What About the Pentagon?

911Proof.com has a new web page on the Pentagon.

The views expressed in this do NOT necessarily reflect those of the owners or moderators of 911 Blogger. I know there is disagreement about the Pentagon, and that people have strong opinions on the issue. Posting this does not necessarily mean we endorse it.


A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that the Pentagon is a heavily-defended building, with defensive weapons on the roof. This matches a Pentagon employee’s statement that she was told "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States".

And a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview).

Indeed, the Secretary of Transportation testified to the 9/11 Commission that

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"

(this testimony is confirmed
and here. See also this comment by the retired high-level CIA analyst mentioned above).

So how was a hijacked plane able to slam into such a heavily-defended building long after it had become apparent that a terrorist attack was being waged against America with hijacked airplanes, and given that the military was actually tracking the airplanes? Why did the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11 (see this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay), watch the plane approach from many miles away but say “the orders still stand”, when such orders led to the plane not being intercepted?


There are additional questions about the attack on the Pentagon. However, we believe that these questions are largely distractions from the vital questions raised above.

For example, there are many who question whether the hijacker who allegedly piloted the airplane had the skills to perform such a difficult maneuver, at least not without the aid of remote control equipment. We find such claims interesting, but have not come to any conclusions, and do not know if they will lead anywhere.

In addition, the government has to date not released all of the videos showing the strike on the Pentagon. Michael Moore, for example, said

"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11 -- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this".

We believe that it is very possible that when the videos are finally released, they will clearly show that the hijacked Boeing 757 was flown in a standard manner by the hijackers and crashed into the Pentagon. However, according to those who have watched the government videos released to date, such footage is not conclusive. While we are not convinced that anything other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, The government should release all of the relevant videos to give a full accounting.

Other claims have also been made about the Pentagon (see, for example, the claims made here). However, we believe that the questions regarding the government intentionally allowing the aircraft to hit the Pentagon, discussed at the top of this webpage, are the most important.

One question that is not asked:

One question that is not asked as often as it should be:

It is an established fact that the White House was evacuated due to an approaching plane (now definitively proven to be a E-4B and separate from the "alleged" plane approaching the Pentagon).

Why wasn't the pentagon evacuated if the White House was evacuated?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Good question

Though I'll speculate a debunk might say "Well, duh, they have to stay at their posts to defend the nation".

Scintillating discourse preceeds from there, with staw men, et al. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Imagine . ..

This really hits it on the head -

"The questions regarding the government intentionally allowing the aircraft to hit the Pentagon, discussed at the top of this webpage, are the most important."

Imagine where this movement would be if we stayed right here and focused on researching just this fact instead of "what hit."

It would be like Tucker Carlson needing to hide the WTC7 video - when the evidence is that powerful and obivious, they will literally shrink from it.

* the ridiculous amt of time that passed since the first hit
* Mineta testimony
* Building employees not even warned . . .


This should have been the focus, and that has to be it from now on.

I don't understand the precautionary note

stating that 911blogger and its moderators should NOT be considered liable for the views being expressed. Is such a statement necessary? Does this mean that, absent such precaution, all posts here are 'endorsed" and do not diverge from orthodox opinion? This moderator should have stated what part of the argument he does not agree with. Alternatively, all posts here should be preceded by such a statement of exoneration.

Personally, I find the article well reasoned, well documented, and I read a simple question put to the government: Provide proof that an airliner hit the pentagon. If an airliner did indeed hit the pentagon, then the important question to ask is: how come (given all the defences)?

Given the explosive evidence from WTC, it is clear to many that the "They Let it Happen" theory has been debunked. But so what? The questions adressed here still stand, given the offical position. Why is that approach not endorsed by 911blogger?


Spoke with Ray, and he says he has "no direct knowledge" of "defensive weapons on the roof", and instead, got his information from John Judge. John Judge apparently was told by his father when he was a kid that the Pentagon had missile batteries, and John also cites April Gallup. Sorry GW, but you may have to re-write this a bit.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

references on anti-aircraft

Here's what Michael Green says in his essay on the Mineta Testimony -

"On June 25, 2006 I personally asked Lt. Colonel Robert M. Bowman, former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, whether the Pentagon had anti-aircraft defenses. Colonel Bowman said that they did, and that he knew because he had been told that the Pentagon had them. Additionally, the young man who kept interrupting Cheney as the plane approached the Pentagon did so because something could be done about it, and not by the scrambled jets that were out of range, but by these on-site Pentagon anti-aircraft defenses."


"Clarke’s March 24, 2004 testimony states that after improvising air defenses for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics 'We then tried to institutionalize that for Washington, to protect the Capitol and the White House. And that system would have been run by the Secret Service. It would have involved missiles, anti-aircraft guns, radar, helicopters. Secret Service developed all the plans for that. Secret Service was a big advocate for it. But they were unable to get the Treasury Department, in which they were then located, to approve it, and I was unable to get the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] to fund it. … I thought I had made a persuasive case that we needed an air defense system, as well as an airport system, not just to stop hijackers at baggage inspection, but to deal with them if they got through that and were able to hijack an aircraft. I thought we needed an air defense system. And we got a little of that air defense system implemented, but only a little.' Clarke does not tell us what the “little” bit was."


A piece...

Of something I wrote a while back.

The other possibility for a "Stand-Down" is for the Pentagon's defenses. Whatever they may have been at the time. According to April Gallup, the Pentagon had missile batteries. According to Wayne Madsen, the Pentagon didn't have missile batteries at the time, but did have what are known as "Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS)." According to WorldNetDaily, the Pentagon didn't have any defenses.

Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview.

If the Pentagon, America's Military Headquarters, is undefended, then I would certainly fire whoever is in charge of the Pentagon's security.

Some have speculated that the reason they won't release the Pentagon's video tapes is because they may show the Pentagon's defenses being activated, and that's "classified".

Donate To 9/11 First Responders