The Pentagon Page 3
October 7, 2003; supplemented on October 8, 23, and November 27, 2003 at the end of the file.
/Divers/PENTAGATE/Pentagate3.htm#29_5_12
These images are taken from Eric Bart’s website, which presents us with a very informative document in English. If you speak English, be sure to check it out:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/ (archive from April 5, 2005)
The text on this site is in English. It mentions numerous viewpoints held by people who increasingly doubt that the aircraft completely disappeared right after impact—as if it had “dematerialized.” In the following composite image, the aircraft is shown approaching:
1 – Reconstruction of the Boeing’s approach
The following images are documents showing the aircraft’s trajectory:
2 – Trajectory of the Boeing’s approach
3 – Trajectory of the Boeing’s approach. Where were the photographers located who took photos from the ground?
3bis – Flight paths of the “hijacked” planes.
4 – Simulation of the impact: the aircraft, actual size, just before it completely folded up, wings and tail section included, before disappearing into the building along with its fuel.
5 – Viewed from another angle
6 – Finally, the impact, viewed from the side. Note the height of the tail section, “folded” or “crushed.”
7 – Photo of an American Airlines 757 in flight
The Réseau Voltaire site did excellent work on the entire 9/11 issue. Rather than reiterating their own arguments, we refer readers to their commentary on computer simulations conducted at Purdue University in the United States:
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article8737.html (archive from May 24, 2025)
The goal was to simulate the impact of a Boeing on the Pentagon. This study ended in complete failure; it’s surprising it was even published. The data used for the experiment was flawed. Supposedly, the aircraft was supposed to penetrate a building lacking any facade and devoid of engines. Yet “anti-conspiracy media” widely reported on this research. All this demonstrates, if there was any need to prove it, how tightly controlled our media are. At this point, we can no longer speak of journalists being ignorant, stupid, or stubbornly denying obvious facts. This is deliberate disinformation policy; a clear example occurred during a broadcast on Arte on April 13, 2004, in the series Thema—undoubtedly the most horrifying documentary I’ve ever seen on television, one that utterly disgraces journalism as a profession (since its purpose is to inform the public, not deceive them).
New message from a reader preferring to remain anonymous:
There are other absurdities regarding testimonies from September 11, 2001. Notably, the use of cell phones on planes supposedly allowed passengers to realize their plane had been hijacked. I’ve always wondered how a cell phone could connect and be tracked via mobile networks (PCS or GSM) inside a plane flying at unknown altitude at 900 km/h. I work for a mobile operator; I hope to ask a network specialist about this. Meanwhile, searching Google for links relating to cell phones and the 9/11 attacks, I found this: “How do we know planes were hijacked? The only ‘evidence’ consists of calls made by some passengers. Barbara Olson, a CNN commentator aboard Flight AA77 (Pentagon flight), made a crucial call to her husband Theodore Olson, U.S. Attorney General. But Barbara supposedly forgot her cell phone and credit cards at home; nevertheless she managed to make a call via PCV to her husband. Technically, however, using in-seat phones requires inserting a credit card beforehand; thus such a call would be impossible. Moreover, it seems odd that such vital evidence comes from someone close to the authorities. Given the obsession with secrecy everywhere, it’s conceivable this was a deliberate leak. As for other calls supposedly made via cell phones, it’s doubtful they could occur from a plane at 10,000 meters altitude traveling at 800 km/h.”
The quoted text can be found here: http://membres.lycos.fr/wotraceafg/etrange.htm
On this page you’ll see you’re not alone in noticing the inconsistencies in the official investigation.
Once I learn more about the feasibility of cellular communication on planes, I’ll share that information. The pieces of this puzzle are gradually falling into place, revealing its enormity.
Something did strike the Pentagon on September 11. But, like Marc Milanini, I find it harder and harder to believe it was a Boeing 757 belonging to American Airlines.
October 7, 2003: Globalization of State Reason
I managed to speak on the phone with Thierry Meyssan; it was very enlightening. I asked him permission to reproduce his statements; this is what resulted.
Technically speaking, the issue of cell phone usage remains unresolved. On commercial flights there are several ways to use cell phones. Some independent, high-performance models exist, though they’re rare. On certain planes, phones can be used where payments are made via credit card. In both cases, these calls leave traces via billing records (charged to the passenger’s credit card). Meyssan says no such traces have been found. Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine sent a team to the U.S. for two months to seek evidence meant to “debunk Meyssan’s theories.” Naturally, they asked similar questions; everywhere they got closed doors. “Investigating 9/11 events is sacrilegious or... journalistically unacceptable.”
Regarding lampposts near the Pentagon, nothing has been clarified either; it’s known that some lampposts were removed prior to September 11 for construction purposes. In every scenario, U.S. authorities did everything possible to erase all traces and prevent any investigation (for instance, by quickly rebuilding the destroyed section of the Pentagon; reconstruction began two days later, wiping everything away.)
Regarding the crash of one plane over Pennsylvania, it’s been shown that it exploded mid-air, scattering debris over a wide area. A smoking crater was found, yet no debris at all. This is bizarre. An aircraft exploding should scatter fragments having enough mass and energy to create a crater. Consider a spectacular crash: the Space Shuttle’s destruction. Bodies, countless objects, nearly intact components were found on the ground; yet no crater existed. Everything related to this crater was immediately classified under “defense secrecy.” No investigations allowed; no one allowed entry.
I confirmed that reconstruction efforts at the Pentagon began two days after the event. Bulldozers brought gravel to cover the grass, “to stabilize the ground and allow construction equipment access.” During reconstruction, a full seventh of the building was demolished (“for technical reasons”), erasing all traces of the “crash.” Amidst worldwide shock following these events, it seemed investigating or merely observing these facts was “inappropriate.”
There’s something irrational here. The U.S. government could easily have exploited this event media-wise, showing images of “horribly mutilated bodies sealed in bags,” objects, even the shoe of one of the murdered secretaries. They could have filmed investigators extracting debris from the wreckage, even minuscule fragments. But what can be filmed when it’s a matter of “dematerialization”?
Most importantly, Meyssan’s personal impressions matter. He hasn’t spoken to all foreign ministries, but many top-level government representatives and intelligence agents. Those countries contacted weren’t necessarily “Arab or anti-American”; there were all sorts represented.
In embassies of major nations, officials aren’t foolish enough to accept the official story; too many inconsistencies exist. These people also possess their own intelligence sources. According to Meyssan, they’re all convinced this wasn’t simply a terrorist attack. Yet nobody acts; many reasons prevent them from doing so. For nations close to the U.S., it’s fear of destabilization akin to a shockwave affecting everyone. For anti-American states like Arab nations (some even considered requesting an official investigation or filing complaints at the Hague Tribunal), “J.R. Ewing” was extremely clear: threats of economic sanctions, physical harm, even war followed. Exact wording (regarding Iraq War): “Do you want to be next?”
This threat must be taken seriously. The U.S., facing global discredit and domestic crisis, wouldn’t hesitate at anything. Some countries possessing evidence accepted huge sums to stay silent (via aid, etc.).
Meyssan: “Current situation resembles Munich before WWII.”
In reality, there exists a kind of collusion among states, which day by day fabricates “the truth” (just as U.S., British, Russian official narratives eventually converged on the Kursk incident; the motto being “no waves,” suitable for a shipwreck scenario).
Meyssan lacks “university degrees” or “technical expertise.” Thus, in France where “experts” are highly valued, his words “carry no weight.” He’s “a minor journalist trying to gain fame through publicity” (even risking his life doing so; for French journalists comfortably ensconced in their chairs, this is insignificant). French press conduct defies imagination; no journalist bothered to investigate independently; no debate emerged. French media refuses to discuss this due to feared consequences. Too many elements suggest an investigation is warranted. Increasingly, I realize French journalism is utterly worthless; it’s only now we begin to grasp this. Just watch TV or read Augereau’s recent article in Le Monde praising the Megajoule project. This is gossip journalism, recycling news from wire services or reporting to please those in power. It’s journalism where “occasional venting” is permitted, but never going too far. Cases always end in acquittals or well-paid prison sentences (many French would say “at that rate, I’d happily spend three months, even a year, behind bars”).
Meyssan: “You can’t make a donkey drink if it’s not thirsty; we’re up against walls.” I agree; this indifference stems from fear—fear of destabilization, chaos. Imagining 9/11 as a “monstrous hoax” is akin to convincing modern Catholics that the Pope might be part of the Mafia, appointed by it, ordering multiple murders. This is “State Reason on a global scale” or “Globalization of State Reason.”
November 6, 2003: Another French-language site showing new photos with commentary, created by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/francais.html (archive from January 6, 2006)
I found some photos previously shared with me eight months ago; they supposedly show parts of “the plane” entering the Pentagon. But we don’t know who took them or how.
This is supposedly a landing gear leg.
A wheel
Oddest is a tire supposedly ejected from the building (recall that if a plane struck the Pentagon, its landing gear should have retracted). It indeed looks like an airplane tire. Where is it located? Unknown.
Yet how can this tire remain almost intact amid debris resembling confetti? Meanwhile, passengers’ bodies vanished entirely. What happened to seats and all other plane components? On one hand, a plane’s structure is incredibly complex; on the other, some objects appear virtually untouched.
The following photo is even more suspicious:
Half a tire (arrow) supposedly inside the building, amidst “confetti”
Notice how debris is “aligned”; behind it, pillars seem intact. What does this mean? Either these are parts of the fuselage, meaning where are the bodies? Or this is evidence of a runaway engine; why would it carry a tire? Why haven’t any reports surfaced? Why haven’t journalists, under police supervision, filmed the site thoroughly? If this truly was a Boeing crash, why would authorities fear anything?
I suggested to Meyssan launching an international petition demanding investigation into 9/11 events. If governments, intellectuals, journalists, scientists won’t act—because none have courage or honesty—maybe ordinary citizens can muster enough numbers to sway opinion?
Truly, it’s miraculous that someone like Meyssan managed to publish his books. Otherwise, these facts would’ve faded into oblivion.
October 9, 2003: Problem of black boxes relating to Pennsylvania crash.
Source: http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Front%20Page/9-11_black_boxes_.htm
According to this source, none of the eight black boxes from all four planes involved in 9/11 have been recovered, including that supposedly belonging to the Pennsylvania plane. Here’s general info on black boxes:
These devices record crew conversations and all cockpit noises. Typically, the microphone is placed above the windshield between pilots; many characteristic sounds can be recorded: warning signals, landing gear deployment noise, etc. Twenty-eight key parameters are logged: time, altitude, speed, direction, etc. Three hundred signals indicate condition of various systems: flaps, autopilot, fire alarms, etc. Two independent black boxes exist; one is located at the rear, usually least damaged in crashes. They provide all data needed to determine crash circumstances. Specifications include:
25 hours operation time.
Recording of 300 parameters.
Impact tolerance: 3400 G
Fire resistance: 1100°C for 30 minutes.
Water resistance: 7000 meters depth.
Tracking via 37.5 KHz transmission.
Battery life: 6 years.
Thus, these boxes should withstand any crash. Some have been recovered under terrible conditions; the memory storage unit (CSMU) is practically indestructible, encased in steel and fireproof material. It can survive 2000°F heat for an hour, a month underwater, and exposure to many chemicals. Shock tolerance remains 3400 G.
Yet regarding Pennsylvania crash: no debris whatsoever was found; only a crater. Another “plane that vanished.” Again, “State Reason” prevented journalists and investigators from examining the site. If this was a real crash (with plane descending vertically), how is it possible no debris remained? Remember, black boxes are designed to survive such conditions.
NASA conducted tests in the 1940s involving piloted aircraft. On this site you’ll find video footage of a plane whose engines touched ground while still airborne; right afterward, jet fuel ignited in a massive yellow fireball. This document contradicts claims that fuel didn’t ignite instantly at Pentagon impact. Readers may draw their own conclusions.
November 6, 2003: Black boxes and Pennsylvania crash.
Recall the fourth plane, from which passengers supposedly called “deciding to act.” How? Using cell phones on planes is problematic at such altitudes and speeds; how could calls be connected? Meyssan informed me that U.S. planes have systems allowing passengers to use seat-mounted phones by paying via credit card; calls are then routed via satellite network. This needs clarification. Also, German Der Spiegel reporters seeking proof contradicting Meyssan’s theories got nowhere; authorities refused to provide documentation on telephone calls between passengers and relatives. Such evidence would appear on bills; yet none surfaced. Apparently, this information came from someone close to power; its release seems intentional. Regarding other calls supposedly from cell phones: unlikely they could occur at 10,000 meters altitude and 800 km/h speed.
Meyssan noted that this plane seemingly vanished mid-air, not crashed. To achieve that, it must’ve been carefully rigged with explosives at multiple locations. Even a suitcase bomb wouldn’t suffice; besides, black boxes should’ve survived. Furthermore, terrorists couldn’t have destroyed them mid-flight. And why would they target a plane carrying civilians?
This scenario reminds me of a 1961 visit to the U.S. I saw soldiers treating locals with utter contempt; one sergeant ordered a terrified Iraqi family out of their home, claiming it was “requisitioned.” He threatened to shoot anyone resisting. No legal recourse existed; police ignored pleas. Later, I saw footage of Marines demolishing buildings with bulldozers; no trial followed. Today, similar scenes occur in Iraq; journalists are silenced. Clearly, the U.S. practices state terrorism.
November 27, 2003
I watched two programs recently. One showed Marines from the 81st Airborne Division—elite troops famed for Normandy landings—patrolling a city where regular soldiers dared not venture outside armored vehicles. Fear permeated everywhere. Suicide rates among U.S. troops now exceed Vietnam levels. One sergeant, leading young Marines, stormed a house; finding no occupants, he ordered furniture tossed outside and walls breached. His troops followed, firing rifles. No resistance existed; the owner returned, horrified. The sergeant declared the house “requisitioned.” No compensation offered; the family faced homelessness. Another report showed a Marine commander ordering destruction of nearby buildings; his troops complied without hesitation.
Such cruelty typifies U.S. conduct. On 9/11, if this was truly a terrorist plot, why would perpetrators act so recklessly? Logic suggests remote-controlled aircraft, possibly armed with missiles, could achieve same results with minimal casualties. Yet official story claims hijackers manually piloted planes, risking death themselves. This defies reason.
April 19, 2004
I found a video on Sandia Labs’ site, depicting a Phantom IV fighter crashing into a concrete bunker. Speed was 890 km/h; fuel tanks held water instead of kerosene. Result: engines caused most damage; bunker partially collapsed. No mention of “Delroux effect” here. See Jean-Sylvain Delroux’s interpretation.
May 15, 2008: Video showing a remotely piloted Boeing 707 crashing with full fuel tanks:
May 29, 2012 (!....)
Epilogue
Summary of all “Pentagate” pages
Back to Updates Back to Guide Back to Home
Number of views since October 6, 2003: