humanuderground banner
www.humanunderground.com


Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation

Ongoing saga of Leonard

More coming soon


[020314]

The Communications Officer
IFALPA

Dear Sir,

Having retired for some few years, and with time on my hands, I have
been trying to unravel the events of September 11 2001.

Most intriguing of all is the claims regarding American Airlines flight
77 which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon building.

An examination of the photographs released by the authorities, taken by
a security camera outside the pentagon, allegedly showing an aircraft
approaching and hitting the building, appear to have been manipulated
with regard to the time frame.

The claimed aircraft in the first photograph is most certainly not a
large civil airline aircraft but appears to be more like a cruise
missile.

The authorities claim that the four photographs released were taken
4/100ths of a second apart.

The problem with that claim is that if it were so, the four photographs
would show only the approach and not the collision because the aircraft
concerned could not have moved far enough in 4/100ths of a second to hit
the building.

For specific reference material see
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/s11-media/et7.jpg

Given the following;

Boeing 757 is 155 feet long and 44 feet high at the top of the
tailplane.

Assume 450 knots. If the aircraft appeared in the first photograph, then
it would advanced 30.4 feet, or about 1/5th of the length of the
fuselage, in 4/100ths of a second. There would have been no explosion as
the aircraft would not have reached the building by that time.

450 knots by 6080 feet divided by 60 minutes divided by 60 seconds
divided by 100 by 4/100ths equals 30.4 feet traveled in 4/100ths of a
second. i.e. approximately 1/5th of the length of the fuselage.
At 550 knots the aircraft would have advanced 37.15 feet and
at 650 knots would have advanced 43.91 feet.

At any of the above speeds the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon
between the first and fourth photographs. Even a subsonic missile could
not have reached the building in that time and if it was a missile at
supersonic speed the sonic boom would have been heard by all in the
vicinity.

The time recorded for the photographs is nowhere near 9 am local time of
the alleged event.

The aircraft would not have been a blur on the film it would have loomed
large.

The wreckage shown as claimed to have come from the 757 appears to be
either an engine cowl or large fairing of some kind from a much smaller
craft, perhaps a cruise missile. Indeed the blur in the first photograph
looks suspiciously like a cruise missile in shape.

According to the measurements shown on the site the tail of a 757, at 44
feet, would have been about two thirds of the way up the building, 71
feet, in aspect.

There would have been identifiable wreckage at the crash site regardless
of the intensity of the fire. An aircraft hitting a mountain in cruise
always leaves wreckage, particularly from the empennage (tail section)
and that is why the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice
Recorder) are mounted in that area. There would have been less
longitudinal compression of the wreckage (if you can find it, and in 35
years in the aviation industry, and seeing numerous crash sites, I have
never heard of an aircraft completely dissolving following a crash) in
comparison to hitting a mountain as mountains are scandalously solid
compared to man-made structures like concrete buildings.

Has American Airlines confirmed conclusively that they lost two aircraft
on that day?

Has the FDR or CVR from American Airlines (AA) Flight 77 been recovered?

What were the serial numbers and registration designations of the four
crashed aircraft?

Does Boeing throw any light on the subject of the four aircraft as to
their serial numbers?

Which insurance company/ies paid out on the hull of AA 77?

Is it proven that four aircraft crashed or went missing on September 11
2001?

Did two flight crews from each of American Airlines and United Airlines
die that day?

What were their names? The pilots/flight attendants unions should be
able to confirm this.

Has anybody confirmed the existence of the American Airlines aircraft
that has been reported sitting at an airport in Manitoba since early
September, under heavy US military guard?

Leonard W. Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (Retired)
freedom@digitelone.com 


[020320]

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
automatically.
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)
freedom@digitelone.com


[020501


The "Minister for Local Government and Planning"
Localgovernment&planning@ministerial.qld.gov.au

Dear Madam,

Your formal request to removed from my e-mail address list is formally
denied. You are one of my representatives in the Queensland Parliament.
You are the servant of the people of Queensland, and as such you are
entitled to receive all information relevant to any matter that affects
the people of Queensland. Any attempt to deny me the ability to
communicate with you as a member of Parliament, either by postal or
electronic means, is an act of tyranny.

The current proposed legislation for the Federal Parliament, claiming to
be for "anti-terrorist" measures is an example of matters that affect
all the people of Queensland. This legislation is predicated upon lies
and deceit issuing from the US Government. It is a simple matter of fact
that the "attack" on the Pentagon in Virginia on September 11 2001, was
not carried out by a Boeing 757 under hijack and should you care to go
to http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/ you will see the photographic
evidence supplied by the official video security camera at the Pentagon
that shows a missile striking the Pentagon. At the bottom of that page,
go to "Part II surveillance camera," wait for the download, and see the
video camera frames in motion.

The wall of the Pentagon was still standing an hour after the missile
struck. Most of the windows are still intact and covered with foam from
the activities of the fire-fighters still at work. Had it been a 100
tonne Boeing 757 the wall would have been demolished.

The hole in the reinforced concrete wall was 2.5 yards in diameter
typical of a penetrating missile attack. The missiles are designed to
penetrate prior to detonation.

It is your responsibility, as a Member of Parliament and a
representative of the people of Queensland to do your utmost to ensure
that the people of Queensland are protected from the deceitful
legislation being proposed by the Commonwealth as it is an attack on the
people by the Commonwealth. The proposers, promoters and supporters of
this deceitful legislation are themselves liars and frauds. You have all
the research capabilities of the Queensland Parliamentary library at
your disposal to satisfy yourself that the events of September 11 2001
were carried out with the complicity of the President of the US and the
US government. To not do so is a dereliction of your sworn duty to the
people of Queensland.

You may be prepared to allow the people of Queensland and Australia,
which includes yourself, to have their rights and freedoms unlawfully
and arbitrarily removed, however I and many others are not. You may not
be aware that the rights of the people cannot be lawfully removed by
political parties intent on total control, however it is a matter of
fact. You may not understand that all power resides with the people. You
and other Members of Parliament, Federal and State are merely caretakers
for the people and subject to the people. You may think otherwise,
however you are wrong. Perhaps you have been so carefully and fully
indoctrinated by your political masters that you are unable to see the
truth. That is a great pity because I can assure you, that based on all
accounts of history, tyrants always lose in the long term. Those who
fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

I note that you have not yet awakened to the fact that there is no
Head-of-Power available for "Local Government" in Australia as the
people very soundly defeated the political proposal to allow it in 1988,
at referendum, by 2 to1. Your claims to be a "Minister for Local
Government" are therefore false and deceitful. You bear full personal
responsibility for all your actions under this false premise. Please
remember that you have been made aware of this and ignorance can never
be a defence for you.

Please do not do me the discourtesy of claiming I am not lawfully
permitted to provide you with relevant information. This indicates that
you require the truth to be hidden. You only insult your own
intelligence.

This message is being broadcast far and wide for the information of all
Queenslanders.

You remain our humble servant,

Leonard Clampett



-----Original Message-----
From: Local Govt & Planning - SMTP
[mailto:Localgovernment&planning@ministerial.qld.gov.au] 
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:59 AM
To: 'freedom'
Subject: RE: WHO WAS BEHIND THE SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH ATTACKS?

We formally request that our email address be removed from your
broadcast
list.

Thank you.

Office of the Minister for Local Government and Planning
Postal:PO Box 31
	 Brisbane Albert Street Q 4002
Email: localgovernment&planning@ministerial.qld.gov.au


-----Original Message-----
From: freedom [mailto:freedom@digitelone.com]
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:58
To: Media Broadcast List
Subject: WHO WAS BEHIND THE SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH ATTACKS?

WHO WAS BEHIND THE SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH ATTACKS?
  A presentation by Thierry Meyssan at the Zayed Center in Abu Dhabi
(United Arab Emirates) on April 8, and posted at
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=24052

Your Highness, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the first minutes following the first attack on the World Trade
Center, officials suggested to the media that the person behind the
attacks was Osama bin Laden, the epitome of Muslim fanaticism. Not long
after, the recently appointed director of the FBI, Robert Mueller III,
designated nineteen kamikazes by name and mobilized all the means at the
disposal of his agency to track down their accomplices. The FBI thus
never undertook any investigation but, instead, organized a man hunt,
which, in the eyes much of the United States public, quickly took on the
appearance of an Arab hunt. This reached such a pitch that people were
incited to attack - even kill - Arabs whom they naively considered
collectively responsible for the attacks.

There was no investigation by Congress, which, at the request of the
White House, renounced exercising its constitutional role, supposedly in
order not to adversely affect national security. Nor was there
investigation by any media representatives, who had been summoned to the
White House and prevailed upon to abstain from following up any leads
lest such inquiries also adversely affect national security.

If we analyze the attacks of September the eleventh, we notice first off
that there was much more to them than the official version acknowledges.

1. We know about only four planes, whereas at one point it was a
question of eleven planes. Further, an examination of the
insider-trading conducted in relation to the attacks shows put-option
speculative trading in the stock of three airline companies: American
Airlines, United Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.

2. The official version does not include the attack on the White House
annex, the Old Executive Office Building (called the "Eisenhower
Building"). Yet, on the morning of the eleventh, ABC television
broadcast, live, pictures of a fire ravaging the presidential services
building.

3. Neither does the official version take into account the collapse of a
third building in Manhattan World Trade Center complex, independently of
the twin towers. This third building was not hit by a plane. However,
it, too, was ravaged by a fire before collapsing for an unknown reason.
This building contained the world's biggest secret CIA operations base,
where the Agency engaged in economic intelligence gathering that the
military- industrial lobby considered a waste of resources that should
have been devoted to strategic intelligence gathering.

If we look closely at the attack against the Pentagon, we notice that
the official version amounts to an enormous lie.

According to the Defense Department, a Boeing 757, all trace of which
had been lost somewhere over Ohio, flew some 500 kilometers (300 miles)
without being noticed. It supposedly entered Pentagon air space and
descended on to the lawn surrounding the heliport, bounced off the lawn,
broke a wing in collision with an electric transformer station, hit the
fa?ade at the level of the ground floor and first story, and was totally
consumed by fire, leaving no other traces than two dysfunctional black
boxes and pieces of passengers' bodies.

It is obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could, for some 500
kilometers, escape detection by civil and military radar, by
fighter-bomber planes sent in pursuit of it and by observation
satellites that had just been activated.

It is also obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could enter the
Pentagon's air space without being destroyed by one or more of the five
missile batteries protecting the building.

When one examines the photographs of the fa?ade, taken in the minutes
following the attack (even before the Arlington civilian fire fighters
had time to deploy), one sees no trace of the right wing on fire in
front of the fa?ade, nor any hole in the fa?ade into which the plane
could have been swallowed up.

Apparently without the least fear of laying itself open to ridicule, the
Defense Department declared that the jet engines, made out of tempered
steel, had disintegrated under the shock of the impact - without
damaging the fa?ade. The aluminum of the fuselage is claimed to have
combusted at more than 2,500? Celsius within the building and to have
been transformed into gas, but the bodies of the passengers which it
contained were so little burned that they were later identified from
their finger prints.

Responding to journalists during a press conference at the Pentagon, the
fire chief claimed that "no voluminous debris from the aircraft" had
remained, "nor any piece of the fuselage, nor anything of that sort". He
declared that neither he nor his men knew what had become of the
aircraft.

Close examination of the official photographs of the scene of the
attack, taken and published by the Defense Department, shows that no
part of the Pentagon bears any mark of an impact that could be
attributed to the crash of a Boeing 757.

One must acknowledged the evidence: it is impossible that the attack
against the Pentagon on September 11, killing 125 persons, was carried
out by a jet airliner.

The scene of the attack was thoroughly disturbed on the following day by
the immediate launch of new construction work, with the result that many
of the elements necessary to reconstruct what had happened are missing.
The elements that do remain, however, converge in a single hypothesis
that it is not possible to prove with certainty.

An air traffic controller from Washington has testified seeing on radar
an object flying at about 800 kilometers per hour, moving initially
toward the White House, then turning sharply toward the Pentagon, where
it seemed to crash. The air traffic controller has testified that the
characteristics of the flight were such that it could only have been a
military projectile.
Several hundred witnesses have claimed that they head "a shrill noise
like the noise of a fighter-bomber", but nothing like the noise of a
civilian aircraft.

Eye-witnesses have said that they saw "something like a cruise missile
with wings" or a small flying object "like a plane carrying eight or
twelve persons".

The flying object penetrated the building without causing major damage
to the fa?ade. It crossed several of the building rings of the Pentagon,
creating in each wall it pierced a progressively bigger hole. The final
hole, perfectly circular, measured about one meter eighty in diameter.
When traversing the first ring of the Pentagon, the object set off a
fire, as gigantic as it was sudden. Huge flames burst from the building
licking the fa?ades, then they shrank back just as fast, leaving behind
a cloud of black soot. The fire spread through a part of the first ring
and along two perpendicular corridors. It was so sudden that the fire
protection system could not react.

All these testimonies and observations correspond to the effects of an
AGM [air to ground missile]-86C of the third (most recent) generation of
CALCM [conventional air launched cruise missile -- see picture at:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm equipped with
depleted uranium warheads and guided by GPS [global positioning system].
This type of missile, seen from the side, would easily remind one of a
small civilian airplane, but it is not a plane. It produces a shrill
whistle comparable to that of a fighter-bomber, can be guided with
enough accuracy to be directed through a window, can pierce the most
resistant armor and can set off a fire -independent of its piercing
effect- that will generate heat of over 2,000? Celsius.

This type of missile was developed jointly by the Navy and the Air Force
and is fired from a plane. The missile used against the Pentagon
destroyed the part of the building where the new Supreme Naval Command
Center was being installed. Following the attack, the Navy Chief of
Staff, Admiral Vernon Walters, failed to show up in the crisis room of
the National Military Joint Intelligence Center when the other members
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported there. Instead, he abruptly left
the Pentagon. Who, then, could have fired such a missile on the
Pentagon?

The answer was given by the off-the-record revelations of Ari Fleischer,
the White House spokesman, and by Karl Rove, senior advisor to the
president, to journalists from the New York Times and the Washington
Post. Eighteen days later, these men discounted the veracity of the
information they had given the journalists, claiming that they had been
speaking under the stress of great emotion.

According to those close to George W. Bush, in the course of the
morning, the Secret Service received a telephone call from those behind
the attacks, apparently in order to make demands. To give credence to
their demands, the masterminds revealed the secret codes giving access
to the secure telephone lines available to the president for secure
communication with the various intelligence agencies and services as
well as for access to the nuclear arsenal. In fact, only a very few
persons with the highest security clearances, in the top ranks of the
government, could have had these codes.

It follows that at least one of the persons behind the attacks of
September 11 has a top government post, either civilian or military.

To give credence to the fable of Islamic terrorists, the United States
authorities invented kamikazes. Although it would have been possible for
a well organized group of persons to bring fire arms into commercial air
liners, the kamikazes apparently used cardboard cutters as their only
weapons. They are said to have learned to pilot Boeing 757s and 767s in
the space of several hours of simulator training, becoming better pilots
than professionals. This mastery allowed them to carry out complex
in-flight approach maneuvers.

The Justice Department has never explained how it established the list
of the kamikazes. The airline companies have furnished the exact number
of passengers in each plane, and the passenger lists, incomplete, do not
mention the persons who boarded at the last minute. In checking these
lists, one notices that names of the kamikazes are not on them and that
only three passengers are not identified for flight 11 and only two for
flight 93. It is thus impossible that 19 kamikazes boarded. Further,
several of those listed as kamikazes have turned up, alive. The FBI
nonetheless maintains that the high-jackers have all been definitively
identified and that complementary information such as birth dates makes
it improbable that they could be confused with persons of the same name.
For those who might doubt this, the FBI has a ridiculous proof: whereas
the planes burned and the twin towers collapsed, the passport of
Mohammed Atta was miraculously found intact on the smoking ruins of the
World Trade Center.

The existence of high-jackers, whether these or others, is confirmed by
telephone calls made by several passengers to members of their families.
Unfortunately, these conversations are known to us only by hearsay and
have not been published, even in the case of those that were recorded.
Thus, it has been impossible to verify that they were actually made from
a particular cell phone of from a telephone on board. Here, too, we are
asked to take the FBI at its word.

Further, it was not indispensable to have high-jackers to carry out the
attacks. The Global Hawk technology, developed by the Air Force, makes
it possible to take control of a commercial airliner regardless of the
intentions of its pilot(s) and to direct it by remote control.

There remains the case of Osama bin Laden. If it is generally admitted
that he was a CIA agent or collaborator during the war against the
Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the current version of events claims that
he turned coat and became public enemy number one of the United States.
This story does not bear up under scrutiny either. The French daily le
Figaro revealed that last July, Osama bin Laden was a patient at the
American hospital in Dubai, where he was visited by the head of CIA
regional office. CBS television in the United States has revealed that,
on September 10, Osama bin Laden was undergoing dialysis at the
Rawalpindi military hospital, under the protection of the Pakistani
army. And the renowned French journalist Michel Peyrard, who was a
prisoner of the Taliban, has recounted how, last November, Osama bin
Laden was living openly in Jalalabad while the United States was bombing
other regions of the country. It is difficult to believe that the
greatest army in the world, come to Afghanistan to arrest him, was
unable to do so, while the mollah Omar was able to escape from United
States military force on a moped.

In view of the elements that I have just presented, it appears that the
attacks of September can not be attributed to foreign terrorists from
the Arab-Muslim world - even if some of those involved might have been
Muslim - but to United States terrorists.

The day after the attacks of September 11, United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1368 acknowledged "the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter", calling on
"all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the
perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and
stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the
perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held
accountable".

If one wishes to heed the call of the Security Council, to enforce
Resolution 1368 and to punish those who really are guilty, the only way
to accurately identify the guilty parties is to set up a commission of
inquiry whose independence and objectivity are guaranteed by the United
Nations. This would also be the only way to preserve international
peace. In the meantime, Your Highness, Excellencies, Ladies and
Gentlemen, the foreign military interventions of the United States of
America are devoid of any basis in international law, whether it be
their recent intervention in Afghanistan or their announced
interventions in Iran, Iraq and in numerous other countries.

---

-EOF-


Back to Main


W3 page maintained by Agent Fescado