I'm just a girl---but why hasn't anyone addressed the failure of fire power available for any non-military coming into the Pentagon??

Is that why the simulations provided need the public to buy the quick descent; so the radar didn't pick it up?

Which doesn't speak well for a billion dollar defense system.

Remember, people had to evacuate the lawn more than once due to the threats of an incoming plane.

I'M JUST NOT GETTING IT!! am I this dense??
Doesn't the Pentagon have defensive mechanism especially following an attack??

Why would employees of the Pentagon run from a bldg. with a billion dollar defense system???

Hi JonJon,

There is no evidence that there was any "fire power available for any non-military coming into the Pentagon".

Don't forget the Pentagon is right next to Reagan National airport so there are low flying non-military aircraft near the building pretty much at all times.

Thanks ...but, boy, that does shake my reality a little.

Posted on Sep 29 2010, 10:04 AM

Disregard question of security...but it sure shakes a girl's faith that this bldg. is this vulnerable.

But how do they distinguish military and civil aircrafts - do they expect a trumpet signal? :rolleyes: Or trust that nobody will switch off the transponder?

I really don't know.

But I do know that there are low flying aircraft near the Pentagon at pretty much all times and there is no evidence for air defenses at the Pentagon at all.

JonJon,

You are right there should have been some sort of anti-aircraft weaponry stationed around the Pentagon.

We knew we were confirmed under attack at 9:03 and the plane allegedly hit at 9:38. The plane was tracked as an unidentified bogey approaching DC. Yet no type of defense had been set in place.

Although the Pentagon does not have anti-aircraft missiles built into or around, there ARE mobile units that could have been and should have been deployed in and around the Pentagon after 9:03...

Interesting.

Do you have a source that these mobile units were at or near the Pentagon ready to be deployed?

No I do not. I simply stated that they could have and should have had them positioned. I am sure it would be an interesting line of inquiry, of course that will be chalked up to negligence.

Interesting the foresight the Italians had in June 2001, 3 mths before 9/11...

Ok I just want to make it clear that there is no evidence for ground-to-air defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11 at all because your post seemed to suggest the opposite.

No my post was pretty clear in that there should have or could have been mobile anti-aircraft batteries positioned into place, not that there were.