Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11

Wayne Coste's epic analysis of the evidence at the Pentagon (originally a 5hr 40 min video Powerpoint) is now available in easily digested chapter-by-chapter form narrated by David Chandler (me). You can find it at http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/ and/or as a YouTube playlist here:

Wayne started this project when he was on the other side of the fence, convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon. He was working on a compilation to prove that case and ended up convincing himself otherwise. Anyone who snaps back with a dismissive response in the first 10 minutes has no business commenting. This represents a massive effort and deserves careful consideration and study.

I was reflecting recently on something Barbara Honegger pointed out. She said the Pentagon was the most important piece of the 9/11 operation, from the perpetrator's point of view, because an attack on the military turned this from a mere crime to an act of war, justifying military retaliation. It does not follow, however, that the evidence we need for proving government involvement is at the Pentagon. The evidence we need to show government complicity is at the World Trade Center. All that needed to be done at the Pentagon was to hit it with something...anything. Ramming a plane into the Pentagon did not require any kind of fancy deception. The more blatant the better. If shrouding it in secrecy and false speculation helped throw the dissenters into disarray, all the better. What is required of the 9/11 Truth Movement is a mature assessment of the evidence...all of the evidence. There is no win in finding some spectacular deception. The "win" is in seeing the truth of the matter with clear eyes.

Is this the official story? Not at all. The official story is we were attacked by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That is certainly false. Big planes hit the WTC, a big plane hit the Pentagon. That's what the evidence shows, and a clear look at the evidence is what provides a path out of the wilderness for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Thanks for this, I'll have a

Thanks for this, I'll have a look. Although, sometimes I really do wonder how much I should particularly care about what hit the Pentagon.


Worth noting - and I'm writing it here so I don't lose the info - no-one else seems that interested -


The right-wing think tank The Institute for Contemporary Studies (ICS) held a couple of seminars in the late 70's. One in 1976, the other in 1979. The results of both are gathered in a couple of books, the 1976 volume DEFENDING AMERICA, and the 1980 volume FROM WEAKNESS TO STRENGTH: NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE 1980's.


The 'institute' that put both books together was 'founded in 1972 by Edwin Meese and Caspar Weinberger as a think tank dedicated to promoting Ronald Reagan’s presidential candidacy'. Meese and Weinburger both later appeared throughout the Iran Contra scandal, and Weinberger joined a group of PNAC neocons to sign the 1998 letter drafted by the 'Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf', urging Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The ICS was later headed by Robert B. Hawkins Jr.  Donald Rumsfeld served as the CEO of ICS in the late 1980s.


Various anti-detente folk crop up in the first ICS volume. Robert Conquest, Theodore Draper, Gregory Grossman, Walter Z. Laqueur, Edward N. Luttwak, Charles Burton Marshall, Rumsfeld's good buddy Paul Nitze, Norman Polmar, Eugene Rostow, Leonard Shapiro, Paul Seabury, W. Scott Thompson, Albert Wohlstetter. The group announced their first volume was intended to address 'growing public concern about the drift in present policy' and to 'recommend alternate courses'.


A few years later, in the intro to the ICS volume FROM WEAKNESS TO STRENGTH, the editors note that their efforts throughout the Carter admin had been unable to 'change the underlying situation', and so while their first volume was a critique, the new volume - workshopped by the participants at a gathering at Belmont House in Baltimore, Maryland in late 1979 - was organised to set forth a positive agenda to act on for policy change. Back come some of the anti-detente right wingers - "...A number of authors who had contributed to the earlier book were recruited: Edward Luttwak, Charles Burton Marshall, Paul Nitze and Albert Wolhstetter... The new project was designed to recommend a whole range of policy options, from short-term quick fixes to longer-term military strategies." Joining the group were William R Van Cleave, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Van Cleave's Rightweb bio notes that "..at Missouri State University, Van Cleave has been part of a circle of like-minded hawks, many of whom were part of the 1970s-era CPD and who later championed an aggressive war on terror in the wake of the 9/11 attacks." Van Cleave was later part of the group that produced the Clean Break document supported by Wolfowitz in the 90's. Also joining that Maryland group in 1979, and listed in the contents as an attendee in the FROM WEAKNESS TO STRENGTH volume - Kenneth Adelman, Donald Rumsfeld's personal assistant during the Ford administration, who would later co-write a book with Lockheed head Norm Augustine.


As part of their examination of long-term military strategies during the conference, Fred Ikle - who had worked alongside Wolfowitz and Richard Perle - presented a paper - PREPARING FOR INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS FULL STRENGTH, and Ikle's talk is reprinted in full through pages 55-69 of the book. In his 1979 talk, Ikle noted that a renewed military buildup would be crucial for the United States to achieve its various goals in the years ahead, but that a renewed effort towards military mobilisation would be difficult to achieve without a 'dramatic external event'.


In 1988, Luttwak, present at both earlier conferences, put out a volume on how conspirators could carry out a Coup d'Etat - COUP D'ETAT - A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK. Listed as 'wicked, truthful and entertaining', this hilarious non-fiction analysis of how a secretive group could carry out an internal coup against the government of their own country currently runs for $145 used on Amazon. Here it is.




Ikle, Luttwak and a couple of others appear again in a volume put out in 1989. POLITICAL WARFARE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS. In that volume, Ikle argues in favour of psychological warfare to achieve various military goals, and Luttwak agrees with him. That volume is here.




When Zelikow put together his 1997 study group into Catastrophic Terrorism, Ikle was on board. In his book PREVENTIVE DEFENCE, Ashton Carter listed in a footnote the members of the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group, and I've rarely seen the list printed in full. Here it is.


"Members of the group, which was convened by the Kennedy School of Government's 'Visions of Governance in the 21st Century Project', are Graham Allison, Zoe Baird, Victor DeMarines, Robert Gates, Jamie Gorelick, Robert Hermann, Philip Heymann, Fred Ikle, Elaine Kamarck, Matthew Meselson, Joseph Nye, William Perry, Larry Potts, Fred Schauer, J. Terry Scott, Malcolm Sparrow, Herbert Winokur, and Robert Zoellick.'


Zelikow's Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group ran from November 1997, and finished mid the following year, just a few weeks before the August 1998 Embassy bombings that were attributed to Al Qaeda. From the group, Gorelick was later a 9/11 Commission Report member. Victor DeMarines was the head of MITRE, which appears in essays from Kevin Ryan and others. A few years earlier, James Woolsey had hired MITRE technologists to build Interlink, the intelligence community's secure, private communications intranet, and a week before Zelikow's group started their work, DeMarine gave a talk about Interlink - in the same building - to various military and intelligence brass at that year's Harvard Seminar on Intelligence, Command and Control. Matthew Meselson was a Harvard professor and molecluar biologist who was touted as an anthrax expert after the 9/11 attacks, and had 'served as a resident consultant to the CIA'. Larry Potts was a colleague and friend of Louis Freeh, and was responsble for investigating the Oklahoma City bombing. In the story linked below, Terry Lynn Nichols filed a declaration that Timothy McVeigh had been acting under instructions from Larry Potts.




Frederick Schauer was a Harvard professor notorious for endorsing ethnic stereotyping to identify terrorists. In his essay 'Facts and the First Amendment', Schauer attacks 9/11 conspiracy theorists in his very first line.




Herbert Winokur was the head of Enron and a former head of Dyncorp. He funded the entire Catastropic Terrorism study - Carter thanks Winokur for his support of the group's work. The Enron investigation was eventually curtailed, of course, when important documents were destroyed during the collapse of WTC7.


In a lengthy PDF interview with Philip Shenon, Zelikow addressed the work of the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group in just a few lines, but noted that he had spoken during its run to a few Clinton administration figures, notably John Hamre. Through that period, Hamre had been tasked with overseeing the Pentagon renovation, which focused on reinforcing the wing of the Pentagon that was eventually targeted on 9/11.


To sum up, Ikle, a neocon guru who had served as Wolfowitz's boss, gave a talk in 1979 where he suggested a 'dramatic external event' would be required to enable a big military buildup. He then published a piece arguing for psychological warfare against the public, and then joined a study into Catastrophic Terrorism alongside the future head of the 9/11 Commission, working alongside an anthrax expert for the CIA, a man accused of handing Oklahoma 'bomber' Timothy McVeigh, and a professor arguing that government agencies should exploit the ethnic stereotyping of muslims in the fight against terrorism.  Winding back to the start, it's terrific that new stuff is still coming out for discussion on what hit the Pentagon, and how the towers fell, and whether it was nanothermite or regular explosives that were seen exploding out as the towers collapsed, but might I dare suggest it'd be great if some researchers stopped circling around the same half dozen topics nearly two decades after the event, and spent just a while looking at other stuff? I'm sure the scientific discussions will keep being dragged around past the year 2030, but there is some new info folks could look at, if they felt so inclined.











I just sat and watched this

I just sat and watched this right through. The whole pentagon issue has always suffered from a lack of evidence and for that reason, like many others, I have avoided the issue beyond pointing out that nothing should have hit it. I still do not believe that "what hit the pentagon" is an area that does the 911 truth case any favours, and for that reason I wasn't expecting to make it past the first few videos in the playlist.

However, I was compelled to sit and watch the whole thing because this analysis is so detailed and puts to rest much of the misinformation and bad data that in my opinion has hurt our cause in the past, for example, the whole CIT nonsense. I still don't think that it matters much what hit the Pentagon, but this piece of work is exhaustive and doesn't just put to rest many past "issues" that have not helped our cause, but provides a clear evidential standard and firm standpoint from which the issue can perhaps move forward and be seriously analysed further on the basis of good scientific and logical analysis.

Clearly there's been a huge amount of effort put into this by Wayne and David and it shows in the quality of the end result. A difficult topic to approach given the lack of evidence and details of the structure, but one that has suffered from a lot of disinfo in the past. This analysis puts paid to many of those myths and is a huge asset to us for that reason alone. Well worth watching, and I'll watch it again.