The Pentagon Incident

The Government Says

Reality Says

A young Saudi, Hani Hanjour, piloted the Boeing 757 airliner that allegedly flew through intricate, extremely difficult maneuvers into the back side of the Pentagon. The flight school where Hanjour was taking lessons deemed him so incompetent, even in a simple Cessna 172, they would no longer rent him an aircraft. His instructor said that the student had absolutely no “feel” for piloting an aircraft and would no longer fly with him. Have you ever seen the cockpit of a Boeing 757……..with instruments and electronic controls in front of, above and to the sides of the pilots? It is delusional and defies rational reasoning to suggest that an incompetent, failed student could possibly fly the indicated flight path, a flight path that commercial pilots with 5,000 to 10,000 hours in the Boeing fleet of planes, say they could not fly. There is simply no way Hani Hanjour flew that plane as reported by the government. Who or what did? Was it remotely controlled or was it a 757 at all?

Note: This author has competently flown a Cessna 172 on a number of occasions, including takeoffs and landings, and would not even dream of being able to take over the controls of a Boeing 757, let alone attempt to make those reported ground level maneuvers under manual control. An incompetent student certainly could not and did not ! What is the explanation then?

Forced entry into the cockpits allowed the “terrorists” to take control of all four planes. None of the 4 pilots and 4 first officers bothered to dial the “hijack” code into their transponders to alert ground controllers of an attack in progress. This is a basic part of a pilots training and can be completed within 2-3 seconds.  Why would none of these professionals have done so ?
Passengers on Flight 77 made numerous cell phone calls to their families from an altitude of 30,000 to 35,000 feet. Experts say that cell phones were not capable of making calls from 30,000 to 35,000 feet in 2001. It was not until 2004 that American Airlines proudly introduced a brand new service that would allow passengers to make cell calls from altitude, starting in 2006.     The cell system .was designed for terrestrial use, thus the tower signals are propagated horizontally. There will always be some “leakage” vertically, so “perhaps” momentary calls were possible, although highly unlikely.. We tend to believe flight crews with thousands of hours experience in this matter.  The quality and duration of any such calls would have been marginal though.
A doctor who had tested the government hypothesis in a rented aircraft, using various cell phones at various altitudes confirmed that cell calls could not even be completed at altitudes of over 7,000 – 8,000 feet, and even those at 7,000 feet were of uneven quality and apt to break up. An airline flight attendant also tested the hypothesis after 9/11 and found she was unable to make or complete calls from over 1800-2000 feet.Were those “calls” made from the “hijacked” aircraft at 30,000 to 35,000 feet or not? Probably not, but we simply don’t know. What is the explanation?  Were the planes elsewhere, or at a different altitude? Had they landed? Remember, the government itself specifically stated the planes were at the higher altitude and that calls were made on cell phones (as well as with “AirPhones”). Could “voice morphing” by a government agency be responsible for these “calls”? Listening to the transcripts, it seems more than likely the callers were making scripted calls under duress after landing.  Is there some other simple explanation? Note: Flight 77 was not even equipped with “Airphones”. We will have to wait for a proper investigation for the answers.
The supposed Saudi pilot put the “hijacked” aircraft into a steep, high speed, descent from altitude down to ground level at the Pentagon. Commercial Boeing 757 pilots, with thousands of hours of experience, say that it would be virtually impossible to recover from such a steep, high speed descent and would likely result in a crash of the aircraft, most especially at the hands of a novice.
The “hijacked aircraft” flew south of a Naval Annex building on its course into the Pentagon. Numerous eyewitnesses including law enforcement and government employees, insist the aircraft flew north of the Naval Annex building. This is important not only as it relates to the veracity of the governments hypothesis, but especially as to the crash impact evidence. The question could easily be resolved by viewing some of the 86 local video recordings seized by the FBI from nearby businesses within hours of the crash incident. One such video recording was from a  Virginia DOT tower video camera that included the entire Pentagon scene. Other cameras were mounted directly on the side of the Pentagon itself, above the “impact” area. Where are these videos?

The FBI refuses to release any of the recordings and even denies they have them. Nor will they provide any of the camera recordings taken by the multiple cameras on the side of the Pentagon where the impact occurred. Something is being hidden. What? Why? If an aircraft (of some type) actually struck the Pentagon it must have been captured on some of these videos. Simply release the videos and stop all of the conspiracy talk. Or is there a conspiracy? And by whom?

Note: When the FBI seizes video recordings as evidence, they immediately duplicate the recording, place the original in a secure evidence vault and do any further analysis on the duplicates. It is inconceivable that all recordings of this importance have “gone missing”. A video recording of a few smudged frames was released purporting to show a 757 that passed south of the Annex and was about to hit the Pentagon. It would take a very vivid “Rorschach” like imagination to see a 757, or any other aircraft, in the image.

Note: An independent video analyst says he found evidence of “digital manipulation” in the released videos, which indicates some type of deliberate fraud in the release. Why? Simply release the original video recordings and stop all of the arguments! Is that such a difficult thing to do? (Perhaps it is if you are deliberately trying to conceal or fake, something.)

That this incompetent “pilot”, after an exceptional high speed descent, then flew a tight 270-320° (?) turn at ground level, knocked down several light poles with the plane’s wings, struck the lawn with its wing tip (or engine) and nonetheless kept right on flying into the back side of the Pentagon.











The Pentagon was one of the most heavily defended buildings in the world.

Photographs of the building showing the lawn, taken within minutes of the incident, show no gouge marks in the lawn from a metal wing tip or engine moving at hundreds of miles per hour. How is this possible? What magic explains it? Further, commercial pilots with thousands of hours experience, not only in 757s but also in 737s, 747s, 767s and 777s say it would be impossible to fly that plane, at that speed, through those maneuvers at ground level due to air resistance, air turbulence and control difficulties. Yet the government would have us believe that a totally incompetent, failed student could do so. Really??

Note: Two air traffic controllers at a nearby airport, professionally trained in plotting and interpreting radar tracks of aircraft in their vicinity, saw the track of the “aircraft” that hit the Pentagon and concluded it must be a military aircraft as airliners were not capable of flying as the radar track indicated ! What was it that they were watching? Evidently not a Boeing 757 flown by an incompetent student!


Who gave the order for the military to “stand down” and not use the pentagon’s defensive weapons  even as an unknown airliner was tracked closing in on the Pentagon. And why?

The 757 crashed nose first into the steel reinforced concrete outer wall, through the inner walls, offices and furniture, to the wall of ring “C” where it punched a perfectly symmetrical circular hole in the final concrete wall. And later, that the aluminum, steel and titanium of the plane and the engines “vaporized” (their word) from the heat of the fire, leaving no trace of the entire aircraft and contents. The perfectly symmetrical hole, 300 feet inside the Pentagon, was supposedly made by the plastic nose cone of the plane after plowing through 300 feet of steel reinforced concrete building walls, columns and offices. And then “vaporized” with the rest of the plane so that no pieces could be found. There was little sign of heat, fire, smoke or charring around this hole.

Perhaps Boeing should build the entire 757 out of this wondrous nose cone material.

(Another claim is that this hole was caused by one of the planes engines that had broken free and thus punched the circular hole. Then where did the engine come to rest?? The corridor beyond the hole was not destroyed by the incident, nor was an engine found there.) Oops!

Note: Aluminum requires a temperature of over 5,000° degrees F. to vaporize! An office fire, even one fueled with aviation fuel, typically burns at less than 1,000°F.

That this incompetent “terrorist pilot”, who was out to make a statement about the U.S. military, flew a deliberate, “impossible” low speed path into the back side of the Pentagon.















The front side of the Pentagon houses the offices of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many of the military’s senior officers. If you were going to attack the Pentagon to make a statement, wouldn’t you fly a direct, high speed crash into the front of the Pentagon, rather than a convoluted, impossible, low speed approach to the rear of the building?

Could it involve the fact that the struck area housed all of the records, newly gathered into one set of offices, pertaining to an investigation into the disappearance of over 2.3 Trillion dollars of Defense Department funds? And wouldn’t you know it, there were no back-ups of the documents. Does that make you think of the controlled demolition of Building 7 in N.Y.C. and the loss of all the records of pending major SEC and IRS investigations of financial fraud; records that by some coincidence weren’t backed-up either? What a coincidence!  Are things starting to come together in your mind?

(One report  claims that the Pentagon papers were actually backed up in Building 7 in NYC, but there would be no way of verifying that without an investigation.  (An honest investigation.)

That this aircraft with 4,000 to 5,000 gallons of aviation jet fuel on board, crashed into the Pentagon, exploded and burned, leading to the collapse of that section of the building. The fire was so intense that it “vaporized” (their word) the aluminum aircraft and everyone and everything on board. A member of the Army and her supervisor survived the crash into their Pentagon work areas; the woman who was changing her shoes before starting work, was in her stocking feet. The two of them made their way to the impact break area and exited the building. The woman, still in her stocking feet, said the floor was not warm from any fire, there was no liquid fuel on the floor, she did not see any identifiable airliner wreckage, no passenger seats, no bodies and no luggage. Where is everything supposed to have gone? Not even one sign of an entire Boeing 757? Up to two hundred fifty thousand pounds of aircraft, passengers, seating, luggage and fuel all gone? Just disappeared, gone, ………..poof?

Oh wait, the government says there was a fire of up to 5000° F (necessary to vaporize aluminum) in the area she walked through that destroyed all of the plane and its contents.

But not these two members of the Army.  Miraculous.

The explosion and fire were caused by the 4,000 to 5,000 gallons of aviation jet fuel on board the aircraft. Experienced Pentagon military personnel rushing to the crash area reported the distinct smell of cordite in the crash area. Cordite is a powerful explosive used by the military, but is never allowed, or carried, on commercial airliners. (And obviously not stored in offices in the Pentagon!) What cordite exploded, where did it come from, who placed it, and why?
That a Boeing 757 crashed into a back wall of the Pentagon A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124′ 10” and a tail that is four stories (40′) tall. Photos of the impact area, taken before collapse, do not show “slice” cuts into the walls of the building from the wings or tail that should have been more than obvious. Nor holes  from the two engines. Even if the aircraft had impacted at an angle some slices would still be evident. Why were they not?

Very Important Note:

An “after” photograph shows a group of men carrying away a (15′-20′) wing-like section of wreckage carefully wrapped in a blue tarpaulin. What were they carrying, where was it taken and where is it now? Was this a wing section from a “non 757” aircraft?

Why was it not “vaporized” with the rest of the “757” and it’s passengers?

Might this have been a wing section of say, a Global Hawk, painted to resemble an airliner?

These are simple questions that deserve simple answers.

The remains of an aircraft engine were photographed in the building rubble. Aircraft experts say this engine was not from a Boeing 757. What was it from, where is it now and why was it in the rubble of a “757” crash?

These are just a few of the questions that must be raised concerning the Pentagon “Incident”. We don’t have access to classified information, nor witnesses, so there may well be errors in details. If so, we will be only too happy to have any unintentional errors brought forth and corrected in an independent investigation. 

Now, are you going to contact your Representatives in Congress?