The facade is soft limestone covering reinforced columnsPhoto: At 911 Research by Will Morris [More]
The Pentagon is a secondary issue. The key issue being the suspension of the laws of physics at the WTC. But there are unreconcilable contradictions in the official Pentagon account which the BBC parroted for eight minutes.
The BBC did not investigate the inconsistency of a hole rather small for a Boeing 757, nor question how the soft fuselage penetrated the facade so "heavily reinforced against air attack" that it vaporised the airliner, engines & all. The BBC ignores the small round exit hole in the third ring in from the Pentagon facade. See below.
[19:11] (CC) "Minutes later a huge explosion rocked the Pentagon killing all 64 people on the aircraft along with 125 military and civilians on the ground."
It was almost an hour later, not minutes, that the Pentagon was attacked. During this time for inexplicable reasons Flight 77 was "lost" from ATC and military radar. NORAD had not been informed initially and it is unclear who "identified" Flight 77 as approaching Washington and when.
Also "lost from the radar" was the evidence for the investigation into the missing $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld announced the previous day. The attack targeted, by good fortune for the fraudsters, the offices of the accountants following the audit trail. [More]
No wreckage at the Pentagon has been linked to Flight 77 by the identification numbers that every aircraft component must have stamped upon it. This is unprecedented as are many Sept. 11th issues .
[19:13] The BBC shows a still of the external wall with markers to indicate the hole at its "narrowest" but the hole is conveniently covered in smoke.
Photo's below from similar angle but not shown by the BBC. Note yellow fire truck.
The BBC confuses rather than clarifies the empirical evidence: WHY?
Here is a enlargement of the photo taken from a similar location.
The hole can be seen and appears quite small at its "widest"
F77 took off at 8:20. There are conflicting reports on F77 after contact was lost around 9am. It is still not clear who was tracking F77 on radar as military and FAA statements do not concur. A plane was tracked heading for Washington which Transport Secretary Mineta reported to the 911 Commission. How and when it was identified as F77 is not disclosed. [More]
How the airliner penetrated the missile defence system protecting the Pentagon has not been explained. [02.04.2012 Current information is that officially the Pentagon did not have any missile defence system nor was it in a restricted air space zone. That conflicts with witness statements and needs to be further investigated]
[19:38] The BBC shows a clip from the internet film Loose Change giving the size of Boeing 757 with its director, Dylan Avery, describing the wing-span and engines etc. "Are we supposed to believe it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside."
[20:24] (CC) "The first photographs taken just minutes after the crash show a hole 18 to 20 feet across at its narrowest point."
Narrowest? The BBC has reversed the widely held view that the hole in the Pentagon wall appears in all photos to be just 20ft across at its “widest“, by substituting the word “narrowest“ for “widest“.
[20:29] (CC) "Minutes later the facade of the building collapsed." It was nearly 45 minutes before the facade collapsed.
[20:40] (CC) "The military says there had been limited damage to the exterior wall because it had been heavily reinforced against air attack and the plane's fuselage was 12ft wide." Where was the wreckage many ask.
How did the engines of titanium and stainless steel weighing almost 5 tons apiece, disappear?Why did these virtually indestructible battering rams not dent the facade when the BBC tells us the 12ft wide soft aluminium fuselage did penetrate it, only to be cut-up by the internal pillars?
"There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" James McIntrye CNN reporter & eye witness. [More]
We are not told what left a clean 15 foot round hole in the third concentric ring of the Pentagon. What did that? The Pentagon "Building Performance Report" assessing damage says "There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C ...... approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered ..... the building." No further information is given.
The BBC does not address these issues which are so widely discussed internationally.
These are considered relevant questions by among others: Robert Fisk, Independent newspaper; Fidel Castro; Former Italian president Francesco Cossiga; Japanese Senator, Fujita Yukihisa; film & pop stars: Charlie Sheen; Juliette Binoche; David Lynch; Eminem; Matthew Bellamy; Richie Havens; authors: Erica Jong; Gore Vidal; Naomi Wolf; Ralph Nader; Daniel Ellsberg PhD; then: General Leonid Ivashov – Former Chief of Staff of the Russian military; Gen. President Mubarak of Egypt, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; Mahathir bin Mohamed, 22 years Prime Minster of Malaysia; Dr Andreas von Buelow, lawyer and former German government defence minister; Dario Fo, Nobel literature laureate and many more.
Any viewer fresh to the issue could not gauge the dissent as the BBC avoids an objective overview. Instead they turn to the highly compromised [Kilsheimer]
[20:59] The BBC interviews Allyn Kilsheimer “what I usually say is bullshit, but what I’ll say is it’s - it’s just flawed people that have to have something to dream about to make a name for themselves, it’s just absolutely not true".
Make a name for themselves? Charlie Sheen, Juliette Binoche, Fidel Castro etc. see above.
[21:12] (CC) casts Allyn Kilsheimer as a rescuer. "He and others that came to the rescue that day found plenty of evidence of an aircraft. Identifiable parts of the fuselage, engines paint work with distinctive American Airline livery". Not true. [More]
[21:30] Kilsheimer: “I saw a tyre, a wheel a fuselage section, I saw pieces of metal, molten metal that came off from something as it hit the building. I saw marks on the building and on the ground where wings would have been - there were things that to me made sense they were from an aeroplane."
Allyn Kilsheimer has made a good living out of his close association with the Pentagon and Dept of Defense over the years. It would "make sense" to claim to have seen bits of an aeroplane. This man is so closely "connected" that the Pentagon Comptroller (Dom Zakheim) didn’t bother with contracts when millions of dollars were at stake. Kilsheimer is "on the firm" thus influenced by an immense conflict of interest. [More]
There has been no air crash investigation. Absolutely nothing has been released to link any parts allegedly cleared up at the Pentagon to F77. No information has been released connecting any wreckage to the Boeing 757 although virtually every aeroplane part has an identification code stamped on to it by law. [More]
This is a crime scene in US criminal law and an accident site in terms of aviation and civil disaster legal code. Nothing should have been touched. Yet we see military and civilians clearing up even while the smoke poured from the wrecked building. This is absolutely forbidden and very senior authority must have ordered and co-ordinated this immediate clean up after the explosion.
Defence Secretary Rumsfeld seen here as a "rescuer" at the Pentagon.
Air defence coordinators were desperately seeking Rumsfeld to sanction interception action. The Secretary of defence was "missing" till 10:30 am.
The BBC makes no mention of these fundamental "irregularities" but shows us:-
A large container, under a blue tarp, being carried away by men in shirts and ties, breaking every crime scene law on the statute book. Donald Rumsfeld, bizarrely, was among the "tidiers".
Crime Scene
US law states
Nothing should be touched
[21:46] (CC) "The FBI has been forced to release some footage of the attack. It comes from two time lapsed security cameras."
This CCTV has been dragged out of them under the Freedom of Information Act.
They refuse to confirm whether they hold further video evidence. Lack of transparency has only fuelled speculation. Secrecy breeds conspiracies."
The BBC omits to inform the viewer that the Pentagon is one of the most strongly defended and monitored buildings in the world. [02.04.2012 Current information is that officially the Pentagon did not have any missile defence system nor was it in a restricted air space zone. That conflicts with witness statements and needs to be further investigated]
P56 Air Defence:
They refuse to confirm whether they hold further video evidence. Lack of transparency has only fuelled speculation. Secrecy breeds conspiracies."
The BBC omits to inform the viewer that the Pentagon is one of the most strongly defended and monitored buildings in the world. [02.04.2012 Current information is that officially the Pentagon did not have any missile defence system nor was it in a restricted air space zone. That conflicts with witness statements and needs to be further investigated]
P56 Air Defence:
50 - 17 - 3 miles Identification Zones
"It's an aviation no-mans-land. Nobody goes there - nobody"
Says Robin Hordon ATC Boston. "Except military planes with IFF "Identify Friend or Foe" transponders."
The Pentagon is bristling with cameras. FBI agents confiscated the video tapes from several hotels and petrol station CCTV systems immediately after the attack. The BBC did not inquire what the Pentagon may wish to hide?
The authoritative voice of Caroline Catz tells of "wringing the video tape out of the FBI", then leaves open the possibility of more footage. Catz suggests secrecy rather than the mass of contradictions and inconsistencies is the cause of question and dissent - labelled by the BBC, Bush etc. as "conspiracy theories".
No mention is made of the analysis by professional pilots, air traffic controllers and military officers, who succeeded in obtaining the flight data recording of F77 by legal means. The data from the black box does not match the official explanation. [More]
[22:40] (CC) “In the absence of conclusive pictures of the attack ..”
The BBC, noting the lack of physical or empirical evidence, introduces the viewer to a computer simulations professor deeply enmeshed with the US military and intelligence services.
TALES OF HOFFMANN
[22:45] (CC) "Independent analysts have stepped in. At Purdue University they have built a computer model to see if damage inside the Pentagon could prove what happened. First they modeled the building and its interior supporting columns. Then a Boeing 757, its wings, fuel tanks and fuselage ..."
This is not true ....
Purdue computing community is a major beneficiary of military funding.
Christopher Hoffmann is the Director of the Rosen Centre for Advanced Computing, Director of the Purdue University Dept. of Computer Science and co-director of the Computer Research Institute. These are all inter-linked and funded by the Department of Defense, The National Science Foundation (itself created to further military defence) and the Department of Homeland Security. [More]
Hoffmann has 1 minute 45 seconds spinning a theory that the damage at the Pentagon was caused by aviation fuel hitting the building as the plane was "cut-up" by the interior columns. This "analysis" seems off the scale of Red Herring trickery. [More]
Could this cameo have been consciously designed as a Red Herring? Its content appears to be an incongruous, inconsequential diversion, as well as self-contradictory. It presents colourful images of a computer animation founded on a "basic hypothesis", only "informally confirmed". It would seem more a comic book fairy tale than real world military defence endeavour, until you look at the players and their backers:
The Pentagon is neither the key issue nor as clear cut and definitive as the WTC attack. Puzzling yes, but in this instance giving rise to diversionary and confused commentary from the BBC.
[22:53] (CC) “Their research was not funded by the government. It was an independent academic project.”
This is not true ....
The Hoffman project was government funded through the National Science Foundation. [NSF]
[http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation]
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations
Using LS-Dyna
Phase I, Completed September 11, 2002
Mete A. Sozen, Sami A. Kilic and Christoph M. Hoffmann
CLICK EXTRACT^
The NSF has defence as a major responsibility. [More]
These "simulations" are proudly claimed by Purdue & Indiana Universities as a successful example of their Tera Grid which provide supercomputer linking technologies. These technologies made the Hoffmann "simulation" possible, they are primarily funded by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. In addition, the Department of Defence and Homeland Security are directly involved in the computing community at Purdue and Indiana Universities. [More]
This is the exact reverse of an independent academic community.
How could the BBC get it so wrong?
MILITARY PLANE OVER THE PENTAGON
Caroline Catz introduces another government witness to support the official theory.[25:26] (CC) “Lt Col O’Brien was on a routine flight but as he flew over Central Washington Air Traffic Control reported an unidentified jet fast approaching on his left hand side.”
Reports quoting O’Brien in newspapers and TV are contradictory and the BBC does not examine or bring to the viewers attention noteworthy issues concerning his flight.
O’Brien took off some minutes after 9:25 when an order was issued to all military and private planes, to make immediate landings at nearest airfields. Why was O’Brien one of the few exceptions?
The first man in history to see a full size airliner disappear into thin air after hitting the Pentagon, Lt Col O’Brien failed to comply with the grounding order. Rather than return to Andrews a short distance away, O’Brien flew west, Over western Pennsylvania, he (O’Brien) “looked down at a blackened, smouldering field”.
This was Flight 93. O’Brien is unique in witnessing the only two passenger jets in aviation history to crash without leaving behind any significant aircraft wreckage.
[26:24] (CC) "O'Brien found himself the centre of a conspiracy theory."
It was and is questions not theories, but the BBC avoids the questions by focusing on the personal emotions of Lt Col O'Brien.
[26:30] Lt Col Steve O'Brien "When you become part of these conspiracies it's a lot more personal and concerning to me that I would have the ability to do or want to do something like this. It's a little bit disconcerting but it gives you an insight into how wrong these conspiracy theories can be - yet they continue on and take on a life of their own."
Yet again the "File" that was presented as "separating fact from fiction" spins the viewer's mind away from the main issue on to personal emotions. The cliche "conspiracy theory" is repeatedly spun to imply "flawed people" disrespectfully inquiring of incredible events.
The fact that the questions keep coming is spun as incestuous "community gossip" rather than the developing scientific and profession case challenging the official explanation. Why does the BBC thread this false trail through its documentary rather than seriously addressing the unanswered questions?
[26:55] Dr Fetzer is shown rebuffing O'Brien's claims in an agitated manner. There is a marked difference between the way the supporters of the government theory are dealt with on the one hand and the way the three sceptics, who want an independent inquiry, are dealt with on the other. It is easy to use a clip of an agitated moment to discredit one sceptic while avoiding such moments in testimony from government supporters.
Dr Jim Fetzer "How do you know a single word of what he (O'Brien) said is true? His story is inconsistent with the evidence we have." The BBC allows some of the telling unanswered questions to be aired but makes no effort to double check or to investigate the issues "to separate fact from fiction".
Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have all described how the BBC spent days with each of them. Each has complained that the BBC had made its mind up about the "investigation" before even hearing the evidence. The three were filmed stating their case but calm measured comments ended on the cutting-room floor and the BBC chose to use the more exasperated clips. Was this the plan?
In the 1984 Miners Strike the BBC cut the film to show unprovoked attack on the police when the reverse was the truth. See [Orgreave]
[27:30] (CC) "Dallas Texas, where President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. In town tonight is a man who spreads his message with all the zeal of an evangelist. Alex Jones Texan talk show host."
[28:30] (CC) "His message, that the terrorists of the new world order are local boys, the clique of oil rich cronies around President Bush who are using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for global imperialism."
[29:12] (CC) "Alex Jones believes that 911 was part of an elaborate plot by President Bush to provoke war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The end goal being to secure long term oil supplies from Central Asia and the Middle East."
[29:23] Alex Jones "People ask, 'why would the government do this'? let's be clear, a small criminal group who has the power within the government to orchestrate something like this would do it to mobilise the American people as an engine of global domination and power."
(AJ) "They do this so they can be dictators, they do this so they can set up systems of control, they do this so they can funnel the economy through their war coffers and fund all their friends and family, we're talking of trillions of dollars here."
[30:00] Bush is shown landing in a fighter plane on an aircraft carrier for the "Mission Accomplished" speech cum photo opportunity.
This crafted piece, expressing youthfulness and vigour, with Bush in his flying suit pointedly holding his flying helmet under his arm, splits a three and half minute run (HALF the total time) allocated to the three critics talking about key issues omitted by official "investigations": Fetzer on the physics of the Pentagon attack and Alex Jones and Dylan Avery on false flag operations.
[30:00] (CC) "The theory that President Bush would not blanch about killing thousands of Americans in collateral damage to launch this war of global domination is entirely plausible to the conspiracy theorists."
SEE: [Northwood/Gladio/Strategy of Tension]
[30:09] Dylan Avery: "We've invaded two sovereign nations; we're probably about to invade a third. Look at all the laws they have passed; look at all the things they have done. They are spying on their own citizens. They can torture innocent civilians and call them enemy combatants. You really have to ask yourself would we be where we are right now without 911"?
Of relevance are the opinions of world leaders and senior politicians such as
Mahathir bin Mohamad, MD – 22 years Prime Minister of Malaysia - doubts that the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York was actually caused by terrorists crashing planes into the towers. “I can believe that they (the United States) would kill 3,000 of their own to have an excuse to kill 650,000 Iraqis. These are the kind of people we are dealing with."
Andreas von Buelow, PhD – Ex Secretary of Defence of West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD – Ex Minister of Justice (West Germany); Eckart Werthebach, JD – Ex President, Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Germany’s domestic intelligence service 1991 - 1995; Francesco Cossiga, - President of Italy (1985 - 1992); President Chavez of Venezuela, Giulietto Chiesa – Member of European Parliament, 2004 - present (Italy) [More]
The BBC omits any mention of these significant statesmen and follows the three truth campaigners with another major "red herring".
[30:30] (CC) "For the 911 truth movement the fate of the 4th plane is clear evidence of a government cover up".
