So, Jon, since you lost the argument, you are now claiming that the argument is a waste of your time?

Declaring that the argument is a waste of time is a typical disinfo tactic. First of all, the argument about what really happened at the Pentagon is obviously considered important by most others. To the perpetrators, who continue to expend major effort in debunking and propogandizing the issue, it is not a waste of time. Perhaps this is because a large percentage of people who are questioning the 9/11 OGCT were awoken because of the Pentagon anomaly. It is also considered important by a fair number of 9/11 researchers who discuss it in books and articles and documentaries.

So, Jon, if you don't have any valid arguments to offer us on the issue, please spare us from your patronizing and insulting comments. It just make you look like a disinfo agent, or a jerk.

andrewkornkven, did you read all of the above articles I referenced? You only mentioned that you read Joe Quinn's essay, and then instead of responding to any of Joe Quinn's points, you dismissively assert that, "he employs the same shrieking, antagonist tone as your comment." Well, sorry, but where is the substance to back up your summary dismissal of Quinn's essay? Joe Quinn pointed out all of the misrepresentations, false logic, and disinfo tactics that Jim Hoffman utilizes. That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than your claim that Joe Quinn simply argues that, "anyone who disagrees with him on this issue simply must be a disinformation agent." Quinn does nothing of the sort. Pointing out disinformation tactics used by someone and describing them in detail is not the same as saying someone is a disinformation agent simply because he disagrees with himself. you really must understand the difference here.

"Hoffman doesn't do that, and neither do I."

Oh, contriare! You really need to get your facts straight about this one. That is one of the MAJOR arguments that all the above articles are making - that Jim Hoffman IS simply accusing anyone who disagrees with him as being a disinformation agent. I'm suprised you are so blind to this, being that you apparently have become so wedded to Jim Hoffman's position and web sites. In case you really haven't seen or don't remember Hoffman's use of this tactic, let's review:

Hoffman has dedicated a whole web site to attacking other 9/11 researchers as disinformation agents - "911review.com" - which is crammed full of every possible word related to disinformation, including "trojan horses", "nonsense as a weapon", "hoaxes", etc. His primary target is those who argue that there was no Flight 77 involved in the Pentagon attack. He states this is "an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement." Here's the URL: http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html. It's in the section labeled, "disinfo". Need I say more?

I was at the David Ray Griffin event at the Grand Theater in Oakland last March and witnessed Jim Hoffman's incredibly abusive and dispicable behavior. Jim Hoffman sent an army of truth police that descended on the event, all wearing pre-printed teeshirts directing people to go to Hoffman's web sites, and shoving flyers into everybody's hands as people arrived to buy tickets. The flyers, although not mentioning Griffin by name, warned people to beware of disinformation agents who claim that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Since David Ray Griffin, of course, argues that it couldn't have been AA77 that hit the Pentagon, it's no secret who this was directed at. The flyers also attempted to discredit the movie Loose Change which was to be shown after Griffin's talk. Imagine, trying to sabatoge someone else's event like this. Because of this blatent attempt to create controversy and division, Griffin decided not to talk about the Pentagon issue. WHO IS ACTING LIKE THE DISINFO AGENT HERE? WHO IS DOING THE DIVIDING?

Jim Hoffman is obviously attempting to put out the false impression that only a handfull of disinfo agents and dupes are questioning the Boeing at the Pentagon story. In fact, the reality is completey reversed. The overwhelming majority of 9/11 researchers, including Professor Jones, David Griffin, Kevin Barret, James Fetzer and most of the Schollars for 9/11 Truth, Webster Tarpey, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Marrs, Dylan Avery, Jasen Bermes and the folks at Louder than Words, the scientists at 911physics.net, SPINE, Dave Von Kleist, Eric Hufschmid, etc., have rejected the Flight 77 at the Pentagon theory, and most have PUT THEIR EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON THE TABLE WITH PUBLISHED BOOKS, DOCUMENTARIES, ETC. In contrast, Jim Hoffman has not published anything about the Pentagon attack. Rather, he mainly engages in attacking those who do.

So, andrewkornkven, why would you discredit all the above researchers in order to stubbornly cling to Jim Hoffman's divisive position on the Pentagon attack? You really must answer this. At least consider the possibility that all the other 9/11 researchers may be right, and it is Jim Hoffman that is the one putting out disinfo. Logic would force you to at least consider it.

"Like all No-Boeing people, he feels no responsibility to try to explain what happened to the real AAL77."

That is about the most assinine argument I've ever heard by people who are trying to uphold a part of the OGCT. If you loan somebody your Macintosh G5 computer, and 5 days later that person gives you a Dell PC and says, "here's your computer back", what are you going to do? You may point out that, "hey, that's not my computer?" Then if that person says, "Not so fast. You would first have to tell me what happened to the other computer, where it went. If you don't know, then sorry, you can't say that this is not your computer!" Well, for most people, this argument wouldn't hold water. The courts would not hold the victim to this standard. The courts would not argue that it is his requirement to explain what happened to the other computer. That is a ridiculous argument. Why is it our responsibility to know every single detail of everything that actually happened that day before we can dispute the government's story, or point out obvious lies and discrepencies? If you really believe that is a requirement of us before we can dispute any part of the official story, then we all might as well just throw our hands up and go home and stop disputing the 9/11 OGCT. We also don't know exactly how many explosives or of what exact kind(s), and who placed them, so does that mean that we can't disagree with the government's crash and fire theory of the collapses? Obviously, it is not our responsibility to explain such details. That is the responsibility of the investigators, when and if we ever get a truly indepent investigation.

"Oh, and one more thing. Do you ever wonder why, when the mainstream media tells the public what we "conspiracy theorists" believe, the No-Boeing-Pentagon theory is always front and center? Not WTC7, not the scattered wreckage at Shanksville, not the alive-and-well hijackers-- always it is the theory of No-Boeing at the Pentagon. Do you ever wonder why? Could it be because they know this theory is false, and know it will therefore lead us nowhere, and alienate the public in the process?"

This is a poor argument. First of all, the issue with the WTC7 is completely different than the issue with the Pentagon. The general public is not aware of WTC7. Very few people saw it live on 9/11, and the media never showed clips of it since then, and never mentioned it since. If the government and media were to focus on WTC7, obviously a lot more people would be made aware of it and many would start asking questions. The government is happey to let 90% of the public stay ignorant of WTC7. With the Pentagon, EVERYBODY knows something happened there. The objective of the government is to re-enforce the official myth of Flight 77. The government knows that the Pentagon anomaly of lack of 757 evidence is one of the weak links in the official story, so they must attack and ridicule anybody bringing attention to this anomaly. Of all the various things about 9/11 that caused people to question the OGCT, the Pentagon anomaly stands out as one of the top reasons, along with the WTC collapses, that woke people up. In a poll done on 911Truth.org, when people were asked which 9/11 anomaly among 10 choices made them a 9/11 truther, the Pentagon anomaly ranked #2. Major effort has been expended by the government and media to attack anybody who questions the 9/11 Pentagon Flight 77 Myth. Your logic about why the media focuses on certain conspiracy theories as opposed to others is way too simplistic.

"And another question: what was the motive of the conpirators to swap planes? What was the advantage to them?"

There are many obvious advantages as to why the prepetrators would swap planes. You should read about Operation Northwoods from 1962 which included as part of the plan a plane-swapping scenario. One advantage is that the perpetrators could be guaranteed of the plane's (or missile's) path and automatic precise targeting. Remote control technology for aircraft has been in place since the 1960's. Why leave anything to chance?. Leaving the planes in control of actual hijackers would be way to risky, too many things could go wrong. Just think about it logically. Put yourself in the perpetrator's minds. THEY COULDN'T ALLOW ANY CHANCE FOR THE PLAN TO FAIL.

Now, the cell phone calls:

"First of all, the phone calls. You shrilly declare that "cell phone calls don't work at high altitudes and 400+ mph." Your proof is that American Airlines is now installing cell phone antennas in their planes. The cell phone calls made from AAL77 were made beginning at about 9:15, which is 19 minutes after the transponder was turned off. That means we have no idea of the plane's altitude or speed when the calls were made. The plane could have been flying at 7,000 feet and 200 knots."

First of all, I wasn't shrieking or screaming, as you assert. I simply stated a scientific technical fact. My proof is not limited to the American Airlines announcement. It is also based on the statements of cell phone engiineers and technicians who explained why the calls don't work in those conditions. I also refer to experiments conducted by AK Dewdney and others who tested this hypothesis (please refer to physics911.net). AND, I TESTED IT MYSELF. Second of all, jumbo jets don't fly at 200 knots when they are several thousand feet in altitude. Going that slow would cause them to loose altitude very quickly, or they would be climbing steeply. Crusiing speeds are 400-500 mph or more. And, even 7000 feet is a bit too high for cell phones to work, as I've stated. Most likely, the plane was at 30,000 feet or higher anyway.

andrewkornkven, have you ever tried to use cell phones in-flight? I HAVE. Even before 9/11, I tried using cell phones on several airline flights. After reaching an altitude beyond about 2000 feet, I was never able to use a cell phone. I tried and tried but could never succeed in getting a call to connect. I even tried it over large cities, knowing that there were more transmitters there, but still nothing. The only times I was successful in getting a cell phone call to connect in-flight was during takeoff and landing, again only within 2000 feet of the ground. Even then, as the plane's speed got faster and faster during takeoff and approached 2000 feet, the calls kept getting dropped after a few seconds. During landing approaches the calls would get dropped frequently, probably when moving between one cell area and another. According to cell phone technology experts, this is because of the cell phone switching technology. It is difficult to smoothly switch between one cell area and another while traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. Since 9/11, the technology has improved a little, but it is still problematic at higher speeds and at several thousand feet.