Tag Archives: pentagon:

Picture: What Really Happened To The Pentagon At 9/11

As many already knew long time ago. Pentagon was hit by a missile, fired from a barge or submarine. Here is the damning footage to prove it wasn’t an airplane which would have broken the laws of physics, since if it came in with the speed that was video taped and released early, it would have bounces up into the air, and could never hit the building at ground level, this is due to the air cushion produced under the wings, that’s the so called “ground effect” A deep ditch would have been produced over the lawn, which never showed any damage after the so called “impact”

Pentagon awards $646 million contract for border wall in Arizona

The U.S. Defense Department said on Wednesday it had awarded a $646 million contract to a construction company to design and build a replacement for the border wall in Arizona.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the work by Albuquerque, New Mexico-based Southwest Valley Constructors was expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2020. The work will be performed in the Tucson sector, which includes most of the Arizona border with Mexico. The Pentagon did not indicate the length of the wall to be built.

President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to transfer funds to help build a border wall after he failed to secure funding from Congress.

Last week, the Pentagon said acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan had approved the transfer of $1.5 billion from the department to build more than 80 miles (130 km) of barriers on the border.

Immigration is a signature issue of Trump’s presidency and re-election campaign. He declared a national emergency in order to redirect funding to build a wall without the approval of Congress.

The Pentagon Just Approved $1.5 Billion More for Trump’s Border Wall, But is That Just a Drop in the Bucket?

Only Friday, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan made an announcement: the Pentagon’s given the go-ahead for an additional $1.5 billion in border wall funding.

And how much does a cool one-and-a-half getcha? According to Stars and Stripes, it’s more than 80 miles of barrier:

The Department of Defense is fully engaged in addressing the crisis on our southwest border, with more than 4,000 servicemembers and 19 aircraft currently supporting the Department of Homeland Security. Today, I authorized the transfer of $1.5 billion toward the construction of more than 80 miles of border barrier. The funds were drawn from a variety of sources, including cost savings, programmatic changes, and revised requirements, and therefore will have minimal impact on force readiness.”

In March, $1 billion was added for 60 miles of wall through Yuma, Arizona and El Paso (see my coverage here).

And what’s the dough’s source? More than half will come from Afghan security forces support, as well as from a military retirement system.

The allocation trails a quarter of a year behind The Donald’s seminal National Emergency declaration (which Lindsey Graham loved — here), setting aside $6 billion in military money and personnel for border business.

The new bil will be put towards replacing fences on four different projects.

But how much more money is there, and how much more wall is guaranteed?

Shanahan told lawmakers that there’s enough Pentagon contracts and funding from their budgets and other agencies in place to build more than 250 miles of new border fencing. That represents the construction of about 63 miles of border barriers during the next six months.

“We now have on contract sufficient funds to build about 256 miles of barrier,” he said.

It sounds like a decent start. This whole funding paradigm, incidentally, is a new one:

Traditionally, the Pentagon conducts a midyear review in April to hunt down budget savings that can be moved to programs that need the money. Now, the Pentagon is redirecting funds to build the wall that would normally go to military accounts that might be running short, such as re-enlistment bonuses and health care, according to Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The border saga continues…and so, no doubt, will the lunacy of those in Congress, grandstanding against national security

Pentagon expects 256 miles of border wall soon, Shanahan says

Enough funding has been placed on contract to build 256 miles of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan told Congress Wednesday.

Testifying at the Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Shanahan also estimated about a half-mile a day of border barriers would be built over the next six months.

“We now have on contract sufficient funds to build about 256 miles of barrier,” Shanahan told Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). The source of the funding, Shanahan added, is Homeland Security border funding, diverted Pentagon money and Treasury forfeiture funds.

“How you will see this materialize in the next six months is that about 63 additional new miles of wall will come online,” he said. “So about a half a mile a day will be produced.”

President Donald Trump roiled Congress by moving to divert billions of dollars toward his signature border wall, including $3.6 billion in military construction funds. The Pentagon’s fiscal 2020 budget requests $7.2 billion for the border, split evenly between backfilling raided military construction projects and funds for new barriers.
Morning Defense newsletter

Last month, the Pentagon awarded two contracts for nearly $1 billion for border barrier construction.

Equally controversial is the administration’s troop deployment to the Southern border. And Shanahan told appropriators there are now 4,364 Guard and active-duty troops on the border.

Shanahan defended the deployments as not affecting military readiness, but he and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford added the Pentagon lent staff, including a two-star general, to the Homeland Security Department to help coordinate a “more predictable comprehensive plan” for controlling the border.

The Pentagon just announced two new border-wall construction contracts worth nearly a billion dollars.

First up is SLSCO Ltd., a Galveston, Texas, company that netted “a $789,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for border replacement wall construction…in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 1, 2020.”
The second deal goes to Barnard Construction Co., from Bozeman, Montana. BCC, Inc., “was awarded an $187,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for design-bid-build construction project for primary pedestrian wall replacement…in Yuma, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2020.”
For what it’s worth: Both contracts used up a combined $482,499,998 of the Army’s FY19 operations and maintenance funds to get things started. Read on at the Pentagon announcement,


Oh, look! Pentagon ‘finds’ $12.8 billion for Trump’s border wall

See, if you apply yourself and try really hard, you can accomplish tasks assigned to you. With that in mind, let’s give the Defense Department an A+ for mission accomplished in finding billions and billions of dollars to spend on POTUS Donald Trump’s border security wall.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, the Pentagon has identified $12.8 billion in “possible” funding for the wall, according to a spreadsheet released via Twitter Monday night by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

After the president lawfully declared a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border last month, he said he wanted to use $3.6 billion in money already approved for the Pentagon on border wall construction.

The Pentagon has since found an amount of money “in excess of the amount needed.”

It’s not yet clear where the funds will come from, but some states could see their money pulled back. That includes Lefty boroughs like California, which has $700 million in unused Army and Navy construction funds, and Hawaii, which has $400 million that can be used for the wall.

In his tweet, Reed warned that “military bases in your state could be negatively impacted” by the president’s border emergency.

Well, perhaps — depends on how “negatively impacted” is defined. One could certainly argue that the tens of thousands of largely poor and uneducated migrants members of Reed’s party are allowing to flow into our country will “negatively impact” every state, costing Americans far more than a couple hundred million dollars.

And here’s fun fact: A 2017 analysis found that building substantial new walls in places where U.S. Border Patrol and other border officials have identified the need would pay for itself within a decade.

There’s more, in terms of costs, and One America News Network recently did a report on it.

Kurdistan referendum blowback – Pentagon stops paying Peshmerga

This is an interesting story on the surface, and then again not. The Obama administration’s paying the Peshmerga salaries was support for its fighting at the height of the ISIS conflict in Iraq.

But with the Trump administration seeing the emerging defeat of ISIS in Iraq, and with little fighting going on now, the original purpose for the funding no longer exists.

So yes, the US also had on the table that it was against the Kurdish referendum and could act as though the discontinued funding could have been tied to a referendum vote, but it seems not.

Equipment funding still continues, with Barzani able to buy Israeli weapons with US taxpayer money. This puts the Pentagon in the position of supporting the Israeli weapons industry – something it has done for a long time – political corruption in Congress paying back the Israel Lobby for its monetary support. Imagine that.

We don’t hear a peep out of the US over Israel’s support of an independent Kurdistan, which some would view as an indication of US support. Sure, the US is on the record for not wanting any internal strife to derail the battle against ISIS, but the real slow down seems to have happened for other reasons.

While the Iraqi army and the Popular Militias have plenty of forces to sustain two major offensives at once, it is only doing one in Hawija, where it just took the main town. The offensive to re-take the Syrian border, especially opening a major front at the important Al-Bakumal crossing, might only have 1000 troops involved, and is moving at a snail’s pace.

The rest of the army seems to be on vacation while Syria still twists in the wind, when ISIS should have been crushed in a pincer movement between the SAA and Iraqi forces, and the SDF Kurds would not be in eastern Deir-Ezzor now, where they might end up controlling the Iraqi border much further south.

This was different from the claims we heard several months ago from Baghdad that it would support anti-ISIS operations in Deir-Ezzor to make sure that a retreating ISIS was not pushed into Iraq. That has turned out to be empty talkJim W. Dean ]

Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPalJimWDean@aol.com

This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out


Barzani thinks he has won, as the threatened economic blockade is not in effect yet

–  First published  …  October 06,  2017  –

After a year long agreement came to an end, a military force of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is no longer paid by the Pentagon. Back in July 2016 the Obama administration had agreed to pay salaries to 36,000 Kurdish fighters battling ISIS in Iraq.

The agreement was expected to be renewed over the summer, yet US and Kurdish officials say that talks stalled since the KRG pursued a divisive independence referendum and the ISIS presence in the region began to collapse.

Peshmerga accuses the Donald Trump administration of withholding support because of opposition to the September referendum. The US has taken Baghdad’s side in the dispute and refused to recognize the results, which were overwhelmingly in favor of Kurdish independence.

Even before the previous agreement expired, Pentagon had already stopped supplying weapons to Kurdish fighters,Peshmerga sources say.

According to US Department of Defense spokesman Eric Pahon, the Pentagon had no plans of renewing the agreement for months prior to the contentious Kurdish independence vote.

In May the Pentagon released a budget request for fiscal year 2018 that assumed that the agreement would be renewed this past summer. The request for the fiscal year that started October 1 calls for $270 million for Peshmerga stipends and $95 million for “sustainment,” 26% more than the $289.5 million requested for fiscal 2017 during Obama’s last year in office. In addition to providing stipends the budget request includes provision of weapons, ammunition, food, fuel, mobility assets, and sustainment support to the peshmerga.

Pahon said the budget is “not a static entity” and is expected to go through “tweaks and changes to match current operating conditions.” However Pahon claims the Pentagon did not stop supporting the Peshmerga with training and equipment.

Congress has also weighed in on the issue. A provision in the House of Representatives’ annual defense bill released in June threatened to cut funding for the peshmerga if the KRG decides to split from Baghdad, a clear signal to Erbil ahead of the referendum.

Separately, the Trump administration authorized a military sale in April worth nearly $300 million to equip two Peshmerga brigades and arm them with 36 howitzers and small arms. Sources in Erbil say those weapons have yet to arrive.

The Kurdistan independence referendum took place on September 25. Iraqi Kurds overwhelmingly voted for independence, defying the central government in Baghdad as well as neighboring Turkey and Iran.

The United States does not recognize the independence referendum as legitimate.

The “Pod People” And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

As we run up to yet another anniversary of the 9-11 false-flag attacks, the government’s controlled assets on the web are once again pushing the “no plane at the Pentagon” hoax as hard as they can, to give the corporate media an easy means to discredit those who question the official story while avoiding the really tough questions like, “Why did the BBC announce the collapse of World Trade Center 7 twenty six minutes before it actually happened?” Or, “How did President Bush’s Secret Service know he was not a target sitting in that school on Florida?“The media cannot ask, let alone answer, those questions, so the propagandists gin up this “No plane” theory and plant it online to give the corporate media an easy handle with which to ridicule and dismiss the whole idea of doubting the official story of 9-11.

This is an old intelligence trick called “Poisoning the well”, the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. And the intensity with which the propagandists are pushing this no-plane nonsense is easily explained by the fact that they have nothing else at all with which to defend the official story. The sheer fury with which this story has been met both here at WRH and over at the radio show betrays a sense of panic within the government that the American people know 9-11 was a war-starting hoax. “No plane” is the last card they have to play.

The “no-plane” propaganda is a trap set to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. Once the propagandists are able ot trick the majority of the 9-11 truth movement into going along with this nonsense (or failing that, create the public illusion that the majority of the 9-11 truth movement are going along with this nonsense), one of the confiscated videos that clearly shows the 757 slamming into the Pentagon will be made public, to discredit the entire 9-11 truth movement in one fell swoop, silencing those questions the government cannot answer. To play this trick, the “no-planers” are promote an incredibly complex conspiracy to hide a missile, while denying the possibility of an equally complex conspiracy to plant the illusion of one.

Let’s take an example from history which nobody here is emotionally invested in. After the John F. Kennedy Assassination, New Orleans Prosecutor Jim Garrison placed Clay Shaw (later admitted by Richard Secord to have been a CIA asset) on trial for the conspiracy. The case was going very well until a witness showed up who claimed to be able to link Oswald directly to Shaw. Once on the stand, however, the witness started blabbing about how he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent “them” from replacing her with a duplicate. Although not shown in the Oliver Stone film, “JFK”, it was this one planted witness that “poisoned the well” of Garrison’s case, resulting in Clay Shaw’s acquittal.

During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, a bogus story was planted that the open umbrella seen along the Kennedy motorcade route just prior to the assassination was a dart gun, used to paralyze the President to hold him steady for the head shot. The actual umbrella was produced and shown to be just a normal umbrella while the committee members rolled their eyes and chuckled indulgently at how silly people who doubted the Warren Report were. (Later, acoustical data proved there had indeed been at least two shooters ion Dealey Plaza and the HSCA was forced to conclude there had been a conspiracy.)

In the 1990s, around the time of Ruby Ridge and WACO, the Congress was forced to hold public hearings on the abuses of the BATF, hearings which were notable for one witness showing up wearing full camo, and demanding the government declassify its secret tornado making machine. That provided the sound byte the media used to make anyone who stood up to the BATF look like a nutcase. The “witness” was later outed as an FBI informant.

Another example of “poisoning the well” is in the Killian documents, which documented George Bush’s machinations to avoid the Vietnam draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard. Five of the documents were authentic, but the sixth was an obvious forgery planted on CBS in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the others.

Ever since this “no-plane” theory has been planted on the 9-11 truth movement, the corporate media inevitably seizes on it as a means to ridicule those who do not accept the official story of 9-11. One obvious example is the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which used the “no-plane” theory to summarily dismiss any and all doubters of the official story as a munch of nuts that all correct-thinking loyal Americans should ever listen to. Which is what the no-plane hoax is intended to do.

I will sign off this discussion by reminding you all once more that while the US Government will not hesitate to lie, cheat, steal, and hoax you, they never do it without a good reason. As I stated before, there is no reason for the government to substitute a missile for the crashing plane at the Pentagon. But there is plenty of reason for the US Government to trick you into thinking that they did!

Lately, in their efforts to plant more bogus information on the web for the media to use to ridicule doubters of the official story, the shills have used over-processed and blurry photos of the 9-11 planes to claim that they carried “pods” on the outside (which the ground crews at all the airports somehow never noticed). For that reason, the government shills have come to be known as the 9-11 “Pod People”.

In response to the question of “where is the wreckage of the plane”, the answer is that much of the wreckage slid into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space, starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors later collapsed down onto the remains of the aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section in the photo.So where is the rest of the wreckage from the passenger plane? Right in plain view, for those who actually look.

Click for larger image of the damage to Pentagon

In the above copy of the wide area view, a red rectangle marks an area to be examined. This area appears below.

Click for larger image of the insert

The Pentagon is a building mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris, and clearly seen mixed in with it are pieces of luggage. Since the Pentagon itself does not travel, we can conclude that the luggage (and the aluminum shards mixed with them) are part of the remains of the passenger jet which hit the Pentagon.In similar crashes, the resulting debris was in small pieces, 6 feet long at most. You don’t SEE huge pieces of airplane sitting at crash sites in head on collisions such as slamming into the wall of the Pentagon. Despite their impressive size, aircraft and relatively fragile objects due to weight considerations.


The claim by the “no-planers” that there is no identifiable wreckage of a 757 at the Pentagon is contradicted by the photographic evidence.

Main landing gear wheel rim wreckage at Pentagon

Aircraft wreckage at Pentagon

Fuselage (green anticorrosion coating) wreckage at Pentagon

Landing gear strut wreckage at Pentagon

Photo of 767 landing gear for comparison

Photo of tires at Pentagon and at WTC


Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace that the “pod people” need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide with. The Pentagon, built mostly of wood and concrete, and in that one section having been recently reinforced, is a heavy and solid object. Jet aircraft, designed to be able to fly, are very thin and lightweight. They are, if you think about it, mostly filled with air, like an aluminum balloon. They are not designed to penetrate other objects or to remain intact while doing so.


“Then I picked [the plane] up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion.” [Mike Walter – eyewitness]


Take a glass Christmas ornament and hurl it against a brick wall. Do you get a round opening in the brick wall the size of the ornament? No, of course not. Neither will an aluminum plane leave a clean outline of itself crashing into concrete. In the case of the plane, there are subassemblies which are heavy and solid, such as the engines, the frames supporting the landing gear, cockpit avionics, the potable water tanks, APU, etc. On impact, these would break loose from the aircraft and continuing forward, produce smaller holes. But the fuselage would crumple like aluminum foil.

The “Pod People” will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon “have to be” wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800 to the 9-11 false flag.As the “Pod People” use the same tactics, they reveal who they really are.

MP3 recording of witness Daryl Donley
MP3 recording of witness Alan Wallace
9/11 BBC TV news broadcast showing a passenger jet approaching Pentagon:

A demonstration of a passenger jet flying low and fast:

“I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.” [Father Stephen McGraw] estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.

“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.””I saw it crash into the building,” he said. “My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,” he said. [mdw.army.mil]

Click image for full size

<< Photo showing light pole debris. Note the cab behind.

Click image for full size


Photo of damaged cab >>


Stills from CCTV video released on May 16, 2006 >>

Click image for full size.

An analysis of the stills.

A concrete wall hit by an F-4 fighter jet at 500 MPH:”The plane atomized with the impact, it just disappeared into dust – only the tips of the wings escaped total destruction. But the wall, designed to move and absorb energy, did its job well.”

WMV video download (978kB)

The above was a test where an F-4 fighter jet (fighters are built more sturdy than passenger jets in order to survive despite combat damage) was slammed into a test wall to evaluate the damage that might be caused if a jet plane was crashed into a reactor containment vessel.The wall in this test was considerably stronger than the Pentagon wall and suffered little damage. However, that damage was found to be primarily from the engines of the F-4, whereas the rest of the airframe shattered on impact without damaging the wall at all. This test proves that the Pentagon damage would come not from the aircraft as a whole, but from the heavy and dense components such as the engines, landing gear blocks, avionics, potable water bottles, etc.




The government released images from just one camera at the Pentagon, that does not show the incoming object. But there was another camera whose images were never released, but had to be pried loose using a FOIA lawsuit. Those images clearly show the passenger jet skimming along the ground.


In the second picture the impact area of the aircraft has been roughly outlined.

Eyewitness Account of Flight 77’s Pentagon Impact

Firefighter Alan Wallace was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. “When I felt the fire, I hit the ground,” he said. [detnews 9/11/2001]

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757.

Extract from Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself:

The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: ‘airliner’, ‘big’, ‘silver’, ‘roaring’, etc.***at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there’s no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet.at least 25
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.at least 22
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways.at least 19
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds.at least 12
The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it’s flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite.at least 4
The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on)at least 4
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)at least 1
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn’t relevant!0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.0

If you want to read all the individual quotes you can start here.