Help Support The Site

Mesothelioma & Asbestos Cancer
Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.
The Agonist Learning Center
Learn more online. Collecting answers for over 5 years.

Blogads

Loose Change: An American Coup DVD

Banner Exchange

AE911Truth.org DVD


911truth.org


visibility911.com


firefightersfor911truth.org


www.dc911truth.org
Better bad news


PatriotsQuestion911.com

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

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."