A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t
October 16, 2010
There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.
1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?
2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?
4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).,
5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon is in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?
7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?
8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?
10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?
11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?
12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?
Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.
A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006. He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day. Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“ Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims. That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.
The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.
“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”
“How did they really die?”
“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”
“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”
Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.
Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.
In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.
People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.
 Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77
 Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
 Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well. For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20070313&articleId=5071 and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/finally-apology-national-geographic-channel
 Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor
 Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, 911Review.com, February 11, 2010, http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html
 911Research.com, NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html
 David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials, GlobalResearch.ca, April 1, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
 Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour
 See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,
Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,
Here’s an example:
UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.
Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.
 Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0tFvlQ2F0&feature=player_embedded
Pentagon investigation leader, Paul Mlakar, obstructed investigation in New Orleans, according to UC Berkeley professor
In October of 2007, a letter was written to Dr. William F. Marcuson, President of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), by Professor Raymond B. Seed of the of the UC Berkeley department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Professor Seed was very concerned about the ASCE and obstruction of the investigation into the breakage of levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. That obstruction was coordinated by Dr. Paul Mlakar of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), who claimed that his assignment was to “spar” with the independent investigators.
Mlakar is well known by independent investigators, as he was one of the four engineers who conducted the FEMA “investigation” into the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The other three were Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, later of the NIST WTC Advisory Committee, and Mete Sozen, who has been a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC.
Mlakar also led the ASCE investigation at the Pentagon after 9/11, along with Sozen.
Professor Seed, who led one of the independent investigations into the breaking of the levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, claimed that Paul Mlakar obstructed his investigation. Below are some relevant quotes from the letter, but the entire letter is well worth reading.
“These past two years, both the USACE and ASCE have been dishonored by the unacceptable, and even unfathomable, actions of a few. These are two of the most important civil engineering organizations in the world. If that cannot be reversed and repaired, and if recurrence cannot be prevented, then the ethics and the very soul of the Profession are in peril.”
“Two of the Corps field team escorting us around were different, however; their role was to keep the Corps personnel from speaking too openly with the rest of us and thus potentially spilling any beans.”
“The problem was: the “deal” between them and the Corps was such that our field teams were not permitted to have learned anything while in the field.”
“In the end, Larry and John, along with Dr. Mlakar, put their foot down; if we did not all “play ball”, then the further planned field work of the “week two” teams already beginning to arrive would be cancelled. A direct threat to the two investigations.”
“Cover-up!!…A bit later, the active ASCE members in that room considered resigning (from ASCE) in protest.”
“Larry Roth explained to me back in September that ASCE had been ingloriously kicked out from the 9/11 investigation of the World Trade Centerr, and that they had learned their lesson and would never again make those same mistakes.
“At the end of the session, Sen. Collins leveled her formidable stare nearly directly at poor Paul and said something very close to the following: “Dr. Mlakar, I understand that you have been sent here to tell us nothing. As a good soldier, you have done thatadmirably. I want you to go back and tell those who sent you, however, that this committee will not tolerate that, and that we will also not tolerate continued failure on the part of the Corps to provide requested documents and data to these other investigation teams.”
“Led jointly by Larry Roth and Dr. Paul Mlakar, the mantra was repeatedly espoused at the first ERP meeting that the investigation “would look only forward”; there would be no looking back, and no consideration of fault or blame.”
“Now, we were informed, that all we needed was final clearance from some fellow named Dr. Paul Mlakar.”
“It was also during this period that we learned more than we wanted to know about ASCE’s being expelled from the 9/11 World Trade Center investigation….to put an end to what they viewed as a cover-up masquerading as an investigation.”
“I have met personally with faculty from our Civil Engineering Department here at Berkeley, and also with faculty at the University of Maryland, who had NSF grants for investigations of the World Trade Center disaster and who assure me that this was, at several stages, a very bad business indeed.”
“And at least one member of our Department’s structural engineering faculty feels that the investigation of the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing, which ASCE was involved in (for a reported fee of $1 million in that case), was less than fully rigorous with regard to both the vulnerability of the Murrah Federal Building to lateral blast forces, and its propensity for collapse if damaged.”
“In his view, it is generally known within the high end of the structural engineering community that the investigation of that event was “a bit of a cover-up” (his choice of wording.) I would perhaps not mention this, except that nearly a year ago I learned that Dr. Paul Mlakar (of the Corps) was also much involved in that investigation.”
“[Mlakar] had told them that a significant portion of his assignment was to “spar” with the two independent investigation teams….“Sparring” or otherwise obstructing the independent investigations was inexcusable behavior in my view….And shame on Dr. Mlakar, and those that apparently continued to send him.”
“Indeed a coordinated campaign appears to be still underway to partially re-write history and to downplay some of the key issues. And ASCE (at least at the HQ level) appears to be deeply involved in this still ongoing effort.”
“An investigation should be undertaken to determine how this came to pass, and who within ASCE was responsible (unless this is already known). Those responsible should be fired, or removed from office….ASCE should publish an apology to the people of the New Orleans region, to the Nation, and to the Profession.”
“There is no way that I can simply do nothing, and allow the worst of the actions of the past two years to pass, and appear to be condoned at the highest of levels within two of the most important civil engineering institutions in the world….People depend on engineers to get it right, and nothing less than full effort, and dedication to public safety above all else, is acceptable.”