November 15, 2010
By Craig McKee
It seemed that they would confirm for the world that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 just as the government said. But they might just have done the opposite.
“They” are the five light poles that lay on the ground after allegedly being knocked over by Flight 77 in the seconds before it is supposed to have hit the Pentagon.
The reason the existence of these poles is helpful in questioning the official story is that they provide us with an exact flight path that the plane would have to have taken if indeed it hit the building. If the flight path had deviated even by a small amount, the plane would not have hit these poles.
So is it possible that the actual flight path was different from the one outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report? That may depend on who you believe. The film National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team makes the case that the plane that people saw flying near the ground and heading straight for the Pentagon that morning was well to the north of where it would have to have been to hit the light poles.
And if it missed the polls, how did they fall? And if the plane didn’t it hit them, did it hit anything? This is known as the “flyover” theory. It suggests that the plane arrived at the building but flew over it as the explosion in the building gave the appearance of an impact. This theory is very controversial within the 9/11 Truth movement, and I’ll look more closely at this in a future post.
The film makes its case with several apparently credible witnesses, including two Pentagon cops (Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks) who were at the Citgo gas station across from the Pentagon. These two, along with an employee of the station, explained unhesitatingly that the plane they saw was to the left (north) of the station. This would mean that it could not have hit the light poles.
These three (along with several others interviewed who agreed on the flight path) didn’t even know that their versions were incompatible with the official path at the time of the interviews. They all recounted the event in considerable detail and with complete certainty.
If you doubt whether these witnesses are credible, I’d suggest you watch the film and decide for yourself. All of them worked in the area and described how the plane flew over the Navy Annex building or just to the north of it on the way to the Pentagon. This is completely incompatible with the official story, which would have the plane to the south of the Navy Annex and the gas station.
But wait, there were many eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane clipping light poles on the way to crashing. Many beats a few, right? Obviously a detailed examination of who all of these witnesses were and what they said they saw will have to wait for a future article, but some points are noteworthy.
Many of the “official story” witnesses say they saw the plane’s wings clip the light poles. Some say the wings sheared off the tops of the poles, although physical evidence doesn’t support this.
Quite a number of the witnesses who were sitting in traffic near the Pentagon were government employees (not surprisingly) and media employees. Fully six people employed by USA Today and its parent company Gannett were sitting in traffic on a quarter-mile stretch of road.
Several of the witnesses reported that they saw the poles hit. Some even say the plane was so low it even hit a car antenna. One of these was Don Mason, a Pentagon renovation worker.
We’re supposed to believe that the wing hit a car antenna without the engines touching the road? The engines in a 757 hang below the wings. The only thing that could hit an antenna would be the engines themselves. And are these people really going to talk about a car antenna as a huge airliner flies no more than five or six feet off the ground at 530 miles per hour? Just my opinion, of course.
This incredibly low altitude is supported by the account of Lee Evey who was quoted as saying that the plane approached the Pentagon at about six feet off the ground. Mr. Evey also happened to be the program manager for the Pentagon restoration project. Evey says the front of the plane “peeled back” with the impact so that the front of the plane remained near the exterior wall while the rear of the plane went farther into the building. Unfortunately, he also claimed that the nose of the plane penetrated all the way through the three outermost rings. Later, it was learned that Evey wasn’t even in Washington at the time and so he didn’t actually what happened at all.
Besides Mike Walter of USA Today, who had a ridiculous account of the wings “folding in” even though he admitted his view was obstructed, there was also Mary Ann Owens. Owens said she saw the fuselage hit the ground and explode. Physical evidence doesn’t support this.
Albert Hemphill, a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, supports the official flight path with his account from the Navy Annex building. He says the plane was running along Columbia Pike. This was well before the Pentagon, but Hemphill reports that the plane was in a “sharp downward angle” even that far back.
This is another problem with many of these witnesses. Quite a number reported that the plane was heading for the ground at a very sharp angle – even as sharp as 45 degrees. But how can the plane be descending this sharply and still flatten out in time to hit the five poles? I don’t believe the two accounts are reconcilable.
Several witnesses also said they saw the left wing of the plane scrape the helipad right beside the Pentagon. Again, there’s no evidence of this contact.
In fact, much of what those “eyewitnesses” reported was irreconcilable. And some of it was downright suspicious. I’ll get into this in more detail in another post; it’s a very big subject.
So check out National Security Alert. Listen to the witnesses, and decide if you find them credible.