portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

Three 9/11 skeptics who no longer believe the "no plane at Pentagon" hoax

Three 9/11 skeptics who formerly bought the "no plane at the Pentagon" story, but upon closer examination no longer buy these claims. The real issues regarding the Pentagon attack are how the plane hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the building (evidence for remote control?) and why NORAD / Air Force did not defend the Pentagon from attack. Those scandals actually have real evidence to them, but most of the "no plane" promoters ignore or downplay them.
All three of these writers used to believe the "no plane at the Pentagon" story, and upon closer examination, have come to recognize that it is not true.

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman
October 7, 2004

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.

The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists".

The Pentagon attack:
How the "no plane" theories are used to discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity
By Mark Robinowitz

It is probably not a coincidence that the defenders of the offical "surprise attack" claim focus mostly on the "no plane at the Pentagon" story in their quest to discredit 9/11 skeptics.

In early September 2004, Parade magazine ran a short article that dismissed 9/11 skepticism based on the Pentagon "no plane" claims. Parade reaches tens of millions of people. This is strong evidence that the whole "no plane" story is a set up to discredit.

Other sites that debunk the "no plane" claims make the issue of complicity dependent on whether the "no plane" claim is true or false. This is a false dichotomy -- that evidence for a large jet at the Pentagon therefore exonerates the government of complicity (it totally avoids the issues of the NORAD, et al wargames, the failure to respond / defend DC, the way the plane targeted the nearly empty part of the building).

The KEY issue with the Pentagon crash -- to prove US complicity -- is not WHAT hit the Pentagon, but WHERE the Pentagon was hit (in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector).

The fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one method that minimized casualties is not disputed by anyone - it is proven 100%. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for official complicity in 9/11, since a flight school drop out would not have chosen (nor been able) to fly a plane into the mostly empty sector of the Pentagon. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground.

There's actually a lot of primary evidence that a large jet really did hit the Pentagon, including hundreds of eyewitnesses and photos of Boeing debris in the rubble. The "no 757" story has been very effective at discrediting 9/11 skepticism in the DC area, and distracting from the real issue: how the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector was hit.

A growing number of 9/11 skeptics have realized the "no 757" story was spread to discredit / distract us. It's a tempting theory in some ways, but if you trace the story back, there's no reality to it. Photoshopped images, claims by anonymous people on the web, a blatant disregard of all of the evidence -- these and more mental gymnastics are necessary to believe "no 757."

The "five photos" released by the military have the wrong date stamp on them (a clue that they're tampered with, a subtle statement from the military) and don't show anything conclusive. It is probable they were a deliberate effort to throw people into an endless debate, getting various factions arguing for one theory versus another

The real issue is WHERE it hit.

It is an undisputed fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one manner that minimized casualties, something that neither a flight school drop out nor a Saudi or Egyptian air force expert pilot would have done. This is provable 100% -- and this sole fact shows that 9/11 was an "inside job," arranged by top echelons of the US military. Those who are inclined to invent a statistic to explain this surreal "coincidence" should realize that the odds were not one in five -- but that the approach by the plane and the precision hit on the least populated part of the Pentagon would have been virtually impossible for any pilot, whether amateur or expert.

It's also worth pointing out that Dov Zakheim, PNAC member, who was Pentagon Comptroller (the money man) from 2001 through early 2004, came from a military contractor that developed remote control systems for planes (System Planning Co.)

A reasonable case can be made that the photos supposedly showing the Pentagon attack were deliberately doctored to mire the skeptics movement in endless debates and arguments -- which is what has happened. These photos even have the wrong time / date stamp, which is probably a subtle clue. They are of poor quality and there is zero evidence that they are authentic. Most of the media would report that they are authentic (see, the Pentagon has debunked these theories!) but few in the media would actually examine them. Meanwhile, the skeptics community has some people who distrust everything the Pentagon says but then go on to accept these photos as authentic without any evidence that they are.

The no-plane claims have distracted from what is 100% provable - the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed / strengthened sector. See  http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html (remote control is not provable, but where the Pentagon was hit is not disputed by anyone - a fact that is "hidden in plain sight").

The "no plane" theory has made 9/11 inquiry unpalatable for many "inside the Beltway." Now that this has been accomplished, whether as designed by the intelligence agencies or inadvertently by incompetent 9/11 skeptics, a few fringe 9/11 websites are now claiming that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the wings). Some of these "no plane at the north tower" sites include physics911.org, 911hoax.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi - webfairy.org See  http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html for more on this disinformation campaign. But the "no plane at the towers" campaign has not been very successful, partially because the idea for the North Tower is so ridiculous and there is an enormous amount of photographic evidence of a plane at the South Tower (probably a primary goal of the 9/11 conspirators). The disinformation surrounding the South Tower is that the plane was swapped and a military plane crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that either fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it, was a bomb or perhaps a remote controlled flight system. (Of course, none of the pod people can explain why the military conspirators wouldn't have merely placed these devices in the plane itself, or why the plane would be unable to penetrate the towers without first firing a missile. It is amazing how much time can be spent refuting this endless flood of nonsense.)

from www.realityzone.com (seems to be a right-wing populist site)

 link to www.freedom-force.org

What Really Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11?
Analysis by G. Edward Griffin
First published 2004 Sept 20. Updated 2004 September 28

(a few excerpts - worth reading in its entirety)

First, we must take a hard look at the proposition that there were no aircraft pieces to be found. It is true that photographs taken at a distance do not reveal any debris that looks like it came from a Boeing 757. There are numerous photos on the Internet that show closeups of portions of the long shots, and these, too, seem to confirm the absence of debris. Initially, I was impressed by these photos, but when I finally took the time to examine them in detail, it became apparent that some of them had been altered. I am familiar with programs like Adobe PhotoShop and Corel PhotoPaint and I have become fairly proficient with the use of cloning tools. They are used to remove unwanted blemishes or objects from photographs or to insert objects that are not in the originals. Once I began to seriously examine these photographs, I recognized the pattern repetition, particularly in the roof detail, and I realized that parts of them had been cloned.

On one widely circulated photo, which shows the roof still intact, you see the same collection of rubble and scorch marks repeated in the center, side-by-side. In this same photo, there is a crane at the right that disappears about half way down. There is another version of the same photo showing the crane in its entirety, but the one with the disappearing crane shows that the artist combined two photos taken at different times to produce this effect. One was taken before the roof collapsed, and the other afterward. That explains why the center section is partly obscured with gray smoke, while everything around it is in normal color. When I first saw these pictures, I thought the gray section was colored to dramatize the impact zone, but now I realize we are looking at a composite of two photos, and the reason the crane disappears is that it was not present in the earlier one. Cranes were not brought to the site until after the roof had collapsed and the fires had been extinguished.

In 1988, the Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test to determine the ability of reinforced concrete to protect a nuclear reactor from the impact of a jet aircraft. The plane was an F-4 Phantom with two engines, the same type flown by Col. McClain. It was traveling at 480 miles per hour upon impact. The test established that "the major impact force was from the engines." Video of the test shows that the entire aircraft disintegrated upon impact, leaving no recognizable parts behind. The video and still photos can be viewed at the Sandia web site.

We must not squabble over who has the best interpretation of this piece of evidence or that. Instead, we should unite on the one issue about which there is little doubt. Even if all of these burning questions are eventually answered to our satisfaction, the grim reality is that our collectivist leaders had ample warning of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and did nothing to prevent them. It is not necessary to go further than that to know we have a huge problem. They did this because they believe a war on terrorism provides a justification for increasing government power at home and for merging the United States - and all other nations - into global government based on the model of collectivism. To reverse that plan is an absolute necessity if freedom is to survive anywhere in the world. Let us unite in this common cause.

note that only high level Bush/Pentagon complicity gets lots o disinfo 01.Nov.2004 21:14


quote 1: "Three 9/11 skeptics who formerly bought the "no plane at the Pentagon" story, but upon closer examination no longer buy these claims. "

Shame they are wrong!

quote 2: "The real issues regarding the Pentagon attack are how the plane hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the building (evidence for remote control?) and why NORAD / Air Force did not defend the Pentagon from attack. Those scandals actually have real evidence to them, but most of the "no plane" promoters ignore or downplay them."

No one ever claimed 'no plane.' Only different plane. There is nothing separating the real evidence of a much smaller Pentagon hit from the well documented data you mentioned. For instance on the smaller plane hit

--a tiny little hole at the Pentagon
--multiple witnesses to a much smaller plane at the Pentagon
--multiple witnesses of a C-130 AWACS guiding the much smaller plane in while hiding its its radar shadow
--multiple witnesses (smell-'witnesses') to cordite explosives at the Pentagon and secondary explosions after the hit of the smaller plane
--allowances to let the small fire rage for 60 hours to kill everyone off they wanted to kill off (the people the Pentagon put in that area, and to use demolition crews and wrecking balls as the only 'rescue operations'. This basically shows willfull murder of who was left to be killed in the Pentagon hit.

A quick search ANYWHERE across the net and you could find this out for yourself.

However, stories like the post above are superfluous and red herrings, as they attempt to pretend that there is some kind of 'choice' to be made between the NORAD standdown and the smaller plane hit at the Pentagon--when they are both involved. You can have both, free you mind from the dichotomization and stop pretending.

What is really going on I expect is that the Bush Administration trolls are furiously spinning in the media what their 'next official story' (next official lie) is going to be to recoup lost credibility. However, they only want to go so far in...

Plus, what is interesting, as if the article above claims that 'we should do our own research.' However, most of the article is simply a pleading to 'follow the leader' and goosestep in line with people who are wrong. The author then instead simply selectively cites people with his view saying 'believe them'. That is not doing research and the whole article is based on a contrary premise than the one you supposedly claim to exhibit ('do your own research'). That is doing politics over research.

This brings up another issue. I typically look at the effort put into disinfo as evidence as well. I recommend this method. For instance, only three bits of the evidentiary record I have noticed that have any large type of sheer vehement hatred attached to them. These are:

3. the 40 story tall WTC6 explosion, as WTC2 is hit at 9:03, as they hoped cameras would be diverted to the WTC2 only. Well, sorry, we got lots of evidence anyway of WTC6 explosions at around 9:03 as WTC2 was getting stuck
4. WTC7 demolitions
5. WTC1 and WTC2 demolitions

Collectively, 9-11 researchers are receiving so much disinformation about these five issues.... because---all are the most clear evidentiary sources showing direct Pentagon involvement or total state terrorist fraud on 9-11, instead of the Bush Administration and the Pentagon's next lie which seems to want to be 'let's solely blame NORAD.' Sorry, charlie, that ain't tuna. That's a red herring.

Make that FOUR 9/11 skeptics 02.Nov.2004 09:37

burning bush

Jean-Pierre Desmoulins was one of the first 9/11 researchers to publish a detailed web page analyzing the Pentagon crash. Because of the apparent fraudulence of the security camera video, he initially supported the theory that something other than a 757 struck the Pentagon. However, after continuing his research and looking at more evidence as it came to light, he changed his mind. His current web site includes this statement:

"After examining the evidence, the scenario Jean-Pierre now proposes as the most probable is that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 with around 60 people onboard, crashed into the west aisle of the pentagon on 911. Jean-Pierre believes that the plane was either piloted by hijacker, Hani Hanjour, or it was remotely piloted with a technology like "Global Hawk," but has no facts to prove either hypotheses."

You can view the entire statement (see the abstract) at this URL:  http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html

if there actually was footage...and there is...why hide it unless lying? 02.Nov.2004 12:21

once more

"Jean-Pierre Desmoulins was one of the first 9/11 researchers to publish a detailed web page analyzing the Pentagon crash. Because of the apparent fraudulence of the security camera video, he initially supported the theory that something other than a 757 struck the Pentagon. "

I'm laughing here. Look, if there actually was footage of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon, do you think that the Pentagon would use that video to vouch for their story? Certainly they would use that video if they had it because it accords with what they publicly want the people to believe. Since they fail to give out anything except unsequential five frames--with what being hit edited out--you can be sure they have decided NOT to show you what actually hit the Pentagon. Now, given that why do you think that the Pentagon would NOT want you to see what hit the Pentagon, if they had evidence that a Boeing 757 hit it?

I'll tell you why! They don't have a video of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon, so they had to edit out what hit. Besides the explostion that they left in, which they framed as "vouching" for the story they claim, actually shows an explostion that is different than a jet fuel fire. Of course the mass majority of the public are unaware of the different types of explosive signatures, so that strategy may work.

For a comparison, does a defense attorney intentionally withold evidence that his or her client is innocent? This is what the Pentagon's actions are doing. Anyone who claims that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon--despite the evidentiary record that shows that this is false--is claiming that the Pentagon is intentionally not releasing information that shows that its story is true. This you should submit, makes no sense. So reevaluate the position.

At least I thank the original poster for showing that it is only four useful idiots out there, a very small number, versus millions of people who can use their own eyes how the Pentagon staff is lying about the evidentiary record at the Pentagon.

The only rat

muddy waters from the perpetrators 02.Nov.2004 12:33

karl rove

Perhaps after Cheney is booted from the White House the "noise" trying to drown out the independent investigations will diminish somewhat (although Kerry is probably going to cover up the truths of 9/11).

The "hmm" comment tips their hand that they're lying by promoting several totally disproven pieces of trash, particularly the hoax that there was a "pod" under the plane. This has been ably refuted by several photographic analyses -- it's merely a trick of the light of the normal structure between the wing and fuselage.

It's not "hatred" to point out that the "pod" claim and the confusion of the South Tower collapse dust cloud with a giant explosion are really sloppy, so sloppy that the "incompetence theory" is difficult to accept. One hopes that these red herrings have official sponsorship (and payroll), since if people are spending their time promoting these fake stories and are NOT being paid, they're missing a profitable opportunity.

If Indymedia had an editorial system, the spam from the "no planers / pod plane / hologram / etc" people would not infest this discussion board, since they don't have any real evidence. It's a tactic to discredit the real evidence of complicity - see "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert and "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson for the best work.

Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims

Webfairy's Reign of Error

The WTC "Mystery Explosion" Video Hoax

Bogus 9/11 websites

"911: In Plane Site" - a bad joke hidden "in plain sight"

Stanley Hilton's phony lawsuit about 9/11 complicity

ERROR: Eyewitnesses Saw a Small Plane
Literature of the no-757-crash theorists is full of suggestions that eyewitness saw something other than a 757 fly into the Pentagon, such as a commuter jet or cruise missile. In fact there are only a few such eyewitness accounts against an abundance of accounts describing a large twin-engine jetliner like a 757. 9-11 Research extracted from the Eric Bart Pentagon eyewitness compilation those accounts that described the appearance of the airplane. It found 11 witnesses describing a large jetliner compared to only two describing a small jet. Furthermore the two small-plane witnesses were both considerable distances from the plane.

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association."
-- Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy theorist' came to be shorthand for "discredited whacko" in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. "Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels."
"If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff."
-- Sander Hicks, journalist and publisher

Lies and Videotape 02.Nov.2004 12:44

bait and switch


The Missing Videotape

The Pentagon will never release the photos of the attack. If it was Flight 77, then the endless speculation on this would stop immediately, freeing up skeptics to focus on the real issue (or in some cases, to invent wilder and wilder nonsense). The endless debates is the best possible thing for the perpetrators, since it creates speculation after speculation that makes discerning the truth(s) much more difficult. Very few people in the public give a shit about the plane/no plane pseudo-debate, and release of further photos are of no interest to 99% of the public. If it wasn't Flight 77, then obviously no photo can be released. Either way, the Pentagon gains from not releasing anything.

The "five photos" released by the military have the wrong date stamp on them (proof that they're tampered with?) and don't really show anything conclusive. They were probably a deliberate effort to throw people into an endless debate, getting various factions arguing for one theory versus another.

[it's worth noting that the hotel workers who watched the surveillance video of the plane crash / attack -- before the FBI showed up to confiscate the tape -- did not report anything resembling a "no plane" claim. The "no planers" would have you believe that everyone who was driving on the nearby superhighways was really a government disinfo agent and the real commuters somehow raptured up to a secret military base so that no bystanders would see the lack of a plane. Despite this sarcasm, the real story is -- no one has ever postulated a serious reason why the inside job perpetrators wouldn't just remote control fly the plane into the building. The supporters and promoters of this meme are getting desperate as more and more people understand that it is merely a way to discredit legitimate 9/11 skepticism in the public consciousness.]

friends of victims found their personal effects in the wreckage 02.Nov.2004 14:25


Source: http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=120

III. Red Herrings

The No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon theory was first advanced by Thierry Meyssan, in two books he first published in France, The Big Lie, and then in the follow-up, Pentagate. Due to the lack of evidence left by the wreckage, the flight pattern of the plane, and the lack of security video footage, the theory goes: American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Instead, it was probably a smaller plane or a cruise missile.

On the other side of the argument are people like John Judge, director of 9/11 Citizens Watch, and Penny Schoner. The former personally knows a female flight attendant who was regularly on flight 77. Visiting the wreckage, she was shocked to find a bracelet that once belonged to her friend. (Which is not the only odd coincidence in 9/11 information: Kristen Breitweiser was unable to recover any of her late husband's Ron's remains from the WTC, except for his ring finger, still wearing their wedding ring.) In a widely-read piece entitled "Not all conspiracies are created equal," Judge lashed out at the No Plane posse, writing, "Rumor is not research, and we only sully the truth by jumping to believe the sensational. Cynicism is healthy, but informed cynicism is the only way to avoid paranoia and confusion. Not all conspiracies' are created equal. The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it. That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati."

Yeah, John Judge 02.Nov.2004 16:58

Jack Straw

John Judge's friend the flight attendant also claimed she saw the tail of the 757 on the lawn outside the Pentagon. When many photos failed to reveal anything that looks like the tail of a 757, she changed her story to say she saw the tail inside the Pentagon. Except the hole shown in early photos is nowhere high enough to account for a tail, the hole is 20 ft high, a tail is 44 ft, no signs of damage above the hole. The columns shown in close ups are bent *outward* and towards where the flying object supposedly entered. And there are barriers, such as spools, which would have been in the way of any such plane, making it impossible for it to hit at ground level. Rabinowitz has been on a disinfo drive for a while, Hoffman recently joined him, and Desmoulins contended that water from sprinklers combined with the plane's aluminum to create a fire that vaporized the plane, ie he is plain mad. For lots of info, see

40 years of disinfo passports, bracelets, and magic bullets 02.Nov.2004 18:08

got any more fairy tales?


A bracelet survives, along with zero evidence of the plane itself. Your off the cuff statement is full of so many "obviously" and "probablies" it is only connected by your desire to convince in the face of zero evidence of the plane itself. Sherlock, which is easier to plant on the scene of the crime: a bracelet or a missing Boeing 757? Which is easier to hide under an overcoat?I'm sure the lazy would say "the bracelet proves a plane hit the building." Whee!! However, without any evidence of a plane, a bracelet is not evidence of a plane. What's your evidence that a bracelet is actual physical evidence of a Boeing at the Pentagon? What's the evidence of the Boeing 757 at the pentagon, which you claim? How do you do it?


I only mentioned the pods because I thought it would be a sore issue with you. Just wanted to rattle your cage. I think you are the only guy who posts gushing invective about "mass upset! and mass dissmissal!" (huff huff) about the clearly visible pod on only one side of WTC2's undercarriage.

Then after you bit, you backtrack. Then you appealed to claims of someone elses authority--which you left inconveniently unmentioned or unsummarized. How do you do it? Then you asked divine editors to rescue your poor pitiful soul and cut the screen to black--not on predictable stuff like yours--but on the people talking about THE REALITY OF THE POD ON THE WTC2 PLANE HIT. I note you always frame carefully your words about "pod claims" and the "already refuted pod claim, etc."--without actually boring us when this "already period" occured, or any handy details about how this was "massively" refuted. You show repression is all you really care to appeal to when it comes down to it, heh? Am I right? "Please," you say, "stop allowing these people posting! I have nothing to say, and I want to shut them up!" How do you do it?


Is an indestructable passport (taken on a domestic flight though it was unrequired) actually evidence of a Boeing plane exploding into flames as it plows into the WTC?

Obviously the author of that story is cribbing from the demented minds who made up the JFK bullet theory's odd claimed path. What was the proof that there was only one bullet? Why, because the suspect was dead! That is why there was only one bullet. That was proof enough, they said. Wrong.

Anyway, like a charmed bullet, this would mean that the claimed passport had to have jumped out of someone's pocket without getting bloody at all. Next, it would excape the plane, the building, and the fireball (which only appears after the plane (passport and all) goes into the building. Then, after being pushed out of the pocket, the plane, the building, and the fireball the charmed passport comes down to land on the street undamaged. What a story! WOW!! This "claimed passport" would have to suddenly gain a reverse momentum double that of 400+ mph in the opposite direction and do this instantaneously. Then the claimed passport would, because it was going at around 1000 MPH, burrow through the aluminum and steel of the plane well before the near instanteous expanding fireball destroys the whole plane.

At last, after slowing down, the claimed passport is free to land somewhere so that NYPD's finest can pick up a "clue." Or drop it first, and then pick it up, as the case may be.


Another famous leap of illogic is the totally undamaged bullet that somehow fell off A DIFFERENT gurney (not JFKs!) in hospital where JFK was taken after he was assassinated. Later, this "claimed bullet" was attached to a charmed story--as charmed as that of the charmed bracelet's story or the charmed passport's story. The story was that this claimed bullet, despite being undamaged in any way had gone through various areas of the car, multiple people, reversing directions in a mad frenzy of hate after accidentally hitting the wrong people. All this while it still comes out in one piece undamaged.

Since it wanted to be found to tell its remarkable story, it wiggles out of JFK's body and appears on an unrelated gurney in the hospital, totally clean, desperate for media attention. Then feeling sorry for it, so the story goes, Allen Dulles adopts it as his own child and goes on record to tell the incredible story he claimed the bullet told him after JFK fired him (Dulles, not the bullet.).

Tell me another! OK!

A claimed bracelet survives, and then, it tells its charmed story about how it knew that a Boeing 757 went through a smaller hole than its width, giving off a radioactive discharge (Boeing admits that that would be impossible for a 757), and then coming to rest somewhere as it got lighter and lighter until it is easily carried away. Pictures three levels deep in the Pentagon of the exit hole show an empty exit hole--without anything in it.

Either the whole plane upon puncturing that third ring decides to instantly vanish in embarrassment at not making a bigger hole like it was supposed to. Or it is tired and sleeps there a while, allowing its charred hot body to be removed from the hole, before being photographed (unlikely), or obviously, a non-Boeing plane or something was removed from the hole, and only then the hole was photographed because what came through the hole is not a Boeing 757. Charmed bracelet or no charmed bracelet.


Fascinating non-detective work there. Actually I know what really happened. Yeah! This all ties back to how the magic bullet actually had dropped out of the time continuum after it went through JFK, reformed itself in a previous time period before it was damaged, then satisfied, disappeared once more tranforming itself physically in the process into a charm bracelet at the Pentagon and a passport in NYC on September, 11, 2001.

Still, I'm disappointed that the trolls are being forced to work at their numbing jobs even on election day. Shame that they are annoyed at doing it as well! Why not get another job more rewarding? I would have hoped that they would have some time to ruminate on the purposes of democracy and their non-role in it--or at least be forced to go out and hassle black voters, beating up voting kids, or something equally patriotic like that. (sarcasm)

"Very few people in the public give a shit about the plane/no plane pseudo-debate, and release of further photos are of no interest to 99% of the public."

Ohh! Testy! Testy! Temper! Temper! Sorry, citing a "claimed lack of interest" is not evidence of a Pentagon Boeing 757, which I ask you for.

America: the land of the suspension of the laws of physics where "bullets, bracelets, and passports" fairy tales are all that a corrupt gov't has to show for the billions of dollars pored down its hole every year.

757 idea is bogus 16.Nov.2004 16:45

757 idea is bogus http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/index.html

The funny thing is that the people who hold up the official story claim that the hole was not 18ft accross, but 90ft.
First of all, the second floor damage was 18ft accross, the bottom floor damage was about 90, though, the broken column structuers show that the real damage was less than 40ft.
Which brings us to how the bottom floor had the damage when there was a 12ft tall egnerator in the way of the wing. A 757's wing cannot just go through a 12ft tall generator like it was a hologram. its that easy. for all that has been said about the pentagon , all the debates, all those web pages that look financed well, the damage was done on the bootm floor and there was something in the way.
Not to mention that the engines hang lower than the wings, and if the wings caused the bottom floor damage, then the engines should have dug themselves into the ground.
Maybe they did, since no 757 engine has been found conclusively.
its that easy. It doesnt take a P.H.D. to understand a wing cant pass through a generator,there are no engine marks in the grass, and that there was no plane found.


Common sense tells me that anyone who has a web page that calls 20 different 911 pages "bogus", yet shows no research work himself, is not only disinfo, ,but sloppy, and not very good at it.