The Pentagon Controversy: Plane Versus No Plane

The Pentagon Controversy: Plane Versus No Plane

Two theories—same conclusion: 9/11 was an inside job

An examination of the Pentagon Controversy and the core issues that must be resolved

9/11 Pentagon theories fall into two main categories:

#1. A plane hit the Pentagon

#2. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

If a plane did not hit the Pentagon it proves an inside job. If a plane did hit the Pentagon it also proves an inside job because no plane should have hit the Pentagon.

This is a fact that all 9/11” official story” skeptics should acknowledge. Both arguments make the case that 9/11 was an inside job.

In “making our case” we should pursue the strongest evidence to prove that the official story is inadequate to explain the Pentagon attack. This means that we must evaluate the credibility of our evidence to prove our case.

If you believe: #1: a plane hit the Pentagon:

It is not essential to know what type of plane hit or approached the pentagon because it was tracked by radar (see Mineta, FAA, NEADS and other testimony).[1] Therefore it should have been intercepted. This is standard procedure.[2] In fact there is evidence that the plane was intercepted by a C-130—a military cargo plane.[3] If a C-130 could intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon there is no conceivable reason why NORAD could not intercept it with a fighter plane.

Hani Hanjour was an incompetent pilot. He could not fly a Cessna.[4] If flight 77 hit the Pentagon, it was almost certainly done by remote control.

If flight 77 hit the Pentagon it proves an inside job:

  1. Hani Hanjour could not fly the plane
  2. Hani Hanjour could not fly the plane into the Pentagon in the way that it approached the Pentagon.
  3. Hani Hanjour could not have hit the building in the way that it was struck.
  4. None of the four pilots entered the four digit hijack code that takes seconds to enter. This strongly implicates that the planes were not hijacked.[5]
  5. Flight 77 should have been intercepted by a fighter plane according to standard procedure. It was not. NORAD was notified of flight 77 as soon as it went off course. This is standard FAA procedure.[6] This means that they had 43 minutes to intercept the plane.[7]
  6. Andrews airbase is about one minute of flying time away from the Pentagon.[8] It had fighter planes on 9/11.[9] They did not fly to the Pentagon until after the strike.
  7. The Norman Mineta testimony shows that NORAD knew the plane was coming and did nothing to stop it. The Mineta testimony is corroborated by other evidence, including the distance of the plane as it approached the Pentagon.[10]
  8. The Norman Mineta testimony implicates a stand-down because “the orders still stood” and the plane was not intercepted by a fighter plane.


If flight 77 hit the Pentagon, it proves an inside job. Although there is not conclusive evidence that the actual plane that hit the Pentagon was flight 77, there is no conclusive evidence that it was switched in flight. The plane did go missing for about 8 minutes[11] on FAA radar (but probably not NORAD radar). It is only speculation to suggest this fact supports plane switching in mid-flight. In other words, it can’t be proven with this evidence alone.

If a plane other than flight 77 hit the Pentagon it also proves an inside job. However, alternative plane theories must explain all of the available evidence discussed below.

If you believe: #2. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

This theory proposes that the damage to the Pentagon was faked. It also means that flight 77 definitely did not hit the Pentagon and that the phone calls were definitely faked.

If proven, these theories prove an inside job.

Scientific Method applied to 9/11 truth:

1. Observe as many as possible of the known facts.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed. This means that all of the known facts are explained.[12]

All 9/11 theories rely on speculation as does the Scientific Method. However, if we want to prove our case, it is not enough to speculate. Speculation must be supported with credible evidence. The scientific method is reliable because all of the evidence is accounted for.

No-plane theories must explain the following evidence. It is not enough to speculate that this evidence is “fake”. It must be proven that it was faked in order to prove the no-plane theories with credible evidence: Credible evidence means evidence not open to subjective interpretation.

Here is the highway nearest to the Pentagon. It was filled with a stand-still traffic jam on 9/11.[13] "I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. ... I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine.”[14]

Eye-witness testimony.[15]

Many of the 9/11 anomalies are supported by significant eye-witness testimony.

Even if you were to believe that this testimony was fabricated not one single person reported any of the following hitting the Pentagon:

  • Global Hawk
  • Military Jet
  • Predator
  • A-3 Skywarrior
  • Missile[16] a dozen witnesses described “sounds” like a missile but no one saw a missile.
  • Small plane. According to Jim Hoffman: “Among the accounts that attempt to name the plane's type, the most common are 757 and 737, with witness Albert Hemphill describing it as either a 757 or Airbus. The only accounts that relate sightings of a smaller jet, such as a commuter jet, were from witnesses who watched the attack from considerable distances.”[17]

No one reported a plane missing or flying over the Pentagon except for the C-130 following the plane that crashed into the Pentagon

No one reported the plane crashing on the lawn before hitting the Pentagon. “I clearly saw the ‘AA’ logo, with the eagle in the middle… there was none of this hitting the ground first crap I keep hearing[18]

However, the eye-witness testimony also shows that there could have been explosives used. This does not prove that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Remember: Explosives, thermate, and planes were used in combination at the World Trade Center.[19]

The majority of these statements combine to report the following: A low flying, fast moving American Airlines Boeing 757 approached the Pentagon, flew over a highway with a “stand-still” traffic jam, knocked over light poles by this highway, crashed into the Pentagon—completely entering the building (similar to what happened at the WTC—read below for a sample of the testimony) leaving no substantial amount of debris outside of the hole. The plane was not alone; it was followed by a C-130 plane. Witnesses described both planes. This plane was sent to intercept the plane approaching the Pentagon and the pilot also claims that a 757 hit the Pentagon.[20]

Why was there not much debris outside of the Pentagon? What happened when the planes flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11?

“The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building… At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.”[21]

“I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal.”

“I was about 100 yards away… The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass. The plane completely entered the building. I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast.”

Steve Patterson, who lives in Pentagon City, said it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon "at a frightening rate ... just slicing into that building."

“It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.”

“It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.”

Conclusion: There was not much debris on the lawn because the plane entered the Pentagon. It did not hit the lawn first. Therefore, most of the plane parts would have been found inside of the Pentagon. Who controls access inside of the Pentagon? How much 9/11 evidence has been willingly released by the government? See (and sign) this petition to release 9/11 evidence including photos and videos at both the World Trade Center and Pentagon.[22]

Missing Videos

Why would they hide videos of the Pentagon attack? Why would they hide any 9/11 evidence? Perhaps watching Hani Hanjour fly a plane into the Pentagon would make even the most patriotic of Americans question 9/11. Perhaps confirming a plane hit the Pentagon would force 9/11 “official story” skeptics to focus on other 9/11 evidence. It is possible to think of good reasons why they would not release the videos. However, we can only speculate why they would do this. The fact that the government does not release the videos does not prove anything except for the fact that the government is extremely secretive about 9/11. We should still demand that they release them.

Other Testimony:

See Paul Thompson’s timeline for flight 77 to see just how much evidence there is that a plane approached and likely hit the Pentagon.[23] Holding a “No-plane” theory means this was all "faked". It is therefore necessary to prove that this was faked. It is important to note that evidence is more credible when it is “corroborated”. This means that when a statement or other evidence is confirmed by other evidence it makes it more credible. The Mineta testimony for example is corroborated by other statements and evidence.[24]

Question: If it were possible to fake a plane strike at the Pentagon, why would they take so long to attack? Why would they make NORAD look guilty by implicating a stand-down? Flight 77 took off 10 minutes late, so it is possible this was a factor in the amount of time it took to hit the Pentagon.[25]

Light pole damage[26]

“The poles were breakaway style on a 18 inch transformer style base. This means that at 23 inches off the ground the pole would be broken by a Volkswagen Rabbit traveling 20 mph.”[27]

“The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet. The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet 10 inches. This accounts for the minimum of 100 feet and allows for a 16 foot tolerance which is exactly what we see in the diagrams.”[28]

Debris and Physical Evidence

Research by Jim Hoffman

Hoffman’s response to common Pentagon arguments

Photographs of plane parts and debris

A “no-plane” theory argues that this evidence was faked (i.e. planted). It is therefore necessary to prove that it was faked. It is not enough to speculate it was faked. There is no eye-witness testimony observing planting of plane debris outside or inside the Pentagon.

The Hole:

“No plane” theories often ignore all of the above evidence and claim that the size of the hole disproves all of the evidence. Similarly, WTC “no-plane” theorists argue that video footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Center disproves all of the other evidence.

This is not good enough. It is necessary to prove that all of the other evidence was faked independent from evidence that is open to subjective interpretation (i.e. photos/videos of physical evidence). As you can clearly see in these photos of the hole, the first floor damage is significant and approaches the wingspan of a Boeing 757.


Faking the pentagon strike near a Highway traffic jam would mean they would risk all of this effort to potentially make themselves look guilty.

Flying a real plane into the Pentagon would appear to make hijackers look guilty (ignoring the Stand-down and the fact that the plane could not be flown by a poorly trained hijacker).

With the World Trade Center they had no choice—the only practical way to destroy the towers was through controlled demolition. They would have remained standing otherwise.

In planning the Pentagon attack they had two choices:

1. Fake literally hundreds of statements from the FAA, NORAD, Mineta, and NEADS tracking the plane, fake the damage to the Pentagon near a highway traffic jam, fake physical evidence, fake light pole damage corresponding to the wingspan of a 757 during a highway traffic jam, fake hundreds of eye-witness statements—pray that no witnesses would come forward with what really happened, fake plane parts, fake a hole that has asymmetrical damage on the first floor approximating the wingspan and shape of a 757, avoid significant debris on the lawn from an internal explosion (if you think there was a bomb instead of a missile)… and on and on depending on what you believe… or

2. Fly a plane into the Pentagon.

Option #2 not only negates the need to fake all of the above evidence; it lowers the amount of people who would need to be involved in the conspiracy. It is by far a more practical plan. It would also lower the risk of potential problems (i.e. faking light pole damage by a highway, eye-witness “whistleblowers”, and other issues). If you were planning the greatest conspiracy in history which option would you choose? NORAD war games could provide the “cover” for the plane to hit the Pentagon.

This does not prove that they did so; it merely shows that the 2nd option would avoid a lot of potential problems for the 9/11 planners.


Plane and no plane theorists at the Pentagon agree that the pentagon attack proves that 9/11 was an inside job. Both theories arrive at the same conclusion with different interpretations of the evidence.

The Scientific method demands that a theory can account for all of the available evidence. Credible contradictory evidence should result in the rejection of a theory and the creation of a new theory which can account for most of the evidence.

No-plane at the Pentagon theories must explain all of the evidence. Proving that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon entails proving that a substantial amount of evidence was faked. It is not enough to speculate that it was faked—it must be proven independently of evidence that is open to subjective interpretation (i.e. hole size as viewed from photos taken out of context).

A failure to prove our case with the strongest possible evidence will not help the 9/11 truth movement. Theories that are contradicted by evidence are easily taken advantage of by the Mainstream media in an attempt to “debunk” the 9/11 truth movement.

To counter this strategy, is therefore necessary to hold ourselves accountable by demanding we prove our theories with the most credible evidence, and avoid theories that are contradicted by evidence and that use speculation that can’t be proven.

All 9/11 theories must answer these questions conclusively:

  • Can the theory be proven?
  • Has all of the available evidence been explained?
  • Is there contradictory evidence that can’t be proven to be fabricated?[37]
  • Is speculation that can’t be proven with the available evidence employed?

If a theory can account for all of these points, it can be shown to have a high standard of credibility. If it cannot do these things, it is potentially ammunition for the 9/11 “debunkers” and mainstream media.

[1] For significant evidence of this read Paul Thompson’s 9/11 complete timeline for flight 77 here:

[2] “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies. The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges, in turn, shared information about actions they were taking. NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.

FAA Communications with NORAD On September 11, 2001. FAA clarification memo to 9/11 Independent Commission, May 21, 2003.

[3] 9.36 a.m.: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77 “Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it… [New York Times, 10/16/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien… describes his close encounter: ‘When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.’ O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. ‘They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that’… The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.


[5] None of the four pilots hit the "HIJACK" button to indicate that they were being hijacked. "The pilots apparently did not punch in the four-digit hijack code air traffic control into the transponder, the controller says because the radar facility never received any transmitted code - which a pilot would normally send the moment a hijack situation was known."

[6] "Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re deviating from course." It’s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched."

(MSNBC, Sept 12)

[7] (8:54 a.m.): Flight 77 Veers Off Course

9:37 a.m.: Flight 77 Crashes into Reinforced Section of the Pentagon

[8] Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.

On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.

The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.”

[9] "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."

--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001. Homepage at: Article at:

Backup at:

[10] See Mineta's Testimony CONFIRMED by George Washington and Norman Mineta’s 9/11 Testimony Confirmed: The Plane Really was “50 miles out” from the Pentagon by Arabesque

[11] (8:56 a.m.): Flight 77 Transponder Signal Disappears; NORAD Not Informed

(8:56-9:05 a.m.): Flight 77 Disappears from Radar Screens

[12] This is a modified description taken from here:

[13] I have about 20 statements to confirm this fact.






[19] Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, Word Document, French Translation Steven E. Jones

[20] 9.36 a.m.: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77 “Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it…[20] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien… describes his close encounter: ‘When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.’ O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. ‘They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that’…[20] The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” Watch a video about the pilot here:

[21] All statements taken from here:



[24] See Mineta's Testimony CONFIRMED by George Washington and Norman Mineta’s 9/11 Testimony Confirmed: The Plane Really was “50 miles out” from the Pentagon by Arabesque

[25] (8:20 a.m.): Flight 77 Takes Off 10 Minutes Late


[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] If nothing else read this. It neatly summarizes all of the Pentagon evidence and corrects many errors referenced in “Loose Change”.








[37] I did not discuss the NSTB report evidence in this entry. I recommend watching Pandora’s black box by Pilots for 9/11 truth. This evidence is quite surprising because it seems to implicate that the plane missed the Pentagon and missed the light poles. However, I would suggest that the corroborated evidence that I have shown (i.e. eye-witness statements and physical evidence combined) would seem to suggest that the NSTB report was fabricated to create more Pentagon controversy. I can’t prove this, but in terms of credibility, evidence is measured by how often it is confirmed by other evidence. There is no eye-witness testimony confirming that a plane missed the Pentagon! As well, the NSTB report is contradicted by physical evidence of plane parts, and light pole damage. These facts suggest that the NSTB report was fabricated. Corroborated physical evidence has more credibility than a report released 5 years after 9/11. It could have been tampered with to help fuel more Pentagon controversy as a potential motive. I can’t prove this, but this is what the evidence strongly suggests.

1pentagon.jpg57.3 KB
2highway.jpg37.1 KB
3lightpole.jpg33.13 KB
4highway.jpg27.7 KB
5pentagonhole1.jpg80.28 KB
6pentagonhole2.jpg34.39 KB
7pentagonhole3.jpg49.19 KB

Thank you

for sheading some more light on this hazy area of 9/11. I'm a big fan of the scientific method and its adherance in the pursuit of truth should be held dear by all those involved no matter where it leads.

It seems to have muddied the waters, as I do NOT believe AA-77

struck the Pentagon, nor any other large plane.

That's it? Nothing to back

That's it? Nothing to back up your opinion? Just a statement of faith? 

It sounds like you are taking a religious approach to a question of science.

Even in the pictures he used

Even in the pictures he used to cite the size of the impact hole there is not one piece of wreckage that can be identified as "aircraft debris".

It is NOT possible for AA77 to have struck the Pentagon based

on many reasons, including:

· Hani Hanjour could not have flown back 250 miles from Ohio to find & hit the Pentagon, (let alone the small, renovated wedge).

· Hanjour could not have made incredible maneuvers in a Boeing 757& fly 2 feet above the ground.

· A Boeing 757 can NOT make/disappear through a 16-foot initial impact hole. The airliner has a 125-foot wingspan & two huge steel/titanium engines that "disappeared" as did the 250 seats & the luggage.

· There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that slammed the Pentagon @ 530 mph, while the plane itself was supposedly obliterated. The fictitious DNA results were fabricated to bolster the official lie.

· 80 videos of whatever hit or blew-up the Pentagon are being withheld by the gov't for no reason. (The only video released looks like an A3 SkyWarrior!)

You cite to Eric Bart's witness list

This article has some criticisms of that list, including padding, selective editing of one witness, Cook, and questions about the veracity of the witnesses. Again, I wonder whether it is possible to prove what happened using witnesses that may be lying.

Any witness that says he saw through the windows of the plane, and saw the plane disappear completely into the building, has to be lying. The person that said this, quoted by you, is said to be a communications director for Rumsfeld. Dave McGowan is a careful researcher, whatever you think of his conclusions, so I take this as true.

I don't agree that all the evidence - e.g. FAA, NEADS, Mineta, some physical evidence, etc. - would have to be faked unless a plane actually hit. The deception was not only external to the government, but also had to be internal.

I agree that the testimony could have been altered

In fact I know this because someone complained about "seeing people in the plane" when he didn't say that.

In other words the MSM put those words in his mouth. I would guess they did this to create "propaganda" and to emotionalize the event. That being said, the person who complained about his testimony being altered confirmed he saw a plane...

By the way I remember reading about tied hands at the WTC. They implicated that it was someone on the plane.

I don't buy that. Does that mean all of the testimony was altered? No. Unfortunately, you'll have to prove each and every one was altered.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Government Site

Debunking 911 Conspiracy theories mentions the witness seeing the peopole through the windows as one of their points of evidence against our arguments
Together in Truth!


You see how it happens, and you still place the burden on ciitzens.

Show "Falsifiability" by JamesB


it comes down to this there happened to be a random film of the JFK assination it came into view in 1971? 8 years later? the pentagon has over 300 cameras on the exterior part of the buildings and its been 5/12years. they cant release just one frame to prove there therory of a plane hit the building. why? Please shut us up. There not very smart are they.

I hate to say it

But JamesB raises a valid point. You have to follow the evidence where it leads, and statements that either scenario is OK because it shows an inside job opens you up to the criticism that you are not objective.

Falsify this:

Prove to me that the Mineta testimony is false.

In particular prove to me that the plane was not 50 miles out when he said it was. That implicates knowledge of an incoming plane.

Now explain to me how a C-130 could intercept the plane and that a fighter plane could not. I'd love to hear your logical explanation.

I guess the military really is that incompetent.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Question s/b prove to me the Mineta testimony is true. Who

knows what charades Cheney & the "young man" were playing in front of Mineta so that Mineta could later attest to the disinfo that AA-77 struck the Pentagon.

thank you Colombo!

People forget that if Cheney knew exactly what was going on that day, he would not have said or done anything so idiotic as incriminate himself of Norman Mineta--A DEMOCRAT of all people. That statement of 50 miles out etc. was probably as you say just intended to support the claim that 77 flew into the Pentagon. Sounds like a honeypot to me!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


This is a good point. It

This is a good point. It does sound like a bit of theater for Mineta's sake. And I aways did wonder why the "young man", presumably aware Mineta was listening, didn't go whistleblower after Mineta went public.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

You make it sound so easy

"And I aways did wonder why the 'young man', presumably aware Mineta was listening, didn't go whistleblower after Mineta went public"

Mineta didn't "go public", and there could have been serious repercussions for the young man if he had whistleblowed...

Not saying that it was or would be easy...

To be clearer, my thought is that, since we know about Mineta's testimony, and that public knowledge would to some degree insulate a "me too" type of whistleblowing from the worst of the repercussions( "Hey, I'm not the first one who said it!"), it is odd that, if the young man was appalled and/or as shocked as Mineta claims, to the point of challeging Cheney verbally, that he hasn't taken the next step by this time.

Yes, it's difficult for various sundry reasons but the people who do it anyway, act precisely like the man Mineta described. And yet, as far as we know, there's been nothing from that quarter.

Thus I can see the possibility it was all a show for Mineta's benefit.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Sounds like = speculation

What makes Mineta's testimony reliable is the fact that the plane was about 50 miles out when he said it was 50 miles out.

So we have a story implicating a NORAD stand-down.

And he says the plane is 50 miles out. And another statement confirms the distance of the plane when he said it.

Now if you think his statement is false... please tell me the odds that the plane would be about 50 miles out when he said it was 50 miles out.

Corroborated evidence is what makes something compelling--not speculation.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

70+ year-old Mineta was just stating what Cheney & the "young

man" had said or play-acted in front of him that morning. This is NOT proof that AA-77 was anywhere, and you know it.

sounds like

a very contrived attempt to back-into your results. Mineta's testimont is an inconvenience therefore speculate that it was all playacted?

you call that legitimate research?

very weak.

"Prove to me that the Mineta

"Prove to me that the Mineta testimony is false."

I never said it was "false." I just asked what it means.

As for the plane being 50 miles out, that's for you to

"Truthify this"

About the C-130 vs. a fighter plane, your premises are unproven,so I will not respond. You are basically trying to bully your preconceptions through, and it don't fly in my mind.

Off Topic

Nightline tonight..... just very strange

Waiting for Captain America Story to come on.... I want to know how the death of a comic book hero can influence policy???

Nice post!

Together in Truth!

Poor Soldier

He went to the Veterans Hospital and they diagnosed him with an undiagnosed brain injury. The doctor says these soldiers come to the hospital in the droves.

The can no longer concentrate or remember things.

This is obvious DU or heavy metal contamination.

The doctor tried to associate it to the explosions caused by IED's.

They even brought their injured correspondant into the story as if he had the same problem. I certainly hope his brain injury was undiagnosed.
Together in Truth!

great work

Perhaps a related piece of evidence is the fact that Kean and Hamilton admit NORAD lied to the 9/11 Commission, and the fact that there are at least 3 versions of the NORAD 9/11 timeline. I consider the absence of a credible timeline to be part of the Pentagon puzzle.

See David Ray Griffin's work on the Vanity Fair article about the NORAD timeline (by the executive producer of United 93).

I don't believe a word Kean & Hamilton have said about anything.


That's not the point

The point is, there are multiple, contradictory timelines provided by NORAD. The fact that Kean and Hamilton admit NORAD was lying is just the icing on the cake. If they had said nothing, there would still be multiple, contradictory timelines.

I would use Kean and Hamilton's statements against the debunkers, because the debunkers think Kean and Hamilton are reliable. So say to the debunkers, "Your reliable chair and vice chair announced publicly that the military lied to the Commission. What do you make of that?"

How does Kean/Hamilton lying prove AA-77 hit the Pentagon?


It's related evidence because

it has to do with the question of how a plane could wander around protected airspace for over an hour. It doesn't "prove" 77 hit the Pentagon. It further destroys the official theory, because it "proves" that we don't have a reliable history of the military's response to the hijackings -- that has been admitted by the commissioners themselves.

Instead of contributing speculative wedges to our own case (i.e., there was no plane at the Pentagon), we should be adding demonstrable wedges to theirs (i.e., even they admit the air defense story is a lie, and the air defense story is the prelude to whatever hit the Pentagon).

Sometimes the most effective strategy is to take them at their own words, because they lie and lie and lie.

Hey guys, have you seen the video...

Altered, or fabricated?

I don't have to prove anything. I've yet to see evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. That is for the government to prove. These witness statements don't do that.

This is a reply to Arabesque's response to my comment about Bart's list of witness statements.

The placing of ideas into the minds of witnesses by the media is another possibility. Some people may have "seen" what they were told they saw, and the people interviewing them may have been under the same influence of what they were told had happened. Some people are media hounds. Some people lie. Since we agree on an inside job, we should not be surprised that people would lie about what happened.

I discussed this argument in my essay

For the eye-witness testimony to be wrong, not only do you have to assume they are all lying, you have to assume that no one would come out with what really happened.

Like for example during a "stand-still" traffic jam in perfect view of the Pentagon. This is not a credible position. The testimony is corroborated by physical evidence. That is my argument.

Total evidence is the scientific method.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Not corroborated by physical evidence

"The testimony is corroborated by physical evidence. " That's where we differ.

I don't know what each witness could see from where he or she was on the highway. It's not necessarily true that people could see what really happened and would report that. It's also not true that everyone who describes a plane hitting the Pentagon would have to be lying.

If a missile hit the Pentagon @ 530 mph, or planted explosives

were detonated, you would have some very confused witnesses, especially with agents running around insisting that an airliner had struck the building.

the "someone would have come forward" argument

For all we know plenty of people have come forward in some way and been ignored by whomever they told. Why do so many people here seem to think that we are going to hear about anyone and everyone who disputes any aspect of the official story? Do you really believe that it's that easy to get your story out? Now suppose a few eyewitnesses are out there saying they saw a helicopter fire a missile into the side of the Pentagon as a plane flew over--would CNN cover that story? Who would?

Reality is what lies beyond simple perception. It is invariably more than what we perceive, especially when our perceptions are being manipulated by a complicit, criminal mass media. In our situation, we must assume we are only seeing a small part of what's out there. The more we connect, netowrk, and work to raise awareness, the sooner these questions will be answered in a satisfactory manner.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Who would they tell?

The FBI?

The CIA?

The Secret Service?

The President?

The UN?

Tony Blair?
Together in Truth!

or maybe...

the New York Times? CNN? any other media outlet that obviously has no interest in exposing the real story?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


How many people heard explosions at the WTC again?

As I have shown there was a stand-still traffic jam at a highway right next the Pentagon. Take a good look at the photo of the highway and notice how close it is to the Pentagon. In fact it was so close the Plane hit the light poles.

How many cars were there on that Highway in a stand-still traffic jam? 1000? More?

"Total evidence is the scientific method."

That sounds really nice, but it assumes what it purports to prove.

This is pretty good

I liked it a lot.

we don't need such high standards

We are a popular movement, not a board of inquiry. I don't care how much alleged evidence is fabricated, including eyewitness testimony, to muddy the waters. I see no way on earth that a Boeing hit the Pentagon. Period. Most people don't, and have to be convinced that even though it looks impossible, it really happened. Now, that is THE SAME THING they say about the collapse of the towers. Even though it looks impossible, that's what happened.

Sorry, this issue (9/11) is too huge to ignore bottom line facts like that. there is no valid reason to be quiet about what we have problems with.

If the video released is genuine, it shows something inconcistent with a Boeing hitting the Pentagon. If that is faked, why? And can we then trust any evidence provided by officials not under pressure from any judicial body?

These are the problems. Proving exactly what happened is not our job. Our job is to make as many people as possible interested and informed about the problems with the OCT.

Only that mass awareness (that is as easily gained through substance as scandal) will put pressure on those in power to hold the culprits accountable.

Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


We don't need high standards?

Here is my point. You are welcome to think that no plane hit the Pentagon. But if you are going to prove it in a court of law you better have damn good standards of proof.

That means, when you call a substantial amount of evidence "fake" you have to prove it.

You can sit here and call it fake, but to someone who doesn't care about 9/11 truth they will laugh in your face. They aren't going to believe you until you can prove it's fake.

If you can't see that, and if certain people accuse me of being a "shill" for this opinion it is your loss.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

what court of law is this?

it's when you present something as evidence that you have to prove it is genuine. eyewitness statements? bring them in to testify under oath, for example. Until that happens, I don't have to prove to you that those comments are fake, just that they are easily faked, especially when those making them are not under oath.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


It's called the 9/11 truth movement for a reason

We want to know the truth about 9/11.

Not what maybe happened.

what we want

you don't say!

I'm not suggesting we should be happy with what maybe happened. I just don't see why if the official conspiracy can try to make out what maybe happened and cock it up so badly, i'm not entitled to provide my more plausible alternative without being accused of crimethink!.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Why do you deliberately confuse "no plane" at the Pentagon with

"no AA-77" at the Pentagon. These are 2 very different statements.

These are the problems.

These are the problems. Proving exactly what happened is not our job. Our job is to make as many people as possible interested and informed about the problems with the OCT.

Only that mass awareness (that is as easily gained through substance as scandal) will put pressure on those in power to hold the culprits accountable.

Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon! -R.T.

This sequence of statements is kind of disturbing. It seems as if you're saying that our number one goal is to increase mass awareness, and that if promoting the no-757 theory has the effect of increasing public interest, then we should do it-- regardless of whether it is true.

I'll agree that the idea of a faked plane crash has a kind of spooky, sexy, dramatic appeal to it. Jim Hoffman refers to "the lure of the unsolved mystery." But if we pursue a path based on mass appeal instead of analysis of the facts, that could prove a distraction that is fatal to the truth movement as a whole.

I'm just being honest

I don't see how a plane could have crashed there, I'm not satisfied with the attempts to rationalize it, and i will continue to promote my best interpretation whether or not I am certain of being right. what am i going to wait until i know exactly what happened before i tell everyone in the world that it's fishy as hell?

People need to be shown that it's ok to SPEAK UP when you HAVE DOUBTS about something. Doesn't matter if you know exactly what's up, especially when you can't without a real effort by many people. If others share your doubts, you will know you're not alone.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Hanjour sure wasn't in the controls

Why couldn't a remote-controlled plane have crashed into the lower floors of Pentagon?

As usual -

A very good treatment on this subject Arabesque.

Its interesting but, the Pentagon was the one subject that started me on the whole 911 Truth issue 5 years ago. It opened up an entire pandora's box for me.

But, unfortunately, I feel that the no-plane theory is a red herring.

Whether this plane was in fact Flight 77 is still debatable in my opinion.

I believe there is a very LOW probability (as in ZERO probability) that the alleged hijacker could have piloted that plane. There is just no way a failed Cessna pilot could take a modern day jet, with all the instrumentation involved, from Ohio into the Pentagon with pinpoint accuracy.

And, the fact that the one renovated section of the Pentagon was hit is also extremely damning.

The fact that the Pentagon was hit in a 'frontal' assualt - flying very close to the ground to hit a 3-story high building is very damning. The pilot could have simply dive-bombed into the roof and done much more damage. Coming in for a landing is a very tricky maneuver.

But - those who dismiss the evidence of an actual PLANE striking the Pentagon seem to be cherry picking their evidence.

And lastly - the 16' hole claim has always be problematic.

I'm glad you at least agree that Hanjour & pals couldn't have

piloted a huge Boeing at all, let alone hundreds of miles.

Obviously also then, is the fact that the Barbara Olson phone calls are a lie, as she allegedly spoke to her husband at length about 4 or 5 maniacs on board having killed the pilots & taken over the plane.

That Olson b.s. suggests to me that the other phone calls on 9/11 were likely phony too.

Not necessarily

Your logic does not follow.

Just because Honjour could not have piloted the plane does not mean that someone could not have. It does not mean that Flight 77 could not have been taken over and flown by someone else with the prerequisite flying skills.

Personally - and this is just wild-asses speculation - i believe Flight 77 was populated with people participating in the war games and what was supposed to be a mock-hijacking somehow turned real-world.

John, doesn't that sound overly complex than just firing a

missile, drone, or planted explosives at the Pentagon???

If anything along your lines, how about AA-77 being populated with people participating in the war games, but then landing in Ohio or elsewhere, with a missile/drone hitting the Pentagon???

Why would any skilled pilot,

Why would any skilled pilot, such as those possibly participating in the war games, have crashed the plane into the Pentagon?

I think the plane was remote-controlled. That is also supported by the fact that it hit right into the middle of the narrow renovated section. Apparently it was important that the plane hit that section, and that couldn't have been left for a human pilot to accomplish.

Also remember that Hanjour & needed to battled & boxcut

the pilots to death, wrenching-away control of the plane, then recover stable flight, turn around, and fly the plane back 250 miles & find the Pentagon by eyesight! It's absurd to think they could've accomplished this!!!

here is a view from inside flight 77

correction: this is from flight 93--my bad. I assume though that the takeover melee was roughly the same...

From the official conspiracy theory comic book:


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force

Also remember that Hanjour &

Also remember that Hanjour & needed to battled & boxcut the pilots to death, wrenching-away control of the plane, then recover stable flight, turn around, and fly the plane back 250 miles & find the Pentagon by eyesight! It's absurd to think they could've accomplished this!!!

The exact same argument holds true for the planes that hit the twin towers, does that mean they didn't hit the towers? NO. You are confusing the issue of how ridiculous the myth is with examining the physical evidence.

i agree

and i would add to this that this scenerio could very easily be accomplished by highly-trained black-ops commandos.

I think we all agree that the official story of 19 arab hijackers taking a few flight lessons and accomplishing this task has an extremely low probablity.

But, you cannot extrapolate from this a logical theory as to what DID happen.

give me one example of highly trained black-ops commandos

going on a suicide mission. that's just inane. why kill off someone who is highly trained? why would they agree to commit suicide?

no, human error could not be allowed to be a factor when it came to hitting the towers, since the cover for the controlled demolition was needed, and a human could have very easily failed or gotten cold feet.

it was remote control for the twin tower boeings, and lord knows what hit the pentagon--it just wasn't flight 77, or any other boeing.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


what is this dodge ball?

You're totally dodging the real point, which is that hijackers need not have done all those things, because planes can be remotely navigated. The way the OCTers reject this is telling. They don't deny planes can be flown by remote, they just come up with a bunch of lame excuses for why it is unlikely they were.

Compare that with our very good reasons for why we don't believe they were hijacked by Arab Muslims and the truth is apparent.

In fact contrary to what many here may think, I even belive that the remotely commandeered flights that hit the towers could have been the advertised flights, with the people who were in them really there, though I find it less probable (not improbable) than them having been drones.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


You totally missed the point

You totally missed the point I was making.

Seeing as how you already called me "paid help" after just one comment (which was directed towards someone else who was accusing Arabesque of the same thing) I don't see much point in trying to explain my point to you. It is obvious your more interested in flame wars than any level headed discussion.

To The Moderators of this Website

Do you hear a common theme here?

mommy help!

dude, the fact that you're trying to get me banned makes it quite clear that you can't handle the tough questions I don't let you ignore.

I'm not a strawman like Nico who you can just punch around to make yourself look like a hero, you know. now go on, play nice, and keep reading from your script.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


John, you continually play devil's advocate against much of

the truth movement's physical evidence. This does make you look quite suspicious, IMO.


you make it sound as if the 'physical evidence' incontroverably proves that there was no plane at the Pentagon. This is NOT the truth movement's consensus on the physical evedence - and the Pentagon issue is hotly disputed by many of our best researchers.

So - stop attempting to smear me by claiming i play devil's advocate against much of the truth movement's physical evidence - because it is a lie.

i am not alone in my interpretation of the physical evidence - and i could easily list out for you the many TOP researchers in THIS MOVEMENT who take a very similar position to mine on this issue - including many who are posting on this message board.

So - as much as you would like to pose as a spokesman for "the movement" - you are not representing the interests of everyone here - and you should cease insinuating shit about people who disagree with you.

i seem to recall someone

telling me to STFU (shut the f*** up) in the middle of an exchange they were not even a part of. hey, FD, it was YOU! so I know you're a) not a nice person and b) talking smack about the Pentagon.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Which is it, Real Truther?

Crash physics, or remote control? A remotely controlled plane would crash the same as an amateur-Arab-flown plane.

Huh??? I believe large drones slammed into the towers. You

don't need a group of blade-wielding Arabs & a planeload of dubious passengers to slam 2 drones into the towers.

Any plane would have left debris

outside the towers. That could not be risked.

Am I wrong here?

So why are people down-rating a simple statement of fact?

And why I am not able to down-rate what I disagree with? Not that I would. I think lack of positive reinforcement should be enough.

It’s a straw-man argument

#1 What happened at the WTC as captured on film? Was there much debris outside of the WTC towers when the plane crashed into it? (putting aside your opinion on the videos).

#2 there was debris outside of the Pentagon. I provided links to it in my blog.

#3 eyewitnesses claimed the plane completely entered the building (in descriptions similar to what happened at the WTC). Therefore, why would there be much debris outside of the Pentagon? The plane went inside the Pentagon. It didn’t “bounce off of it”.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Great job with the blog bit ...

in my opinion the 9/11 truth movement does not have to prove anything other than the "Official Story" is not true.
As far as I am concerned the 9/11 truth movement only wants a real independent investigation to find the answers.
Here is a link to the French Website regarding the Pentagon.

Your detailed analysis missed the fact that there wasn't even an American Airlines Flight 77 scheduled for 9/11 and the various discrepancies regarding the alleged passenger lists.

How many of the "Eyewitnesses" have received and/or are continuing to receive compensation from the US Government in one form or another (including pay as a member of the military or civilian employee or payments from one of the Funds established to pay for damages.

The simple code number that can easily be input into any flight transponder can identify any type of aircraft in the air as Flight 77. The "Controllers" can only testify to what they saw on a radar screen NOT what was actually in the air. For all they knew a piper cub could have entered the code number into a flight transponder and been flying around. As a matter of fact the C-130 might have done the same thing.

If it was a plane how is it possible that the impact was able to destroy all of the passengers luggage and physical aircraft but the bodies of the passengers were allegedly were sent to a different state to be identified with DNA ?
I believe it was the same location that also identified the remains of the passengers of United 93 which hit the ground with such force that the entire plane buried itself under ground despite the Mayor of Cleveland announcment that United 93 had made a safe landing in Cleveland's airpor due to a bomb scare. Of course, that news article was retracted when it was reported on a national news radio broadcast.

Did you happen to mention in your blog that none of the hyjackers had been included on any of the various passenger lists and/or that some of them had been reported alive any well in Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Cut the B---S---. Tell us the Truth.

The main point is that the "Official Story" is NOT TRUE; there were none of the required investigations by the proper authorities at the proper times and there are two wars that were illegially started that has cost the citizens of the United States trillions of dollars.

Oh - By the Way - that reminds me on 9/10/2001 Mr Cheney had announced that the Pentagon could not locate a certain numbers of Trillions of dollars and the attack hit the section of the building that the accountants were working trying to locate it while Don Rumsfeld was left safe on the opposite side of the building.

Answers to your comments

As you know the Pentagon is a vast topic. I didn't cover everything. In fact my original blog was much longer... but I think a shorter blog is better.

Flight 77 not the flight that took off? I didn't know that. But is this really an essential point? We know it was being tracked by radar--whatever flight it was.

Eye-witnesses: I don't think people are giving enough respect to eye-witness testimony. When 200 people see the same thing, it is not a coincidence.

Why pay 200 people to say a plane hit the Pentagon when you could FLY a plane into the Pentagon?

Physical Evidence: What happened at the WTC? Did the plane bounce off? No, it went straight in. Eye-witnesses reported the same thing at the Pentagon. I linked to photos of the plane parts and debris.

Good point about the Hijackers. This is of course strong evidence. There is alot of evidence, but ultimately, they couldn't FLY the plane. So I didn't want to spend much time on that.

You say that the Official story is not true. That's exactly what I said in my blog. Two theories--same conclusion: INSIDE JOB.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

200 eye-witness accounts of a huge Boeing hitting the Pentagon?

Where did you get this "200" people saw a Boeing number??? It seems way too high! Did someone just write-up these 200 eye-witness accounts? I would at least like to see the 200 witnesses each give a video deposition or something, not just some report/article that supposedly quotes each of these 200 individuals.

hey that might help the terrorists

you cant just have the witnesses tell eevryone what they saw because that will help the terror wrists to strike again.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Arabesque has some sly agenda to obfuscate the fact that AA-77

did NOT strike the Pentagon--despite all the overwhelming evidence.

Arabesque & people like him know that if we prove anything other than AA-77 struck or blew-up the Pentagon, it would be instantly fatal to the 9/11 "official story."

i always say....

... the first person to start accusing people of having "sly agendas" are most suspect of having their own.

The evidence regarding Flight 77 is NOT overwhelming - the movement is split on this issue - and your ACCUSATIONS appear to be intimidation tactics to shut down honest debate.

Key your eye on the ball and stick to civil debate.

Dude, you're the one supporting the O.V. that AA-77 hit the

Pentagon, just like "they" told us it did.

Arabesque has written some

Arabesque has written some great things on this site, including this piece. You should notice that he argues you can proove 9/11 was an inside job whether 77 hit the pentagon or not.

There are tons of valid counter-arguments to this topic on both sides, it is worthwhile understanding them instead of just repeating fallacies like mockingbirds.

If you are going to challenge Arabesque and align him with those who don't want 9/11 truth to succeed then I will do the same to you, because he has definitely proven himself as far as I am concerned. You on the other hand have no issue jumping down other "truthers" throats over simple differences of opinions and resorting to insults.

There is nothing wrong with Arabesque's work, and there is no need to take this to a personal level instead of challenging him on the merits of his paper.

your opinion is noted

and discarded, FalseDich. :)

pay no mind to the paid help, Colombo!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Troll Alert

And now you accuse FalseDichotomy and Arabesque of being agents as well?

Anyone who disagrees with you opinions is openly accused of being an agent?


i'm not the one making a film

about who is and is not a disinfo agent in the movement, Jess.

I think people should think about everyone being a potential agent, but there's no need to throw around accusations constantly, since it's not about the person but about the information.

Many users of 911blogger have been accused of being agents by John Albanese because of their advocacy of obviously absurd ideas like holograms and space beams. He does not say that he has a difference of opinion with them, he says they are disinfo agents. To me, the notion that flight 77 hit the Pentagon--that ANY boeing did--is as absurd on its face as holograms and space beams.

I have looked at Jim Hoffman's case and found it to be based almost exclusively on inconclusive and suspicious physical and eyewitness "evidence". I have come to the conclusion that the clear zealotry of those insisting that a boeing hit the pentagon is indicative of a campaign to tamp down speculation on this particular point, and I have always found that to be a sign that something important is being hidden.

The more we argue about this the better.

Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon. It is obvious.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I used to be you:

I used to think that there was no plane at the Pentagon.

Then I looked at all of the evidence.

Why don't you respond to the "Motive" section of my blog. You are a super-power nation. You are going to create the greatest conspiracy of all time. What would you do?

1. Fake literally hundreds of (corroborating) statements from FAA officials, NEADS, and even a Mineta statement implicating a stand-down (a corroborated statement), create a massive War Game scenario involving moving fighter aircraft out of NE USA and not take advantage of it, fake 200 eyewitness statements, pray that no one would come forward, fake physical evidence including light poles corresponding to the wingspan of a 757 (All of this right next to a highway in typical early morning traffic in perfect view of the Pentagon), fake debris on the lawn, plant plane parts corresponding to a 757 including engine, fuselage and landing gear, fake a radar blip approaching the Pentagon, fake a hole in the pentagon, all of this to risk making yourself look guilty.


2. Fly a plane into the Pentagon. Make the hijackers look guilty.

It's pretty obvious which choice I would choose. What about you?

Don’t you think it’s pretty absurd to think that the government would choose option #1?

I guess that makes me a "shill" for thinking that they aren't that stupid.   

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

you are NOT a super power nation

you are a private sector conspiracy of individuals with positions in government agencies and the global underworld.

you have war game exercises you know will be going on and you arrange to sabotage them in order to stage a terrorist attack to blame it on Arab Muslims.

you have done this concurrently with rigging the world trade center towers 12 and 7 for demolition--7 in the traditional manner, and the twin towers in such a way as to visually suggest a gravity induced collapse due to structural failure caused by fire and impact damage from the boeings (drones from the exercise) you will be flying remotely into them.

you had co-conspirators in the Pentagon brass, who brought in foreign agents.

you had something hit the pentagon. you have pictures that show what it was from various angles. you refuse to release these. you will never release these. you will never release any more pictures because every single other one shows conclusively what you used. You will never reveal the pictures because you cannot show the real ones and you cannot fake one well enough. you need to explain why you won't release the pictures.

you hit on an idea. you are refusing to release the pictures because you want to make Truthers look bad after they've gone on and on about the lack of plane evidence.

If enough people don't demand they release the pictures, we can't force their hand.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Give me a break...

Instead of providing a thoughtful response to my question you instead call me a government agent... 

Obviously I can assume you would choose option #1.

Perhaps you didn't notice the fact that I provided a link to a petition to release the documents and videos.

He wasn't accusing you

He was presenting an alternative hypothetical to your assume "you are a superpower nation." His alternative was "assume you are a . . . "

He raises any important point - all too often the alternative is presented as either Al Qaeda or Bush, without consideration of the myriad of possible private conspiracies with government, military, and corporate elements.

Pentagon Strike: Motive

Human Beings have motivations. The planners of 9/11 had motive. They wanted a “new pearl harbour”. They wanted to kill Americans to justify wars and expand the American “empire”. They wanted oil in Middle Eastern Countries.

Human beings are also rational. They do things the easy way. They avoid unnecessary complications. They choose the best possible plan with the least amount of potential problems and the highest chances of success.

Human beings are also self interested. They don’t make themselves look guilty for ANY reason. (see Mineta stand-down—“50 miles out” statement is confirmed. I have done the calculations to prove that the distance is accurate.)

Now either you believe that #1 the 9/11 planners would choose a massively complex plan or #2 they would choose a simple plan as I described.

You don’t have to admit that you think a plane hit the Pentagon. But if you are going to at least pretend to be a “real truther” you should have the intellectual honesty to answer either:


yes—the #2 plan is much more reasonable or


no. I disagree, they had to do the first plan because (fill in the blank)

This is not a “straw-man” argument. Motive is the basis of all criminal trials. Please explain to me the motive for faking a plane strike right next to a highway in typical early morning traffic.

If you can come up with a convincing answer I look forward to hearing it.

We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Truisms and bold print do not an argument make

Your plan is simple,except for one big problem - planes do not disappear inside of buildings, steel or concrete.

If you can come up with a convincing answer I look forward to hearing it.

Come on - face the problem that the perps had - a real plane would leave evidence that it was not the plane it was claimed to be. That is the motive, ney the necessity - for what seems more complex to you.

I want to ask whether you have the intellectual honesty to answer this question.

Actually, I have two questions about this question - (1) is it not incredibly pretentious and offensive to ask this question; (2) should I put "intellectual honesty" in bold or italics? Does the meaning change? Let's try:

intellectual honesty

intellectual honesty

No--it is incredibily offensive to call me a shill

instead of answering my arguments. That's an ad hominem. It requires intellectual honesty to answer arguments instead of resorting to name calling. You yourself have commented on this before, so I know that you are in agreement with me.

"Your plan is simple, except for one big problem - planes do not disappear inside of buildings, steel or concrete."

You mean like at the World Trade Center?

My question was simple. Putting aside your "assumptions" about what can and can't happen at a crash site. Which plan would you choose? Thinking outside of the box. My comments were directed at "real truther". I don't have a problem with his opinion that a plane hit the Pentagon. I have a problem with his attitude and the way in which he answered my question.

The vote on my blog reveals what the majority of people think about my post. I have to admit I was expecting a much lower vote. I thank everyone for their positive comments and discussion. I also thank everyone who supports my work here at 9/11 blogger. Your comments are appreciated.

I have never call you a shill

And I was addressing your arguments more generally, not your dispute with Real Truther.

I think your blog is great and has resulted in interesting debate. But I also think that you make dogmatic statements about accounting for all the evidence which beg the question of whether you are accounting for all the evidence.

Citgo witnesses

What is your take on the recent film in which four witnesses state they saw the plane approach the Pentagon following a route that is not consistent with the lamp pole damage?


My take is that the film is wrong. I'm doing a massive analysis of the eyewitness testimony. 250 statements. I'm going to release my research shortly.

I think he contradicts himself here

He claims it is 'not a superpower' at play here - but a small band of conspirators. actually i may agree with this.

but then that would clearly make option #1 IMPOSSIBLE. fake 200 witnesses. planting of evidence. knocking down ligh poles in clear sight of hunrdeds of people?

without the complicitity of the entire military industrial complex - how exactly would a small band of conspirators pull this off without getting exposed by LOYALISTS in the military and public?

how do you ENSURE the complicity of hundreds of witnesses who will be willing to allow THOUSANDS of people to die on 911?

Its pattenly absurd.

You make a good point, John

but I don't know that you would need the entire complex, and the question of loyalty, and what is disloyal, is unfortunately not so simple.

But you are right - if these witnesses are to be disbelieved, it suggests more people involved.

You should remember, however, that witnesses are influenced by the media and I am not saying they are all lying.

Again! There is a giant difference between "flying a plane" into

the Pentagon (e.g., a drone), and "flying AA-77" into the Pentagon--with all its implications of passengers, crew, box-cutter wielding hijackers, Barbara Olson phone calls, etc.

Man, it's instant checkmate to the O.V. if we show AA-77 did NOT

hit the Pentagon, & you know it!!! So why are you purposely gatekeeping the fact that AA-77 did NOT hit the Pentagon???

I have noticed

So has my fellow Washingtonian JamesB.
We both have a problem with the idea that facts should be fitted to prejudices.

You should notice that he argues you can proove 9/11 was an inside job whether 77 hit the pentagon or not.

Arabesque obviously put a lot of work into this argument,and I respect and appreciate the information he has put forward.

it also complicates matters

For all the people who faked their deaths by being listed as passengers on "flight 77".

In the end, you can get away with revealing a lot of the 9/11 plot and still have most of the perps get away with it. On the other hand, the people who faked their deaths by being listed on the flights that did not actually exist (at least the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, and maybe 11 and 185 too, if they were boeing drones) are readily identifiable as "having some splainin' to do". This is why the issue of fake flights is more contentious than CD--fake flights mean we have a list of co-conspirators.

CD could be investigated and it could be dismissed as inconclusive as to who was responsible. Admitting a crime occurred is fine as long as you don't have to reveal who did it!

Trust me on this one--I've had some pretty "in the know" seeming shills try to get me to back off the Pentagon plane issue, who were happy to tell me they had no opinion on controlled demolition, or believed it to be true (much as Jim Hoffman's model demonstrates...)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



This is the stupidest shit i ever read.

You are accusing the VICTIMS of faking their deaths???!!!!!

How irresponsible can you be?

they're only victims if they really died

Now, for the record here--you, John Albanese, believe that Barbara Olson died on September 11, 2001.

SO you believe that either flight 77 hit the Pentagon, killing her in the process, OR....

what? you think she was offloaded in Cleveland and gassed at the NASA facility?

Nope--she faked her death.

I love it--you fight to defend the honor of a "victim" based on the official conspiracy theory account of who was a victim.

Go ahead, tie yourself up in knots trying to explain your position this one--should be fun to read!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


shut up

you don't speak for me.

you're the only one here claiming to have all the answers.

(i'm out of here)

May I respectfully request

May I respectfully request that you fellows either get a room or begin private messaging/emailing these discussions/pissing contests? Is this the appropriate place to air back and forth personal arguments? When threads get hijacked like this, it's like witnessing the same old lovers' quarrel, Kentucky feud, or middle-school cat fight online, and it's both tiresome and disspiriting to those of us who are here to read and think.

One of the most important missions of the 9/11 truth community is public outreach and education. We have many new visitors as a result of the BBC revelations, and I shudder to think they may believe this is how we conduct ourselves.

I second this request. I'll

I second this request. I'll also add don't complain if people jump into your public flame war if you're going to conduct it in PUBLIC.

Just to be clear--it's everyone's business if everyone can read it.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

isn't there some setting you can use to ignore us?

And the Internet is no place to read and think--go to a LIBRARY for that. The Internet is where verbal duels take place!

Reading and thinking! What the FFF???


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Read Operation Northwoods--phony passengers, fake funerals, etc.

They were prepared to do that 40+ years ago!!! It was a real plot that came within a stroke of JFK's pen!!!

You're looking very goddamn suspicious to me in this thread, Albanese!!!

Okaaay, Colombo...whoah, there, pardner!

I've issues with Arabeaque in the past assuming those of us who do not believe JUMBO JET hit the Pentagon are "victims of dis-info"--but implying he's got an "agenda" just because you disagree with him is going the other way, IMHO.

Dis agreement does not equal disinfo. What would you have the man(?) do; lie about what he believes to make you and me feel comfortable? ;-/

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I never thought you were a "victim"

Even Jim Hoffman used to believe there was no plane. I did too. We can all change our minds.

The main thing is that we are open to changing our minds by rationally debating the evidence. It doesn't matter what we think (i.e. opinion--speculation that isn't proven), what matters is the truth.

I agree with your comments. Plus, I don't want to get on your bad side again.Cool

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

It's nice we can agree to disagree...

..but I'm not that scary, am I?Cool

And stop using MY smiley!   (kidding...!) 

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I've been around the block enough times to realize when people

are disingenuously playing devil's advocate against me.

Most intermediate & advanced truthers have compelling reasons to believe that AA-77 did not hit the Pentagon, yet a few people on this thread relentlessly manipulate facts to argue in favor of the O.V.

Maybe so, Columbo

So be more sly and don't accuse him of having a sly agenda.

Two versions for Loose Change FC?

"If a plane did not hit the Pentagon it proves an inside job. If a plane did hit the Pentagon it also proves an inside job because no plane should have hit the Pentagon."

The deniers are getting ready for LCFC. Perhaps Dylan and Dr. Dave could consider both scenarios for LCFC for balance and another offensive measure?

Dyer: Film gives life to brain-rotting 9/11 conspiracy theories
Gwynne Dyer
Article Last Updated: 03/07/2007 08:15:03 PM MST

"The 9/11 conspiracy theory is back, in a much more virulent form, and normally sane people are being taken in by it: I am getting half a dozen earnest e-mails every day telling me I must see a film called "Loose Change." It has been around in various versions for almost two years, but it now seems to be gathering converts faster than ever."

I’ve now realised for the first time in my life the vital Importance of Being Earnest.

"Well, I have seen it, and I concede that it is a much slicker, more professional product than other 9/11 conspiracy films, and therefore more seductive. But the argument is pure paranoid fantasy and it is rotting people's brains."

If I only had a brain left to rot.

"There have always been two versions of 9/11 conspiracy theory. The lesser version held that the Bush administration had advance intelligence of al-Qaida's plans but chose to ignore the warning because the attacks suited its purposes. The greater version insisted that there was no al-Qaida involvement and that the attacks were carried out by the U.S. government."

Only two versions? Lesser or greater? Black or white? Democrat or Republican? Socialism or communism? Fries or hashbrowns? Coke or Pepsi?

This is how they responsible journalists present complex issues that demand in-depth investigation and critical thinking? It's meant to divide us. You're only sane if you believe the "official" government story and totally insane if you don't. Soon, those who choose to question their government will be considered psychotic and, for their own safety and security of course, will be subjected to forced drug treatment and incarceration.

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001


I have already filed it under inconclusive, and omitted any mention when I made my list of hard facts.

The Pentagon crash has done more damage to 9/11 Truth than anything else. People who rabidly scream about their belief ignore the countervailing evidence (on either side). The flimsy evidence has probably been intentionally put out there by the perps. The issue of what hit the pentagon is not necessary to a discussion of pressuring for new investigations.

You can point out that there are anomalies, but that just opens you up to ridicule, as the corporate press loves (and is familiar with) these old pentagon theories.

I'm leaning more toward a Boeing probably did strike it. But, I don't find it all that important to the work of advocatiing for 9/11 full disclosure.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Excellent Response

Thank you

Why is it so important for John & others to give credence to

the myth that AA-77 slammed the Pentagon??? He sounds almost desperate about doing so, for Christ's sake!!!

If we show that AA-77 did NOT strike the Pentagon, the "official version" on all of 9/11 is dead!!!

and you seem

desperate to disrupt by accusing good people of being agents - as opposed to debating the facts like a man.

lets see..

Arabesque has been accused of being an agent

False Dichotomy has been accused of being an agent

John Albanese has been accused of being an agent


I disagree

This issue is very important.

I think it is conclusive, but would not presume to call it a "hard fact."

The rest of what you say is opinion, rather strident, but we all have our opinions so I do not mean to be dismissive.

Whatever happened at the

Whatever happened at the Pentagon, plane or no plane can be considerd as an academic question. To induge for mystery buffs. We don't need it to prove it was an inside job.

We already have all the evidence we need from the CD of the WTC buidings.

When looking at the "evidence" from the Pentagon event, we know that it is a very "artificial" situation.

The perps (the Gov't) have total control of the crime scene ( Their home turf) and of the evidence. They can decide what to release and not to release. They can hide anything they want.

This is a pretty favourable situation for a crminal.

We can never have "too much" evidence, pagan!!!

No Boeing @ the Pentagon is fantastic evidence for us!!!!!

two more objections to Pentagon Boeing...

Look at the photo above showing the damaged area with a red line showing where the wingspan would fit. On the right hand side, there are those huge spools of cable just sitting there very close to the building as if a huge jumbo jet hadn't just plowed right into the building.

second--when i drive on the highway and a truck drives by, the force of his wake pushes my car sideways. Yet we are to believe that a huge Boeing flew directly over the highway at an extremely low altitude and no cars were overturned or blown off the highway?

And who said there was a 1000 car traffic jam? Where did you hear that?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



I don't know how many cars there were on the highway. I was guessing. Look at the highway. I don’t know how many cars there are in a typical stand-still traffic jam. But I would assume a lot.

As for the cars moving, that's a straw-man. How do you know they weren't moved?

As for them flipping, I don't know what about the credibility of that argument. I saw a video somewhere (unfortunately I can't find it) of people just under a plane landing. They didn't fly anywhere. I doubt cars would move much either.

As for the cable spools... According to Jim Hoffman:

"I estimate below that the wings impacted the facade at an average elevation of about 8 feet, and that the plane was losing about a foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled. The four standing spools appear to lie between the paths of the two engines. Assuming that the larger spools were 6 feet in diameter, the flight path would have taken the bottom of the wings and fuselage about two or three feet over the tops of the larger spools. The spool lying on its side is damaged, and may have been hit by debris from the engine that hit the retaining wall."

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."