Ventura and his team next investigate whether a jet-liner even hit the Pentagon. Through various interviews, videos and photos, Ventura makes a strong case that a Boeing 757 NEVER hit the Pentagon, because there was not any of the normal evidence of a jet-liner plane crash outside the building, no wings, no fuselage, no engines, although there was some evidence of smaller plane debris inside the building. Furthermore, engineers and a journalist that he and his investigators interview point out that the initial hole (before fire damage and further structural collapse enlarged the opening) did not by any stretch of the imagination match the outline of a 757, and to add injury to already stretched credulity, the structurally weak aluminum nose of a Boeing 757, an engineer being interviewed states, could not possibly smash through the protective steel-reinforced C-Ring beyond the first two walls the airliner would have had to have powered through. Here is a physics-based article that proves, at least on paper, that a Boeing 757 could not have hit the Pentagon without creating a much larger hole and/or leaving more debris outside: CLICK HERE.
To be fair to the official belief that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, at least ostensibly, Ventura then looks into the video evidence, since the Pentagon is one of the most heavily surveyed edifices on the planet, with scores of security video cameras monitoring it all the time, not to mention all the video cameras from nearby businesses that were randomly videotaping the Pentagon in the background on the morning of September 11th. The FBI fanned out in force that very day to confiscate or retrieve some 85 or more video cameras surrounding the Pentagon and in the vicinity that day.
You would think, with all that multiple footage, that at least one of the videotapes would clearly show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However, "It took five years of lawsuits", Jesse alleges, "to force the Defense Department to release just three minutes of footage and it all came down to just five frames." And those five frames only show a fireball, NOT A LARGE AIRPLANE in any of them, certainly no fuselage or wings, or the huge tail of a 757.
Then there is Hami Hanjour, "pilot extraordinaire". Could a young man whom his American flight instructors have revealed could not be counted on to even pilot a Cessna 172 properly, then be expected to maneuver a much larger Boeing 757 with highly complex cockpit instrumentation into an extreme turn while diving down and leveling off into a parallel-to-the ground run right into the Pentagon at high speed (500 knots)? Not according to former Air Force pilot Rob Balsamo, who tells Ventura that this was impossible to pull off for a novice, and extremely difficult if not impossible for a seasoned professional!
For more on Hami Hanjour and the other alleged hijackers, visit this website.
Ventura and his interviewees speculate that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, possibly flying in tandem with Flight 77, then hitting the complex while the plane flew over the building, obscured by the fireball and heavy plumes of black smoke. Or was the plane possibly itself obliterated by a missile and what was left of Flight 77 flew into the building.
One can dismiss Jesse's episode at this point as just one more exercise in futile speculation over the long-standing question, missile or plane? However, Episode 8 goes that extra mile, Jesse interviewing Army Specialist April Gallup, who was at her desk in the very space destroyed by the 9/11 attack that morning, with her two-month old baby in a stroller right next to her when disaster struck. April recounts that she heard a loud bomb go off as the room collapsed around her. She had to low-crawl through the debris to grab her baby and escape through the impact hole, noting, amazingly, that she saw NO SIGN OF AN AIRPLANE as she staggered out into the open air.
THE GLOBAL HAWK?
At this point I want to digress from the content of Episode 8, because if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, and many witnesses say they DID see the plane, or a plane hit, which confuses the point that there was no obvious, large airplane wreckage, then must we necessarily assume it was a missile, or are there other scenarios altogether, and if so, what could they be?
Well, here is one of them: How many of you have heard of Samuel Danner and his eyewitness testimony? If not, check out this article excerpt:
An eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forward with an astonishing account that debunks the official 9/11 story and corroborates the hypothesis that an unmanned "and weaponized" Global Hawk drone was involved in the attack.
Nearly 5 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, completely debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the 5-sided military fortress housing the U.S. Department of Defense.
Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Maryland, says he was trying to get out of Washington on the morning of 9/11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd. (Virginia Highway 27), the highway that passes alongside the western side of the Pentagon. It was from the shoulder of Highway 27, across from the Pentagon, that Danner says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack. (What he saw happened to resemble this aircraft, a UAV or drone - Mac)
Danner's eyewitness account corroborates the theory that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, the fortress of the Department of War that was built on a low lying area formerly known as Hell's Bottom. Although Danner's testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft, it is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence and numerous statements made by other eyewitnesses.....
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
9
6
5
