| http://www.joelskousen.com
INTERNET RUMBLINGS: NO AIRLINER CRASH AT PENTAGON? by Joel Skousen WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF March 8, 2002 Copyright Joel M. Skousen Partial Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief [Excerpt] A huge potential conspiracy scandal is emerging on the internet as photographs of the Pentagon crash site are being aired showing no evidence of any aircraft parts or wreckage. Rumors are flying that the government falsified this attack with a planted explosive charge at the Pentagon or that a truck bomb did the actual damage. I have viewed the sketchy evidence so far, and concur that no visible aircraft wreckage is shown. But, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The total package of evidence is far from conclusive at this point. In fact, there does exist other evidence, including witnesses who saw a plane, that directly contradicts the assertion of no aircraft. If you want to examine the photo evidence yourself go to http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm. Here are some points to consider: The photographs were taken from too far away to make a definitive determination. The explosion occurred at the base of the building and the roof structure caved in afterward on top of whatever wreckage may have survived the fire--making it difficult to see the wreckage. The damaged portion of the building is more narrow than the wingspan of the airliner, lending credence to the charge that the aircraft could not have created this hole. However, the building exterior does show damage where the outer wings would have impacted. When an airliner crashes into a building with a hard exterior and a soft interior, the entire aircraft tends to break up in small pieces and be absorbed inside the building. That’s what happened in both WTC towers. The façade of the Pentagon may not have given way. The outer portions of a wing are far less dense than the rest of the structure and could have disintegrated upon impact. All flammable materials would have been consumed in the ensuing fire. At a press conference held at the Pentagon by Assistant Defense Secretary Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher had this to say: "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." This quote does admit to the lack of large pieces of airplane wreckage, but he does say there were small pieces. Any pieces of aircraft wreckage would tend to discredit the no-airplane theory. There is the issue of the security camera from a gas station across the street which reportedly captured the crash. As with all other such evidence, the FBI confiscated the video and has refused to reveal its contents. This happened in the OKC bombing as well. These actions are naturally suspicious, but typical of a government that regularly engages in cover-ups. All the government has to do to defuse these charges is to release the tape. As of this writing, the FBI has not done so. However, the government did release on March 7 a clip from a surveillance camera outside the Pentagon--advertised as showing the plane hitting the Pentagon. See it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47420,00.html Finally, I thought we were going to settle this issue. No such luck. The first picture frame claiming to show an aircraft as a minor "white blur" is simply not there at the computer resolution Fox News was sending out. A Boeing 757 would certainly have had a much larger visual signature, even if blurred. Is this the best the government can come up with? The biggest unexplained aspect of these charges is, what happened to the actual Flight 77 and all its passengers--none of whom have ever appeared alive. The plane can’t simply have disappeared into nowhere, and no other airliner crash site exists that has not been accounted for. There is ample evidence that some of the supposed Saudi hijacker pilots (of other flights) have turned up alive, but this could easily be explained by the ad hoc way in which the FBI came up with the list of hijackers in the first place, without a shred of forensic evidence. The FBI also suppressed all aircraft passenger manifest lists that had Arab names, thus leaving the public with no means of confirming the government’s assertions. There are eye-witnesses, however. On Sept 11, the Washington Post compiled the testimony of several who saw the aircraft or debris on the ground. I will quote from the article by Barbara Vobejda, found at http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/ www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html "I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles,...It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." "Asework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, was driving on Columbia Pike on his way to work as a consultant for Nextel. He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. ‘I thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to crash. I've never seen a plane like this so low.’ He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia and when it made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames. At the Pentagon, employees had heard about or seen footage of the World Trade Centre attack when they felt their own building shake." "Ervin Brown, who works at the Pentagon, said he saw pieces of what appeared to be small aircraft on the ground, and the part of the building by the heliport had collapsed." "Damoose said the worst part was leaving the Pentagon and walking along Fort Meyer Drive, a bike trail, ‘you could see pieces of the plane.’" "Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said... He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon ‘envelope’ the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building." This last quote, as well as the others, clearly confirms that a plane did hit the Pentagon. But it is disturbing for another reason. Patterson is a graphic artist who works at home, so his ability to perceive detail and make accurate descriptions is founded in a lot of eye training. There is little chance a trained graphic artist is going to mistake a huge Boeing 757 flying only 150 feet from his window for a small commuter airplane holding only 8-12 passengers. The 757 would have been gigantic and its huge fuselage and long rows of windows could never be mistaken for a plane holding less than 12 people. This, combined with the nearly non-existent "white blur" proported to be the aircraft on the Pentagon security camera clip, may indicate that the plane which hit the Pentagon may not have been an airliner. This still leaves wide open the question of what happened to Flight 77. I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Patterson in the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn’t have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground. So, for now we must conclude that some type of aircraft flew into the Pentagon, but the jury is still out on other murky details. It looks doubtful to me that the government would be so stupid as to try to falsify the entire aircraft event. On the other hand, they spent millions trying to explain away the missile shootdown (by the US Navy) of TWA 800, including the creation of a completely bogus video presentation falsifying what really happened. So they certainly are capable of grand conspiracy and deception. |
