Three 9/11 skeptics who no longer believe the "no plane at Pentagon" hoax
author: think for yourself (but look at all of the evidence)
|
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.
 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
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".
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
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
BURNING QUESTIONS
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.
|
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
|
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:
1. THE TANGIBLE POD ON THE WTC2 PLANE HIT and
2. the SMALLER PLANE EVIDENCE AND EXPLOSIONS AT THE PENTAGON and the
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.