Dennis Cimino (with Jim Fetzer)
Among the most fascinating aspects of 9/11 research has been the on-going controversy over whether the absence of evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon should or should not be publicized within the movement, especially by Jim Hoffman, who has published several articles maintaining that the physical evidence as well as the witness reports supports a Boeing 757 having hit the building. One of the more bizarre aspects of his defense of the "official account" of the Pentagon attack is to cite the Sandia test, in which an F-4 was strapped onto a rail car frame and run at around 500 mph into a nuclear-resistant concrete barrier. The plane blew apart into millions of tiny pieces, implying that that was what ought to have been expected of the Boeing 757 at the Pentagon. The building consists of 12 inches of concrete, 8 inches of brick, and a facade of 4 inches of limestone, which is a very porous stone. Even Major Gen. Albert Stubblebine, USAF (ret.), concluded that no Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon for the obvious reason that he could discern no imprint of the wings on the building.
Stubblebine, of course, was the NSA's signals intelligence image analyst, but that has not deterred Jim Hoffman, who has also argued that discussing the Pentagon "might be a trap", since the Pentagon might release some of the more than 80 videos it possesses that would show "what really happened" as opposed to the five frames it has released, one of which shows the image of a small plane that is about half the size of a Boeing 757. Why anyone should take Hoffman seriously about any of this is beyond me, because, based upon my personal experience, he has gone out of his way to manipulate the 9/11 Truth community, even to the extent of creating an elaborate pretext to excuse Larry Silverstein from having made an obvious concession to the controlled demolition of WTC-7 with his "pull it" remark during an interview with PBS. He has had some effect, it would appear, since even David Ray Griffin, perhaps the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has avoided pushing the Pentagon front-and-center, where it properly belongs. As Dennis Cimino explains, the "official account" is a fantasy, where the American public would benefit from knowing that even the Pentagon attack was a fabrication and a fraud.
The Pentagon attack is a fantasy
On September 11, 2001, we were told by the U.S. government that at 9:38 a.m. on that day, a Boeing 757 jetliner impacted the building at a speed of approximately 465 knots after executing a 330 degree turn for no apparent reason any sane person can think of, as the building is highly distinguishable from virtually any altitude above 2000 feet for several miles. The official story has the flight path just to the side of the west wing of the White House, which in any person’s estimation is a significantly more important target than is the building that houses the military managers who run the Military Industrial Complex. We were also told that nobody could have foreseen this type of attack, even though just a year earlier, a drill was held, and a nearly identical B-757 American Airlines plane was flown by Chuck Burlingame himself, as the Pentagon ran a preparedness drill to simulate such an attack.
Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, 24-26 October 2000
Unfortunately, many people in America are unaware that the Washington, D.C. area has Raytheon "Basic Point Defense" missile battery armament embedded on several building rooftops there, using Sea Sparrow air defense missiles, much in the same fashion that Moscow has a system that NATO code named ‘Yo Yo’ that maintains radar surveillance and provides protection to the Kremlin and other high value targets from military incursions. In other words, the Pentagon was protected not only by these missile batteries, but also had in place a number of adjacent fighter bases which provided a fairly high level of protection given the fact that the plane inbound to the Pentagon from the east was not supersonic as are the adjacent fighter jets based in the area, and therefore easily could have been intercepted and at the very least, temporarily deflected off course if not shot down, if need be, long before it reached the target on the building, known as ‘The Catchers Mit’ due to recent renovations which added several inches of KEVLAR armor to that face of the building to protect the occupants. For those of you who are not familiar with Kevlar armor and how it works, the only much more vastly superior but significantly more expensive armor is ceramic in nature and is often used jointly with Kevlar to protect personnel from high energy armor piercing rounds fired by tanks and other anti armor weapons such as are mounted on most military attack helicopters, for instance, such as the 30mm cannon and the infamous Obama well used ‘hellfire’ anti tank missile system.
In addition, there is a system, known as "Identification Friend or Foe" aka I.F.F., which uses a special MODE 4A feature that only military aircraft use, whereupon special encryption. Additionally, a mission specific MODEX aka SEDSCAF number for each plane is assigned and if it does not meet the PLAN OF THE DAY for the area, IT STILL IS NOT GOING TO PASS MODE 4A MUSTER. It would be shot down. No "if"s, no "and"s and no "but"s!!!!
The proper MODEX / SEDSCAF NUMBER is what enables an aircraft them to penetrate prohibited or military restricted airspace such as that which surrounds both the White House and the Pentagon, as well as a number of military installations around the globe. This feature is necessary to prevent the possible mis-identification of a civilian aircraft by military air defense personnel who man radar scopes in the Washington, D.C. area, 24/7, watching for unauthorized aircraft who do not have the proper MODE 4A response capability or code in use with their on board transponders. Only military aircraft have this Mode 4A capability, or what is often referred to as ‘crypto Beacon Video’ military ATC specialists.
The "hit point" on the ground floor
In any case, the reason I mention this is that there are several echelons of protection which allegedly all summarily ‘failed’ us on Sept. 11th., 2001, and allowed an unidentified plane hurtling towards Washington, D.C.’s protected airspace, long after the First targets in New York had already been seriously damaged. To be honest, it is simply not possible for virtually every one of these systems to have been overcome by 19 guys wielding no more than box cutters. It took a lot of sabotage or unplugging on the ground to do that.
In any case, there was plenty of warning that an ‘unknown’ and presumed ‘hostile’ target was inbound to the Washington, D.C. area from the area around West Virginia to the east, and more than sufficient time existed to scramble fighters and or light off the Basic Point Missile Defense or BPDMS radar systems (AKA as N.S.S.M.S.) and missile defenses that are installed in rooftops there in the Washington, D.C. area since the mid 1980’s. Basic Point Defense uses a CW target illuminator radar to allow the semi-actively guided Sea Sparrow missile to radar home on reflected energy coming back from the target aircraft after the radar has locked onto the target. Though these are short range, they are so effective many high value targets in the Navy use this system, with it’s infamous MK-112 Fire Control radar system. It’s known that NATO’s Sea Sparrow was in place in the mid 1980’s in Washington, D.C. as point defense against air attack. It’s not unreasonable to assume that an updated version of N.S.S.M.S. / Mk 112/MK-115 would be there in September, 2001., by any stretch of the imagination. In all likelihood, it would be a version of the PAC-3 ‘Patriot’ Missile system, another Raytheon toy. One more point would like to make is that the White House, which this aircraft would breeze right past, had agents on the roof with shoulder fired STINGER MISSILES, and on this particular day, you can rest assured that with the unknown target hurtling toward Washington, D.C., those agents were on that roof with those STINGER MISSILES out of their cases and on their shoulders as they scanned the clear morning sky for the coming intruder plane. Why did they not fire at it?
So, on September 11, 2001, what took place was a plane that was not a scheduled air carrier flight, per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or BTS database, departed Dulles International from a departure gate that does not match the coordinates transmitted by FDR data stored in the CPM provided by the N.T.S.B., flight data recorder records, on that non-scheduled American Airlines flight, aka ‘FLT 77’ per the government’s submission, where this flight allegedly left Dulles with a hijacker on board who was capable of flying a very sophisticated and complex airplane that even the average pilot in the F.A.A. pilot registry could probably not really fly with such precision. This plane took off, climbed to it’s cruise altitude, and then over W. Virginia, was hijacked in 3 minutes time, and then executed a ‘standard rate’ turn which no hijacker would have performed with such precision, and immediately turned inbound to the perfect heading that would take it directly to the Pentagon, even though for hijackers to do this, would have meant they would have had to know exactly where the aircraft was immediately -- and I do mean, IMMEDIATELY -- and then have the requisite knowledge of how to re-program the complicated FMS computers in the aircraft to display target area data to them, because as you might have guessed, they did not bring their own GPS system with them on the planes that would have given them immediate positional information as well as a much more immediate way of turning the plane onto a magnetic heading that would take it to Washington, D.C. from that nice precise standard rate turnaround in the skies over West Virginia. Impressed? I sure am, as would be many B-757 line captains who fly this airplane every day, especially with the level of complexity the FMS or Flight Management System on that airplane has, that has on at least one occasion, led to the crash and destruction of a similarly equipped American Airlines B-757 in the mountains just outside of Cali, Colombia just a few years before this.
What was more alarming that day is that during the ‘3’ minute hijacking interval, neither the cockpit door opened (reported via the Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit or DFDAU as it is known as) and the autopilot did not disengage. Now imagine yourself being Captain Chuck Burlingame and his copilot, sitting in their seats, when these hijackers slid under the door crack on the floor and re-constituted themselves as full fledged box-cutter wielding terrorists, who then proceeded to cut the heads off these two airmen who’s job is to protect their aircraft and it’s passengers at all costs. Neither of these guys were 98 pound weaklings, yet in three minutes they had been incapacitated and were out of their seats without touching either the yokes or the rudders, which would have immediately DISENGAGED the aircraft’s autopilot system which was flying the machine at that time. The plane did not yaw, roll, pitch or otherwise change any flight parameter but remained perfectly on course, and for some reason, two minutes later the hijackers finally decided to turn OFF the transponder to make it a bit harder for ATC to be positively sure this plane was the same one they were watching before the hijacking took place. Now, one more thing you need to know is that for either of the flight crew to either push the talk button on the yokes or to change the transponder code to one that tells the ATC personnel monitoring the flight that they were in a ‘hijack’ situation, would have taken mere seconds to do. Yet, this was not done. And the autopilot did not disengage though it is presumed the two pilots would have resisted and fought for their very lives and at least kicked the rudder pedals and or moved the yokes. Yet they did not do any of these things. Merely holding the push to talk button and screaming whilst having one’s head cut off would have gotten someone’s attention, I do think. Too many ways the crew could send a duress message to the ATC en route centers, and not once was this attempted. Why? The best and most reasonable reason is that these were not hijacked planes at all, but planes flown by military personnel or crews who thought they were innocently participating in the drills. And as such, these would NOT have been passenger flights, as it is illegal to use passengers in military exercises under any circumstances, due to the risk involved. This is another clue that points to the fact that no hijacking took place in this aircraft at all, because had that been the case, they had plenty of time to use a duress system to alert ATC that they were under attack in that cockpit.
In any case, the precision turn executed and the immediate orientation onto the course to the Pentagon is kind of indicative of a professional pilot and not a hijacker being at the controls, because the crew who flew that plane knew precisely where the plane was when they turned directly onto a course which would then take them directly into the target, which that morning was the Pentagon. Given the fact that it is quite impossible for these freshly in the cockpit hijackers to know where the plane was when they took it over, and furthermore, to know the exact on course heading back to the Washington, D.C. area to attack the Pentagon, is again quite telling of who really was still at the controls of this plane. It surely was not a hijacker who just got into the cockpit a couple minutes ago, based on this immediate orientation and turn onto course to the target. This process would have taken several minutes. It did not take several minutes. It was immediate. Mighty clairvoyant airmen these guys were, and powerful too, to overcome the crew in three minutes time while ensuring the autopilot never disengaged even for a split second, nor had the cockpit door opened to let them in. (See cockpit door diagram below)
Then, later as they got closer in, they did something puzzling for a crew of neophyte hijackers. On their way down thru Flight Level 180, or 18 thousand feet, they magically, without having listened to the ATIS or automated terminal information service, broadcast from Dulles International Airport that morning, these guys somehow knew the barometric pressure reported on that automated broadcast though no controller passed that information to them, and they set that in the Kollsman window on BOTH of the cockpit altimiters simultaneously. That’s not only clairvoyant, that’s SYNCHRONIZED knob twisting going on there, by any pilot’s standards. Machine precision out of hijackers turning two knobs at the same time in perfect, instantaneous fashion, is extremely unlikely for these guys, yet that was exactly what took place when both the hijacker and his co-hijacker buddy, who must have gotten VERY lucky to pick those barometric pressure numbers for DCA that morning out of their asses, because they had no way of knowing them otherwise…as no radio in the cockpit was tuned to the ATIS frequency, as that is recorded in the FDR data and not reflected in the data the N.T.S.B. released from that plane’s Flight Data Recorder. Notwithstanding the absurdity of this kind of coordinated crew work, it really ranks as one of the most glaring issues of the morning because the crew could not have known those numbers they put into both altimeters via the Kollsman setting knobs that morning on their descent. They could NOT know them nor could they have so precisely guessed them.
And then they did something quite unusual. They were able to penetrate that highly protected airspace without the proper MODE 4A military I.F.F. response, and no communications with ATC of any kind, no clearance issued of any kind, and they flew a nice leisurely 330 degree turn after passing right past the White House, the more desirable high value target, than their intended Pentagon target could ever dream to be. After they completed the turn, they managed to accelerate the aircraft well beyond 150 knots faster than it could ever possibly fly at that altitude, even full throttle. They did this without touching the rudder pedals for even one moment after their hijacking of the plane several minutes earlier, too! Needless to say, to perform a coordinated turn as the N.T.S.B. flight data recorder data shows, they would have had to use rudder inputs, but they never touched the aircraft rudders once during their entire time in the cockpit after they slid under the crack below the cockpit door to gain entry. Was this because neither of them had legs? They walked onto the plane and did not require wheelchairs, so is it not a little strange or odd they never ever once touched the rudder pedals in that plane?
After careful analysis of the flight data recorder stuff provided to us by the N.T.S.B., in their recreation, we see the fact the rudders and the yoke were not moved nor did the autopilot disengage while the crew fought for their very lives in that cockpit. And, at no other time did the rudders ever get so much as a passing foot kick. At the very least, these guys would have probably inadvertently tested them a bit with their feet, yet they never touched them. And to do the nice 330 degree turn into the building, they would have absolutely NEEDED TO USE THE RUDDER to carry this out in what is called COORDINATED FLIGHT without slipping or skidding the plane in three dimensional space that morning. We know they flew a perfectly coordinated turn because the data the N.T.S.B. released to us shows us that. To do this, the rudders would have absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, been needed to accomplish this. No accomplished pilot could do that ‘flat footed’ with his or her feet not on the rudders. Impressive performance here, execution of coordinated high G turns without rudders used at all by the hijackers.
The government maintains that the radar track for this aircraft was ‘lost’ over a ‘radar hole’ that exists in the radar coverage map over W. VA., and that as they neither had radio contact with the crew, nor a valid Radar Beacon or IFF code sqwawk coming from the aircraft’s transponders when the track was lost going west, one has to ask how the track was lost and why it was impossible for the continuous tracking by at the very least, PRIMARY RADAR did not happen that morning.
Directly under this airplane’s wonderful fantasmagorical RADAR HOLE the track was lost over, was a long range, height finding military radar system known as FPS-117. This radar, mounted right on top of a ridge, was virtually directly underneath FLT-77 when the radar track was lost. This radar has a nominal range of 200 miles, and has the capability to be in ‘redcap’ or reduced capability mode without full power output of it’s transmitter, and still offer short range primary or skin paint track of aircraft flying within 80 nautical miles of it. This radar station was in operation on Sept. 11, 2001, and was not called out in any documentary evidence as being out of commission or off-line that morning, yet the government asserts that a ‘radar hole’ existed in it’s tracking or service volume area that morning, and nobody reported this long range height finder radar as either in low power final driver or ‘down’ for maintenance. How can this be? How can we have lost track of this target over W. Virginia that morning with a very powerful, very capable long range height finding air search radar below that did not need MODE C to get a rudimentary and somewhat less precise altitude resolution from it’s multi beam array scanning the skies there that morning? Very very good question.
In any case, as nobody really had ascertained that this plane was, in fact truly the same one that was tracked outbound into the approximate vicinity of this FPS-117 radar site, it is astonishing that virtually everyone in official channels automatically assumed this unidentified airplane which had no transponder replies, and had no communications with ATC of any kind, was still the one and the same airplane seen on radar going the other way. Based on this assumption, a whole lot of ATC specialists have been wrongly trained because their protocols prohibit making an assumption like this without specific NORDO or NO RADIO procedures that tell ATC that the crew has heard transmissions from the ground and has followed instructions issued so ATC can now state that this plane is in fact the one they lost radar track on and had lost communications with. Those protocols for identification of unknown air targets have been in place and used very successfully for many decades and yet they were ignored and this unknown track was decried as ‘FLT 77’ by everyone on the ground. Mighty convenient that a radar hole that should not have been there allowed this window of uncertainty to be there, and then a nonsensical non-standard supposition as to who the target indeed was, superseded tried and true protocols for target identification in lieu of two-way radio contact or transponder replies from the target. This is mighty smelly stuff here, regarding the radar hole and the assumption that this was still FLT-77 with no empirical evidence to support that assertion of any kind. In other words, NO air traffic control person has the right to make that assumption under any circumstances, but this was instantly done on Sept. 11, 2001 for some unknown or heretofore unknown reason that morning. Why?
An ATC specialist named Danielle O’Brien was watching this radar target track inbound at a high speed, and in her official statement about it, she cited not only the drastically higher speed inbound but an unusual degree of target maneuverability, more or less telling her colleague, another controller, that to her it looked too fast and maneuvered to abruptly to be a commercial airliner. In light of this, designating this plane as the one and the same which was NORDO and lost track on the outbound leg just before the infamous radar hole over W.VA, becomes even more questionably nonsensical to two experienced ATC personnel watching it fly into the Washington, D.C. class bravo restricted airspace that morning. In any case, this observation by Ms. O’Brien and her co-worker seems to at least on it’s face indicate that whatever aircraft that was on the inbound track certainly was much more maneuverable and significantly faster than a B-757, even as the official RADES 84 data contradicts her and her colleague. How can this be? Is it that the controllers were in fact ‘wrong’ and the later produced RADES 84 radar track data much more correct? Both of them cannot be correct. One is blatantly incorrect and intentional disinformation. But which one is telling us the truth? The same people who told us the radar hole existed over W. VA, on top of an operational long range 3-D height finding radar system?
In any case, the plane continues inbound, without interception. And by all indications, the manner in which the aircraft is being controlled tends to reflect skilled airmen at the controls and not neophytes who had difficulty controlling a Cessna 172 Skyhawk and were denied rental of one due to their inability to pass a pre-rental checkout for that. Is anyone seeing the big picture here yet? The took over the plane in a scant 3 minutes, without disturbing the asleep crew and pulled their slumbering inert bodies out of the seats and did not touch either the yokes or the rudders during the time they removed these snoozing crewmen who were so asleep at the wheel they didn’t even use any of the simple and very tried and true duress procedures to alert ATC they were being interfered with. Somehow I don’t think so.
In any case, the hijackers then descended, and flew right by the White House and a contingency of secret service agents who had to at that point been standing on the roof with the over the shoulder STINGER missiles at the ready, waiting for them to come into firing range. FLT 77 was indeed well inside STINGER firing range as it whipped past the White House on the way into the Pentagon that morning. Were those agents taking a nap? Or had they simply been told not to fire on this plane? I know that in 1987, the secret service crew who guards that building were armed with STINGER MISSILES because an ATC specialist warned me to not fly lower than 1,000 feet over that building on my way further north that evening or risk getting one up my, uh, tailpipe. So we know someone dropped that ball that morning, or did they get told to hold their fire?
And then the hijackers fly the oh so notoriously ridiculous 330 degree descending turn, which not only puts them at more risk for a shoot down, but makes no sense because their job was to fly that plane into the building. Why the turn? The couldn’t possibly not seen it as they whipped past the White House that morning. The skies were clear. There was no fog or cloud cover. Did someone get lost suddenly?
What we know from the FDR recreation the N.T.S.B. provided to us, is that this plane executed a very high speed descent at a vertical descent rate that was at the very least, 4,400 feet per minute, easily 3,000 feet per minute faster in the dive than normal landing aircraft typical do on their final approaches to a runway. This equated to a terminal velocity in the end of more than 150 knots beyond the never exceed speed for this aircraft at this altitude. Oh, I know, I have seen in the blogosphere the ‘hogwash, these planes fly at 585 miles an hour all day long’ said over and over again, so therefore this speed limit we cite clearly must be ‘wrong’ and not correct. Is it? The sad reality for those same people who cite this 585 miles an hour speed, is that this speed can only be achieved and maintained in less dense air, at very high altitudes. Down low, in very dense air with significantly higher drag coefficients applicable to the plane down so low, the plane’s cannot achieve these speeds. And the only limit is not just the drag limitation, but the fact that with the increase in speed in a banked turn, comes the increased force of gravity or ‘G’ forces. On September 11th., this aircraft pulled ‘6’ G’s on it’s turn into the building that day, at a speed more than 150 knots beyond it’s design limits at this altitude.
We know this because we called Boeing and asked them if these impossible speeds were even possible at these altitudes. Their answer, was a laughable; “Uh, no!” by their spokesperson. But to get back to the turn and the necessity of one when the building was clearly right in front of the hijackers faces as they descended, is anyone’s guess. But some of us surmise the turn was necessary because the imperative was not just to whack the building just anywhere, but to strike it in a particular location. That location, is known as the recently heavily reinforced and renovated ‘Catchers Mit’, and the portion of the building that was hit was filled with Navy comptroller’s office personnel who were tracking the missing 2.3 trillion dollars cited during hearings on Capitol Hill on the prior morning, held by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
We can only wonder at this point what the rationale was for circling and exposing this plane to shoot down, hence preventing it hitting it’s target. Nevertheless, the hijackers circled. But they did so in a fashion that absolutely flies in the fact that extremely unskilled and untrained pilots were at the controls. They executed this high speed turn and somehow managed not to lose control of this plane in a region of it’s control capabilities that would absolutely mandate that the pilot have exceptional flying skill to do this maneuver without losing control of this aircraft. Do you still believe that Hani Hanjour was in the cockpit flying this plane now? That is a stretch, in any reasonable persons estimation to still believe that, if we can trust ANY of the data the N.T.S.B. released to us from the FDR on that aircraft. But this was not the end of the superb airmanship exhibited by Hani that morning. He got better at it!
What is so much more impressive is that Hani flew the plane so low that he clipped ‘6’ light poles on the approach to the building at 460 plus knots, but when he did this, the leading edges of the wings did not shed a single piece, nor were the fuel tanks ruptured, which at that time were more or less full of highly flammable JET A fuel. We know ‘5’ of the six poles were sheared, yet no huge fireball explosions as wings were impacting the poles, and nary one piece of leading edge components such as the leading edge slats, were even damaged or left the plane. Now that is mighty impressive flying! That Florida instructor pilot who declared him to be incompetent and quite incapable of safely renting a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, surely had him pegged wrong, didn’t he? Didn’t he?
Anyway, what is even more phenomenal, is this aircraft was flown down in a region less than ½ wingspan from the ground, known to any experienced pilot as ‘ground effect’ region or zone. The importance of knowing this, is that no airplane at full throttle flown in ground effect, would want to continue to descend further. Matter of fact, at 465 knots, the plane would have, without full nose down pitch (which the flight data recorder shows was not the case) would have been required to overcome the ‘ground effect’ cushion and lift coefficient going on, and the plane would have had no choice but to climb. To force it into the building more or less at the base of the wall where it hit, on the ground floor level, the hijackers would have had to be using FULL NOSE DOWN PITCH to do this.
Not true, says the FDR data given to us by the N.T.S.B. No aircraft in GROUND EFFECT wants to descend further into it at high speed. They all want to climb and even with 10 or more degrees of commanded nose down pitch, a plane of that class would still want to climb out of ground effect due to a huge surplus of lift it was generating. Any pilot wants to challenge this, be my guest. Simply is not disputable here. It cannot be done. This particular aerodynamic fact is irrefutably the most damning road block to the whole cockamamie story about the final portion of this outrageous flight.
Interestingly, the N.T.S.B. gave us two sets of data. One set shows that the FL-180 reset took place per their recreation (and I will get to that again here in a second) and furthermore, the derivative data they provide to us shows that this reset did not take place at all, per the FDR data. How can this be? According to the N.T.S.B., the .csv or comma separated variable data was a derivative of the Crash Protected Memory file in the L-3 Model 2100 Flight Data Recorder on this airplane. Yet, this clearly is not the case at all.
The last data record the N.T.S.B. has from this recorder places the aircraft INSIDE THE OUTER WALL at a height of 380 feet above ground level. This is extremely problematic for the official story, because we know that per their version, the plane did not nose dive the building from on top of it, but impacted the outer wall after hitting ‘6’ poles on the approach that did not fold over or shear because they were made out of balsa wood that morning. The poles were not made of balsa wood. They were heavy aluminum. They are a trajectory record. A record that belies the fact that a B-757 could not fly the profile the FDR data set says it did, and still strike those poles at those heights. The plane was simply TOO HIGH to strike those poles if we are to trust the FDR data even a little bit. So what gives with the poles? If they were planted as some assert, then why plant something that destroys your FDR premise totally? Very good question here, at the very least, it infers someone snuck the pole through the window of the taxi cab that the one pole narrowly missed pegging the driver of that morning as it flew off the ground after it was hit by ‘something’ and then driven through the windshield of that taxi. People like to cite the fact these poles have blowtorch marks on the bases of them and were planted. Were they planted. Know anyone who can javelin throw one of these poles through the windshield of a taxi cab? I don’t.
Now one thing I had not mentioned so far is that there is one problem with this altimeter setting that took place, well beyond the fact the hijackers had no constructive way of knowing the proper number to put into the Kollsman window. Remember how I told you that after the hijacking they had waited a number of minutes to turn to ‘off’ the aircraft’s transponder? Well, when they did that, they just negated the main reason for any aircrew doing the altimeter reset to the local barometric pressure setting the crew had no way of knowing what it was because as I stated, they neither tuned in the ATIS frequency for Dulles airport, nor had they gotten this from ATC that morning, and to my knowledge, ATC had not broadcast this to anyone on that frequency the plane’s radio was set on. So first, I have two questions. How did these clueless hijackers so very perfectly twist both Kollsman window knobs on both altimeters and set them to the heretofore unknown DULLES barometric pressure without knowing what that number was, and second, why would they bother with the primary reason they’d do that, turned to the ‘off’ position way back long ago over Pennsylvania? They were not going to execute a landing at Dulles, so precision on the altimeters was neither necessary, nor was it done to allow the plane’s MODE C or altitude reporting via the transponder, to allow ATC to warn other traffic about the American B-757’s altitude as it descended through very congested airspace.
Needless to say, only an experienced line crew would have done this step, and certainly not after turning OFF the transponder, which was the last way ATC had of knowing the altitude of this plane as it barreled into the Pentagon at an impossible 465 knots, well beyond it’s capability. How did the hijackers know this number to set, and how did they both set both altimeters exactly at the same moment in time, per the FDR record? On the climb through FL-180, that’s easy to do, it’s a mere button push to put in the baro reference of 29.92 for everyone at high altitude to be using THE SAME REFERENCE. Not so on the descent. This required precision well beyond the capability of these neophyte and highly inexperienced, incapable airmen.
Well, from an experienced pilot’s standpoint, going back to W. Va. Where they executed the standard rate turn that no hijacker would have bothered with in the first place, that was one of the first clues beyond the impossibility of entering the cockpit without opening the door, or hijacking the plane without the crew either changing the transponder code to ‘hijack’ and broadcasting it on the radio. Second, the no disengage of the autopilot doesn’t work for me, as the crew would have kicked the rudders and the yokes and the autopilot would have disengaged during any STRUGGLE to take the plane over.
And for the rudders to be static and non moving for the rest of the flight, except for small deflections attributable to ‘air loads’ or deflection by the relative air movement against them, the rudders were for all practical purposes, ‘dead’ meaning the hijackers legs were not working, or both hijackers exercised EXTREME body control and kept their feet off of those pedals. And they executed a 330 degree COORDINATED turn without slipping or skidding the plane, at an impossible 465 knots airspeed, when an accelerated stall most assuredly would have been the likely result of such a course of action on their part. We know the rudders worked on the climbout as Burlingame used them to compensate for thrust related yaw on takeoff, and that’s reflected in the FDR data record. After the hijackers took over, the rudders might just as well have been dead weights down there under their feet, because they simply were never again used. Why? Or more appropriately is ‘How?’ with regard to the total lack of rudders by the hijackers, while maintaining COORDINATED FLIGHT?????
When the last known FDR records show the plane 380 feet above the ground, well inside the wall of the building, position wise, and I might add, at a height that would have precluded nailing those ‘6’ poles on the way in without shedding leading edge parts or causing massive fuel tank ruptures and fireballs, I have to say; “uh no” to all of this foolery here. The initial claim by the government as to ‘why’ the FDR record ends too high and inside the building’s perimeter is that the recorder failed ‘6’ seconds before impact. Oh really? By the very standards the recorder must meet, it could not be so far behind recording the data as this, as it would by those same standards probably still be recording for at the very least, 500 milliseconds after building impact, even if the sensors feeding the DFDAU had ceased to exist due to impact destruction with the outer wall. For the government to claim that the recorder was simply ‘not caught up’ as they asserted, or had suddenly without explanation, failed, without the plane having hit anything yet, as it clearly was too high, is both absurd and ridiculous. Time after time the excuse is the FDR just couldn’t keep up with the data being pushed into it from the DFDAU. In reality the FDR is in fact capable of keeping up. It has to faithfully and accurately store data in a fashion that allows accident investigators to determine what happened to the plane in it’s final moments of flight, hence it cannot be hobbled in a way that makes it a ‘historical’ artifact collector of the plane’s better moments before impact. It’s job is to tell investigators right up to the moment of aircraft breakup, what the plane was doing. In this case, for at least 400 to 500 milliseconds (half a second) after building impact or total airframe disintegration and power loss. That’s per it’s mandatory specification it must meet to be certified for use on Part 23 category aircraft.
Many discrepancies existed with that Flight Data Recorder record and the N.T.S.B. recreation. First, the final flight path of the plane the government says was flown, does NOT MATCH this record. This is not an assertion. This is a fact.
Second, the FDR itself was found ‘twice’ at the Pentagon. Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the actual location of the unit on the American Boeing 757 aircraft, it is in the tail of the plane to preserve it for as long as possible as most planes do not crash ‘tail first’ into anything even if the government claims the box can quit without provocation or reason, six seconds before impact with anything. The unit was found both at the entry hole, and deep in the building, underneath more or less ‘intact’ pilot seats. This is a bit problematic in the sense that the box itself has insufficient mass to penetrate the building on it’s own without help after the severe deceleration of the plane as it struck the heavily reinforced ‘Catcher’s Mit’ outer wall with the Kevlar jacketing and, furthermore, how did it get found ‘twice’ when only ONE flight data recorder exists on this plane?
What is even a better question, is how did the data in the crash protected memory module get downloaded from the crash protected solid state memory a full DAY before the discovery of the unit on the premises? That’s right from the time stamp on the data given to us by the N.T.S.B. Now I know that you’re thinking; “oh, someone forgot to set the time on the system that downloaded the data then, obviously.”
Well, unfortunately there is a very precise process for setting the derivation bench system to take that data from a crash system and download it, and part of that process means you cross check the time the system says it is at. And most assuredly, there are many many other safeguards that are done to ensure that the data is not written to. Unfortunately for this data record set, it was written to. And that was not accidental.
The reason we know this, is that the only way data in the file header or preamble could be erased or reset to ‘zeroes’ is that the requisite jumper wire required on the bench setup that would be used to dump the CPM or crash protected memory data from the recovered CPM module, had to be in place when it would have been both not normally there at all and an intentional ‘addition’ by someone, and second, the bench unit used to talk to or communicate with the CPM module would not have any AIRCRAFT ID or FLEET ID data loaded into it as a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit., and upon connection with the never ever ever in place jumper wire EXCEPT FOR INTENT TO WRITE operations which would be prohibited by any reasonable data extraction protocols for a crash unit, the jumper had to be there to ERASE these two critical links to the plane itself that would not otherwise be blank. On this unit’s FDR data, both fields are inexplicably ‘blank’ or zero’d out.
On bootstrap, the FDR does a BIT TEST or built in test function. Part of this BIT test is to validate the header / preamble data in the front of the file in the non-compressed portion of the CPM memory data, against the FDR UNIT’s own ROM values for AC ID and FLEET ID. In the case these do not match on bootstrap, the FDR sends a ‘FDR FAIL’ or command priority message to both EICAS flight displays in the cockpit. Furthermore, the pre-download checklist used by ANY agency downloading CPM memory module data stipulates that the requisite PIN JUMPERS to enable a CPM module write operation be verified ABSENT or NOT IN PLACE to prevent accidental record modification or data erasure. The only way the AC ID and FLEET ID data could be zero’d out on this box is that the jumper on the bench unit used to extract the data, was, in fact, there. That was the LAST linkage of that file to the airplane known as N644AA, other than serial numbers the F.B.I. and N.T.S.B. repeatedly refuse to provide to us under very specially and properly written F.O.I.A. requests. In any case, if this data was somehow erased or zero’d out by some technician before that aircraft took off, the unit would have failed BIT on power up on the airplane’s essential bus, and that is a ‘no go’ situation. Only a not for flight unit would write ‘zero’s to that header and preamble data, and only a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit would ignore the BIT failure due to masking in the BIT ERROR MAP of the unit. In all likelihood, on this particular airplane, the FDR would have been a Sunstrand model 700 FDR, versus the L-3 Model 2100 unit, based on data from other aircraft in the production string. Are we to believe that this machine got the L-3 unit and the sister ships produced on the line got the others by accident? I don’t think that’s too very realistic, although it is possible. An FDR FAIL message is a "no push-back" for any Part 23 airplane, prohibiting flight.
We have covered the flight to the building pretty well, but notwithstanding these issues I have mentioned, we now have a big problem. The dearth of airplane wreckage, and for that matter, copious amounts of unburnt fuel that would have been splashed all over the lawn after the light pole hits,which would have deeply embedded those poles into the wings at the very least to the fuel tanks. A 465 knot airliner full of JET A hits light poles full of fuel and the wings don’t rupture and explode on impact with these poles? Only in a roadrunner cartoon could this be like this, folks. This is NOT reality.
In addition, the hole in the building was a single hole. No engine penetration holes, no wing entry slots, and no fuel anywhere. Where did the wings and significant parts of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers go? Where did 5,300 gallons of JET A fuel go? Where were the bodies the luggage, the parts of the plane that COULD NOT HAVE PENETRATED THE BUILDING go to? How did ‘2’ Rolls Royce, 7 ton hurtling engines with the equivalent mass of a locomotive engine at that speed, not punch holes in the building and yet only ONE engine is found in the building, after presumably taking a back door in because it surely didn’t go through the front wall with no entry hole, for sure!!
The entry hole was 16 feet across. Vertical and Horizontal structural members were visible right after impact. The fuselage of a B-757 is significantly wider than this. The two, nearly 7 ton, RB-211, Rolls Royce engines on this plane were an every so solidly predictable 48 feet apart, meaning we could easily know where they’d penetrate the building given this fact. There are no holes there at those locations. The floor slab there at the place an 80 ton plane moving at 465 knots final speed has impacted, is not chipped, cracked or damaged in any way. How can this be?
Well, to any reasonable person, this cannot be. It is not reasonable to state that the lion’s share of an 80 ton aircraft could totally disintegrate. Fire could not consume it all, as the fire post impact was not really that intense because computer monitors and open books were neither melted nor singed post fire. Matter of fact, until the building collapsed, the minimal damage at the Pentagon was almost laughably NOT possibly from any airplane impact. A Toyota Tercel with fifty gallons of jet fuel in it would have created more damage, in all likelihood. An 80 ton airplane with more than 5,300 gallons or nearly twenty tons of fuel hits the building and no fuel is there all over the premises, no wings, no fuselage, no body pieces?
In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th, hijacker, the government presented photographs of the dead occupants of FLT 77, the non-scheduled, per the BTS flight that allegedly hit the building that day. None of the bodies were really dismembered in any photos they presented, nor were they burnt. They were for the most part, fully UNBURNT and INTACT human beings. These people hit a heavily reinforced building in an aluminum airplane at 465 knots, and maintained their body integrity? I don’t think so. I truly don’t think so.
Years later, N644AA was stricken from the F.A.A. registry, after remaining, just like the other ‘3’ aircraft, as viable registrations in the F.A.A. database, until 2005. To date, there has been not one single component per the requisite aircraft production ‘trailing documents’ Boeing requires to build airplanes and certify them, positively identified from any of the wreckage recovered, far less than a ton, by the way, from an 80 ton airplane. What is interesting about the ‘wreckage’ the government touts is from N644AA or the non-scheduled flight 77 from the Dulles Airport that day, is that one piece (shown below) being handled by presumably F.B.I. agents (with badges in their pockets, by the way!) at the site that morning, has corrosion streaming from rivet holes that had rivets in them moments earlier.
Another larger piece has jungle vines still wrapped around it. A pilot who’s flown this particular American Airlines plane identified the one part on the lawn as having come from a much earlier version model B-757-200, same genus as the one that crashed near Buga, Colombia in 1995. Hmmmm??? In the end of December 1995, an American Airlines B-757, on a night approach into Cali, Colombia, got lost on the approach due to improperly programming the same FMS system the hijackers so adroitly reprogrammed on Sept. 11, 2001 and turned onto course using, and the plane’s crew failed to retract spoilers on the missed approach and slammed into the mountain there in what is called Controlled Flight Into Terrain. All but one soul were lost on that plane’s crash. There was very little post crash fire, and the wreckage sat in the Buga, Colombia jungle for months before it was fully recovered and shipped to the U.S.
Piece of fuselage James Hanson, J.D., traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995
More than one person has asked the F.A.A. and N.T.S.B. to show us the wreckage of both aircraft, but the U.S. government cannot tell you where the wreckage is from the Buga, Colombia crash. Certainly it didn’t dissolve. Or walk off. Or get lost on it’s own. The government asserts that they have the wreckage safe in Iron Mountain, locked up. If so, why not show us both sets then. We’d love to see them, and the Boeing production trailing documentation that shows every single serial number of these components, With so many clues that exist that point to out and out ‘fraud’ and ‘lying’ by the U.S. government about the nature of what happened at the Pentagon that day, they failed to tell the American public that depleted uranium was detected and decontamination procedures for D.U. as it is called, were taken at the Pentagon that morning. Why?
First, the renovation to ‘The Catchers Mit’ did not incorporate D.U. for obvious reasons. Second, for it to be there, it means a form of ‘munitions’ was used in the Pentagon attack or it would not be there. Oh, I know, Boeing used it in the construction of N644AA when they built her, so that explains it. No. The only known use of D.U. in any civil Part 23 or transport category airplane in U.S. registry is on the McDonnell / Douglas DC-10/MD-11 aircraft. It is used as anti flutter ballast in the horizontal stabilizes of that aircraft type. Not used in B-757, or any other commercial airplane other than the DC-10 / MD-11 genus aircraft. Post cleanup of the Pentagon / Department of Defense poured as much as 24 inches of gravel and aggregate in the approach area where the blow-back from the impact with that wall was known to contain D.U. contamination. How the D.U. got there is a big mystery.
One of the more peculiar things about the well photographed 'C' ring 'hole' is that we have a nice symmetrical, even, cookie cutter 'hole' in the brick wall, several wall layers deep in the building. Now we know that the airplane the government says did this was a standard, run of the mill, right-off-the-production-floor without enhancements, B-757-200 series jetliner. It wasn't a Titan ICBM, and it surely wasn't a tunnel borer with wings, either. Logic would dictate that the very frangible and flexible fuselage of N644AA, the alleged airplane that punched this hole, would have long before the 'C' ring, accordioned like the frangible metal tube that it is and at the worst, had it truly been able to pentrate that deep, made a very ragged and quite uneven hole at this location. And surely the words, "PUNCH OUT", would not have been pre-painted there in that location before aircraft impact by any Pentagon employees.
It's a bit of a stretch to surmise that this airplane was so very rigid and sturdy as to make such a nearly perfect hole in the wall, after being torn asunder by the 'E' and then the 'D' rings, respectively, as it faced incredible mechanical resistance, post impact with the KEVLAR jacketing in place on this section of the building. Furthermore, post crash, there'd be no need to "Punch Out" anything there, except maybe the idiot who photographed the neat cookie cutter hole for release to the press, with "PUNCH OUT" painted adjacent to it. It does really fly in the face of probability here, does it not? This is more than hypothetical guesswork. It wouldn't happen that way.
I don’t think I need to tell you what conclusions to draw here, but from a number of very valid stand points, the entire government story about the Pentagon attack is completely not adding up. It cannot add up. It never did add up. Not for a second. If we are to believe the official story, a number of very very impossible breaches of physics, aerodynamics, airmanship and common sense took place on September 11, 2001. Interceptors were not launched and directed to this flight as it came in over West Virginia--and hurtled toward the building. No possible way the plane could possibly have the proper MODE 4A reply to the military radars scanning the skies over Arlington that day.
The issues cited about the flight itself are both nonsensical and unreal to any trained and experienced pilot. And to be certain, it’s laughable and sad that people can see the pristine, no parts from the pole strikes, no jet fuel from tank ruptures, lawn, and the total bulk of an 80 ton airliner not present when it could not have possibly flown through the hole and left the vertical and horizontal structures still in that entry hole, with no engine or wing penetrations or vertical or horizontal stabilizer structures, body parts, luggage and other components all over the lawn there. After the initial explosion, there was very little visible wreckage there. A fighter pilot dispatched to overfly the scene reported back that there was no evidence of any aircraft impact there of any kind. Not until a ‘spook’ U.S. Navy C-130 Hercules overflew the place. Later this pilot stated he never got within 4 nautical miles, when in fact eyewitnesses saw him directly overhead. Why did he lie? What was his real purpose for being in the air that morning? You don’t just jump into a C-130 and fire it up in a minute and launch. Just the pre-flight would have taken several minutes to perform. In other words, it had it’s orders long before it launched that day because it was not a fighter with a crew sitting in it ready to intercept someone intruding in that airspace. This was a specially equipped ‘spook’ bird, an intelligence asset bird, and like the orbiting E-4B which was in the sky before it all went down that morning as a part of ‘Amalgam VIRGO’ and other Richard Cheney exercises, this plane too was also an exercise asset. But for what purpose? For what purpose?
April Gallup, a Pentagon worker who carried her son through the hole the plane allegedly disappeared through, saw not one body part, not one plane component, and smelled zero jet fuel when carrying her son on her shoulders out to safety that morning, just moments after the plane hit. At the very least, April would have been wading through pools of unburnt jet fuel, blood, and viscera, and working her way through miles of wiring from the plane. As it worked out, she saw no evidence of any aircraft, body parts, other signs that N644AA had just flown in there and disintegrated into small pieces as the government asserts.
Of the more than 80 video cameras that would have let us see N644AA’s final flight to the Pentagon that day, the F.B.I. has chosen to show us ‘5’ frames of video that do not show a B-757 just prior to building impact. And interestingly, eyewitnesses who worked at the Arlington National Cemetery and who were interviewed extensively after the event, substantiate a de-facto ‘flyover’ of the building by a very large transport category aircraft, one eyewitness, identified as ‘NEIT-428’, describes a scene where he could see the face of the pilot just after the explosion from whatever struck the building, banking away and flying towards Washington, D.C., and his testimony is NOT the only testimony that supports the flyover. The very data the N.T.S.B. provided to us proves that the airplane or aircraft the data may have come from absolutely was over the roof of the building at a height well above it before the data record ended for no apparent reason, because the plane simply had at that point impacted NOTHING YET and was too high for an impact with the Pentagon. Why?
When NEIT-428 was questioned about ‘why’ the government seemed to be unconcerned about his steadfast unchanging testimony about the flyover he witnessed that day, he simply stated; “they must not think me to be important enough..” Of all of the eyes that were there that day, his were the most uncolored by technical issues. He simply saw what he saw. He saw the pilot’s face as the aircraft flew over the Building after the explosion, and banked away towards Washington, D.C. Even though the interviewer constantly tried to lead him other directions, he steadfastly stuck to his story. He refused to be deflected or convinced to tell something different. The investigator who was sent to interview him repetitively lead him in the questioning and this man steadfastly refused to have words put into his mouth. And he was not alone.
The government cites so many eyewitnesses who swear almost on a stack of bibles that they saw the plane impact the Pentagon that day, but to the last person, these eyewitnesses neither were in position to see the impact, or were otherwise proven to not be able to see that airplane strike the building that day like NEIT 428 and his co-workers were from their exceptional view at the cemetery across the highway. You’d think that Based on all of the controversy, the F.B.I. would just release some of those videos to prove NEIT-428 and the hosts of others who saw the flyover, totally in error, wouldn’t you? Seems reasonable to me. And it should seem reasonable to you if you believe that the job of the F.B.I. is to protect something called JUSTICE in this country. Clearly their job is something quite different based on the nice clear pictures of their agents with badges in pockets strewing weathered wreckage from the 1995 Buga Colombia B-757 crash that morning. They most assuredly seemed to have been pre-positioned to grab those videos so fast that morning so we would never ever see them. We got 5 frames out of miles of tape recorded on almost 90 cameras. Why?
Someone has been lying to us about what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Dennis Cimino, A.A., EE; 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer