Support 911Blogger


Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?

Updated after constructive criticism from TruthAction.org and TruthMove.org, thank you to everyone who commented there and here, i've learned from all of it.

Lots of html links in the body; see the opednews.com posting- also, please come leave comments, lots of "in the dark" and "on the fence" people visit OpEdNews.com.

I appreciate constructive (and non) criticism; if you have any ideas for how i can improve this piece, let me know, in the comments or privately- is there anything i can word better? Anything relevant and important that i forgot? Better links I could've used? If i agree, i'll add it.

Note: If you currently believe a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon, that doesn't mean I think you're Cointelpro or a Troll.

Note to genuine Trolls and Cointelpro agents: I enjoy baiting you, but i like reading your comments even more; how can i get to know you if you don't talk to me?

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8161

It's understandable some believe "no 757" hit the Pentagon due to the heavy promotion of that idea, but there's no actual evidence. The theory is being used to mock and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, & to give Congress and the media a reason to avoid real questions about 9/11. The military drilled for 9/11-style attacks, & they came after years of warnings that Al Qaeda intended to hijack planes for missiles.

::::::::

*NOTE* If you currently believe a missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon, that doesn’t mean I think you’re “Cointelpro” and intentionally spreading disinfo; as I note in the article, I used to believe “no 757” hit the Pentagon- I’ve used that claim as “evidence” the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a lie, and I gave out DVD’s that promote the missile/Global Hawk theory. If only certain photos are viewed, the “hole” does appear too small for a 757 to have hit the building. I wrote this article to point out the following: the evidence for “no 757” is at best inconclusive and speculative; the reasons 2 out of 3 people who believe 9/11 was an inside job don’t believe the missile claims; the campaign to promote the theory may be a “psyop”; other evidence of malfeasance that is less “ambiguous”, with links for more information; the goal of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission or full criminal, Congressional and international investigations of 9/11 is better promoted with solid evidence of the falsity of the official story. The Complete 9/11 Timeline, made from thousands of official statements and credible media reports, ties people to other people, places, events and dates; before 9/11 is used to justify any more laws or wars, those who were in charge on 9/11 and in the years before need to be held to account. As Col. Jenny Sparks has noted repeatedly; nothing should have hit the Pentagon- the questions over what hit the Pentagon may be an intentional distraction. If solid evidence of “no 757” is ever produced, I’ll gladly admit my error.

Since 9/11 happened, theories have been circulating on the internet, and by DVDs and books, that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. If all someone had to look at was certain DVDs, books and websites, it’s understandable why they might think a jumbo jet didn’t crash there; in certain photos, the “hole” appears to be too small to accommodate a 757, and there is not much debris visible in photos of the Pentagon taken soon after the attack.

However, when one views other, less heavily marketed websites, and examines the available photos together, it’s evident there’s an approximately 90-100’ gash along the first floor, with the fuselage-sized hole in the center on the second floor, and space for the engines to pass through. There are also photos of parts and debris that are consistent with an AA 757; landing gear, a wheel hub, an engine rotor, and aluminum aircraft skin- some even with the red and white paint that AA jets have on the fuselage. Available photos of the destruction, damage and debris in the interior appear consistent with damage that would be caused by a jet liner crashing through the building at over 500 mph and getting shredded in the process.

Photos of other crashes show that, counter-intuitively, some jet crashes leave seemingly little debris. Jets are large, but they are mostly aluminum, and hollow. A Phantom F-4 was test-crashed into a wall; it was smashed to bits. A 747 crashed and burned, completely destroying the fuselage. A DC-8, a plane similar in size to a 757, crashed in a parking lot and was obliterated.

There is also damage at the scene consistent with witness reports of a jet liner; a damaged generator trailer some witnesses saw get hit by the right engine, and downed lamp poles consistent with the reported flight path and the wing span of a 757.

You can see all the linked photos and more, plus read a much more detailed analysis in The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net
In addition, this analysis by WhatReallyHappened.com of the video released by the Pentagon, A Plane Identified in the 9/11 Pentagon Security Video, shows what appears to be the exact form of a 757 partially obscured by the guard shack. Of course, this is video released by the Pentagon, it isn’t clear, it could be “photoshopped”, and does not clearly show a 757. Alone this isn’t conclusive; it is another piece of evidence in a cumulative case for a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Further, nearly all of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts on record are consistent with an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon. While some who were farther away from the crash thought it was a smaller plane, no one who was close described it as anything other than a commercial passenger jet. Some said it sounded or acted like a missile, but NO ONE said they saw a missile. Many said it was an American Airlines (no one said it was another airline), many remembered the colors being silver, red and blue, many noticed the AA logos, many were even close enough to notice the flaps and the landing gear weren’t down- and at least 100 reported seeing it hit the Pentagon. NO ONE reported seeing the plane fly OVER the Pentagon.

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony Extensive collection of eyewitness accounts with sources, compiled by Arabesque.Blogspot.com
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described A breakdown of what witnesses claimed to see, by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

So, if there’s all this evidence that an AA 757 crashed at the Pentagon, and if there’s no substantive evidence that anything other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon, why are the claims that “no 757 hit the Pentagon” so widely circulated that 12% of Americans (about 36 million people), according to this 2006 ScrippsNews poll, believe a missile hit the Pentagon? Certainly, very few people would believe it, if not for the numerous DVDs, websites, books- and now tens of thousands of perhaps well-intentioned “9/11 Truthers” that are spreading this claim along with other information that contradicts the Official Conspiracy Theory. The fuselage “hole”, in certain photos where much is obscured by smoke and foam, does appear to be too small for a 757 and there is perhaps surprisingly little debris outside the building and in available photos of the interior (there are not many available; why not? Many must have been taken). Many likely still accept the “no 757” claim at face value because they have not yet been exposed to less heavily promoted material. I believed the “no 757” claim myself at first; Loose Change 1 was my introduction to alternative ideas about 9/11, summer 2005. Previously I had accepted the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory without seriously questioning it. I naively assumed that people would not put out material with such extraordinary claims without checking all the facts first; once I did more research, I became skeptical of Loose Change as well.

Loose Change, one of the most widely-viewed full-length internet films of all time, made much of the “no 757” claim in its 1st and 2nd editions- Loose Change, Final Cut the 3rd edition acknowledges some of the reasons many people who question the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 do think a 757 hit the Pentagon- the damage path and eyewitnesses, for instance. However, Final Cut still incorrectly implies the damage to the Pentagon and “lack of large structural debris” outside is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building. It correctly points out that no part has been positively identified as being from Flight 77, but as you can see from my links above, parts have been identified as being from a 757. Researcher Aidan Monaghan, through use of FOIAs, lawsuits and Requests for Correction, has documented some serious discrepancies about “Flight 77”; for instance, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) aka “black box” provided to the NTSB by the FBI and represented as being from Flight 77 was “last modified” more than 4 hours BEFORE it was reportedly recovered (see also this Request for Correction filed with the NTSB). Also, the NTSB reports are missing part/serial numbers for the FDRs in question (see also this article about the FBI response to a lawsuit filed by Monaghan).

Loose Change Final Cut also correctly points out that “What hit the building MAY be important; however, our focus should be on why it was hit in the first place”. Why wasn’t the plane intercepted long before it reached DC? The Pentagon was struck at 9:38 am, nearly an hour and a half after the first sign of hijacking was received at 8:14 am, which itself came after years of warnings and intelligence on Al Qaeda-Bin Laden plans to hijack planes, use them as missiles and target the Pentagon and World Trade Center, as well as current intelligence that the hijackers were in the US. According to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey in a Nov 8, 2004 interview broadcast on CNN, “The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport [security], didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people…You [Bush] knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.” At the Complete 911 Timeline you can review all the information that the US government had prior to 9/11 that has been made public so far, including what was left out of, or distorted by, the 9/11 Commission Report.

Hijacked planes being used as missiles was a scenario the US military had drilled for; they were even conducting war games on 9/11 that mimicked elements ofthe attacks. Why was the plane not shot down by the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles? How could the plane have been flown by Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Cessna? Why did it hit the recently reinforced section of the Pentagon, opposite the top brass, which was a matter of public record? This section was nearing completion of its renovations, and was mostly empty except for civilian contractors and some military staff, including defense accountants.

Some “Truthers” claim that 9/11 Truth activists who maintain that a 757 hit the Pentagon are circulating disinformation and are “Cointelpro” Agents. Cointelpro was an FBI program, supposedly discontinued in 1971, that was designed to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections". Likewise, the Church Committee’s investigation in 1975 found that the CIA had infiltrated most major media as part of a program called “Operation Mockingbird” intended to manipulate and control public opinion. At the time most of the major media outlets were owned by 50 some corporations; now just 5 mega-corporations control almost all the news and information Americans see and hear- if they rely on TV, radio and print media. The claims by the US State Dept, Popular Mechanics and many, many corporate media that the “missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon” theory is one of the main tenets of the “9/11 Truth Movement” (and that it isn’t true) may also have actually contributed to the belief that it is. Most Americans understand the Democrats, Republicans and corporate media primarily serve Establishment special interests and are willing to subvert the Public interest to do so. People understand that information that might upset the status quo is frequently omitted from media and government reports, or distorted if mentioned. So when the government and corporate media deny something heavily, it likely causes some to give credence to what they’re denying. A 2007 Sacred Heart University poll found that only 19.6% of Americans can say they believe “all” or “most” media reporting; 23.9% said they believe “little”or “none”, and 55.3% said they believe “some”.

So why, after being FOIA’d and sued, has the Pentagon only released 2 grainy videos in which it’s difficult to clearly see anything? FOIA requests by Scott Bingham (link goes to Archive.org; Flight77.info is no longer run by Bingham) and JudicalWatch.org only sought records related to what hit the Pentagon; they did not request video or records pertaining to the approach of the plane, so that may be part of the problem. See also this timeline from 911Research.WTC7.net documenting their efforts. But why hasn’t the Pentagon released video, if they have it, clearly showing the hit, or even the approach of the plane, in order to dispel the “conspiracy theories”? Is it just reflective of the Pentagon and Bush Administration’s penchant for secrecy and control? Are they trying to cover something up? Are they purposely fueling the controversy about the Pentagon in an attempt to divide & confuse the 9/11 Truth Movement, and divert people’s attention and activism from real questions and evidence of corruption and malfeasance? It may be some combination of these reasons, and/or in addition to others.

Why would they want to fuel speculation and controversy; aren’t they concerned about truth and their public image? The Pentagon’s public image has been consistently tarnished by revelations of lies and corruption, and it hasn’t resulted in greater oversight or budgetary restrictions, so why would they care? For instance, the “Pentagon Papers” leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, published by the New York Times and later made into a book, proved the DoD was lying about their illegal escalation of the conflict in Vietnam; the 2nd, and maybe not even the 1st, Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, but it was still used to justify war with Vietnam; Operation Northwoods showed the Joint Chiefs were willing to deceive and even kill Americans in order to create a pretext for invading Cuba. More recent examples of scandals without consequences include Donald Rumsfeld’s announcement on September 10, 2001 that, "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"; DoD obstruction and lies regarding the Able Danger program that had identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before 9/11; the DoD role in the lies and deceptions that led to the attack on Iraq, and their lies and deceptions about the occupation of Iraq.

Of course, they are somewhat concerned about their public image, which is probably why stories like these never get widely covered in the corporate media, when reported at all- unlike stories about missing white women, drunk-driving celebrities or candidates without flag lapel pins, which get covered ad nauseum. Perhaps a better question would be why would they be concerned about something only 12% of Americans believe, and that most people, including 9/11 skeptics, don’t take seriously- especially if it isn’t even true? I would say they’re probably more concerned that currently 81% of Americans suspect a coverup on some level regarding 9/11, according to a 2006 NYTimes/CBS poll. The number of people who believe the Bush Administration is “mostly lying” about what they knew prior to 9/11 has risen from 8% in 2002 to 28% in 2006.The ScrippsNews 2006 poll I referenced earlier in this article also found that 36% of Americans thought it "’very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them ‘because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.’" A ScrippsNews November 2007 poll asked a similar, slightly broader question, and discovered 62% think it “very” or “somewhat” likely “some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.” And 51% support Bush and Cheney being investigated in connection with 9/11, according to a 911Truth.org-commissioned Zogby poll September 2007.

It could be that the hype over the “Pentagon hole” is itself a massive propaganda-psyop-disinfo-neoCointelpro operation designed to get activists asking the wrong questions, distract from real questions, promote bogus "evidence" and set up the “9/11 Truth Movement” to be embarrassed, confused and discredited, if at some future date they decide to release demonstrably unedited video of a 757 approaching and hitting the Pentagon- perhaps if they start to feel threatened by shifting public opinion, and increased demands for answers and accountability regarding 9/11, and investigations by Congress or an international body? See these articles for more detailed analysis:

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net

The Pentagon Honey Pot by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

Pentagon Flight Path Misinformation, Stand-Down, War Games, and the Three Mysterious Planes by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

Special Report: COINTELPRO Michael Wolsey’s Visibility911.org hosts 4 podcasts on disinformation; interviews with Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net, WTC7.net and 911Review.com (not .org); William Pepper, author of An Act of State about the assassination of Martin Luther King; John Albanese, creator of the film Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime; and “audio excerpts from a documentary by Adi Gevins titled Me and My Shadow: A History of the FBI's Covert Operations and COINTELPRO produced in 1976 during the time when the FBI's Counter Intelligence Programs were being exposed.”

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation posted by 911Truth.org

The Complete 911 Timeline hosted by CooperativeResearch.org aka HistoryCommons.org, compiled by Paul Thompson, et al. This timeline contains over 5000 entries, exclusively from mainstream sources; the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 is thoroughly contradicted and discredited by the reports and statements put out by the US government itself, and by reports put out by the Operation Mockingbird media.

A new investigation is needed to determine the details about who in the US government knew what when and what they did and didn’t do about the impending 9/11 attacks; it’s clear from the public record that the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 (that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden wasn’t infiltrated and manipulated by the CIA and allied intelligence services, that they didn’t have funding sources with ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA, that they acted alone, that our intelligence, law enforcement and defense agencies couldn’t “connect the dots” due to “system failure” and “failure of imagination”, and that no one should be held accountable or even investigated for dereliction of duty, criminal negligence and obstruction of justice, or prosecuted for complicity, mass murder and treason) is a fraud.

Articles 33-35 of Kucinich’s Impeachment Resolution are reason enough to immediately impeach and remove Bush; but if the Judiciary Committee wants to hold public hearings first, then let them do so.

Article XXXIII 
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
 


Article XXXIV 
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001.



Article XXXV
 Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.
The problems that led to the success of the 9/11 attacks will not be solved just with impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney, however; it may be that a Truth & Reconciliation Commission modeled on South Africa's will be necessary to uncover all involved parties and determine what safeguards are needed to protect our nation, Constitution and Republic; for instance, who made the single $5 Billion purchase of US Treasury Notes early September 2001? Why have the results of the 38+ SEC investigations into 9/11 insider trading never been made public?

In conclusion: the available evidence indicates a 757 crashed at the Pentagon; not a missile, Global Hawk or anything else. The campaign to get people to believe the Pentagon was hit by a missile, Global Hawk or anything other than a 757 may be a neoCointelpro psyop. Much more solid evidence that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a fraud can be found on the many links in this article, especially the Complete 911 Timeline. For the sake of our Republic, the Constitution, the People, our nation and our posterity- educate yourself; research and investigate, don’t take things at face value and don’t trust anyone, including me- check things out for yourself, and what you feel confident about- share with your friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, media and representatives. Advocate and agitate for full investigations of 9/11, with accountability. 70% of the 9/11 families questions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission- demand answers and accountability; full criminal, Congressional and international investigations, with subpoena power and all “persons of interest” testifying in public under Oath.

This is very simple...

... Donald Rumsfeld was in his office the moment of the attack. He had been waiting there "making calls" while the hijacked planes were crashing into buildings. That is confirmed by many many sources.

Do you think that he would give the keys to that plane to Hanjour (a horrible pilot) knowing full well that the plane HAD to hit that exact spot, or risk it skipping off the top of the buildings, into his OFFICE?

Does that make sense to you considering everything else we know about the scene?

i really doubt it was Hanjour or any of the other patsies

flying the planes- as you say, why would they leave it to them, when they could barely fly?

In my article, i point that out and link to his timeline at CCR so people can see for themselves about his lack of skills and other inconsistencies.

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Ah, so you think it makes more sense...

... that they had some guy flying the big ass plane 20 feet off the ground for 500 yards at 500mph loaded (as you suggest in a later comment) with explosives...

... and donald rumsfeld went with THAT idea planted behind his desk at the Pentagon?

That makes MORE sense to you?

it does

Rummy was safely on the other side of the building

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Not a good comparison

"A Phantom F-4 was test-crashed into a wall; it was smashed to bits."

Yes it was, and the wall it hit did not move.

Whatever hit the Pentagon went through 6 walls.

Combine the two and you have an irresistible force meeting an immovable object paradox.

Either the wall stops the plane and the plane's kinetic energy is directed back on itself, shredding it

OR

The plane pulverizes the 6 walls.

Not both.

In other words, is it reasonable to think that the plane held together long enough to punch through 6 walls, then disintegrated immediately after?

comparison

A 757 weighs over 100 tons; the F4 weighs about 15 tons, empty, so in that sense it's not a good comparison.

However, they're both planes; lots of empty space and made out of a lot of aluminum. The combination of up to 125 tons of mass and easily destroyed plane colliding with the Pentagon- i can see how it could've caused the damage. In addition, there's the damage path and the hundreds of eyewitnesses, and an absence of witnesses to anything else, incl. missile and flyover

Also, there may have been bombs on board, or in that section of the Pentagon- Jim Hoffman, who i linked repeatedly in the article, speculates about that.

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Look, wings don't "fold up"...

... and 9 ton jet engines running at full capasity don't "bounce-off" the walls; they go through them. They are titanium alloy Rolls Royce engines, I believe, and they don't melt or disentigrate. And they would have to be removed by something that can lift nearly 9 tons. A crane for instance.

Is there a picture of a crane removing a 9 ton engine from the scene? Two of them perhaps? Or just some small flywheel assembly that looks like it is from another, much smaller, engine; like say, one attacched to a cruise missle?

they go thru- exactly- and

they go thru- exactly- and there's space where the engines were.

Sure, they weren't hand-carried out. They may have been dismantled first- or not- weren't they working round the clock, at least at first? The engines may have been removed at night.

There may be pictures; why haven't more been released?

If it was a surprise attack and not an inside job, i'm sure lots of pics would be taken- it's a crime scene

EDIT- for "wings fold up"- check the link to the composite photo; there's a 90-100' gash along the first floor

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

This is the picture composite he speaks of...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/damage_comp.jpg

I would love to see you post this picture on this site as "proof" that the hole IS big enough for a 757 to have made. Please post it....

It's a picture of a firetruck spraying water across the building so you CAN'T SEE the wall!

You can't SEE the hole! and it has a DRAWING next to it of where they SAY the hole was...

and this is your "proof"? Are you kidding?

i don't know how to post pics; will someone post it, please?

I won't be able to check this thread for the next few hours, and I don't have time to go digging thru 1 1/2 years of your site; surely you know where your articles are...

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Yeah, that would under the 9/11 Investigations

category. I hid the stuff there.

easily destroyed plane

Plane destroys walls six times, THEN becomes easily destroyed?

that's not what i said here or in the article

if a plane crashed into the Pentagon, it's getting smashed as it crashes; all that 100-125 tons is piling up behind it; at some point the wall(s) are gonna give, unless they're strong enough to withstand 100-125 tons hitting it at over 500 mph- do you have links showing the Pentagon was built well-enough to withstand a 757 crashing into it?

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Straight Up Disinformation

TZO said:

"Whatever hit the Pentagon went through 6 walls."

"The plane pulverizes the 6 walls."

"In other words, is it reasonable to think that the plane held together long enough to punch through 6 walls, then disintegrated immediately after?"

This is one of the biggest myths which started with In Plane Sight. TZO you are spreading disinformation whether knowingly or not. This myth is based on the assumption that the walls that make up the 5 rings of the Pentagon went all the way to the ground; they did not, I REPEAT, THEY DID NOT.

The photo below clearly illustrates this FACT.

pentagon-open-2-floors.jpg

Notice in the cross section of D and C rings of the Pentagon, the outer walls only go down 3 floors from the roof. On the first and second stories, there is OFFICE SPACE in between the rings. The supporting structure which holds the walls above up are made up of a series of columns with basic light framing and gypsum board separating the offices. There were no 6 walls or 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete; there was the outer, recently reinforced wall of the Pentagon, and the "punch out hole" on the far side of the C ring. These were the ONLY two solid walls that offered significant resistance to the harder parts of the aircraft.

Do your homework and correct your approach. Also, please read this link to dispel this myth from the 9-11 literature.

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html

Thanks for a GREAT article Erik.

thanks Michael, hadn't seen this before

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Pentagon Construction - The first two floors.

This post relates to my posting above and should be considered part of it if I could go back and edit.

It may be of note that I am not wasting my time here for the posters who have voted down on the factual information contained in this article and my comments on it. These people, and you know who you are, are not interested in the truth. They merely want to push their "no plane at the Pentagon" theory come hell or high water and it doesn't matter to them what the facts really are. I have provided this information to the well meaning activist and truth seeker who is interested the success of the 9-11 Truth Movement in order to help dispel the myth of the "6 steel reinforced concrete walls". This claim is straight up disinformation that has been injected into the legitimate questions. Disinformation quickly becomes misinformation in the hands of the well meaning activist. It is up to all of us to identify the disinformation and stop the spread of it or risk having it used against us.

As you can see from the cross section photo of the D and C rings above, there is office space on the first two floors in between the rings. The masonry walls that constitute the "rings" of the pentagon go from the bottom of the 3rd floor up to the top of the 5th floor. These are thick and heavy walls, and its easy to assume by looking at photos of the Pentagon that these walls go all the way to the ground. In fact, this was my assumption when I first saw 9-11 In Plane Sight. I spread this myth for many months myself. However, this is a mistake in understanding how the Pentagon was constructed. The big heavy walls above are supported by a series of support columns below that are stacked atop each other for the first two floors, thereby creating significantly more office space while creating the illusion that there are actually 5 separate rings. The Pentagon is indeed a very large office building with many thousands of square feet of office space. One way this was achieved was to take advantage of the space between the rings on the first two floors.

The images below illustrate that point, along with the photo above to help the layman who has no construction knowledge understand the errors in the "6 walls" claim.

This is a photo from inside one of the first two floors of the Pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/interiorspace_5896.jpg

Next is an image depicting the damage to the columns from the E ring inward:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/floorplan_757traj.png

FACT: There were no 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete on the first two floors of the Pentagon. This is a myth which is being spread by well meaning people. Please don't be one of them.

Ok Mike... we got it... 4 walls not 6... thanks...

But why don't you take a look below at mrEguy's picture, becasue THAT is the REAL damage done to that building when the plane hit. That is. Not this torn up facade they did with that big crane in the fron of the picture.

See that picture down there? that's just ONE reason people have been questioning what hit the pentagon. So no, Mike, it's not 'straight up disinformation". People may be wrong about the construction of the Pentagon, but the damage was still extremely minimal compared to what plane crashes look like.

also, go look on the main blog page. there is a 757 coming in low, for a straifing run, about 20 feet off the ground. I wonder how Hanjour did it 8 feet off the ground for about 100 yards without even scratiching the grass or hitting those spools of cable?

Wrong.

"Loose Change Final Cut also correctly points out that “What hit the building MAY be important; however, our focus should be on why it was hit in the first place”."

Wrong.

Follow please... if it WAS a plane.. we have to start convincing people of something else and the trail gets muddy and we have to prove that something else happened....

if it WASN'T a plane... game over. The "terrorists" don't hijack missles.

That's it. All over.

Cointelpro? Absolutely. the "No Planers" talking about the trade centers. Yes, planes HIT the trade centers.

But what did they accomplish? They got US to censor each OTHER and quit talking about one of the most OBVIOUS problems with their story: the Pentagon. So, for the Cointelpro people who ran that moronic story about no planes hitting the towers... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED because Truthers make foolish statements like the one above, which make no sense whatsoever.

Of course it matters what hit the Pentagon.

please post your best links

sure, if you have evidence it was something other than a 757, or even that it wasn't Flight 77, that's huge; but so far, the 9/11 Truth Movement has not uncovered it; what's been presented as "proof" or "evidence" that a 757 didn't crash there, is not proof or evidence, as i outlined in the article- please check the links at opednews.

The Feds have not provided evidence that it was Flight 77- Aidan Monaghan has documented real problems with the black boxes supposedly from the plane- but that could mean they're trying to cover up something else about the flight.

I don't see the OBVIOUS problem with the Pentagon story, and neither do most people that think 9/11 was an inside job, want new investigations, or just think there was a coverup- according to the polling.

With the Complete 9/11 Timeline there's hundreds of serious, documented contradictions, holes and problems with the OCT, including stuff that ties people to other people, events and places- this is better evidence

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

"this is better evidence"... no it isn't.

it's better than "no evidence' but not better than the 80 videos missing from the Pentagon attack or say the problem with identifying the pieces of Flight 77 or say, just for shits and giggles...

... a full range spectrum test of the debris remaining from the Pentagon. You see, like with the case of Flight 800, the missle explosives (mainly PETN) will leave residue ALL OVER and in the dust, the grass, everywhere.

They didn't test for it. They should test for it. Because a positive result, acording to the FBI means "crime". and since it's illegal for passenger planes to carry PETN...

... hard physical evidence of something else happening.

What you are talking about is circumstantial evidence. Though it is usefull, we will never get past the MSM lockout of coverage with that alone.

My proof of that? We haven't yet with more than enough circumstansial evidence.

You see, the Truth movement is failing. We need to shake things up. Put ourselves out there a bit more, not just for video ops or conferences or the occational interview with some legislator's secratary....

we need to find something fast.

You want my "best link"? http://willyloman.wordpress.com/ That's my site. My work over the past 1 1/2 years. Everything from Chile Sept. 11th '73 to CFR to Rockefeller to PETN to "folding wings"...

enjoy.

...

"if it WASN'T a plane... game over. The "terrorists" don't hijack missles."

And there you have it, half of the limited hang-out equation. The other half being discrediting controlled demo. The real COINTEL ops aren't hard to spot when you've seen their tactics over & over again.

How about we just agree that everything that happened that day gets equal investigative attention?

Bingo!

:"How about we just agree that everything that happened that day gets equal investigative attention?"

Absolutely. it ALL needs to be looked at again, by someone other than Zelikow or Hamilton.

And you are correct, they are now doing their best to discredit the Controled Demolition investigation, even within this site.

How do you figure?

In the 3 1/2 years this site has existed, there has been more information about Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, William Rodriguez, and Controlled Demolition posted than any other 9/11 site. Am I considered part of a "real COINTEL op" because I advocate for a better strategy than promoting WTC7 over everything else because of how easily it's used against us?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

absolutely correct...

... this site has done a great deal to further the call for more investigation into the use of controled demolition techniques on 9/11.

However, there are people showing up, as they often do, that seem to be working in a contradictory path.

I don't know, Jon. When first read your work and saw a video of yours, I didn't think for a minute you were weren't completely onboard the controled demolition theory.

Now, after a couple of comments I read here, I don't know really what you think.

You say that Building 7, at one time generally thought to be "the smoking gun" of 9/11, ISN'T our best evidence? Though it clearly fell to the ground in a perfect example of controled demolition. And I mean PERFECT.

And you say it's "easily used against us"? After that ridiculous BBC hit piece?

"COINTEL op"... no. But I think good meaning people (like for instance those who think leaving McCain's REAL military history out of the mix is a good idea, while he is putting together campaign ads about being a hero...) are sometimes lead down a wrong path by people who don't want us looking in a certain direction.

That's what the real idea was behind the "no planers". They ruinied the Pentagon research by trivializing the evidence we had, so that people had to undercut one of our strongest arguments just so that we weren't aligned with the "no planers".

I don't think you are COINTEL... I think you're cautious. And we don't have time for caution. When the rigged election is over, and Lieberman get ahold of the new FISA Laws, and HR1955 the HomeGrown Terrorist Act, just what do you think is going to happen to sites like this one.... and mine, for that matter?

Do you have to be...

"Completely onboard the controled demolition theory" to be a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I didn't say that, did I?

Quite the contary, actually. i just said I read you stuff and watched a video of you, and was supprized to find out you didn't support the controled demo equation.

I said nothing about people have to support CD to be in "the movement".

Actually, i just posted a lengthy responce to that hit piece by Brooker is which I clearly define many people who are simply calling for a new investigation because they know the official story is bunk.

Those people are "in the movement" and they don't automaticly support the CD theory.

So, no, I didn't say anything like that Jon. In fact, I said you were a well meaning "cautious" person.

Then you must not have read...

Everything I've said with regards to the idea that those buildings were brought down in a Controlled Demolition, or with the use of explosives because I didn't say I don't support the controlled demolition equation.

I said a few times already that I think it's a legitimate question. I've said a few times already that there are family members who think it's a legitimate question, therefore, I support the question to be answered for their sakes. I've said that a family member told me that the wounds their loved one received resembled wounds that would have been gotten from explosions. However, I've also said that I'm not qualified to tell you one way or the other who's science is right, and who's science is wrong. I've also said, because it's true, that the idea of Controlled Demolition is so easily used against us. In every hit piece written. In every documentary that "debunks" what the movement is saying. In every mainstream media appearance by someone within this movement. I am advocating that this movement think of a better strategy because the "WTC7 OR BUST" strategy is not working.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Well then, we are in absolute agreement....

This as it is happening now, is not working. And I think a different tact is needed.

May I suggest Scott Ritter's "Waging Peace" as a place to start. Not that I would presume.... ah, to hell with it, you know what I mean. We're adults here.

Look, how hard was it for me to find several key problems and outright lies in the BBC piece? How long did it take Alex Jones for that matter. Or you?

The fact is, that these MSM organizations feel they have to keep putting out more and more lies to cover the story. And they don't do that for the fun of it. it costs MONEY. They like keeping their money.

they do it because these issues worry them. That's one way to tell what worries them.

Seen them do one on the Pentagon plane? i haven't (doesn't mean they haven't. I just haven't seen one.).

Maybe that should tell us something about our Controled Demo theory itself. maybe some more research has to be done on the TYPE of demo used in 2001. The people surrounding the industry.

(did you ever stop and think that maybe someone who has the number 2 demolition company in the world might want to move up to the number 1 position? Greed is a powerful motivator when it comes to inside information.)

PETN is the standard measuring stick for explosive charges. Then and now. Det cord is the standard tool of the industry. it's how they turn concrete and floor-pan floors into dust and it is what connects the 'cutter charges".

and yet, no-one from this movement ever looked into it? There are tests that can be run to detect the presence of PETN residue, Jon.

If that residue is there, there is no explination for it. NONE. It HAS to be controled demolition which means it has to be an inside job.

Once again... game over. if it's not there, there are other, non-conventional explosives which could have been used, and we are back where we started.

By why NOT look for the standard of the industry? Who ever dropped those buildings A. did it before and B. knew what they were doing. And chances are good, they didn't take risks on something untried. Not with their business and their freedom on the line, Jon.

There's a new direction we can look into. There are many I suppose. but this much i know; Joe 6-pack reads about Dov at the Vulcans meetings and someone mentions his remotecontroled plane company, he goes "What?"

Joe 6-pack reads there were explosives used in the Twin Towers and he goes "Motherfucker!" Then he watches the video and says "Well of course it was CD. Knew it all the time". Then we win.

Yes, everything

Physics the same in NYC and DC, and cannot be discredited.

"let's not lose our senses"

A review of the hoax film 'In Plane Site' in 2004 at Heraldextra.com sort of wraps up the public's viewpoint of this issue:

" . . . Nor does the presentation explain, if the attack planes were military, what happened to the commercial planes. It hints that they might have been shot down over the ocean. The trouble is that they weren't necessarily over the ocean. And who remembers an Atlantic crash of an airliner where debris such as luggage did not wash up all up and down the Eastern seaboard? If airliners went down in the sea, the secret could not have been kept for long. It's fine to be entertained by this stuff, even if it is a bit morbid. But let's not lose our senses."

I don't know what happened to flight 77

and I don't know what hit the pentagon. I will tell you this, Hanjour couldn't have flown that planeon that path and missed that lawn and those spolls of wire. And rumsfeld won't wait around hoping that he could either.

That HAD to be a precise hit. It HAD to be perfect. So, no, the story of Hanjour flying that plane makes no sense. Then you add in the small hole, the missing debris (and I know there are ten photos on the WTC Research site. Do YOU know how many parts are in an airplane? Ever see one wreck? I don't think 10 pictures covers it)

So I am "keeping my senses" thank you.

Let me ask you this? why do you think they could kill 3000 or so citizens with no problem, fly them screaming into a building, create a fake war based on lies about it, Bomb the Shit our of a million Iraqis, torture innocent men, women, and yes, even children...

but somehow, they couldn't land a plane (when it dropped off a radar screen like it did) and then kill the 60 people on board? What? That's just TOO MUCH?

Thank you willyloman

professional pilots have even said that they could not execute the kind of sharp turn that aircraft did, hit the building dead on, and not leave a scratch on the lawn.

and taking the 60 passengers elsewhere to be gassed and cremated would be a menial task to the criminals, no question.
MrEguy

"Loose Change Final Cut also

"Loose Change Final Cut also correctly points out that “What hit the building MAY be important; however, our focus should be on why it was hit in the first place”."

Ditto on this bit --- NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON

I'm boring that way...

______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

From the main rag where I used to live:

This thread gave me a reason to dig up this page:

First, this was dated September 12, 2001--the next day. Mind, they had no problem printing all sorts of photos on around and about the towers, but all we get is a DRAWING of the Pentagon damage from above? Were all the news choppers in the shop that day?

Second, the drawing isn't accurate--it shows the plane hitting perpendicular, head on. I remembered this DRAWING when I first saw an accurate diagram of the damage. They even say in big bold letters "hits head-on"--um, except not so much:

Maybe it was supposed to hit head on but nothing ever goes as planned?

Third, the one photo near the Pentagon is so far away you really don't get an idea of the damage one way or the other from the perspective.(there is a photo that shows a close up of the collapsed facade, but I don't want this comment any larger than it needs to be).

What I take away from this "coverage" is this was a mind fuck from word go. You can play it either way--they're hiding the wreckage and it's disposal to plant the seeds of missile bollocks

OR

They're hiding the planting of evidence to support Flight 77 crashing.

Its all framing and misdirection and it was a planned before word go to keep us going in circles.

Remember, it's not our responsibility to explain the inconsistencies of the Pentagon attack. It's THEIR responsibility to explain how it could have been attacked in the first place. NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

thank you Jenny...

have you seen this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en/pp%20/...

It's the guys who got the flight data recorder info doing a lecture. A little dry, but good. interesting results.

People have voted down this simple posting of a lecture. Wow. That tells you something right there.

Maybe they're concerned about this...

"Its all framing and misdirection and it was a planned before word go to keep us going in circles."

Just a thought. There comes a time when you realize it's more productive to agree to disagree about the niggling bits that aren't going to get you anywhere by themselves, and work together on the big picture.

Really--NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

You're right...

But you know... we stop talking about one thing, then someone else says we shouldn't talk about another, and then another, and pretty soon, we don't talk about anything but Bush' signing statements and "Put options" (opps. can we still talk about those?).

Where does it end? It ends with us getting nowhere because everything that would produce results, we can't talk about because it might 'discredit" our efforts.

So, we choke off our own investigation.

You know, at the other site that this article was put up on, the main two people agreeing with the author, are notorious "official theory" proponates.

they even ended up supporting the "no missle" theme by linking to a couple of their favorite sites:

"Screwloosechange?

9/11 myths?

Mark Robert's Google pages?

NIST reports? --

9/11 commission report? --"

Yes, that is the same Mark Roberts tour guide that debated Gage by just calling him names the whole time...

So forgive me if I am leary of any argument they would agree with when it come to "Truth".

I'm rather tired of copying & pasting my AA-77 did NOT strike

the Pentagon blurb, but until someone can supply feasible answers to all my questions, I must say it's bullshit that AA-77 is what blew-up the Pentagon:

How did “hijacked” AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., 45 minutes after the WTC was struck by 2 other “hijacked” airliners, without it being intercepted, pursued, or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

How did flunky Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how did he make those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section of the Pentagon?

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video evidence of what struck the Pentagon, more than 6 years later? For what purpose is this evidence still being withheld from us?

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 of 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were supposedly vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

How did a B-757 with a 125’ wingspan make a 16-foot initial impact hole?

What happened to the airliner's virtually indestructible 2 huge steel/titanium engines?

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta? Why was the airliner’s location given as: “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”??? Out from what--did Cheney know the target??? Why didn’t Dick or the young man warn people in the Pentagon to get away from windows & take cover???

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

good questions

How did “hijacked” AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., 45 minutes after the WTC was struck by 2 other “hijacked” airliners, without it being intercepted, pursued, or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

My guess is the loyal Americans in the Air Force and NORAD were being stalled by insider decision makers, plus the war games tied up resources and false blips confused response
The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11 by Paul Thompson
http://cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense

NORAD Stand-Down: The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

The 'Stand-Down Order'
http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

The 9/11 Stand Down in 2 Minutes
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/norad-stand-down-in-2-minut...

How did flunky Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how did he make those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section of the Pentagon?

Come on; you expect me to believe it was "can't fly a Cessna" Hanjour flying the 757? I assume the perps would leave nothing to chance; autopilot, remote control and homing beacons, probably.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=hani_hanjour

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video evidence of what struck the Pentagon, more than 6 years later? For what purpose is this evidence still being withheld from us?

I dealt with that in my article; they must have clear video- why would they release it, when they can confuse and distract the 9/11 Truth Movement by withholding it? If they ever feel threatened, they'll release the video to make a laughingstock of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and make otherwise patriotic people in Congress and the media even more leery of bringing up 9/11 questions. If a plane hit the Pentagon, they have nothing to fear by people arguing endlessly that it was not a 757, i.e global hawk or missile

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 of 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were supposedly vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?
According to DRG, it's now being said what plane wreckage they recovered is being stored somewhere; was "vaporized" an official statement?

How did a B-757 with a 125’ wingspan make a 16-foot initial impact hole?
I wish someone would post that photo willyloman linked above and i've pasted here (how do you paste pics?)- there's a gash in the first floor about 90-100', and the fuselage sized hole is right in the middle; there's space for the engines to fit. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/damage_comp.jpg

What happened to the airliner's virtually indestructible 2 huge steel/titanium engines?

Good question; probably with whatever other wreckage was recovered- someone should start FOIAing to get that stuff- Aidan Monaghan may have already done so. As i noted elsewhere in this thread, they may have been dismantled to be removed, taken out in the middle of the night, or even in broad daylight and no one took a pic that's been made public

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta? Why was the airliner’s location given as: “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”??? Out from what--did Cheney know the target??? Why didn’t Dick or the young man warn people in the Pentagon to get away from windows & take cover???

I'd say Cheney was demonstrating treason; it seems the young man couldn't believe Cheney hadn't lifted the stand-down order, from the context. I don't doubt Cheney knew the target, from his actions on 9/11 and afterward, he seemed to be knowledgable and very much in control

***Note, from the tone of some posts here, it seems some think cuz i reject the "no 757" theories (which i believed for the first several months of my research starting when i saw LC the first time and was on the fence about for at least a year) that I don't think 9/11 was an inside job (i do), and that i'm not seeking the truth, and a strong advocate for full investigations with subpoena power and public testimony under oath (I am, and i'm really skeptical that pushing unsupported theories (like "no 757") are gonna make that happen. Again- the damage is NOT inconsistent with a 757 crash, and there are NO eyewitnesses to anything other than a 757, and hundreds that saw it.

Also, since i saw LC summer 2005 and looked into it, there's been no doubt in my mind that plane damage, jet fuel/office fires and building mass can NOT pulverize 110 story steel-frame and concrete skyscrapers into dust and small piles of rubble. I can see how explosives can do that, and there may have been thermate or whatever involved, too. I've never believed the mini-nukes or energy beams BS, though. From the beginning, I've thought the videos of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were very useful in disproving the OCT to the average person, but until Jones' Fourteen Points paper was published, which I blogged about for a week straight in order to raise public awareness, and paid for a PRWeb release out of my pocket, I wasn't too sure it could be proved in a court of law, and agreed with Ruppert that there was already more than enough evidence just from official statements and records to prove crimes on the part of principals in the BS administration- the Fourteen Points paper changed my mind about that.
NIST WTC9/11 Report: Top 5 "Smoking Gun" Points
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15493

The Jersey Girls and all the sincere people around them are the reason we even got the fraudulent 9/11 Commission, and all the perps plus the Commissioners and Zelikow have implicated themselves in the coverup as a result. They never pushed the "no 757" theory- it was their questions about the failure of the government to do what it should've done to stop the attacks it had every reason to believe were coming that caused people to take them seriously, and for the Bush Administration to not be able to avoid dealing with them.

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

come on...

" they must have clear video- why would they release it, when they can confuse and distract the 9/11 Truth Movement by withholding it?"

"they MUST have a clear video..." Really? They MUST? They have a video of something...

"confuse and distract..." WOW, they knew about the movement before the attacks and PLANNED to have the FBI go get the tapes as soon as the plane hit the Pentagon, just so they could "confuse" the 9/11 Truth movement... that didn't exist yet... 3 or 4 years down the road.

"If they ever feel threatened, they'll release the video to make a laughingstock of the 9/11 Truth Movement,..."

"IF" they feel threatened? Why did they have to submit to a Congressional Inquiry? Did they "feel threatened" then? How about the Popular Mechanics piece? or the History Channel piece? or the BBC piece? How about when the Pancake Theory was shot to hell? Did anyone over there feel "threatened" then?

You see, your argument doesn't make sense. You are presupposing what we know now onto what they knew then.

All I am saying is, I don't know what hit that building, and a BETTER investigation is needed. That's all.

But I wonder if you are capable of even acknowledging the same?

3 people voted down my comment above

in which i explained my thinking about some aspects of 9/11. I did not accuse or attack anyone in that comment.

How do YOU know Pilots are telling the truth? How do I know that's not just a video posted on the internet. If it's for real, game over; get it into court- go, go, go! Why are you wasting your time chasing someone you think is a troll?

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

How about this: If the Pentagon was blown-up by a missile and/or

pre-planted explosives, it wouldn't matter what AA-77 was doing all morning or if it was even a legitimate flight in the first place. Kis = Keep it simple.

In addition to the 125' wingspan, a Boeing 757 is also about 45' tall, and cannot fit through a 90-100' gash in the first floor of the Pentagon. Furthermore, I've never seen any clear pictures of a continuous gash of that length in the Pentagon. Moreover, how could the airliner fly so low as to disappear though the first floor, yet not damage the lawn?

(Did you ever notice how disinfo artists insist that no planes hit the towers, especially the south tower that was photographed & videoed by scores of people? On the other hand, we have those who insist that AA-77 did indeed strike the Pentagon but no photographic nor video evidence has shown this! Therefore, please don't conflate no planes at the towers with no plane at the Pentagon. These are two very different situations.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

You know...

... when someone suggested earlier that we just reinvestigate EVERYTHING involved with 9/11, people voted his comment DOWN. Now how they hell does that happen?

All he suggested was that we push to reopen the entire investigation, including Flight 77 and someone here votes his suggestion down?

Another thing, on the site this guy links to at OP Ed News, he actually states that he doesn't "have the time" to look at a video from Pilotsfor9/11Truth and then he goes on to state that he is waiting for their work to be "Peer Reviewed".

"Peer Reviewed"? He suggests he doesn't have the experience to tell if those Pilots "fudged their results" from their tests... suggesting the Pilots may be lying.

And when he asked me to provide him with links, he again, didn't have time to look at my site for them (though the site clearly has a category called 9/11 Investigations and 9/11 Scholarly Articles).

He goes by "Better World Order" over there....

"that vid is an hour- i don't have time now

plus i prefer reading; can you give us the highlights?

If it's related to PilotsFor911Truth.org and their study, i'm waiting for some peer-review of their material, i don't have the experience to know if what they're saying is accurate

by Better World Order (4 articles, 246 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 697 comments) on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 7:42:44 PM "

then this:

"so, do you have the qualifications

to know that Pilots didn't fudge data or make mistakes? I don't, so I'm waiting to see what parties independent of their org say about it.

However, i can look at pictures and consider arguments

by Better World Order (4 articles, 246 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 697 comments) on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 1:10:48 AM "

Then he says this...

"Tom, people that are absolutely, positively convinced

"no 757" hit the Pentagon, and cannot/will not see how people can think 9/11 was an inside job and still think a 757 hit the Pentagon, i'm not sure are looking for the Truth. As you know, and we've gone around on other threads, i continually post links and info that contradicts the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, and I advocate for full investigations, with subpoena power, and all "persons of interest" compelled to testify in public under oath in answer to real questions- like the 70% of the families questions ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Ralph Eberhart, George Tenet, Rudy Giuliani, Robert Mueller, and many, many others have a lot to answer for, that they have not had to answer for yet- and pushing discredited theories is not gonna get America any closer to full disclosure.

by Better World Order (4 articles, 246 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 697 comments) on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 1:17:33 AM "

"i am not sure they are "looking for the truth""..."and pushing discredited theories is not gonna get America closer to full disclosure."

Meaning: if you question what hit the Pentagon, you are a Phyops agent.

i have accused no one here of being Cointelpro

and I voted Willyloman's posting of the link to the pic below back up after someone else voted it back down. I only vote down attacks, disinfo and suggestions of violence.

If anyone comes up with actual evidence that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, by all means, make it public. 2 out of 3 people who think 9/11 was an inside job don't endorse the "no 757 at the Pentagon" claim- why is that? Just about everyone in the US has heard of the "missile hit the Pentagon" claim by now, thanks to Fetzer, Reynolds and Tarpley's appearances on Fox, and the numerous mentions LC has gotten in the MSM. If the "Pentagon Hole" was really the 9/11 smoking gun, wouldn't Fetzer, Reynolds, Tarpley, Von Kleist and many others be claiming a 757 did hit the building? And saying "no plane hit the Pentagon" does make you a "no planer", imho- the simplest thing of all would be for them to use all the actual planes, not risk people seeing a missile or global hawk, and have to plant and pay hundreds of eyewitnesses. However, I believe people do believe the "no 757" claim with a good conscience- most likely they still believe it because they have not yet thoroughly read the debunking of it, imho, at the sites i linked in the article.

i HAVE suggested the campaign to get people to believe the "no 757" claims is a cointelpro op. A personal example; another film i saw at the same time as LC was In Plane Site; I sent my sister a copy (for a brief time, I thought that film was better than LC!); she works (and lived, at the time) in DC; as that film focuses almost entirely on bogus evidence and speculation, and prominently promotes the missile claim, ever since she's been prejudiced against anything else I bring up. Now, it's her fault if she won't consider facts and evidence, but so far, no actual evidence has been presented for the missile claim. Like most people in the area, she knows people that saw an AA 757 flying at- and hit- the Pentagon. Perhaps it's Von Kleist's intention to get people to dismiss 9/11 questions, by mixing some good info (controlled demo) with a lot of bogus info?

People here have insinuated and implicitly accused me of being cointelpro, just because i reject the "no 757" claim (and cuz I prefer to read at my own pace and check links instead of sit thru video without links), even though I have published a lot of other info that seriously contradicts the OCT- sure, maybe it's all part of an elaborate scheme; how can you know who I really am, after all? As I've said before, people have a right to anonymity; it's hidden agendas that I'm concerned about. If I'm a cointelpro shill, by all means, pull my covers- but i suggest coming up with some actual evidence of that, instead of a bunch of conjecture and insinuations. Willyloman, thanks for reposting my comments, btw- it makes me feel important. Do you have the qualifications to check Pilot's work, to see if they fudged the data or made mistakes? I do not, as i said, and, yes, I'm skeptical of their info- one reason is because they push the "no 757" claim.

Other people here that reject the "no 757" claim: Michael Wolsey, Arabesque, Victronix

It seems these people refuse endorse it: Jon Gold, George Washington, Col Jenny Sparks - if you do endorse it, please correct the record in the comments here.

As I said before, I was "on the fence" about it for at least a year. I have become more and more convinced it's disinfo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/damage_comp.jpg

pentagon, 9/11

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

I don't know who is an agent, but we can talk about facts

You'll find that a lot of people will just agree to disagree about what happened at the Pentagon.

But the fact remains that I am unaware of a single credible 9/11 researcher who advocates no-plane at the Pentagon. Even the LC filmmakers moved away from this claim. They moved away from this claim because they did not feel confident enough to make this claim anymore.

Several posters mentioned the "six walls" the plane went through. This is an example of "false information", or "misinformation". The building structure of the Pentagon on the bottom floors did not have "six walls". I've posted links to diagrams of the actual building construction several times, but you still see people making this false claim.

As for the possibility of a PSYOP campaign on this issue. Sure, I think it's possible, but now we are getting into opinion. My opinion is that there is a certain group of people who are more interested in calling people "shills", "agents", and COINTELPRO than actually discussing the evidence fairly. When people call you an agent based on no actual evidence, this is actually quite revealing. It shows that they are not interested in critically evaluating evidence and that they are going to make conclusions based merely on intuitions. Intuitions are NOT evidence. I don't know who is and who is not genuine, but I can spot disingenuous arguments and misinformation a half block away. Like intuitions about who is an "agent", intuitions about what a plane crash should look like is not evidence. This is the critical issue that needs to be understood.

As soon as someone starts calling you an agent and "limited hangout" based on simply intuitions, it is no longer worth your time to have a conversation with them. Part of the role of a disinformation campaign is to have you endlessly debate issues to wear you out so that you do not focus on activism. Critique is important, but if you are arguing with someone who is more interested in calling you an "agent", or "idiot" than having a debate about the facts, it's time to spend your energy more wisely.

The Pentagon attack is the ideal time wasting debate for the culprits in the 9/11 attacks. Instead of being pressed on real issues, we are talking about how they managed to plant all of those plane parts, fake that light pole damage, and entirely fabricate over 100 recorded eyewitness statements--not to mention all those other citizens/"government controlled operatives" who didn't even bother to record their observations of what happened and years later have still remained silent about that "missile" that hit the Pentagon.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Did you read the quotes I put up there?

1.The man is suggesting the Pilots for 9/11 Truth may be lying
2.He is waiting for "peer review" of their work
3.Actually told someone that people who stick with the "No Plane hit the Pentagon" theory "may not be interested in finding the truth about 9/11".

I have offered my site when he asked to see my "research" and he claims he didn't "have time" to look at it. the same is true when someone on the other site presented him with a film from the Pilots site.

Let me ask you a question: If they painted a winged cruise missle blue and silver, and painted some little windows to scale... and a AA on the tail fin, and it flew over peoples heads for about a second and a half at 700 mph (they are faster than planes... that's how they catch up to them)...

,,,what are those witnesses going to say they saw? Just a quick question. Food for thought so to speak.

As for the Plane/No Plane... who knows. But I will tell you this: If they had videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon, they would have used it in the trial with the random pictures of parts, wouldn't they?

Or is that all part of the "Big Plan" too?

Yes, many of the "Big Wigs" of the movement have stepped away from the Pentagon/Missle theory. But since I am not really that much of a follower, I have to come to that conclusion myself (remember, the big researcher for the No Missle theory, Jim Hoffman, also trashed "Loose Change" when it came out, or have you forgotton?)
So I don't just follow along, if that is ok with you.

And let's face it, almost ALL of Hoffman's material to 'debunk" the missle theory came straight from the trial of the 20th hijacker.

Well, if you believe like I believe that the attacks came from elements of our own government, what does that say about the trial of the 20th hijacker?

And another thing. Yes, the Biggies in the movement have moved away from the missle theory, but ask yourself this: What happens if they prove a missle hit the Pentagon? Is there anyway to "spin" that for the administration? Can they say it was an al Qaeda missle? Of course not. So then, the movement is effectively over, isn't it?

So most of the evidence is based on the governments evidence while trying the 20th hijacker, and I am supposed to jump all over that evidence? I need more.

I trust Pilots for 9/11 Truth more than I trust the governments trumped up "evidence" in a trumped up trial.

And if you can't understand that....

besides, look at the damn photos showing the fence and the spools of wire still standing 7' tall right in front of the hole.

and you think a 9 ton engine moving 530mph is only going to put a dent on that generator? Sorry. I can think for myself thank you. I don't need people trying to prime the pot so to speak AGAINST Pentagon investigations. I'll do my own, like I have been doing.

Wow.. thank you for that...

Three actual pictures showing water in front of where someone "says" the hole is...

One picture of the construction so long AFTER the crash, they have already covered the ground with 16" of dirt...

and 6 DRAWINGS of what someone SAYS the hole is.

Of course, shit, well with evidence like THAT why does anyone question it's validity?

Ever wonder why they covered just that area with 16" of dirt? Here's one possible reason: the explosives in the missle leave a residue that would have been blown all over that lawn. Cover it with dirt and the rain seeps through and eventually washes it all away. The dirt keeps peaple from getting to it before that happens (and plus now they can say the dirt had the residue it in before they put it on the ground. it's a "cover-up", literally.)

But nice drawing of evidence, there Loose. That's pretty convincing.

Got anymore of those pictures taken from a mile and a half away that you can put up with this? Might was well show us everything, huh?

Why spend time showing "drawings" of evidence...

I mean "why tHIS" issue?

How about "ray beams from space"?

How about "no planes hit the towers"?

"Sound waves"?

"mini nukes"?

Why THIS topic? why bring it up; pad out your article with evidence presented in a bogus trial against the 20th hijacker, I mean, why bring this up AT ALL? Espeicially with such weak evidence? Without even addressing the pilots for 9/11 Truth research about the flight path and the discrepencies? Why not mention the fact that the pieces of the wreckage have yet to be officially identified as coming from that SPECIFIC plane?

why avoid those obvious distraction stories, and delve into this one without really addressing the real evidence that is out there on the OTHER SIDE of the argument, shile, in fact suggesting that the Pilots may indeed be lying?

and of course, why list the topics on this "disinfo, Propaganda, Phyops"?

...

"Why was the plane not shot down by the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles?"

According to April Gallup, the Pentagon had missile batteries. According to WorldNetDaily, the Pentagon didn't have any defenses.

"Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview."

As I said a long time ago, "If the Pentagon, America's Military Headquarters, was undefended, then I would certainly fire whoever was is in charge of the Pentagon's security."

"How could the plane have been flown by Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Cessna?"

According to Luai Sakra, "Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon."

"currently 81% of Americans suspect acoverup on some level regarding 9/11, according to a 2006 NYTimes/CBS poll"

I prefer to say that only 16% of Americans believe the official account, but it's 84% doing it your way, not 81. ;)

Good job.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Wow, jon...

... Now you are saying it Wasn't Hanjour piloting the plane...

and that is based on a guy, in a Turkish Prison, that, according to Your article, is under investigation from Amnesty International for treatment of prisoners...

... and undoubtably from the interview, he has been visited by the CIA...

...THAT GUY says it wasn't Hanjour, but another guy...

... that pulled off the -6g to +9g drop and level in 1.5 seconds in order to hit the light poles (according to the flight data recorder...)...

selling the new spin based on some tortured guys supposed testimony?

...wow. I mean... just wow.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en/pp%20/...

this is the lecture about the processing of the flight data recorder information. Maybe you will take the time to watch it. these guys got the flight data recorder info from the actual box on the plane. Take a look at it. see what you think. Loose here didn't have the time to review it. but that didn't stop him from discrediting it. maybe you have a different process Jon.

I'm saying...

According to Luai Sakra, "Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon."

Or, you could say it this way... According to an alleged CIA-Al-Qaeda double agent that allegedly helped with the 9/11 attacks, "Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon."

Either way you say it, it doesn't sound like me saying it "wasn't Hanjour piloting the plane." Just pointing out an interesting aspect of the Flight 77 story. One, which incidentally, wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Report.

Does that make me as stupid as you are portraying me to be? Do me a favor, and watch your tone willyloman.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

That's a real interesting video there, jon...

that I linked up for you. There's alot of stuff there as well, not included in the 9/11 Commission Report. It's a great video of a lecture... all based on the Flight Data Recorder info;

showing how it doesn't sync up and how the altitude is wrong for the locations...

I mean it's really indepth stuff, but the guy makes it at least, watchable. Have you seen it? Near the end he plays a recording of a call he made to the FBI agency heading up that investigation and asks about the apparent discrepencies in the flight data recording and the "official story"...

... the FBI tries to get his full name and address. Of course they didn't NEED to ask him, but they were kind of intimidating him... you know? About asking questions he shouldn't have been asking. You know what I mean?

Great video. Linked right up there.

and you seem to misunderstand my 'tone". I'm not saying you are 'stupid". I'm saying you have already come to a conclusion, and you think that even discussing this topic is contradictory to what people are trying to achieve in this movement.

I base that on what you have said already on this thread in our earlier conversation. That doesn't make you stupid. it just means you seem like you would rather move on to something else.

So I asked if you would take the time to watch this film. It's an interesting lecture.

and by the way, If you go to my site, you will see links to WTC7 and Hoffman's other sites as well as many many sites that don't support the "missle" theory as well.

I am very well versed in his arguments and have been so for quite some time. I just don't happen to follow his logic. That's all. Now, whether or not you read Hoffman's site, i don't know... but this isn't a new discussion for me. hell I thought people had put this one the back burner a year and a half ago...

Flight 77...

Hit the Pentagon. I am 100% sure of that, and have been since I started in this movement. Eyewitness accounts, debris matching the plane, Norman Mineta's testimony, etc... all tell me that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I don't need to argue that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because it doesn't help me at all, nor does it seem accurate.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

That is what I was talking about...

From the word 'go" you had made a decision. Me? I haven't yet.

Eyewitness accounts? there are many that said "a small private jet"... there are many that put the flight on one path that contradicts the "official story". Heck, even the reported that changed his story later, first said he saw nothing that made him think it was a passenger airliner. Even some Pentagon officials working there that day stated they thought it was something else.

Debris matching the Plane: To my knowledge, they have yet to identify debris to that specific plane. Yes, there are 20 or so pictures of "parts" that may or may not be to that plane or type of plane. But I ask you this: In the picture that I saw from the trial, pictures from inside the Pentagon, I saw no bodies still in the airline seats. I didn't even see any of the seats from the plane. How could that be? o luggage, no bodies (other than the 5 or so I saw pictures of presented in the trial of the 20th hijacker (and we must all agree that trial was bogus). And in the end, this was a 100 ton airliner. No pictures of pieces that wouldn't fit chevy Pickup were photographed.

Norman Mineta's testimony; To my knowledge, the guy said "It's 50 miles out... It's 40 miles out..." so, that. to me, means a blip on a screen.

Now, add in the Flight Data recorder conflicting evidence, and other problems with the story that have developed since, and I certainly think it's something people should look into, or continue looking into. But I respect your position. But I tend to think what I know about the issue is in fact "accurate".

and in the end, I just refer to the last paragraph in Hoffman's piece on WTC7 about the missle theory: " At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77."

So I will continue to look in this direction as well as many others, and you do what you are doing. And in the end, lets hope we all get to the truth about that day. One way or the other.

context for Hoffman quote:

i would've posted this before, but i missed it among the personal attacks and vitriol

Hoffman's entire conclusion:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

"Conclusion

In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities."

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

I often use the 16% version myself

but i was focusing on those who suspect coverup, and i didn't count that 3% who said "didn't know" as definitively suspecting coverup. They were unwilling to endorse the OCT, but didn't go with "hiding something" or "mostly lying"

That poll's about 2 years old now- NYTimes/CBS may have already done it again, or they will soon- likely support for the OCT is even lower now, in all categories- "mostly lying" is the fastest rising- they might not release the results.

The angus-reid posting in 2006 was the first time i'd heard of the 2002 poll- there was a poll in 2004 that was made public, perhaps cuz there was a slight uptick in support for the OCT- and it was angus-reid that published the results in 2006- not sure, but i think CBS/NY Times didn't do anything with it.

Question 77, 2004:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040429_poll/20040429_pol...

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project