Pentagon Missile Batteries
It's long been claimed that the 9/11 planes couldn't have reached their targets if the FAA and NORAD had followed normal procedure. However, according to some the Pentagon had a further layer of protection: its own missile batteries.
We believe this claim originated with Meyssan, however others, including David Ray Griffin, appear to accept it (even if qualifying their existence with a "reportedly"):
But where is the evidence for this? Griffin's note above tells us:
So where are the photos of these batteries? Where are the US newspaper stories about these batteries? Why are the only people coming forward about it, those with books to sell? If the US would tell the French about them, then they are hardly secret, which is precisely what you'd expect. There's no way you would ever want to use missiles over Washington (having citizens killed by falling debris to protect military officers is hardly going to be popular), so their presence would be most useful as a deterrent.
April Gallop, who was working in the Pentagon on 9/11, has also been quoted as confirming the presence of these missile:
However, in the last part Gallop appears to be talking about using fighters, not missiles, which won’t “guide” the incoming aircraft anywhere.
There is still this talk of "violating airspace", though, which is curious, as the Pentagon is very close to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport:
As a result, Dr Griffin's "restricted airspace" is used all the time by planes that fly to and from the airport. Here's a photo:
And here's a video:
Get the Flash Player to see this movie.
Presumably not even Dr Griffin would try to tell us that everything flying to and from the airport has a military transponder, so that once again raises the question: what would trigger the firing of these missiles?
It doesn't appear that violating "no-fly" zones is enough. That's happened frequently, even post 9/11, and none have been shot down:
Perhaps there's no automatic process, and the batteries are manually operated. But in that case, at what point would you make the shootdown decision? At an average of 400 mph, any plane approaching the Pentagon would cover the final mile in around 9 seconds. A plane could divert from a normal approach path to the airport in an even shorter period, a major problem because it takes time for missiles to launch, detect and move in on an attacker. If you can’t launch before the target is inside your minimum range (which could be half a mile or more) then you have no chance of hitting it.
Of course it could be argued that the defences weren't specifically employed for this kind of threat, but still might have come in useful on 9/11. However, we keep coming back to the total lack of evidence to say these missile batteries exist at all. There are no photos showing where they might be, and no past or current Pentagon employee has clearly confirmed their existence. The press don't seem to realise they are there, either: in 2002 missile launchers were deployed around Washington, and reports made it clear that this was very unusual:
Some confirmation comes in Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies”, where he says plans for air defence were rejected (the dates of these events aren’t made precisely clear, but the account comes from a chapter entitled “The Almost War, 1996):
It seems if there were missile defences on 9/11, then Clarke didn’t know about them.