Was the Pentagon Actually Hit by Pre-planted Bombs?
The information here comes from a workshop run by Barbara Honegger at the Truth Emergency Convergence meeting on Sunday July 24, 2005 at American University in Washingon DC.
I have decided to break the info I learned from Barbara Honegger (BH) into two separate posts. This is part two. Part one, about what time the Pentagon was hit is here.
BH was an official in the Reagan administration and resigned in protest over his policies. She is a self-described former whistleblower and is now a military-affairs reporter. She has written a book, "October Surprise", about the Iran-Contra affair. She worked with Mike Ruppert on his "Crossing the Rubicon" but does not endorse all of Ruppert's conclusions-- particularly about Cheney being the mastermind behind 9/11 (and I agree with her).
BH describes the Pentagon hit as the "Rosetta Stone" and the "Holy Grail" of 9/11 because what happened there was very important for understanding 9/11 in general.
A key point is that the hit on the Pentagon, the killing of military personnel, was critical for engaging the military in this new "war", as opposed to 9/11 merely being a larger version of the Oklahoma City bombing.
In this post, I am not going to try and validate everything BH says, merely present what she presented. At the end of the post, I will add other pieces of evidence that support her thesis.
To cut to the chase, BH thinks the Pentagon was NOT hit by flight 77, but rather sets of bombs, a truck bomb (on a green fire-truck) and bombs planted inside the Pentagon as well. She this was perhaps followed by a heat-seeking missile. She does not claim to know exactly what hit the Pentagon, but doesn't think it was flight 77.
So why does she think this?
First, where the Pentagon was hit is highly suspicious, the "violent event" precisely took out two groups of people: the naval Command Center and the Army's Financial Auditing Office (this is significant because shortly before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced that huge amounts of money had been lost by the Pentagon).
Second, the dearth of airline debris that was found.
Third, the size of the initial hole in the Pentagon facade was too small for a 757.
Fourth, the initial report from Associated Press of what happened at the Pentagon described a "booby-trapped truck bomb".
Fifth, she describes the account of Robert Andrews, who was the Head of Special Operations at the Pentagon at this time (note: I have verified this). He says after he heard of what happened at the WTC on 9/11, he went to a special counter-terrorism center in the basement of the Pentagon (near where the "violent event" was). While he was in there, monitoring the situation, he says at 9:32am there was an explosion that almost completely destroyed the counter-terrorism center. He managed to escape and here is where is gets really interesting: Andrews said he emerged out on ground level at the innermost A ring of the Pentagon and he saw dead bodies on the ground there. This was a face-to-face interview between Honegger and Andrews, and BH said that immediately after Andrews said this, he blushed, as if he had said something he didn't want to say or mean to say.
6) After the "violent event" at the Pentagon, people started evacuating the building, and many people were loudly saying a bomb had gone off.
7) An Army auditor from Fort Monouth was working at the Pentagon during this time, and he said on 9/11 when he got off the Metro subway at the Pentagon, he saw bomb-sniffing dogs. This was the only time he ever saw bomb-sniffing dogs at the Pentagon. This auditor also confirmed that the violent event happened at 9:32am.
So this is the extent of what BH said relating a bomb event at the Pentagon. I don't think she is a complete flake, and I take what she says seriously. She was one of the first people to report about the military wargames on 9/11 and she was completely right about that.
Here are some other pieces of evidence that fit the explosives theory:
At least two witnesses smelled "cordite", a product of high explosives.
The linear path of damage through the E-D-C rings of the Pentagon never really made complete sense to me for plane damage, particularly considering all the pillars and inner walls in the way.
In the damaged area, one section of the ceiling is blown out, see orange rectangle here. Note how the columns are more heavily damaged here than before and after-- almost as if there was a specific explosive event here. This piece of evidence has been noted by Dave McGowan here (scroll down).
US Congressional Representative John Murtha had an early report that a bomb went off at the Pentagon.
I have heard rumors that there was some sort of terror exercise at the Pentagon on 9/11 (hence the bomb-sniffing dogs), but I don't have a specific reference.
The French author Thierry Meyssan, famous for his missile-into-the-Pentagon theory, actually initially proposed that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb.
The web-site 911-strike deals with what happened at the Pentagon and entertains the idea of pre-planted bombs.
Finally, there is the testimony of April Gallup (this was related at the workshop by author Jim Marrs who interviewed her), who was at the Pentagon when the violent event happened-- she actually crawled out of the hole in the E ring where the plane supposedly went in, and she saw no evidence of a plane. When she was in the hospital, she was visited by government-suit types who wouldn't say where they were from but kept drilling it into her head that a plane had hit the Pentagon. Marrs thought that they were "debriefing her" and getting her story straight.
So what to make of all this?
Of course, skeptics to this will always say "What happened to the real flight 77?" "What about all those eye-witnesses of a plane?"
My answer is a) I don't know, but there are several possibilities, and b) they are lying or they saw something besides flight 77, such as a missile.
One possibility we can't rule out is that there were planted bombs AND that flight 77 also hit the Pentagon. This might account for the evidence best-- particularly the massive confusion over when the Pentagon was hit, although it is really just a theory like anything else. And I have gone over on this site many times why flight 77/a Boeing 757 is unlikely to have hit the Pentagon. Nonetheless, combining a plane stirke with bombs is what has been proposed for the WTC hit as well.
I strongly think that something happened at the Pentagon besides a plane strike.
The planted bombs and a heat-seeking missile strike is feasible, but there is little evidence for a missile, really.
In general, I think it is quite possible that the evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon, such as airplane debris, was planted. The best way to do this would be to package bombs with the airplane parts in different parts of the Pentagon. While this may seem absurd, remember this section of the Pentagon had been recently renovated and non-military people had access to the building. The planting of the 757 parts may have been done in conjunction with the renovation. I know it sounds absurd, but I think it is possible that all the evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon is a massive illusion-- including the downed-light poles on the highway. This would mean the eye-witnesses again, are either lying or they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon at the same time the bombs went off.
I have decided to break the info I learned from Barbara Honegger (BH) into two separate posts. This is part two. Part one, about what time the Pentagon was hit is here.
BH was an official in the Reagan administration and resigned in protest over his policies. She is a self-described former whistleblower and is now a military-affairs reporter. She has written a book, "October Surprise", about the Iran-Contra affair. She worked with Mike Ruppert on his "Crossing the Rubicon" but does not endorse all of Ruppert's conclusions-- particularly about Cheney being the mastermind behind 9/11 (and I agree with her).
BH describes the Pentagon hit as the "Rosetta Stone" and the "Holy Grail" of 9/11 because what happened there was very important for understanding 9/11 in general.
A key point is that the hit on the Pentagon, the killing of military personnel, was critical for engaging the military in this new "war", as opposed to 9/11 merely being a larger version of the Oklahoma City bombing.
In this post, I am not going to try and validate everything BH says, merely present what she presented. At the end of the post, I will add other pieces of evidence that support her thesis.
To cut to the chase, BH thinks the Pentagon was NOT hit by flight 77, but rather sets of bombs, a truck bomb (on a green fire-truck) and bombs planted inside the Pentagon as well. She this was perhaps followed by a heat-seeking missile. She does not claim to know exactly what hit the Pentagon, but doesn't think it was flight 77.
So why does she think this?
First, where the Pentagon was hit is highly suspicious, the "violent event" precisely took out two groups of people: the naval Command Center and the Army's Financial Auditing Office (this is significant because shortly before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced that huge amounts of money had been lost by the Pentagon).
Second, the dearth of airline debris that was found.
Third, the size of the initial hole in the Pentagon facade was too small for a 757.
Fourth, the initial report from Associated Press of what happened at the Pentagon described a "booby-trapped truck bomb".
Fifth, she describes the account of Robert Andrews, who was the Head of Special Operations at the Pentagon at this time (note: I have verified this). He says after he heard of what happened at the WTC on 9/11, he went to a special counter-terrorism center in the basement of the Pentagon (near where the "violent event" was). While he was in there, monitoring the situation, he says at 9:32am there was an explosion that almost completely destroyed the counter-terrorism center. He managed to escape and here is where is gets really interesting: Andrews said he emerged out on ground level at the innermost A ring of the Pentagon and he saw dead bodies on the ground there. This was a face-to-face interview between Honegger and Andrews, and BH said that immediately after Andrews said this, he blushed, as if he had said something he didn't want to say or mean to say.
6) After the "violent event" at the Pentagon, people started evacuating the building, and many people were loudly saying a bomb had gone off.
7) An Army auditor from Fort Monouth was working at the Pentagon during this time, and he said on 9/11 when he got off the Metro subway at the Pentagon, he saw bomb-sniffing dogs. This was the only time he ever saw bomb-sniffing dogs at the Pentagon. This auditor also confirmed that the violent event happened at 9:32am.
So this is the extent of what BH said relating a bomb event at the Pentagon. I don't think she is a complete flake, and I take what she says seriously. She was one of the first people to report about the military wargames on 9/11 and she was completely right about that.
Here are some other pieces of evidence that fit the explosives theory:
At least two witnesses smelled "cordite", a product of high explosives.
The linear path of damage through the E-D-C rings of the Pentagon never really made complete sense to me for plane damage, particularly considering all the pillars and inner walls in the way.
In the damaged area, one section of the ceiling is blown out, see orange rectangle here. Note how the columns are more heavily damaged here than before and after-- almost as if there was a specific explosive event here. This piece of evidence has been noted by Dave McGowan here (scroll down).
US Congressional Representative John Murtha had an early report that a bomb went off at the Pentagon.
I have heard rumors that there was some sort of terror exercise at the Pentagon on 9/11 (hence the bomb-sniffing dogs), but I don't have a specific reference.
The French author Thierry Meyssan, famous for his missile-into-the-Pentagon theory, actually initially proposed that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb.
The web-site 911-strike deals with what happened at the Pentagon and entertains the idea of pre-planted bombs.
Finally, there is the testimony of April Gallup (this was related at the workshop by author Jim Marrs who interviewed her), who was at the Pentagon when the violent event happened-- she actually crawled out of the hole in the E ring where the plane supposedly went in, and she saw no evidence of a plane. When she was in the hospital, she was visited by government-suit types who wouldn't say where they were from but kept drilling it into her head that a plane had hit the Pentagon. Marrs thought that they were "debriefing her" and getting her story straight.
So what to make of all this?
Of course, skeptics to this will always say "What happened to the real flight 77?" "What about all those eye-witnesses of a plane?"
My answer is a) I don't know, but there are several possibilities, and b) they are lying or they saw something besides flight 77, such as a missile.
One possibility we can't rule out is that there were planted bombs AND that flight 77 also hit the Pentagon. This might account for the evidence best-- particularly the massive confusion over when the Pentagon was hit, although it is really just a theory like anything else. And I have gone over on this site many times why flight 77/a Boeing 757 is unlikely to have hit the Pentagon. Nonetheless, combining a plane stirke with bombs is what has been proposed for the WTC hit as well.
I strongly think that something happened at the Pentagon besides a plane strike.
The planted bombs and a heat-seeking missile strike is feasible, but there is little evidence for a missile, really.
In general, I think it is quite possible that the evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon, such as airplane debris, was planted. The best way to do this would be to package bombs with the airplane parts in different parts of the Pentagon. While this may seem absurd, remember this section of the Pentagon had been recently renovated and non-military people had access to the building. The planting of the 757 parts may have been done in conjunction with the renovation. I know it sounds absurd, but I think it is possible that all the evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon is a massive illusion-- including the downed-light poles on the highway. This would mean the eye-witnesses again, are either lying or they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon at the same time the bombs went off.
posted by spooked at 10:15 AM
5 Comments:
excellent post...as usual. ;)
Yep...it does sound absurd. Kinda like we never went to the moon. Or Elvis is alive somewhere. Or that Bush engineered the Columbia re-entry burnup because he had low approval ratings (a popular DU thread back a few years ago).
Just out of curiosity...have you ever been to the Pentagon? Have you ever walked the hallways, been in the rooms - offices, conference rooms? Seen what the layout of the place is and what really goes on there? They are doing the upgrades to the next wedge now. Do you think if we poked around inside we'd find explosives built into the pillars and the walls and all over? Do you think if we arrested all of the 2,000 construction workers involved in this project we'd find the cabal that is in charge of planting these explosives?
Have you ever been to the Pentagon? Or are you basing all this bullshit on what gullible people who have difficulty handling complex events are passing out to other gullible people?
we have a bush cabal apologist in our midst people!
displaying the classic traits of a disinformationalist...he peppers his comments with other non-related, sensationalist topics (you know: ridiculosly unrelated topics like Elvis, etc.) in an attempt to "Muddy The Waters", never once actually discussing any of the FACTS in dispute. He just arrives bright eyed & Bushy (pun intended) tailed with his feces-covered brush ready to perform a Rove-ish slimey whitewash, and then run.
ALL HAIL OUR TEXAS FURHER BUSH...RIGHT 'pinch'??
hehe :-)
we see right through your fascist propaganda...so keep moving on...why continually appear, where you are CLEARLY not welcome/wanted?
so...we have to actually have been to the Pentagon, to talk about it? interesting logic.
this 'pinch' character is great...sorta like a modern day, ultra right-wing member of the fascist three stooges...
Rob,
I mentioned here in a different response the "facts" with regards to the time of the impact by cross-referencing my experience and what I saw with the live vuideo/audio feed from Jim Miklaszewski report. This is only one small reason why I cannot take any of this crap seriously. I witnessed a small part of this thing and know beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, what time the building was hit. When I read about this Honecker lunatic and how she is changing this time of impact to match some wild theory about Bush and how the entire event played out, the credibility factor for your side goes to *zero* - beyond *zero* actually because the truth of what happens becomes a convienient casualty to what needs to happen to make this particular theory work.
And FYI *I* am not the one muddying the waters. It is all you moonbats with the tin-foil body suits (a tin-foil hat doesn't do these wild claims justice) that cannot seem to understand *anything* about what went on, hence the visceral desire to make up the most outlandish, wildest, wackiest (is there an award you guys get for the craziest theory?) and most unbelevievable concoction anyone anywhere have ever seen.
Yes, if one desires to write about the Pentagon in the ways you people are writing, it would help to have seen the place. They give tours many times each day, an hour walk-about through including most every section of the place. You would see there are NO surface-to-air missile batteries in the courtyard nor anywhere on the Pentagon Reservation (if you had ever visited you would see this). You would see the airliners oftentimes (based on the landing runway) flying *directly* over the building as they land at Reagan National, making ANY "auto'detect" or "auto-launch" idea/capability impossible without taking out 2-3 dozen airliners a day. You would see the openness with which the renovation work is being done - and how literally impossible it would be (or have been) to have "secretly placed pre-planted bombs" in the structure.
But, I have found that the wacky left prefers to latch onto whatever the grandest theory they can come up with is, irregardless of the facts available to an interested public, ignoring (interesting how "ignore" is a base word of "ignorance") and refusing to educate oneself in the ways available.
It makes for hilarious reading. I have frequented this particular blog via my reading of DU mostly because it echos the best wild-eyed, wacky-haired tin-foiled, outlandish freaky uber-conspiratorial theorist genre that you folks have to offer.
Whether or not I am "wanted" in this fora or in your world is academic. If spooked choses to ignore my comments and/or delete them, it will only feed the idea that the various differing points of view are persona-non-grata in your world and the challenge of alternative thought to your inane theories is a threat to your theses.
Go back and read my comment a while back post on conspiracy theories and why people come up with them. Do that and then get a grip on reality.
Truth be known, this is like a real-life Soap Opera - a digital horrible accident drive-by - you can't help but watching because it is so very surreal and something that you wish would not occur in life but you know it does, hence...you watch.
Am I running?
Hey, there's so much useful material above!
Post a Comment
<< Home