Why Did Navy Staffers at the Pentagon Fail to Respond to the Attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11?
of our people to respond is the second part of it."
- Admiral Robert Natter, commander of the U.S.
Navy's Atlantic Fleet on September 11, 2001 
Navy personnel at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, including some key officials, appear to have acted with a surprising lack of urgency after they learned of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
Even though the Navy--along with the rest of the United States military--was responsible for protecting America if it was under attack, its personnel at the Pentagon seem to have done nothing, or very little, to help defend the country after they learned of the plane crashes at the World Trade Center. Remarkably, many of them continued with their normal work duties as if nothing unusual had happened. Furthermore, the Navy's top officials appear to have issued no orders to their personnel, regarding what to do in response to the crashes.
A dozen Army personnel, including many senior officers, went ahead with a routine, previously scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001, in an area of the Pentagon that was severely damaged when the building was attacked at 9:37 a.m., even though a hijacked plane had crashed into the World Trade Center 14 minutes earlier and this incident had been reported on television since 8:49 a.m. Strangely, the officers were unaware of the crash when they went into their meeting and no one interrupted the meeting to let them know the U.S. was under attack after a second hijacked aircraft hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. They were consequently still continuing their meeting as if nothing was wrong, oblivious to the crisis that was taking place, when the Pentagon was hit and a huge fireball erupted into their room.
The immediate response to the 9/11 attacks of dozens of the most senior U.S. Air Force officials at the Pentagon who were together in a meeting when the attacks began appears to have been far from what we might reasonably expect, considering the serious and unprecedented crisis the officials had to deal with and the Air Force's key role in responding to it. Evidence suggests that after the first plane crash at the World Trade Center was reported on television on September 11, 2001, there was a delay of over 10 minutes before the officials' meeting was interrupted and the officials were alerted to the incident. The subsequent response of the officials appears to have been slow and lacking urgency.
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. He has contributed to two major terrorism investigations in the US and UK, the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest, and has advised the Royal Military Academy Sandhust, British Foreign Office and US State Department, among other government agencies. His new novel, ZERO POINT, predicted a US-UK re-invasion of Iraq to put down an Islamist insurgency there. Nafeez is a regular contributor to The Guardian where he writes about the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises via his Earth Insight global column. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among many others.
Dr. Frank Legge Interview
Interview conducted March 1st, 2014
MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/484-int-49
What was it that blew a hole in the Pentagon on 9/11? Was it really American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757? Or was it a much smaller aircraft? A missile, perhaps? Or just pre-planted explosives?
Joining us to discuss these questions is Dr. Frank Legge, PhD chemist and long-standing researcher into 9/11, who shares with us from his research the many reasons why he believes it is now established beyond reasonable doubt that AA Flight 77 did in fact hit the Pentagon that day.
Insisting nevertheless that the overall evidence of 9/11 unambiguously speaks of an "inside job", Dr. Legge warns of the dangers of dogmatism within the 9/11 Truth Movement, and explains why he sees 9/11 as a transnational elitist crime aimed ultimately at authoritarian One-World Government.
The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman, by John D. Wyndham.
This paper deals with issues raised in a November, 2012 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman. These involve eyewitness testimonies as analyzed by Jerry Russell and by David Ray Griffin in his book, “9/11 Ten Years Later,” together with other topics that include debris flow through the Pentagon interior, energy considerations, and questions previously unaddressed by the author.
Four appendices focus on inaccuracies in the Fletcher and Eastman letter; on David Griffin’s list of physical evidence items that, in his view, weigh against the 757 impact theory; on the testimony of the unfairly-maligned taxi driver, Lloyde England; and on Jerry Russell’s and David Griffin’s analyses of Pentagon eyewitnesses.
You can read the paper and submit comments for moderated discussion at:
John D. Wyndham
April 12, 2013
"The Pentagon announced it is boosting "cybersecurity" personnel to 4,900. Is this really a move for defense, or to ramp up efforts to spy on Americans?".
"The Pentagon has approved plans for a five-fold increase in its cyberwar fighting force. The U.S. Cyber Command would see its ranks jump from 900 to 4,900, including both uniformed and civilian personnel. Defense officials say the boost in the cybersecurity force is necessary because of the nation's growing vulnerability to cyber attacks and also the need to prepare for more offensive cyber combat operations. But there is already a shortage of cyber specialists, and the new recruitment effort would increase the competition for skilled personnel within the government and the private sector. Audie Cornish talks to Tom Gjelten".
Black 9/11: Money, Motive, Technology, and Plausible Deniability
Published on Nov 21, 2012
Special thanks to Michael C. Ruppert, Mark H. Gaffney, and Kevin Ryan for their dedicated research in bringing this information out of the shadowy black operations underworld from which it came. This video is a compilation of evidence they have uncovered.
"Inside Job" Documentary on the Financial "Crisis" of 2008
"Crossing the Rubicon" - The Decline of American Empire at the end of the age of oil
"Black 911" by Mark H. Gaffney:
Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
A guide to 9/11 Whistleblowers
SEC Act Section 12(k)2:
Richard Grove's testimony (complete transcript)
On September 10, 2001, $2.3 trillion were announced to have gone missing from the Pentagon. Radio Host Barry Shainbaum will be interviewing Jim Minnery, a military accountant, Elyria, OH., and Dina Rasor, investigative journalist, San Francisco, CA.
Upcoming Radio Show: Jan. 13, 2013, Sundays 12:30 pm to 1:30 pm. EST. Topic: Pentagon spending & accounting
“I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.” Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2001
The official account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 leaves many questions unanswered. The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions. In an attempt to find answers, an alternative account of the Pentagon attack is considered.
An alternative account would be more compelling than the official account if it explained more of the evidence without adding unnecessary complications. Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.
A few of the more compelling unanswered questions are as follows.
- How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot?
- Why did the aircraft make a 330-degree turn just minutes before hitting the building?
- Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied one-fifth of the building that was the focus of a renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion?
- Why was the company that performed the renovation work, just for that one-fifth of the building, immediately hired in a no bid contract to clean-up the damage and reconstruct that area of the building? (Note: The same company was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site within hours of the destruction there.)
- What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof?
- Why were the tapes from the surveillance videos in the area immediately confiscated by the FBI and never released?
These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion. This paints a picture that calls for an in-depth investigation into the people running the Pentagon, to see if they might have had the motivation and ability to plan and execute the attack.
When involved with the topic of 9/11, it becomes by default that we look at non-mainstream sources that most of the general public tend not to read, and because 9/11 was such a gnarly event, the type of news that runs parallel to it can often be tough going. Well, this following topic really takes the proverbial biscuit.
Genocidal war is not as out of fashion as perhaps most people think. Wired.com has just broke the news that the US-military is teaching its top cadres that Islam is the enemy and total war necessary:
"The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents... Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=4050
By Craig Whitlock
Some human remains recovered from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., were incinerated and dumped in a landfill, the Defense Department said Tuesday in the latest revelation about mishandled body parts at the Dover Air Force Base mortuary.
A new Pentagon review of the troubled mortuary disclosed several other problems — including fresh allegations of fraud and misplaced remains — over the past decade despite previous assurances by Air Force officials that they had adequately investigated operations at the base.
In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” by John D. Wyndham.
As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.
This work is supported by recent papers by Frank Legge and David Chandler: