9/11 Bombshell: TV Producer Has Missing Video Proving Missile Hit Pentagon (II)
Read the first part of the article
Lack of Footage of the Pentagon Attack Made Garrison Suspicious
Larry Garrison’s claim that something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11 is supported by various pieces of evidence, in addition to Carl’s video, that cast doubt on the official account of the Pentagon attack. Indeed, Garrison has indicated that a reason why he wanted to see the video Carl described to him was that he had considered some of this evidence.
He was suspicious that no footage had been released showing flight 77 as it rapidly descended toward the Pentagon. “From the day of the attacks, I was bothered that not one picture or video was captured of the jet that flew at a very low altitude near our nation’s capital and targeted the center of our country’s military might”, he wrote. While several people had come forward claiming to have witnessed the Pentagon attack, “not one piece of video for the networks to play over and over in the days after the attacks” had surfaced. Video that aired showed the aftermath of the Pentagon being hit but not the impact itself.
Having visited Washington and its surrounding areas many times, Garrison commented that he felt “very safe in saying that there are more reporters, cameras, and video cameras per capita there than any place in the world”. He therefore found it “hard to believe that not one camera captured the Boeing 757 flying above a very densely populated area toward the Pentagon”.
Garrison also questioned whether Hani Hanjour, the hijacker who allegedly flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon, had the necessary skills to carry out the attack and whether it was even possible to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon in the way that supposedly occurred.
Boeing 757 Pilot Said There Was “Zero” Chance of a Novice Carrying Out the Pentagon Attack
A few weeks before Garrison received the e-mail from Carl, a man had phoned him and claimed that “he had evidence that it was impossible for the damage at the Pentagon to be caused by a passenger jet, because it was impossible for a plane of that size to fly at an altitude that low, at that speed”.
A few days later, Garrison questioned one of the pilots of a Boeing 757 he was about to board for a business trip. Garrison asked the pilot, who said he had accumulated thousands of hours of flying time in his career, “if he had the skill to fly a Boeing 757 10 to 20 feet off the ground at a speed of over 500 miles an hour”, meaning in the way that flight 77 was allegedly flown toward the Pentagon. “Chuck Yeager couldn’t do that!” the pilot replied. (Chuck Yeager was a flying ace and test pilot who became the first man to fly faster than the speed of sound.)
The pilot explained that planes the size of a passenger jet “do not react in an instant” and “the control inputs take longer to change the plane’s altitude”. The large surface areas and the weight of the plane “would make it impossible to have the degree of control you would have to have to fly at that altitude without crashing into the ground”, he said. “I really don’t think it would be possible”, he concluded.
Garrison then asked the pilot what he thought the chances were of a novice with very limited training – i.e. someone like Hanjour – being able to hit a target with pinpoint accuracy. “Zero”, the pilot replied. He added that a passenger jet’s autopilot “isn’t even that good and, if it were on, it would not allow the plane to fly at a low altitude, let alone treetop level”.
Hijacker Allegedly At the Controls of Flight 77 Was an Incompetent Pilot
In fact, not only was Hanjour a novice who’d never flown a jet airliner before September 11, people who met him found him to be a hopeless pilot with nothing like the level of skill necessary to fly a commercial aircraft across America and then crash it into the side of the Pentagon.
For example, a flight instructor who trained him for about four months in 1998 recalled that Hanjour had “a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation and poor judgment, combined with poor technical skills”.
Instructors at a flight school he attended early in 2001 found his piloting skills “so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine”, according to the New York Times. One person who worked at the flight school at the time commented: “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all”.
And an instructor at a flight school in the Washington area, which he arrived at just under a month before September 11, described him as a “poor student” who had “particular difficulty landing the aircraft”.
Photos of the Crash Site Looked “Like A Missile Hit” the Pentagon
Garrison was also troubled by the fact that, in photos, the impact site at the Pentagon seemed inconsistent with how one might expect the location where a large plane had crashed to appear. To begin with, he wrote, “the grass right in front of the impact point was not burnt at all”, even though “a hundred tons of plane and jet fuel had crashed and exploded a few yards away”. “In fact”, he commented, “it looked like the landscapers had just cut it”.
Secondly, he thought the hole in the building supposedly made when flight 77 crashed into it appeared too small. “The jet’s wingspan is over 123 feet”, but, he wrote, “the hole isn’t [that wide] – not even close”. He noticed that windows were unbroken “where there should have been holes caused by the wings and engines”.
He spoke with experts about this anomaly and all of them told him that “it is impossible for there not to be any signs of impact points from the 12,000-pound engines on the side of the building”. The photos of the Pentagon, he concluded, looked “like a missile hit, instead of a plane crash site”.
Garrison was also surprised at the lack of debris at the scene of the attack. “In the pictures that were broadcast of the Pentagon, there was very little of the aircraft shown”, he noted. “In my mind, a plane weighing 220,000 pounds at takeoff should have left more than a few pieces of wreckage”, he commented.
We can see that, aside from Carl’s video, there are numerous reasons for questioning the official narrative of the Pentagon attack.
Many Unreleased Videos Related to the Pentagon Attack Exist
A question worth considering is where was the camera that recorded the video Garrison was sent located? It has in fact been reported that dozens of videos related to the attack on the Pentagon exist, besides the two released by the Department of Defense in May 2006, and the videos from the Doubletree Hotel and the Citgo gas station.
After the Defense Department officially released the two videos showing the attack, in May 2006, CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported that there were “at least 80 other tapes” related to the Pentagon attack “that the government is holding onto”. Carl’s video might have been one of these. CNN was told, however, that the videos “don’t really show much”. Indeed, a list that has been released, of videos related to the 9/11 attacks that the FBI possesses, reveals that many of the videos related to the Pentagon attack were recorded only after the attack occurred.
However, “sources” told CNN that “at least one of the tapes from a security camera at a nearby hotel may have captured the plane [that hit the Pentagon] in the air”. Indeed, the Washington Times reported that a “security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon”, and the hotel’s employees had “sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation”. Whether this footage came from the Doubletree Hotel or another hotel near the Pentagon was unstated.
Additionally, a camera operated by the Virginia Department of Transportation may have captured the attack, so this could have been the source of Carl’s video. Reporter Sandra Jontz, who was at the Pentagon on September 11, was escorted out to an area in front of the crash site following the attack. While there, she recalled, she noticed “a Department of Transportation camera that monitors traffic backups pointed toward the crash site”.
Some Security Cameras Were Destroyed When the Pentagon Was Hit
It is also plausible that, in addition to the two cameras at the checkpoint that cars went through on their way to a parking lot at the Pentagon, at least one more of the Pentagon’s security cameras captured the crash. The Washington Times noted that the attack “occurred close to the Pentagon’s heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring”.
However, the camera on the building that was closest to the point of impact was destroyed when the Pentagon was hit. And a camera on the heliport was also destroyed when the attack occurred. These two cameras were found to provide no information related to the attack, according to Steve Pennington, a private consultant responsible for the Pentagon’s security cameras. “We looked and there was nothing there”, he said.
Connectivity to other cameras on the west side of the Pentagon that overlooked the area where the crash occurred was cut when the building was hit, according to John Jester, chief of the Defense Protective Service – the law enforcement agency that guarded the Pentagon. A colleague in his communication center, where the cameras were monitored, told him just after the building was hit that the cameras had been “knocked out”. It seems plausible, though, that at least one of these cameras could have captured the approaching aircraft – or missile – in the moments before the attack occurred, before getting disconnected, and this camera might therefore have been the source of Carl’s video.
Curiously, some of the Pentagon’s security cameras, which were in the right positions to have possibly captured the attack, were out of operation on the morning of September 11, supposedly due to construction work that was taking place at the time. “Other cameras would normally look at that area [where the attack occurred]”, Pennington recalled, “but because that area was being renovated, a lot of the connectivity of those cameras and the infrastructure that allowed those cameras to be connected back to the building had been removed or destroyed”. Consequently, he commented, these cameras “weren’t capturing images and offering fields of view”.
Garrison’s Account Indicates We Have Been Misled About The 9/11 Attacks
If Larry Garrison’s account of being sent unreleased footage that disproved the official narrative of the Pentagon attack is true, the implications are devastating. It means an important video exists, which quite clearly shows the Pentagon being hit on September 11, but this video has been withheld from the public. It means the Pentagon was hit by something much smaller than the Boeing 757 that was officially claimed to have crashed into it, such as a missile. It implies that people who claimed they witnessed a large commercial aircraft crashing into the Pentagon were either mistaken or lying. And it means the public has been lied to about the events of September 11.
If the video Garrison received indeed shows something other than a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon, this gives rise to many questions that need to be addressed. In his memoir, Garrison stated some of these. For example, he asked, “What really happened to the Boeing 757 and its passengers that no one caught on tape or on film, crashing into the Pentagon?”
Partly based on his inability to get Carl’s video shown on television, he asked “Why would the media organizations refuse to report on valuable pieces of these important stories” such as the events of September 11? “Did the news programmers not believe the evidence that was put in front of them?” he wondered, or “Did higher-ups in the government put pressure on the networks to not follow up on these leads?”
Clearly, Garrison’s account could be explosive. “The implications that over 3,000 people lost their lives [in the 9/11 attacks], and the news that has and is still being delivered to the public may not be entirely true, is outrageous”, Garrison wrote. The repercussions of members of the public finding out they have been seriously misled about the 9/11 attacks would likely be huge.
All the same, if footage exists that disproves the official account of what hit the Pentagon on September 11, this footage needs to be released as a matter of urgency. “It is [the media’s] responsibility, with the trust that we put in them, to report what the truth is, even if we don’t like the answers” Garrison commented. The FBI must be aware of the video that Carl sent to Garrison, if Carl’s claim that the bureau “was trying to stop him from showing [the video] to anyone” was true. Presumably it has a copy of the video, which it could release to the public.
Once members of public have seen this video, we will be able to decide for ourselves whether we think the official account of the Pentagon attack is correct.
July 9, 2018