May 6, 2005
The New American, mouthpiece for the John Birch Society, is trying to bolster the official version of the 9-11 attacks by ignoring crucial evidence and unfairly attacking independent researchers.
The government’s refusal to release evidence, “even to congressional committees,” has invited and “even incited” public suspicion about the events of 9-11, William F. Jasper, senior editor of the New American, wrote in the conservative magazine’s May 2 cover story “9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction.” Jasper laments the government’s continuing “pattern of secrecy and cover-up,” but rather than criticize the government for withholding evidence, Jasper attacks independent 9-11 researchers who make use of the available evidence.
“Our objective,” Jasper wrote, “is to expose a few of the hoaxes.” The only “hoaxes” the New American wants to expose appear to be any explanation that differs from the official version, put forth by the same government that refuses to release crucial evidence, such as the confiscated videos from the Pentagon attack.
“The official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics,” Jasper writes. Jasper tries to defend three points on which the official version has been criticized: the small hole in the building in relation to a 757, the lack of aircraft debris, and the difficulty of the flying maneuver.
Two critics of the official version that Jasper names are Eric Hufschmid, author of the book Painful Questions, and Dave vonKleist, producer of the video In Plane Site. Both vonKleist and Hufschmid have presented photographic evidence showing a turbine wheel from a jet engine – much smaller than a 757’s – found at the Pentagon, an object I have investigated. A new video on 9-11, Loose Change, by Dylan Avery features my research on the unexplained engine part and shows two other parts found at the Pentagon, which it claims are not from a 757.
“If they could prove it, they would,” Col. George Nelson (USAF, retired) said about the government’s failure to produce one piece of trackable aircraft debris from the 9-11 crash sites, “but they can’t. It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to be totally destroyed,” Nelson, a 30-year career aircraft maintenance officer, said. ”I have never in my career ever seen a landing gear that was completely destroyed,” Nelson said. “That landing gear is indestructible.”
Loose Change also has an interview with the head of the flight school at the Maryland airport where Hani Hanjour, allegedly the pilot of the plane that struck the Pentagon, received low marks for his flying ability.
“Jasper is trying to distract the public,” Hufschmid said. “It is important for the public to see the evidence. People around the world are questioning the official explanation of the September 11th attack. Anger towards the American government is increasing, but the public is not going to understand what is happening unless they look at the material that started this controversy.”
Jasper relies on comments provided by Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired) to try and prove that a Boeing 757 crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon at 530 mph.
Partin, former director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, says much of the aluminum-bodied aircraft vaporized on impact causing the white explosion at the Pentagon. The brief white flashes seen as the planes struck the twin towers were caused by the same phenomenon, Partin said.
“When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it’s going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9-11,” Partin said. “If you look at the frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That’s why on the still photos from [the] Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder – the plane fuselage – is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed,” Partin said. “The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it’s going to penetrate quite a ways before it’s spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces.”
According to Partin, the airplane’s aluminum fuselage was traveling faster than a pistol bullet as it pierced the limestone clad exterior and bored through nine feet of reinforced concrete in the three outer rings of the Pentagon ending at the 12-foot hole in the inner wall of the “C” ring. ”Like a cookie cutter through dough,” Partin said.
The same phenomenon caused the flashes seen at the twin towers in the videos, Partin said: “When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That’s obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed.”
The white explosion seen at the Pentagon and the flashes seen as the planes struck the towers are very different. The white flash at the Pentagon is the initial blast of an explosion that turns orange, while the tower flashes are very brief and occur a fraction of a second before the planes impact each tower. Critics, such as vonKleist, say the white flashes are evidence of missiles striking the buildings. In Plane Site focuses on a structural anomaly on the bottom of the aircraft striking the South Tower, which vonKleist says appears to be a missile pod.
A white object is seen being emitted from the bottom of the plane as it nears the tower. This object creates a white flash as it impacts the wall, slightly to the right of the aircraft fuselage. These missiles are thought to be depleted uranium penetrators used to ignite the conflagrations. This could explain the extensive decontamination done on the workers at the Pentagon site.
About Partin’s theory that parts of the aluminum aircraft vaporized on impact while the thin-skinned fuselage bored through nine feet of reinforced concrete, Paul F. Mlakar, technical director of the Pentagon Building Performance Report sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), said, “I’m a little skeptical.”
Mlakar, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, thinks the 12-foot hole in the “C” ring was caused by an “avalanche of debris.” That’s where the black box was found, Mlakar said. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), who received the black box, told Mlakar the plane was traveling 460 knots, or 530 mph. The NTSB refuses to say anything about the black boxes saying it has turned over all data to the FBI.
“757s don’t go that fast. The airplane will just not do that,” Russ Wittenberg, a retired pilot with United and Pan Am airlines, said. “Its exceeding its air speed and mach speed limitations. The airplane just won’t perform those maneuvers. The mach limit for a 757 is about 360 knots at 23,000 feet,” Wittenberg said. About the sharp descending turn made by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon at ground level, Wittenberg said: “The only air vehicle that could perform that would be a high-performance fighter jet, a remote controlled jet-powered drone, or a cruise missile.”
“The fuselage of a 757 did not open that 16-foot hole,” Wittenberg said. “The aluminum of the fuselage would have crumbled like an egg shell on impact. Aluminum doesn’t vaporize. There is no armor-piercing titanium on the tip of a 757,” Wittenberg said. “The white flash in the Pentagon video is the explosion of a high-energy explosive. The 12-foot hole is from the missile or the single jet engine aircraft that carried the missile. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon there would be two of these holes.”
“Boeing’s not going to say,” Boeing spokesperson Liz Verdier responded when asked about the 757’s mach limit, “What does it matter?” she said, “How fast it was going is immaterial.”
Asked about Partin’s theory that an aluminum-bodied aircraft both vaporized on impact and penetrated more than 9 feet of reinforced concrete, Marion Fulk, a retired chemical physicist and depleted uranium expert, told me: “I think what he’s saying is nonsense. The titanium engines would be more likely to penetrate than the fuselage.”
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.