humanuderground banner

Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation

General Comments Page

A selesection of comments the 'investigation' has received


SUBJECT: About the decending 360 from 7000 feet to attack the Pentagon

Having heard reports of high g maneuvers required of flight 77, I decided to
check it out myself.  (I am a physics student and a student pilot).

The radial acceleration, ar, is  v*v/r, where v is the velocity tangent to the 
circle, and r is the radius of the circle.  

The radius of the circle is the circumference of the circle divided by 2*pi.
            r = c/2*pi

The circumference is the distance traveled by the aircraft in the time
it took to complete the circle.
            c = v*t

substituting for c in the expression for the radius gives:
          r =(v*t)/(2*pi)

substituting for  r in the expression for radial acceleration gives:

       ar = 2*pi*(v*v)/(v*t)

      ar = 2*pi*v/t

If it took 150 seconds to complete the descending 360, and if it was moving at
480 mph=705 ft/sec.

       ar = 2*3.14*705/150

       ar = 29.4 ft/sec/sec

The acceleration due to gravity is 32.2 ft/sec/sec

The vector sum of the accelerations is

       sqrt (29.4*29.4 +32.2*32.2)

       43.5 ft/sec/sec

which is  1.35 times the force of gravity

which corresponds roughly to a 42.5 degree bank

This is not physically too demanding for a person of average strength, but
to perform such a maneuver smoothly over its entire 2 1/2 minute duration
and to have it come out on the correct course is a bit much to expect
of a student pilot of the skill level described for the flt 77 pilot, flying 
an unfamiliar aircraft.

Still if the guy was pumped up, he could maybe accomplish it.  I doubt it.
Anyway, 1.35 g is a noticable g force, but not excessive.

David C.


SUBJECT: Absolute Disgust

Funny how people I know said they SAW the damn thing, and it was BEFORE the press claimed what exactly happened (it was before we were out of the burning halls). From their burns, I would say they probably saw exactly what they claimed to have seen and were unfortunate enough to remember it.

Sorry, your right, I disagree. With vengeance. Will probably continue to read the suppositions, but not without serious doubts as to the integrity, intent and mental capacity of the author.

As one who survived the occasion, and continued to stand in a position of security throughout the effects of this tragedy, I will forever defend the fallen and the memory they deserve. You and your?suggestions will fade and be forgotten, we at the Pentagon will stand and be remembered for our belief in the American way of life, our will to protect and defend that way of life, and the strength to ignore the mockery people like you can not help but disgorge against us.


I've just seen the story for the first time. Debunk how?
I've got to say that, given that our PM was, allegedly, in a hotel across the street, the event was given as much coverage here as the other three attacks. There was, however, little, or no, visual depiction. Seeing photo's of the site without any obvious?aeroplane has further lowered my opinion of the US media. Sorry.
I would have to say that at any level the conspiracy theory holds more water than most.
At the risk of further alienating you, at the time of the attack, and at any point since, I've consistently held the position that 1. The USA needs to reevaluate its foreign policy vis a vis making friends not enemies; 2. The FBI and the CIA need to talk, occasionally.
Oh, and way to go with bombing Canadians! The ulimate oxymoron? AMERICAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE!!!!!!

Cop ya!


Just read your site, very interesting!

Just a quick question which may have been answered elsewhere: Why is there no TV footage of a plane/missile/whatever approaching the Pentagon? The WTC had already been attacked and an attack on Washington was predicted, why weren't TV crews scouring the skies for the plane? Many shots?of the?WTC attack have been discovered from several angles but nothing of the Pentagon attack. Strange?




There are many theories around, I don't know what happened, but I do know
what DIDN'T happen. There is no way in a hundred years that the pentagon
damage was as a result of an airliner hit. The old critical mass and
momentum laws mean that an Airliner so heavy 100+ tons would make more than
just a dent. It would take solid concrete (not concrete just a metre or two
thick with windows) to withstand that kind of impact. Attached is a photo of
Lockerbie post crash. Remember that this crater was caused by an aircraft
that had been broken into more than one piece and was not 'powered' into the
impact, more it fell with some retained forward momentum. This came from an
interesting site If you were to browse the
photo's on the site (choose a day when feeling particularly morbid) you will
notice the majority of crashes leave two things, sizeable impact points (and
obvious too) and wreckage, lots of it.
In the photo's you've shown there is a distinct lack of both. You have one
photo showing the cable reels which survived at the impact point and yet a
whole airliner managed to vaporize?
You show a photo of a 'large' peice of debris in the foreground, just one?
no scorch marks?
You highlight that the French site (which got the old interest levels up in
the first place)got the impact point wrong you then point to point out that
the impact point was to the right of the collapse point, I would expect my
car travelling at 70mph (a small Japanese model, not you US gas tank)to make
this kind of impact.
One final point, where's all the photo or video footage? Your not telling me
that there was no-one taking photo's or video at such a Tourist attraction
on a beautiful cloudless day. It's impossible to fart in the world now
without someone catching it on video.

So what happened to the 757? Probably intercepted and shot down over the
Atlantic, more realistic grieving relatives:)This is mere conjecture and
just a stab in the dark. At the end of the day I don't really care, I'm just
intrigued by the lack of plane, evidence or lack of any real media coverage.
Seems strange we have plenty for WTC but bugger all for the Pentagon.

New Zealand, where no one gives a shit about anything. My Eden!!


Some remarks:

The link on your page to the Sidney Morning Herald (SMH) about
Theodore Olson "justyfying lies" is dead.  This article is now
paying info.  However, you can find the same story on another
article by Richard Reeves: "This president thinks our ignorance
is bliss"

About the C-130, I found the following article.  This is again a now
paying article thought.

 C-130 crew saw Pentagon strike, official confirms

 By Terry Scanlon and David Lerman Daily Press

 October 17, 2001

 The crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a
 hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed

 The report confirms the eyewitness account of two Hampton Roads residents
 who were near the Pentagon that day and said they saw a second plane flying
 near the doomed passenger jet.

 A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to
 Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into
 Washington "at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a
 Pentagon spokesman.

 Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane
 "to let us know where it's going," McClellan said.

 But, he said, there was no attempt to intercept the hijacked airliner.

 "A C-130 obviously goes slower than a jet," McClellan said. "There was no
 way he was going to intercept anything."

 The C-130 pilot "followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into
 the Pentagon," he said.

 "He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball."

 Keith Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, still has a vivid image of that
 fireball etched in his mind.

 He and several family members, including his sister, Pam Young, of Surry
 County, were leaving a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery when they
 watched the hijacked American Airlines jet nose-dive into the nation's
 military headquarters.

 They also saw a second plane.

 At first, they weren't sure whether the second plane was involved in the

 But Wheelhouse, a three-year Army veteran, thought it looked like aC-130,
 although he wasn't certain.

 Tuesday, he was pleased to hear the military is finally verifying what
 he's been telling people.

 Wheelhouse and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were
 troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of
 a C-130 being in the area at the time.

 "So I wasn't losing my mind," he said.

 In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon
 had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were
 classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.

 "It was very hard to get any information out," McClellan said.

 Wheelhouse said the Pentagon explanation of the cargo plane's role that
 day makes sense. The pilot of the C-130 was unable to prevent the attack,
 he said.

 "He's in a transport plane, you watch a jumbo jet flying low, drop its
 nose and gun it," Wheelhouse said. "What's he going to do?"

 Terry Scanlon can be reached at 247-7821
 or by e-mail
 David Lerman can be reached at (202) 824-8224
 or by e-mail at

This makes the: "9:36 National Airport instructs a military C130
(Golfer06) that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to intercept
and identify it. Golfer06 reports it is a B767, moving low and very
fast." interresting...  (I would like to find another source for this,
an "official" one would be best.)

 LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense
 Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

 MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

 LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there has been
 statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down.
 Those stories continue to exist.

 MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft.
 When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter
 aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish
 orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were
 hijacked.  But we never actually had to use force.

 LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the
 Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

 MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon
 was struck.

General Myers Confirmation Hearing, SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

Last (maybe not that much of importance)...

Look at the map picture named "STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY" (look at ; this picture can
be better zoom-in from the PDF document "Pentagon Renovation Program").
Look closely at the circled collapsed area...
AFAIK, on 15 September, the collapsed area was still the same as the one
we saw on 11 September; the demolition began later.

I'm trying to find an explanation about this in the transcript of the
"DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation" (interesting reading BTW)
But English is not my native language, and maybe I missed it.

AmigaPhil, world citizen.                     PGP public key: 0x9C07F6C1


Since you have more witness testimony available that anywhere else I can
find - you might like these building worker testimonies - from

"Where the plane came in was really at the construction entrance," says Jack
Singleton, president of Singleton Electric Co. Inc., Gaithersburg MD, the
Wedge One electrical subcontractor. "The plane's left wing actually came in
near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing
went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would
have hit the trailer. My foreman, Mickey Bell, had just walked out of the
trailer and was walking toward the construction entrance."

Singleton says Bell's memory of the event is still somewhat clouded. "All
that he remembers is that he heard a loud noise. He thought it was a
helicopter coming in to the heliport behind him. The next thing he remembers
is picking himself up off the ground and seeing the fire and the explosions
in front of him," adds Singleton. "He has no idea how long he was knocked
out, but we figure it had to be at least a few minutes. My guess is that he
was in shock, because when he got up, he just got right into his pick-up
truck next to the trailer and drove immediately out through the gates."

After Bell made his way back to Singleton's suburban offices, the narrow
margin of his escape became even more evident. "We went out to look at his
truck and the truckbed was filled with all kinds of debris that must have
come from the blast. He's one really lucky guy," marvels Singleton.


At an onsite press conference, Pentagon renovation program manager Lee Evey
details damage caused by Sept. 11 attack.
Courtesy of DoD
For one employee with Wedge One's mechanical subcontractor John J. Kirlin
Inc., Rockville MD, "lucky" is an understatement. "We had one guy who was
standing, looking out the window and saw the plane when it was coming in. He
was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows," says Kirlin President
Wayne T. Day, who believes the window structure saved the man's life.

According to Matt Hahr, Kirlin's senior project manager at the Pentagon, the
employee "was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air. As he was
traveling through the air, he says the ceiling was coming down from the
concussion. He got thrown into a closet, the door slammed shut and the
fireball went past him," recounts Hahr. "Jet fuel was on him and it
irritated his eyes, but he didn't get burned. Then the fireball blew over
and the sprinklers came on, and he was able to crawl out of the closet and
get out of the building through the courtyard."




Subject: PRAVDA online

14:17 2002-04-04
A new book, claiming that there was no air-crash at the Pentagon on September 11th , has shot to the top of bestseller lists in France, despite objections from the US Government.

The Frightening Fraud, by Thierry Meyssan, focuses on the effects at the crash site being incompatible with the damage that would have been caused upon the 757-200 of American Airline?s flying into the famous military headquarters. The book offers the alternative explanation that the damage was actually caused by ?a group of people who had authorised access to the Pentagon? - their target being the new Navy Command Center. However M. Meyssan, who is also head of the leftwing thinktank ?the Voltaire Network?, does not offer any explanations of what actually happened to flight 77 if it didn?t crash into the world?s largest building.

Despite the book?s controversial claims, which also include allegations that Osama Bin Laden is a US agent, the French public have been rushing to buy the book since its publication last month. A spokesman for one of France?s largest bookshops claimed that the book has been ?flying off the shelves?, and reports say the original run of 20,000 copies sold out within two hours of going on sale.

However, despite the unprecedented popularity of M. Meyssan?s book among the general public, the French media have been a lot less receptive to the allegations. The news journal Le Nouvel Observateur published an interview with the acclaimed French essayist and writer Pascal Bruckner, in which M. Meyssan?s claims were dismissed as ?eliminating reality?. Other French media were also highly dismissive of the book, with the French paper ?La Liberation? dismissing the claims as ?wild allegations?. However one French newspaper, Le Monde, while dismissing the claims made in The Frightening Fraud with regard to the damage at the Pentagon, did conclude that lack of official information about the crash was ?feeding the rumour?.

Doubts over the US government?s report of events are also to be found on the internet, with a ?Hunt the Boeing? website supporting the Thierry Meyssan?s allegations. The website, which is hosted on server run by M. Meyssan?s son, uses US Army photographs and a series of questions to cast doubt on the American government?s version of events. The page also claims to cite initial news alerts which reported that a booby-trapped truck had been the cause of the explosion.

Unsurprisingly the French claims have met with stern opposition in the US, with the Pentagon claiming that the allegations were ?a real offence to the American people, particularly to the memory of victims of the attacks?. Unofficial websites, responding to the ?Hunt the Boeing? site have also been established, offering answers to those doubting the official US line.

The Russian government, also supported the US government?s line over the claims of The Frightening Fraud. Spokesman for the Committee for International Affairs, Sergei Butin, claimed that the reason for the book?s success could be summed up by the Russian proverb: ?the more far-fetched a claim, the more that people believe it?. Asked whether the official report of events was correct, Mr Butin underlined that the ?the Russian government believes in the information distributed by that of the United States in this matter?.

Tom Wishart


Subject: letters about Pentagon crash

The letter [020319] by April, "someone who works at the Pentagon", who claims a friend who also works there and is an "airplane freak" positively identified the Pentagon crash item as a "F**king American Airlines 757, is worth investigating.??If she would care to identify herself and her friend there might be several journalists who would be interested in following up their story.??If, however, these people are concerned to protect their privacy, one?should be a little skeptical.
Syed, New Delhi, India


I have been reading a few postings with interest.
Some of a few facts that have been missing from a lot of these
discussions is that, for instance in the Pentagon matter, should a
number of things happen in a 757, certain other things happen
In all civil Transport Category aircraft, whenever the aircraft is put
into certain configurations, all kinds of warning and override systems
operate. These are mandatory requirements and all checked pre-flight
before every flight to ensure their operation. This is why civil
aviation has such a high safety standard and performance.
Fly too slow without flap and leading edge high-lift devices extended or
with the landing gear retracted and the computer system will advance the
thrust levers to ensure the aircraft maintains sufficient flying speed.
Fly too low without having the aircraft in the landing configuration
(i.e. gear and flaps down) and the Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) will remind you in a very loud synthesised voice which conveys
greater urgency the longer the condition persists without correction.
Computers will take over and fly the aircraft out of trouble if the
system is not purposely disabled. Purposely disable the system and
operation of the aircraft becomes restricted.
One problem with the theories of the control of the aircraft being taken
over by external sources, such as in "Global Hawk", is that pilots are
trained to deal with all probable emergencies and have various ways in
which they can disable electrical systems and/or redirect power supplies
by pulling circuit breakers and fuses. Loss of control over flight
management systems is a probable emergency pilots are trained for. I
seriously doubt that an aircraft would be approved to fly if the crew
could not maintain onboard control of the aircraft in the event of
electrical system/computer malfunction except in extreme circumstances
such as complete loss of all electrical and hydraulic power. If an
external source took control it would have to do so through the
aircrafts own systems and the pilots would know their systems were still
capable of operation and could isolate the problem.
Most pilots are critical analysts who realize they may have to deal with
very unusual circumstances at some time, and know their aircraft systems
back to front so they can take care of such events.
A pilot without many years of experience on a type will not know the
minor intricacies of how to deal with system problems.
Flying a 757 at high speed close enough to the ground to collide with
the Pentagon building, without knowing how to disable the aircraft
systems, is quite laughable. To do it and hit the building with any
accuracy would take a pilot trained on and experienced on the type. 300
tonnes of inertia has to be controlled in anticipation, at high speed.
In the WTC events the only system that would warn of the approaching
towers would be the GPWS and that could be disabled with the pulling of
a circuit breaker. The pilots may not have bothered disabling it because
t would have only sounded for a few seconds at the most just prior to
collision. The aircraft would otherwise be in normal flight according to
the systems, flying straight and level or maneuvering at high speed.
Amateur pilots hitting the WTC? Possible. Amateur pilots flying a 757 at
high speed into the Pentagon building? Not likely and highly improbable.

Leonard W. Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (retired)


Not to me, but good none-the-less

Subject: Re: Flt 77
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:17:39 -0500
From: Ed Toner

I really don't have all the answers to this Flt. 77 thing, but based on what I have seen on several web sites of conspiratol nature, I believe in general that the question of the aircraft not hitting the Pentagon is foolish.

The lack of aircraft wreckage - How long AFTER the crash/explosion were these photo's taken? Are there no photo's taken immediately after the crash? Are there no photo's of the wreckage being carted away? Were there no human remains to be found, particularly of PAZ seated in the rear of the aircraft?

On the lack of a photo of a B-767 A/C just before the strike - Were there no eye-witness's who saw this stupendous event/explosion? I would think that there were many. How about sky-cams, security cameras, guards, passerby's etc.? Have none come foreward?

Personally, I am surprised by the amount of damage caused by this A/C. Mostly aluminum, crashing into reinforced concrete devestated the area where it hit. How, I wonder. I am not a structural engineer however, and perhaps this IS possible. Jet fuel is not particularly volatile, and I would not expect an explosion, yet there appears that there was one. We should be looking for an answer to this.

I am not at all against conspiracy theories and investigations. In fact I am very much interested in these things. For instance, I am quite convinced that TWA 800 was not blown up by her own fuel tank. I took a personal interest in this one because it is the very A/C that I flew in Sept. 1972 for my B-747 ATP Rating . Many believe it was a missle, but I suspect that a bomb was more likely. The nose section seperated from the rest of the fuselage at the same frame that PAA did over Lockerbie.

I'll add more if you like, after you examine my comments here, and respond.

Ed Toner
ATP B-707, 720, 727, 747, 757, 767 & L-1011.
Ret TWA Feb. 1987 after 30 years.
Thanks Ed for your input!


Subject: From someone who works at the Pentagon

Out of curiosity, I emailed a friend on mine that works at the Pentagon asking him if he had seen the plane/wreckage...this is his response:

"YES...I most definitely DID see it. And, although I didn't see it hit the building, one of my closest friends here did. Joe doesn't swear...ever...but on 9/11 --when I saw him at the entrance to Macy's (this was maybe five minutes after the hit) I asked him if he was SURE it was an airliner. His answer was, "Hell yes! It was a F**king American Airlines 757." Joe's more of an airplane freak than I am...and I don't think he was making it up.

Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it.

The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper. The interior was pretty much in-tact, except for the intense heat from the fire.

The REASON that the building fell 30 minutes after the hit was the blast wall. It held up the floors long enough to get anybody out who could move. There's no mystery was the blast wall that kept it from going through the building and killing 10 thousand people. If it had hit 50 feet to the left, THIS would have been on the nightly news every freakin day instead of the twin towers. I sat on the original committee of 6 from our side who REFUSED to let General FlapsDown [sic]and his buddies spend OUR money on gold fixtures and Mahogany desks. We insisted the money be spent on safety...and the blast wall and windows were well worth what we spent. By the way -- that blast wall saved the same general who complained about not having his own private bathroom. He, among many others, wrote a heartfelt letter of thanks."

What do you think?


Two links for your page....

Best regards,

A good page (More 70 links) R?sistance Verte: Penttbom

The book , by Thierry Meyssan - R?seau Voltaire

The Dreadful Imposture

The US Authorities have tried to make believe that the dammage caused to the Pentagon, on September 11, 2001 was caused by the crash of a hijacked Boeing airliner on the building. This lie was meant to hide the fact that a bombing attack was in fact carried out by a group of people who had authorized access to the Pentagon and that the target was not the Departement of Defense in general but the new Navy Command Center.
The US authorities have also lied in order to hide the existence of a secret CIA base within the World Trade Center and its illegal activities. But most of all they have put great efforts into concealing the negotiations carried out between George Bush and the conjurors on September 11, as well as the agreement that was reached on that day. With the help of their hired agent, Osama Bin Laden, they have channeled the sadness and the anger of the US public opinion towards foreign scapegoats.
In his book "L'Effroyable imposture" (The Dreadful Imposture), Thierry Meyssan reveals the secrets behind 9-11. He analyses the power shift within the US political establishment and the rocketing of the military expenses. He denounces the hidden agenda behind the war in Afghanistan and the secret aims of the "War on Terrorism". A must read if you want to understand where the US leadership is leading its country.


From cyberspaceorbit

From all this data several reports have surfaced which continue to haunt me:


Well you cannot expect standard Commercial Airline Pilots to know about (CLASSIFIED).OPS BLACKSTAR is Highly Compartmented, Secret Fire-Command & Control Platform System that flies out of Holloman AFB NM./FT. Huachuca, AZ (BLACKBAG OPS). Combine BLACKSTAR (Pilotless) and Thiokol's Corps. Portal Transport Systems (illegally downloaded by Wen Ho Lee, at Los Alamos), and You can control ANY AIRCRAFT THAT IS FBW.? Remember that OPS BLACKSTAR?has broadcast dissemination?capabilities?to?100 Aircraft at one time (AWACS, ASARS, JSTARS, TENCAP, TROJAN SPIRIT, GUARDRAIL-CS, UAV's, SIGINT, TEAMMATE, TRACKWOLF, REMBASS, HUMINT, CI IMINT, MASINT, TECHINT, JTF, ARF-OR, ?ACE, JIC, ACT) for an effective INTELLIGENCE?BOS.? I have personally?SEEN, OPS BLACKSTAR?in operation.

As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft.

Feel free to use any of the above in your ongoing research

GREAT WORK YOU ARE DOING! Please send me an alert if you find something new.



To Whom It May Concern,

Excellent work! From a message board in Yahoo!, somehow we'd gotten on the subject of Flight 77, thanks to some individual who'd interjected it...and after reviewing the French site re. Fl.77, he also referred us to your site. I certainly didn't expect such a detailed, and seemingly knowledgeable plethora of info!

I live in California, very near Edwards AFB, and China Lake NWS, and we routinely see lots of stuff that used to seem peculiar, now seems routine. I was particularly intrigued by the section about 'Northwoods/Mongoose', and I can see *clearly* how this would be easily done. In between the two bases, approx. halfway, is the Mojave Airport. This little airport in the desert is quite a joke. In fact, one might wonder, why in the world would *Mojave*, of all places, need an airport that can accomodate commercial airliners? (If you've ever been to Mojave, you'll know what I mean. there is NOTHING there, save a few truck stops, a few fast food joints, and a ramshackle small town.) But there are a whole bunch of commercial type airliners there, purportedly for 'storage' by the various airlines that own them.? Riiiight...

I never could understand this, except that I was told that the desert is a great place to store anything made of metal, because the dry climate is a deterrent to rust and decay. Okay... Anyhow, there they all are, in storage. Before Sept. 11, this made little sense to me. Afterward, it kinda made sense, since business had dropped, and fewer planes might be needed for awhile, till consumer confidence was up again. But the really curious thing is, this assortment of aircraft is continually rearranged, some coming in, some leaving...some wrecks, but most in flying condition and ready to go. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice would say! In fact, just last week, I saw a good sizeed jetliner fly in to be parked there. Hmmm....the original Flight 77, perhaps? It had no commercial markings that would identify it with a carrier, as many of them *don't*. After reading this bit about 'Northwoods', I think I know who is 'storing' them there and why, perhaps!

The question remains, where are these 'passengers', and why? Where did the original planes go...Mojave? I have always thought the government was playing little games behind our backs (or rather, right under our noses) for their own agenda and gain...but since Sept. 11, a lot of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' that I used to think were outrageous all of a sudden make a lot of sense; and, I trust the US government a lot less than I used to!

As a Christian, i'm looking forward to the time when the Lord comes to take His own outta here, I believe the Bible points to the fact that it will be prior to the commencement of Armageddon, and probably before the time of the Tribulation. (I sure hope so!) BUT-- my beliefs don't stand in the way of thinking that perhaps there are men in this world who, for whatever motive, would like to hasten events to the Trib/Armageddon period of world history! And of course, God being soveriegn, I'm certain that He often allows men to do things and events to take place that will fit into His timeline and plan...yet most of the time, those mortals aren't even aware they are His tools, or sometimes, even tools of Satan. Then again, I'm not real worried about all of this, as it's all in God's hands anyhow, and I know I'm safe regardless!

But, I digress! As I was saying, things are getting more fascinating by the day in this world, and the 'Northwoods' thing is just too much! I can buy that! I discovered last night that you can't say "cockpit doors " on a Yahoo! Message Board without Yahoo! deleting your post. Strange, eh? We were discussing the new so-called "Tourist Space Plane" and I tried to post a harmless, profanity free comment about whether or not the cockpit doors were reinforced...and not ONE post with those two words would post! Interesting...

Since September 11th, I have slipped into the world of 'conspiracy theorists', and a skeptical opinion of much of what comes out of my nation's gov. (I am sure now, and probably after THIS email, the 'Men in Black' will come knocking on my door soon!) But since that fateful day, much of what has surrounded those events, and much of what has transpired since then, has created a lot of questions in my mind....and even without viewing sites such as yours. But sites such as yours only serve to show me, I'm not the only one who's catching all these inconsistencies in events as they unfold! Obviously, I'm not crazy,...or, a WHOLE BUNCH of Americans ARE!!

Thank you for your informative and thought-provoking work, keep it up. But most importantly, know that much of what is going on IS at the mercy of a holy God in Heaven, who is allowing all of this to come together,as per His plan that He's had since the beginning. One of the most fascinating facts is, if you read the Bible, and Bible prophecy, particularly if you are a believer, you'll see that ALL of it comes down to the age-old struggle betweenthe people of Israel and the people of Ishmael--and that's God's doing. Regardless of what the US gov., or the Illuminati, or the Palestinians & Muslims do, it will all come down to a day in the desert at har-Meggido...and before we arrive at that point in history, we need to be sure we know the Lord of Lords as our Savior...Jesus Christ.

Again, I thank you for revealing this information, and may God bless you and guide you into all Truth!

Sincerely, Laurie S.


I just came over to your site from Joyce Riley's and have found your site to be very interesting. I don't know if this would be helpful and I haven't had time to check on it myself, but I have heard froma former Air Force officer that there wsa a secret investigation going on into Georgy Bush's fianncial dealings around the world, and because of the threats from unknown soureces, the evidence was moved to the Pentagon and away from the federal court building. According to this source, thos files were secured in the part of the building that got hit on S-11.

Great site!

By the way, my cousin is a United Airlines pilot and says that a 757 flying at the rate of speed that that plane was supposed to be would have left debris in all directions for at least an eighth of a mile and the explsoion from the gas would have taken a much greater area of the Pentagon before firefighters could do anything. you can confirm this withother pilots, but because of the safety systems onbaord a 757, there is no way that that plane would have been able to get near the Pentagon. The moment it got to close to any ground object, the fly by wire computer would have taken over and taken the plane back up to an alitutde that was safe and would have sent an automatic alert to FFA that the pilot was flying too close to the ground.

Having worked on a military base as a security guard working for Wachnhut I have been around many of the planes our military uses and am unfortunately familiar with aircraft accidents (having seen one myself). I don't believe that a 757 did that kind of damage just from what I have seen aircraft do on impact.



Hello there,

I just finished reading the above titled article and I just felt that I had to congratulate you on the writing of a clear, concise and unbiassed piece of work. For what it's worth, since reading the article on the French website and subsequent related articles posted elsewhere, I definitely remember on the day the live reporting on the radio here in the UK coming out with the fact that "a small plane has hit the Pentagon" and not an airliner as later stated. At the time I didn't give it much thought, but looking back, how could they have confused the two - surely they know the difference. Funny how the live stuff is recounted later on for the sake of the "story".

Anyway, good luck - I'm hoping the the truth of this whole affair will come out soon...


Not really a comment to me directly, but I felt it was appropriate to the research

I read with interest your [APFN] article titled:
Military Video Of Flt 77 Hitting Pentagon - Critics See No Plane (an

You'll be interested to know that I was watching the events of 911 on tv,
live and Dan Rather (could have been Peter Jennings) had an eyewitness to
the plane that allegedly hit the pentagon. He clearly stated that it was a
small commuter plane like a cessna 172 or a small private jet. Soon after
all the news media reported flight 77 had hit the pentagon and this
EYEWITNESS' testimony was never even brought up again.

If I was a reporter even worth a dime I would call this eyewitness back and
at least verify what he in fact saw. But they never did. To my knowledge,
he's never been talked to since. I'm not saying it WAS this low flying small
plane that hit the Pentagon, or even that it's not flight 77. I'm just
saying it's curious that they didn't even ask the question that morning of
WHY there was apparent confusion between the eyewitnesses and the government
position (that flight 77 hit the Pentagon).

Of course if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Was it
shot down elsewhere?

Anyways, thanks for the article...

"Dave Nesbitt" -

Back to Main

W3 page maintained by Agent Fescado