Home | Index & Archives | Contributing Writers | Writers Wanted | Whistleblowers | Subscriptions | Muckraker Report T-Shirts | News Sources / Links | Contacts | Legal Disclaimer | Search
Muckraker Report
Newly released Pentagon video is missing something

Newly released Pentagon video is missing something

 

May 17, 2006 – The media coverage of the newly released Pentagon video was predictable.  One by one, America’s free press stepped up to the camera, microphone, or keyboard to tell the American people that the Pentagon on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, released the first video images of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the military headquarters building, killing 189 people in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 

 

I heard the news of the newly released video from my wife.  She came home from work and told me that she had just heard on the radio that the Pentagon released new video that actually showed AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.  That’s how the talk radio show she was listening to reported it – that the newly released video showed the airplane crashing into the Pentagon.  Intrigued, I turned on CNN because it runs top headlines every 15 minutes, hoping to catch the video clip.  I also sought the clip on the Internet, which turned out to be where I saw it first.  With great anticipation, I clicked on the link to the video clip, hoping that it would remove my doubts about what happened at the Pentagon on September 11th. 

Pentagon: September 11, 2001 - Click to enlarge

Where is AA Flight 77? Where is the debris?

Over the last 12 months, I have become a reluctant non-believer in my government and it’s account of 9/11.  In some ways, I wish I didn’t know what I now know – that the 9/11 Commission Report isn’t worth the paper its printed on, the NIST final draft on how the Twin Towers collapsed – the pancake theory – is woefully inadequate, and nobody from the government has yet to explain how World Trade Center Building Seven collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint – after nearly 5 years!  Adding to my disbelief is the fact that the federal government has yet to produce any tangible evidence that would stand up in a court of law, which proves that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. 

Scaled image of gov't account of Pentagon - 9/11

Click to enlarge. Shouldn't there be debris?

It isn’t pleasant having these doubts so seeing a video that would have dispelled at least some of my distrust for the federal government was a welcomed proposition.  As I watched the video clip on the Internet I must say, I thought I must have clicked on the wrong link.  It looked exactly like the video that was being played by the U.S. media in September / October 2001.  I tried a new Internet search, clicking on a different link this time with the hope that the first link was somehow a mistake.  As I watched the video again from another Internet news source, I quickly lost all hope again.  Turns out, the newly release video was no better than the first.  It offered no new information.  About this time, the CNN cycle had run its course, and I watched the video on TV.  As the commentator built the segment, my blood began to boil – “Newly release video of AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon…” is how CNN presented the clip.  Throughout the day, FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS all presented the video the exact same way. 

Either I’m blind or insane, but I’ve watched the video at least 20 times and have yet to see American Airlines Flight 77 in the clip.  If anybody out there has actually seen the airplane in the video, please let me know because I have yet to locate it.  How the major media outlets in the United States can, with clear consciences, present this newly released video as tangible evidence of a Boeing 757, traveling at 520mph and crashing into the Pentagon between the first and second floors, is beyond comprehension.  What ever happened to hard-hitting, aggressive reporting and the seeking of verifiable truths?  Why would the major media not be asking the questions that tens of millions of Americans are asking – where’s the plane?

The newly released Pentagon video is missing something indeed – an airplane.  The government alleges that a wide-body airliner, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon, however it has yet to produce not one piece of hard aircraft evidence to support its allegation.  The Pentagon crash site was in plain view.  Picture after picture of the so-called crash site have been seen worldwide, and each image of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 begs the question – where is the airplane?  Where are the airplane parts – anything whatsoever that is hard evidence that an airplane crashed at that location?  Where is the common aviation debris that has been found at every other accessible crash site since man began to occasionally fall from the sky? 

Debris: Pan Am Flight 103 - Click to enlarge

Boeing 747 - Lockerbie, Scotland

In his article, 911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity[1], George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), an aircraft accident investigator with thirty years experience, points out that every military and civilian aircraft has hundreds, if not thousands of parts that are individually controlled by distinctive serial numbers and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by a section called plans and scheduling.  I can attest to this fact first hand.  I served in the Marine Corps for over ten years in the Marine Corps Air Wing.  I was an airframes technician.  I worked on the Harriers – AV8A, AV8C, and lastly – the McDonnell Douglas AV8B.  As an airframes tech, I was charged with flight controls – rudders, flaps, ailerons, elevators, wheel well doors, etc., and the components that make these flight controls function – actuators, hinges, cables, etc.  I also dealt with rigging of the flight controls as well as the overall maintenance of the entire fuselage.  Every single critical component had a unique serial number, and each component removed and replaced was meticulously recorded.  Even the rudder mounts, which are basically a high strength alloy with a bearing in it, were serialized! 


[1] Physics 911, 911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity, George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm, [Accessed May 7, 2006]

Pan Am Flight 103 - Recovered debris

Exploded midair by onboard bomb

The supply side of Marine Corps aviation was state-of-the-art, even when I served between 1983-1993.  Often, time sensitive parts where removed and replaced – not because they failed, but because the maintenance instruction said that after a pre-determined amount of flight hours, certain components had to be rebuilt or refurbished.  The supply side of the house could pull up a serial number and part number of any component and quickly print a report that showed the entire history of the part – every single step, every aircraft in which it was ever installed, every maintenance operation or reworking, everything!  Another important fact that must be recognized is that many of these components, particularly the engine components – are indestructible.  They are made of some of the strongest metals and alloys known to man; metals like titanium and inkenel.  Even when flown into thick, reinforced concrete as used in the construction of the Pentagon, these metals DO NOT disintegrate and they certainly DO NOT melt from a jet fuel fire. 

Flight 103: tangible evidence - Click to enlarge

Debris reassembled during investigation

Making this point about serialized aircraft components and the strength of the materials used to make these parts, as well as the meticulous record keeping practices of aviation maintenance, wouldn’t be necessary if the federal government - FBI, CIA, TSA, FAA, or any other agency that gathered and recorded debris from American Airlines 77 would simply release the records and photos of the components recovered at the Pentagon crime scene.  There is no fathomable reason to not release this information.  It is not a matter of national security.  The components are no longer part of an ongoing investigation.  In fact, matching aircraft components recovered from the crime scene to maintenance records is fairly straight forward and boring stuff, so why does the government continue to allow millions of Americans to remain suspicious and skeptical of the U.S. “official” account of 9/11?   

Lee H. Hamilton - 9/11 Commission

"Overwhelming evidence at Pentagon"

The first sentence of the Nelson article reads: The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim.  Lee H. Hamilton, a member of the 9/11 Commission said yesterday in response to the new Pentagon video, “the Commission found overwhelming evidence that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.”  Funny thing about Hamilton’s comments is that I searched the 9/11 Commission Report today and found no evidence reported in the Commission’s account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.  Sure, the 9/11 Commission Report tells the same story that has been told since 9/11 by the government and the media, but not one bit of evidence, by evidence I mean something that could convict a man in a court of law, that shows the public that AA Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon is found in the 9/11 Commission Report.  As mentioned, tangible evidence of recovered aircraft components would satisfy doubts once and for all, yet five years later – not one bit of tangible evidence has been presented.  Until the U.S. government produces real evidence of actual recovered, serialized aircraft components that match the maintenance records for American Airlines Flight 77 (Registration number N644AA), inquisitive Americans will conclude that the government is not producing hard evidence because it is impossible to prove a false claim. 

George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

Ready to debate Lee H. Hamilton

Incidentally, George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.) is part of the seven-member debate team that will debate the government at the National 9/11 Debate to be held in Charleston, SC on September 16, 2006.  Lee H. Hamilton is certainly invited to attend and will be formally invited once contact information for Hamilton is secured.  No doubt, Hamilton will be asked to debate Nelson, something the retired Colonel welcomes and the government most likely hopes to avoid. 

To comment or request reprint permission, please contact Ed Haas via e-mail at efhaas@comcast.net.






If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

 Subscribe to Muckraker Report RSS Feed


Copyright 2002-2007 by MUCKRAKER REPORT.
All rights reserved.
For re-print permission, contact Ed Haas: (843) 817-9962.