The PentaCon on 9/11
When even a missile did not hit a target
I’ve covered the PentaCon in my previous plane article here on substack as well as my documentary “9/11 A Plane Story”, so no need to rehash the fact that NO PLANE hit the Pentagon. We also touched on it in the article ‘9/11 Phantom Warfare”, which you should read first, before reading the rest of this article…
Ok, so ‘9/11 Phantom Warfare” was a long article and I need to expand on it with new information that was released in 2023, but I need to remind you again of the accompanying documentary that goes hand in hand with the article, namely “9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality” that you really should watch before you continue reading this article, as it lays the groundwork for what you are about to read…
O and the interview Chris Hampton did with Norio Hayakawa, when they discussed UFO sightings and advanced illusion technology relating to a possible underground secret military base in Dulce, New Mexico, and the testing of classified technology on the public in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
If you took the time to watch the docci “9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality” and listened to the interview Chris Hampton did with Norio Hayakawa these screenshot will not be news to you…
What happened in 2023 that was rather astounding? Well the following article;
The U.S. Navy Acknowledges Having Holographic Technology To Project UFOs
The United States Navy recently patented a method for creating 3D images in the air using plasma. The technology is aimed at creating a heat source, keeping hostile infrared-guided missiles away from their targets. Experts are convinced that this advanced system is responsible for a series of UFO sightings reported by Navy pilots in 2004, 2014 and 2015.
Another patent found in 2021 by Mark Conlon, which is new technology, patented by the US Navy, which could change the chances of aircraft survival by using lasers to create plasma explosions or "volumetric ghosts" that could cause flying missiles think that they found a plane to pursue, which would actually be just a hologram.
Mark also featured in the “9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality” documentary as well as the follow up documentary, “9/11 Alchemy: Free Energy and Free Thinking” discussing this technology. I suggest delving into Mark’s blog - 9/11 Planes Research for more detailed explanations into all the plane anomalies.
Time to work through the 2nd layer of the PentaCon cover up of what actually happened on 9/11.
In 2012 Jesse Ventura did a deep dive on the Pentagon on his program, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Episode here, that had some stunning points raised, but the whole missile angle is wrong in my opinion.
Most of us have seen this GIF floating around in the interwebs for years…
Have you ever stopped and took a minute or two to think about this GIF on the internet that allegedly shows a missile hit?
If it was a real clip from a real video, then where is the extended cut?
In the last 22 years NO ONE has shown more than the few frames in that GIF, that partly mirrors the official Pentagon video released. Why is that?
Could it be that this was put out there to push a missile narrative? Why not show the full explosion and aftermath? Most are also well acquainted with the “lost tapes”.
What I'd like to know is the source of this missile GIF...
If one looks at the devastation at the Pentagon, there were some strange things that happened to the people who were found dead... You also had the strange red glowing pieces of steel as with ground zero… And similar effects to the cars close to the impact zone, as you also saw with the "toasted" cars at ground zero.
The pictures are rather gruesome of the dead people at the Pentagon and what happened to the people was rather strange.
The people seemed to be cooked, their bodies shrivelled up, but their clothes weren't burned, ripped off or anything.
One had similar reports coming out from Iraq in 2006 where it was alleged that the US military used some sort of DEW to "cook" people from a distance... Look for the docci called "Star Wars in Iraq" and listen to the testimonies of the doctors who worked on people who were on a bus, that got attacked with a DEW and you will hear the similar testimonies of how the people looked, which the doctors had to try and save in Iraq... John Hutchison also makes reference to the the buss attack in Jesse Ventura’s “Death Ray” conspiracy theory episode.
Keep in mind the famous Pentagon briefing, where Rumsfeld and Col Myers were asked if they have deployed DEW’s in the “war against terror” and how VERY uncomfortable they became when asked about it in 2003.
I have my doubts over this missile GIF, because if you listen to the testimonies of the people close to the Pentagon, in the docci "9/11 The PentaCon: Smoking Gun version", they saw a plane flying overhead and heard NO SOUND of a plane, but also, about 30 seconds later, they saw a SECOND plane, with US NAVY markings on, fly by as well...
This is a short excerpt from Chris Hampton's new film documentary - 9/11 Alchemy "A Big Idea". In this excerpt, Chris discusses with Mark Conlon evidence of field interference at the Pentagon, which is still on-going today. Stainless steel guard rails are still rusting, and toasted cars and fire truck showing the same effects as at the WTC complex pointed out by Dr Judy Wood in her book.
Also, clocks stopping and electrical disturbances consistent with seismic data and also magnetometer data. Zinc seems to be affected, which could be the connection affecting the batteries in the clocks and watches, along with the stainless guard rails.
I think the GIF found of is a fake, as far as it being another cover-up, because people woke up to the fact that the official narrative of a plane hitting the Pentagon was bunk, but still needed to cover up the use of a DEW…
A picture comparison of the people who claim they were attacked with a DEW in Iraq and the pictures of the people in the Pentagon can be seen here… Then we can decide if a missile would cause such “injuries” to people or something else.
Then you have this strange anomaly reported on at the Pentagon, something we touched on in my previous article, with regards to strange fires…
A great observation with regards to the Pentagon is made in this video discussing Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions.
So, what do you think? Should we try and get a hold of the missing tapes to see if it indeed was a missile, or will we end up seeing nothing in those tapes, that will point to a plane or a missile?
Article update: 28 June 2024
At last - Found it;
Debunked - "Leaked" video showing missile hitting the Pentagon exposed as a FAKE .
The altered video with the white object hitting the Pentagon next to the stock video. The comparison correctly notes how the fake copy has been through color alteration and re-cropping, but retains the identical camera motion, angle, numeric overlay in the upper left and even video noise.
Addition of the streaking projectile is not a complicated undertaking on video editing software.
Second update to the article: 4 September 2024
Adam Eisenberg in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
While serving in the Army as a member of Alpha Company, 3rd US Infantry, Adam Eisenberg spent approximately 240 hours on site, with at least a hundred of his fellow servicemen, at the Pentagon on 9/11.
In short, he helped clean up the mess from the “plane” crash.
Except that, well, there was no plane, he argues. Full podcast link
If you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as substack does not allow for payments to my country yet, I’ll really appreciate it.
If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.
Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book by Dr Judy Wood.
And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.
Free PDF book downloads by Andrew Johnson:
A great comment by AaronKM on my this article, to a person who was making ad hominem statements and then cowardly blocked me in order to not see the person’s comment.
I have no respect for COWARDS.
A great breakdown below, but I do have a criticism, as I am showing anomalies in this article that CANNOT be explained by a missile! How do people miss this?
Did I NOT make myself clear enough?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is AaronKM's reply to the coward;
On a related note and not to be rude but you might consider withholding your thoughts about others and assertions on who knows and doesn't know what until looking into the principles of flight and aerodynamics.
Using science alone and nothing else, the idea that a commercial jetliner could even successfully fy into the pentagon, or any structure, just feet off the ground, is not possible.
I've noted the basic mathematical calculations for speeds, minimum required speeds, and distances elsewhere here on the platform but in short, the minimum airspeed required to sustain flight for 757-200 would never have been accommodated by distance from any direction up to the pentagon without destroying numerous obstacles which , in turn, would have destroyed the aircraft and its ability to sustain flight before hitting the pentagon. It just would not be possible.
But, even if the AA jetliner had been able to reach the pentagon, avoiding all obstructions, it still would have been faced with the concept of "ground effect".
Cleary, aircraft of all designs and sizes are built to best manoeuvre when airborne.
In fact, most aircraft are quite clumsy on the ground and require use of propeller, or jet power, to initiate different manoeuvres on the ground. An aircraft's airfoils are the enabling surfaces that allow for flight.
All aircraft are subject to "ground effect" when landing and all pilots are knowledgeable and trained in how to avoid and how ro manage this factually-sound phenomenon of flight in aerodynamics.
I can best described "ground effect" in this way: have you ever been on a flight that, just before touching down to land, you experience the sensation of hitting a bubble in which the aircraft floats for a distance further down the runway before actually touching down?
That is "ground effect".
The aircraft is travelling at a speed just high enough that it doesn't overcome this effect and wants to continue flying because of the airflow over its flight surfaces, or airfoils.
All aircraft want to fly, by their very nature in build, and given the required speeds and wind velocity, will do so. With this in mind, considering a half-full 757-200 of passengers and total payload, even a many-years-long, seasoned airline pilot would find it impossible to descend to such a low altitude, just feet off of the ground and at such a speed, without the phenomenon of "ground effect' forcing the aircraft upwards and away from the ground.
A loaded 757-200 airliner could not do this at 300, 400, or 500 mph ground speed. It just isn't possible.
Both "ground effect" and required distance in approach to the pentagon would have prevented a 757-200 from such a strike. And I didn't even go into aircraft sink rate which, too, would have contributed to the impossibility of a 757-200 striking the pentagon.
There are just too many scientifically-sound and well-grounded facts that would have made this implausible.
I am not versed or informed in military technologies but what I do know is that missiles are highly agile and well-capable of navigational manoeuvring when airborne at high speeds which make a missile attack the most plausible candidate for the pentagon strike.
Whether it was fired from a warship out at sea, or from a source in low earth orbit, I do not know.
But I do know that no 757-200 could have done this.
Had the strike been at an angle coming from skyward, I can see the possibility of an airliner doing this. But it wasn't.
This was a strike directly to the side of the pentagon. And a 757 couldn't do that.
In fact, a pilot trying to force an aircraft's controls to overcome "ground effect " at those speeds would likely cause a disintegration of the aircraft due to exerting the controls beyond their allowable tolerances.
Once the aircraft's tail, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, rudder, and trim had broken away, it would not have happened at all like this. Like they say: trust the science!
And these are just sound facts in aerodynamics and the principles of flight that can't be overcome or avoided.
Topics to research: Aerodynamics Principles of flight Ground effect Aircraft sink rate Minimum airspeeds Maximum airfoil tolerances 757-200 specifications.
I hope that this adds to your understanding.
yeah I think anyone was common sense at this point with 100% discount the media rhetoric and the historical bullshit regarding the Pentagon strike