crash a plane into it anyway?

[spooked911]

70. There were construction trailers there. My guess is that would be a

perfect place to put a bomb. There was a trailer in front of where the hole was and it was completely demolsihed by the explosion.

Also, I don't think they flew any plane or missile into the Pentagon.

Try to wrap your mind around that!

:)

[MercutioATC]

72. Gotcha.

We're never gonna see eye to eye on this one...

:)

[hack89]

73. Well, there have been cases of mass psychosis before...

so I guess we could disregard all those eyewitnesses who saw a plane.:eyes:

[spooked911]

74. They saw a plane. Just not one that flew into the Pentagon.

I think they saw a plane fly low over the Pentagon and then the bombs went off, covering up the fact that the plane flew over.

[hack89]

75. Why would explosion mask the fact that the plane flew over?

Don't you think a low flying jet would attract attention? Many drivers on the freeway would not be distracted by the explosion as they sit in their cars with the windows closed and the radio on - a jet plane flying low over head would certainly get their attention. For people living nearby who heard but could not see the explosion wouldn't the sound make them look in the direction of the Pentagon just in time to see a large jet plane fly by?

I think you need to either find witnesses or think this one through again.

[MercutioATC]

76. I have to agree with Hack on this one.

Plenty of witnesses saw the plane approach the Pentagon but NONE saw it fly past and continue to.....wherever?

There's also the little problem of lack of radar data to support your contention.

I'd also like to see how bombs at the Pentagon sheared off light poles hundreds of feet away.

[janedoe]

53. Is you second picture of the fireman who

was there *before* the Pentagon was hit by "something?"

I know there was a fireman who was there, with his firetruck, ready, ...as part of a drill.

You picture looks like it might be of that fireman. He's got the only truck there (in this picture) and has his hose out and plugged in. Amazing response time.

[hack89]

55. Could you please provide a link? n/t

[philb]

33. Plane only hit 1st & 2nd floors; concrete slab kept gas from above

So what was the mechanism by which it got to the top floor way down the wall? How much gas came out before entering Pentagon and how much was inside? Why was an area skipped?
Did the area in question have the blast proof windows?
If so, again what could have caused the fire?
Were the windows broken?

[demodewd]

13. what I think

I always have thought that those fires were caused by fuel and debris from the apparent explosion at the very fore of the building probably triggered by some detonating timing device either on the plane or in the building.

[MrSammo1]

25. Another question?

Why did it take days to put out?

[spooked911]

27. They wanted to make sure it had burned everything it was supposed to?

[MercutioATC]

30. Because it's a big, old building.

No mystery there.

[StrafingMoose]

2. If only....

MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, 9:41. Again, he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us.

Now, the only thing that I would point out on this chart is this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the Pentagon. The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

[Ferry Fey]

3. Woof?

Does a bomb-sniffing dog have some sort of sign on it saying "bomb-sniffing dog," to differentiate it from a corpse-sniffing dog?

[MercutioATC]

11. Thank you. That was my next question.

It's common for rescue teams to bring in dogs to locate people (either dead or alive). Assuming they were sniffing for bombs is no more justified than assuming that they were sniffing for drugs.

[spooked911]

12. sorry this wasn't clear-- but he saw the dogs BEFORE the attack

and I think actually bomb-sniffing dogs are recognizeable. Their masters probably wear bomb squad uniforms if nothing else.

[MercutioATC]

17. But we really don't know what they saw.

There's no mention of a bomb squad, just dogs. Without more information, they could have really been anything.

[philb]

6. Info on Office of Naval Intelligence staff killed at Pentagon

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), a Naval Reserve intelligence officer. ''Apparently, the fire killed everybody in there,'' said Kirk, shortly after he learned that two friends perished in the center

Naval Intelligence had a degree of autonomy -- the idea was that if one intelligence center was compromised there would be a second intelligence center to detect the treason and give the warning.
Naval Intelligence was not on the same teams of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the political leadership believe in ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian crimes that the cloak of secrecy allows them to get away with, whereas the organizational leadership of Naval Intelligence would not go along with killing over 2000 of our own people in order to light a fire of war fever under the American public.

If not destroyed, Naval Intelligence would have detected the truth and acted in the appropriate way -- the way you and I are reacting just in the capacity of alert ordinary citizens -- but they would have been listened to because of who they were.

Perhaps Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz had not fired, killed, re-assigned all the many patriotic Defense workers who would have given them trouble by the time they were ready for the 9-11 frameup -- they found it easier to order them all to attend a secret meeting at the specified room where they were all caught and killed by the combination of missile and jet fighter that tunneled through the first floor and got them A dive from above would not have worked as the concrete floors of the five story building would have limited damage to people on the first floor -- the fireball going up from the upper floors and not down.

This meeting in a ring C meeting room, in the the west aisle of the Pentagon, with top brass and people of the NIS "to analyze the ongoing attack" is real. It's enough to have a look on this page or to that one to be convinced. Finding who organized this meeting and chose the meeting room could be of the highest importance for finding the truth on the Pentagon's attack. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/npp-east.html

[philb]

8. Here are the ONI people killed in the meeting & also auditors killed

Nearly three dozen military men and women killed in last month's attack on the Pentagon will forever be side by side in the nation's most sacred burial ground.
On Monday, the 12th of those victims - Navy Commander Dan Shanower of Naperville, Illinois, - was buried amid all the solemnity America can bestow upon a fallen son.
Military officials tightly restricted access to the funeral. Details were provided by a military spokeswoman. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dfshanower.htm

Eight Naval intelligence professionals in the CNO Intelligence Plot, near the Navy Command Center, were not so fortunate.
Commander Patrick Dunn, 39, Fords, N.J. Dunn graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985. A surface warfare officer, his duty stations included the amphibious ship Inchon, frigate Montgomery, carrier Theodore Roosevelt and other. Served in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations from 1997 until 1999, then again starting in January 2001.
Lieutenant Comander Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, Lemoore, Calif. Commissioned through Officer Candidate School in 1989, Tolbert served aboard combat stores ship Niagara Falls, at the Navy Marine Corps Readiness Center, San Diego, Calif., carrier Constellation and at Joint Intelligence Command Center, MacDill Air Force Base. He was assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence in Suitland, Md., in April 2000.
Lieutenant Commander David Lucian Williams, 32, Newport, Oregon. Williams earned his commission
through the NROTC, Virginia Military Institute, in 1994. A surface warfare officer, heserved aboard the amphibious ships Gunston Hall, Whidbey Island and Nashville. He reported to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in August 2000.
Lieuteanant Commander Ronald James Vauk, 37, Nampa, Idaho. Vauk, who attended the U.S. Naval
Academy and spent five years in the Navy before joining the reserves, works at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in research. He has a 3-year-old son, and his wife is pregnant with their second child.
Commander Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, Naperville, Illinois. Commissioned through Officer Candidate School in 1989, Shanower has served with the Electronic Attack Squadron 136, Task Unit 168.1.2 Subic Bay, Philippines, Joint Intelligence Center, Pacific and Third Fleet. He's been assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations since June 1999.
Commander Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Gray, Maine. Commissioned through Officer Candidate School in 1986, Schlegel served aboard the tank landing ship Spartanburg County, cruiser Harry E. Yarnell, destroyers Scott and Arthur D. Radford, and with Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. He reported to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in September 2000.
Chief Information Systems Technician Gregg Harold Smallwood, 44, Overland Park, Kansas. Smallwood enlisted in Pittsburgh in 1976, and he's served aboard the destroyers, Henry B. Wilson and Harry W. Hill, frigate Reasoner and at Naval Computer Telecommunications Station, San Diego. He reported to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in July 1998.
Lieutenant Michael Scott Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Commissioned through the NROTC, Southern University and A&M College, in 1992, Lamana served with Patrol Squadron 9 before being assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in February 1999.
Electronics Technician Second Class Brian Anthony Moss, 34, Sperry, Oklahoma. This year, he was transferred to the Pentagon as an electronics technician. Moss enlisted in the Navy in March 1990, and by fall he was stationed in Adak, Alaska, where he met his future wife, Mary Lou. They have two children, Ashton and Connor.
Gerald P. Moran, 39, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Moran was a Navy contract worker for BAE Systems.
Julian Cooper, 39, Springdale, Maryland. Cooper was a Navy contract worker for Northrup Grumman.
Captain Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, Nebraska. Commissioned through Officer Candidate School in 1972, Getzfred served with numerous patrol squadrons. He participated in the Personnel Exchange Program, England, and he served at Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Navy Operations in September 1997.

Karl W. Teepe, 57, Centreville, Virginia. Teepe worked as a Defense Intelligence Agency Budget analyst.
Charles E. Sabin, Burke, Virginia. Burke worked for the Department of Defense.
Sandra N. Foster, 41, Clinton, Maryland. She was with the Defense Intelligence Agency for more than 24 years.
Rosa Maria "Rosemary" Chapa, 63, Springfield, Virginia. Chapa was a few months away from retirement from the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Major Clifford L. Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Virginia. A comptroller, Patterson was assigned to the Resource Services Center of the Army Secretariat. He lived in Alexandria with his wife, Tamatha, and sons, Clifford and Benjamin.
Robert Russell, 52, Oxen Hill, Maryland. Russell worked as a supervisory budget analyst in Resource Services (Washington), Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. He lived in Oxon Hill with his wife, Teresa, and children, Cydne, Valerie and Robert.
Marjorie C. Salamone, 53, Springfield, Va. Salamone worked as a budget analyst in
Resource Services (Washington), Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary
of the Army. She lived in Springfield with her husband, Bernard.
Carolyn B. Halmon, 49, Washington, D.C. Halmon worked as a budget analyst in Resource Services (Washington), Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. She lived in Washington, D.C., with her husband, Herman.
Michael L. Selves, 54, Fairfax, Virginia. Selves worked as director of the Information Management Support Center, Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. He is survived by his wife, Gaile, of Pendleton, Oregon

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Here we go again

"First, where the Pentagon was hit is highly suspicious, the "violent event" precisely took out two groups of people: the naval Command Center and the Army's Financial Auditing Office (this is significant because shortly before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced that huge amounts of money had been lost by the Pentagon)."
A: It would have killed certain groups of people whereever it hit. Any two groups could be used as the basis to build a CT - whether the purpose is supposed to be to cover something up (the military is always rumoured to be covering something up or actually doing so) or because somebody who allegedly died would have blown the whistle. btw, if you accept this hypothesis, you downgrade the 'reinforced section' and 'no people there' arguments.

"Second, the dearth of airline debris that was found."
A: You later go on to say there were some airplane parts, possibly planted there with bombs. You can't have it both ways. Were there plane parts or not? If your argument is that there were some airplane parts, but not enough to make it convincing, then I have to ask, if the people who did it knew enough to plant airplane parts, how come they screwed it up by not putting enough there? If it was impossible to do it right, why try to do it at all? They can't be Machiavellean and incompetent.

"Third, the size of the initial hole in the Pentagon facade was too small for a 757."
A: It was plenty big enough at about 90 x 26 feet. See here:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

"Fourth, the initial report from Associated Press of what happened at the Pentagon described a "booby-trapped truck bomb"."
A: Initial reports are often wrong, this may not be especially relevant.

"Fifth, she describes the account of Robert Andrews, ...
A: If he's right that means somebody had carried bodies from where they died and put them somewhere for a bit, that's hardly a smoking gun. What time is he supposed to have emerged. Obviously, he may not be right, as eyewitnesses are often mistaken. How many bodies?

"6) After the violent event at the Pentagon, people started evacuating the building, and many people wer eloadly saying a bomb had gone off."
A: They heard an explosion and assumed it was a bomb. A reasonable, but incorrect assumption.

7) An Army auditor from Fort Monouth was working at the Pentagon during this time, and he said on 9/11 when he got off the Metro subway at the Pentagon, he saw bomb-sniffing dogs. This was the only time he ever saw bomb-sniffing dogs at the Pentagon. This auditor also confirmed that the violent event happened at 9:32am.
A: If it were a false-flag conspiracy, what would be the point of bringing in bomb-sniffing dogs? This would imply the people who planted them decided not to do it at the last minute, but couldn't remember where they put all those bombs, and had to bring the dogs in! Wasn't there some sort of bomb scare at the State Department after 9:00?

"At least two witnesses smelled "cordite", a product of high explosives."
A: They thought they smelled cordite. It seems they had military experience and may have associated the smell with explosions. What about all the other people? If there was a cordite smell, why didn't anybody else smell it. Couldn't the bombers afford smellfree explosives?

"The linear path of damage through the E-D-C rings of the Pentagon never really made complete sense to me for plane damage, particularly considering all the pillars and inner walls in the way."
A: It's linear! That's the way it should be. What inner walls?

"...she actually crawled out of the hole in the E ring where the plane supposedly went in, and she saw no evidence of a plane."
A: Because it disintegrated on impact. Given the situation, I doubt she was looking very hard. Also, the lights inside the building had failed and she wouldn't have been able to see much inside.

Why did the plane circle the Pentagon before hitting it?

[philb]

19. Any two groups could be used as the basis to build a CT ??

Can you name me two other groups that had had major well publicized
differences with the Rumsfeld/PNAC group other than these 2?
There is much more about the history of these 2 that hasn't been discussed here.

And is there evidence that all of those killed in these groups were killed just because they worked in the offices that the plane hit? Have you compared where their regular offices are to where the plane hit?

Do you really think that the plane hit the only section of Pentagon
with new reinforcing, blast proof windows, explosion suppression materials, etc. and where there were few located, by accident or chance? And went to a lot of trouble and took more chance on getting shot down by going close to the White House which is known to have surface to air batteries. Its possible, but from a planning standpoint unlikely and from a chance standpoint unlikely. What evidence do you think supports your opinion that the area was hit intentionally or by chance??

This is not something I've spent time researching other than ask a few questions that I've seen that others have raised. And so far, no one has attempted to answere any of my questions

[Kevin Fenton]

20. Stuff

Audit/budget
I went and had a look at the Pentagon victims here:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/remember/remember_a.html
For some of the people, it's not clear what their jobs were, but I counted 28 people who were/may have been budget-related, plus a few personnel people who might be connected to budget operations (they include the general who was killed that day). Most of the budget people seem to be fairly low down - budget analysts and accountants. The claim, as I understand it, is that the budget people could have blown the whilstle on the missing money at the DoD, although I doubt this - the army has its own audit agency, which seems to be a different organisation. You can find their website here:
http://www.hqda.army.mil/aaaweb/age.htm
They aren't even headquartered in the Pentagon. Spooked calls the department that was hit the Financial Auditing Office, but I can't find any mention of any such organisation. Perhaps it comes under the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, which you can find here:
http://www.asafm.army.mil/
This organisation seems to do budgeting, not auditing.
When did the missing money go missing - wouldn't this have been under the previous administration? So why would Rummy want to help the democrats?

CT
If the plane had killed people in a department with a failed/dodgy project (let's face it, the army must have stacks of such projects), it could have been claimed that it was to cover this up.

"And is there evidence that all of those killed in these groups were killed just because they worked in the offices that the plane hit? Have you compared where their regular offices are to where the plane hit?"
Not everybody who died/was affected was in their own office, I remember a documentary on National Geographic where some survivors said they were at meetings near the impact site. You're not seriously asking me to figure out exactly where all those 800 people had their offices, are you?

"Do you really think that the plane hit the only section of Pentagon
with new reinforcing, blast proof windows, explosion suppression materials, etc. and where there were few located, by accident or chance?"
It didn't hit the only section with reinforcing, it hit at the join of the reinforced bit (Wedge 1) and an old but (Wedge 2). If it was a false-flag operation, how come they nearly missed such a big target - Wedge 1 was a full one fifth of the Pentagon. The reinforced bit collapsed, the non-reinforced bit didn't. This leads me to ask, "How good was the reinforcement?" My answer is not much - the reinforcements played little or no role that day. The idea that the kevlar cloth slowed down the plane is ridiculous; also, if the plane exploded outside (I don't know), then the kevlar cloth didn't do much good, because the plane wreckage subsequently entered the building, killing the people who had just been saved by the kevlar. The same applies to the blast-proof windows - what defence was two inches of window against a speeding jetliner? The reinforcements would have saved people from a truck bomb outside the Pentagon, not a jetliner.
There seem to have been around 800 people in Wedge 1 that day, but over a hundred of them died and another 100+ only just managed to scramble to safety - there were therefore over 200 people in the area immediately affected by the impact, which leads me to think that there must have been even more empty areas in Wedge 1.

"...going close to the White House..."
It followed the route usually taken by airliners coming in to land at Ronald Reagan. They approch along the line of the river and then turn right after passing the Pentagon. American 77 just kept on turning until it was facing the Pentagon again.

The hijackers always planned to hijack the other planes after American 11 crashed. Therefore, the hijackers on American 77 expected to encounter interceptors and could have pretended to agree to land at Ronald Reagan National. That's why genuine hijackers might have circled the Pentagon before crashing into it. Also, sometimes it's a good idea not to make a beeline for your intended target. If it was a flase-flag operation, then what are you saying the point of circling the Pentagon was? Do you have any explanation for this at all?

[petgoat]

24. The "Missing" $2.3 Trillion was not a Political Dem/Repub Issue;

it was a Pentagon issue. And PNAC wanted to "rebuild our defenses" and
put in the fancy "in your face from outer space" "missile defense"
system, so the unaccounted-for transactions would have been embarassing
for this initiative.

[philb]

36. Some was before Bush and some after; but Pentagon establishment

was about the same; and Repubs mostly controlled its budget in either Administration. But Iraq maoney is also a big mess and here we go again in 2005:


March 10, 2005
One day before the 9/11 attacks, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the above astonishing admission. Besides being reported months later in the CBS report given below, the quote is still posted at http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html on the Department of Defense website. And on PBS at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june01/dollars_2-12.html we learn that this figure came from a report of the Pentagon's inspector general. "Its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends," reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales.
See the full CBS News story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
US Department of Defense confirms trillions "loss"
The $2.3 trillion figure is confirmed in the following DoD documents (which include transcripts of testimony before the House Budget Committee and a speech by Rumsfeld):
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2002/n04032002_200204033.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010711-depsecdef2.html
But here we go again: 2005

WHAT HAPPENED TO $1 TRILLION?
Though Defense has long been notorious for waste, recent government reports suggest the Pentagon’s money management woes have reached astronomical proportions. A study by the Defense Department’s inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn’t properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S.
Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.
And before the Iraq war, when military leaders were scrambling to find enough chemical and biological warfare suits to protect U.S. troops, the department was caught selling these suits as surplus on the Internet “for pennies on the dollar,” a GAO official said.
http://gnn.tv/headlines/2958/_1_Trillion_Missing_Military_waste_under_fire

[philb]

34. As usual you are well reasoned; but I'm not convinced yet

I've seen some info not under discussion here that is more
persuasive so far to me. But I'm not sure we can get into it all.

[philb]

43. Here are some URLs of research on this issue obtained by google search

I find some of it interesting and there seems to be some documentation, but I haven't had time to try to sort it out further:

This is a compilation of other’s analyses and facts- not an organized analysis: http://www.flcv.com/911oni.html

Some of the researchers here make the case that the history of the PNAC/Straussian Cabal of Neo-Cons regarding the history of 9/11, Afghanistan & Iraq Wars, Pentagon Intelligence factions, and other Administration plans and actions were responsible for the Pentagon Attack, including the strange and extremely coincidental choice of target area at the Pentagon and who was killed there, not necessarily by an airplane

[spooked911]

22. Evidence of bombs here

Look at the extensive evidence of fire on the C ring-- particularly where the "double doors" are blown out. Why isn't there corresponding fire on the D ring? The D ring should have been impacted more heavily than the C ring by the plane. This makes no sense for a plane hit, but does support the idea that explosives were used to bomb the C ring.

[philb]

23. Which is where the Office of Naval Research special meeting was

where many of their officers were killed.

But its also obvious that a plane's nose did not cause the punch out

and there was radiation in the debris, which normal 757s don't carry around. And witnesses who said there were explosions and the smell of cordite.


http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html

[spooked911]

28. diagram of the Navy Command Center in the pentagon

It was apparently in the D ring...

[philb]

32. I heard the main meeting where the officers died was C ring. Is that wron

g?

And the drawing, contrary to footnote, doesn't seem to have the plane entry angle correct. If so, its not to actual scale.

Was there real damage to the ONI area and the ONI meeting room(in C Ring?) from the airplane hit?

And I still wonder about what caused the damage to the upper floor far to the north? Who was there?

[philb]

35. Dessoulin site also makes similar points, and is very detailed in its anal

ysis.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html

Plus he also points out the radiation in the debris,
affecting the columns;
and the column coverup work and decontamination by the FBI

[Kevin Fenton]

38. What's the cause?

What caused the blackening visible above the double doors? Was it a fire inside the building, or something that exited the building and burned outside it?

[MercutioATC]

64. The smoke damage seems characteristic of a fire inside the D ring

but I'm no fire investigator.

[MercutioATC]

63. Why isn't there corresponding fire on the D ring??

Maybe because the D ring is essentially a separate building?

Also, that pic doesn't show the first 2 floors of the D ring.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the steel doors have less blast/impact resistance than the walls they're set in. There's no big mystery. The force of the impact hit the inside wall of the C ring and blew a hole at the point where the force was the greatest (the exit hole). It also blew open the steel doors because they couldn't withstand the load, even though the walls could.

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence of linear damage speaks more to an impact than an explosion.

[spooked911]

66. Amazing how an airplane can enter a building and only affect the

lower two floors-- it doesn't even cause a fire on the third floor of the D ring.

[MercutioATC]

69. Why amazing? It was only big enough to affect floors 1 and 2.

The force of the impact was limited to the height of the fuselage (approximately).

We also don't know exactly the extent of the fire damage to the D ring from that photo. All we can really tell is that there doesn't seem to be smoke damage on the outside wall facing the C ring above the second floor.