I heared about that Pentagon anti-aircraft missles dozends of
times over the last years, but I can't find a quotable source for it.
The argument that an aircraft that approaches the Pentagon
that doesn't have that friend-or-foe transmitter signal turned on 'friend'
will be shut down automatically is a very powerful one, but debunkers
always say "Huh? What missles? Source, please!"
Can anyone here point me in the right direction, please?
friend-or-foe-signal set to: Carl
Full Version: Pentagon Anti-aircraft-missiles ...source?
There is no evidence for anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon.
Here is what I found so far.
QUOTE
Interview with April Gallop
April Gallop worked inside the Pentagon on 9/11, as an administrative specialist (with a Top Secret with SCI clearance) with the U.S. Army. It was her first day back from maternity leave, after delivering her son Elisha, then two and a half months old.
April is a very brave woman. She and her son suffered tremendous injuries and trauma on 9/11, but they both made it out alive to tell their story.
Me: April, did you hear any warning alarms go off before the Pentagon was hit on 9/11?
AG: No I did not.
Me: What type of warning alarms would you normally expected to go off in the case of an attack on the building?
AG: While I worked at the Pentagon. At random times, there would be drill exercises utilizing an alarm for us to evacuate the building.
Yet on that particular day no alarm. [This is] especially [odd] considering the fact of what had already taken place at the World Trade Center.
Me: When you were first hired to work at the Pentagon, what were you told about the security of the building?
AG: I wasn't hired. I was selected from the military in Germany. I just was granted approval for an additional 3 years tour in Heidelberg Germany. Which is called an IPCOT (In Place Consecutive Tour). Then I learned I was selected among my peers to go to the Pentagon. Upon arrival,I completed what is known as Reception and Integration.
A common statement provided, as you are walking around is that, "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States." It is quite an impressive building on the inside.
Me: Do you have any theory about how a Boeing 757 could have hit such a secure building without any anti-aircraft defenses being activated or any warning alarms sounded?
AG: I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?
And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?
You know, it takes a while to get around that building. And I remember being so disgusted at the frequency of random drill exercises taking place for us to evacuate the building. It seemed as if they always happened when I had to take care of certain things.
Yet on September 11th, the day when our lives were threatened, not one alarm.
Me: I would imagine that security procedures are different now than they were prior to 9/11, so I don't think you would be revealing any confidential information by answering this question. I have heard that, as of 9/11, the anti-aircraft batteries were automated, in other words, that they would have automatically fired against any incoming aircraft that did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal. Is that true?
AG: Yes that is true. They are either to attempt to guide the incoming aircraft that has violated the airspace to a safe location to land. Making reasonable effort to guide it down. Or shoot it down.
April Gallop worked inside the Pentagon on 9/11, as an administrative specialist (with a Top Secret with SCI clearance) with the U.S. Army. It was her first day back from maternity leave, after delivering her son Elisha, then two and a half months old.
April is a very brave woman. She and her son suffered tremendous injuries and trauma on 9/11, but they both made it out alive to tell their story.
Me: April, did you hear any warning alarms go off before the Pentagon was hit on 9/11?
AG: No I did not.
Me: What type of warning alarms would you normally expected to go off in the case of an attack on the building?
AG: While I worked at the Pentagon. At random times, there would be drill exercises utilizing an alarm for us to evacuate the building.
Yet on that particular day no alarm. [This is] especially [odd] considering the fact of what had already taken place at the World Trade Center.
Me: When you were first hired to work at the Pentagon, what were you told about the security of the building?
AG: I wasn't hired. I was selected from the military in Germany. I just was granted approval for an additional 3 years tour in Heidelberg Germany. Which is called an IPCOT (In Place Consecutive Tour). Then I learned I was selected among my peers to go to the Pentagon. Upon arrival,I completed what is known as Reception and Integration.
A common statement provided, as you are walking around is that, "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States." It is quite an impressive building on the inside.
Me: Do you have any theory about how a Boeing 757 could have hit such a secure building without any anti-aircraft defenses being activated or any warning alarms sounded?
AG: I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?
And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?
You know, it takes a while to get around that building. And I remember being so disgusted at the frequency of random drill exercises taking place for us to evacuate the building. It seemed as if they always happened when I had to take care of certain things.
Yet on September 11th, the day when our lives were threatened, not one alarm.
Me: I would imagine that security procedures are different now than they were prior to 9/11, so I don't think you would be revealing any confidential information by answering this question. I have heard that, as of 9/11, the anti-aircraft batteries were automated, in other words, that they would have automatically fired against any incoming aircraft that did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal. Is that true?
AG: Yes that is true. They are either to attempt to guide the incoming aircraft that has violated the airspace to a safe location to land. Making reasonable effort to guide it down. Or shoot it down.
I think i am a truther, but try to keep my mind open.
So in my opinion, her answers sounds like she believes there is some kind of defense system, but she doesn't really know for sure.
It can't be an automatically reacting anti aircraft missile system, when her opinion is, that there are steps like guiding or force to land before a shoot down might be the last choice. These are human desicions and suggest its an outside (airforce) task.
So in my opinion, her answers sounds like she believes there is some kind of defense system, but she doesn't really know for sure.
It can't be an automatically reacting anti aircraft missile system, when her opinion is, that there are steps like guiding or force to land before a shoot down might be the last choice. These are human desicions and suggest its an outside (airforce) task.
QUOTE (Ricochet @ May 13 2008, 11:56 AM) 
Here is what I found so far.
Ricochet, it is always appreciated if you include a source link when quoting text.
Thank you,
p
I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it. No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable.
Well, Pentagon "impact" was NOT due to a lack of technology- see the land-based version of the US Navy's automated Phalanx CIWS "gun" system that was recently deployed in Iraq FOB's. Humvee- and truck-mounted missile launch platforms aren't exactly rare either- I can probably find a dozen links there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wArPao03q68
I'd say Pentagon air defenses is a question properly for the Joint Chiefs (my money is still on Condi having "no idea" about terrorist threats, and Rummy already "cut and run"). I'll also [semi-]speculate that the Pentagon will/would refuse to discuss "operational details and matters of national defense/security."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wArPao03q68
I'd say Pentagon air defenses is a question properly for the Joint Chiefs (my money is still on Condi having "no idea" about terrorist threats, and Rummy already "cut and run"). I'll also [semi-]speculate that the Pentagon will/would refuse to discuss "operational details and matters of national defense/security."
The greatest concern from about 1952 onwards re: Pentagon was that the Rooskies, knowing how much of the military planning operation was concentrated in Pentagon, would attempt to "decapitate" the DC authority prior to a strike.
the cafe in the central courtyard is aptly named ';cafe ground zero' --
now,convince yourself, that with 60 years since they laid the first stone, that the Pentagon had no systems for air defense. no radars. no team of security whose only job it was -- to detect & deter threats to pentagon by air, land, sea, or space.
might as well tell me my bank doesnt lock the doors at night.
the cafe in the central courtyard is aptly named ';cafe ground zero' --
now,convince yourself, that with 60 years since they laid the first stone, that the Pentagon had no systems for air defense. no radars. no team of security whose only job it was -- to detect & deter threats to pentagon by air, land, sea, or space.
might as well tell me my bank doesnt lock the doors at night.
As to the question of whether or not the Pentagon has its own missile defenses, let's hear it from a former employee:
Barbara Honegger, MS – Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of Defense's advanced science, technology and national security affairs university (1995 - present). Graduate of the Naval War College master's program in National Security Decision Making (2001). Former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to President Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1983).
Former Director of the Attorney General's Anti-Discrimination Law Review, U.S. Department of Justice (1982 - 1983). Author of the pioneering Irangate expose October Surprise (1989). Author of the chapter "The Pentagon Attack Papers" included in The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty by Jim Marrs (2006).
Contributing author to The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty 9/6/06: "The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. ...
A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 280−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.
Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system." http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf
Although I feel that NOTHING hit the Pentagon, Ms. Honegger was in a position to inform us on this issue. I got this from Patriots Question 911.
Barbara Honegger, MS – Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of Defense's advanced science, technology and national security affairs university (1995 - present). Graduate of the Naval War College master's program in National Security Decision Making (2001). Former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to President Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1983).
Former Director of the Attorney General's Anti-Discrimination Law Review, U.S. Department of Justice (1982 - 1983). Author of the pioneering Irangate expose October Surprise (1989). Author of the chapter "The Pentagon Attack Papers" included in The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty by Jim Marrs (2006).
Contributing author to The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty 9/6/06: "The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. ...
A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 280−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.
Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system." http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf
Although I feel that NOTHING hit the Pentagon, Ms. Honegger was in a position to inform us on this issue. I got this from Patriots Question 911.
I thank you ALL 1000 times for your responses, not at least because
you showed once more why this forums is the most unbiased and most reliable
source for 9/11 info out there.
proud to be one of you: Carl
you showed once more why this forums is the most unbiased and most reliable
source for 9/11 info out there.
proud to be one of you: Carl
QUOTE (painter @ May 13 2008, 04:35 PM)
I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it. No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable.
Best definition of the term 'common sense' I read so far.
: Carl
I found this, can someone comment:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....entity=pentagon
QUOTE
Shortly After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001: Pentagon Defense Chief Says Building Has Nothing to Protect against an Airplane
The head of the agency that provides security at the Pentagon informs another military employee that the Pentagon is unprotected against an aerial attack. In reaction to the news of the attacks on New York, Army Deputy Administrative Assistant Sandra Riley telephones John Jester, the chief of the Defense Protective Service (DPS)—the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon. She asks him, “What do we have in place to protect from an airplane?” He tells her, “Nothing.” According to the Defense Department’s book about the Pentagon attack: “The Pentagon did not have an antiaircraft system on the roof of the building or on the grounds. Even if DPS had received word of an inbound plane, it had no plan to counter a suicide air attack. Had a warning been issued in time, DPS’s only effective response would have been evacuation and dispersal of the building’s occupants.” [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 152] The Washington Post will similarly claim the Pentagon has “no anti-aircraft guns posted on its roof, nor any radars of its own for tracking local air traffic.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001] Yet, at the nearby White House, the Secret Service is believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the place. [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001]
The head of the agency that provides security at the Pentagon informs another military employee that the Pentagon is unprotected against an aerial attack. In reaction to the news of the attacks on New York, Army Deputy Administrative Assistant Sandra Riley telephones John Jester, the chief of the Defense Protective Service (DPS)—the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon. She asks him, “What do we have in place to protect from an airplane?” He tells her, “Nothing.” According to the Defense Department’s book about the Pentagon attack: “The Pentagon did not have an antiaircraft system on the roof of the building or on the grounds. Even if DPS had received word of an inbound plane, it had no plan to counter a suicide air attack. Had a warning been issued in time, DPS’s only effective response would have been evacuation and dispersal of the building’s occupants.” [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 152] The Washington Post will similarly claim the Pentagon has “no anti-aircraft guns posted on its roof, nor any radars of its own for tracking local air traffic.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001] Yet, at the nearby White House, the Secret Service is believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the place. [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....entity=pentagon
Most of this anti-missile debate - as far as I know and I've researched - it's just misinformation, or it's just based on assumptions.
Both the press and Thierry Meissan contributed in large part in creating this non argument. Others just presented the argument without sources.
Both the press and Thierry Meissan contributed in large part in creating this non argument. Others just presented the argument without sources.
I have to say for me, just my opinion looking at it from distance, that it is very hard for me to belive that the US government have no system to defend its own military head quarters.
Well maybe DoD is actively seeking that "2nd 9/11" that we keep hearing about. 
i can assure you, dc is ringed with sams.
especially surrounding camp david[which 77 flew over].
of even greater interest, west point is ringed with sams. and of course, someone[s] stood down as "hijacked" airliners overflew.
and it is crazier still, in the area of the hand-offs following the "hijackings" of the boston departures, there are scores of sams. as i wrote previously, unless they were dismantled, there were sam sites all over the mountainous areas of ma.
especially surrounding camp david[which 77 flew over].
of even greater interest, west point is ringed with sams. and of course, someone[s] stood down as "hijacked" airliners overflew.
and it is crazier still, in the area of the hand-offs following the "hijackings" of the boston departures, there are scores of sams. as i wrote previously, unless they were dismantled, there were sam sites all over the mountainous areas of ma.
Logic and hearsay evidence must conclude, the Pentagon and US defense system does not rely solely on scrambled fighter jets. We rest our case.
QUOTE (albertchampion @ May 14 2008, 11:02 PM)
i can assure you, dc is ringed with sams.
You can "assure" us?
Where are these SAMS that are ringing DC?
And why would they be there?
QUOTE (Woolfie @ Sep 16 2008, 08:03 AM)
Thank you very much, woolfie! ZERO is indeed a outstanding 9/11 docu and the part about
P56 and Barbara Honegger talking about the Pentagon defense system is a great source.
I embed the clip here, but I still would love to have another (at best) official source that
indicates or prooves that these missle defense systems existed or still exist. But for now and for the
sheople who insist that there were no missles at all, this might be sufficient. Thanks again!
It turns out that the part about p56 in Zero is misleading ,p56 didnt cover pentagon as it is so close to washington airport ,see the other thread about this.
Flight 77 did in fact fly over P56 when it flew over the white house.... however.
Now we just have to figure out wether it should have been automatically shot down over this airpace.
Flight 77 did in fact fly over P56 when it flew over the white house.... however.
Now we just have to figure out wether it should have been automatically shot down over this airpace.
given that so many commercial planes cross over the (non-p56) region, which is next to an airport of course, it would (imo) be too risky to use an automatic friend/foe beacon linked to an automatic missile response/attack system. electronics can be whimsical and if the system incorrectly misidentified a friendly and shot it down (possibly over land with cars and people and buildings), there would be hell to pay. so my wisdom suggests that such a system would not be applied to this locale, given the many implications/risks.
but i recently spoke about the subject of missile batteries with a neighbor of mine, who not only works in the pentagon, but also flies as part of a squadron of fighter jets who patrol/protect p56 and its surrounding airspace, and according to him there are no built-in missiles at the pentagon. he said they have mobile units kept very close by with missiles - he called them "SCUDS" to be exact (thats what he said!), that can be moved into position if and when necessary. he did not say however, that these missiles were meant to shoot down planes and from what i know about SCUDS, they are longer-ranged missiles and are not designed to be used against aircraft.
i didnt ask him about him about the existence of any other local air defenses (i didnt want to arouse suspicion by seeming too nosey about defense logistics), but i imagine that in addition to mobile missile batteries, that there are mobile anti-aircraft artillery kept close-by for a time when they are needed. but according to my source at least, there is no "automatic missile system" around the pentagon.
now - i dont know if p56 itself has any sort of automatic response system, but i imagine if it did, then the decoy 77 plane should have triggered it when it flew over DC on 911.
but i recently spoke about the subject of missile batteries with a neighbor of mine, who not only works in the pentagon, but also flies as part of a squadron of fighter jets who patrol/protect p56 and its surrounding airspace, and according to him there are no built-in missiles at the pentagon. he said they have mobile units kept very close by with missiles - he called them "SCUDS" to be exact (thats what he said!), that can be moved into position if and when necessary. he did not say however, that these missiles were meant to shoot down planes and from what i know about SCUDS, they are longer-ranged missiles and are not designed to be used against aircraft.
i didnt ask him about him about the existence of any other local air defenses (i didnt want to arouse suspicion by seeming too nosey about defense logistics), but i imagine that in addition to mobile missile batteries, that there are mobile anti-aircraft artillery kept close-by for a time when they are needed. but according to my source at least, there is no "automatic missile system" around the pentagon.
now - i dont know if p56 itself has any sort of automatic response system, but i imagine if it did, then the decoy 77 plane should have triggered it when it flew over DC on 911.
QUOTE (paranoia @ Sep 18 2008, 08:54 AM)
but i recently spoke about the subject of missile batteries with a neighbor of mine, who not only works in the pentagon, but also flies as part of a squadron of fighter jets who patrol/protect p56 and its surrounding airspace, and according to him there are no built-in missiles at the pentagon. he said they have mobile units kept very close by with missiles - he called them "SCUDS" to be exact (thats what he said!), that can be moved into position if and when necessary. he did not say however, that these missiles were meant to shoot down planes and from what i know about SCUDS, they are longer-ranged missiles and are not designed to be used against aircraft.
SCUD is a Soviet copy of the German WW2-era V2 ballistic missile. It has been improved from the original design, of course.
It's a useful terror weapon in a conventional war, since it is designed to be launched from mobile launchers and is therefore difficult to interdict before launch, and minimizes the warning the defender gets.
I'm guessing that Scud is a slang word they use (or he uses), since modern mobile anti-air launchers are superficially similar to such mobile ballistic missile launchers.
Scud
US Hawk missile launcher
It would be quite easy to mistake one for the other, especially if you aren't particularly interested in missiles. There are obvious numerous differences (size, for example, or near complete lack of guiding fins on the Scud), but mistaking one for another doesn't seem particularly far fetched.
I found this over at the Cryptome eyeball series.
http://eyeball-series.org/belvoir-mb/belvoir-mb.htm
Andrews Air Force Base
http://eyeball-series.org/af1-anti-missile...nti-missile.htm
http://eyeball-series.org/belvoir-mb/belvoir-mb.htm
Andrews Air Force Base
http://eyeball-series.org/af1-anti-missile...nti-missile.htm
thnx for airing those pix.
as i said many months ago, there are a number of sam batteries surrounding dc.
usmc in quantico has a few in its hills and dales. the catoctins have a few.
all the gold depositories[fort knox, west point] have a few.
if you drive out into the virginia horse country, you will encounter a few. oh, you will not know what they are. you will be driving down a country road when suddenly armed soldiers appear. informing you to turn around. if you take the time to look, you will notice a heavily fenced clearing.
some of the batteries are very well disguised.
the "cold" war caused the deployment of a number of sam batteries. the first one i ever encountered was on mt tom in massachusetts. that was in the late 1960's.
undoubtedly, some of these sites have been abandoned over the decades. but some are still extant and operational and outfitted with better missiles than the nikes that were deployed in the 1960's.
by the way, as a rule, anyone who knows of these emplacements will not discuss them. they are under orders, you know.
as i said many months ago, there are a number of sam batteries surrounding dc.
usmc in quantico has a few in its hills and dales. the catoctins have a few.
all the gold depositories[fort knox, west point] have a few.
if you drive out into the virginia horse country, you will encounter a few. oh, you will not know what they are. you will be driving down a country road when suddenly armed soldiers appear. informing you to turn around. if you take the time to look, you will notice a heavily fenced clearing.
some of the batteries are very well disguised.
the "cold" war caused the deployment of a number of sam batteries. the first one i ever encountered was on mt tom in massachusetts. that was in the late 1960's.
undoubtedly, some of these sites have been abandoned over the decades. but some are still extant and operational and outfitted with better missiles than the nikes that were deployed in the 1960's.
by the way, as a rule, anyone who knows of these emplacements will not discuss them. they are under orders, you know.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.