Coverup at the Pentagon
A rapid mop-up operation commenced around the Pentagon
immediately following the attack,
including the seizure of videos from adjacent businesses and
a suspiciously rapid clean-up of debris.
The suppression of evidence has continued ever since,
with the public still lacking access to
the contents of the black boxes,
photographs inside the Pentagon prior to its clean-up,
video from nearby cameras,
and information about any analysis of the aircraft debris.
of this systematic suppression of evidence
may be quite different from what skeptics of the
official story frequently assume.
Within minutes, the FBI had visited at least two of the only private businesses
whose video cameras might have captured the attack:
- FBI agents visited the Sheraton Hotel Sheraton National Hotel
to confiscate film from a security camera
that some hotel employees had been watching in horror.
- FBI agents visited the CITGO gas station and under the flight path
of the attack aircraft
to confiscate film from a security camera that may have captured the attack.
In addition, there are questions about the fate of video from
traffic-monitoring cameras along adjacent highways.
None of the confiscated video has been
returned to the businesses or released to the media or public.
Disturbing the Crime Scene
Meanwhile, at the Pentagon,
people in office attire were seen combing the lawn,
and moving scraps.
The rapid response at the crime scene contrasts with
the remarkable inaction of Pentagon officials before the attack
as they watched Flight 77 approaching the capital for over 30 minutes.
Photographer Mark Faram arrived about ten minutes after the explosion
and was able to find only one piece of aircraft debris that was large enough
to stand upright, which he photographed (left).
The piece appears to lie about one hundred feet north
of the plane's flightpath.
The piece does not show signs of abrasion or singeing.
Some have said the metal looks too thin
to be from the pressurized hull of a 757.
However, a 757's hull is less than two millimeters thick.
Some have suggested that the color does not match the
shiny aluminum finish of American Airlines jets.
However, the image has limited color and brightness resolution,
making the surface look less shiny.
Note that the red areas look flat compared to the sky-blue background.
Dick Eastman pointed out that the scrap of debris matches
an American Airlines 757,
but that its condition and position were not consistent
with the crash of such a plane, suggesting that the piece was planted.
In the image on the right, he shows that the piece matches
the skin of an American Airlines 757-200 fuselage
from the upper starboard side just aft of the front door.
However, its position and condition contradict the official account of the crash:
it was photographed far to the left of the flightpath
though it was from the right side of the aircraft,
and it showed no signs of abrasion or shearing
though it was from near the front of the aircraft.
The Pentagon Video Frames
In early 2002, five frames from a Pentagon parking lot security camera
overlooking the impacted west wall were released.
The first frame shows what appears to be
a small aircraft obscured by a post in the foreground,
and a vapor trail behind it.
The second frame shows the vapor trail and a bright white explosion.
The video frames fueled theories that the Pentagon
was hit by a small attack drone rather than a large jetliner.
Curiously, few asked what end the people who released the images
were seeking to advance, and whether the images were edited.
The perpetrators of this fraud appear to have exploited several
subconscious mechanisms to gain uncritical acceptance of
the images' authenticity.
The video frames can easily be seen as evidence
that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon,
since the apparent plane is too small,
there is a vapor trail suggesting a missile,
and the explosion sees to white to be a jet-fuel fireball.
People embracing the no-Boeing theory for other reasons, such as the
lack of obvious debris
in post-crash photographs,
are inclined to uncritically embrace the video frames
as corroborating evidence.
The hiding of the apparent attack plane in the video
makes it seem genuine.
People who suspect the motives of the video's source
will nonetheless easily overlook this ploy.
Even if the video frames looked real they would be of almost
no value as evidence, given their source.
But they show signs of forgery.
e x c e r p t
There are many peculiar features of the video images.
Some have possible explanations,
such as the red glow in front of the helicopter control tower
being the result of ionized air from the explosion.
We note three features that appear to have no explanation
other than that the images were fabricated.
In the following we refer to the individual frames using the
captions in the
#3 impact, and
impact has an elevated brightness throughout the image,
not just in areas that would be illuminated by the explosion.
impact has peculiar patches of color on the pavement.
#2 explosion shows a roughly conical explosion
whose vertical axis lies deep within the building.
#3-#5 explosion show sunlight-illuminated lawn
that should be darkened by shadows from the explosion.
Coverup of What?
There is no question that officials have systematically
suppressed evidence pertaining to the Pentagon attack.
It is not clear, however, exactly what officials are hiding.
Skeptics of the official story frequently assume that
the suppression and destruction of evidence were carried out because
the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner.
However, it is also possible that the cover-up was designed to
bait skeptics into supporting the no-jetliner theory in spite of the
fallacies of nearly every argument made for it.
page last modified: 2006-08-18