Enver Masud: Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’

Hard evidence exists that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — the laws of science refute the official account of 9/11

by Enver Masud


On December 17, 2010, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura — former Governor of Minnesota, examined the “idea that a missile or explosives — not a hijacked jetliner — damaged the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  I agree, and first wrote about it a few years ago.

I live less than a mile from the Pentagon, and began examining this issue in early 2002. The first question I asked when I looked at the Pentagon shortly after that tragic day in 2001 was, “where’s the plane?”

I began to suspect the official account of 9/11 when I learned that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down.

According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

In April 2002 I wrote an article voicing doubts about the official account of 9/11, and on March 7, 2005 rebutted the official account of 9/11 in an article “What Really Happened on September 11 at the Pentagon” — among the most visited at The Wisdom Fund website (TWF.org).

Most of what Jesse Ventura revealed on December 17, 2010, and more, is described in my March 7, 2005 article, and expanded upon in my September 11, 2010 article “Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report'” (original with exhibits, sources).

On September 12, 2001, news media had to have known that something was amiss when at the Dept. of Defense News Briefing “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757”, were not even mentioned, and reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

Eventually, when the security camera video of “Flight 77” was released by the Pentagon it included only one frame showing something — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” — moving parallel to the ground about 100 yards in front of the Pentagon.

This is the U.S. government’s evidence to support its claim that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and establishment news media have shown little interest in further investigation.

Indeed, the government’s own records — Pentagon transcripts, official reports, flight data recorder, and the laws of science belie “The 9/11 Commission Report”.

September 11, 2001: CNN News Report

Just minutes after the alleged attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported: “From my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”

McIntyre continued, “If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

This news report apparently was not rebroadcast, and a few years later McIntyre claimed on CNN (Wolf Blitzer’s show) that he had been taken out of context.

Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed “an unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameter” confirms McIntyre’s account.

Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”

Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): “As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.”

Flight 77 is alleged to have struck the Pentagon at 9:38.

A diagram (derived from the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”, Figure 7.9) indicates a “Slab deflected upward” which is consistent with either an explosion below the slab, or an upward blow by a hard object.

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) — former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, and head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence — stated in a video interview, “I don’t know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.”

Major Douglas Rokke, U.S. Army (ret) adds: “No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”

September 12, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not even mentioned.

How significant is this?

With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!

Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugher responded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”

When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher reponded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.”

The transcript reveals that reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

This year, the transcript of the September 12, 2001 News Briefing was removed from the DoD website.

September 15, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.

When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”

Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.

‘Pentagon Building Performance Report’

In January 2003, the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology released the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”.

Page 35 of this report reads: “An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.”

Had a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, its wings would probably have been found outside the Pentagon. But these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!

Photographs, and CNN’s Jamie McIntyre confirm this fact.

Page 36 of this report reads: “The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.

This implies that whatever struck the Pentagon, couldn’t have been a Boeing 757.

Page 39 of this report reads: “Most likely, the wings of the aircraft were severed as the aircraft penetrated the facade of the building. Even if portions of the wings remained intact after passing through the plane of the facade, the structural damage pattern indicates that the wings were severed before the aircraft penetrated more than a few dozen feet into the building.”

As previously noted, these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!

From the preceding it is clear that the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” — prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute, and released by the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology — contradicts the official account of 9/11.

‘Arlington County After-Action Report’

The “Arlington County After-Action Report” describes the occurrence of an event at the Pentagon minutes before the alleged strike of Flight 77, and the presence of Fort Myer Unit 161 at the Pentagon prior to impact.

Annex A, Page A-4 of this report states: “Captain Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when Flight #77 slammed into it, just beyond the heliport. Foam 161 caught fire and suffered a flat tire from flying debris. Firefighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace were outside the vehicle at impact and received burns and lacerations. . . . Captain Gilroy called the Fort Myer Fire Department, reporting for the first time the actual location of the crash.”

Did Fort Myer Unit 161 go the Pentagon following an explosion — prior to the alleged strike of Flight 77?

It is consistent with the reporter’s question at the September 12 News Briefing, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”?

It is consistent with April Gallop’s sworn complaint that “she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

It is consistent with military affairs journalist Barbara Honegger’s account of “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.”

Fort Myer Unit 161’s arrival at the Pentagon to put out a fire prior to the strike by “Flight 77” is not consistent with the official account of 9/11.

‘American Airlines’ Flight Data Recorder

Pilots for 9/11 Truth state: “video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder data released by the NTSB” (National Transportation Safety Board) pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. The “Pentagon Building Performance Report” states (page 14): “A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.”

On page 35 of this report we’re told, “The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab.”

However, the NTSB animation (January 2002), according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, shows an aircraft flying north of the Navy Annex, not leveling off, and being too high to have hit the Pentagon.

When confronted with this discrepancy, NTSB Chief Jim Potter said: “I have no comment on the existence of the discrepancies.”

Eyewitnesses state categorically that a plane (which they believed was Flight 77) flew north of the Citgo gas station (now the Navy Exchange) located west of the Pentagon on South Joyce Street at Columbia Pike, rather than flying south of the gas station as stated in official reports.

G-Force Would Have Destroyed the Boeing 757

Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclude: “Arlington’s unique topography and obstacles along American 77 ‘final leg’ to the Pentagon make this approach completely impossible”.

Flight 77 is alleged to have flown over Columbia Pike and the Virginia Department of Transportation communications tower located 1143 yards west of the Pentagon before striking the Pentagon at “530 miles per hour”.

The antenna on the VDOT tower has been determined to be 169 ft above the ground with a ground elevation of 135 feet (FCC Registration Number 1016111). The ground elevation of the Pentagon is 33 feet according to USGS.

This path would have taken Flight 77 south of the gas station at the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. Joyce Street, and over the intersection of Columbia Pike and Virginia Route 27.

Flight 77 would then have been over Pentagon grounds with about 500 feet remaining to level out and to strike the Pentagon “slightly below the second floor slab” at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”.

The Columbia Pike and VA-27 intersection presents a roughly 20 feet tall barrier in the alleged path of Flight 77.

According to the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” (page 14), “The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.”

Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer), Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity, at the point that it would have to transition from its downward flight to level flight.

With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have leveled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed at the intersection of Columbia Pike and VA-27. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of “Flight 77” — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation by lowering the height of “Flight 77” below that shown by the FDR. They lowered it to the top of the VDOT antenna.

With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 11.2 Gs. “11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip the aircraft apart” they wrote.

Impossible: Damage Path and Flight Path Aligned

With Flight 77 alleged to have struck the Pentagon at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”, the flight path and the damage path cannot possibly form a straight line.

Flying at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees” the Boeing 757’s starboard wing would have struck the west wall of the Pentagon before the port wing. This would cause the aircraft to veer to the right, and the damage path would be in line with the aircraft’s new heading — not with the aircraft’s heading prior to impact (assuming — miraculously — the plane was able to penetrate the C Ring).

However, the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” Figures 6.2 and 6.6 show that the flight path and damage path (damage path also illustrated in the “Arlington County After Action Report”, page 23) do form a straight line extending from the center-line of the fuselage of the aircraft to where the “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”.

The flight path and damage path depicted forming a straight line in Figures 6.2 and 6.6 violate the laws of science. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of “Flight 77” — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.

Therefore, what looks like a puff of smoke — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” in the security camera video, cannot possibly be a Boeing 757.


To conclude, the official account of Flight 77 — supported only by one frame from a security camera showing a puff of something approaching the Pentagon — is contradicted by the transcripts of Pentagon News Briefings conducted on September 12 and 15; by the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”; by the “Arlington County After-Action Report”; by the FBI’s exhibit on phone calls from Flight 77; and by the Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB.

The official account of Flight 77 contradicts the laws of science. Flight 77 could not have withstood the calculated G-force when it would have had to level out — about 100 yards before striking the Pentagon — with “the top of the fuselage of the aircraft . . . no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground”. The flight path of a Boeing 757 traveling at “530 miles per hour”, striking the Pentagon at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”, and the resulting damage path inside the Pentagon cannot possibly form a straight line as depicted in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

On September 10, 2001, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the Pentagon “cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions”. It is alleged that the section of the Pentagon destroyed on September 11, 2001 housed records of DoD spending, and the personnel for monitoring that spending.

Enver Masud, an engineer, served as Acting Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch at the U.S. Department of Energy, set up and directed the Operations Review Division at the Iowa Commerce Commission, and has consulted for the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank in Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia. His book “9/11 Unveiled” is a free download at The Wisdom Fund — http://www.twf.org

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on January 2, 2011, With Reads Filed under WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

39 Responses to "Enver Masud: Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’"

  1. dave revel  January 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    I mentioned it earlier but accidentally buried my comment in a reply. My thought was this: Could a missile have been launched from a 757 just moments before the plane soared away through the smoke above the Pentagon and out of sight (and mind) meanwhile leaving a devastating explosion and the appearance that the plane may have gone into the building? It did appear from some video footage of the towers that a missile of some kind was fired into the buildings just a fraction of a second before the planes impacted those buildings. I imagine the practical difficulties of crashing a plane into the desired part of the Pentagon would explain the reason for this tactic. I will be convinced otherwise only when one or more of the many CONFISCATED cctv tapes which will have clearly captured the truth for all to see have been released. Something tells me that we will never see those tapes, and I still have seen no explanation that makes sense as to why exactly we are deprived of this very crucial evidence. So rather than keep dancing around the same excuses as to why we have got it all wrong when we say that something iffy is going on here, just explain to me what the reason is for witholding the most obvious way of proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. As for Barbara Olsen, poor gal, she married an evil man and no mistake.

  2. Brian  January 4, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Most of the money probably went to Israel.

  3. dave revel  January 4, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    has anyone suggested the possibility of a missile launched FROM a 757 which then continued over the smoke, past the pentagon and vanished into the distance? just a thought, provoked by the appearance of some sort of device launched similarly into the towers a very small moment prior to the plane impacts.

  4. 2429019  January 4, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    well the goverment did what it waned to do misdirection they announced the day before 911 that they could not find 2.3 trillon dollars and the next day an explosion just happen to hit and kill all the people and computers that found that the 2.3 trillion could not be accounted for and the very next day an explosion just happened in that exact location now every one is trying to figuer out what caused the explosion while the 2.3 trillon dollars has just been uninvestigated and gone up in smoke still un accounted for where did the money go dose anyone know.

  5. neodsa  January 4, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    That is the clincher all right . The event should have been caught on video and if the video shows a 757 then it is in their own interests to release it and end the debate , but they don’t .

  6. Brian  January 4, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Besides the abundance of evidence I would like you and everyone else who believes a missile hit the Pentagon to think about the planning of the false flag.

    Do you really believe the plan would include a fly over of a passenger plane that hundreds of people would see and then hope some of the witnesses don’t see the plane fly away from the Pentagon? The plan included forcing the air traffic controllers, who watched the plane at the Pentagon on their radar screens, lie and state they didn’t see the plane fly away from the Pentagon? It’s a ridiculous plan. Did the plan include a technique for making the plane invisible?

    If you look at my links there are photographs of the plane wreckage including the tail. Did the plan include dragging out fake plane wreckage with a vast number of Pentagon employees and other people at the scene who might witness the process? Also the people involved in the staged event may in the future talk to a reporter about what really happened. An absurd plan.

    Some people actually believe there was no plane wreckage at the scene, thus the plan was to use a missile, tell everyone that a plane hit the Pentagon and provide no plane wreckage at the scene of a major crime scene. That’s a ridiculous plan.

    The plan included convincing people at the Pentagon to lie and state they saw a plane flying very low at the Pentagon and smacking the Pentagon. It’s a lousy plan.

    The planners hoped that nobody would notice a missile soaring across the sky. If you have evidence it’s impossible for humans to see the missile which they supposedly used please provide it.

    The plan included getting rid of the plane and its passengers by perhaps dumping it in the ocean and hope no air traffic controllers figured out what happened. It’s very risky.

    The plan supposedly included identifying all but one passenger with forensics and hope that the applicable people involved with this portion of the investigation go along with the charade. That’s very risky.

    The planners decided to take their chances that government experts would’t notice the signs of a missile strike or would lie. That’s very risky.

    If you look at it from a planning perspective it’s extremely unlikely they used a missile. It’s a lousy, highly risky plan. The plan would never have been approved.

    It would have been substantially less risky to put explosives in the plane or place explosives in the Pentagon. That portion of the Pentagon was renovated shortly before 911. They could have easily put explosives in the building, which may have actually happened. It’s hard to believe a plane made out of lightweight material could have created the damage done at the Pentagon. The hole could have been created by a stout engine but I’m not sure.

    In conclusion, nobody would have made such a ridiculous, highly risky plan.

    For those that don’t think a 757 could have made the maneuvers think about a plane swap.

  7. Greg Bacon  January 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    You should go take a look at Mike Rivero’s nonsense. It is one of the most specious pieces of doubletalk and extended ad hominem I have ever seen

    ‘Mikey’ lives in one of the world’s most expensive places to reside, Hawaii, yet claims he has a job 2,400 miles away, in Hollywood?

    If ‘Mikey’ was a true threat in exposing the Crimes of Apartheid Israel and the REAL perps behind 9/11, do you really believe he’d still have that cushy Hollywood job?

  8. Penumbra  January 4, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    laughs on those who still subscribe to the factually impossible nonsense you extol above, Brian.

    This matter has been more than sufficiently detailed with proper analysis. “Witness” testimony of dubious origin and lacking any scrutiny into background dealings of these individuals (payments, coercion, associations with vested interests in the 911 official propaganda, etc) loses all credibility in the face of hard scientific and technological fact.

  9. J. Bruce Campbell  January 4, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Pretty sound conclusions. Flight 77 is the lynch-pin for the official 911 legend, based on Barbara Olsen’s calls to her husband, which the FBI now admits never occurred. I’m bothered that the remains of Olsen and her fellow passengers were never found in the Pentagon, or any 757 parts.

    Maybe the best explanation of the Pentagon attack is by Dimitri Khalezov, who states from his former position in the Soviet nuclear weapons program that the attack was by a Russian Granit cruise missile taken from the wrecked Kursk submarine. He also explains that the only way for the three WTC buildings to be turned to powder was by nuclear demolition, done by the firm of Controlled Demolition, Inc. He credits the Mossad with the entire operation, run by Mike Harari.


    Only the seven ton steel Granit could penetrate six outer walls of the three rings and punch the relatively small round holes in those walls. Not possible by an aluminum airplane.

  10. Brian  January 4, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Thanks for the laugh.

  11. Muhammad  January 4, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    To speak truth is difficult in dictatorships but has not been any different in US the so called place for free speech.Blame Goebller but keep on repeating lies frequently and people will believe you.And one sees it on , all the time at Govt and corporations controlled media.Therefore “we the people” those Americans who have to face the nasty effects of US Govt’s policies on US citizens world over should speak and expose the coverups and conspiracy theories spread by govt and corporations.

  12. Greg Bacon  January 4, 2011 at 9:10 am

    “There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile”. …

    “I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.”

    Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)

    Hani Hanour, the alleged hijacker that supposedly flew one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated planes, the Boeing 757, couldn’t even learn how to fly one of the world’s smallest and simplest planes, a single-engine Cessna.

    Duncan Hastie, the school’s owner, finds [Hani] Hanjour a “weak student” who is “wasting our resources.” According to Hastie, “He was not able to fly solo in a small plane, which is equivalent to getting out of a parking space [in a car] and stopping.” Hanjour returns to CRM in December 1997 with two friends: Bandar Al Hazmi, a Saudi like Hanjour, and Rayed Abdullah of Qatar. (There apparently is no family relationship between Bandar Al Hazmi and the two Alhazmi 9/11 hijackers.) Hanjour takes about three lessons, but still fails to complete the coursework necessary for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft. Subsequently, he phones the school about twice per year requesting more lessons, but, according to Hastie, “We didn’t want him back at our school because he was not serious about becoming a good pilot.”

  13. Penumbra  January 4, 2011 at 4:13 am

    You are still clinging to the impossible on the contrivance of engineered planted “witness” testimony vs hard science.

    A commercial airliner simply CANNOT have flown low enough to have not only hit the first floor of the Pentagon (without having buried its engines in the front long and plowed a furrow visible to all, but also at the angle claimed, without:

    A: having broken up from the abovementioned g-force well before impact

    B: having literally deafened any who claim to have been on scene

    C: having thrown those mentioned in point B like rag dolls far and wide and shattering all their bones and likely killing them, thus leaving no witnesses to claim anything

    D: Tossing any vehicles beneath it equally hither and yon from the force of the wing vortexes

    E: Wasn’t a plane, could not have been a plane. Simple as, end of.

    It was a missile that did the damage, any plane in the vicinity was there for bait and switch purposes only as also described by numerous “witnesses”.

    So kindly stop believing fairy tales and endorsing the “official” coverstory lie. Reason and fact are not on the side of the line you and Brian refuse to relinquish.

  14. Brian  January 4, 2011 at 2:02 am

    Hello Enver,

    There’s an article recently written by McIntyre which includes a few of his Pentagon photographs. The photograph of the plethora of small pieces is intriguing and seems to support his position.

    He seems to go along with the whole official story. He doesn’t like 911 alternative theory people; perhaps because he works for a Zionist controlled network. My extensive research indicates 911 was a Mossad operation. Yes, they had help from a few traitors in our government.

    Have you read Christopher Bollyn’s free book on 911 which indicates 911 was done by the Mossad and some Zionists? Here you go:


    Bollyn is a sagacious 911 investigator. He is a journalist.

    You mentioned my qualifications. I prefer to stay in the background. Over the years I have been asked on several occasions by 911 journalists as well as a high ranking former CIA official to write a book on the Mossad/911 connections. I’m not going to write it because, essentially I would only be preaching to the choir due to the Zionist control of the publishing industry. I’m telling you this so perhaps you will look into the Mossad 911 connections. If you have, I still suggest you read Bollyn’s book.

    Perhaps one day you, Gordon Duff and I can have lunch in the cafeteria at Gordon’s favorite Bulgarian vegetable canning facility. If Gordon reads this post hopefully he will smile.

    My “airplane hit the Pentagon” post wasn’t intended to offend you. You have done extensive research and provided some intriguing information.



  15. Jeff  January 4, 2011 at 1:56 am

    I am asking everyone here who believes something other than an American Airlines plane hit the pentagon to please at least take a look at the following information;


    more –



    Thank you,

    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” – John Maynard Keynes


  16. Brian  January 3, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    John, you’re ignorant. People like you make the Mossad smile.

  17. Gordon Duff  January 3, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    anyone ever hear of bad manners?

  18. John  January 3, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Why would total BS and being a scientific illiterate get you banned?
    You know you are a shill. Give it up.
    Money can buy words but not the truth.

  19. Enver Masud  January 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    One more thought. I have the only video I’ve seen from Jamie McIntyre in my article at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html. Surely, McIntyre and CNN must have tons of photos and videos of what they saw at the Pentagon on 9/11. Why don’t they release them? Why haven’t we seen them on CNN? Perhaps for the same reason they didn’t show the video of WTC7 collapsing after 9/11 while they showed the collapse of WTC1&2 dozens, if not hundreds of times.

  20. Enver Masud  January 3, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    I asked Gordon Duff to post it — I was having difficulty with the post.

    Your “critique” picks on what I call the least reliable evidence (my articles have links to eyewitnesses that you cite). My conclusions DO NOT depend upon the eyewitnesses.

    I you’re a serious critic examine all the evidence I offer — the sources, transcripts, photos, videos, official reports, etc are at our website http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html — otherwise it is not worth anyone’s time to listen to what you have to say.

  21. Maturin42  January 3, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Before you speak further on this matter, you need to visit http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html and watch the film from beginning to end. In addition, watch the interview material with the taxi driver.

    If the 13+ well-placed and highly credible accounts, in their own words and on film, are not convincing to you, how many such witnesses WOULD it take? Is it reasonable that THOSE witnesses are all mistaken as to what they saw?

    Then look at the quality of the accounts that are used by the critics of this work. You will find an amorphous pile of statements and quotes taken from various sources which are attributed to unverified persons, or people whose location is not identified, or who are known to be in a position from which they could not possibly have seen anything relevant. Judge for yourself who is most credible.

    Much is made of the fact that most of the witnesses cited by CIT believe the aircraft hit the building. It’s understandable. The most likely explanation is that some talented illusion designers went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that anyone looking at the Arlington tableau reached that same conclusion. At this point I ask you to answer these questions.

    1. After listening to the witness accounts, do you believe the aircraft they saw passed on the North side of the CITGO gas station inbound to the Pentagon?

    If the answer is “yes”, you must then rely on deductive reasoning and physics to reach a conclusion about the larger question, did it then hit the Pentagon?

    What none of the 13 witnesses knew, and what any pilot or other person knowledgeable of aerodynamics and aircraft knows from looking at the layout of the relevant artifacts around the Pentagon, is that a transport-class aircraft could not possibly have maneuvered to transition to a course on which it could have struck the light poles 1-5 that were claimed to have been hit by the plane, appear in the 5 frames of video released to the public – low and level across the lawn, contact the trailer and create a path of destruction through three rings of the Pentagon. In addition, any serious attempt to maneuver the aircraft to achieve that flight path would very likely have resulted in pulling the wings off the aircraft and crashing well short of the building, but at minimum, the resulting “whifferdill” would have been the most dramatic detail reported by the witnesses, who only described the aircraft as banking slightly to the right. In no ways would it be compatible with the damage inflicted on on the building.

    2. Given that the trail of destruction could not be attributed to the aircraft seen inbound, what must it have done?

    3. What would have been the likely interpretation of witnesses who see the aircraft approach the building followed by a tremendous explosion?

    4. Why would a Pentagon policeman on a loading dock outside the section adjacent to the damaged section report seeing, immediately after the explosion, an airliner-type plane over the parking lot flying away?

    5 What is the most reasonable explanation for the words of Lloyde England, the taxi driver, particularly now that you know that his account of being struck by light pole number 1 could not possibly have happened as he says? Was he trying to qualify or exculpate his part in the staging by calling himself a “small man” and saying that 9/11 was for the wealthy? Is it reasonable that an anonymous man in a white van stopped and helped him remove the street light from his windshield (without scratching his spotless hood!) then drove off without saying a word?

    CIT has been under vicious attack by some others in the 9/11 Truth movement who have attempted to discredit them and their work by any means possible. I am personally at a loss to explain why that would be. These attacks have intensified as more people have watched NSA. I will not attempt to guess at their motives, at least not in public. They have to answer for themselves. Part of committing to seek the truth about 9/11 means you follow the evidence. That, and only that, led me to my conclusions about the Pentagon.

  22. Budreaux  January 3, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    This is correct. There is also a frame missing from the clip that was released. There is also evidence that the released pics were photoshoped.

  23. Bruce  January 3, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Flight recorder data analyzed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth also found that the cockpit door was never opened during the flight. So how did hijackers take over the plane?

    The entire 9/11 story is a tissue of lies.

  24. Brian  January 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    First of all why does your post state it’s from Gordon Duff?

    I stand behind the McIntyre quotes I mention here. They are devastating to the missile crowd. Hundreds of people saw the airplane fly to the Pentagon nobody including the air traffic controllers saw it fly away. Even if a missile is going 100 mph faster than a 757 people should be able to see it.

    It is intriguing why the Pentagon has not released the video tapes. Perhaps because of a plane swap? Perhaps because the skills required to fly the plane so low to the ground were way beyond the inept Hani Hanjour and thus the Muslim smashed the plane into the Pentagon story would be be shown to be ridiculous? Perhaps because people would realize the plane had to have been flown by remote control?

    I have done extensive research over the years on 911.
    BTW, 911 was a Mossad operation. Here’s the compelling information:



  25. Gordon Duff  January 3, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Brian, nothing that you have stated is new, I have examined it, and
    taken it for WHAT IT’S WORTH.

    Regarding McIntyre, his most honest account of what happened was on the
    scene immediately after the event. His later interview with CNN Acnchor
    Judy Woodruff is less reliable. McIntryre’s accounts in 2006 are
    consistent with the news media coalescing around the official account.
    In any case, the “plane” referred to by McIntyre could have been a
    missile. We need hard evidence from a forensic team.

    Regarding the photograps virtually all of them, and more, are available
    via the link “original with exhibits, sources”. I have examined the
    photographs, and considered them along with other evidence I mention in
    my article. Considering the time stamp on your comment, you couldn’t
    possibly have examined all the evidence I offer.

    The U.S. Department of Justice has yet to respond to an October 24, 2005
    appeal, filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), for 85
    videotapes of the September 11, 2001 crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

    As for the “757 aeorobatics” I have reviewed the simulation of the
    Flight Data Recorder data provided by NTSB to Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
    That data shows a plane flying over the Pentagon, not hitting it, and
    the NTSB refuses to explain the discrepancy — I have the audio
    recording of the the conversation with the NTSB.

    All evidence is not equal. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable.
    If used it has to be considered along with the likely reliability of the
    witness. While I cite those whom I consider reliable witnesses, my
    conclusions are independent of their testimony. The laws of science are
    supreme until disproved, and the one’s I use in my article have
    withstood centuries of scientific scrutiny.

    Crusie missiles fly about 100 mph faster than a Boeing 757. The Pentagon
    could clear up the mystery by releasing the photographs, videos, etc.
    Instead, they refuse to answer critics of the official account. That
    alone says a lot.

    Finally, your comment if presented at a scientific forum or courtroom
    would require that you tell us about your qualifications to speak to the
    issues you mention. Mine are available via the link under my name.


  26. Strawman  January 3, 2011 at 10:13 am

    This is the question that I return to time and time again. Surely proving a plane should be the easiest thing to do. Release actual video of a plane strike. Or are we to believe that an average Wal-mart has better surveillance than the Pentagon? If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

  27. Peter Wakefield Sault  January 3, 2011 at 9:51 am

    McKintyre’s statement was in response to a question from the studio anchor (“Judy”) in which she stated that an “eyewitness” claimed that “the plane landed short of the Pentagon”.

    You should go take a look at Mike Rivero’s nonsense. It is one of the most specious pieces of doubletalk and extended ad hominem I have ever seen.

  28. Enver Masud  January 3, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Evidence has to be ranked. In science eyewitness testimony is amongst the least reliable, and the laws of science the most reliable. In between we have all the other evidence I have laid out.

    If you just look at the terrain up close, and envision flying a plane along the path the government says it took, it’s incredible. And if these guys could were so smart as to pull off 9/11, why fly in along the most difficult path?

  29. Peter Wakefield Sault  January 3, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Both the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks were aware that the Earth is a globe hanging in space. Why else would Eratosthenes have attempted to measure its diameter?

  30. Ingrid B  January 3, 2011 at 4:38 am

    read an article recently by Steve Lendman, in which he states that, by law, citizens have the right to disband their government if they believe that the said government is not acting in their best interests.. I did send the article in an e-mail to VT..

  31. foo  January 3, 2011 at 3:51 am

    A quick aside: In May, 2006, when Jamie McIntyre was doing his “quoted out of context” song and dance, the government re-released the blurry security camera images.

    I don’t know whether or not one can obtain the original frames to confirm what I’m about to post. Here goes anyway:

    When those frames were originally released, the date/time stamp was September 12th in the afternoon, not September 11th in the morning.

    When the frames we re-released, the date/time stamp had magically disappeared.

    It probably doesn’t mean anything. It’s unlikely that there was anything nefarious about it. They just wanted to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that their clock was wrong, right?

  32. foo  January 3, 2011 at 3:36 am


    It is Jamie McIntyre who is quoting himself out of context. He left off his last sentence:

    …”There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”

    Not “near the Pentagon,” Brian, “into the side of the Pentagon.”

    Moreover, visit YouTube and view that CNN clip. Behind Jamie McIntyre, you see the lawn and the Pentagon, and there are no large pieces of debris.

  33. Thomas  January 3, 2011 at 3:13 am

    So why, with all the security videos that were supposedly confiscated in the area, can’t they show us just one picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Surely the few frames they released doesn’t prove a plane hit the pentagon. Seems a pretty reasonable request don’t you think?

  34. Brian  January 2, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    Hello Enver Masud,

    There’s plenty of evidence that a large plane hit the Pentagon. I have placed it here several time at Veterans Today but since you have done a lot of research and provide some interesting information I thought I would share some of the information with you.

    Let’s take a look at some of the quotes from the CNN reporter named McIntyre you mention:

    I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

    I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage, a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene.

    I saw thousands of shards of metal, of pieces of the plane all over the driveway. I didn’t pick up any of them or touch any of them, but I saw them everywhere. And again, took some pictures of them.

    MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I — myself — appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon

    Referring to the idea that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, McIntyre stated, “Having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that’s nonsense…Click here for sound clip I had a camera with me, I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage of …a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene…”

    Photographs supporting the large plane hit the Pentagon analysis. The first one includes insightful comments by Michael Rivero:




    757 aerobatics:


    Eyewitnesses that saw a large plane near the Pentagon and hit the Pentagon:



    The first one has an extensive list of witnesses.

    Flight controllers watched the plane make its maneuvers at the Pentagon and none of them said it flew away. Hundreds of people saw the large plane fly to the Pentagon and nobody saw it fly away. For those that don’t think a 757 could have made the maneuvers they ought to consider a plane swap.

    I am not sure how easy it is to spot a missile soaring across the sky but nobody reported seeing a missile near the Pentagon. One witness said he saw a plane and it was acting like a missile and the person’s comment gets taken out of context.

    The round hole in the Pentagon was either made by one of the engines or by a shaped charge put in the wall by the Mossad during the renovation which occurred shortly be for the 911 attacks.

    The government says it identified all the passengers except one with forensics. That a big lie to try to get a way with. Too many witnesses involved.

    Enver you could be right, but with all due respect I disagree that a missile hit the Pentagon.

    I hope reposting this information doesn’t get me banned. 🙂

  35. ulysees  January 2, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    Clearly now is the time for we the people to unite and bring about “Regime Change” here in
    America. We’ve ALL been aware of the lies and the cover-up of this false flag event and many,many
    others brought about by the terrorists within our gates, for years and years. We’re such nice people, oh, they wouldn’t do that to us…
    They would, they have and they continue to do so. Through their complicity they have forfeited their right to govern. Before they destroy ever more of this Planet it isOUR Right to bring down this house of cards. The corporations must be brought to heel, the war-profiteers and banksters et al have to be sidelined and the military brought home. The bases worldwide have been used to foment treachery and larceny on a Grande scale at the point of a gun.

    Its up to us to confront this lunacy for what it is. Exposure of 9/11 followed by the terrorist HQ of
    Tel Aviv are the obvious trump cards that need to be played… stick to the game plan and don’t get side tracked. Let’s take them on. Its time, enough of this unnecessary suffering.

  36. NightFlyer  January 2, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Science Vs. Man – very powerful men that is, will always win out, at least in the short term. In 1492 it was discovered the world was not flat, yet, it took centuries for that fact to be accepted, and expalined, by the religious (superstitious) and powerful ones.

    I find it interesting that men of science have to work so hard to prove this case example (at the level of an arguement) when the facts do speak clearly.

    So the issue becomes one of “beleive the lie or die”. I’m also sure that in time a law will be passed that anyone who speaks or writes that this event did not occur will be encarerated; much like another event in the history of WW II in Europe.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network