Friday, September 27, 2002

A few random thoughts about the Pentagon crash:

  1. I think it is a mistake to lump conspiracy theories about the WTC crashes and the Pentagon crash together. I know everyone has their own personal degree of paranoia, but to me Pentagon crash conspiracy theories seem relatively straightforward and easy to accept compared to some of the wild ideas I've read about the WTC crashes. The main difference, of course, is that we have the WTC crashes on film, while the Pentagon crash, with the exception of the one odd video which doesn't show anything, remains very mysteriously unfilmed. Combining crazy theories about the WTC crashes with the Pentagon crash serves, intentionally or not, to make conspiracy theories about the Pentagon less credible. The WTC towers fell down because they were negligently constructed by Mafia contractors using mobbed up union labor and inspected by corrupted building inspectors, and were intentionally built by the Port Authority to escape normal New York City building regulations. The fact that there are thousands of other buildings in the United States with the same deficiencies should be more of a conspiracy than the unnecessary idea that bombs were planted in the two towers to bring them down. We know that fundamentalist Islamic terrorist operations had planned for a number of years to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons against the United States. We know that there was a cadre of operatives training as pilots in the United States, who assembled into groups to hijack planes on September 11. We know that the WTC had already been a target of Islamic fundamentalist groups. Why, then, do we need to add to all this the thesis that the planes were somehow flown by remote control? I am sure that such a thing is technically feasible (it is already used by 'smart' bombs and cruise missiles), but why would a strategic planner, armed with hijackers including a group of pilots who were prepared to kill themselves for a cause, use some complicated system that could fail when the low-tech system was available to him? The whole remote control thesis seems to have been created to explain away the incomprehensible fact that people are prepared to kill themselves for a cause, a fact that may be incomprehensible to Americans, but which is proved with every Palestinian suicide bomber. (I also don't believe that the WTC towers were taken down by Mossad agents in UFO's.)

  2. Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness evidence. There are so many cases of people being convicted and punished, even executed, on the basis of the certainty of eyewitnesses, that I don't know why so much emphasis is placed on such evidence. Every study of the reliability of eyewitnesses comes up with almost laughable conclusions about how mixed up they are. The eyewitnesses are all over the map, all of them were effectively coached by their knowledge of the Official Theory, and it would have been relatively easy to produce some sort of missile that resembled Flight 77, particularly given the size of a Boeing 757 relative to the odd proportions of the Pentagon. The only reason we hear so much about the eyewitness evidence is that a few of the eyewitnesses are the only evidence which supports the Official Story, and in fact all the other evidence makes it clear that the Official Story is not even close to being possible. It is also extremely easy, and a normal part of the trade of deception, for conspirators to plant a few 'ringers', i. e., paid 'eyewitnesses' who completely support the Official Story.

  3. The apologists for the Official Story seem to be vacillating between asserting with absolute certainty that: 1) the plane crashed on the lawn first, and then went into the Pentagon, and; 2) the plane went directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first. There are eyewitnesses which support both theories (which should tell you something about eyewitnesses). The first assertion gets around the problem that the hole that the plane is supposed to have gone through is too small, as presumably the plane lost much of its size when it hit the ground. Unfortunately, if the plane hit the ground in front of the Pentagon, pieces of it, large pieces, should be all over the lawn (and pretending to see the remnants of the plane in the tiny amount of debris on the lawn is just silly). As such large pieces obviously aren't on the lawn, the theory that the plane crashed into the lawn first must be wrong. It is also difficult to see how a Boeing 757 could have crashed on the Pentagon lawn, leaving it looking like the 18th green at Augusta National Golf Club. If we go back to the second theory, we hit insurmountable problems with the hole in the Pentagon. It is not just too small, it is approximately one third to one half the size it ought to have been, and there is no evidence of marks on the wall where the wings and tail would have hit and, presumably, been sheared off (not to mention no evidence of wings or tail!). That leaves us with the fact that David Copperfield must have been involved to get that large a plane through that small a hole. There is simply no way to get around the physical evidence that exists in the wall of the Pentagon and in the lawn in front of it.

  4. When we go inside the Pentagon things get even weirder. We're supposed to believe that the plane completely disappeared, vaporized, in the heat of the fire, including the engines, but that sufficient DNA was found at the site to identify all but one of the passengers. All but one. The people who make these lies must laugh and laugh when they write them. They could have said that the fire destroyed all DNA evidence except for that of three passengers. That would be hard to believe, but at least wouldn't be an insult to our intelligence. They know that the members of the public will accept unquestioningly any crap they are fed, so they tell us that they were unable to identify one passenger. We not only have to eat the excrement of the liars, but we have to tell them how delicious it is.

  5. Since they had the hijacked Flight 77 available, why didn't they just use it to crash into the Pentagon? Why would they have to use another form of missile? The answer to this is that we are not sure that Flight 77 was available. The supposed pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so incompetent a pilot that a few weeks before he was unable to land a small plane without assistance. It's impossible to believe that Hani Hanjour could have performed this perfect landing into the Pentagon. Even more impossible to believe is that the planners of this attack, if it was an inside job, would have entrusted Hanjour to hit the right part of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld and a lot of generals were in the building at the time of the crash. What if Hanjour had overshot the mark and hit the other side of the building? No one could have taken the chance that an incompetent like Hanjour wouldn't have killed someone truly important. A missile provides the kind of control required to safely destroy part of the Pentagon with a picturesque explosion, while leaving the better class of people safe and sound.

  6. If the planners of the Pentagon attack had foreknowledge of the WTC attacks, why would they need the Pentagon attack? The answer to this is that no one could know how successful the WTC attacks would be. At best, they could have counted on the planes hitting the towers and the towers not collapsing, leaving perhaps 500 people dead. This would not have been enough to justify the war on Afghanistan, the war on Iraq, the world-wide war on terror, the destruction of the U. S. Constitution, the massive increase in military spending, the resurrection of Bush's political carreer, and the new extra-strength Bush doctrine of American dictatorial rule over all the assets of the world. There were also supposed attacks on the White House (with smoke pouring out of it), and at the State Department (a bomb), both of which have been officially forgotten. There were probably other 'attacks' ready if they were required. Enough of the attacks would be used to create sufficient excuse for the many plans of the Bush junta. The Pentagon attack occurred after both WTC towers had been hit, but before either had fallen. If one or both of the WTC towers had fallen earlier, we may not have seen the Pentagon attack. Similarly, the attacks on the White House and State Department were no longer necessary once the WTC towers fell, and thus were forgotten.

  7. What happened to Flight 77? I don't know, but it was almost certainly shot down in an area where the wreckage wouldn't be seen. The timing becomes crucial here again. No planes were allowed to take off from U. S air space after 9:26 a. m. Since a plane was needed to take the blame for the Pentagon damage, it would be necessary to shoot down a plane already in the air at that time, which had not yet landed, and which was over a deserted area where the wreckage could be covered up. I remember television reports on the morning of September 11 that a plane had been shot down over Colorado, and that might very well have been Flight 77. It may have been originally planned to use Flight 93 as the patsy plane, but the fact that the shooting down of Flight 93 was noticed meant that another plane had to be selected, one of the few that was still in the air that late in the morning.

  8. It is even possible, though unlikely, that Flight 77 wasn't hijacked at all. Remember that Hani Hanjour's name wasn't on the passenger manifest of Flight 77. I assume that the FBI included him as the pilot as he was known to associate with the other members of the hijacking group, and he was the only even remotely qualified pilot available on that flight. What if Hanjour's handlers told him not to get on the flight, or he chickened out? The other hijackers would then be left without a pilot, and would simply have had to abort the hijacking and fly to the west coast. It would be very ironic if they then ended up being shot down as Flight 77 was chosen as the Pentagon patsy plane.

  9. Don't forget about the complete implausibility of the Pentagon assertion that it was not defended against air attacks, and the unbelievable absence of any video of that side of the building except for one video which strangely doesn't show Flight 77 (if you squint you can see something, but nothing the size of Flight 77). Also don't forget the bizarre assertion that, in the absence of any other plane, the C-130 was sent after Flight 77. An unarmed, slow C-130 transport plane would be useless if the intent was to stop Flight 77, but would make an excellent platform from which to shoot 'home movies' of a very successful operation (these people like to film their exploits).

  10. Failure to accept the obvious is not without costs. Ever since the assassination of JFK we have seen a constant escalation of the boldness of the attacks on the United States by parts of the U. S. government. The failure to ever call to task those responsible for so many outrages just leaves the same people more confident of their ability to continue to fool the American people. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration may need a new dramatic excuse to begin its war on Iraq, and I fear that more people are going to die who might not have needed to die if proper attention was paid to the faked crash of Flight 77.


0 comments: