Distortion Of Fact - Samples for Critique

[ref]

Deleted - Content moved to an earlier post.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Quote:

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27)...

... http://911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/Wo...%20Removal.htm

Just an FYI: This one link in your "Claim 9" post is not working.

Otherwise, good work so far. Lots of good info.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by MikeW

Good work! Just two comments.

First, the location of Rumsfeld's office really was publicly available.

Originally Posted by ref

This 100% confirms, that information of where Rumsfeld's room was before 9/11 was available:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/08/politics/08RUMS.html?ex=1193198400&en=9cf3d68b632d3cb5&ei=5 070

NY Times
January 8, 2001

Thank you! A nice piece of information.

Originally Posted by MikeW

And second... Actually that's better done as a video. More later.

ETA: I was thinking of the second part of the al-Qaeda video, "Knowledge is for Acting Upon", where they talk about the choice of targets. But now I look at the transcript, it reads:

<< On the other side, and after the pilots completed the training stage and became ready to execute their missions, the surveillance team finished gathering the necessary data of the preliminary targets which had been determined previously. And following consultation and exchange of opinions according to the results of the surveillance, four strategic targets were chosen for the military, psychological and economic impact their hitting would have on the American government and people. >>

From memory I was thinking they hadn't said anything about maximising casualties, and that's true, however I suppose you could argue that a "military" impact might mean that. So maybe this doesn't clearly help either side of the argument. Still, if you want the clip, let me know & I'll upload it.

That sounds interesting. Does the video expand any more on what sort of military, psychological and economic impact they were aiming for?

I feel the Al Qaeda motives is the weakest part of my response, I'm intending to get my hand on those two books soon.

Originally Posted by Gravy

Excellent job once again, gumboot! I especially liked your comments about how few general officers there are in the U.S. military and why using a plane like an assassin's bullet would be a bad idea.

Thanks! I was quite surprised to discover that the number of officers was so limited, although I wasn't so surprised to discover most of them didn't work at the Pentagon. Conspiracy Theorists seem to have this notion of all of the military's top officers just sitting around in the one building doing... something. The reality is the majority of military personnel in the building would not be officers, and most of the officers would be mid rank staff officers.

Originally Posted by ref

And of course, excellent job once again, Gumboot!

I will again post this on my/your page soon. I'll just wait a while if you want to make any changes.

These initial posts are first drafts to get feedback so I probably won't come back and change anything until the whole thing is finished, however you're more than welcome to correct any typos or broken links that anyone picks up.

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Just an FYI: This one link in your "Claim 9" post is not working.

Otherwise, good work so far. Lots of good info.

Thanks for that, I'll fix that up in the rewrite.

-Gumboot

[ref]

Claim 16 with all the images is now posted here:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin36

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by gumboot

That sounds interesting. Does the video expand any more on what sort of military, psychological and economic impact they were aiming for?

I feel the Al Qaeda motives is the weakest part of my response, I'm intending to get my hand on those two books soon.

No, the al Qaeda clip doesn't go beyond the transcript I posted, unfortunately.

"The Secret History of al-Qaeda" doesn't provide much 9/11-related material. It's written at a fairly high level & better at overall strategy rather than the kind of fine details we discuss here. The best part effortlessly deals with the idiots who wonder "what did al Qaeda gain from 9/11?", by pointing out that what's happened since is just what they wanted, but you can find much the same information elsewhere. The key comes from the writings of Sayf al-Adel, and you can read a summary at http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/n...icleid=2369441 (Google the title of that page for more). Again that's high-level, overall strategy, though, and doesn't deal with questions like "why the Pentagon?"

[Magenta]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The latest point has taken me some time, and it's rather long so I've put it up now (also it's been a long time since I posted anything!).

I'm also not very happy with this one - there's a lot of simple logic on my part that's missing supporting evidence from other sources. In particular I have my eyes on two books that might provide additional information about Al Qaeda's motives: The Looming Towers and The Secret History Of Al Qaeda. Any in put would be much appreciated.

-Gumboot

Quote:

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

Griffin plays fast and loose with the word "fact", doesn’t he? It seems to me he is addressing a narrow sub-set of target selection in this claim, rather than Al Qaeda's motives which I think covers larger, more political issues. Causing "as much death and destruction as possible" in New York and Washington was not the end in itself, but the means to provoke the US into a disastrous intervention elsewhere.

While the Pentagon was a military target, surely the effect was intended to be symbolic. Regardless of how many or how few deaths they caused, being able to strike not only in the nation’s capital, but also at its military "heart" was quite a coup.

If you treat Griffin's claim as being quite narrow in scope, then I think you have substantially addressed it already. (I should say I haven't read Griffin's book so I don't know what he claims actually happened on 9/11.) I think you will find The Looming Tower helpful on the background to Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11.

[boloboffin]

Wright cites the confession of KSM in the approval of the plan in the spring of 1999. He then gives an account of the picking of targets later that year. Page 348:

Quote:

A few months later bin Laden, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, and Abu Hafs gathered in Kandahar to pick potential targets. The three men were the only ones involved. Their goal was not only to inflict symbolic damage. Bin Laden imagined that America - as a political entity - could actually be destroyed. "America is a great power possessed of tremendous military might and a wide-ranging economy," he later conceded, "but all of this is built on an unstable foundation whch can be targeted, with special attention to its obvious weak spots. If it is hit in one hundredth of those spots, God willing, it will stumble, wither away, and relinquish world leadership." Inevitably, he believed, the confederation of states taht made up America would dissolve.

It was natural, then, that bin Laden wanted to strike the White House and the U.S. Capitol. He also put the Pentagon on his list. If he succeeded in destroying the American seat of government and the headquarters of its military, the actual dismemberment of the country would not seem like such a fantasy. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed nominated the World Trade Center, which his nephew Ramzi Yousef had failed to bring down in the bombing six years earlier. The Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower (now called the U.S. Bank Tower) in Los Angeles were also discussed. Bin Laden decided that the attack on the American cities on the West Coast could wait.

The bin Laden quote is from bin Laden's "Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice." A longer quote goes into bin Laden's motives for choosing the 9/11 attack sites:

Quote:

On that blessed Tuesday, the 23rd of jumada al-thani, 1422, which corresponds to September 11th, 2001, while the Zio-American alliance was still using American tanks and planes and Jewish hands to reap [the lives] of our sons and our people in the land of al-Aqsa; while our sons in Iraq were dying as a result of the oppression of the unjust siege [inflicted on them] by America and her agents; and while the Muslim world was still very far from genuinely supporting Islam; while things were in this state of frustration, desperation and procrastination -- on the part of the Muslims, with the exception of those on whom Allah had had mercy, -- and a state of injustice, arrogance and aggression -- on the part of the Zio-American alliance; and while the land of Uncle Sam, heedless in its transgressions, bellowing its tyranny, 'puffed up its cheeks in contempt of the people and strutted merrily on the face of the earth,'[22]without paying heed to anyone, believing that nothing could harm it -- then disaster struck them.

Come let me tell you what that terrible disaster means: the 'unkempt of hair and dusty of foot'[23]pounced -- they who are everywhere hunted down, young men who believed in their Lord, whom Allah had guided to the right path, whose hearts He had strengthened and filled with faith. [These young men, when it comes to acting] for Allah's cause, do not fear 'the reprimands of those who seek to find fault'[24]because they desire only Allah's recompense; their hearts do not allow them to close to injustice; they sacrifice their lives, but never their honor.

They carried out the raid by means of enemy planes in a courageous and splendid operation the like of which mankind had never before witnessed. They smashed the American idols and damaged its very heart, the Pentagon. They struck the very heart of the American economy, rubbed America's nose in the dirt and dragged its pride through the mud. The towers of New York collapsed, and their collapse precipitated an even greater debacle: the collapse of the myth of America the great power and the collapse of the myth of democracy; people began to understand that American values could sink no lower. The myth of the land of freedom was destroyed, the myth of American National security was smashed and the myth of the CIA collapsed, all praise and thanks to Allah.

One of the most important positive results of the raids on New York and Washington was the revelation of the truth regarding the conflict between the Crusaders and the Muslims. [The raids] revealed the strength of the hatred which the Crusaders feel towards us, as the two raids peeled the lamb's skin off the back of the American wolf and revealed the hideous truth. The whole world awoke from its slumber, and the Muslims were alerted to the importance of the [Muslim] principle which states that positions of alliance or hostility may be taken [only] for the sake of Allah. The spirit of religious brotherhood among Muslims was likewise strengthened, which constitutes a great step forward along the road towards uniting Muslims under the banner of monotheism in order to establish the rightly-guided Caliphate, God willing. People discovered that it was possible to strike at America, that oppressive power, and that it was possible to humiliate it, to bring it into contempt and to defeat it. For the first time, the majority of the American people [now] understand the truth of the Palestinian issue and that what hit them in Manhattan is a result of the oppressive policy of their government.

To sum up: America is a great power possessed of tremendous military might and a wide-ranging economy, but all this is built upon an unstable foundation which can be targeted, with special attention to its obvious weak spots. If it [America] is hit in one hundredth of those spots, God willing, it will stumble, wither away and relinquish world leadership and its oppression.

I don't know why Wright says that bin Laden thought he could destroy the Pentagon in this attack. If he did, it shows that even screw-ups can get lucky if they keep at it. Perhaps that idea is from KSM's testimony, but there's nothing about actually targeting senior military officials in The Looming Tower, other than the simple inference that destroying the Pentagon would kill a lot of SMOs. The main goal is the destruction of America as a political entity (the fate of the USSR). The sermon in 2003 shows that bin Laden is using their spectacular success on 9/11 to press this goal forward in the Muslim world.

[sthomson]

Very interesting so far, gumboot! However, I'm a bit confused by your point 16. It seems to me that Dr Griffin is implying that Al Qaeda did not commit the attacks on the pentagon; if they had (in his reasoning), they would have chosen a different part of the building - one that was more populated and had higher-status targets. The claims you extracted were a bit different.

Of course, your refutations - that the building was populated and that it contained high-status targets, and furthermore that Al Qaeda didn't care much about the total number of victims - are still spot-on responses to his Dr. Griffin's implications.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Wright cites the confession of KSM in the approval of the plan in the spring of 1999. He then gives an account of the picking of targets later that year. Page 348:



The bin Laden quote is from bin Laden's "Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice." A longer quote goes into bin Laden's motives for choosing the 9/11 attack sites:



I don't know why Wright says that bin Laden thought he could destroy the Pentagon in this attack. If he did, it shows that even screw-ups can get lucky if they keep at it. Perhaps that idea is from KSM's testimony, but there's nothing about actually targeting senior military officials in The Looming Tower, other than the simple inference that destroying the Pentagon would kill a lot of SMOs. The main goal is the destruction of America as a political entity (the fate of the USSR). The sermon in 2003 shows that bin Laden is using their spectacular success on 9/11 to press this goal forward in the Muslim world.

Thanks, that's precisely the sort of thing I was looking for.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by sthomson

Very interesting so far, gumboot! However, I'm a bit confused by your point 16. It seems to me that Dr Griffin is implying that Al Qaeda did not commit the attacks on the pentagon; if they had (in his reasoning), they would have chosen a different part of the building - one that was more populated and had higher-status targets. The claims you extracted were a bit different.

That's an excellent point. I should amend the first three inherent claims as follows:

a) The west wing of the Pentagon was intentionally targeted.
b) Al Qaeda would have wanted to cause as much death and destruction as possible.
c) Al Qaeda terrorists would have wanted to target top Pentagon officials.

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Thanks, that's precisely the sort of thing I was looking for.

-Gumboot

You're welcome. Seeing that again, something popped out - a possible motive for the shape of the anthrax attacks. If bin Laden thought he really could dissolve the Union, then the targeting of Bush's political opponents makes a little more sense from an Al Qaeda perspective.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by gumboot

In order to understand Griffin’s claim we first have to identify the “several reasons” he alludes to. From his book Omissions and Distortions:
Quote:

Quote:

A terrorist pilot would surely have wanted to cause as much death and destruction as possible. And yet the west wing was being renovated. Instead of the several thousand people who would normally have been working in the area that was struck, there were only about 800. As a result, whereas a strike on a different part of the Pentagon would have probably killed thousands, the strike on the West Wing killed only 125 people employed at the Pentagon – many of whom were civilians working on the renovation.
....................

When I read your very excellent work Gumboot, it occurred to me that another way to show how farfetched Griffin's claim that thousands would have been killed, if another part of the Pentagon had been stricken, is to look at that claim from a more technical point of view.

In the report NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers NIST compared the impacts in WTC 1 and WTC 2 with the impact in Pentagon. As the figure(5-25) below shows, the area directly affected by the aircraft impacts were of comparable size in all three buildings. With mainly pieces of landing gear going all the way through the buildings. This indicates that this is a likely maximum footprint of damage, that an aircraft of this size could cause from impact alone in any part of the Pentagon.



It is to be noted that a lot of workers within that footprint close to the main path of destruction survived and escaped.

To find a ballpark figure for the number of people located within the footprint of damage I did some rough calculations based upon measurements from a scale drawing of the Pentagon layout. The area within the footprint is equal to about 1/5 of a wedge. With a workforce of about 5000 within a wedge, we would get 1000 workers within that footprint. Those workers would be located on 5 floors, equal to 200 workers on each floor. Flight 77 impacted only two floors directly. Had the aircraft hit the second floor it could possibly have impacted 3 floors directly, with the floors directly above and below included. But above floor 2 it would not be possible for the aircraft to penetrate as deep into the building as on the lower floors, since it would have to penetrate more exterior walls due to open space between the rings above that level. While on floor 1 and 2 the building was continues from the E-ring exterior wall to the C-ring exterior wall at the AE-drive. That would give a upper limit of about 500 workers within the footprint of direct impact, with a maximum of maybe 200-300 persons killed directly by the impact.

Similar calculations for a fully populated WTC tower gives figures in the same area. But unlike the WTC towers no one in the Pentagon building were trapped above the impact zone. All survivors able to move could evacuate horizontally away from the fires, and then a few floors down to ground level and out of the building. Survivors within the impact zone also escaped through windows or holes in the exterior walls directly to the outside, or jumped from the second floor. The escape routes were numerous, unlike in the WTC towers.

Just by going through this exercise, it becomes quiet obvious that it would have been physically impossible to kill thousands by the impact of one plane alone in the Pentagon. The choice of a horizontal projection instead of a vertical projection (skyscraper) have a very limiting effect on the consequences of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon, compared with a high rise building. As tragically confirmed by the events that day.

According to the book Pentagon 9/11, recently published by Historical Office/ Secretary of Defense, the Army had just moved in 275 people on the second floor within the footprint of direct impact. By adding I find a similar figure for the first floor. Of the 125 killed (Flight 77 not included) 92 was killed on the first floor, 31 on the second floor and 2 on the third floor. Another 106 injured were taken to hospital.

According to the book about 3800 occupants had moved into Wedge 1 of the intended 4500-5000 occupants. Wedge 2 had been largely emptied of personnel with 700 remaining according to the book. As the figure above shows Flight 77 penetrated partly into a small corner of Wedge 2. That part happened to still be occupied by the Defense Intelligence Agency with about 70 employees, of whom 7 died.

Griffin could have done a bit of critical thinking, like I did above, and found that his own claim did not make sense. He could very easily have picked up the phone and confirmed his numbers with the Department of Defense, while he was writing his book. In fact I am quit sure he knew the real numbers, but picked the number for Wedge 2 and conveniently disregarded the fact that Wedge 1 was nearly fully occupied. Very, very dishonest.

From Griffin's "inside job" point of view it would have made more sense if Hani Hanjour had crashed Flight 77 into Wedge 2 only, since that area had only 700 occupants remaining and had not been renovated for millions of US dollars. But as Gumboot has clearly shown, Hani Hanjour was not doing this to please David Ray Griffin.

This was just some thoughts to look at Griffin's claim from a somewhat different angle. Again excellent work Gumboot.

Norseman

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by gumboot

This auction site further reveals:

Quote:

With over 16,000 military employees, the corridors and offices of the Pentagon are filled with uniformed soldiers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...ecord.asp?ID=7

Gumboot and Ref, to clear up a small clerical error here. This is not exactly an auction site, it is the site of the National Museum of American History belonging to the Smithsonian Institution. And the link in the quote is not working on Ref's web page.

It is absolutely worthwhile to browse through the 11 september collection, it gives an added sense of reality to the events of that day. And it is also useful for a debunking purpose.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Norseman

In the report NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers NIST compared the impacts in WTC 1 and WTC 2 with the impact in Pentagon. As the figure(5-25) below shows, the area directly affected by the aircraft impacts were of comparable size in all three buildings. With mainly pieces of landing gear going all the way through the buildings. This indicates that this is a likely maximum footprint of damage, that an aircraft of this size could cause from impact alone in any part of the Pentagon.

That's a very interesting point. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Norseman

It is to be noted that a lot of workers within that footprint close to the main path of destruction survived and escaped.

To find a ballpark figure for the number of people located within the footprint of damage I did some rough calculations based upon measurements from a scale drawing of the Pentagon layout. The area within the footprint is equal to about 1/5 of a wedge. With a workforce of about 5000 within a wedge, we would get 1000 workers within that footprint.

According to the data provided at the Pentagon Rennovation Project site, the immediate impact area was 400,000 square feet, and contained 2,600 people.

Originally Posted by Norseman

Just by going through this exercise, it becomes quiet obvious that it would have been physically impossible to kill thousands by the impact of one plane alone in the Pentagon. The choice of a horizontal projection instead of a vertical projection (skyscraper) have a very limiting effect on the consequences of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon, compared with a high rise building. As tragically confirmed by the events that day.

This is very true. If you look at the NIST report they estimate that only 300 - 500 (approx, I don't recall the actual figures) were killed by the initial impact.

Originally Posted by Norseman

According to the book Pentagon 9/11, recently published by Historical Office/ Secretary of Defense, the Army had just moved in 275 people on the second floor within the footprint of direct impact.

It's probably worth pointing out that a lot of the impact area was Navy space as the Army is primarily located in Wedge 2.

Originally Posted by Norseman

By adding I find a similar figure for the first floor. Of the 125 killed (Flight 77 not included) 92 was killed on the first floor, 31 on the second floor and 2 on the third floor. Another 106 injured were taken to hospital.

I'd be interesting in hearing more about that. It was my understanding no one was killed on floor 3 or above.

Originally Posted by Norseman

According to the book about 3800 occupants had moved into Wedge 1 of the intended 4500-5000 occupants. Wedge 2 had been largely emptied of personnel with 700 remaining according to the book. As the figure above shows Flight 77 penetrated partly into a small corner of Wedge 2. That part happened to still be occupied by the Defense Intelligence Agency with about 70 employees, of whom 7 died.

Would it be possible for you to PM me the actual quote from the book where it cites the number who had moved into Wedge One and moved out of Wedge Two, with appropriate reference information (book title, author, page number, etc)?

Originally Posted by Norseman

Griffin could have done a bit of critical thinking, like I did above, and found that his own claim did not make sense. He could very easily have picked up the phone and confirmed his numbers with the Department of Defense, while he was writing his book. In fact I am quit sure he knew the real numbers, but picked the number for Wedge 2 and conveniently disregarded the fact that Wedge 1 was nearly fully occupied. Very, very dishonest.

Actually I think I know where his 800 figure comes from. The day after the Attacks the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers reported that 800 people were still missing at the Pentagon. He obviously took that as the total number affected, which is stupid.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Norseman

Gumboot and Ref, to clear up a small clerical error here. This is not exactly an auction site, it is the site of the National Museum of American History belonging to the Smithsonian Institution. And the link in the quote is not working on Ref's web page.

It is absolutely worthwhile to browse through the 11 september collection, it gives an added sense of reality to the events of that day. And it is also useful for a debunking purpose.

Ah right, thanks for that. Serves me right for not paying attention.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I've just found the transcript from a Pentagon Renovation Project briefing dated 15th September 2001 which specifically, and in detail, talks about the number of people who were in Wedge 1 and 2 at the time of the attack. They estimate that Wedge One was about 85% occupied and that Wedge Two was about 30 - 40% occupied.

The briefing also has some excellent information about damage:

Quote:

Q: One thing that's confusing -- if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there's apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring.

Evey: Actually, there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible. When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low.

On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building. None of those parts are very large, however. You don't see big pieces of the airplane sitting there extending up into the air. But there are many small pieces. And the few larger pieces there look like they are veins out of the aircraft engine. They're circular.

Here

-Gumboot

[ref]

Originally Posted by Norseman

Gumboot and Ref, to clear up a small clerical error here. This is not exactly an auction site, it is the site of the National Museum of American History belonging to the Smithsonian Institution. And the link in the quote is not working on Ref's web page.

It is absolutely worthwhile to browse through the 11 september collection, it gives an added sense of reality to the events of that day. And it is also useful for a debunking purpose.

Fixed the link

Fixed a bunch of other links on the page as well. It seems they didn't copy right. It's corrected now.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by gumboot

According to the data provided at the Pentagon Rennovation Project site, the immediate impact area was 400,000 square feet, and contained 2,600 people.

Yes, I was aware of that figure. But for the purpose of my estimate, I limited the area to a square footprint containing the aircrafts crash path inside the building including the floors above, that is 220 x 220 feet x 5 floors equal to about 240 000 square feet. So the figure you quoted would also include the adjacent areas in Wedge 1 and Wedge 2 directly affected by the developing fires.

Quote:

t's probably worth pointing out that a lot of the impact area was Navy space as the Army is primarily located in Wedge 2.

Quit true. But the Army occupied the complete floor directly above the main crash path.

Quote:

I'd be interesting in hearing more about that. It was my understanding no one was killed on floor 3 or above.

Would it be possible for you to PM me the actual quote from the book where it cites the number who had moved into Wedge One and moved out of Wedge Two, with appropriate reference information (book title, author, page number, etc)?

I will try do that later to day.

Quote:

Actually I think I know where his 800 figure comes from. The day after the Attacks the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers reported that 800 people were still missing at the Pentagon. He obviously took that as the total number affected, which is stupid.

That would be quiet a convenient method of work on Griffin's part. No one can accuse him of directly lying, but very dishonest still.

Thanks for the comments Gumboot.

Norseman

[ref]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I'd be interesting in hearing more about that. It was my understanding no one was killed on floor 3 or above.

One third floor victim is mentioned here..

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/kefoster.htm

Quote:

A civilian Army policy analyst, Mr. Foster was working in his office in the Hoffman Building in Alexandria on September 11 when he got word that a plane had hit the Pentagon, where his wife, Sandra Nadine Hill, had worked for 25 years. He jumped into his truck and raced toward the billowing black cloud he could see in the distance, going the wrong way on Interstate 95.

Quote:

As a senior management officer with the agency, his wife worked in an office on the third floor of the E Ring, directly in the path of American Airlines Flight 77.

...

Mrs. Foster's body was found at her desk a week later; medical authorities told her husband that she had died instantly. She was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by ref

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumboot

I'd be interesting in hearing more about that. It was my understanding no one was killed on floor 3 or above.

One third floor victim is mentioned here..

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/kefoster.htm

From the book Pentagon 9/11 page 45:

Quote:

Unfortunately, in an office next to Wood's, there were two fatalities -
Major Wallace Hogan, executive officer to Major General Philip Kensinger, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations and plans, and the general's secretary, Diane Hale-McKinzy. The freakish shock wave spared Wood but not Hogan and Hale-Mckinzy. Their bodies were found on the 1st Floor. Both died of multiple blunt force injuries and smoke inhalation.

Their office was next to 3E450, looking out on the Heliport, belonging to Major General John Wood director of the Army's Directorate of Strategy and Plans. They must have been located in the part of the building that collapsed since they were found on the first floor.

[gumboot]

Bumped for LastChild.

-Gumboot