911-conflicting perspectives on the Pentagon Crash

by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
September 2002

extracted from Cassiopaea Website

What can we extract out of the morass of conflicting perspectives on the Pentagon Crash?  What seems to be true is that actual commercial jets hit the twin towers exactly as described. This was an "easy hit" for an airliner. It was on film, and we simply cannot refute that in my opinion. It happened, and everyone saw it.

The result of this fact - that large commercial jets were SEEN to hit the World Trade Center, over and over again on TV - was that it was easy for the public to then assume that the same type of craft hit the Pentagon.

The object that hit the Pentagon, however, WAS different and I will try to outline why I think so. I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said:

"They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!"

Now, that’s amazing. But we don’t think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. What is amazing is the guidance system. Could it be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners? It’s pretty clear, from assembling the information, that it WAS some sort of plane that was used to strike the Pentagon, and here we come to most interesting facts.

The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - described something "like a missile" or a craft much smaller than a 757. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:

Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, said he saw a passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.

One of the things that didn’t make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn’t. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was flying low enough to clip light poles and didn’t scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture. Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.

The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that whatever this craft was, it was able to allow people to see what they wanted to... to give impressions. As long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who didn’t SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound.

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn’t see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!"   The second one, when he couldn’t see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh", just like the other man who couldn’t see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!"  And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there’s a 757 right overhead that’s hitting light poles, and it’s going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses’ eardrums out along with everything else in the engine’s way. The exhaust of those huge engines is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.

You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane... there’s 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth. Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.

According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the above described "smart missile guidance system."

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

Well, if that doesn’t sent up red flags, I don’t know what will. Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about!

"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that’s a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Again, it’s interesting to see what different "impressions" people had. Now, here’s some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers. Can anyone explain why some of these men have on protective cover and breathing masks? I don’t remember the firemen at the WTC wearing them...and if they did, there was a lot of dust, ash and asbestos. I don’t see the same thing at the Pentagon.

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft.

Well, if that’s the official story, then why is it that metal reinforcing inside the Pentagon didn’t melt? You can see from the pictures of the inside, there’s all kinds of metal hanging from the ceiling and on the floor. And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down? It just doesn’t add up. [LAM]

Sounds like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths at once. But let’s look at still another report:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.

He said it was flying so fast that he couldn’t read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought ’Oh my God, there’s a plane truly misrouted from National,’" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what’s next?"

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. And these descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of a missile or a much smaller plane.

When I was a teenager, we used to go to the airport and park on the side of the road at the end of the runway so the landing jets would pass over our heads. It was a rush. Well, even when I go to the airport nowadays, I like to go to the roof and watch the jets land. They are over 300 yards away, but it is STILL a rush and - and even at that distance, a 757 is still awesome. And deafeningly loud.

What we find here is that, among the many descriptions of the eyewitnesses, the early ones said "small jet," "like a missile." The later witnesses - AFTER the awareness of the strike against the World Trade Center was broadcast with film of a commercial jet liner striking the building being shown over and over again - said that it was ALSO a commercial airliner exactly like the ones that hit the World Trade Center that hit the Pentagon.

And we now see why the timing was set up the way it was and why the film was shown over and over again. It was done to convince the public that the exact same "strike" was made against the Pentagon so as to produce maximum emotional impact and to provide an alibi for those who were in the building, the military organizations themselves.

Most people are familiar enough with how witnesses can and do change their testimony when influenced by statements made by others. That’s why juries are sequestered from the press. That’s why witnesses are called into the court one at a time and are not allowed to listen to each other’s testimony. Standard procedure. Add to that the technology described by Dolan, where words and probably images can be broadcast directly into a person’s mind by microwave, and we have an easy explanation for why witnesses later said "it was a commercial jet."

An experiment was recently shown on TV in which people were shown photos of themselves as children to see how much they could remember of a "fake" event. One of the photos had been put together on computer to show the subject riding in the basket of a hot air balloon, something which none of them had ever done.

At first none of the subjects had any response to the composite picture other than their surprise that they did not remember such an exciting event. After a few days, the experiment was repeated. This time when they saw the false photo, a number of the subjects started to recall completely false memories about the fictional balloon ride. Remembering points about time, place, who was there, details about textures and colors etc.

The brain had somehow puts together a false picture to make up for the apparent loss of a memory that the individual thinks they should have had. The same would be even more true in the aftermath of such an emotional event as a "terrorist" attack. The only problem was that the witnesses to the Pentagon event used descriptive terms that were simply not applicable to the impression that a 757 would produce in such circumstances. I have yet to see one description that says "Oh my god!! It was HUGE! It was right THERE! Humongous! There was a deafening ROAR!" etc. THAT strikes me as very strange. A 757 produces those effects every time.

What seems to be so is that the truth IS in their subconscious minds, and even though they may be under the IMPRESSION that the object was a 757, the NAME they have given it and the descriptions of the actual experience do not match up.

Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming maneuver that was "like a missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done. The only problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:

I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position.

As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train. In his own words:

I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man’s story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".

He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn’t id the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).

Or it could have been "launched" by another plane. This brings us back to the many problems of the Pentagon strike that indicate that it was not a 757, and why would the "experts" continue to insist that it was? After all, even if it WAS a conspiracy, and somebody went to the trouble to arrange for a couple big jets to hit the World Trade Center, why not just use the same procedure and type of craft to strike the Pentagon?

Let’s assume that it WAS a smaller plane that hit the Pentagon. Why?  And we come back to the idea that it is extremely likely that a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system (multimedia) that can literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that it is amazing was used. And we consider this carefully and the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision. And that leads us directly to the question of why such precision might be necessary?

The question can only be answered logically by assuming precision was the major concern in the strike on the Pentagon. And theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we realize that LIMITING the damage to a specific and pre-designated area was the major concern.

And if that was the major concern, then we arrive at the idea that such precision and limitation was essential for some reason. And the only reason that we can come to is that they wanted to hit the Pentagon for the emotional impact. Which leads to the idea that the emotional response of the public to the "poor people in the Pentagon" was desirable. But since this emotional impact was achieved with such precision and control suggests to us that it was also an ALIBI. In short, the safety of CERTAIN occupants of the building was a concern. Which leads to the idea that those certain occupants of the building...

We notice that Newsweek coyly mentions that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Did you have a look at the list of casualties in the Pentagon itself? Where were all the bigwigs in the building???? What about those guys who canceled their travel plans and who were very likely IN THE BUILDING at the time? If what we have theorized is true, it’s not likely that they canceled their travel plans because they might get on the wrong jet. I would be very interested to know who those guys were.

IF we are dealing with a conspiracy - as has been suggested by many people - designed to generate the emotional response from the masses of Americans so as to facilitate the imposition of a One World Government - which is what IS happening, by the way - then it is very likely that a number of the conspirators were IN THE PENTAGON AT THE TIME IT WAS HIT.

And yes, in the worlds of intelligence and conspiracy, that kind of logic prevails. Please read Dolan for a broader understanding of the military role in the establishment of the Secret State so that you can be assured that hitting the Pentagon would very likely be seen as essential to divert attention AWAY from individuals within our own military organizations as possible conspirators. Once you have a good handle on the disinformation and COINTELPRO machines, you will understand why a strike against the Pentagon was important not only for the ALIBI, but for the EMOTIONAL IMPACT on the public. After all, if the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - are hit by terrorists, then the emotional reaction of the people will naturally be that we not only have a right to strike back with all our power, but also that we MUST. They will also not look at the possibility of a "home conspiracy" because - after all - the Pentagon WAS a target, right?!

We suggest that the strike on the Pentagon was designed for maximum emotional impact. And it is obvious that, for this purpose, one would not want to use a 757 because it is not amenable to the precision required for the safety of the conspirators in the building. What was needed was something that could strike the Pentagon with extreme precision both in terms of WHERE it hit, and how.

The reader may wish to go a bit further with the ideas presented and have a look at The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11 - Even though the author of this analysis obviously hasn’t read Dolan, and dismisses the hyperdimensional aspects of the conspiracy, he certainly outlines the major elements of the human operation.

[...] The events of September 11 were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of information. [...] The events of September 11 were masterminded by those who were in the best position to manage the consequences. [...]

Conspiracies, involve rational, albeit cold-blooded, attempts to achieve a desired end by employing the most effective means available. [...] Motive, means, and opportunity. [...]

It appears that the events of September 11 were planned years in advance, with the groundwork being carefully laid by a propaganda campaign orchestrated to convince the public that the United States has a plausibly sophisticated nemesis with the motive, means, and opportunity to perpetrate a devastating act of terror against Americans. [...]

In all cases, the actions of proxy agents and operative planners are sufficiently distanced and compartmentalized from the true masterminds to create a condition of "plausible deniability". In short, the proxies have also been set up as possible patsies with evidence that has been carefully laid to incriminate them should cracks in the "official story" become too discernible. [...]

The real guilt must inevitably lie with those in the best position to manage the flow of information as well as reliably benefit from the New Order created, primarily, the political and corporate elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union - also, as it happens, the very parties orchestrating the global war on terrorism....

If this notion of reality strikes you as somewhat dissonant, at odds with your own personal experience, it may be perhaps that [...] you have not read the mountain of evidence detailing political and elite deviant behavior in this country. ...

Regarding the motive, the above author simply says:

"Where the rank and file members of the CFR are largely motivated by a self-interested careerism, these higher elites see it as their moral duty to guide the "ship of state", as it were. To them, a unified world government is the most logical way to manage the affairs of the world. After all, these global elites have more in common with one another than they do with the bulk of their respective countrymen."