The Pentagon is not a hill I'm willing to die on.
The physical evidence surrounding the Twin Towers, and especially WTC7, is massive, compelling and and structurally sound. From 2.5 seconds of freefall for 7, to the laws of physics, to nanothermite found in the samples of WTC dust, the proof is there for anyone with half a brain and who didn't fail science 101 in high school.
The Pentagon, on the other hand, has been much more contentious, and nowhere more so than within the 9/11 Truth Movement itself. While the one thing that we all agree on is that the events at the Pentagon on 9/11 were planned, we part ways in terms of what actually happened, and the main dividing line centers around whether or not a Boeing 757 actually crashed into the building.
Both sides get into the weeds and intricate details of the specific items of evidence they feel make their case. From complex calculations to flight data recordings to witness testimony, most will focus exclusively on the evidence that suits them while completely dismissing any solid arguments from the other side. And I do mean both sides.
I'm not agnostic on the Pentagon as I do lean heavily towards one theory, but for years, especially while I volunteered for AE911Truth, whose focus was on the evidence surrounding the 3 WTC towers, I stayed mostly quiet on that front. Partly out of respect to the organisation I was working for, partly because I felt that we already had all the proof we needed to show that the official narrative was false, and partly because it was impossible to make a bulletproof case that could stand in court as I myself didn't have all the answers. It made no sense to wade into these deep and controversial Pentagon waters.
But that doesn't mean I haven't looked at it, and despite my personal inclination, I've remained open to, and even welcomed, viewpoints that run counter to mine to see if I may have missed anything. As an admin of 9/11 Truth Movement Facebook page, I approve posts made by both camps if they are genuine. And although I rarely engage in the ensuing discussion, my mind reels with everything I want to say, but social media sub-threads are not the ideal place to have a comprehensive discussion, so I usually abstain. It wasn't until I was dragged into an email thread that consisted almost entirely of individuals supporting the opposite view that I sat down and took the time to formulate my main points.
I see the Pentagon as a puzzle. There can only be one Truth, and if we really want to find it, then we need to start with the corners and the edges, not with the two pieces in the middle. Or maybe like a crossword, where you start with the words you're certain about. And even then one has to leave room for the possibility of being wrong, no matter how convinced one is - a lesson I learned the hard way when a clue in the New York Times crossword I was working on said "Beatles lyric 'I am the ______'", and I confidently wrote in "Walrus" even though I couldn't for the life of me come up with any of the intersecting answers that contained those letters, no matter how stubbornly I tried. Despite my resistance, I had no choice but to reconsider my answer to the clue, and in so doing discovered that the correct answer was in fact "Eggman".
So as far as the Pentagon goes, none of us have the final word. But the following is a recap of those particulars that resonate most with me, some of which I've never seen raised as a point of argument, and none of which is about math and physics. It's about common sense and logic, from a 30,000 foot level.
We're talking about the greatest crime in history perpetrated by the powers that be on its own citizens. One whose delivery had to be flawless. Can we reasonably posit that there is no chance in hell that the masterminds would have left the execution of this years-long-in-the-making, history-altering event with zero margin for error in the hands of a few fallible, unpredictable, dubious individuals that were the hijackers? What guarantee was there that they wouldn't change their minds about going on a suicide mission? That their boxcutters wouldn't get intercepted by the Xray machines, prohibiting them from boarding? That they would manage to wrestle control from both pilots and take over command of the airplane? Those are a LOT of eggs in one basket, any one of which breaking would have made the execution of the mission impossible. There's your non-starter right there.
Furthermore, the powers that be would have had to trust, and hope, and pray, that these hijackers could pull off a feat that most pilots have gone on record to say was impossible - not only the famous loop, but the sudden drop in altitude all the while keeping the plane level inches above the ground and then hitting the target dead center in exactly the right place. I've heard the argument that the plane could have hit any part of the Pentagon, and that it just happened to conveniently hit where it did, but someone will have to convince me that they would have chanced a plane being off by even just a hair and hitting instead a part of the building where the top brass - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the heart of US intelligence and military operations - was congregating on the morning of September 11th. The very people who planned the event.
No, they knew they were safe. And it wasn't because they had so much trust in the hijackers, or even in a plane that may have been remote-controlled. It was because they knew that no plane was ever going to hit that building.
The "no hijackers = no crime" fallacy
They didn't need the hijackers to fly those planes. They frankly didn't even much need them ON those planes, but they definitely needed the public to believe that these hijackers existed, boarded the planes and flew them into their targets, and that was something they could easily do by showing a couple of fuzzy pictures taken by a security camera of the supposed hijackers inside an airport, not to mention a passport found in the rubble and a Koran in one of the hijackers' cars (if I remember correctly).
I do believe these 19 people existed, but I think they were patsies. The Canestrero report has shown that the CIA was involved and had regular communications with them. If these were really fanatics hellbent on executing their deadly mission, it's difficult to imagine they were taking their orders from Americans.
No, the CIA made sure there was a credible hijacker story to tell, and they put all the pieces in place for it. Aside from Mohamed Atta, who was on the plane that struck WTC1, the names that have come up the most frequently were those of flight 77 - Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Their stories - of their flight lessons, of their pre-9/11 activities - are the ones that helped shape the narrative.
So no, you don't need the hijackers in order to have a crime, and you certainly didn't need them to fly a plane into the Pentagon.
The security cameras
The Pentagon is arguably the most protected building in the world, with every square inch of it covered by an abundance of security cameras. By all accounts, we should have had hundreds of clips clearly showing an oncoming plane, from multiple angles. Yet all we have, still today, two decades later, is one lone video showing five single frames that couldn't be more unclear and subject to interpretation. That's it. One clip. Five stills, none of them showing a plane, just an explosion and ensuing ball of fire.
And to make extra sure that no footage would ever see the light of day, they confiscated all security camera recordings from neighbouring businesses.
Contrast this to the MSM having showed footage of the towers being struck a thousand times over, making sure to leave no stone unturned in the collective trauma, bombarding the population with images that would remain engraved in their memories forever. If they had any image of a plane hitting the epicenter of US operations, the solid rock that was the Pentagon, they would have milked it for all it was worth. This was their shock and awe, their bamboozle. The Pentagon could have been their "kick 'em when they're down" finale, the nail in the coffin of the grand showdown, and yet - nothing.
Because no plane hit the building.
The eye witnesses
I've personally never put a lot of stock into them, on either side, north path or south. Humans, and their perceptions, are deeply flawed. We see what we want to see, what we expect to see, what we focus on. Even retroactively, the mind often plays tricks on our memory as we've all had instances of "I could have sworn that..."
(If you're not familiar with the selective attention test clip that 50% of people fail, you may want to check it out to get a better idea.)
Translated, this means several things:
a) That it's possible for people, still reeling from two planes hitting and exploding into the Twin Towers, to be watching a plane headed towards the Pentagon and have a projected expectation of an impact. They see the ensuing fireball and rapidly connect the dots according to a pattern that has already unconsciously taken hold. In a state of shock, with eyes fixated on the explosion, the plane obscured by the massive ball of fire and smoke, would they have seen it fly on? Could they have seen it fly on?
Only a small handful of the witnesses I listened to - none of which were anywhere near the building - actually said the words "I saw the plane hit the building" (and even that doesn't necessarily mean that they did). Most were variations of "I saw a plane, and then an explosion" or "the plane flew above me and then I saw a fireball".
b) How do you account for the wildly differing witness accounts as to the flight path? This is where it gets dicey. People on both sides of the argument trot out their respective north/south path witnesses but give no credence to the other. Well, you can't have it both ways. If witnesses are your selling point, then you can't cherry-pick.
c) How can we discard the possibility that some of the eyewitness testimony aired on TV was not prearranged? And would the media, complicit as always, not have done away with any testimony that refuted the official narrative? If someone described a scenario that didn't fit, would it ever have been aired?
What may have happened
If we can all agree, and accept, that the towers were rigged with explosives during the months-long renovations of several WTC floors, then it's not only conceivable but entirely possible that they did the same with the Pentagon. The section that was hit was in fact undergoing massive renovations and stood largely empty. It would have been even easier than the Twin Towers to rig that part of the building with explosives and a handful of plane parts to be blown across the lawn after the supposed impact of the plane. After all, the Twin Towers were a public place, filled with 40,000 workers going about their day. The Pentagon had the benefit of restricted access, limited to those who had a clearance, giving those on the inside much more leeway.
No, I can't prove it. There are many things I don't know, like what happened to the plane, or the passengers, if it didn't hit. I'll admit that it would be a huge risk if people could make out a plane flying over the building. And I have no explanation for the witness accounts being so inconsistent.
But if I were in charge of this massive operation, and was going to be inside the Pentagon myself, then these would have been my choices:
Find 19 martyrs willing to die for a cause, convince them to carry out a highly complex assignment, provide them with the necessary paperwork, train them to fly a Boeing 757, make sure they get on the plane and somehow overpower the pilots to take control of said plane, fly it expertly towards its target, and hit the target in the exact spot where it will do the least damage to the building and no damage to any high-powered individuals.
OR: come up with a credible hijacker story that doesn't require the hijackers to do anything according to plan, and spend the necessary time to set up explosives and simply hit the "detonate" button at the right moment.
I don't know what you would choose.
But I can guarantee that I would not opt for a 250,000 lbs passenger airplane to strike the building I was sitting in at 530 miles per hour.
Sandra is a blogger, life coach and activist.
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by Web Hosting Canada