- After numerous FOIA requests and lawsuits were filed
against the FBI, it relented by releasing one more of the 85 videos it
confiscated relating to the 9/11 Pentagon crash. This time it was the CITGO
Pentagon gas station video. It did not show the attack due to the high
position of the outdoor camera, which was pointed downward to view cars
at the pumps. That may well be the reason the FBI released it and not any
of the others. Still unanswered is the smoking gun question, "How
did the FBI show up 'within minutes' of the attack to confiscate the CITGO
video evidence unless it had prior knowledge of that attack?"
-
- Another video in question is thought to have a high probability
of showing the events. Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz wrote
on September 21, 2001, that "[a] security camera atop a hotel close
to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing
757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel
employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before
the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation." Bill
Gertz has a variety of government sources which provide all his insider
info.
-
- The only hotel in the area with a tall, unobstructed
view is the Sheraton National. However, the FBI claims that the video didn't
come from the Sheraton but the Doubletree hotel instead, which conveniently
does NOT show the attack. Thus, they say they will release that video to
the public on Nov. 9, 2006. I fail to see why it should take so long unless
they are setting a precedent of planned delays to keep people from getting
through the pile of evidence too quickly. Additionally, two highway cameras
belonging to the Virginia Transportation Department were oriented to capture
the flight path of the attacking plane, but the FBI claims video records
from them do not exist.
-
- In the legal proceedings, the FBI finally relented and
gave a general catalogue of the video evidence in its possession, presumably
so that there would be no need to turn over the actual videos. According
to FBI agent Maguire, of the 85 confirmed tapes seized, only the Pentagon
video, already leaked to the public, shows the impact. Frankly, I find
that ludicrous. None of the other 84 confirmed surveillance tapes directed
at the building captured anything at all? In fact, Maguire claims that
only 13 of the 85 cameras showed the crash site at all, and 12 of those
were "after the impact of flight 77." All of this is really stretching
the government's credibility.
-
- If the videos show nothing, why such kicking-and-screaming
reluctance to release the videos? Why make citizens go to court to force
the government's hand? One school of thought is that the government does
have definitive video evidence of the 757 attacking the Pentagon, and they
keep it under wraps so as to foment conspiracy theories that can later
be discredited in one dramatic revelation. The other school believes the
government is hiding the real truth - whether it be no plane at all, more
than one plane, a plane shooting a missile, and/or a plane that flew into
the Pentagon that did not penetrate the wall significantly and was blown
up outside by explosives to obscure the evidence of what kind of plane
it was.
-
- Additional evidence has surfaced to bolster the claim
that perhaps a twin engine A-3 Skywarrior had been painted up to look like
an AA airliner and fitted with a missile (which two witnesses heard and
which the Pentagon-doctored video shows). Investigative journalist Karl
Schwarz writes, "Jon Carlson and I put the A-3 Skywarrior debate on
the table. I basically had the lead on that matter for the following reasons:
-
- "Eyewitnesses saw a smaller plane with two jet engines
mounted under the wings. That does not describe a private jet as their
jets are mounted to the rear of the fuselage, not to the wings. What some
of them saw was smaller than a 757, smaller than a 737. There are very
few planes that fit those specifications.
-
- "There was an explosion prior to arrival suggesting
they had either wired the Pentagon or a missile / rocket was fired as the
plane approached. Commercial airliners are not wired or built to carry
and launch missiles, the A3 Skywarrior is [Actually, the A-3 was only built
for the ground attack role, not missiles. It would have to be modified
to shoot a missile - not hard to do, and which Schwartz found evidence
of].
-
- "Once we started raising the questions regarding
the A-3 Skywarrior, I was contacted and traveled a considerable distance
to meet with people who worked on an A-3 shortly before 9-11. They installed
[at Ft. Collins/Loveland airport] UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] and remote
fire control systems so no pilot would be needed. The systems also had
the most exacting GPS systems available.
-
- "Many of the components found at the Pentagon are
more easily tied to an updated and refitted A-3 than any component on a
Boeing 757. Every component of every commercial aircraft has an identifying
code number, part number, etc. Every component of Flight 77 was marked
and known and the Pentagon either cannot or will not disclosed a single
marked component that was at the Pentagon."
-
- This issue of the parts found in the Pentagon is crucial.
Schwarz is right that the government refuses to show us any serialized
parts - only some pictures of a main landing gear leg (clearly matching
a Boeing 757), a matching wheel, and a turbine core (which could match
several types of jet engines once the blades are broken off). If the attacking
plane was a repainted and missile capable A-3, the perpetrators would have
every reason to load it with explosives so that it would be reduced to
tiny pieces after impact (as one witness clearly saw). That would explain
the blast shock wave felt by many and the smaller pieces of aluminum littering
the lawn and parking lots (which only a distributed quantity of explosives
could provide - not a crash alone).
-
- The presence of one wheel and one landing gear leg in
and of itself does not prove the presence of a 757. The landing gear in
particular are very big. Where are the other two? Where is the other engine
core? Where are the other 7 wheels, not to mention the massive wing beams
(which can't be burned and vaporized in a fuel-fed fire of that brevity)?
The few parts identified from the wreckage could easily have been loaded
into the attacking smaller aircraft as a means of planting evidence.
-
- Concerning the Pentagon, I think the whole body of forensic
evidence is flawed. The government can't have it both ways. First, they
claim that the 757 was swallowed up by the 16 foot entrance hole and then
all aluminum parts were vaporized in the fire. Then they claim to have
found body parts of most of the passengers, enough to take finger prints
and establish DNA samples. How do body parts survive with all the aluminum
vaporizing? They claim to have sifted through everything to find all these
body parts and yet can't locate the foregoing steel parts like the other
missing landing gear. How can that be?
-
- Like the WTC, all evidence was hauled off before anything
could be investigated. In virtually all aircraft accidents except 9/11,
aircraft parts are collected and often reconstructed to find out the cause
of the crash. Somebody was hiding and destroying evidence here - except
that which they wanted the public to see.
-
- BUSH ADMITS HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT COERCION OF PAKISTAN
-
- In another dramatic proof that President Bush really
isn't running the country, visiting President Pervez Musharraf told CBS
news in an interview that the Richard Armitage, US Under Secretary of State
under Bush, threatened to "bomb his country back to the stone age"
if he did not go along with US plans to use the 9/11 attack to justify
military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. This a year before Bush
told the American public he was going to attack Iraq. Bush rightfully claimed
ignorance and Armitage denied he ever made the threat. Remember that Armitage
directed the CIA's secret drug running program during the Vietnam War.
He's a dark side operator, and isn't to be trusted ever. This is a glimpse
into how things really work in the real world.
-
- World Affairs Brief September 22, 2006. Copyright Joel
Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as
Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).
|
