How we KNOW an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11

September 23, 2010

By Craig McKee

The government and the media have told us that a Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon at nearly 9:38 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001.
But we know it didn’t.
For the Pentagon to have been hit at by the allegedly hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, the laws of physics would have to have been repealed. Admittedly, it wouldn’t be the only time that this appears to have happened that day.
I believe that any reasonable person who is willing to look at the evidence (photo and otherwise) will have to conclude that there was not enough damage to the Pentagon for it to have been hit by a Boeing 757. Not enough damage to the building but apparently enough to vaporize the plane.
There are many elements of the official Flight 77 story that need to be picked apart. These include the inexplicable failure of air defenses, questions about the flying skills of the alleged hijackers, and why the hijackers names did not appear on any 9/11 passenger lists. In this post, we’ll start with the physical evidence.
According to Boeing’s own web site, the 757 is 155 feet, 3 inches long. It has a wing span of 124 feet, 10 inches. And it is 44 feet, six inches high at the tail. It has a capacity of 11,276 American gallons of jet fuel. Its maximum takeoff weight is 255,000 pounds. It can reach Mach 0.8 (just over 600 mph) and has a seating capacity that can range from 186 to 239 passengers. On Sept. 11, it had just 58 passengers and six crew members on board.
Flight 77 took off from Washington Dulles International Airport near Washington D.C. bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 a.m. – 10 minutes late. It is supposed to
have remained airborne for one hour and 20 minutes before crashing into the Pentagon.
It is alleged that the hijacking took place shortly before 8:56 a.m. because that’s when the plane’s transponder was switched off. Incredibly, the plane flew around the northeast United States – on a morning when both World Trade Center towers had been hit by supposedly hijacked aircraft – for nearly 45 minutes without fighter jets making any effort to intercept it. Jets were scrambled four minutes before it supposedly crashed but they were sent out to the Atlantic Ocean. At the time of the alleged crash, they were farther away than they had been when they took off.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. I want to start with the crash scene.
According to the story, after leaving radar and remaining out of contact for some time, the plane reappeared as it approached Washington. But alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, who had supposedly taken over control of the plane, didn’t fly straight at the Pentagon. Instead, we’re told that he initiated a 330-degree loop and hit the building on the other side.
The plane is alleged to have hit a newly renovated and reinforced part of the building that had only minimal staff present. Had any other part of the building been hit, thousands would have been killed. As it was, the death toll in the building was 125.
The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter on the second floor with an uninterrupted opening about 50 feet across at ground level, which is more like 80 when you include partially intact columns. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact. Most windows were not even broken, although the upper floors did collapse about 20 minutes after the crash.

Pentagon inside hole

The inside or C ring hole: notice no damage to floor?

The opening in the building is simply not wide enough to accommodate a plane with a nearly 125-foot wingspan (As Massimo Mazzucco points out in September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, the plane is supposed to have hit at a roughly 42-degree angle, which would have extended the width of the contact between the plane and the wall from 124 feet to 160 feet). There was no damage to the grass, which should have been gouged by the engines dragging on the ground.
All of this is physically impossible, plain and simple. The wings of a 757 can’t hit a concrete building at more than 500 mph without leaving a mark. And they certainly won’t be vaporized by exploding jet fuel.
There is NOT ONE piece of wreckage that has been positively tied to Flight 77. The engines, virtually indestructible, were not recovered, although it is claimed that an engine “core” was from one of the 757 engines. There were no bodies, no seats, no pieces of luggage. There were a couple of pieces of fuselage but they were big enough that one person could pick them up. There’s no proof it came from that plane.
Are you still willing to buy the idea that the plane was incinerated in the explosion? Can the energy exist to blow a plane into small bits of metal while simultaneously penetrating 310 feet into the Pentagon? The problem there is that photos of the damaged Pentagon clearly show offices with their side wall sheared off. Visible are wooden desks with computers on them and other office furniture. There’s even a wooden stool with an open book sitting on top of it just a foot or two from the ripped off wall. The heat was intense enough to vaporize the plane but not hot enough to set office furniture or books on fire.
The thing that seals the deal for me is just looking at the photos. Keep in mind the dimensions of the plane. And the opening in the building was about 75 feet wide after the upper floors collapsed, and about 90 feet at ground level (less than 20 where the fuselage would have hit).
Oh, I almost forgot. The Pentagon, one of the most secure buildings in the world, was hit supposedly without one clear image being captured on a security camera. According to the Washington Times, the heli-pad, which is very near where the impact happened, is under 24-hour surveillance. They also report that the FBI has admitted it has 83 different videos of the crash. But all that has been released are five non-sequential frames that are totally inconclusive.
The Times also reported that the FBI confiscated footage recorded by cameras at a nearby Sheraton hotel, and from the Citgo gas station right across the street within minutes of the crash. The gas station attendant told the newspaper that the video footage would surely have shown the impact.

  • If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, where is the plane?
  • If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, why haven’t they released clear video evidence?
  • If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, why didn’t the wings (particularly the right wing, which the official story says would have hit on the second floor) do more damage to the building?
  • And, why would the pilot go to such lengths to make sure he hit the one part of the building where there would be the least loss of life?

If you can’t answer at least these four questions (and there are many others one could add to this list), then you’re well on your way to doubting the official story. Look at the photos and make up your own mind…


Here are some other articles I’ve written that might be of interest to those wanting to better understand why the faked plane crash at the Pentagon proves that 9/11 was an inside job.—Craig McKee
Doctored Pentagon video proves 9/11 cover-up and inside job
More absurd arguments on the Pentagon: ‘Propaganda Team’ sets its sights on Griffin
Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story
Taxi driver comes close to admitting he was part of 9/11 cover story
Aerial illusion: Facts support 757 flying over and not into the Pentagon on 9/11
Pentagon debates expose emptiness of large-plane-impact scenario
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?
Why ‘hijackers into the Pentagon’ story can’t fly
Flight 77 missed the Pentagon: Flight Data Recorder
Griffin’s no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon arguments eclipse consensus approach
Missing wings at the Pentagon: study says they’d have snapped off, not folded in
Jenkins misleads by linking Pentagon plane-impact theory to AE911Truth
Win converts using these plane-hit-the-Pentagon talking points: just keep repeating ‘It’s so divisive!’
David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker support CIT’s ‘staged evidence’ scenario
Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11


    1. I’m really glad you asked that question, Mike. This is usually what people want to know – and I don’t blame them. I want to know, too.
      The problem is that people who are happy with the official story use this question to shoot down any other theories. In other words, if you don’t know what happened to the plane, then your whole point is invalid. Not so.
      I believe it’s easy to demonstrate that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. Once we at least consider that this might be right, then the next thing is to investigate further. If I give you a hypothetical scenario about what might have happened, then people will focus on that, trying to pick it apart. And they might be successful. My point is that we’re being lied to. The media won’t do its job. EVERYONE should be asking the question you have asked. But not to discredit the people who doubt the official story. It should be asked because the physical evidence requires that it be asked. Thanks for writing.

      1. I have brought up questions about this whole incident and everyone now thinks I’m just another paranoid conspiracy theorist. But the pictures clearly have a lot of discrepancies. Is our whole country full of people who just don’t think? It’s frightening to think that we are being lied to on a massive scale by our own government. And what can we do about it?

        1. A conspiracy theorist is simply a person who questions the claims of known liars. It’s only through the establishment’s control of the mainstream media brainwashing system, that people are tricked into thinking that’s a bad thing.

      2. Craig, I was there and saw the end results of the plane crash as well as impact. Nice try and good comments to try and confuse the folks on the results. You are wrong.

          1. But what of those ordinary members of the public who witnessed that very flight flying in a strange manner near the Pentagon. They identified it as an American Airlines. Are you calling them liars?

          2. I was on the phone with my hubby when I heard a whirring noise. I thought the web server I was working on was acting up. After that I woke up on my back on the 1st floor. I didn’t know it was the 1st floor yet, that realization would come later when we were trying to get out of the pitch black office with wires hanging down and zapping everything they touched. Once we were able to crawl from floor 1 up to floor 2 using fallen computer equipment, the first thing we smelled was fuel. One of our group, a hobby pilot, new it was jet fuel. As we got out onto the corridor we weren’t able to see through the black wall of smoke leading to the E ring. Bloody bodies full of glass from the windows were makimg their way out, soldiers trying to go back in to help others but couldn’t see. Long story short…saw the bits of plane parts all over the parking lot when we got out. Those who were there…know…those who talk nonsense like this blogger know nothing of what they speak. Many years later…I can still remember the smell, see the bodies and hear the cries of my dead comrades.

          3. Tamera said:
            “Long story short…saw the bits of plane parts all over the parking lot when we got out(of the Pentagon)”
            What parking lot are you talking about?
            On what side of the Pentagon?

          4. This pic is clearly from a point several hours or even days after the event. You can clearly see a lot of temporary structures have gone up and staging areas, vehicles and even a flag has been introduced so, it doesn’t do anything to erase a potential eyewitness account of debris being visible immediately after the event.

          5. Potential eye witnesses? Who is this lady we need confirmation.. Why is it so unsure? It should be clear as day as to what happened.. Y are they confiscating videos of the truth is the truth..?

          6. There’s a parking lot to the right of the impact. It even has a fire truck with a ladder extending from it parked in it.

          7. There’s also, for you, the uncomfortable fact that you’re the only individual I’ve EVER seen make the claim that there were any plane parts in the parking lot at all, let alone lots of them.

          8. Thank you, Adam Syed, for the photographic evidence that shows “Tamera’s” story to be a lie.
            Tamera…..what motivated you to come on to a 911 Forum and tell a deliberate lie to bolster the official conspiracy theory of the mass murderers?

          9. Probably a paycheck from the NSA or Cass Sunstein… proof that this article, while written in 2010, is continuing to circulate widely and that this blog’s existence is considered a threat to the PTB.

          10. Part of the ongoing cover-up, no doubt. Or, study after study has shown that we humans are NOT very accurate reporters of what we saw vs scientific evidence–especially in emergency situations. We are also highly suggestable.

          11. If in fact an airliner did not hit the Pentagon, then what caused this explosion and devastation? What would the purpose be for our government to mislead us?

          12. What about those of us that saw the plane from 395? Did my eyes lie to me? If you were a child when this happened, then you shouldn’t have an opinion. If you were an adult, then I would advise you to seek mental help.

          13. What did you see? And who are you? We’ve had a string of people who don’t give their names who claim they saw a plane crash into the building. But once challenged, these people always disappear. So, provide details or go elsewhere.

          14. Just as in the towers being the only structural steel buildings in the history of the world to suffer total failure from fire no one seems to find it strange that on the exact same day two planes tied to the same event crash with no plane debris found. Can anyone say Shanksville?

          15. I put it to you all that much like the Kennedy film ….Any photos of the Pentagon in the press have been’s been more or less proven beyond a doubt that the President was in fact.murdered by an INSIDE JOB! So since most of us kinda know it in our gut anyway…
            Why the hell cant you see all the BULLSHIT they’re feeding us HERE?????

          16. I am calling bullshit, there was a reporter that walked right up to the hole as firefighters were putting out fires. He said he walked around and did not see one piece of debris from a plane.

          17. “I can still remember the smell, see the bodies and hear the cries of my dead comrades.” ~Tamera
            It is melodramatic bullshit such as this final sentence that gives this comment away as fiction.
            Since when do the dead cry Tamera? Like Mr Syed has pointed out, there were no plane parts in any parking lot at the Pentagon.

          18. o my god can that tamera spin a tale . As i read her story I went and poured me a cup of hot cocoa. And thought to myself this is better than Harry Potter .

          19. I saw it because my father in law was in building while I waited in car. Yes it was a haphazard plane flown by towel head terrorists who hate us because they can’t be us. Conspiracy bs. How many 1000s of people would have to be in on the govt plans??? Fake planes fake buildings fake jumpers…. fake victims…..pathetic

          20. Lori, what building was your father-in-law in? What is his name so we can confirm this? I don’t think we’ll be getting that information, though. So many people comment on this thread with vague stories about knowing someone who saw “the plane” but then we never hear from them again.

          21. Just after 9/11…like within hours of the attacks… the news footage that I saw had a reporter who was there say it looks nothing like a plane crash site……that footage was not aired again after that…..I examined every photo I could and never believed it was a plane.
            Later that day and in weeks that followed I saw many many photographs and showed them to my uncle…(a retired Luftansia airplane mechanic and retired military aircraft mechanic) the photos of the crash and the alleged piece of engine they recovered… He was insistent that there was absolutely no airplane debris in any of the photos and the supposed engine part was not part of a 757 engine….there were no seats, luggage, or any other component of a plane visible and that no matter how hot the fire got from any plane crash you could never vaporize everything. He later followed that what was recovered was too small to be of a plane engine but it was just about the right size to be part a missile engine. He added that the first p[hotos of the hole before the wall collapse could not have been a result of a 757 hitting the pentagon. The dimensions were just too small.
            As to what really did happen to the plane?….Fighter jets were scrambled and were out over the Atlantic Ocean…they were sent there for a reason…. I believe that flight 77 was actually shot down over the ocean to insure that it couldn’t be used as a flying bomb like the ones in New York…but that is just my opinion and I have no facts to that support that….

          22. I am a disabled Vet from U.S. Army HHC 2/12 CAV Headquarters Division Alpha Company, I can tell you what made that hole… I have seen one dropped first hand and cleared the site afterwards. They make a tunnel straight into anything, reinforced or not. You can even drop one straight down into a building and select what floor you want it to start making the hole and for how far. They are really good at penetrating the ground and delivering a payload to underground bunkers. BLU-122

          23. Problem with missile hypothesis is unscathed floor at C-ring hole and no continuing trail missile would have left behind. No missile flat on its belly in area between C and D ring. Ergo hole result not from traveling object.

          24. I believe that’s a similarity/metaphor type of thing….. Hearing the dead cries of comrades; As in when they went down, and cried out then went silent. The voices are still fresh in the person’s head.
            Just saying; But I’m not supporting them. 😀

          25. I’m sorry that happened to you. It must have been a very frightening incident to have been involved in. I know lots of people were hurt, killed or affected that day. I don’t think I’m on my own by saying that people like yourself, friends and colleagues got caught up with what happened. No one (I’m assuming now) doubts that people were killed that day, and I don’t doubt what your saying. However I do doubt what is visible and the evidence available not only to me, but to a lot of people.
            The reason myself and others are asking these questions is because we doubt the truth and veracity of what is claimed. For example do you remember actually seeing or hearing a 100 tonne plane crash into the pentagon. Did you see large parts of the back end of the aircraft or even the tail end which would have still been visible to everyone as it DIDN’T go through the building.
            From ALL the photographic, video evidence and eye witness accounts, no one, not even yourself actually SAW the aircraft be it as it crashed, or after it crashed. I’m sure you had other things on your mind after witnessing people hurt and killed. That’s not in dispute. The only thing I dispute and my disputed is bad an actual physical evidence and the laws of physics which are NOT refutable.
            The main point I and others are making is that there isn’t a plane, there never was a plane that crashed into the building. All people ask is you put your fears, memories aside and look at the photographic evidence objectively IF you can. I understand if you can’t, it’s a hard thing to ask of you and other people especially because of what you witnessed. Just look at the pictures. Could a 757 144 foot aircraft creat a hole of 19 foot. Is it physically possible? Then ask yourself where did the plane go? Planes don’t disintegrate on impact, it’s not physically possible, large pieces of recharge would be scattered for miles around as evidenced by ALL plane crashes except for shanksville, the pentagon and twin towers. Although given the amount of wreckage from the towers finding aircraft parts would be difficult.
            Take 5 minutes that’s a lol I ask, and go to google, type in aircraft crashes and look at those pictures, look at the AIRCRAFT that’s still there. Now look at the shanksville crash and the pentagon crash and ask yourself WHY there isn’t the same type of wreckage. Where’s the evidence? The fire department couldn’t have moved/taken away the plane as you’d need a huge crane to remove it, and there was no time to do that before the media arrived. Even CNN and ABC acknowledged there was no PLANE. Why?

          26. Louise,
            As Agent Wright should recall, the damage path was at the wrong angle to match the trajectory of the approach of the plane – which was north of the Citgo station.
            That plane did not hit the Pentagon, it flew over it and through the smoke caused by the bombs that did the damage.

          27. My wife and some others with her saw the plane fly past her in Crystal City on the way to the Pentagon. She works for the government and she and the others with her have enough experience identifying aircraft that I believe her. She did not actually see it hit due to her line of sight being obstructed by buildings, and your explanation is the best that I can see. But another bit of information is that a reliable witness, in fact one of those that was photographed in a line on the lawn, helped pick up the pieces on the lawn, and he swears that it was a Global Hawk drone that hit, both from what he saw fly and what he picked up. There were two major explosions, according to a TV reporter and an eye witness near the helipad. My theory is that the Global Hawk hit first, then the other explosion was from planted explosives while the airliner flew over under remote control.

          28. No eyewitness who was in a position to see the plane described it as a global hawk.
            ALL of the witnesses who were interviewed on camera, in the place they were when the plane flew over, described a passenger plane, including two police officers who were professionally trained to observe and report.
            They ALL described a large passenger plane flying low and slow on the North side of the Citgo gas station.
            Some described it as banking right and then “lifting up”.
            See the video ….. “National Security Alert: The 911 Pentagon Event” :

          29. I have recently learned that the person who said he helped pick up the pieces on the lawn admitted that he was lying. Sorry that I can’t edit or delete comments on this page.

          30. I too believe it was a Global Hawk drone but I think it likely that the drone carried a missile that it fired into the Pentagon moments before flying into the building itself. That would explain how spiral downward turn was performed. That would explain why only one engine core was found and why it was too small be belong to a 757. It would also explain the smell of jet fuel. Pilots for 9/11 truth claim there is no way a 757 or a 767 could have performed the maneuver as the g-forces to pull the jet out of the dive and then level off would have torn the jet apart and it never would have reached the Pentagon. Please watch video’s from Pilots for 9/11 truth to see the conclusions that they came to.

          31. Jerry, I agree that no 757 hit the Pentagon, but your “belief” that it was a Global Hawk that carried a missile is pure speculation, which I think is contradicted by the evidence. All we have to do to prove the official story wrong is to show how strong the evidence is that no 757 impact occurred. When you add the speculation about a missile you just swing the burden of proof onto yourself instead of on the perpetrators, where it should be.

          32. Jerry Zakariasen said:
            “I too believe it was a Global Hawk drone…..”
            All of the credible witnesses who were interviewed on camera, at the exact place they were when they saw the aircraft approach the Pentagon, ALL say it was a commercial airliner that flew low and slow, North of the Citgo gas station.
            Two of the witnesses were Pentagon Police officers who are professionally trained to observe and report.
            Sgt. William Lagasse is familiar enough with aircraft to speak of the “starboard” side of the plane instead of the right side.
            He also spoke of the plane being about 80 ft. “AGL”, above ground level.
            “…..but I think it likely that the drone carried a missile that it fired into the Pentagon moments before flying into the building itself”
            No credible witness saw an aircraft flying South of the Citgo gas station, yet ALL of the directional damage at the scene, including the downed Light poles, the damage to the generator trailer, and the damage to the Pentagon suggests a South of Citgo flight path, which is impossible.
            The evidence was planted and staged; the Pentagon was damaged with pre-planted explosives, likely for accuracy of killing certain people and computers.
            “That would explain how spiral downward turn was performed”
            Whether the flight path data was real or faked is irrelevant’ the plane flew North of the Citgo.
            “That would explain why only one engine core was found and why it was too small be belong to a 757”
            No aircraft hit the Pentagon; all the evidence was planted.
            “Pilots for 9/11 truth claim there is no way a 757 or a 767 could have performed the maneuver as the g-forces to pull the jet out of the dive and then level off would have torn the jet apart and it never would have reached the Pentagon”
            The flight data was faked; Pilots for 9-11 Truth supports CIT’s conclusions. including the North of Citgo proof.
            Pilots for 9-11 Truth prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY fixed-wing Aircraft, including a Global Hawk, a Fighter jet, or a missile to fly North of the Citgo and do the directional damage at the scene.
            “Please watch video’s from Pilots for 9/11 truth to see the conclusions that they came to”
            Which video do you suggest? ….. do you have a link?
            Thank you!

          33. I study things in Google Earth a lot, especially since it’s got the wayback machine of photographic history. Study all the changes around that side of the Pentagon from about ’98 onward. Note the Citgo station, basis for all those embarrassing eye witness accounts, has totally disappeared now. The linear layout of the new ‘Pentabomb Memorial Park’ is of course the biggest part of the official propaganda campaign, reaffirming the claimed flight path.

          34. Did anyone witness AA 77 fly over the Pentagon? Even if completely obscured by smoke, it would have to emerge and then be in full view of the control tower at Reagan Nat’l – and everyone else in the vicinity of the Potomac River. Yet, I’m not aware of anyone claiming to have seen AA77 after the explosion at the Pentagon. But on approach, ATC at Reagan Nat’l saw it fly in toward the Pentagon and dip below the horizon just before the explosion. They were also tracking it on radar. They also radioed the Air National Guard pilot of a military transport plane flying above the scene at that very time and asked him to follow Flight 77 . He reported seeing the 757 crash into the Pentagon.

          35. I tried looking for your response Anna, but didn’t see it. Who was your Dad, where was he located? Was he in the Pentagon or elsewhere? First off, what have you actually been told, and by whom? Did you question anything? I don’t know anything about you, Anna, or your background, but as a daughter, if I’d just found out my Dad had been killed, or died, I’d want to know the specifics. I would rush over there to where he was killed as quickly as I could. I’m assuming your Dad was at the Pentagon or on the claimed aircraft, since we’re discussing the Pentagon. Yes?
            Did you go to the Pentagon immediately after you heard about what happened on the news? If you weren’t able to go immediately I understand that – particularly given the events of the day. If you were unable to go there that day, who informed you? What was said? I’m assuming that they would have been trying to ascertain who was in which part of the Pentagon people were in? I’m assuming things were not straight forward on that day. I’m assuming that you may not have even been told about your Dad that day?
            It’s a natural instinct inherent in all of us to get answers to questions when a loved one dies, no matter where, when. You must have asked questions. Did you go down to the Pentagon that day or the following days? If not, can I ask why not? Did someone come to your door to tell you or did you seek out the answers for yourself?
            The reason I’m asking these questions is because it’s a natural instinct. If you see the pictures of the hole in the pentagon, does that seem like an aircraft hit that with force (enough to allegedly disintegrate), but not leave any damage or wreckage anywhere? I’m assuming you’re an intelligent woman, and would understand the fundamentals of basic geometry, yes? Remember in school were taught what a 90 degree right angle is (straight up). Now it’s been said the aircraft hit at a (I think) a 42 degree angle, so basically just under half of straight up. Now, even if I accept EVERYTHING we’ve been told about the aircraft and even if a pilot had 40 something years under their belt, don’t you think more damage would have occurred IF an aircraft could hit at that trajectory into a building? Don’t you think the wing, would drag along either the grass or the building? There would be tracks, there would be massive amounts of DEBRIS scattered everywhere. Crashed aircraft leaves evidence, and we’re not talking about a little bit, we’re talking wreckage being scattered for hundreds of yards. But there wasn’t any, not at the Pentagon and not at Shanksville. And you have to ask yourself and the powers that be, why there wasn’t that trail of debris.
            I was there when the Lockerbie aircraft was blown up in the sky and the fallout from that, and the debris that was scattered. Look at the wreckage left from the aircraft that got hit in the Ukraine. All that debris, for hundreds of yards. Aircrafts don’t disintegrate without leaving debris, or evidence. Where is the aircraft though? Where is the debris? Where is the photographic evidence of the plane and its impact into the building? Where is the video evidence showing the impact? This building is supposed to be one of the most secure buildings, yet there was no video evidence apart from that little puddly video that’s done the rounds. The Pentagon is filled with cameras, so why haven’t the videos been released as part of the enquiries? Where is the aircraft? Disintegrated or not, there would still need to be an investigation into it, and evidence cannot be removed from the primary scene until the crash scene investigators have done their investigations.
            Whether you accept that an aircraft or not, people STILL have questions 14 YEARS later. After all this time, there shouldn’t be so many questions. These questions should have been answered regardless of who’s asking them. If there are this many questions, then a thorough investigation was not carried out, and it’s your responsibility as American Citizens to ask the questions. You don’t have to be satisfied with the answers, but the answers should have been given.
            I think the most telling questions I have is, where is the Aircraft? How have these Aircrafts defied the laws of physics? Where is the wreckage? Where is the video evidence? Where are the photos of the Aircraft (whether it skimmed at an angle or not, or whether it ploughed through in a straight line) I’ve heard both.
            At the end of the day, the Pentagon ‘crash’ and the Shanksville ”crash’ left little to no viable evidence and that is what I have a problem with. And that’s where there are suddenly no answers.
            Any reasonable person can look online and go onto images in Google after typing in ‘Plane Crash’. Ask yourself as I’ve said before do these ‘crashes’ look the same in any way shape or form? I know the answer, but it seems to a lot of people that they accept either the explanation they’ve been given, or they don’t want answers.
            I completely understand that you may not want to ‘go there’ or ‘question the man’, but you need to. I know it must be incomprehensible for you to believe that this was anything but what you’ve been told, or that it’s incomprehensible that your OWN government have lied to you. But they’re politicians, they tell you things according to their own agendas. If you don’t think the government has ever lied to you, then you’re deluding yourself. I’ve worked for the government for over 16 years, and I know people aren’t given answers, or aren’t told the whole truth, or have said one thing and done another.
            But for me, the biggest puzzle in ALL if this, is there is NO plane. No one has actually seen an aircraft at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Now why is that?

          36. Today 3-31-16 , wow this site is awesome !!! I finely found a home , where one doesn’t get shot, stabbed ,beat up for speaking the truth or just stating the obvious . it took 2 years to get here , thanks !!

          37. Not here Chuck. The worst that will happen is that you might get into a heated ego match Jim Fetzer. But judging by the variety of opinion here, I don’t think anybody has every been 86ed.
            There is mostly sanity here save for the occasional disinfo troll or a purported “shame-tripping grieving relative of a victim”.
            I too experienced a sense of relief after I found this website. Living in modern culture is like living in an Orwellian virtual reality made of bullshit. I need to come here for a sanity check on occasion.

          38. I have an open mind when it comes to our government and it’s secret operation. I suspect many conspiracies have taken place. However, I find this one is suspect. It is now 2016, almost 15 years have passed. Between the 4 planes involved, they carried 265 people both passengers and crews. First, where are these people if they did not perish? If they are alive, how do you keep them and their families from speaking out? It would only take one, in 15 years, to get greedy and sell their story. Do you really believe they were shot and buried somewhere? Do you think they are imprisoned? Are they in a witness protection system? Again, just one greedy person is needed. The pentagon evidence is compelling but pictures and video can be photo shopped; no REAL evidence of bombs, missilles, or drones is presented. How do you explain messages left by those people to their loved ones and to the authorities stating they were being hijacked? Would a loved one be so cruel? What reason would the government have to do this? It seems one incident would have been sufficient, not four and not one in a remote field.

          39. Can anyone tell me where the 265 people who were on those planes are now if they didn’t perish in the “alleged” plane crashes?

          40. “The Manhattan Project” involved teams of government & military personnel building the Atomic bomb, and not one person leaked it, because none of them even knew what they were working. There were War Games taking place using “hijacked planes” in the North East that morning. Wow, what an incredible coincidence. Painters could have applied Thermite without ever knowing it. Contractors could have brought in locked cases without ever knowing what was in them. And in this age of digital capabilities, how would any one know how many people were required to do all the above?
            As for the fate pf what happened to the passengers, I get a laugh when people think “OK, they’re willing to bring down the Towers and everyone in them – but what about the innocent people on the planes?”. You can be sure they also died that day. One story has the people from Flt. 175 merging with Flt. 11, without even knowing it, since both were half filled planes departing from Boston at the same time. If I had to guess (which is dangerous), they could have been easily gassed once airborne, with the flight heading out over the Atlantic.
            One reason we can guess that it wasn’t just hijackers, is that at least 3 of the flights did not turn for their targets until they left radar. A pilot would not know when that was, only someone on the ground looking at a radar screen. But it opens up the likely possibility that the planes were replaced with drones (see War Games above), guaranteed to hit their marks. Interestingly, the one plane that went astray, Flt. 93, was the one shot that was shot out of the sky.

          41. same here and not to many trolls,i keep asking show me the plane,if not that show me the films (85)being confiscated,just one film of the plane hitting the building. If this is BS then every thing is BS and you no were that leads to -Israel-AIPAC-whitehouse-FED.

          42. What about the passports and bandanas? Hell there is the proof, Shanksville. Hell its buried under the ground (wings, engines, passengers, boxes fuel, seats, people. The pentagon, well we have the film and the eyewitnesses. No I’m afraid it’s just all too much for even the most ardent zionist to believe the official story. It will come out and then well it’s going to be a bizarre outcome, the number of people in high places this will involve. Trump might be the man to do it. I don’t think he’s a dual citizen. It’ll have to be a red blooded AMERICAN with no ties to AIPAC.

          43. You need to read a book by Rebeka Roth called Methodical Illusion. There you will find your answer. The first half of the book is filler fluff, the second half is where it gets interesting.

          44. There no plane parts observed or photographed. Also there were no eyewitnesses or videos of an airliner striking the building. Same with the PA crash site. That one was an open field, yet still no plane or bodies ever found. Not to mention all the discrepancies with the Twin Towers story.

          45. The windows of a Boeing 757 are plastic, not glass. Burned bodies have been photographed — at their desks, the bodies of Pentagon employees. The security camera pictures released in March of 2002 and officially released in May of 2006 establish that the aircraft or missile that attacked the Pentagon was no more than half the length of a Boeing 757.
            The plane most witnesses saw (although some witnesses saw both planes) was not the plane or missile that struck the Pentagon as established by the line of physical damage. Witnesses saw the American Airlines jetliner approach the Pentagon from directly over the Sheraton Hotel, directly over the Naval Annex and directly over the Citgo gas station where Sgt. Wm. Lagasse was pumping gas when he saw the starboard side window ports of the Boeing as it passed slightly north of him travelling form west to east — but the damage trail from the first downed lamppost to the entry hole in the west wall at column #14 to the exit hole in the inner “C”-ring is an entirely different path, it passed south of Lagasse and everywhere south of the witness-established path of the jetliner. The plane that passed where the witnesses describe got nowhere near where the first lamppost was downed, nowhere near the line of travel of the killer jet from lampost to entry hole to exit hole.
            The famous piece of debris photographed on the lawn north of the crash about ten minutes after the crash came from the starboard side of a Boeing 757 all right, but the starboard side of the killer jet that hit the Pentagon faced south, not north. The piece was planted on the wrong side of the crash. All of the small Boeing debris likely was dropped by the C-130 followed the big plane flying over the pentagon, trailing by about 30 seconds.
            My investigation here: (in five parts)
            Dick Eastman M.S., M.A.
            Yakima, Washington

          46. Nice video Mr. Eastman. That research is first-rate. This really has helped me get all the facts straight.
            Do you think that the wake of the jet is what took out the light poles? Or do you think that they were removed beforehand at night to make room for the jet; only to be distorted and replaced on the night preceding…?
            I really don’t think many people would notice overturned light-poles down the embankment for the first few hours of 9/11. Perhaps it was the Taxi Driver’s primary role to drag one into the road?
            Either way, your theory perfectly explains the single turbine found, the entry hole, the exit hole, and the desperately random debris field.

          47. Some light poles were broken as in a collision. The taxi pole was bent — photo shows curve, whereas it was originally straight while standing. Some poles were broken at the base, the bolts broke — as highway light poles are made to do when struck, to save lives — these likely were downed by the air turbulence of an object traveling at close to 500 mph, which happens at airports with planes flying much slower when they pass over where they don’t belong when coming in. There is no need to deny that something downed those poles, grazed that truck and made a hole in that fence. I do not deny that there were bombs at the Pentagon. Barbara Honegger established that with Sibel Edmonds and other witnesses. There was also a trailer — guess where? — right in front of column 14. This likely contained the flash material that blinded people as the Boeing neared the Pentagon and passed over. The flash would blind people for three seconds — by which time a plane travelling as fast as the Boeing would have been closer to the end of one of Reagan National Airport’s runways than to the crash event. People saw the plane get close to the Pentagon — then the flash that caused them to “lose visual” during which time they heard the explosion and could see the explosion — and so their brains, filled in the missing pieces (incorrrectly) — especially those who had heard of the airplanes crashing into skyscrapers in NYC. There were witnesses in houses along the damage path (to the southeast of the crash) alongwhich the object that crashed came – they heard it go over their homes there. To me that is strong evidence that there was a missile or jet that created that damage.

          48. Are you of sane mind and body or a contrived bot,haven’t you red the evidence of the people who smelt EXPLOSIVE chloride and not kero,im trying to find your evidence but cant seem to see it in any of the transcript(you were there)Parking lot,plane parts, it all seems a little different to the photo proof of the scene after the ‘EVENT’ as the dancing Israelis like to call it.

          49. Sorry for your loss, Tamera. I hope the scars have now somewhat healed. I worked at the WTC after the attack and I was incensed by those who claimed there was no plane or that there was some USA conspiracy What would be the motive for such a thing? Insanity!.

          50. What is insane is to persist in believing official lies in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. We do not live in a fairy tale world of American apple pie. We live in a world controlled by psychopaths.

          51. My understanding is, the attack on the WTC was merely an act of terrorism. But an attack on the Pentagon made it an act of war, thereby not needing congress to declare war. You need to think hard on this people. The Pentagon, especially hitting the 73′ side with a 44′ high plane, was an EXTREMELY difficult target to hit. Not to mention the White House and a big fat Capital Building right next to it. The target itself is a smoking gun! Not to mention a first time pilot doing a 300º corkscrew turn in the final seconds of his life to hit the ONLY reinforced wall of the building that happened to be empty – except for all the accounting of the missing $2.3 Trillion. I mean, you can’t make this crap up!

          52. Absolutely !ver 3
            You see, what most people do not know- dare not admit. Is the essential facts of WHO these perpetual war-making creatures are, what their strategy is. (genocide- in which they rejoice)
            And the means- developed over 3,000 years of profitable ‘Big deal lying’- like the ‘find the lady’ or ‘shell game’ trick that fools the innocent-dupe- “Goy brained” Trusting Gentile into seeing what they never saw. Witness, the several people- including a camera man- who absolutely stated that they witnessed an explosion at WTC1/2 and definitely saw no planes. Who later claimed to have seen planes- after seeing video, and being subject to public/ media pressure.
            Fact: There were no planes- at all. No, missiles. No so called ‘Fly by’
            Why? Because the 3000 year long experienced liars know that they- their tribe is absolutely-99.99% united against the Goy- whilst the Gentiles, are all over the place- often being set against each other, in pointless squabbles. This is not necessary.
            They work on the most pragmatic method of causing wars, (Oded Yinon- look it up) Which is to set up a scene and then control the narrative- to their script. Since they also control ALL the media- worldwide, and , of course the banks and money supply..
            Their aim- to get ME wars going to destroy and destabilise all Arab states. (Oded Yinon Plan)
            Next. To undermine world’s $£ banking system and extract max profit from and control of the Gentile nations.
            Next: To extend ‘J’ ish tribal domination of all non ‘J’ people= PNAC (The program for the new American century) see via sites like ‘Information Clearing House’ and ‘Global Research’ etc, etc.’ and subsequent schemes.To cause mass displacement of immigrants from ME and especially Africa, in order to smash and destabilise the White- European nations- See 21st Century Wire. See Caudenhouve Callergi plan. And to cause gigantic Holocausts of Gentile people- like they did against 20,000,0000 Christian Russians. 3000,000 Ukrainians in the Jewish Holodomor of the Ukrainian people.
            Next: To utterly destroy European society worldwide via the Jewish ‘Frankfurt school’ teaching and tear the happy and natural European standard family unit to pieces, substituting such ‘J’ ish destructive values as- transgender/ gay lesbian etc, etc.
            Folks- it’s in your face, and has been since 1916,

          53. 2.5 trillion dollars,follow the money, were the missile hit was the people looking into the missing pentagon funds- funny that ah – it was write on the money.

          54. Ok try this. I’ll narrow it down for you and give you a breadcrumb to follow so that you can do your own research and drawn your own conclusion . The pentagon wasn’t hit. The Office of Naval Intelligence which is located in the pentagon and coincidentally in the same spot was hit.

          55. Notice that Steve never wrote back haha. I just watched a bullshit documentary on CBS about the Pentagon attack and not one employee (paid actor) said they saw a plane. It is extremely obvious to me that a plane never hit that building. As for what happened to the plane that supposedly hit.. who knows really, I believe they probably landed at some secluded location and murdered passengers and crew members. I know it seems insane to people who believe the original story to think that our own government would murder innocent civilians, but honestly think about how many inhumane things they’ve done in the history of our nation and it shouldn’t surprise you. They are more than willing to sacrifice a miniscule percent of the population to further their agenda. 911 opened the doors to everything they’ve always wanted, complete control in the name of “national security”.

        1. On the plane hitting the Pentagon. I know too many people who saw the plane and saw it flying around and hit the Pentagon. Also, if you ever take air crash class like I did as a Fire Fighter years ago. There is not much left of a large plane after a crash. I am open to other Conspiracy theories like what blew up underneath the World Trades Centers before planes hit the building. LIVE TV coverage at the time mentions the FBI were investigating that. The “Thermite” story is of great interest and the story of Cheney taking control of the ability to shoot down civilian airlines. Is of interest. The look on Bush’s face in Florida, I don’t think he had a clue. He looks freaked.

          1. No one questions that a plane was flying around. But I would like to hear about those people who saw the plane actually hit the Pentagon. There is a great deal of evidence that the plane people saw could not have created the damage and could not have hit the building. To say there is not much left after a plane crash is simply not true. What happened to the wings? The engine cores? Why was the fuselage the only portion to penetrate the building when it is the most fragile part?

          2. Pan Am, Lockerbie, 1988 is what it should have looked similar to. The cockpit was still in one piece nearly. TWA 800 1996 and Swiss Air 111 1998 should give one a good idea of what Plane wreckage should look like.

          3. Very interesting stuff, the wreckage from the Pan Am crash at Lockerbie still sits in a breakers yard near me in Lincolnshire UK. And I can tell you not only is a huge part of the main fuselage intact but seats and personal belongings were sadly still showing obvious signs of their occupants.

          4. but they have magical ways of pass ports turning up and whole planes evaporating , just amazing, magical,indestructible pass ports and solid engines completely vanishing or as with the twin towers completely different engines turning up on the street from the ones in the plane that was supposedly hit the towers.

          5. There is a video on youtube. A very good investigation. The plane flew OVER the Pentagon. Also, in reply to people who saw the plan and so disagree with this article; what you are stating is that the photos are false. That the testimony of April Gallop is false.

          6. I saw a plane actually hit the Pentagon from surveillance taken by a neighboring gas station. That footage was confiscated by the FBI to cut out what i saw which was a small white plane. This was aired in an underground internet stream on a Penn and Teller show when they seemed perfectly convinced that 9-11 was orchestrated with the help of the US government.

          7. “I saw a plane actually hit the Pentagon from surveillance taken by a neighboring gas station.” ~juan
            No you didn’t. You are making it up.

          8. I find this to be evidence that the pilot thought to have crashed aircraft, did not want to die, which is important. A religious martyr would have had no reason not to keep on target and would have been less likely to divert his course to avoid the cell tower if the trajectory matched up with the damage and the story was true. Perhaps the pilot was given a course to help guide the official story yet he veered off course at in the last 13 seconds to spare his own life.. Aside from that point, it doesn’t explain the exit wound on the building. Where did all that energy go or whatever created that energy go off to?

          9. The citizen investigation team traveled to Arlington and asked questions of witnesses the answers to which would either support or contradict my conclusions based on my communication years earlier with Sgt Lagassee, Riskus and others and with published witness accounts — which led to my conclusion that the Boeing witnesses reported over the Annex and North of the gas station and over the Arlington gardener’s head could not have been the object that approached the Pentagon on a path further south and that caused the damage. THEY CONFIRMED MY FINDING — BUT THEN, WITH NO REASON THEY ADDED THEIR OWN “THEORY” THAT ALL OF THE DOWNED LIGHT POLES WERE PLANTED, THAT THE POLE ON THE HIGHWAY WAS PLANTED THEIR, THAT THE GASH IN THE ROOF OF THE TRUCK AND THE HOLE IN THE CYCLONE FENCE WERE PUT THERE AS STAGE PROPS — NONE OF WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY ANY NEW WITNESS THEY FOUND OR ANY OLD ONE. I did not know about their effort to test my theory until one of them, the honest one, Aldo Marquis, wrote to me a letter stating that they had been to the Pentagon and found new witnesses corroborating my conclusions — and of course I was overjoyed. But apparently the lead investigator of the team, Craig Ranke wanted to push my thesis out of the way with his own about light poles being planted and witnesses lying about the light pole on the highway, IN SHORT CRAIG RANKE DID NOT SUPPORT MY FINDING, HE MERELY REPLACED MINE WITH HIS — HIS WITH THE PLANTED LIGHT POLES — PUSHING ASIDE THE BETTER THEORY INSTEAD OF DECLARING HE HAD CONFIRMED IT. I believe Marquis was an honest investigator properly motivated, but he was not the dominant member of the citizens investigation team.

          10. a plane cannot fly at 500mph a few feet from the ground. ”downwash” would make it impossible. the plane would have to be 80 feet off the ground at that speed.
            ”there is not much left of a large plane after a crash”? except two seven ton engines made out of titanium steel.
            bush’s face always looked like he had no clue. it was his normal look. you americans as gore vidal said are the most entertained uninformed people on earth. ignorance is your security blanket.

          11. Perhaps Bush looked as surprised as he did because he actually was surprised.
            The “under government” along with some members of the Bush administration could of concocted what happened that day without Bush knowing anything, or the more likely scenario of not knowing the full details of the operation. Remember it was Cheney who took control of the country during the attacks, and as far as I know, it was Cheney who insisted that they “discuss” the day’s events with the commission.

          12. why, if the country was under attack, didn’t he jump to action? His reaction to me was “ok it started” and how many times were we all forced to hear “terrorist” several times in every speech? Also what are the chances that the buildings on 9-11 fall exactly the same way with 1 hit, 2 hits and zero hits?
            Why did the clocks at the Pentagon stop 5-7 minutes before the plane hit?
            check out youtube video on that cabdriver..

          13. Yeah. And the nose would have been 20 feet above the ground if the engines were touching grass.

          14. I agree. Some jet fighters are designed to fly under radar like that. A Boeing 757? Not at all. The Boeing was always over a hundred feet above ground level. I imagine with an airport runway only a mile away that the Pentagon is pretty well soundproofed. The Boeing just blended in with Reagan National air traffic. David, I don’t know which country you live you call home, but if you are free of mass-media and government deception over there — if you all saw through the 9-11 deception were we Americans had questions but where managed out of acting upon them even as some of us proved the attack a false-flag deception — then count yourselves lucky. I can’t imagine which country that would be, however.

          15. “There is not much left of a large plane after a crash.” That is just dead wrong.
            Google image search “747 crashes” and look at what debris looks like from a crash of a plane that size. And really think about all that material, plane body, 2 massive, 7-ton titanium and steel engines, seats, luggage, people, just completely vaporizing. Vaporizing! And within minutes, too. Yet surrounding spools of wire, fencing, windows were able to survive intact a few feet away.That is the official story! And it happened on arguably the most protected building in the country. At a time when the entire country is on high alert from planes crashing into buildings.
            And back to your “there is not much left of a large plane after a crash” comment. A great example, among many to compare this crash to, is the space shuttle Columbia. It blew up coming down above the earth at 14,000 mph. It’s debris was scattered over hundreds of miles over water, mostly over Louisiana and Texas. Over 88,000 pieces were recovered, and are in evidence storage to this day. Large pieces, too, fuselage parts, landing gear, cockpit parts, the bodies in parts of the crew, computer and recording equipment. Check the picture here for a good visual:
            And, in the Columbia crash there was plenty enough heat to quickly melt aluminum and other parts. More than the heat of exploding jet fuel by far. here is a quote from the official report: “During re-entry, this breach in the Thermal Protection System allowed superheated air to penetrate the leading-edge insulation and progressively melt the aluminum structure of the left wing, resulting in a weakening of the structure until increasing aerodynamic forces caused loss of control, failure of the wing, and breakup of the Orbiter.” (
            Look at all those Pentagon pictures taken right after the crash again and really think about that conclusion that the 747 and its contents vaporized.

          16. 9/11/15 No plane hit , with this picture of the hole, only a missile could have hit. This was planned to start war with Iraq.

          17. pattibaby said:
            “with this picture of the hole, only a missile could have hit”
            All the damage to the Pentagon was done by pre-planted explosives inside the building, except for the pyrotechnic fireball.
            All the columns were blown outward.
            No credible witness reported seeing a missile.
            All the credible witnesses who were interviewed on camera on the spot where they were on 911 reported seeing a commercial jetliner North of the Citgo gas station.
            The Pentagon case is closed until the Age of Sanity arrives.

        2. I lived walking distance from the pentagon and no plane hit it…there never been any footage of people going to work that morning stating they saw a plane. If you saw a plane you are the only person ever to state that and if you truly did please clarify the flight pattern and what did the ending destruction look like? I bet your life you can’t!!! A plane of that magnitude could not possibly fly that low without tearing up half of Crystal City, the GW parkway and parts of Arlington, VA. I have sat there on too many occasions trying to fight out why no area destruction was caused…how someone with no true flight experience was able to maneuver such a huge plane perfectly to its destination yet pilots with years of experience couldn’t pull off the same flight pattern. I will never believe anyone saying they saw a plane when the government won’t even produce video of such occurrences….just stop lying to feel like you are part of the story.

        3. Your BS’g because there was NO debris from the get go. Neither was there ANY debris in shanksville or are you going to argue that one too?

          1. Yes, I will argue that crash, too. The Shanksville crash official story is as questionable as the Pentagon, if not more. That field in PA should have been littered with plane debris, two massive 7-ton titanium-steel engines, luggage, bodies, seating, a tail section, blown off wing sections. There are first reports from CNN reporters that saw it close up and saw no plane, no bodies, no rescue efforts in any way. fd, really think about how much heat and energy it would take to fully vaporize that much metal, plastic, carbon fiber, glass, electrical wires and computers, human flesh. Vaporize. Into nothing within a few minutes. It doesn’t add up at all.

          2. If the planes that we know took off and were flying around didn’t fly into the Pentagon or the ground in Pennsylvania, then (1) how do you explain the people on the planes talking to loved ones on the ground telling them that they had been hijacked, and (2) what happened to the planes and all the people on board?

          3. it was impossible to talk to loved ones from the altitude of the planes ,the technology didn’t exist at the time ,but what did exist was the ability to assimilate voices……experiments were carried out by a famous canadian professor ,he tried to use a cell phone from the air,he was unable to achieve that at a very low altitude ,the planes where the messages were supposed to have come from where flying at normal cruising altitude ….sorry not doable ,and not true..

          1. Yes. The Pilots seem to think that the force of the air being pushed by the wings would have been enough to flip large trucks.
            The pilots for 911 truth forum has some good insight on these matters.

          2. If the fuselage of a Boeing 757 hit the ceiling of the ground floor at column #14 then the engines would have struck the spools but the wings would have been too high. If you look at some of the photos of the spools shown on this page I think you will agree, that the spools don’t reach higher than the first floor (ground floor) windows whereas the wings — if there was a Boeing there — would have been above those windows. If I had to look at just the damage imprint as shown on those first (pre-collapse) photos I could not be certain that a Boeing did not crash there — but I could be certain from these photos that other damage on the second floor from column #19 to column #20 could not have been caused by a Boeing whose nose went into column #14 and starboard engine into column #16.

        4. Show me a plane at the pentagon, no one can because there is no plane. Stop running your mouths and open your eyes America. LOOK AT THE PHOTO’S. If they lie about the pentagon then they lied about everything else. Stop the “must be another conspiracy nut”. Do your own investigating.listen to what they say ,then look at what they do! Listen to our dumb ass leader at the time” oh wait he is the smartest president so far he got away with murder. Hope all that was involved has there place in hell, not one of their children are fighting over seas. The very sad part is our children are fighting for them so they can making millions. How are things for you ( no jobs little pay no insurance, and the VA hospitals give the run around to the soldiers that have lost limbs and are troubled)stop and listen America watch and listen be smart stop believing everything our government tells us. And omg do not believe those bullshitters on our news. Their only telling us what they think you’ll believe.

          1. Those who study the evidence and are not put off by the bogus theories of false-investigators who are their to offend people’s intelligence and drive them away — those intelligent people with the facts and wanting to know the truth have no problem getting to implications of the evidence — BUT WE ARE INDIVIDUALLY UNABLE TO STAND UP TO PEOPLE GOING ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS AS USUAL AND GIVE THE ALARM. It is only the ones who are pushing the false theories who are willing to go public — because they know powerful people are with them in their helping to obstruct justice. As much as we know we ought to give the alarm about a great evil that has cost more than a million lives in the wars it generated etc. we — me — are not the citizens we should be. We speak up — then we look around to see if anyone is agreeing, and when others are silent, be sheepishly back off. It is that way about 9-11 and also about the great financial swindle I know about — but have a hard time telling to people outside of forums like this.

        5. ok Craig you said you saw the end results of the alleged plan crash, the results, but did you see any broken plane parts? is the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          1. I once witnessed the debri of a plane crash just outside Paris France,the debris was scattered for miles ,it was in trees, cloths,personal, belongings ,equipment it was such a mess I recently saw a program about the return to the scene ten years later ,by the original coroner that was there at the crash sight ,it was astounded at how much debris there was still there years later,
            ,I always keep this in mind when they try to sell this idea about everything being disintegrated it is simply not true ,the lies about the pentagon are so sloppy ,there is nothing to describe a plane crash at all ,as for shanksville even the coroner readily admitted that he had never seen or heard of any crash sight that was so devoid of debris and bodies……..So so sloppy so so untrue ,but after all the years of selling this crap ,and all the people that have been killed and displaced by this crap ,they are still getting away with it ….

        6. Steve, please comment much more and in more places. I’m so tired of reading these “theories” long time after the fact, not only of 9-11, but of students that were gunned down and other tragedies that have taken place. Thank you, Steve. As an eyewitness, I hope you make your observations clear to all.

        7. Steve is lying. Reporter McIntyre was there and says there is no evidence of a plane. History will tell us it was a rocket and that the 9-11 crime was a false flag operation done by the USA, Israel,
          & Saudi Arabia as a reason to “take out” 7 middle east countries. Search “Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth” & “video clips that Dan Rather would rather not show you” It was a false flag operation and a horrible crime. We may not have enough policemen to arrest all that were involved.

        8. Steve where exactly were you? What exactly did you see? Did you have a camera? Whom did you report to? What was your job at the time? If Craig is wrong, and that’s a BIG if, what evidence or eyewitness testimony can you offer to contradict? Or do you just think your “you are wrong” comment is sufficient? If you cannot offer some detailed feedback then your entire comments are completely invalid. Craig has done a great job with detailed analysis, I’d like to see people like you do the same.

        9. I was going to say–tell this to the people that were there. I know a (now retired) general who was there. He lived it. It’s easy to sit back in the comfort of your home and come up with crap and make it believable.

          1. Please provide us with the name of the (now retired) general who was there. We have had many people who do not give their real names claim they were there. Why are you believable?

          2. I agree with you. Fact is that most folks just can’t believe in impossible things and ridiculous Jewish stories- mostly they don’t even try!.
            Why don’t they try their hardest and believe what they are ordered to believe?
            Because they are evil, Naaartzeee, andy seeeeemites and ‘hayders’. That’s why.
            Ex UK PM says so. Declaring his undying 100% loyalty to Israel. The ‘British’ PM denouncing them as-‘Conspiracy theorists’-‘Non violent- Domestic terrorists’ ‘Deniers’ and ‘Equally as bad/ dangerous as the suicide bombers.
            This is why he has brought in new laws- like those in Germany, France etc, that define any questioning of the official- government- sanctioned, conspiracy theories as ‘Hate Crime’.
            Where parents are threatened with having their children removed from them, (It’s happening right now- especially in the ‘Soviet Republic of Scotland) (Please see the Dochertys case- Exposed this week by “UK Column”) ‘being arrested and thrown into prison or mental institution, to threaten, shock and medicate the ‘Hater’ (devil) out of them..
            George Bush agrees with him. As also Tony Blair, And their boss- Bibi Netanyahu.
            So, it follows, that if you have any sense of self preservation at all. You better get onside with The Mob- and quick. And start teaching yourself to believe in impossible stories- without question. Just like your parents and grandparents learned to do. And they survived to produce you. Right?
            Just like the British literary genius ‘Lewis Carrol hinted at in his Allegorical books- Alice through the looking glass-(Also read ‘The Hunting Of The Snark’
            “Alice to the red queen- “I can’t believe in that- it’s impossible.”
            WQ “Then you must try harder, child. Why, at your age I could believe three impossible things before breakfast….”, and another five by teatime.
            And: (Familiar dream sequence) Alice “We seem to be running so fast but not getting anywhere. Where I come from, when you run, you travel faster.”
            Queen-.”You must come from an awfully slow place. Here you need to run like mad, just to stay where you are.”–NB (((?))) banking system.
            Do as you are bidden. Identify (((their))) mainstream line and go along to get along- so this will likely end in a horrible end for your kids/ grand- kids- well what the! As long as you have an easy life- right!
            So you need to be a bit- like- controversial/ edgy-‘hey cool man ‘digi-rocky’ Cool Katz -nein?’.
            Well slide on over to the ‘Like’ (snap-snap) edgy- but safe- cool cats like ‘ gate guardians: (((noam Chomsky))) (((democracy now )))) (((Stuart)))) Alex Jones/ Paul Joseph Watson.
            Enjoy the safe life of the moral coward/ moral self-delusionist as a living nightmare to be passed on to the next generation who will have to face- and be destroyed by an even more toxic regime than that which your generation-like the previous, ignorant/ lazy/ cowardly generation of fuckwhits, through your and their, cowardice- in confronting reality and risking a degree of social isolation failed to face up to in your cringing efforts to appease the un appeasonable, true. Self declared: ‘Master Race’- Every last, ugly, psychopathic and dilusional one= the self-declared personification of god- how insane is that? Especially among those who disbelieve in god/ bible- but also claim to believe in a land given by a god- they don’t believe ever existed- to a people/race -‘Jews’- via ‘Race ‘/ genetics they also decry to Goy audiences, whilst lauding their supremacism to fellow tribals.
            Realise that the massively vast majority of your fellow people who will reject/ denounce, share your feelings, thoughts and genes- but they have been conditioned/ bred for generations to suppress their thoughts and words, in order to survive.

      3. This completely dodges the question. WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE PLANE?? If you don’t know the answer to this question then it in fact DOES refute your entire theory. You don’t have answer so you ignore it. These people and ALL OF THEIR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS DONT JUST DISAPPEAR. Did the government just erase them all of the grid? Paid everyone to never talk? They are all living in some remote island somewhere? I feel bad you waste your life with this garbage.

          1. Yeah Brittany! WTF?
            I just did on accident though. It was not my fault, it was the “autofill” that did it.

        1. There is good evidence to suggest that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. It wasn’t hit by a plane. If it was really a controlled demolition then the whole story is bullshit. Nobody knows what happened to a lot of missing people are but we often know what didn’t happen…

        2. Their plane disappeared off radar for 36 minutes. My guess, they were shot down over the Atlantic and then we were lied to and tole their plane hit the Pentagon.

        3. They were shot down over the atlantic! Duh! That’s where the real Boeing 757 met it’s demise. Along with the plane that supposedly vanished in Shanksville. Show me ANY other plane crash that didn’t leave even a LITTLE debris!?!?!?
          As for the people on board talking to their loved ones on the phone…..Have you ever flown? Can you honestly tell me other than where you took off from and where you landed, at any other time during your flight, did you know exactly where you were when you were flying at 30,000 feet?

          1. “They were shot down over the atlantic! Duh” – Stefan Ray
            That is an utterly asinine “theory”, if there was ever one…
            So, after years of careful planning of every little detail, from patsies all the way to its cover up, when it came down to getting rid of the planes, they figured “what the heck, we’ll just fly multiple passenger jets over the Atlantic, shoot them down within 30-40 minutes from the coast, and spread three or four planes’ worth of debris and identifiable parts all over one of the busiest ocean routes in the world… ”
            Whether you are sincere in your comment or you are here just to stir the pot and agitate, maybe you should think your “duh” over, eh?

          2. Unless you knew exactly where they shot down, where would you look? Have any idea how deep the Atlantic is? I am just putting two and two together. Hell, the KNEW where the Titanic went down and how long did it take to find it? I spent 20 years in the US Army. I spent a lot of time on deployments from 2001-2010 when I retired. I know the mentality of our military leaders in D.C.! I especially know how the CIA and DOD work. They look at numbers and intelligence. That’s all they care about. If they think sacrificing 3,000 will prevent the loss of 100,000, they don’t hesitate. They do not look at things from a moral standpoint like most do. It’s sad, but thats where we are in this day and age. I am not naive and I am not a conspiracy theorist. Like my job in the military, I assessed the situation, looked at the facts, looked at what wasn’t possible and what was possible. Keep things on the simplest level.
            At the simplest form….
            Q) Does it look like a plane hit the pentagon based on EVERY other plane crash site we have ever seen in our life?
            A) Absolutely not
            Q) If a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, where is said plane?
            A) It was either shot down OR it didn’t really exist. How hard is it to fake a manifest and a plane #?
            Q) Does the crash site in Shanksville look like EVERY other crash site we have ever seen?
            A) No it does not. What we have TWO alleged plane crash sites with not a single bit of plane debris.
            Q) Is having two plane crash sites without a single bit of debris on the same day during an alleged attack seem likely or probable?
            A) No way in hell.
            Q) After two planes have hit the world trade center buildings and we KNEW there was an attack going on, how on gods green earth were their no fighter jets scrambled to intercept the other two planes? HOW???
            Q) If NORAD could not manage to get planes in the air to intercept the other two planes, how is it that the FBI managed to get agents on the ground within minutes to confiscate every video tape that could possibly PROVE a plane hit the pentagon? And why would they want that footage hidden? We were allowed to see planes hitting the WTC’s, right? What is the harm in letting the American people see a plane hit the pentagon?? Why hide this?
            A) To cover up what REALLY hit the pentagon.
            Q) How likely is it that as big as the Pentagon is, the alleged terrorist happen to hit the least populated portion of the building as it was undergoing renovations?
            A) Not likely! It was a chosen point to keep down the minimal amount of casualties.
            If you were an investigator and really thought about it, you would conclude that there are just too many holes in the “Official” story to actually give it a shred of credibility.

          3. Your questions are valid, but somewhat elementary aspects of deconstructing the 9/11 puzzle. Keep on seeking the answers to them, a lot of which you can find on this very website.
            I just want to point out that your comments about there not being and debris in two of the crash sites is contradicting your own “shoot down over ocean” theory. Unless you are suggesting that the planes were sent to the bottom of the ocean in one piece with a giant concrete block tied to their landing gears, the debris, personal artifacts, pieces of clothing, cups, trays, paper, body parts would have been spread over at least a hundred mile radius . Would not have been a smart thing to do.

          4. My timeline might be off but at the point and time the plane disappeared from radar two fighter jets were dispatched over the Atlantic lol maybe Mr Ray is onto something or with his vast military experience knows something we don’t

          5. A very valid point ,the people that were “supposedly talking to their loved ones ,were very specific about where they were ,and that is just one smoking gun ,the second smoking gun was that signals on a cell phone at that time could hardly still work at a few thousand feet,the technology did not exist ,it was simply not true,the plane was flying to high ,its possible that the people that were supposedly speaking to their loved ones for the last time where not even on a plane at that time…if you think about their demise it makes you shudder that its possible that our own people executed them to enhance their story,but it certainly points to that,and as for the twin towers ,it is possible the biggest Government conspiracy in the history of the world”,and there have been a few”

        4. Duane, I’m afraid your logic is flawed. The evidence shows the plane could not have hit the pentagon. This is quite conclusive on its own. Just because we cannot prove what actually did happen to the plane does not detract from this conclusion.
          If I prove that 2 + 2 = 4. then that proof remains valid despite the fact that I haven’t yet proved that 3 + 3 = 6. The two are independant.

        5. Any of the above? I can ask you the same question. No one knows where the alleged people on that plane are, so you’re just going to ignore all the rest of the physical evidence that tells us it could not possibly have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Keep drinking the Kool Aid

      4. I have and our team is now re-opening the issue with American Airlines Flight 77 Passengers. according to the crash photos, and videos, there was never any body bags used at the crash. Every time we try to research the victims, we run into what the pentagon has posted, and most of the information about these people is limited, as well as political views.
        We put together two videos the first one is called ” Hypocrisy On All Fronts: 9/11 BTU Rate Of 86 Million”
        because of the fact of the temperatures created from jet fuel igniting at around 3000-f. It is clear from the video and the structural damage, that no jet fuel ignited on impact.
        The second video is called, ” American Airlines Flight 77- Pentagon Video Debunked ”
        We found a photo of a airliner that flew over the pentagon, moments before the explosion took place. A eye witness stated the ufo airliner looked like a jet drone. So we wanted to see if this Government created any such Bunker Buster Missiles, and we did find the image, which I should state took us 2 days to find.
        But I have not seen one thing that helps to find the insider truth about the passengers.

        1. A in depth investigation, 9/11- American Airlines Flight 77- Pentagon Video Debunked, I took and downloaded the video, and slowed down the video to 23.33 % slow motion,” it changed the clips formatted the time stamp to 26 minutes of slow motion.
          Using enhancements the object on the last clip, the nose, is not a round nose Boeing Air Liner. The ufo object has a cone shaped nose. And the object is traveling at ….best guess over 900 miles per hour, or the official clip has been altered.
          Time Stamp of the event and 1 hour passed and NORAD did nothing ?
          8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked when hijackers Waleed and Wail al-Shehri
          8:25: Boston Center flight controllers alert other flight control centers regarding Flight 11. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is not yet alerted.
          8:37:52: Boston Center control notifies NEADS of the hijacking of Flight 11, the first notification received by NORAD that Flight 11 had been hijacked. The controller requests military help to intercept the jetliner.
          The hijackers crashed the aircraft into the western side of the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m.
          NORAD did nothing at all ?

          1. “And the object is traveling at ….best guess over 900 miles per hour”
            Better recheck your math there buddy…your estimation is way off considering the video is recording at 1 frame per second.

          2. 1 fps.. on a Pentagon Camera? Do go on… I install DVR’s and their frame rate at that time was 100fps for a good unit over 16 cams. 100/16 is around 6fps. So Draco…

      5. I just finished watching United States of Secrets on Netflix. It’s a PBS Frontline show on the Surveillance program that Snowden leaked. There is footage early on as Gen. Hayden is describing what happened that day and there is a frame (or less), it was very quick, that shows a body fuselage of something white. I’ve tried my best to pause it and look but not with any success. Anybody know if it’s been looked at thoroughly? seems very low to the ground.
        Gee wonder if my post is being scrutinized through a server in NSA 🙂

          1. You have posted this phony piece of crap before Wright. You have zero credibility here.

          2. we are showing evidence to you and because its to true and right in front of your face and you know its wrong your disagreeing to the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon. we understand there are many different ways as it can be proved that an AA 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon but what no one her understands is that not every time a plane crashes every things going to fall into place about it. As you all are saying the wings did not leave a mark but think about this the planes most structural part is were the passengers sit or the cockpit. so the nose of the plane hits the Pentagon first which would end up entering the building. now the wings of the plane which have the engines attached to them hit the building. no think here a plane traveling some 500 mph the engines would explode upon impact causing of course fire which could in fact be the reason why the engines couldn’t be found and why the plane wasn’t either it most likely was blown to bits and pieces. I being a worker in the was there when the plane flew into the building i was going into work that very day when with my own eyes (I know your just going to call it bullshit just because) in fact saw an AA 757 fly into the Pentagon had had taken a video of it on my phone when i saw how low the plane was. my phone was confiscated by I don’t know who or why but i can definitely tell you it was a plane that flew into the Pentagon on 9/11

          3. Yea Sivgard sure you were there and your phone with a video of the plane just conveniently got confiscated…grin.
            Yes we can prove that not only did American Airlines Flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and neither did any other plane hit the Pentagon. The damage path is not congruent with the path of the plane known to have approached north of the Citgo station.
            This fact has been established conclusively by CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and this very site you are squatting on now.

          4. The video evidence is very clear: the plane hitting the Pentagon is clear, the intense fire ball is very clear you are just one of those individuals that watches too many films! Too much time on your hands!

          5. Duncan,
            If you have a substantive argument beyond these simple assertions, you are welcome to make it here.

          6. Really? In 2001 you took a video with your phone? That’s funny because video taking technology for phones wasn’t even available until 2007. So what phone were you using Mr. Liar? Care to retract your statement?

          7. Stefan Ray said:
            “Really? In 2001 you took a video with your phone? That’s funny because video taking technology for phones wasn’t even available until 2007. So what phone were you using Mr. Liar? Care to retract your statement?”
            Don’t you just hate embarrassing moments like this, Sigvard? 😉

          8. I’m calling a 1000 lbs of bullshit on this. A full blown 757 flies by you at nearly 500 mph and you have time to pull your phone out open it switch to video camera and record it. Remember we’re talking 2001 here.

          9. If I let out a fart next to a desk with books upon it, both the desks and the books would flee. Somehow that combo preferred the pentagon explosion to mine.

          10. Clearly there is something there — an object with a fuselage that may be painted in something very like American Airlines livery and with smoke trailing. I always focused on the smoke before, and missed what thisvideo points out. So having the killer object (plane or missile) here and leaving the white smoke behind is as does the object in the camera 1 video. The camera one object was too short to be Flight 77. What about this one? Go to time 1:27 on this video and see the length of the flying object as it has been pointed out. Could that object possibly be more than twice as long as the Pentagon is high. (Boeing 757 155 ft. long, Pengaon 72 feet tall) Once again we see that the object, although in something like American AIrlines livery and roughly shaped like a plan — it is too short for Flight 77. AND THE FISHE-EYE LENS ARGUMENT DOESN’T WORK BECAUSE THE FISH-EYE DISTORTION IS NOT THAT GREAT — Notice who little the roof of the Penagon is curved. And more important compare the buildings making the skyline near where the flying object is visible and compare with the way those buildings look in photos taken with non-distorting lenses later in the day — those buildings are not greatly squeezed horizontally. It was rather deceptive to start the video with a fish eye lens with large distortion — when the security camera fish-eye was far less distorting. I say the pictures examined in this video support the thesis that the killer object left a smoke trail, had American airlines livery, and was less than half the length of a Boeing 757.

      6. So you are saying that asking what happened to the plane basically doesn’t leave people open to other interpretations of the story? Any person with even the slightest bit of analytical ability will immediately look for discrepancies in the story in an attempt to find the truth. If we were told a plane hit the building and there is no debris the first thing a competent person would do is ask the question Mike asked. There is no “problem” with asking such a question as you suggest. I think what you really should have said is that people who ask that question don’t believe YOUR point of view so that is a problem for YOU. That is fine but your dialog makes it sound like any person who is seeking the truth automatically believes the official story. This is simply not true and irresponsible to state. It sounds like the type of rhetoric conspiracy theorists commonly use.

      7. They can’t answer that because the crew and passengers lost their lives that day when it hit the building.

          1. American Airlines has verified this – they are not the government.
            And then of course all the victims that saw a 757 in AA colors approach the Pentagon fast and low, many saying it crashed – vs. absolutely no one at all who saw that plane escape a crash.
            And then of course all the plane debris that you, Craig, have yourseöf seen so often, but hand-wave by invoking a claim of “it was all planted down to the very last piece” that has precisely zero evidence going for it – zero witnesses, zero photos, zero explanation for how, when and by whom that was done – i.e. zero theory.

        1. Family “survivors” were paid a million dollars each, just as were WTC families. I have corresponded with other family who were not paid 1 million who were shut out of the event by family members (like spouces) who were paid. When the CIA wants to move an agent and give him or her a new identity they stage the death of that agent so the new identity can be established. We know that the CIA has agents in American mass media. We know that Barbara Olsen was a media personality who concentrated on criticizing First Lady Hillary Rodam Clinton and with Hillary no longer in the White House Barbara’s assignment was over. Barbara Olsen was married to Ted Olsen — Ted Olsen tells of receiving two phone calls from Barbara Olsen from Flight 77, which A.K. Dewdney and others determined was impossible. By the way, the no-plane-hit-the_WTC-twin-towers deception involved Morgan Reynolds who was at the White House with Ted Olsen and Karl Rove. So very likely Barbara Olsen was an agent and was given a new identity. Google images for Barbara Olsen and you will see pictures of Olsen next to Lady Booth (Lady is her first name) who is now Ted Olsen’s wife. The similarity between these two women lawyers has been noted. Take also Ann Judge who worked for National Geographic and was in charge of finding accomodations for National Geographic writers and photographers around the world. The National Geographic,located in Washington DC, is a perfect cover for CIA agents moving throughout the world. Ann Judge with her position would likely be an agent. Flight 77 took off from Dulles International where Israeli agents with illegal passes to anywhere in the airport — tower, hangers, tickets, baggage — were working. Those people could have managed the ticketing so that only agents were aboard — but that is not the only option. We are dealing with organized crime (criminal conspiracy) with no regard for life and with a mind for profit. Passengers, especially children aboard, could go to child sex slavers or their body parts to the black market in human organs. Agents or victims, if they were aboard the Boeing that flew over the Pentagon, that plane likely landed at Reagan National in the Potomac Basin one mile from the crash event on the Pentagon west wall, it then could have taxied to a hanger where it got the “chop shop” treatment. Reagan National was the last airport in the US to open. Israeli agents with illegal top security were found there too, and were deported to Israel by then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, later the first Secretary of the US Dept of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. As for forensics — that is what organized crime first wants control of when it takes over a city or state. There are no pictures of airline baggage or airliner passenger seats in any NIST photos that have been shown to the public. The burned dead shown are Pentagon employees. Wars costing trillions (and earning trillions) were at stake in the 9-11 false flag, as was an end to the Taliban in Afghanistan who were eradicating opium in that land before the US — siding with the “Northern Alliance” drug lords” — went to war with the Taliban, despite Taliban leader Mohammed Omar having sent condolences to the US over 9-11 and despite Mohammed Omar’s willingness to extradite Osama bin Laden if the United States would simply show evidence establishing sufficient cause for suspecting bin Laden. The Afghanistan opium being the primary ingredient of Chinese opium selling for over a trillion dollars annually in Europe and elsewhere. Not only that the Project for a New American Century — led by people who were at the Pentagon and working out of Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz’s office — Perle, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and several other “Neo-cons” who wanted a “New Pearl Harbor” — and of course Donald Rumsfeld was on the opposite side of the Pentagon when the “event” took palce, the event which killed Pentagon auditors and top members of the Office of Naval Intelligence, which had been an independent rival of the CIA in US intelligence — they were wiped out as were their computers etc. There is also the falsehood testimony of T Carter the Stewardess who normally flew of Flight 77 — a flight were a CIA agent would be very convenient for intelligence gathering on people coming back and forth from LA to Washington DC — at any rate he story, pushed by son of CIA “conspiracy theoriest” John Judge — gave a demonstrably false story about what she did and saw — serving doughnuts and coffee at the Pentagon — she having been a friend with John Judge and both involved in investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (as was james Fetzer — one of the backers of the bogus no-planes-hit-the-WTC -twin-towers disinformation that helped obstructing justice by bogging down those with the real evidence and the conclusions the real evidence supports, bogging them down in arguing about whether planes hit the WTC –which of course they did. In short the passenger list does not prove that anyone on that list died at the Pentagon.

      8. Richard. Just realised after posting this. I was imagining eau de cologne as a liquid- in a bottle. When it seems it’s usually applied via spray. Given a slight oxygen leak, and oxi rich cabin. Then lighting a ciggie would be dramatic and instantaneous.
        From xxxxxxx
        Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 4:35 PM
        To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Egyptair 804
        To my mind, it’s clearly looking like the latest Egyptair crash was an accident and not the result of terrorism, or another false flag event.
        Which will make a nice change!
        New plausible theory re Egypt air crash: eau de cologne + pilot’s oxygen + Muslim ablutionary practice.
        Since (I ask)-as far as I know reaction of alcohol (eau de) with oxygen is not an hypergolic one? Would therefore require a source of ignition? Were either of the crew smokers?
        Also- revelation that airbus main control computer of this FBW controlled system- situated below toilet and has no fire suppressing device. I would feel safer were it operating in an inert gas enclosure. (My idea)
        Likewise. Would question the need to carry oxygen at all. Since compressed air (mixture) could be accommodated- given some reduction in passenger/ cargo capacity.
        Also. Since consequence of a cabin (‘cockpit’) fire is so potentially disastrous, and also difficult to extinguish in flight. Then would seem prudent to contrive systems to rapidly prevent (see above suggestion) and extinguish fire in this area. Such as inert gas flooding, etc?
        On the pprune site is a photograph of a very, very nasty-clearly oxygen enhanced aircraft fire incident.
        Comment: It’s going to really task the lying/ warmongering, powers that shouldn’t be to blame this on Iran/ the Russians/ Anti-Semites. But I’m sure they are up to the task, with some 2k years+ practice in the art of biglying.
        Kind regards

      9. One of the listed flight 77 passengers was Ann Judge who worked for National Geographic. Her job was to find places for National Geographic writers and photographers around the world. The National Geographic, headquartered in Washington D C provides perfect cover for CIA agents — giving them an excuse for being in other countries. The by itself only means that Ann Judge might have been a CIA agent. Now consider this — when the CIA has had agents on undercover assignment and the assignment is completed, they sometimes stage a fake death to explain the disappearance of the agent withdrawn to another assignment. Many of those on Flight 77 were people with skills that would have been helpful exactly with such a false flag operation as we are dealing with. I had a sister of one of the Flight 77 victims who told me that the wife of the “victim” behaved very strangely during the funeral, not wanting the sister to come to the funeral etc. But who knows. My view is that the passengers were fake identities — but if I am wrong and there were passengers that got on the plane and that the false-flag operation required them to be eliminated — they could very easily have been removed from the planes while the planes were lost to air traffic controllers — we are not sure that the planes involved were not switched, replaced by other planes. Remember, this is a mass murder frame-up, the most ruthless organized crime — and likely Jewish planners involved. Israel is a mecca for sex slavery and black market organ harvesting — raising orphans in Guatemala for organ harvesting for the thriving organ transplanting for which Israel is famous. A plane load of passengers one way or another could be worth millions to organized crime in these fields of crime. It is possible that the plane did contain passengers and that when it overflew the Pentagon it landed at Reagan National, exactly one mile from the crash, taxied to a hanger, where the plane was given the “chop shop” treatment and the passengers bused off. Reagan National was the last airport to be reopened after the attack — (while it was Dulles International from which Flight 77 took off. And remember the 87 Israelis with illegal top secret security clearances at both Dulles and Reagan — they were deported by Ashcroft with no one ever reporting what they were doing, how long there were there, or why the government didn’t keep them — we of course know the answer to that.

      10. I couldn’t have said it better, first things first. Of course just proving that 911 was an inside job with the help of Mossad and backed by AIPAC would be an earth shattering find- then we would have to dismantle the WHOLE of the USA’s political system and jail 99% of congress, FED, FBI, WALL ST., MSM, HOLLYWOOD. I could go on. Would there be enough honest people not involved in this conspiracy to carry out the mass arrests,detentions both in the USA and abroad, both in the armed forces and police departments(thank god for FEMA) ha ha. All the best, the world knows the truth, Israel did 911 but AIPAC’s got the USA by the balls and just laughs in your face. What you gonna do about it punk. Sad, I used to look up to the US of America….just a kiwis view.

      11. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon how did all that 757 wreckage get inside the building, including engines, landing gear, fuselage and passenger bodies? If you google “757 Pentagon wreckage” you will get links to hundreds of photographs of the wreckage. The black box was also found in the debris.Does this tell you that a 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon? Are you going to tell me all the photos were faked and the bodies were not real?

      12. People DIED who were on the plane. A national newscaster who used to spar with Reiley on FOX was on that plane and communicated with her husband during the descent.

      13. Better late than never. If our elected officials can lie to us at ALL, even one time, (let alone attack), one must assume the lives of the passengers were peanuts compared to the lives of the federal employees? You doubt they were disposed of? And if ONE load of passengers can be disposed of, why not all?

        1. There were conflicting witness statements. Each one has to be examined in terms of who is making the statement, what they say they saw, and what they were in a position to see. Some of the most credible witnesses described a flight path to the north of the Citgo gas station, which is incompatible with the damage path.

        1. 100 people saw the woman sawn in half… the skeptics are imbeciles.
          The plane flew over the Pentagon just before the explosion(s), so it LOOKED like the plane crashed into the building.
          Even some, or most of the witnesses who saw the plane fly North of the Citgo gas station thought the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
          But it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane flying North of the Citgo gas station to hit the light poles, generator trailer and do the directional damage to the Pentagon.
          Ergo: The plane flew over the Pentagon.

      14. Not enough people questioned that’s why they left it as is I believe the government shot a missile and then took all the cameras surrounding it and destroyed them

      15. I agree that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon because when it crashed it left a circular shaped hole. But when the other planes crashed into the Twin towers you could see the shape of the plane /wings.

      16. Don’t forget that on 9/11, CNN Pentagon reporter Jamie McIntyre, stood outside the Pentagon and reported “it looks as if some kind of missle has hit the Pentagon.” Not one mention of a large aircraft!

      17. The question “what happened to the passengers and crew?” should be combined with “why the hijackers names did not appear on any 9/11 passenger lists?”.
        BTW, has anyone traced the families of Flight 77 victims and their lifestyle today?
        That, because it is well known that important witnesses are routinely put under protection with changed identities and fat accounts…

        1. Not sure what you mean by the two questions should be combined. We don’t know what happened to the passengers but we do know that there is no proof any alleged hijackers boarded any planes.

      18. “I’m really glad you asked that question, Mike. ”
        “I don’t actually have any answer to this question, and can’t come up with a plausible invention, so instead I’m going to spout a lot of bullshit and hope that you’ll miss that I didn’t answer.”

        1. Maybe you come up with “plausible inventions” when you don’t know the answer to a question, but I prefer to say that I don’t know. But I add, quite reasonably, that it is not necessary for me to know. We know 9/11 was an inside job whether or not we know what happened to Flight 77. We know it didn’t hit that Pentagon, and that’s enough to show the official story false.

          1. “But I add, quite reasonably, that it is not necessary for me to know.”
            Which translates into “I can’t actually come up with an answer that will pass muster.”
            “We know 9/11 was an inside job whether or not we know what happened to Flight 77. We know it didn’t hit that Pentagon, and that’s enough to show the official story false.”
            Sure. Much like people “knew” that the earth was flat, or that the entire universe rotated around it. But, amazingly, what you “know” is entirely worthless, if you can’t prove it. And what do you know, you can’t prove it…because it’s complete and utter bullshit with not one shred of proof, evidence, factual content or connection to reality.

      1. Why did you post this link? It is clearly faked, and this has been confirmed over and over. On top of that the image is flipped so that it appears that the “missile” hits on something approaching the official flight path. You need to acknowledge that this is bogus.

    2. You do make some valid points. At the very least you were not talking out of your ass like some people about this tragic day. There was a book written called Firefight? Have you read it? So what happened to the plane and the people if it did not hit the building? I have wondered about this since it happened. If it is some kind of government cover up then we the general population will never know the truth. JFK was killed 50 years ago and we don’t know who really did it. It was not Oswald acting on his own. He wasn’t that good.

    3. / could place transponders inside the building precisely where you want the missiles to impact,& therefore increase the probability of impact to nearly 100%..why on Gods green earth would you take a chance with even seasoned pilots? THAT in & of itself, explains why no AF jets were scrambled/sent up to follow these supposed jets or blow them up..THERE WEREN”T ANY TO TRACK or fire upon! duh! I’ve seen the CBS footage where the correspondents were watching the towers,but nary a word was uttered until the missiles impacted the 2nd tower! if passengers did indeed board jets,they could have been flown to Cleveland & murdered, as the Cleveland airport WAS EMPTIED OUT ON 9-11..the perfect place to exterminate the passengers..those 4 planes were ALL shown to all still be in service AFTER 9-11! the comment was cut in half by Google..getting to close to the truth i guess..

      1. Exactly. There is just too many issues that occur in the official story. We all can see that this wasn’t a plane…it was a missile of some kind.
        On 9/10, Rumsfeld admitted to the U.S. Govt losing $2.3 trillion dollars. Stockbrokers took shares out on two airlines on 9/10…United and American airlines. Larry Silverstein took a lease out on the WTC buildings in the summer of 2001 and miraculously wasn’t in the building of 9/11. He was quick to claim his $6bn payout for the insurance though!
        With $2.3 trillion “missing”, it is easy for a govt to conspire, plan and cover up something of this magnitude. Interestingly, where this missile struck the Pentagon was where all of the accountants were working as regards the missing money.
        WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition…that building contained secret service, CIA, DOD etc.
        Whether the twin towers were brought down, I don’t know but there were sightings of molten steel weeks after the twin towers had collapsed. Here’s what I find interesting, if those planes were remote controlled in to those twin towers, they could have been loaded with any number or type of explosives.

        1. Besides the towers being outdated money pits as well as health hazards research some of the financial institutions (euro brokers), insurance companies, etc that were housed there and who the were tied to and the potential scandals that were unfolding. Also research the floors that the offices were located on and cross reference that with the floors the planes hit and that should remove any doubt about whether wtc 1 and 2 were brought intentionally are not

    4. Why is the sky blue…the point is not to speculate but use verifiable facts (height of the plane) to come to certain absolute conclusions about the event…he’s presented you with clear facts, e.g., the original (before it collapsed) top of the hole was a little over 16ft and the 757-200 is almost 45ft high, reporter from abc who was first on the scene stating he didn’t see one piece of a plane in the area of the Pentagon…Logic professors would tell you that you at least know a 757-200 didn’t hit the building, and move forward on that premise

    5. Has it ever occurred to anyone that ALL the flights aside from Flight 93 were made up? Who’s to say they even really existed? I think 93 was real and had to happen to make the other flights seem real as well.

    6. Obviously a 757 never hit the Pentagon. My theory is friendly fire on that chaotic day. Americans will understand that. Our country was under attack. What is making me crazy is the people that actually believe a huge jumbo jet crashed into the most secure building in the world, without leaving a trace, disappearing entirely, no bodies or luggage, making a tiny hole in the Pentagon, and having an ever changing manifest that consisted of mostly government officials.
      Why doesn’t that make people pissed?! Don’t you want to know?!
      I found lots of family members of flight 77 passengers. You wouldn’t believe what I found out!!!

    7. I was curious if there was further exploration into the Taxi driver, as to how he was contacted to be a prop, who he worked with, etc? If not, why wasn’t that explored with him? The taxi driver also said that his wife worked for the FBI Were those statements also confirmed? I’m also assuming they aren’t married any longer or the interview would have never happened under the spouse of an FBI employee or contractor. The information and how he was contacted and who he worked with to be a prop seems more relevant to me than the inaccuracies of his account of what happened.

    8. Your a moron get a life I lost friends and you’re insulating there deaths you’re no better than the cowards that crashed the plain keep your idiotic ideas to yourself and stay off the internet.

      1. Now, that’s no way to convince someone of your point of view, mate. Polite civility takes you a ways; reasonable argument takes you further.
        Not that I’ve gotten terribly far myself, mind, but at least it’s a start.

    9. I’m still stunned at one thing? out of all 4 crashes by bigass jumbo jets where are the engines. I bought the 9/11 lie long enough..we want answers….some pieces of planes they found COULDN’T have been off a jumbo 767…..I’d like to know we’re at least the bones out of the 58 or so people plus the crew? Still wondering in Gaffney South Carolina

    10. Also what happened to the plane many witnesses saw flying in very low towards the pentagon, Did it magically disappear with all its crew ?

      1. No, it did not magically disappear. That would be ridiculous.
        It would be safe to assume that it landed at Ronald Reagan Airport.

    11. I think I’ve got one answer. If one reason’s like the ziocon perps did that planned it, it works out this way:
      The Pentagon hit was a side issue from the NY attack. It absolutely had to look like a side-on/ low level attack, since: Two things. 1. To destroy just that section where investigators were trying to unravel one of the ziomobsters $heist.
      2. Whilst the most effectively destructive way to attack the building- especially for (we are told) unskilled pilots to achieve, would obviously, have been to simply dive on the centre of the building from a higher altitude and a steeper angle of attack.
      Unaccountably, this was not attempted, and (so we are told) these unskilled, wielders of the box-cutter, plumped for a most difficult strategy, that chose to hit the most strongly reinforced part, instead of aiming for the least protected area- the roof.
      Well, the results of a near vertical dive crash, would have been impossible to fake, like they did at the twin towers. Requiring access to all the Pentagon buildings for Jewish- Israeli explosive experts ‘performing arts students’ for months before, to ‘artistically’ plant the smaller charges that would outline, in ‘road runner’ cartoon form (but in the vertical plane this time) the desired airliner shape. And so, to convince the simple, ever credulous ‘Goyische kopf’ mind that an actual airliner had hit- and alone caused the massively overblown wreckage at WTC 1-3+ that only 130 tonnes of strategically placed, high grade explosive, was capable of.
      On the other hand, a much simpler solution being that during the alleged, reinforcing of the building, charges were placed in the walls to simulate an kamikaze airliner attack, from the side.
      The aim, after all was simply to destroy the fraud investigation and get the Jewish ‘Oded Yinon’ plan started to wreck and permanently destabilise the ME- as we see, has been achieved perfectly -Afghan (CIA drugs) Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen- and lots more lovely wars to come for the Jewish empire. see Wesley Clark etc.
      Well, that’s my ten pennyworth of marshmallows onto the fire for now.

    12. The real question is “what are you going to do about it?” The only power the people have is the vote. Get out there and vote for a dove, not a hawk!

    13. I’ve been looking for proof the plane took off, looking for proof passengers loaded. Chris Emery (A Noble Lie) tells us 1/2 the passengers of UAL 93 were listed as ‘dead’ on the Soc. Sec. index 1 yr. before 9/11. I think AA 77 and the passengers were myth. A drone hit the bldg.

      1. marvinsannes said:
        “A drone hit the bldg.”
        Nothing “hit” the Pentagon.
        The damage had to have been caused by pre-planted explosives because the columns were blown up and outward.
        No credible witnesses who were interviewed on location, on camera, reported seeing a drone(unless by “drone” you mean a remote-controlled commercial aircraft).
        Read Citizen Investigation Team(CIT)’s website:
        …..and watch their video:

    14. Where is Flight 77? It was sitting on a tarmac right next to Flight 370 right before it got cut up for scrap. The passengers? They are in a mass-grave somewhere near that same tarmac. What country? Uhhhhh. Could be any of them.

    15. I dont see that brick pattern on the photo of the Pentagon that I see on the punched hole photo ??? I do not think its the same building at all.

    16. Flight 77 or the “plane” that supposedly hit the Pentagon, was non-existent, i.e. it was not a plane. It may have been a missile, but how come there are no Eye-Witnesses describing the otherwise awe striking view of an airliner coming in so low and hot to crash into Pentagon ? And NO pictures, i.e. video by any one anywhere. And there was Little or NO wreckage. It is reminiscent of the “Flight 93” “Crash Site” in PA.. ALL of Those “passengers” were relocated like a witsec op.. They won’t complain, they have better lives and are under threat to keep silence, OR are dead, And I need NO PROOF of that. The Saudis may have had to pay for all the mess, but it was the US Govt ( Bush, Clinton, ETC. ) along with the Deep State and Intel Community that conspired to pull off this huge Red Flag Op..

  1. Craig says: “There was a small piece of fuselage but this was big enough that one person could pick it up.” Please take a look at the animation below and look at the photos towards the end. Now, you could argue that the pics could be from any source as this is a You Tube video. And yes, what about any trace of impact from the wings to the walls of the building on either side of the crater? That’s a good one. Let me investigate further for my own edification.

    1. A well-made simulation that is basically an illustrated version of the official version. It leaves huge questions still unanswered, however. The video shows the wings “blending” into the building, but it doesn’t explain how that could happen with virtually no damage resulting from where the wings would have hit. And we’re to believe that the entire wing would disappear into the building? There would be this incredible impact at 530 miles per hour and almost no wreckage outside? We also know that walls were only damaged as far in as the C ring (middle ring), but there were deaths two rings further in. Please explain how that could happen. And according to aviation experts I’ve heard interviewed, it’s not even possible for a plane to fly that fast just a few feet above the ground because of a phenomenon called Ground Effect.
      There are numerous other anomalies that I’ve already covered in past posts. But let’s boil it down to one big question: We know the FBI has some 80 videos that show the impact of the plane. Why don’t they release one that shows what really happened? If it’s a 757, they could have ended the controversy years ago.

      1. Because if a terrorist wants to do the same thing again, they can use the video to help them plan and execte the flight, this is one very obvious reason why the FBI wouldn’t release video that shows the crash clearly. If you looked so deeply into this, you should have noticed that immediatly.

        1. The would be copy-cat ‘terrorist” would also have learn how to have the USAF and NORAD and the local Civil and Air Defenses of the Pentagon and Washington, DC stand down too. I’m sure every one of the 80 videos the FBI is keeping in secret would reveal how that enabling inactive ‘stand down’ trick was easily accomplished.

          1. Contrary to what many believe, security at the Pentagon mostly consists of security personnel physically patrolling the grounds. Video surveillance doesn’t face outward seeking inbound hijacked jet liners (nor cruise missiles, for that matter). The only reason there’s even one capture of the plane is that guard station had a fish eye lens to widen the field of view – hence the distorted perspective. All 80 tapes were subpoenaed through the Freedom of information act , but just two showed anything at all of the plane coming in. One we all know well, and the other which I believe came from the Sheraton hotel, shows a partial glimpse of the approach – of negligible value at best. There’s no great mystery. But since conspiracy obsessionists can’t grapple with real world complications of releasing proprietary information to the public, they assume there’s a smoking gun.

          2. I personally am interested in hearing everyones perspective including yours Robbes. However, it is fact that Dick Cheney and George Bush pushed to have this case “not” investigated, and were successful in doing so for over a year. Cheney called Senator Tom Daschle numerous times to not investigate this case, which was a subject of discussion on “meet the press” one fine Sunday. Even then the commission wasnt given the resources they needed, and were blocked at many turns. They allocated 14 million to the 9/11 commission, and a 100 million to Bill Clinton’s BJ investigation. Think about that for a minute. Cheney did tell Norad to stand down, and apparently put himself in that position months prior. I have seen plenty of pictures of plane wreckages and never a wreckage with one that was supposedly hit by a plane but didn’t have any wreckage of that plane. The plane evaporating is not believable from even my lay person perspective. It makes no sense. And like the editor said if it supposedly hit the ground first, and there was no damage to the ground that is even more incredulous. Aside from that, thousands heard explosions around the towers, and mossad agents were arrested by the FBI. IF you dig deep enough into this there is no way you can draw a conclusion that Bin Laden pulled this off on his own. I am no conspiracy theorist but calling people “conspiracy obsessionists” is a real discredit to the numerous facts people have put forward on this issue. It isn’t just the pentagon, it is everything surrounding it including the towers that leaves much to speculation… I have a hard time believing that one of the most secure buildings in the world (pentagon) doesn’t have extensive surveillance. That is a tough pill to swallow.

          3. Thank you for your reply, DK. I’m sorry for the delay in responding, but I’m happy to further discuss 9/11 with you. Let me say, at the outset, that my views on 9/11 coincide closely with those of Noam Chomsky. As an intellectual giant and political dissident, he’s greatly admired by the political left, many of whom were puzzled when he solidly rejected 9/11 denialism (the Truth Movement). He hotly contests the rational behind the belief that 9/11 was an “inside job”, and calls to question the flimsy science that is cited in support of such claims. Despite his Jewish lineage, he is a strident critic of Israel in its capacity of oppressing Palestinians, AND his opposition to the Bush presidency is constant and replete. My own rejection of 9/11 denialism is, like Noam’s, in NO WAY an endorsement of Bush and his war on terror. I am sickened by what the U.S did in Iraq, and I think George Bush was the WORST President in U.S. history – easily the most intellectually challenged of any U.S. President I’m aware of.
            So, the question really comes down to one of two mutually exclusive understandings of George W. Bush: 1.) Is he a clever and driven Machiavellian, masquerading as a buffoon, presiding over the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans by destroying the iconic World Trade Center complex and a large section of the Pentagon in an elaborate staged event of commercial airplanes crashing – all in order to give Haliburton, on whose Board Cheney and Rice served, a couple of lucrative contracts in the Middle East… (?)
            – OR –
            2.) Is Bush actually the buffoon he appears to be, who looked like a deer caught in the headlights while listening to an elementary school student read a riveting story about their pet goat, who believes Creationism is a science, who lowers taxes several times while pursuing two incredibly costly wars with no real end in sight, makes embarrassing gaffs like, “I think we need a Regime change [in Iraq]”, excoriates Iran while simultaneously expanding their sphere of influence by putting the majority Shiites in Iraq in control of that country, which unleashes a violent civil war in Iraq which hasn’t ended – even to this day – which, in turn, destabilizes Syria, Egypt, Libya…giving Al Queda a presence where they hadn’t one before… (?)
            Some of the things you touched on in your comment are well-worn, easily dismissed 9/11 Truth talking points such as:
            (“)Cheney was put in charge of NORAD and he ordered a stand down(“) – [This simply isn’t so…I defy you to show, even superficially, that this happened. There had been Intelligence indicating plans to hijack and crash commercial jets – but no actions had been taken to stymie a threat like this, largely because a barrage of Intelligence must be sifted through, constantly (usually not stamped with specific time and place), AND, the administration was occupied with taking out Saddam and Iran. Their main focus wasn’t on the threat that Al Queda posed, and it should have been. This was a huge and costly mistake by the Bush administration, and I believe that is what accounts for the administration’s attempts to block a 9/11 commission, Rice’s insistence on NOT being under oath when she testified before Congress, etc. I say this definitively: the Vice President was not, nor has EVER been “in charge” of NORAD, which is a relic of the Cold War and is under the command of the Air Force. Nor is the function of NORAD to chase down commercial flights who lose radio contact with Air Traffic Control in the vast areas in between large urban population centers, which happens all the time. NORAD was designed to protect the North American continent from a large scale Soviet attack by air. I grew up during the Cold War, and this threat was taken very seriously. It is no longer.]
            This comment is already WAY too long. But, as an aside, let me just say, I personally couldn’t care less if Cheney DID order a stand down. However, I do care greatly about the record being straight. Either he did, or he didn’t. You implied in your comment that if I were to dig more deeply into 9/11, that I would reach a similar conclusion as yourself. To that I respond that your research appears to me to be at the depth a squirrel would bury a nut. You have yet to reach water, let alone oil and gold. My challenge to you is take one of the 9/11 Truth talking points that is clearly not corroborated by corporate news media, and look for information that refutes that claim and see what you find. Again, I sincerely apologize for the lagging response, because I found your approach to be congenial and constructive, and your points about the Bush administration trying to block or keep a lid on 9/11 related information reaching the public is largely true, something I hadn’t looked into very far. I will respond to the other points you made in your comment in a separate and shorter reply.

          4. robbes7rh,
            My advice to you is to actually investigate what really happened at the Pentagon, which has been addressed in great depth on this site.
            Go to the following URL, which goes into the detail I just mentioned. Once there follow the links offered that refer back to the pages from this site [T&S].
            Unless you wish to continue making comments emitting from the seat of your trousers, you will learn the counter arguments to the “governments” absurd narrative of 9/11:

          5. Chomsky’s position on 9/11 can be found in “Perilous Power” (Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar)
            Book referred to here.
            I’m deluged with stuff about this. I don’t read a lot of it, because I generally don’t think it’s worth looking at. But I’ve looked at some of it, just out of curiosity, and it seems to me that those who make such claims just do not understand the nature of evidence. After all, why do scientists do experiments? Why not just take videotapes of what’s happening outside? Things that are going on in the phenomenal world are just too complicated to study. You’re not going to get sharp results from studying them; you’re going to get all kinds of confusion, strange things happening you can’t understand, and so on. So what you do are controlled experiments. But even in carefully controlled experiments, there are all sorts of anomalies – unexplained coincidences, apparent contradictions, and so forth. If you read the letters column of a technical scientific journal, such as Science, the letters consist very substantially of people raising points like this about carefully controlled experiments, talking about this coincidence that you didn’t notice, or this went wrong and you didn’t notice. When you try to do the same thing for real-world phenomena, when you try to apply those standards to it, yes, you’re going to find all sorts of odd things. With the kind of evidence that is being used, you could prove that the White House was bombed yesterday.
            Plus there is the style of the presentation of the evidence. People who know nothing about civil engineering, except what they picked up on the Internet somewhere, are giving learned treatises on what must have happened: How could a building do this, that, and the other thing? These are not trivial matters. You can’t just look up on the Internet and say, “I’m an accomplished civil engineer.” So those who make such claims just don’t understand the nature of evidence.
            The second point is that the idea that the Bush administration would undertake something like this is almost beyond comprehension. First of all, it was very unclear what was going to happen – you could not predict the outcome. In fact, notice what happened when one of the airplanes was stopped in Pennsylvania: Suppose that had happened to all of them? Anything could have happened. So you’re carrying out a very chancy operation. A lot of people would have been involved in the planning. There are almost certain to be leaks. If there was any leak at all, they’d all be lined up in front of firing squad with a trial, and that would be the end of the Republican Party forever. To gain what? Well, there’s the “who gains” argument; but that, too, is meaningless. Every power system in the world gained from 9/11. You could prove that the Chinese did it, because it gave them an opportunity to crush the Uighurs in western China. In the first interview I gave after 9/11, a couple of hours afterward, one of the first things I said was that every power system in the world is going to sue this as an opportunity to increase violence and repression. This is exactly what happened everywhere – the Russians in Chechnya, Israel in the West Bank, Indonesia in Aceh, China in western China; half the governments in the world instituted protection against terrorist acts to try and control their own populations better. By the ”who gained” argument, you could say that every power system did.
            But the final point, and the most important, I think, is that these claims about 9/11 are diversions. Even if it were true that the Bush administration had planned and implemented the attacks, that would be a minor point compared with the crimes that they’re committing against the American people and the world. Just their instigation of terror is a far more serious danger to the people of the United Stated than destroying the World Trade Center. They’re increasing the danger of nuclear war, significantly. That’s very important. It’s not talked about much except in technical literature, but it’s very serious, and could lead to incredibly more tragic consequences than the destruction of the World Trade Center. So all of this focus on this highly unlikely, implausible scenario is simply diverting attention from the real crimes and the real threats, and I think that’s the reason why this theorizing is rarely criticized by the government or commentators. I think it’s welcomed by the administration. If you try to say anything about the fact that the United States invaded Iraq to get its oil, or anything serious, there’s a torrent of vilification and lies that is elicited immediately. The very striking fact about the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that there is very little criticism of them. Some people may make a joke or something, but they don’t come under any serious criticism. And the reason is, I think, that they’re welcomed as a diversion.
            I recently came across a document that is relevant to this. It offered suggestions about declassification written for the Pentagon – and one suggestion was that DOD officials should periodically release information on the Kennedy assassination to keep the JFK assassination industry alive and focused on trying to figure out plots about the Kennedy assassination; as long as they’re on that wild-goose chase, they won’t be asking serious questions. And I expect much the same is true here.
            Chomsky cavalierly dismisses those who have studied this at length and in depth, many of them highly qualified to examine the evidence, something he admits he is not capable of doing, as a “miniscule number of architects and engineers … a tiny number, a couple of them are serious”. He then blathers on about “overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved, very elementary evidence … You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute. So let’s just think for a minute.” He then cites what he calls three “uncontroversial facts” and suggests that whoever doesn’t agree with his interpretation of the possible implications of these hasn’t thought for a minute.
            From this very elementary evidence he proceeds to argue that “Unless they are total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis”, concluding with a misleading dichotomy: “The conclusion is pretty straightforward. Either they were total lunatics, or they weren’t
            involved. And they’re not total lunatics.”
            Chomsky’s position reduces to ad hominem ridicule camouflaged by big words arrogantly expressed.

          6. That’s well-put, sir.
            I have no doubt but that serious issues are being ignored. In the era of Watergate, a sitting President was destroyed because of something much smaller than this; today, we have accusations of fraud by members of both parties over (of all things) the Iowa caucuses, and nobody gives much of a damn.
            I believe this is because our numbers have been deliberately divided by disinformation specialists working for the government of the United States.
            C’mon, people — didn’t anyone else watch the X-Files?!

          7. Not true…several of the cera views that caught the footage were news traffic cameras that were seized before they even started trying to save people and exstinguish the flames…why would they have a need to snatch all clear views and leave the public with the only view available…a security camera with something blocking and a blury, grainy video…

          8. “Contrary to what many believe, security at the Pentagon mostly consists of security personnel physically patrolling the grounds. Video surveillance doesn’t face outward seeking inbound hijacked jet liners.”~robbes7
            Preposterous! Of course the Pentagon security consists of Video surveillance facing outward.
            There is photographic evidence of such camera’s set all around the perimeter of the building.
            The assertion that a facility of such significance as the Pentagon would lack the surveilance capabilities of simple commercial establishment such as gas stations, convenience stores, hotels, etc, is totally absurd.

          9. Let’s not forget that airspace around the Pentacon is restricted and special transponders are required to enter that airspace. Commercial airliners do not have those transponders. From understanding the Pentacon also has air defense capabilities for just such an event but for some reason on that particular day all these security measures were offline

          10. Nice try! I love people that can just tell flat out lies with no remorse. NO PLANE hit the Pentagon. NONE!!

          11. What is your reasoning for OTHER area security cameras footage confiscated within minutes of the crash (Citgo, Sheraton)? And if it wasn’t a planned sweep, how did they know exactly where to find them, and take them within minutes of the attack?

          12. how would you learn to formulate an entire plan from a ten second clip of the incident ? they could show clear still photos. you could learn more from the animation. .
            robbes. what is a ”real world complication”? what a load of crap. the security cameras would be pointed in all directions. you are obviously worried about a ”real world complication”? it is called ” THE TRUTH”

        2. John we have pictures of an airplane hitting the world trade. Not releasing one single video showing the plane hitting the Pentagon for security reasons is not believable. I find Craig’s argument that the most secure building in the world which has 24 hour surveillance has never released a video to be a highly compelling argument. Further, when the hell do commercial airlines under book their passengers like this supposed flight did? It just isn’t believable to anyone who is using critical thinking here.

        3. I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not.
          If you are, good one.
          If you are not, I think I will go bang my head against the wall.

      2. the wings hit 5 steel posts at 500 mph. the wings would have been torn off. and the fuel in the wings would have resulted in an instant fireball before it reached target

        1. “the wings hit 5 steel posts at 500 mph. the wings would have been torn off.”~david
          Not so, but there are valid reasons that prove there was no airplane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11.

        2. The wings would have actually been torn if they had struck the light poles if we were to believe what we were originally told.

          1. I think that we would have been left with a substantial wing section that got sheared off.
            I would have kept traveling at 500mph of course, but it would have remained identifiable.

      3. Craig, such a sad waste of time and intellect. There are many things to question regarding our government, this is not one of them. You embarrass yourself with conspiracy hypotheses such as these. Get a life. Stop wasting your time telling yourself and others lies trying to appear smart when in fact you are clueless and pathetic.

        1. jonathon, could some as clueless and pathetic as yourself please care to elaborate on which things to question our government? Thank you.

        2. Oh Jonathon. You are right. There is nothing worse than crazy conspiracy theorists. (Except for simple minded fools that can’t think for themselves life you) Do some research before you insult someone. Honestly, it scares me that anyone would think a 757 would magically disappear without leaving a trace. Just look into it and think for yourself before you spout hatred.

    2. I’ve studied this simulation, which was made to counter the established fact that the Boeing passed north of the Citgo gas station and so could not have been the plane that downed the five lamp posts. For one thing not one witness reported the big plane in Am Airlines livery leaving any smoke. The smoke trail is put in to match the trail taken by the security camera at the pass reader box north of the “event”. That camera shows clearly the killer object’s vertical stabilizer sticking up above the yellow pass reader box and the heavy smoke following behind it. Analysis done my me and by others shows that given the size of the vertical stabilizer showing — that the plane could not have been a Boeing 757 because if a 757 image is matched up with its tail matching the size of the tail of the killer object the fuselage of the killer object would have projected far out beyond the pass reader box — which it does not. The correct conclusion — which this bogus simulation — I will tell you where they cheated in a second — and I have called them on it as soon as I saw it and wrote about it everywhere I could — and they never answsered me — they never explained the cheating that I will point out to you. So where did they cheat in this simulation. Sure they have the Boeing following the path of the downed lamp posts, and they show it hitting them etc. but then they cheat. They cheat when they have created this to scale Am Airlines 757 — yes it is 155 ft long, more than twice the height of the Pentagon (71 ft) — and so they pull away from the closeup you see in the picture above and then then they move the viewers eye to the north — keeping the Pentagon and the Boeing both in simulated view together — and notice how big that plane, as you view it near the wall where they show it suspended as they move the viewers perspective northward — BUT THEN FOR NO REASON AT ALL — EXCEPT TO CHEAT — THEY TAKE THE SIMULATED EYE OFF THE PLANE — AND THEY DO NOT SHOW IT AGAIN UNTIL YOU ARE NORTH WHERE THE SECURITY CAMERA IS — AND THEN THEY SHOW YOU THE SAME VIEW THAT THE ORIGINAL MARCH 6, 2002 PICTURES SHOW –WITH THE ENTIRE PLANE EXCEPT FOR THE VERTICAL STABILIZER HIDDEN BY THE PASS READER BOX!!!! BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SIMULATION WAS TO REFUTE MY CONCLUSION — MINE AND DAVID BOSANKOE’S — THAT A BOEING 757 WITH ITS TAIL FIN VISIBLE AS BIG AS THAT TAIL FIN WAS VISIBLE WOULD HAVE SHOWED ITS FUSELAGE PROJECTING OUT TO THE RIGHT OF THE PASS READER BOX — AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID NOT SHOW AND COULD NOT SHOW — WHICH IS WHY THEY TOOK THE VIEWERS EYE OFF THE CORRECT TO SCALE BOEING. THE WHOLE SIMULATION FAILED TO PROVE WHAT IT SET OUT TO PROVE — AND IN FACT IT FAILED TO MAKE THE SIMULATED TEST AT ALL. THEY DID NOT KEEP THE TO-SCALE PLANE IN SIGHT NEXT TO THE PENTAGON UNTIL THEY HAD MOVED THE VIEWERS EYE TO EXACTLY WHERE THE CAMERA WAS THAT TOOK THE MARCH 6 2002 RELEASED PICTURE. THEY CHEATED — THINKIING THAT WHAT IS SIMULATED MUST BE ACCURATE — BUT THEY DISHONESTLY OMITTED THE VERY TEST THAT WAS NEEDED, NAMELY, KEEPING THAT TO-SCALE PLANE IN SIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE EXACT ADVANTAGE POINT OF THE SECURITY CAMERA. THEY DID NOT BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT DO SO WITHOUT REVEALING THAT THE BOEING 757 WAS TOO BIG FOR WHAT WAS SHOWN. I CALLED THEM ON IT AND NO ONE REPLIED. AND NONE OF THESE SELF-PROCLAIMED GREAT HISTORIANS OF 9-11 INVESTIGATIONS HAVE ANY OF THIS RIGHT.
      I’ve known the best investigators of 9-11 — and of them only Christohpher Bollyn is still active — Bollyn and I were guests on the same Tom Valentine radio program giving evidence that 9-11 was a false flag attack — talking about the history of Mossad gaining remote control of planes — and also talking about the bombs that went off on the 21st floor of South Tower — unrelated to the plane crash. No one has written an honest and complete story of the 9-11 investigation — all of those who have have been attempting to salt the truth with disinformation — and they do not want to talk to the honest ones who have appeared along the way, because they made it their business to know the data well enough to instantly detect these phoney theories that go beyond the data or contradict the data (by which I mean witness accounts and physical evidence, including photos of the damage taken within minutes aftger the event).
      Once again, for 2016, I call on the makes of this simulation to explain why they took the viewers eye off the plane as they moved their camera to line up with the security camera video that, otherwise, proves the killer object was too short to be a 757.
      One place where my evidence, operations and findings are still available is here, on It is part two of my Pentagon analysis called “Highest Treason Substantiated” see if you can answer the evidence-based case made here.

    3. The simulation fails and resorts to deception at the end when the “eye of the viewer” moves north to look at the simulation 757 from the position of the security camera. You will not that the eye is taken off the plane for no reason and is not put back on until the security camera position is reached — and that was intentional because they shrunk the scale plane by approximately two-thirds. I was not allowed to comment on their page and they never addressed my objection. Yet it is incontestable that the security camera showed the plane or missile behind the parking lot pass-reader box is definitely shorter than the Pentagon is tall. Boeing 757 is 155 ft.more than twice the height of the wall. And Purdue engineers did their own simulation showing this accurate scale of a Boeing 757 and the Pentagon as viewed from the north — and yes it is far bigger than the tiny Boeing shown in this simulation — where they pretend they did not substitute the smaller-than-to-scale model after they took the viewers eye off the accurate-scale plane that had been using earlier. And realize this — they cheated on the one and only test there their simulation could be matched up with actual recorded data from the event. This makes the entire simulation worthless. Also, the security camera shows the smoke trail which is consistent with a missile. The claim that damage to the engine or a fuel leak would lead a comparable thick white trail is not credible. No witness who saw a Boeing mentioned smoke trailing. In fact the eye witnesses at the CItgo gas station and in the heliport tower north of the “crash event” site place the Boeing coming over the Naval Annex Building and north of the gas station — which is not the damage path (of down lampposts, damaged truck and broken-through chain-link fence that the actual killer object took. Here is Part Two of the presentation I did for Jeff Rense in 2009 — showing the true to scale Boeing as it would appear from the security camera at the north end of the west wall, which you can compare to the dishonest scale — the switched scale — of the deceitful Case Study simulation.

    1. Yes, I have reviewed the Snopes debunking, and I will say that it is neither reliable nor credible. In fact, its claims are quite ridiculous. In fact, it is sufficiently misleading that I will devote a post to countering it soon. But for the moment, I’ll take one particularly erroneous statement. Snopes says: “As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building.”
      Where do we start with this? In fact this claim was made by several eyewitnesses. One said it hit the grass, digging a trench as it went, before hitting the building. In fact, the grass was COMPLETELY UNDAMAGED. This claim that it hit the ground first is impossible. Where’s the damage to the ground? Think about it: a 757 going 530 miles per hour hits the ground, causes no damage, then bounces up and hits the Pentagon between the first and second floors and promptly disappears.

      1. Craig – by now it is well established that the plane did NOT hit the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. This apparent anomaly between eyewitness accounts is fairly minor and understandable since it would constitute a few milliseconds before the cataclysmic explosion of impact. The eyewitnesses who were really close, such as the Salvadoran groundskeeper working on the lawn, and the firemen who were stationed at the heliport do not say the plane hit the ground first. Some eyewitness perspectives were from much greater distances, and it could easily appeared to them that ground impact had occurred, when in fact the plane was just a few feet above the ground right before impact. This is akin to discussing the placement of deck furniture on the Titanic prior to its sinking. All eyewitnesses agree a large airplane hit the side of the pentagon, irrespective of prior ground impact. Many identify it as a commercial jet with American Airline markings. Not a one reports seeing a missile or Global Hawk drone hit the structure.

        1. I agree that no plane hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon. That’s because no plane hit the Pentagon. And telling us how big the investigation was is worthless. Seriously, we’re talking about a deception here.

        2. The grounds keeper working on the lawn who saw the plane fly directly overhead was an Arlington Cemetery gardener — which again puts the Boeing too far North to have been the flying object that downed the lampposts. It is simply impossible for the Boeing of the witness accounts to have been the plane on the damage path to the Pentagon. See for aerial photos establishing that the Boeing over the Annex, over the gardener and north of the gas station (which is where Arlington Cemetery is) could not possibly have been the killer object that passed south of the gas station and knocked down those poles, grazed the truck and made a hole in the fence.

          1. Dick, your earlier response to a comment by robbes7rh is just too long to post (nearly 5,000 words). Feel free to repost a vastly condensed version.

    2. why is it reliable? that snopes page attacks Thierry Meyssans: Hunt the Boeing. one of the first pieces to question the official story…if you read it, it asserts if you don’t have a reasonable explanation then you have no case….which is not the best way to investigate issues.

      1. Meyssan merely remarked on the absence of appropriate debris. There were pieces of 757 scattered on the lawn but all of them were portable and almost all were picked up very soon after the crash. A C-130 we are told was ordered to follow the plane and it actually flew over the Pentagon less than a minute after the explosion — and it very well may have been part of the operation and actually dropped the light portable debris. This became even more probable to my mind when we learned that the same C-130 was then ordered to fly to Pennsylvania to the site of the fourth “event” — at a time when all planes, including military, were being ordered down. The truth about the Pentagon came out in March 2002 when the 5 security camera stills were released — the one with the killer object hidden except for its vertical stabilizer behind the yellow pass reader box, apparently they did not realize that the size of the plane could be determined to be no more than a third of the length of the 757. David Bosankoe and I reached that conclusion and were never refuted, although endlessly ridiculed — yet the case was made and corroborated many times over by other independent lines of evidence. We proved that now Boeing hit the Pentagon — and I might add that Jim Fetzer, Rosalee Grable, Gerrard Holmgren, Morgan Reynolds came out with the absurd contention that no planes hit the WTC — which was operation — the deliberate positing of an absurd groundless claim about no planes hitting the wtc, in order to discredit by association that proven and incontestable evidence that no Boeing hit the Pentagon. And the people who have false theories are much better supplied even though their claims are offensive and repelling to intelligent people — but they got the backing, because they are part of the crime, they are the cover-up component of the New York and Arlington mass murder of Sept 11, 2001.

      1. Snopes and the Mechanics Illustrated and many others attacked straw men — they picked the people making wrong claims — and there were many — and proving them wrong — with readers never realizing that the investigators and the false-claimers were on the same team — while the people with the real conclusive lines of evidence were ignored as though they didn’t exist.

    3. Snopes does hatchet jobs, debunking staw men, cherry picking the fools or the disinformationist pushing offensively absud theories in an effort to discredit all investigators in the eyes of a non-discriminating public. The debunking of the Pentagon “conspiracy theories” is one very obvious case. The misrepresented the facts behind the two-plane thesis so much that what they debunked bore no resemblance to any of the multiple conclusive lines of evidence the real investigators were trying to make known.

  2. What about the DNA remains of the pilot and passengers of flight 77 found inside the Pentagon? If we know those people were on that plane at 8:20am and then burned remains are in the pentagon at 9:40am, how else would passengers get there? It’s great that so many of you have questions and doubts, I like that about this country. From a physics perspective, 9/11 taught alot about the intensity of burning jet fuel, gravity, projectiles. I’m still waiting and open to someone to PROVE to me the government was behind these evil acts. I personally think it was an act of terrorism.

    1. Good question, Emily. Given that I think the whole thing was a fabrication, I have a hard time finding DNA evidence as being persuasive when not one photo exists of any remains (some gov’t witnesses claimed to have seen the charred remains of passengers still strapped in their seats. Don’t you find that strange? And there’s no video of the plane hitting the building even though the Pentagon has more video surveillance cameras on it than just about any building in the world. Clearly there’s video of the event, but we’re supposed to depend on DNA evidence that was gathered with no outside scrutiny. All we know about DNA evidence is what they’ve told us.
      You seem to have some very intelligent thoughts on the whole issue and about the need for real evidence. Here’s the problem, though: you think the official story doesn’t have to be proven – and it hasn’t been. Not even close. It seems to me to be faulty logic to expect people who feel as I do to PROVE the official story wrong before you’ll even doubt it. Why don’t you demand that the government PROVE its case before you’ll believe that? And in fact none of their contentions stand up. It’s not important for me to do anything either than to show that no case has been proven and that a real independent investigation is needed. If you buy the official story so easily, see if you can answer these questions: Why was there molten metal under the tower rubble for three months after the collapse? How did a 757 disappear into a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon with the wings and tail leaving no mark on the building? Why did dozens of firefighters and WTC employees report massive explosions coming from the basements of the towers – some even before the first plane hit? And how come debris from Flight 93 was found scattered over several square miles suggesting the plane had been shot down? And why did Bush and Cheney fight for more than a year to prevent an investigation of 9/11? You have the right to these answers. Why not ask for them?

    2. Emily,
      What about the DNA? Do you have any knowledge of the ‘Chain of Possession’ of this material?
      I will answer for you, NO, you do not. The government has not published any information of ‘chains of possession’ for a single aspect of this case.
      You also remark that; “9/11 taught alot about the intensity of burning jet fuel..”
      Which should be an epiphany for you if you have any knowledge of the actual temperatures of kerosine fires – which is all jet fuel is, kerosine.
      The PROOFS you are looking for are before your very eyes, if you would simply pay attention to them. The entire official story is totally absurd on so many levels that you have to purposely refuse to grasp this.

    3. ‘what about the DNA remains of the pilot and passengers of flight 77 found inside the Pentagon?’
      and youve seen this DNA evidence? or is it that youve been told?
      ‘I personally think it was an act of terrorism.’;
      of course it was an act of terrorism…the issue is who did it? can you offer proof the official conspiracy theory of 19 arabs doing it?

      1. And what if she had seen that DNA evidence? Then you would say she’s not qualified to interpret the results. Or that the DNA evidence is a simple fabrication that any caveman could have thrown together. What evidence can you cite to impeach the DNA evidence findings? The forensic investigation of the Pentagon crash site was enormous. It involved thousands of FBI agents, scientists, volunteers, etc. Do any of these people reject the DNA evidence findings? Don’t just give Emily a hard time. Can you, yourself, offer proof of something other than AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon?

        1. robbes7rh,
          There is a complete lack of chain of possession for any and all so-called “evidence” in the 9/11 case. You cannot cite evidence you cannot verify.
          You are making an argument from authority with no substantial ground to stand upon.

        2. “Can you, yourself, offer proof of something other than AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon?”~robbes7rh
          No, but we can offer proof that nothing at all hit the Pentagon, that the damage was the result of internal demolition charges.

    4. Flt. 77 passengers and crew were identified by their DNA at Dover Air Force Base in Dover Delaware – 100 miles from the crash site. The plane and titanium engines vaporized, but the DNA didn’t?

      1. That’s the one “fact” that is so erroneous, that the plane and its engines were vaporized. Vaporized? Are you joking? Did someone really try to pass this as fact? Stop this, no one is daft enough to honestly believe that this supposed aircraft vaporized upon impact. Also, like mentioned before, how is there any remnant of the pilot, his DNA, or anything else for that matter, when the subsequent impact and explosion “vaporized” any discernible aircraft parts (such as wings, engines, tail, etc) They found DNA, but couldn’t locate the engines?

      1. Just so your clear. The passengers of Flt. 77 were identified by their DNA at Dover Air Force base in the state of Delaware – 100 miles from the crash site.

    1. If you mean what happens when we get the answers, I say we should cross that bridge when we come to it. The key thing is to push for a new investigation. After that, all bets are off.

  3. Did anyone notice that in answering the question, “So what happened to Flight 77, its passengers and crew?” Craig didn’t actually have a valid response?
    I’ll tell you what happened to Flight 77. It never existed. You don’t think that a single flight, passenger list, and crew manifest can’t be completely fabricated? Come on people! This is the same government that faked the moon landing, killed JFK, and has everyone convinced that Tupac is actually dead. Wake up America, stop buying into mass hysteria! Stop drinking homogenized milk. Throw away your cellphone. If your kids can’t read they can’t be duped by the military-industrial machine. Go green, buy organic, become Amish.
    This message was not brought to you by the New World Order, Your Lords and Masters of the Shadow Goverment, Ltd. That would be silly. And dangerous.

    1. I don’t know what happened to Flight 77. Neither do you. One thing I do know is that it didn’t hit the Pentagon. Do you discuss actual facts or do you just enjoy sarcasm for its own sake?

      1. Flight 77 was shot down by the USAF over the Atlantic ocean, and to avoid the fallout of killing passengers they shot a missile into the pentagon to seal the lie. That’s what happened!

      2. you are right we do not know what happened, my guess would be like that of teamedward, there was no one or plane it was all fabricated, it would have been easy for the government to make up a list of names because america is so huge, but, until we are given a second investigation by the government and outside investigators that are neutral, we will never know, if we have just the government reinvestigate; it will bring nothing but more lies!
        we need a 3rd party investigation, i say we give it to a country like France to investigate! that way we don’t get a bunch of flag waving idiots rigging the investigation to match the official story once again!

    2. “Stop drinking homogenized milk.”???
      Actually ‘Team Edward’, saying that you don’t know is a perfectly valid response.
      Who married the girl next door to my house when I was 15 years old? There were two, take your pick or name both husbands.
      The only honest answer you can give to that question is that you do not know.
      What leads you to believe that the Moon landings were faked? Is this really on the same level as the assassination of JFK?
      I don’t know how “dangerous” your message is, but when it comes to ‘silly’ you hit the nail on the head.

      1. jet fuel cannot melt steel. the top 15 floors of the towers was only 2% of the entire steel structure. that 2% collapsed on top of the remaining 98% unaffected by fire and caused the entire structure to collapse to ground level at free fall? too silly for words. only in america.
        you do not need eye witnesses just release video footage of the event that no doubt exists. that would destroy any conspiracy theory. too silly for words, only in america

        1. Totally. Especially consider the heat dissipation.
          I tried brazing copper tube with an oxygen/propane torch. You would be amazed how quick the heat dissipated.
          They have a special gel for welders/brazers that is used to inhibit this process, to cencentrate the heat. The steel would never reach the temperature of the flames surrounding it, and the flames would never get hot enough anyway.
          I don’t like to think that our government would do this, it makes me nervous, but this is where my most logical thoughts have taken me.

    1. John,
      How about speaking in full sentences using real English rather than “chat-talk”, we aren’t talking about your mother’s sister’s daughter’s new puppy here.
      You are the one who is in “shock”, that is precisely what a psychological operation of this type is for.
      What you should consider is: What does it mean to be well adjusted in a psychopathic society?
      Going along to get along is just fine…until you get where they are taking you. And you’re just about there pal.

  4. any country would work for the investigation as long as they aren’t so supportive of america there investigations would also be rigged

  5. My opinion of where flight 77 went to is “Atlantic Ocean” isnt this where they said they sent the fighter jets? Well thats where it crashed.

    1. We don’t really have any evidence of that, but anything’s possible. It’s even possible that Flight 77 was never hijacked. What we do know is that the downed light poles were staged and that Flight 77 did not hit the building.

  6. I was there, six hours after it happen. These are facts: The company I worked for sent me with a heavy duty wrecker to pull burnt fire trucks out of the mud. The initial word that came to me of this came over the company radio from our tow yard directly across 395 from the pentagon, the yard manager said “they bombed the pentagon, they bombed the pentagon!” – I arrived at the pentagon at 5:00pm 9-11-01. After sunset about 7 pm I ran into an Arlington Co firefighter, I somewhat knew the firefighter because our company had a towing contract with Arlington county, He asked me if I wanted to go for a ride in the golf cart and see the ‘damage’ – I did, we rode past the hole, I said where’s the plane? he pointed to a cart small enough to be pulled behind a golf cart and said “there” – I asked how can that be all thats left? He told me that when a plane hits a building at a speed like thiis, it desinigrates. Me Knowing full well the size of a passenger jet, and even knowing what they are made of, because just a short time (months) before that with the very same wrecker I was called to Dulles to remove an engine and re-hang an engine on some type of 3 engine smaller airliner for Value Jet, immediately after I asked these questions they knew my suspicions, I told them I was ready to pull the fire trucks when they were ready, They instructed me to stay with my wrecker and they would call for me, I spent the night in the bunk of the wrecker, next morning I was told to leave that I wasnt needed. That is my facts for you and here is a real person and not any type of speculation or opinion.

  7. jamie mcintyre’s cnn video confirms the obvious. Use your eyes, ears, and brains-just a little- and you have it simply. Now, how do we that Khalil is right, and that the flight was shot down over the Atlantic? Deduction, plain and simple.

    1. Jamie McIntyre completely contradicted his initial account in subsequent statements. On 9/11 he said there was no evidence that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon. He has tried to backtrack, but I don’t believe he is credible. Now he claims he meant he didn’t believe the plane crashed NEAR the building; instead he believes it hit. Give me a break.

  8. I remember when I was researching into the all of this a few yrs. ago ,someone who had access to information at an airline or a air traffic controller, I cant quite remember who it was , but the person sounded very credible at the time. this person said that 3 of the planes that were used in the hijacking were actually still registered and being used at the airlines that they had come from ,meaning they had been replaced by planes that were outfitted with remote control equipment after leaving the radar area which I recently have seen a report that there actually is a “grey” area near the east coast ,that only military upper command, air traffic controllers and pilots really even know about. this area it is claimed in the recent video report that was on you tube , is the exact area where they all , all the hijacked planes made there U turns. that’s right this is the place the transponders were switched off and then supposedly switched back on , on the way back , which were actually different planes ,that’s another reason they kept the passengers to a minimum on all the flights .they had to kill all the passengers that actually were on the flights so that was gonna be a little bit messy ,to get rid of all the bodies most passengers were govt. employees , meaning they weren’t really there on the flight they used deceased or former , now retired govt. employees to buy tickets for ,knowing they wont show up ,even if they were still alive and working for the govt. they wouldn’t know that tickets were purchased in their names for flights they were never on.also the initial report from one reporter at least said there was no side passenger windows on at least one of the planes that hit the towers. there’s a lot of evidence to back all this up . just start researching , you will find it , well I did anyway.

  9. There is another possibility everybody is leaving out. What if people infiltrated the pentagon and planted explosives or something there. The FBI wouldn’t want the world to know that they had a mole inside so they covered it up.

    1. Someguy,
      “Mole”? I understand that they have very good pest control at the Pentagon.
      And Roto-Router for plugged drains. It’s sorta a ‘high-tech’ facility, you see.

  10. I admonish anyone who still believes the government tale about the incident at the Pentagon on 9/11, to look into the Citizen Investigation Team {CIT} information; beginning with a viewing of their video ‘National Security Alert’.
    The North of Citgo approach is proven conclusively with their material. This means that the damage to the Pentagon is on the wrong vector. It is impossible that the plane coming at that angle could have caused the known damage. The plane was there, so it had to have flown over the Pentagon. This means explosives from within are what took out the accountants in that wedge. They were the target, just like the financial records at the WTC were the main targets of those attacks.
    Those unwilling to invest the time into the research have no case to stand upon.
    Having a strong opinion is not a mistake. The mistake is in having nothing else.

  11. Why is it that all the conspiracy theorists cannot come up with what happened to the 55 passengers on that plane? Did they just vanish over the Bermuda Triangle or what? If this was an inside job, then the gov’t also must have known about the other attacks since this “inside” job occurred within minutes of the Trade Tower attacks. And if our gov’t knew about the attacks, then why did our gov’t THEN chase down Al Quaida and capture them, culminating in Bin Laden’s death? Jesse Ventura’s “evidence” that Olsen’s wife’s voice was faked is SO full of holes; HOW did they obtain her voice to ” morph” it in the first place?

    1. Just one more comment for Mary as per this:
      >”Jesse Ventura’s “evidence” that Olsen’s wife’s voice was faked is SO full of holes; HOW did they obtain her voice to ” morph” it in the first place?”
      Barbara Olsen was a TV personality who’s voice is available in recordings with almost any expression one is likely to need to use as a template for voice morphing.
      Do you even understand the technology you attempt to speak to? Obviously not.
      “Having a strong opinion is not a mistake. It is in having nothing else that is the mistake.”
      ~Anthony Weston in his ‘A Rulebook for Arguments [Hackett Publishing 1992]

  12. “Why is it that all the conspiracy theorists cannot come up with what happened to the 55 passengers on that plane?”~Maryy Smith
    Wow Mary, did you really witness those 55 passengers board that plane? I suppose you then stayed to watch it take off as well.
    So what do you really know about al Qaeda? Since al Qaeda is a subsidiary of Western Intelligence, they didn’t have to track anybody down…they were handling these people already.
    So you watched a digital cartoon on TV and really believed the Seal Team 6 story of the “killing of Osama”__probably just watched the new movie they made about this myth as well.
    You are speaking “TV script” Mary, you don’t know anything about it but the PR and propaganda you are fed, but you are so indignant as to “conspiracy theorists”.
    You live in a world of delusions created by script writers.
    Read the quote by Plato at the right near the top of this page again, if you even bothered to read it the first time. Or go back to the cave that your delusional mind inhabits. You would have a choice, if you had the nerve to take a chance at thinking for yourself.

  13. So I point out it is dangerous to speak out against a draconian state. It is practical and rational. What is not practical is to react in fear. That is an emotional reaction and not rational. As hysteria can be an explosion of tightly packed suppressed fears, it is essential that these be addressed rationally prior to crisis.
    What is to fear? Death? Pain?
    We all die at some point at any rate. We shall all experience pain in our lives.
    Worse than those two is delusion, for it is a type of death that the walking dead experience, a twilight world of hazy being, no matter how excited their emotions half of their facilities are effectively shut down. The simple confusions this will produce in daily life are hidden in the subconscious of the hive-mind widget, and remain their as a collection of on the shelf off brand fears with no labels.
    These generic fears are the ones that explode into hysteria in real crisis. The TVZombies being plunged suddenly into the actual world that they never knew – consciously – existed.
    Again, all of this becomes obvious in hindsight, as such historical analysis such as ‘They Thought They Were Free’, a collection of interviews with common Germans who were in the Nazi Party, collected post WWII.
    But as Santayana warned, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive them.” and later noted by Hegel that, “The majority of people never learn the lessons of history”.
    It is perhaps ironic that it is Hegel’s own dialectic which promotes even more synthetic ignorance among the general public who are manipulated by technocratic perception manipulations.
    I don’t have any general answers to the present cultural dilemma, I can only frame the problem as best I can. The answers are always personal, dependent on the comprehension one can draw from such a frame. This is all addressed therefore to those who are aware enough to understand it. As it is said, one can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.

  14. I knew on 9/11 that there had been inside help even before the first tower fell, precisely because the Pentagon was “hit.” Most Americans did not know – and still apparently do not care to know – how (or from what) this building was protected. That was the most well protected building on earth…until it wasn’t. If you think carefully on it – and most do not – you will realized how ludicrous the official story really is.

  15. For me this along with WTC7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. Of all the pictures of evidence i have looked at not one shows a hole big enough for a 757 to fit in. There are so many facts that don’t add up when it comes to the pentagon. The taxi with the Lamp post yet no marks on the bonnet of the taxi. Eyewitnesses claiming that the plane flew in from the other side and not the direction the “Official story” tells us. Also 2 eyewitnesses claim the plane at the last second diverted above and away before impact. Big coincidence that the “so called” plane hit the side that was being refurbished despite flying past the side Dick Cheney was in. The pictures released by the FBI don’t show anything remotely like a 757. When it is one of the most guarded buildings in the world so therefore would surely have more video evidence than what they are giving us as proof. They would shut us all up if they just supplied this. I am open to changing my mind if anyone at all can show me complete proof that a 757 hit the pentagon. As the jet parts that were found scattered about the lawn do not match up to being from a 757.

    1. You just touched on the Mose important part that only so many know about….THIS SIDE OF THE PENTAGON WAS BEING REFURBISHED!!!! I watched them for damn near a year work on this side (I caught the metro daily at the Pentagon station) and they ran over budget trying to finish the job in time…miraculously the plane magically hit the side they needed funds to finish…Plane hit and now you have a reason to complete the job!!!! I just so happen to be in NY at the time of 9/11 (live walking distance from the Pentagon and happen to be in NY at the time, lucky me) and the”ASSOCIATED PRESS” stated that a booby trapped truck jumped the fence of the Pentagon and exploded upon impact of the building…which explains why you see that truck burning in some photos…
      I want to point out that there is a photo that is very scarce that shows NO HOLE in the pentagon yet the building collapsed….????

  16. If it was shot down then what are the chances of there being two planes crashing into the twin towers on the same day? Or are u saying that that the government shot missiles at those to and that the government killed thousands of people just to cover up a story? If u say the latter then you are all just trying to find a way to turn this into a conspiracy theory. Did it ever occur to u that the hole made in the wall was made by a piece of flying debris. You know it was a plane. Now shut up because You are insulting the families of the people that died on 9/11.

    1. Rabidrabitt,
      Do you actually see your comment of MARCH 3, 2013 – 7:26 PM, as successful in any critical sense, or are you just baking one of those deep jingoberry cobblers in your half-wit oven?
      You might look into some guides to composition as well as the protocols of critical thinking.
      I have to say, you come off as a very foolish person.

    2. a large airliner cannot fly a few feet off the ground to hit as low as it did.i am a pilot and what they said happened did not.titanium will not disappear due to impact or fire,period! they cant show photos of something that doesnt exist.

      1. Those are the two most important actual facts that no one really talks about: it’s not possible to fly a plane that size, at the speed (560?) they say it was flying (which it wasn’t when it flew over) at that altitude ASL… and the fact that titanium doesn’t melt (or vaporize) due to explosion/fire, or disintegrate upon impact into a structure.
        And to whomever posted something about how there’s no surveillance “aiming away from the building, pointing outward.” Every single company in the industrial complex near my home, has on each of their four corners, two surveillance cameras on each side (that makes 8 cameras) aiming out onto their property, with the singular purpose of providing a 360 degree visual around the building…but there’s no video from the Pentagon of a giant, passenger plane flying 560 mph into the side of it? Why are these simple and easily dis provable lied so quickly accepted as “what happened”? Its just glanced over and not even looked at with a grain of rational. A child could poke fist size holes in the stories that we take as gospel. “Those dirty, fanatical evil doers from the east got us again” lol How is anyone in authority okay with the explanation given, the “thruth” is the last thing that has been given and nearly nothing has been revealed…

        1. The official story hurts my brain every time that I think about it. I feel the Orwellian doublethink trying to creep in.
          A gram is better than a damn!

  17. What is noteworthy is the misplaced air of superiority with which
    the proponents of the official explanation come down at other views regarding this matter.
    Given the tragic track record of governments in the 20th century this makes them
    look quite retarded.
    @ Rabidrabitt
    It can only be an insult if it isn’t the truth.
    If you accept the official explanation you are either willfully ignorant
    or have not looked at the evidence.
    1) the steel framed wtc 7 was not hit by a plane and just collapses as a house of cards.
    2) why don’t they release a video showing the plane that hit the pentagon? why the
    misty secrecy? Do you find it weird people start asking questions.
    3) government “exercises” at the same day… I mean come on.
    4) not a single fighter jet was scrambled
    5) no real plane debris at pentagon and Shanksville sites…
    With all the trillions and trillions of bailout money for the banks they should have
    taken a few billion and rebuild the twin towers at some test range and fly 2 identical
    jets into them and see what would happen.
    That would be money well spent.

    1. Just collapsed like a House of Cards?
      Building seven collapsed because it was on fire all day. I remember, because I watched the coverage on TV all day. They talked about it many times during the day, and city engineers even predicted, when it would collapse. WTC was attacked in the morning, but building seven collapsed after nightfall.

      1. “..but building seven collapsed after nightfall.”~Mads
        It is really obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about when there is visual evidence that shows you are totally wrong. Haven’t you even seen the videos of the destruction of #7, it clearly took place during daylight.

  18. I really love your website.. Pleasant colors & theme. Did you create this site
    yourself? Please reply back as I’m attempting to create my own personal website and would like to learn where you got this from or exactly what the theme is called. Thank you!

  19. Mihran Kalaydjian,
    You would have to build your blog on
    The look is a “Theme” the one Mr McKee is using here is: ‘SHAAN’ by Specky Geek.
    If you already have a blog address, you could use a Chroma-key color-chart to choose these exact colors.
    Good luck…

  20. The airlines over book their planes all the time. Why were these planes so empty? The airlines are so very greedy,I can’t understand why on this day,on these planes there were so few people?
    Also, has anyone looked for family members of the people from that plane?

    1. On this supposed crashed flight my Elementary School teacher was supposedly aboard this plane. Her and the kids. That’s truly why I want to know what happen….Sandra Clark.
      As with all the families who lost members why are they so quiet? I understand payment was issues but was it hush money because to this day there should be many people still protesting on the investigations for what teuly happen that day. No amount of money would keep me quiet to find out what happen to my love one. Yet by 2002….families were silent…why??

  21. i feel rotten about your report on whether or not the pentagon was hit by flight 77. nothing that day was staged. there were lots of classified materials that cannot be revealed to the public. the terrorists would follow and examine the footages. there had been no other hijackings in the us since because the sensitive classified videos were not shown. how dare you insulting those who have died. if you happened to be on that flight and died and people like you tell the world that your flight never happened, what would you feel. shame on you. you have defaced those who perished on that fateful day. you ought to write an apology.

    1. To say that the reason there have been no hijackings since 9/11 is because the videos haven’t been released is ridiculous. There were no videos BEFORE that but according to you we had four hijackings anyway. Your arguments are not worth more of a response than that.

    2. “you ought to write an apology.”~Ino
      YOU ought to write an apology for your lack of skills in critical thinking Ino.
      For example, you say:
      “if you happened to be on that flight and died and people like you tell the world that your flight never happened, what would you feel.”
      Come on Ino, when someone dies they don’t hang out and listen to what everyone living says about how it was they died…they are DEAD dude. They don’t “feel” anything.
      You also claim:
      “the terrorists would follow and examine the footages”
      What terrorists Ino? Do you propose these were invisible men, perhaps wearing copies of Frodo’s Ring of Power?
      The fact is that not one of the 300 Dulles International Airport security cameras –positioned at ticket counters, lounges and boarding gates — captured images of the alleged hijackers of AA Flight 77.

  22. I really don’t fking get you MR and MRS Americans. I am from Turkey, although its not my business but seeing you guys arguing like this makes me thing WTF?? . there has been many conspiracy theories but there is also equal amount of answers to answer most of those conspiracy theory questions. The guy even put up a video, answering the most question that you post with a super duper video. Clearly pointing the fact that you were wrong when you said “Nothing left after jet fuel burn everything but just single part”. You also said no video, well.. as you can see there is video footage. If by any chance the guy who crushed the plane came to life, and admitted that it was him I have no doubt you will still blame your government. I even seen a cases where you conspiracy theorists insist given images and videos are fake. Have you guys ever questioned that It is also possible that the person who started this whole conspiracy theory would have had its own, misguided, misleading information that is given to you? .

    1. “Have you guys ever questioned that It is also possible that the person who started this whole conspiracy theory would have had its own, misguided, misleading information that is given to you? .”~Yucel
      I have no idea of who “that the person who started this whole conspiracy theory” is in your own mind Yucel. Or even if you have some idea of “who” started the “conspiracy theory”.
      But I will tell you this much; anyone who viewed the towers blowing up on television that afternoon on 9/11, who actually thought that the planes could have caused that is pretty finkg stupid.
      So if you can’t come up with anyone else “who started this whole conspiracy theory” — just look at me, because I knew as soon as I saw the buildings blow that the official story about the al Qaeda boogieman is horseshit.

  23. The minute those buildings blew, there was no official explanation. But you knew right away, didn’t you, what really happened that day. A lot of time and expense could have been saved by the thousands of people who investigated 9/11 by din of the fact that you could discern the truth, instantly, just by observing news footage on television. Assumptions and biases are not helpful in determining what happened on 9/11. The official explanation emerged from examination of the evidence. If you disagree with those conclusions, or question the veracity of evidence that was proffered, then what is the basis of your incredulity. Platitudes about the inherent corruption and dishonesty of Government are evidence only of your predisposition to reject anything under the rubric of ‘Official Explanation’. Have you ever considered that what Thierry Meyssan and David Ray Griffin say about 9/11 is horse shit of the third kind? Neither of them have done any meaningful investigation of the evidence. They point out a bunch of apparent anomalies which jibe with the popular imagination and appeal to people’s general misconceptions of science and how government works. They pander to your ignorance and prejudice. 9/11 Truth is fool’s gold. It sounds really factual and convincing, but is nothing more than a convoluted screenplay for a mediocre action/thriller. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the crash and thousands who helped in the cleanup which took months. They weren’t sitting at home watching television, they were there. Commuters in traffic saw the AA 767 pass low right in front of them, clipping light poles and taking out part of an enormous generator among the construction equipment before hitting the building itself. Most of the plane’s mass is in the lower 2/5ths of the ship. The pentagon had just been reinforced in that area where it hit. THE WINGS AND TAIL SECTION WOULD NOT HAVE PENETRATED. There is nothing inconsistent with the size of the hole (before collapse) and the dimensions of the body of that plane. If you say ‘what about the exit hole in the third wrung’, that is where one of the engines punched through. Missiles don’t explode and then exit out the other side.

    1. “The minute those buildings blew, there was no official explanation. But you knew right away, didn’t you, what really happened that day.”~Robbes7
      Yes indeed Robbes7, I knew that the buildings exploded. I knew it was impossible that the airliners could have had anything to do with that.
      Your reiteration of the official story is simply and appeal to authority, and nothing more.
      The realization of the impossibility of the physics involved was only the beginning for me, it was not simply jumping to conclusions. So I studied everything I could find about this case.
      But arguing with TVZombies such as yourself, who go along to get along, has proven futile.
      You and the majority of Amerikans are locked in a false paradigm and will die in it for lack of personal critical thinking.
      Thanks for the lollipop, \\][//

      1. “But arguing with TVZombies such as yourself, who go along to get along, has proven futile.”
        So realizing the impossibility of the physics involved was ONLY the beginning for you. AND it wasn’t just jumping to conclusions, but you actually read stuff too. Hmmm, you’re gonna be a tough nut to crack. Damn, how can I stump this astute Truther…
        First off, an appeal to authority is an argument that states ‘a’ is valid because [some perceived expert] holds that view. Nowhere in my comment did I make any such statement. Secondly, I didn’t reiterate the official anything. I talk about the official account being a valid conclusion induced by a thorough examination of the evidence. And I put the question to you again, what is the basis for your incredulity?
        So you knew the airliners had nothing to do with the explosions? But then by your extensive knowledge of physics you would know that kinetic energy converts to heat energy cubed upon impact. And that would easily ignite the spray of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, which would certainly be a mighty explosion. Which could conceivably start a raging fire. How am I doing so far?
        But the subject of this post concerns the Pentagon, and that is mostly what I addressed in my comment. The evidence is overwhelming that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. In fact, most Truthers now concede that point. So what startling evidence did you find to refute this?
        Or, am I just going along to get along? You sound like you’re quoting your grandmother at a church social. But you are correct about one thing. Arguing with me would be futile – because I will annihilate you.

        1. “So you knew the airliners had nothing to do with the explosions? But then by your extensive knowledge of physics you would know that kinetic energy converts to heat energy cubed upon impact.”
          What? You are just making shit up now.
          Kinetic Energy can convert into Thermal Energy, no energy is ever lost or gained. To claim an exponential increase in energy as Kinetic Energy changes into Thermal Energy would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
          Why are you making shit up? Are you trying to appear intelligent?

      2. “So you knew the airliners had nothing to do with the explosions? But then by your extensive knowledge of physics you would know that kinetic energy converts to heat energy cubed upon impact. And that would easily ignite the spray of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, which would certainly be a mighty explosion. Which could conceivably start a raging fire. How am I doing so far?”~Rob Hilleary
        How are you doing so far Mr Hilleary? “Puny” is a good answer ‘Mr Annihilator’.
        “Tepid,” is another term that comes to mind.
        I am well aware of the kinetic energy equations involved in these crashes. I can post my figures and analysis of the crash physics here if you wish. But just for common sense starters; it is most obvious and very apparent that the momentum carried the vast majority of that jet fuel through and out the other side of the buildings, as shown in video footage of the second strike.
        I would say that to characterize this as an “explosion” is not technically so, it would be a conflagration as jet fuel is nothing but kerosene and ignites rather than explodes.
        If you have read the NIST report on this, they admit themselves that these fires were no flaming inferno. As steel is an excellent heat-sink, the only areas experiencing any considerable heat would have been the immediate impact area.
        So what was the mechanism by which the lower floors were weakened Mr Annihilator?
        Now all of the arguments you hope to make on this issue, and all others involving the events of 9/11 have been gone through is the greatest of detail on this site in the many articles herein.
        As per the Pentagon;
        Here are just two of the more recent articles and commentaries:
        As per WTC;
        Now, as it is you who is making the challenge with such bold confidence, it is up to you to describe in thorough detail what the mechanisms were that took down the WTC Towers.
        My answer is simple; controlled demolition.
        If you have something that can fit all the attributes of/or ‘the profile’ of a controlled demolition, such as these were, I am dying to read it.

      3. I await my annihilation with bated breath Mr Hilleary.
        Surely you won’t disappoint.
        Ever hear of the Born Sucker Machine Mr Hilleary? Yea, a guy named Born invented the first mechanized lollipop manufacturing. One of those poetic and coincidental metaphors.
        Do you know the origin of the word “zombie”? It is Caribbean; the Haitian Voudon practitioners spoke of the concept of “the walking dead” … but they were speaking metaphorically of the slave mentality, not of corpses rising from the grave. The black Haitian population was comprised mainly of runaway slaves from the plantations in the United States. These were the hardy types of people who didn’t fall into the Uncle Tom’s Cabin category. They had a primal sense of epistemology and self worth. Such is rare in post industrial Amerika.
        The question now arises Mr Annihilator, how much TV do you watch in the average day? You blush at the term, ‘TVZombie’…but it takes but a glance to see that you are.
        Remember, going along to get along is fine…until you get where they are taking you.

    2. “Most of the plane’s mass is in the lower 2/5ths of the ship. The pentagon had just been reinforced in that area where it hit. THE WINGS AND TAIL SECTION WOULD NOT HAVE PENETRATED. There is nothing inconsistent with the size of the hole (before collapse) and the dimensions of the body of that plane.”
      Okay now explain where did those very large pieces of plane go then? I assume the wings, along with the tail would have been snapped off and would have been laying there on the lawn in front of the impact zone.

  24. i would imagine that some of you sporting fans out there would be much appreciative of the late hitchens…………..his socratic endeavour say ………..yet he seemed to strongly refuse any would be conspiracy theory ….( or paradoxically,afford refutation to those those that conjecture the official story.
    would anyone like to share their understanding as to why he fostered this position,in particular,regarding 911.

      1. …you are not academic let alone an academic are you…..scarcely literate, yet still, with a verve of poor poor grammar and thorough lack of awareness,you haplessly amble on.
        your very being is unconvincing and the Being of your being,bereft.
        irrespective of the topic, you would render the matter at hand in the same way,always……lacking.
        …..and you feel that don’t you……..but from time to time you convince yourself otherwise with the affirmation or acknowledgement of the odd fallacy here and there.
        it is here where you genuinely believe that you afford some kind of wisdom……….though for the reader,one eye goes crying and the other laughing…….the rest of your chat is both trite and tripe…………for ‘who’ you are,gives nothing…. …..perhaps a bell ring of bovine life; that’s right,you are herd and not heard.
        I’ll swap you dolt….for bolt.
        ps……the official story, it’s unbelievable is it not!

        1. David, it is your comment that is barely literate. It is also empty of substance. If you have a point, such as an argument in favor of the 9/11 official story, why not just make it? Otherwise, this “conversation” won’t continue past this point.

      2. If nothing else Craig, I found Mr Wilson’s use of long strings of periods {……………….} to be unique and, well…weird is such a good word to waste. I LIKE weird, let’s call it vapid, as a pause too long, with no beginning, middle or end.
        Perhaps David would do well to peruse other pages here, because YES the official story IS unbelievable.
        And Hitchens was an alcoholic, middle of the road guilty bystander.

    1. Roaring sharks with teeth that rip your innards out for all to see David,
      The “vagina” you see is your own projection. Like the Rorschach test, you reveal yourself and your own hang-ups here. A lack of pussy in your life, my pugnacious new companion?
      \\][// is a graphic icon representing a stylized ‘W’ which is twice used in my name.
      Art for art’s sake, blood for hates sake… you stand on the inside looking out. The door opens effortlessly if you have a mind to open and walk through….

      1. “your under twenty,right” – says ‘Professor’ David…
        “Your” is a possesive attributive adjective/noun. What David meant is;
        ‘you’re under twenty. Right?’
        But David is wrong on both counts.
        I am well over twenty, and his construction is wrong.
        I will skip the lesson in metaphor involving the shark…
        I am afraid Mr Wilson’s commentary is become a bore. [That is past and present tense.]

    2. Hitchens was well read and articulate, but he was deeply entrenched in tradition and class privilege. You probably cannot survive as editor for “Vanity Fair” for very long without protecting the status quo.
      He allowed himself to be poisoned to death by chemotherapy, slipped right into the AMA death/profit system. Some free thinker you might say?

    Newton’s Laws of Mechanics:
    > First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.
    This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.
    As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.
    >Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
    A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.
    In our frame, ONLY the plane has a state of momentum.
    Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.
    It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.
    Again it is at the point and moment of impact that the third law comes into effect and must be translated as per the laws of kinetics incorporating the maxim of equal and opposite reaction:
    Kinetic Energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity.
    KINETICS 9/11:
    The energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared: ( E = 1/2 m v^2)
    The plane has a Mass of 120 tons – traveling at a Velocity of 540 MPH:
    The kinetic energy resulting would be equal to 0.75812 ton TNT
    OR: 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second)
    So, let’s put together what we now know about the crash physics for this event:
    This explosive energy, equivalent to about ¾ ton of TNT is applied as a directed force – vector quality – against the structure of the façade at the points on the structure corresponding to the shapes of the entering jet {the shapes change because of original contours meeting at different moments, plus deformations from impact.
    We also have verification that the energy was applied externally from a video analysis shows a measurable rocking back of the building in reaction to the impact. This movement is imperceptible tothe human eye until seen in a grid.
    An interior explosion would create a radial blast lacking vector.
    This is overwhelming evidence that real jets impacted and penetrated the towers.
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 WTC Aircraft
    Aidan Monaghan B.Sc. EET
    “Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact. Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode. The probability that either of these two control systems were used is discussed. Flight deck images of United and American airlines 757s and 767s suggest that such CWS functions may have been disabled circa 2001. Constant radius turns utilizing plotted waypoints during commercial aviation operations are routinely supported by augmented GPS navigation service and related commercial Flight Management Systems (FMS) available circa 2001.
    As will be demonstrated, the implementation of UA 175’s observed 1.2 mile constant radius arc, seconds earlier or later than observed, would apparently result in UA 175 missing WTC 2. Estimates of the likely effect of crosswinds on the approach to WTC 2 are also provided. It is noted that a projected impact via the first observed banked turn would have occurred under crosswind conditions capable of generating between 122 and 134 approximate total feet of lateral displacement from the calculated final position of the aircraft if not affected by such crosswinds. Aircraft distances and other calculations are based on reported aircraft speed for UA 175 of 799 feet per second at impact and measured times to impact. The observed speeds of both attack aircraft were extreme by comparison to the typical speeds of similarly descending aircraft. While creating significantly less response time for possible human hijacker pilot course corrections during final target approaches that would demand superior control surface operation, a general vector analysis considering the final course and speed for each aircraft suggests that the unusually high speeds observed would generate greater accuracy of the aircraft while enroute to their targets, as a result of smaller course deflection angles and ground track displacements, created by existing and potential crosswinds.”
    This suggestion of Superior Control over these aircraft is strong evidence of the likelihood of robotic piloting of the aircraft.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  26. The mere fact that Mr Hilleary has gone missing from the discussion is telling. But it is not a reason to avoid addressing the assertions he did make while commenting. He makes the following assertion above:
    “The official explanation emerged from examination of the evidence. If you disagree with those conclusions, or question the veracity of evidence that was proffered, then what is the basis of your incredulity.”
    But as those who actually followed the so-called “investigation” know, it was not an investigation but a white wash, and entirely illegal in it’s methods.
    Every single thing that was effected by the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was evidence. Not just the remains of the towers, not just the steel, but the dust, the fragments, the cars and other vehicles that were effected__EVERYTHING. All of this was ‘crime scene evidence’ in a legal sense.
    What little of this evidence remained after the WTC was wiped clean is only that which slipped through the fingers of the perpetrators controlling their own crime scene. Whatever cursory ‘investigation’ was made, was more in fact to make assurances that suspicious evidence never saw the light of day.
    This is part and parcel with the fact that no chains of possession of such evidences in the entire case have ever been revealed.
    In a case so bereft of solid physical evidence, the importance of what little there is and what it proves is of paramount import, the visual, and testimonial evidence becomes critical.
    Forensic Metallurgy
    Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives and Thermite Arson
    Eutectic corrosion is typically a chemical attack, the rate being affected by many factors such as temperature, pressure, chemistry, presence of wear, etc.
    See:… · PDF file

  27. And finally I must address the claim by Mr Hilleary that he isn’t using an appeal to authority, as he asserts in his ‘first off’:
    “First off, an appeal to authority is an argument that states ‘a’ is valid because [some perceived expert] holds that view. Nowhere in my comment did I make any such statement. Secondly, I didn’t reiterate the official anything.” — but then in the very same paragraph, the next sentence reads: “I talk about the official account being a valid conclusion induced by a thorough examination of the evidence.”
    So just who reached this so-called “valid conclusion” in the “official account”?
    The answer is obvious, the presumed validity of the conclusions are based on Mr Hilleary’s acceptance of the “official account,” and that account is proffered by the authorities who came up with these conclusions.
    It is in fact the basis of Mr Hilleary’s argument. That argument is therefore ipso facto, an appeal to authority. Every paragraph is pregnant with illuminating metaphor describing in great detail the paradigm in which Mr Hilleary wallows. His basic assumptions stand out like peaks on a seismograph. I can see the red white and blue jingoberry stains on his bib.

  28. I only became aware of wtc7 some weeks ago as I live in Australia, I have since spent many hours looking at photos,videos and eyewitness accounts of what happened on that day. Not just wtc7 but the pentagon the 2 wtc towers and to a lessor degree the Shanksville crash. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone could believe the official version. The simple fact that numerous Fireman and reporters on the day reported explosions, Firemen reporting of melted steel, retired pilots who had flown the planes in question say it is impossible to fly at that speed so low. And when you watch the towers coming down they didn’t fall they were obliterated. There is no way that a plane hit the pentagon. If u look at crash sites from around the world there is not one that doesn’t have large amounts of wreckage. There are so many things wrong with the whole investigation it shocks me and I don’t even live there.

    1. OZ – I think it’s great you’ve taken an interest in 9/11. There’s very little to compare with the events that day, no one has ever seen anything like it. And being such a big event, 9/11 is a big target for every conspiracy lover in the universe to throw in his two cents. The conspiracy people love, more than anything, to dazzle you with their well-honed talking points that SOUND very factual and insightful, and are intended to make you feel like everything you thought you knew is wrong, and now THEY will set you straight. Their first lesson is: ANYTHING that even hints at the “Official Story” is so OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID, that even a caveman wouldn’t believe it. 2.) ANYTHING that contradicts the “Official Version” is valid and true – that’s why it’s the TRUTH MOVEMENT (Duh!). So going by this line of reasoning, people can be divided into two groups: 1.) Those who accept the “Official Story” (stupid, sheep-like, naive, corrupt, evil, narrow-minded), and 2.) those who have the fortitude and intelligence to embrace the “Truth Movement” (enlightened, clever, knowledgeable, scientific, philosophical, courageous, insightful). And while your at it, can we interest you in making a donation to our webpage, buy our book, subscribe to the newsletter, purchase tickets to hear David Rae Griffin speak (gasp!). Okay, look, the fact that isolated explosions were heard at WTC prior to collapse can be attributed to a lot of things other than bombs detonating. Electric equipment in contact with fire will explode; jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts causing fuel air explosions. In a controlled demolition you don’t have charges detonating in discreet events. They all go off at once and create an incredible cacophony of explosions. That isn’t what happened. The fires burned for over an hour, and collapse started at impact zone, with no explosions. Who might know a little more about how fire can affect high rise steel structures? NYC firemen, or some guy in Nowheresville, Indiana, sitting behind his parents computer screen? The crash scenes at Shanksville and Pentagon were investigated and cleaned up by many actual people; there were MANY EYEWITNESSES to these crashes. Questioning the information that comes through media is a good thing. It should include questioning information from the internet, especially. BTW, there is no “official” story for 9/11. There are conclusions from many aspects of the largest forensic investigation in history which are generally accepted by the world’s science and engineering communities. Here’s two websites you would find interesting: 1.) 2.)

      1. Hah! The largest forensic investigation in history?? Is that why they shipped the WTC steel to China as quickly as they could? Is that why we’ve seen no video of the Pentagon “crash” except two almost identical views that are incompatible with each other, proving that they were altered? Is that why we have no plane parts that have serial numbers linking them to the flight in question? Is that why we have been told that Flight 93 buried itself in the ground? Is that why the flight data recorder from Flight 77 shows that the plane flew over the building? By the way, who witnessed the crash of Flight 93? And the fuel pouring down the elevator shafts: nice try but the shafts didn’t go all the way down the building, so fuel could not pour from the crash level to the bottom. What a load of garbage.

  29. Whether it was a commercial plane or not the point still stands that it is not normal to preform a specific maneuver to hit a specific part of the building that happens to be the strongest part in which the suspect went out of his way to do so.
    If the suspect really wanted maximum death in order to be rewarded in heaven by his Allah he would’ve plowed straight on into the building to create MASSIVE amount of damage that would take MONTHS repair and thousands killed in the process.
    As it is I bet his Allah is NOT very pleased with the puny results compared to what could’ve been done and the suspect hijacker will have “a lot of splaning to do” on why he failed to kill more.

    1. I don’t know if the pilot was zeroing in on any particular portion of the Pentagon. What we do know is that he made that maneuver because he needed to descend 8,000 feet. I’m sure it would have been a great coup for them if Rumsfeld was at his desk and looks up to see the nose of a 757 about to crash through his window. Flying really fast in a low approach, just hitting the building was probably the main concern for this inexperienced pilot. It didn’t really matter what side was hit. They made their point. Enormous damage, a lot of U.S. military personnel killed, AND the terrorists died in the act of jihad, guaranteeing them immediate passage to paradise. No doubt Hani was also preoccupied with deciding how many virgins he’d have in his bed that night.

      1. robbes7rh,
        You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It is obvious you haven’t studied this and the other 9/11 events at all, but are simply repeating the talking points of the official narrative.
        You are arguing from a position of ignorance in favor of one of the most absurd propositions ever offered by the Public Relations Regime.
        You boldly proclaim: “It didn’t really matter what side was hit.” When in fact this is a crucial aspect of the case. The side that was hit took out the Navy Accountant’s office who were analyzing where the missing funds had disappeared to. You obviously do not recall that Rumsfeld had revealed the fact of a huge amount of money unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget.
        As well you are obviously totally ignorant of the ballistics of the trajectory of the aircraft witnessed at the time, and the utter impossibility of a plane approach from that angle causing the damage path within the building.

  30. I have to say I never truly investigated 9/11 and I believed what was being told was true. This is my first to learn that no wreckage was ever recovered from the crash site. I am not an expert on physics but I don’t think I have ever looked at a picture of a crash site and there was not one spec of wreckage! I agree with other commentators on here regarding the security of the building and not having one speck of video footage to share with the public, I find that to be incredulous.
    We know planes hit the towers and have footage of it. Why can’t they share the footage of the pentagon hit? Assuming this was an inside job that doesn’t tell us why/who the fools were that were flying the planes? If they didn’t kill themselves for allah then why? Not a job I would certainly volunteer for. Also, how does this impact the Obama administration who claims to have killed Bin Laden in his first term? Was Bin Laden simply a scape goat or did he have any involvement? While Obama hasn’t been a perfect President I certainly do not categorize him in the Cheney category who is a modern day darth vader. Nothing that man has ever said can be believed. I don’t believe Obama would have perpetuated such a lie. So who is responsible? CIA? Mossad? Both? It seems to pull this off you need some very powerful people at the top pulling the triggers but still…The number of people you would need to pull of an inside job like this would be several. That is where I always get stuck, the sheer number of people involved in high government positions that would need to be involved. Right when I am sold on inside involvement it takes me back to the number of anti-americans you would need to pull this off. It makes it much more messy than say a Kennedy assassination.
    They would have needed cooperation/participation from multiple people and government agencies to pull this off…

    1. “That is where I always get stuck, the sheer number of people involved in high government positions that would need to be involved.”~Dan Khwaja
      Hi Dan,
      From what I read in your comment is that you are ‘short circuited’. That is what you describe.
      I would suggest considering the situation from an larger perspective; that of a ‘systems analysis’. What sort of system are we dealing with here? We have a corporatist governmental system, and this system is hierarchical. Such systems are compartmentalized and rely on ‘chain of command’; “need to know” and the necessity of obeying orders.
      Going along to get along is ubiquitous in such a system.
      Think of this; if you had been unwittingly involved in some fashion, you would still be getting stuck at the same place, and it would even be easier on your conscience to hand wave all the evidence of a systemic psychological operation. The most rational approach is to assess the actual facts and data, to see the events of 9/11 as a crime and follow the reasoning of forensic procedure. As unlikely as your emotions might prompt you think something is – if the proofs are there, it is only psychological denial at that point which holds you back from accepting the logic of those proofs.
      Good luck, \\][//

  31. Even the people commenting here saying it WAS a plane, Know it wasn’t but reject the truth.
    Let me ask you this. What benefit would Arabs in Afghanistan from attacking America ? What motive ? What outcome ? Do you really think they would want to provoke a war with the mightiest army in the world and her allies ? Knowing no-one in the world would support their actions ? What benefit do they have form this ? Just answer this…
    Now think about what motives might exist behind staging an attack like this. I can name ALOT. and so can anyone else who pays attention to global affairs.
    As for the “Passengers” Let’s have their names, Lets meet their families and visit their homes, Meet their friends and co-workers. Let’s see their social security numbers, telephone & bank statements. Credit card transactions. Employment history from at least 5 previous employers. All this would prove them to be real or fictional characters. Simply putting two names together and writing up a fake obituary doesn’t cut it. I want to know MORE about each victim. This info is easy to come by when searching for real victims of 911 such as the ones inside WTC1 or 2. But quite difficult regarding passengers and crew of any of these flights. So as it stands as far as I’m concerned they are fictional characters until proven otherwise by means mentioned above.
    Why does 911 have to be the one and only exception to the rule of physics regarding aviation crashes ? Space shuttle Columbia was reconstructed inside a hangar for investigative purposes. Why weren’t ANY aircraft from the 911 events reconstructed ? Not only that but there was nothing to reconstruct them from (flight 93 and 77) The aircraft remains from WTC were rushed off to recycling before anyone noticed they came from a military drone
    Everything on this site is based on common sense & physical evidence, Official reports as based on lies. It doesn’t take a genius to see it. But it does take an open minded individual to accept it.
    And i am a Pilot of 12 Years, I can confirm i have had trouble landing various aircraft when coming in too fast due to ground effect. Let me explain what that is, Its an air vortex which builds up between the ground and the wings causing the aircraft to maintain level flight and not touch down and in some cases pushing the aircraft back in the air where Speed Brake must be applied to counter act this. and speed brake spoils airflow over the wing which sends you to the runway for touchdown, Speed brake in the pentagon situation would have caused the plane to stall & crash into the ground before the pentagon. That flight path is totally impossible as i seen in that animation above. Are the these lamp posts the only thing left official reports can go by ? Rig them with explosive charges it’s not difficult.
    Shills counter questioning without answering any questions them selfs. AS IF a plane could hit the pentagon at ground level literally several feet above the field. With engines that hang lover then the fuselage. But no sign of engines tearing up the grass or anything for that matter, and vanishing into thing air along with the wings and tail section, And people say the plane banked as it came in. If it banked at such a low level the wing would have made contact with the ground, That didn’t happen either. So stop asking questions just because you can;t answer the ones on this page. Stop making reference to “passengers and crew” without proving they’re real as i stated above.

  32. @Ace Kay
    As for the “Passengers” Let’s have their names, Lets meet their families and visit their homes, Meet their friends and co-workers. Let’s see their social security numbers, telephone & bank statements. Credit card transactions. Employment history from at least 5 previous employers. All this would prove them to be real or fictional characters. Simply putting two names together and writing up a fake obituary doesn’t cut it. I want to know MORE about each victim.

    1. You are so weird Agent Wright,
      WTF does repeating what Ace Kay says back to him suppose to mean?
      Kay’s points are well made. There has been zero verification of a single assertion the media and government has made about 9\11. No proof of anything “official narrative”.
      Wright should give up trolling T&S, the act has become a total bore…

  33. To the original author (and I use that term VERY loosely),
    You are a complete dumbass! What in hell are you basing your so called analysis on? Some pictures. One released video? Conspiracy theory websites? Get off the keyboard and get outside sometimes and deal with people
    face to face.
    I know for sure that you weren’t there or
    you wouldn’t be spouting such F’ing
    Let me tell you something there ahole, I
    was there, sitting at my desk, 70′ from
    the impact point. I know from being
    there that within 30 seconds of impact,
    smoke was entering my office. Within
    just less than a minute there were
    flames. Where were you? Let me
    guess…probably with some like minded
    people (if you ever come out from
    behind the keyboard) watching the
    events on T.V. and complaining it was
    some vast right wing conspiracy.
    What was I and many others much
    better than you doing you ask? Our
    freaking job! Helping to evacuate the
    building. Warning people not to pick up
    the many, many airplane parts none
    larger than one square foot, as it was
    evidence. After that I was asked to help
    retrieve people and bodies, a lot of
    which were burned beyond recognition.
    I didn’t do it for fame and glory, I did it
    because it was my JOB!
    As for the windows not burning, they
    had already been replaced with blast proof glass. Notice I said blast proof,
    not bullet proof. The exterior walls, even
    between the rings of the Pentagon had
    been reinforced with thick Kevlar. Your
    right on one point though, at the point of
    impact, that area had already been
    remodeled with the items I mentioned
    before but also with other, safer
    materials to protect the occupants.
    So before you let your fingers loose on
    the keyboard again or you l et your alligator mouth overload your jaybird ass remember this, I WAS THERE, YOU
    WEREN’T dickhead!
    Also remember that myself and many others before me and after me make it possible for you to spread you weak minded shit.
    John D. Osbon
    MSgt, USAF, Retired

    1. Yes SIR Mister Master Sargent!
      You say. “Warning people not to pick up the many, many airplane parts none larger than one square foot, as it was evidence.”
      So where did that “evidence” go Osbon? Did a single serial number ever get mention? Chain of possession proven?
      You end with this jingoberry bullshit:
      “Also remember that myself and many others before me and after me make it possible for you to spread you weak minded shit.”
      How’s that you militarist asshole? You saving us from the Commies or the “Raghead Tearists”?
      No you are deluding yourself with your John Wayne tough-guy military he-man myths. The military fights for the bankers and the corporations. When will mindless pricks like you ever figure it out? Do yourself a favor bucko, learn some real history.
      Remember: “War is a Racket”~Major General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient.
      In the meantime suffer through the people still having a remnant of their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and opinion.

      1. Well well WW the keyboard warrior wants to set me straight. Not gonna happen. Here again I ask “Were you there?” I bet not.
        Now let’s clear up some of his other mistakes. It’s not Mister Master S-a-r-g-e-n-t, It’s Master S-e-r-g-e-a-n-t. For you, you can just call me Mister Osbon. Secondly it’s not T-e-a-r-i-s-t, it’s T-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t. Spell check is your friend, learn how to use it.
        With regard to the pieces of aircraft that I saw both outside the walls of the Pentagon but also in the courtyard. I’m sorry I was not able to get a full or partial serial number for you. I was too busy helping those who needed it. You do make one and only one valid point, where is the chain of evidence, don’t know but I would suspect that all pieces found were transported to Andrews Air Force Base to be reconstructed as completely as possible in one of the many large hangars by both the FBI and the NTSB. This is standard procedure. I can also say I saw other things that day that I’m not at liberty to talk about to anyone.
        As far as the quote you attribute to Major General Bradley, “War is a racket”, respectfully to him war is not a racket it is a TRAVESTY! What you fail to realize you fucking idiot is the military from the highest ranking officer to the lowest ranking enlisted do not like war. We are the ones having to order others to their possible deaths or have to go out ourselves to possibly die. The U.S. Military hates war you simpleton!
        So I’m also to paraphrase you a gung ho John Wayne type. You are a fucking idiot that knows absolutely nothing about the military. All the services do there very best to weed out those types. The U.S. Military wants individuals that won’t just follow orders blindly, they won’t individuals that can think and reason and question those orders if they are going to cause a massive loss of life or border on being illegal. Personally I have refused such orders and I have the paperwork to back it up.
        Finally you pull out the First Amendment argument which is such a false flag it’s laughable. Let me remind you of a quote that is falsely attributed to Voltaire “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. I’m still willing to do that are you, you big pussy! I bet not.
        John D Osbon
        MSgt, USAF Retired

        1. Mister Osbon, do not call people fucking idiots on this blog. If you can’t make your case without insults, then don’t bother. Since you’re new I’m giving you a warning. By the way, are you actually saying that you picked up airplane parts in the center courtyard of the Pentagon?

          1. Mr. McKee,
            No I did not pick up the pieces of the aircraft I saw in the courtyard for three reasons, one ad I stated before I was busy helping those that needed help, i.e., those injured or in shock. Two I am not a trained accident investigator. Three, these items had not been marked as to their location, size or shape.
            What really gets me is that you and those like you are so narrow minded that if a situation doesn’t fit your world view, then it must be wrong or a lie. Does this mean that I trust the government is always telling the truth? Hell no! I’ve dealt with politicians from both major political parties in the U.S.. My take away from these encounters is that they are all in it for their own gratification and enrichment. It’s been my experience that they just want to get elected and will say and do anything to make that happen. Then once elected they just focus on getting reelected and not doing the people’s business as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Also can someone explain to me how once a congressman takes office how they become instant millionaires? I’ll tell you how, donations from lobbyists.
            I see that you are from Canada. I had the pleasure of working with your country man from the RCAF. Professionals all and I would gladly work with them again.
            A couple of other things.
            As far as my insults, I couldn’t give a shit whether you ban me from your blog or not. It seems that other than colorful words, you and the like minded want to stifle any dissent that doesn’t follow your line of thinking. Now that’s closed minded and the only disservice you are doing is to yourself. Rest assured I am done with you halfwits and will not be posting again as it’s just not worth my time.
            One last word of “friendly” advice for most of you, grow a thick skin. I’m not sure about Canada, but the U.S. Constitution gives us the right of free speech, not the right to not be insulted.
            John D Osbon
            MSgt, USAF Retired

          2. ” the U.S. Constitution gives us the right of free speech, not the right to not be insulted.”
            What absolute nonsense MISTER Osbon, you are the one who set yourself up for being insulted – you are liable for such as your initial post was replete with insult itself.
            You should learn to distinguish between ‘rights’ and ‘liabilities’ as well.
            Furthermore I do not need a spell checker to correct the term “tearist” I meant that as I said it.
            The so-called war on terrorism is a farce MISTER Osbon, and if you had any knowledge of the architecture of modern political power you would understand this.
            As far as understanding the military, I was in the Air Force myself and understand it very well.
            Be true to your promise Osbon, don’t troll this site anymore. May you rest in peace.

          3. @John D. Dobson
            I think you should read the article about the Boston Marathon , the third in the list of ‘top posts’ on the right-hand side of the page. It might give you a clearer idea of the mindset of the people you are arguing with here.

          4. The fact that you would bond with Mr. Osbon says a lot about where you’re coming from.
            By the way, your point would be stronger if you spelled the guy’s name right.

          5. @John D. Osbon
            I think you should read the article about the Boston Marathon , in the list of ‘top posts’ on the right-hand side of the page. It might give you a clearer idea of the mindset of the people you are arguing with here.

          6. I agree with Agent Wright, Osbon Should not only read the article on the Boston Marathon here, he should study all of the articles here and learn something. Maybe he has a more coherent “mindset” than the unfortunate Mr Wright.

          7. For what it’s worth: The existence of this individual, MSgt (R) Osbon, is a matter of public record, and from available data it’s not at all unlikely that he was posted where he says he was on the day in question.
            Despite his tone, I’m personally willing to extend hypothetical credence to his comments and description. Bear in mind: None of this contradicts all alternate hypotheses with regard the events in question; rapid delivery of debris would be essential in any coverup, for example, and it’s unlikely that the duty weatherman (for example) would be read into any covert operation.

        2. John D Osbon MSgt, USAF Retired
          Well well WW the keyboard warrior wants to set me straight. Not gonna happen. Here again I ask “Were you there?” I bet not.
          Msgt, You Sir (I use that term loosely) need to RESEARCH before you Comment. I am also Ex Military, Navy and I became Injured in 2002 and am Not able to return to the Workforce. I have Researched this and Many Other Incidents that have been happening not only here in the US but from around the world. Doing a through Research will OPEN you Mind. Also, LEAVE the Tough Guy Routine for the Recruits. It also Reflect Poorly upon yourself but the US Armed Forces as well when you Talk in the manner you did.
          John C Bridgers

  34. It’s funny how embracers of the “official” account of the events of 911 expect proof from anyone who doubts the veracity of it (even for very good reasons) but are quite satisfied with the “official” version, all the holes in it notwithstanding. And, unless an “official story” doubter can explain the EXACT way in which the events of 911 unfolded, these believers cannot process any other information than what MSM and the government feeds them. I think even if the EXACT way things occurred that day was revealed (which will never happen), they would not believe it unless it came from MSM or the government and, even then, would probably find some way of discarding the truth as it would humble them to admit they were mistaken in their original beliefs.
    Important to note throughout all of this is the idea that these planes were flying hundreds of MPH faster than possible at ground level or even at several hundred feet above the ground. The density of air at low altitudes prevents flight by these large passenger jets to even come close to the speeds necessary to vaporize them. A video on YT showing just how a fighter jet DOES vaporize when hitting a 10′ thick reinforced concrete barrier at 400mph with water in it’s tanks, not fuel, is not a valid comparison to what would happen to a large jet striking anything other than a solid steel reinforced concrete barrier at a speed FAR less than 500mph.
    If only people would not consider it unpatriotic to ask questions or to doubt what we are told by official sources.
    As an aside, I would be curious to know if MSargeant Osbon saw the jet coming in.

    1. @Fred Beondo
      The speed of the 767 that hit the WTC south tower can be measured using the various videos of it hitting. It is not a story. You can measure it. It is not something the govenment or the MSM told you or anyone else. It is not an official anything. It’s a fact. No airline pilot has ever tried to fly a plane at those speeds since they would jeopardize the plane and their own lives. Planes are not tested to destruction. Only someone unfamiliar with planes and their limitations and careless of the consequences would push the throttles forward to the stops, maximising the damage they wanted to cause. The plane that hit the Pentagon did not vaporise. It disintegrated and shredded into pieces, some large some small and everything in between and then largely burned along with the unfortunate people who were unwilling victims of those flying it. There is no more mystery about the plane hitting the Pentagon that there is about any other plane crash. There is less ,since there has hardly ever been a plane crash in a public place witnessed by more people. The mystery is how a specious version of the facts can be manipulated to make it appear that there is a mystery about it.

      1. “There is less ,since there has hardly ever been a plane crash in a public place witnessed by more people.”~Agent Wright
        There you go bringing up the Pentagon “witnesses” again, a subject you have been grilled on repeatedly on T&S, wherein you have never once mentioned a single witness to address the validity of their ‘witnessing’…
        Wright, you are a toadyboy shill who continues to bark bullshit but fails to answer the questions asked of you, and then shows up weeks or months later with the same garbage.

    2. “The density of air at low altitudes prevents flight by these large passenger jets to even come close to the speeds necessary to vaporize them. A video on YT showing just how a fighter jet DOES vaporize when hitting a 10′ thick reinforced concrete barrier at 400mph with water in it’s tanks, not fuel, is not a valid comparison to what would happen to a large jet striking anything other than a solid steel reinforced concrete barrier at a speed FAR less than 500mph.”
      Fred Beondo, Are you seriously asserting that no jets hit the World Trade Towers?
      This is a completely different can of worms than the Pentagon event. If you are going to go Fetzer on us here, you had better pull up your sleeves.

    3. “A video on YT showing just how a fighter jet DOES vaporize when hitting a 10′ thick reinforced concrete barrier at 400mph with water in it’s tanks, not fuel, is not a valid comparison to what would happen to a large jet striking anything other than a solid steel reinforced concrete barrier at a speed FAR less than 500mph.”~Fred Beondo
      You are talking about the Sandia test. This test was done to verify by physical experiments, the already well known calculations of crash physics that state an object hitting an inert structure at high speed would not slow down until the center of gravity reached the impact area. That video was filmed in super slow motion so they could calibrate the movement of the jet during impact. There was no question of the jet breaking through the barrier. everything was calculated before had.
      what would have been the benefit of using jet fuel rather than water to give the proper weight to the test jet? All that would have accomplished is a horrific fire.
      I think expecting the stabilizer to just break off at high speed as postulated for the Pentagon event is misplaced. I don’t think there would have been much difference at impact than what we see at WTC.
      This point is moot however, I don’t think a jet crashed into the Pentagon. And that opinion is based on the CIT and Pilots for 9/11 truth analysis, the bottom line here being the damage path inside the building could not have been caused by a plane on the trajectory it was witnessed to be on.

  35. So all you jingoberry worshippers of authority and “The-Amerikan-Way” such as; MSgt Osbon, Agent Wright, Robbes7rh … What’s your take on the just-published TORTURE REPORT?
    This doesn’t clue you into the reality that the west is a psychopathic society run by and for maniacs?
    What? You don’t think these demonic psychos are capable of killing their own citizens in a scam like 9/11? Are you guys really that naive? Or is it a fact that you are raging psycho-killers too, who think torture is just fine and “maybe we ought to just nuke them damn ragheads and get done with it”..?

    1. @hybridrogue1
      The one thing the report on torture does is undermine the whole ‘inside job’ theory of 9/11 since it would mean the Whitehouse and the CIA and other intelligence services were resorting to determined , deadly serious torture practices to extract information from people that they knew didn’t have it. I would say that is one of the things the 9/11 truth movement should ‘pay less attention to’.

      1. “The one thing the report on torture does is undermine the whole ‘inside job’ theory of 9/11 since it would mean the Whitehouse and the CIA and other intelligence services were resorting to determined , deadly serious torture practices to extract information from people that they knew didn’t have it.”~Agent Wright
        You never fail to make a fool of yourself Wright.
        Yes they were “resorting to determined , deadly serious torture practices to extract information from people that they knew didn’t have it.” – because it is common knowledge even among the ghouls who torture people that it is certain to extract confessions from anyone, because they will say anything to make it stop.
        These people had no information, but their “confessions” gave just the cover story the Whitehouse and the CIA and other intelligence services were looking for, an excuse for their phony “War on Terror”
        I would say that this is one issue any decent human being should not only pay attention to, but should cause them to withdraw any support whatsoever from the torturers and their clients, the illegitimate criminal regime in DC.

        1. @hybridrogue1
          So they were torturing people to not extract information from them that they knew they couldn’t use anyway. I’d say just pretend they tortured people in that case. Save everyone a lot of trouble and and effort and potential repercussions instead of devoting all this energy and effort to doing something they knew was pointless. As you realise, that doesn’t wash as an explanation. The ‘inside job’ theory doesn’t fit in any logical framework with the torture regime and those voicing the condemnation that abuse and torture deserve, undermine their own credibility by trying to maintaining that it does.

          1. Your pretense at “logic” goes to the extremities of the absurd Wright.
            >>”Save everyone a lot of trouble and and effort and potential repercussions instead of devoting all this energy and effort to doing something they knew was pointless.”~Wright
            Your grasp of the motivations of a psychopathic warfare state is literally nonexistent.
            All this energy and effort is meant to create the institutionalized insanity that is right before your very eyes. More nonsense branching-off into new government agencies, and coupling with corporatist NGOs, like the psycho-Psychiatrists paid millions for their assistance, is part of the agenda of crippling the economy of the common people and putting their dreams of peace and sanity into permanent coma.
            Just like all of the funds pumped into the fraudulent “security sector”, the TSA and all of it’s corporate spawns domestically that now come close to the expenditures of the warfare sector’s foreign adventurism.
            What’s the bottom line for you Wright? Do you think that torture is justified in any instance whatsoever?

          2. @hybridrogue1
            I think you’re intelligent enough to recognize the illogical scenario that you are trying to defend. It’s patently not a defensible position that there was a torture regime carried out and approved by people with not only the certain knowledge that it was pointless and unnecessary and a waste of time and energy but also that it could potentially represent a jeopardy to themselves if they were to be held accountable for it. You can ask me to believe that people will do bad things for bad reasons or for what they think are the right reasons but don’t ask me to believe that people will do bad things for stupid reasons, knowing that they are stupid reasons.

          3. The powers that be are fine with the torture “scandal” because it reinforces the notion that we have to protect ourselves against the “terrorists” – the only question is what will we do to achieve security?

          4. @Craig McKee You don’t think it’s a scandal? It’s the powers that be who approved and carried out interrogations that included torture. The fact that it reinforces the notion that they were combating terrorists is the reason I suggested it should be one of the things that the 911 truth movement should ‘pay less attention to’ , just as was suggested in a recent article where the idea of ‘incompetence’ was to have less attention paid to it since “The incompetence theory is the worst thing that anyone who calls them a truther should ever push. It reinforces the terrorist threat and justifies the continued war on terror. ” – just as the torture reports do.

          5. >>”I think you’re intelligent enough to recognize the illogical scenario that you are trying to defend. It’s patently not a defensible position that there was a torture regime carried out and approved by people with not only the certain knowledge that it was pointless and unnecessary and a waste of time and energy but also that it could potentially represent a jeopardy to themselves if they were to be held accountable for it.”~Wright
            I have covered the “waste of time and energy” assertion Wright. As far as “accountability” you should recognize by now that there is NEVER any accountability for such madness.
            You are either incredibly gullible and naive, or you are totally disingenuous. In fact it appears you are simply repeating talking points from a script – as usual.
            Again, I have asked you a simple question, and as your usual MO you do not answer. I repeat:
            Do you think that torture is justified in any instance whatsoever?
            Answer that, and don’t pester me with your bullshit any further.

    2. Through the prism of catechism by criticism expands the schism leading to ultimate dissatisfaction.
      There should be no more back and forth or forth and fifth sessions of derogatory hectoring without at least a break for the restroom before, standing on the fifth while defending the first by way of advantage of the second amendment. That is, the context is self defense – not the tools thereof.

  36. Great article but one massive omission that would put it all to bed. Please Please post one simple picture of the pre-collapse. Why on earth does that picture, the most important picture of all, at the Pentagon, never get published along side articles on the events that took place there. The pictures pre-collapse show no evidence of vertical stabiliser damage to the building and even better, no evidence of wing damage. I don’t know how to post such a picture here, but PLEASE post one, just one!

    1. Just one other point, if I may. The vertical stabiliser that I mentioned, or the tail fin as some know it, would snap off on an impact of any speed. This is a really large section of the plane. Im not going to go into the details of how well qualified I am, but aeronautics are my business.

    2. have seen pictures of the pentagon with arrows pointing to the areas where the wings and tail section “supposedly” contacted the building facade and, curiously, they did not penetrate the building. Just left “marks”. Are we to believe they vaporized on contact? Because there is no sign of sections of the wings or tail section outside the building on the lawn area. Furthermore the computer generated simulation in other reports/videos indicates the wings went under the first floor and into the building. They couldn’t have both struck the first floor leaving “marks” AND gone under the building. I don’t profess to know what actually happened that day but the official story stinks in more ways than one. Particularly the myth that the “plane” was moving at over 500mph. It would take 6 times the power the engines could generate in order to push that “plane” through much denser sea level air. The actual speed of a 757 at ground level (even several hundred feet above sea level) is probably a couple of hundred MPH less than the “official myth” claims.

      1. You have a very valid point about the wings. like everything they want to cover up they just say the 2 magic words, ” it vaporized “.

    1. “Did a plane hit the twin towers?”~Kittii
      Actually there were two planes Kittii. One plane hit one tower. And then another plane hit the other tower. Are you really going to let goofball videos like this influence your thinking?
      Cartoon logic is for children.

      1. LOL!. I believed the lie for 8 years that Muslims flew the planes into the World Trade Center. I question everything now. I knew someone who was working at the Bank of New York that day. It took me 8 hours to get through and find out he was okay. That’s how long it took him to get home in New Jersey. I swallowed the official story hook, line and sinker. I celebrated the anniversary date with them 2002. I bought copies of the books Costco put out to commemorate 9/11. I am an extremist type of person, unfortunately. That’s why this makes me so mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can call me a goofball. I guess I am.

        1. Kittii,
          It would be best to control your emotions on these topics, take a deep breath and stand to reason. Anger may be a good motivation to push you into research, but letting it go while you do your research with a cool head is the only approach that will be fruitful for you.
          Good luck!

          1. hybridrogue1,
            When I first heard the concept of no real planes hitting the WTC, I thought it was hooey. However, the more I’ve looked at the videos of the second tower, I can’t rule out that supposition completely.
            The WTC exterior wall system was roughly 50% structural steel box columns anchored to a horizontal floor system of concrete filled steel pans and steel bar joists lying in the same direction as the plane trajectory with the outer columns welded together by large flat steel plates designed to hide the floor system components. The fuselage of the airplane is taller than the floor-to-floor plate height. Any flimsy aluminum tube airliner flying into this structural steel mesh and horizontal floor system would be obliterated, not the building. If the plane managed to get through the outer wall it would have been diced into a million pieces and would never have had a chance of destroying the inner core columns. What is even more ludicrous are the videos of the second tower that show the nose of the plane intact coming through the other side. There would be NO nose at that point — it’s either 1. Video fakery, as others have pointed out, or 2. A super-plane, one that was uniquely constructed to penetrate the building, but it certainly couldn’t have been everyday, run-of-the-mill commercial airliners.
            There is a third possibility, the planes were computer guided to specific building points where the structure was pre-weakened prior to the crashes.
            As far as the Pentagon goes, that’s a no-brainer. That website that robbes7rh suggested, you know, the one with the elementary school crayon drawings on selective photos, is just ridiculous. What I saw there were pictures of structural building elements blown outward rather than pushed inward. Column lines 6-10 wing damage? Where’s the wing? It would be laughable if the topic wasn’t so serious.

          2. The Other Craig,
            I know full well the structural situation of the towers and I am sick and tired of arguing the real crash physics involved on 9/11. I am also fed up with dealing with bullshit video-fakery garbage, holograms and all the other nonsense that disinformants have been spreading for the last decade.
            No, the planes that hit the towers were certainly not ‘everyday, run-of-the-mill commercial airliners’, so that and robotic guidance systems is all you need for what is known and seen to have happened. Read the equations for the crash physics above on this very thread.
            Pardon me for being annoyed after all the time I have put into analyzing this and having to re-argue things over and fucking over again…WTF???

  37. from looking at the newest transasia (feb 4 2015) crash you can see just how fragile a plane really is. Watch it and pause it just before the tail section is shredded completely by 1 light pole. The wing hits the cement reinforced retaining wall and it was ripped to shreds with no really damage to the cement. At the pentagon after supposedly hitting 5 -6 light poles the wings would have been in pieces on the ground in front the pentagon somewhere. But i guess they vaporized ( probably magic & wizards did this ). It would be like trying to smash a brick with a marshmallow…no way could the plane go through 3 sections of the pentagon. Lets not forget the speed of a commercial airliner at a few hundred feet could not reach the speeds they say. air is too thick at this low altitude. i think we all can look at the interviews of the people who saw the plane on the other side ( not near the light poles ) and see what really happened. very convenient that all the poles were laying in areas that were not visible from the road. TAXI driver ????? OMG serious ? a plane supposedly flies by knocking a light pole into his windshield and then blows up the pentagon and he flags someone down to help him MOVE the light pole from his windshield ? right WAKE UP AMERICA …..there should be people marching in the streets after this BS …..and you have to be the biggest idiot in the world if you believe shanksville at all. to conclude , usually the most logical explanation is the correct one. lets try to swallow this : 4 planes that are the only 4 planes in history to completely vaporize including the black boxes but magically they only find terrorists passports. The only 3 buildings in history to completely fall from fire and WOW they found a passport on the street of a terrorist. the most protected building in the world left completely unprotected while a inexperienced pilot flew a sophisticated aircraft exactly into the target with ultra precious after circling the building to hit the “under construction “area. this was all done with a few box cutters. and HERE is the smoking gun that i would love someone to try to debunk: The owner of the world trade center buildings admitted on video ( you can find it on youtube) that he pulled the building down. which means “demolition-ed ” it. so you are telling me after the 2nd plane hit the buildings he found a crew willing to go into a burning building and do 2 weeks worth of work in about 3 hours amid all that chaos and fire and precisely set explosives to take down a building that was unoccupied ???????????????? that right there proves this is whole thing is not what it seems. only 1 possible explanation ….. the charges were already set in place before planes even hit the twin towers. how can you explain this ??

  38. Why would the US Govt have allowed Dr. Bryan Jack, one of the highest ranking civilians at the DOD, to have been on that plane that hit the Pentagon?

    1. This was no passenger plane. It was a small unmarked plane not a missle like other truthers theorize. (If it was a imissile where is the vehicle that deployed it?) And to have anyone confirmed a high level official is dead, my theory is if he indeed died that day he may very well have been assassinated as perhaps he was strongly against what would be the worst crime in American history. Just my 2cents

  39. I swear on my own body that what hit the petagon was indeed a plane, just not the one to be claimed. I saw the cctv unedited video of a small unmarked white plane colliding with the building on a show exposing the truth about 911. The show hosts aired this on an underground internet channel on a program called Winamp. Believe it or not, the name of the show is called Penn and teller Bullshit!. I was later dumfounded to learn that episode is no longer available and the hosts claim the opposite of what they once defended. My suspicion is they were bribed or ththreatened.

    1. Juan, the physical evidence combined with witness testimony of a north of Citgo approach proves conclusively that no plane hit the Pentagon, despite what you saw on some TV show.

  40. Craig, thanks for adding the “most recent comments” feature to the right side column. Now, we can “bump” old articles and hence keep current articles on topic, since in the past it was assumed the only way people would see comments is if the comments are at the most recent blog posting.
    So, on the subject of the Pentagon, I’m now disheartened to see that on the Facebook 9/11 Truth Movement group, the creator of the group, Ken Doc, has now gone into full blown disinformation mode on the Pentagon in general and CIT specifically.
    He is now saying that there are “over 100 witnesses to the official flight path” (south of the Citgo).
    He says he believes Jim Hoffman comes the closest to the truth about what happened at the Pentagon:
    He says that CIT “stalked” the cab driver Lloyde England in order to get him to say what they wanted him to say. And then in the very next comment, he says that CIT “cherrypicked” 14 eyewitnesses who reported an anomaly (flight path) out of “more than a hundred witnesses to a plane.
    And in the following screen shot, he reveals that he now thinks a plane did hit the Pentagon. And one last whopper (in the same comment): he says that “Pentagon No-Impacters” have no answer for how the how the debris on the lawn could have gotten there.
    Well, CIT (the people whose research is being shat upon in that thread) have indeed addressed this issue in detail at their FAQ page.
    Those screen shots are from about half a month ago. I’ve been told that things have gotten even worse since. The king of all trolls, Mike Collins, is now saying that the “CIT witnesses are fake” and Ken Doc apparently responds as if this is a perfectly reasonable position.
    If these guys are not Sunstein infil-traitors, they at the very least have intellects on the level of a rock.

    1. Adam,
      That is some disheartening information about the goobers on the Facebook 9/11 Truth Movement group. From the looks of it, I would say they are more than likely a Sunstein op.
      Facebook would be the perfect place for a psychological operation of that sort. That is where you catch a majority of the lowest common denominator. It begins as a modified limited hangout and slowly turns to a complete embrace of the official story.
      Too bad for the stupid people. Too bad for the smart people they are so outnumbered by the stupid people. Isn’t du jour “democracy’ a wonderful thing? Bernays sure knew how to spin them heads!

      1. Facebook would be the perfect place for a psychological operation of that sort. That is where you catch a majority of the lowest common denominator.
        It begins as a modified limited hangout and slowly turns to a complete embrace of the official story.
        Well, to be fair, I DON’T think that the FB 911TM group is going to slowly “come around” and reject WTC inside job truth and AE911. All the admins there are in full support of that, and I personally can’t see that aspect of it being hijacked. Not anytime soon.
        That being said, if that eventually happens, maybe not in a few months, but say, a few YEARS, after the current voluntary team largely/mostly moves on in life and hands the baton to others, I wouldn’t be too surprised if some hard core infiltration takes place then, along the way.
        And indeed what you suggest does have historical precedence: A good example would be the late TruthAction forum. Started largely as a place to post pics of street actions of the “The Eleventh Day of Every Month Until Justice” campaign as well as a good central meeting point for 9/11 truthers to meet and discuss issues. During 2007-8 the forum was generally pretty good. Then a “culture” arose whereby it was considered “irresponsible activism” to claim a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon (since it will apparently turn the public off). That became the ideology (facts be damned), and then the Hoffman and Legge pieces were used to buttress that ideology; those who disagreed were declared “disruptors” and “bad for the movement” and were booted off. They also decided that supporters of people like Alex Jones, Kevin Barrett and others be booted as well. It became a Stalinist atmosphere whereby you’d be banned if you were seen posting at a forum they declared unfriendly, or seen socializing with the wrong person.
        After so many people had been banned that the Sunstein infil-traitors outnumbered the genuine folks, in its final ’11-’12 years, the forum did indeed begin to take a shit on CD. First starting with Stephen Jones and his research into free/regenerating energy. Since he had apparently mentioned “earthquake machines” in some paper somewhere, all of a sudden, we should not take seriously ANYTHING he says. Then they pulled out the “Bentham is a pay-to-play journal.” From there, they went on to accuse Richard Gage of being in it for the money, and with the prime motive of selling DVDs.
        So yeah, maybe in 2018 they’ll be crapping on CD in the 911TM group.

        1. Adam,
          The court historians and hired men of academia will never rest, and will be well funded for the long campaign against the truth of 9/11, even in the hollowed bastions of so-called “social media”, where social engineering already has its jackboot in the door.
          Lollipop History & Bubblegum physics and it’s Orwellian future is guaranteed save some intervention from above, or some other highly unlikely event.
          Pardon my cynicism, but it seems to be a fair reading of “history” thus far.

  41. I read the article twice and I did not see where you ever mentioned the picture of the hole in the wall you say should have been larger to accommodate the 46 ft high tail and the wings was not the entry hole but the exit hole in the courtyard. Seems hard to believe the wings would have survived as standard aviation practice is empty the belly fuel tank first and wing tanks second and to only take on enough fuel to fly to the destination and one maybe two alternates in case of problems and the third alternate is usually only in less populated parts of the country, plus 45 minute reserve. Aircraft are designed to protect the passengers and not the wings so the wings are designed to be broken off, as is the tail section, thus the damage on the outer ring and the little damage on the inner ring wall.
    Why didn’t you mention the hole in the wall you were showing was not the one you were describing? Just curious

    1. Holly, you silly girl, the article you linked to is a parody:
      Parody – an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
      “the movie is a parody of the horror genre”
      synonyms: satire, burlesque, lampoon, pastiche, caricature, imitation, mockery; More

      1. you just say in every comment that people are wrong with no evidence of any kind just saying that they are lying in some way

  42. who cares about the pentagon ..:) … and 2nd.. who cares what the media says.. 1st off i dont care what ppl say… its my Opinion …. 1st off.. a tractor trailer carrying fuel going 50 MPH would make probably the same size hole i the pentagon .. now if a car was to drive about 140 mph might do the same….. Now Look at the trade centers… u see the size of the whole and the explosion the planes made…. ???? enough said there right.. he he…. now if u had a car drive into a house and exploded.. ( look on youTube more then enough).. and u let it burn for some time… it will fall down right…. right… now if u drive a car into a building let it burn ALLL day… what ?? yes Jet fuel will burn HOT.. and yes might melt the BEAMS…. but every floor falling onto ITS-SELF ????? and dropping perfect and bringing a HUGE building down ???? twice.. ??? If you look Close at the trade buildings…. during the crash, its half the building… so tell my why the whole floor melts.. ?? the steel beams from the other side where its is clear no fire melting it as hot as where the fuel hit… ??? The Buildings WOULD NEVER FALL so “Controlled” in real life.. .. Nothing adds up in my book of common scene… think about it… dont go by what u hear from media or the government… ” Believe nothing you hear and only half what u see” … its like A magician .. u see him do something in front of u.. ? so did they really cut someone in half ???

    1. First off how many homes do you know of that are made of structural steel. I believe most if not all are constructed of wood so yes if you drive a car into it let it burn it will fall so that analogy is,way off base and irrelevant. And as a former structural steel fabricator no jet fuel will not burn hot enough to melt steel. And once again. On 9/11 is the 1st time in history that not 1, or 2, but 3 structural steel high rise buildings suffered total failure as a result of fire.
      I’m originally from Philadelphia and I’ve seen this first hand. One Meridian Plaza burned uncontrolled for 18+ hours suffered extensive damage but stayed upright.

  43. Take the picture at the top of this column and look at the full image and ask yourself this question. If I am a very poor pilot, why would I aim for the smaller side target and have to fly close to the ground. Why not roll over at higher altitude and dive for the extremely big roof? ‘
    Just look at the roof area and compare it to the wall area. I liked Jim Hoffmans any good autopilot would do it answer. Why, because any autopilot worth it’s silicon chips would be sounding every alarm it had in stock. Would that rattle an unskilled pilot? The pilot might even take evasive action. But, you say the autopilot can land and takeoff without alarms. Yes, but it know that it is landing and speed is lower.

  44. Everybody forgets Lloyde England. He supposedly saw flight 77 go over his car which pushed a lightpost thru his windshield. April Gallup saw no plane when the Pentagon exploded. Her testimony at Congress was a sworn testimony. Lloyde England has yet to testify. Both can’t be true.

    1. @sockpuppet2012 ” He’s a proven liar by the evidence; he was nowhere near the flight path of the Pentagon plane.”
      There is nothing like accusations based on illogical arguments , backed up by prejudicial assessments of evidence, combined with a few deceptive manipulations and distortions of the facts.

      1. A. Wright, answer these questions fully before proceeding with any other comments:
        1) Which illogical arguments?
        2) Which prejudicial assessments of evidence?
        3) Which deceptive manipulations?
        4) Which distortions of facts?
        Be thorough and be specific. Any other comments you post without responding to these questions will be deleted.

        1. @Craig McKee
          1: In the thread on David Chandler I have outlined exactly why the conclusions of CIT that a plane flew over the Pentagon are based on an illogical argument and no one here has refuted it. If you want me to copy and paste it here and go through it all again I will. It is a question of logical deduction.
          2: The entire premise of CIT is based on prejudicial assessment of evidence. The witnesses are prejudicially divided into ‘the independent witnesses’ and the witnesses who support the ‘official account’. Who are the independant witnesses? What are they independant of? Most of the witnesses they call independent witnesses are government employees or military contractors so that’s not the criteria. What makes them independent is that something they say can be used as evidence that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Any witness who supports the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon has these insinuations made about them , or about their past, to try and undermine their evidence or their character. The independent witnesses on the other hand get no such prejudicial treatment. What person objectively investigating anything would produce a video called ‘The USA Today Parade’, with barely concealed insinuations about witnesses , based on what they say, that a plane hit the Pentagon.
          3: The first time CIT interviewed Lloyde England he was asked about being on the bridge. He said very definitely that he wasn’t on the bridge or on an overpass. In National Security Alert they don’t mention this fact at all and say that Lloyde England ‘changed his story’ when confronted with this northside evidence. He was always under the impression he was not on the bridge and they make it look like he was trying to lie or change his account. They never mention that from the first time they spoke to him he said he wasn’t on the bridge.
          They devote an entire section to NSA to Lloyde England and before the start of that section they put up the statement ‘The plane did not hit the Pentagon’. Before the evidence of a witness has been presented his evidence has been declared false. They put Lloyde England out there as if his was the only evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and there was no other evidence and witnesses to support what he says.
          In NSA they have a recorded interview with Roosevelt Roberts who is supposedly a flyover witness and they edit the words ‘in the lane one area’ out of the middle of a sentence. Why would they edit that out ? He mentions the lane one area three times in the interview. If the plane was in the lane one area then it couldn’t have just flown over the Pentagon. They also know that he couldn’t have seen the plane if it flew over the Pentagon from the location he said he was in.
          4: I would say it’s a distortion of the facts to make a documentary and say to the audience that you are going to prove something to them beyond a reasonable doubt and make practically no mention of all of the evidence contradicting it. Anyone watching NSA who didn’t know otherwise would think there was almost no evidence at all from dozens of witnesses , fro starters, that a plane hit the building. How can you say you have proven something beyond a reasonable doubt when you haven’t present the evidence against it? It’s like saying you have proven someone guilty in a court of law by just presenting the prosecution case.

  45. A. Wright said:
    “The entire premise of CIT is based on prejudicial assessment of evidence. The witnesses are prejudicially divided into ‘the independent witnesses’ and the witnesses who support the ‘official account’”
    They are divided into “Those who were interviewed on camera, in the spot they were standing on 911, describing exactly what they saw” and “all others”
    Here is a breakdown of the witnesses which refutes your accusations against CIT:
    “The first time CIT interviewed Lloyde England he was asked about being on the bridge. He said very definitely that he wasn’t on the bridge or on an overpass. In National Security Alert they don’t mention this fact at all and say that Lloyde England ‘changed his story’ when confronted with this northside evidence. He was always under the impression he was not on the bridge and they make it look like he was trying to lie or change his account.
    They never mention that from the first time they spoke to him he said he wasn’t on the bridge”
    Wrong, Mr. Wright!
    First Lloyde England said his friend was there taking pictures of the Taxi cab and the pole; he said:
    “Yeah, he was up there on the bridge…..he was up on the bridge”
    It was only later that he changed his story; watch the video I posted above.
    “Before the evidence of a witness has been presented his evidence has been declared false. They put Lloyde England out there as if his was the only evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and there was no other evidence and witnesses to support what he says”
    CIT is crystal clear on the fact that most of the 13 NoC witnesses believe they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
    They don’t try to hide that fact.
    “In NSA they have a recorded interview with Roosevelt Roberts who is supposedly a flyover witness and they edit the words ‘in the lane one area’ out of the middle of a sentence. Why would they edit that out ? He mentions the lane one area three times in the interview. If the plane was in the lane one area then it couldn’t have just flown over the Pentagon. They also know that he couldn’t have seen the plane if it flew over the Pentagon from the location he said he was in”
    That’s just extraneous chatter, Mr. Wright.
    CIT is also crystal clear on the fact that the “fly-over” witnesses are not very important; they are not quite irrelevant, but they are not important.
    The plane flew North of the Citgo gas station; it couldn’t possibly have hit the light poles and done the directional damage to the Pentagon…..the plane flew low and slow over the north side of the Navy Annex banked to the right and “lifted up” and flew over the Pentagon just before the explosion(s).

      1. With Agent Wright gone, it will be different around here…..kinda like a wart you’ve had on your nose since you were a teenager, and then you finally have it removed… feel your nose and something’s missing…..I used to play with it and scratch it, but now it’s gone. 🙁

  46. A. Wright said:
    “I would say it’s a distortion of the facts to make a documentary and say to the audience that you are going to prove something to them beyond a reasonable doubt and make practically no mention of all of the evidence contradicting it. Anyone watching NSA who didn’t know otherwise would think there was almost no evidence at all from dozens of witnesses , fro starters, that a plane hit the building. How can you say you have proven something beyond a reasonable doubt when you haven’t present the evidence against it? It’s like saying you have proven someone guilty in a court of law by just presenting the prosecution case”
    The documentary NSA isn’t all of CIT’s work; they also have a website where EVRYTHING you mention is not hidden but brought out in the open.

  47. This comment section indirectly shows one major weakness of the 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy: its poor teachability. Our resident 9/11 fanatic A. Wright has had reinforcements: self-proclaimed and duly anonymous witnesses. Should the 9/11 conspiracy ever gain credibility within the general public, the Master 9/11 conspirators will effortlessly parade on TV a procession of crisis actors who will recall how they saw, smelled and touched airplane debris, pieces of luggage and charred human flesh in the midst of kerozene. They may even repeatedly broadcast some “just coincidentally found” video footage of F77 hitting the Pentagon. CIT’s police interviewees will appear in shiny uniforms, assuring viewers that the plane flew south of Citgo and that the conspiracy theorists tricked their recollection into the exact opposite to fit their predetermined agenda. The same institutions that have heartily supported the 9/11 censorship will cheerfully echo it. The 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy will become, at best, another wedge issue, pitting political activists against each other for a long time.
    Hence the call to leaders who wish to make 9/11 understood by the public to seek some system that real or invented witnesses could not contradict without ridiculing themselves and that TV could not counter even if Walt Disney came back to life. Easier said than done…

    1. “CIT’s police interviewees will appear in shiny uniforms, assuring viewers that the plane flew south of Citgo and that the conspiracy theorists tricked their recollection into the exact opposite to fit their predetermined agenda.”
      No, Lagasse and Brooks would not do that unless under hypnosis. Both have stuck by where they placed the plane even after learning of the implications.
      Plus, they already used crisis actors to push those points back from day one.

      1. I am the originator of the view that a big plane in Boeing livery flew over the Pentagon after coming directly over the Naval Annex Building and that another object — which I called simply “the killer jet” came from a more southerly direction passing south of the Naval Annex and coming more from the southwest rather then close to perpendicular. I had reviewed all of the wtiness accounts and found that only this account fit the witness accounts. For example, I interviewed by mail Steve Riskus who told me that from where he was headed south on the highway it appeared to him as though the Boeing went straight into the building. Did he mean “perpendicular?” Yes. Did he see the plane hit light posts. No. He only saw a downed streetlight post after he had driven further south as he left to get his now-famous photos of the wall onto the internet. There were other lines of evidence — the pass-reader box camera — establishing that the plane that struck the west wall was shorter than the building was tall — the building being 71 ft. high and the “killer jet”, based on the visible tail fin (vertical stabilizer) was shorter — the length of a military jet like the F-16 — whereas the Boeing 757 is 155 ft. long, more than twice as long as the build was high. That one picture and the other 4 needed to show that the vertical stabilizer we see was not just a fuzzy object — a building — in the background. The other pictures clearly show — now it is there and now it isn’t there. I really did examine all of the interviews — and I found many were counted as wtinesses to the crash who merely saw the big Boeing but did not see the actual crash or the crash location. Being near the edge of the Potomac R. the Pentagon is low when viewed from the west, that is from the hill on which Arlington Cemetery sits — and yes a gardner in the cemetery, Campos, saw the Boeing fly directly over his head on its way east to its Pentagon rendezvous with the “killer jet” — the plane flying higher than 71 feet from the ground and the killer flying low enough to hit the first and second floors as it came in.
        David Ray Griffin wrote the first American book of note exposing the incompatiblity of the officla account of the attack and the hard evidence from photos at the scene and from witness accounts. In his first book 9-11 The New Pearl Harbor, the chaper on the Pentagon drew heavily from my postings to usenet and yahoogroups on this subject. I corresponded with him a couple of times after his book came out: Here is a quote from one of his letters:
        Dear Dick,
        I was surprised to see the conclusions you drew from my letter.
        I thought I was clear that I think there is good evidence—I would not use the word “proof,” which I consider a very strong word—that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.
        I implied nothing about your being intellectually unfit to do good research. I think you have provided strong evidence for this conclusion; we would probably differ only on whether the word “proof” should be used.
        As I also said, we also have a different emphasis. In my writings, I restrict myself as much as possible to evidence showing that the official story must be wrong, whereas you, besides doing this, try to explain what really happened. I have nothing against this and am myself interested, of course, to learn what really happened. I think the main thing we should focus on in our public writings, however, is the falsity of the official account. So whereas I have my “suspicions” as to what happened, which evidently coincide closely with your own views, I don’t concentrate on this issue.
        My conclusions were unanswerable and they were never refuted — they were just ignored to death and later displaced by a lot of deliberate stupidity — the invention of the idea — always wholly without foundation –that no planes hit the WTC towers — clearly an effort to create craziness and then to have people associate that craziness with my fully data derived conclusions. NOW LET US GET BACK TO THE “CIT” EFFORT. The CIT investigators never contacted me, but they assigned themselves the task of seeing if they could confirm my conclusions based on my written interview of Sgt Lagasse in which he told me — I was the first to make the fact known — Lagasse was not aware when he wrote to me the first time that the path of lamp post destruction — a path passing south of the Citgo gas station — was incompatible with what he saw — the plane passing north of him while at the gas station. Lagasse wrote to me to tell my I was all wrong, but he ended up respecting my objectivity enough to communicate with me four times in all, by writing and by phone. There was no mistaking what he said he saw — which agreed with what Steve Riskus saw, that the big plane went straight in.
        Here is Lagasse’s first letter to me — the relevant information is his statement, about half way down, where he writes, “I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
        it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
        of the aircraft.”
        From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
        To: Dick Eastman
        Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the
        attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft
        struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed
        almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC
        and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the
        annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building
        were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a
        heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
        with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same
        time the wing was involved with the trailer, Because of the Doppler effect
        no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already
        in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle
        would have been difficult if not impossible…it was not over Arlington
        National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove
        of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft
        until it was literally on top of them…again not much time to make the
        assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
        it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
        of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall,
        which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or
        flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low
        forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be
        extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27
        blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however
        see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
        flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a
        few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point
        that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were
        there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
        entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the
        right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon
        fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were
        collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the
        engines smashed…but intact in the building. I saw the building from the
        inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured
        that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that
        morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech…it was at
        least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren’t
        there claim. I don’t know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your
        search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by
        lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It
        has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt
        that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just
        curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in
        quelling misconceptions
        I treaded Lagasse objectively — as one who is more interested in answsering
        a question truthfully as more important than any other consideration. That is why I eventually got to the truth, as did others who also sifted the data and considered all the possibilities and discovered which theories — like the official one — did not fit the facts.
        And so my theory was out there years before CIT investigated — and I was not alone reaching these conclusions — there was also Ky Dewdney (former logic puzzle editor of Scientific American, there were Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell, and until something happened to get him suddenly talking nonsense, there was Jim Hoffman and many others.
        What the CIT team did was to verify my conclusions but finding entirely new witnesses who saw the big plane come at the Pentagon from north of the Citgo station, from north of Lagasse so that he saw the starboard side (the co-pilot side) of the plane.
        I first heard of CIT when member Aldo Marquis phoned me — I did not know him, had never heard of him or of CIT — telling me that the investigation had been conducted and that they he and the head of the CIT team — whose name I forget — had got to Arlington Virgina to see if they could either refute or confirm the conclusion I drew from witness accounts — that the plane flew south of the Citgo station. Here is a letter he sent following up on the phone call:
        Hello Dick,
        The “SMOKING GUN VERSION” of the movie is up today, but here a link to divx. Really easy to sign up and download player. Very clear.
        PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD THIS YET. It will be up today on our site.
        If you want to refer people to us, sent them to:
        Enjoy ol’ friend.
        It is time for justice.
        Aldo Marquis
        Citizen Investigation Team [close quote]
        AND SURE ENOUGH — HERE ARE ALL OF YOU DEBATING CIT, AS IF THERE IS THE ONLY THEORY OUT THERE — WHEN IN FACT THE ONLY GOOD WORK THEY DID — CORROBORATING MY WITNESSED BASED FINDINGS WITH THE SAME FINDING DERIVED FROM OTHER AND ALL NEW WITNESSES. CIT, apart from Aldo Marquis’s first communication, have never mentioned that their work followed an earlier effort — that followed ALL of the evidence — and reached a much more plausible and in fact unshakable conclusion (unless one can believe the witnesses and the downed lamp posts were falsified. (Yes, there are witnesses to the killer object as if flew over houses and such on its more southern course to the Pentagon.)
        My views are summarized with visuals here: I well illustrated written analysis by me can be found on under the title Highest Treason Substantiated by Dick Eastman which comes in five parts — google will get you there.
        Dick Eastman
        Yakima, Washington
        Every man is responsible to every other man

        1. “— and yes a gardner in the cemetery, Campos, saw the Boeing fly directly over his head on its way east to its Pentagon rendezvous with the “killer jet” — the plane flying higher than 71 feet from the ground and the killer flying low enough to hit the first and second floors as it came in. ” ~ oldickeastman
          Mr. Eastman,
          I’m a bit confused by this statement. Are you saying Omar Campos saw this alleged second “killer” vehicle, or is this just a little artistic license?
          I ask because the following is the only recorded interview I’m aware of with Omar –

          and in it he doesn’t mention anything other than the attack plane, which he does say he saw coming in right over the top of him.
          The way you wrote the above it looks like you may be saying he also saw this other aircraft approaching. If that’s the case could you post a link to where he says this? Thanks.

  48. Daniel Noel said:
    “CIT’s police interviewees will appear in shiny uniforms, assuring viewers that the plane flew south of Citgo and that the conspiracy theorists tricked their recollection into the exact opposite to fit their predetermined agenda.”
    Adam Syed said:
    “No, Lagasse and Brooks would not do that unless under hypnosis. Both have stuck by where they placed the plane even after learning of the implications”
    Well, Adam… never know.
    Between the time CIT interviewed Sgt. Lagasse and now, he might have grown eyes in the back of his head.

  49. Some of you may remember the name of Mike Walter, of USA TODAY, who claimed he was an eyewitness, on his way to work on 9/11. Here is a clip that is known to disappear or become unavailable from time to time -depending on where you live. I suggest you download a copy while it is available.
    *Pentagon 9/11 Eyewitness Mike Walter Exposed*
    1:50: “This belief that the wings would go in is just ridiculous. What I saw was the actual jet going in but the wings folded back like this [turning his hands to face each other]” At 500+ mph!
    Do these presstitutes take acting classes to keep a straight face like this while they are pouring out such BS? He’s telling us the 6-ton engines didn’t want to break any windows so, with the wings, they turned this airliner into a bird looking for a pigeon hole?
    Meanwhile, the very same day, similar planes in NYC were facing laws of physics that behaved quite differently. Two aluminum clad airliners sliced, FROM WING TIP TO WING TIP, through heavy structural steel like the proverbial hot knife through butter, leaving silhouettes of themselves. This is, of course, impossible, Wile E. Coyote notwithstanding.

      1. This is the kind of evidence you have to be able to show to those who accept the official story. I keep a copy on my smartphone and I suggest all truthers do the same. Here is another clip that has helped me win a TON of arguments. I call it the
        First of all, I explain that there were 3 buildings that “collapsed” on 9/11. Most people never heard of the 3rd building. Then I explain that on the right part of the screen they will see the Controlled Demolition of 3 different buildings. On the left they will see the collapse of ONE building, WTC 7, filmed from 3 different cameras on 9/11:
        And I complete the exercise by asking: What do you think happened to WTC7?
        Some people smile. Some people get very uncomfortable… In many cases they want to know more. We exchange email addresses and we go from there.

  50. To claim that this did not happen is to dishonor the poor souls who were on this flight.
    I suggest that you go to hell – do not pass ‘go’ – do not collect $200 – you ognorant fool!

  51. Folks, I’ve been having this conversation with other people for years, and I’ve got my own conclusions.
    I do not assert positively that there was no conspiracy; proving a negative is difficult. I do, however, assert that a plane struck the Pentagon. I give my proofs here:
    The basic, distilled reasoning is that, if one is blowing up a building and simultaneously needs to rid oneself of a large airborne bomb (with passengers and crew), where better to hide said plane than in plain sight? To presume otherwise is absurd.
    But there’s a deal more to this, and I urge you to read what I’ve written.
    Paranoia is healthy; ‘They’ ARE out to get us, if only for profit. But without a bit of wisdom applied to the paranoia, you just end up looking foolish — and making the rest of us, the more sophisticated paranoiacs, look foolish along with you.

    1. I stopped reading your ridiculous article at this point:

      There’s No Wreckage
      There’s wreckage.
      The reason you can’t see it in this photo is that it was taken three days after the event.

      No, there was “no” (i.e. precious little, so much so that many people have preferred “no” as shorthand for that) wreckage even in the photos taken just moments after the event, and certainly within the first 20 minutes before the building’s facade collapsed.
      You also make the dangerous assumption, within your logic train, that the plane headed toward the Pentagon was a real commercial jet with passengers.
      Not one piece of debris has been positively identified as belonging to AA77.
      Witnesses corroborate beyond a reasonable doubt the plane’s flight path, which is north of the Citgo gas station. This flight path is inconsistent with the trail of physical damage.
      And so much more.

      1. The casual insult was gratuitous and not conducive to discussion.
        That you stopped reading there means that you stopped before the substantiative portion of the article, Adam. It tells me that either you have an extremely short attention span or that you’re unwilling to bear contradiction regardless of evidence.
        As it happens, my assumption is that a plane needed to be disposed of in a fashion that would not risk it being found. I use that and other core assumptions to determine logically that the side of a building would be an excellent place to dispose of it.
        I’m not saying there was no conspiracy. I’m saying it’s certain there was one, and casting blame without thoroughly analyzing what facts are available is an excellent way to avoid finding out who’s responsible.

        1. “The casual insult was gratuitous and not conducive to discussion.”
          Apart from your general hubris, what was the insult exactly?
          “That you stopped reading there means that you stopped before the substantiative portion of the article, Adam. It tells me that either you have an extremely short attention span or that you’re unwilling to bear contradiction regardless of evidence.”
          Adam didn’t mention an insult. He supposed the rest of your argument was faulty because your assumptions were wrong.
          “As it happens, my assumption is that a plane needed to be disposed of in a fashion that would not risk it being found. I use that and other core assumptions to determine logically that the side of a building would be an excellent place to dispose of it.”
          Please excuse me if I don’t hire you to hide any of my planes!
          “I’m not saying there was no conspiracy. I’m saying it’s certain there was one, and casting blame without thoroughly analyzing what facts are available is an excellent way to avoid finding out who’s responsible.”
          Perhaps you should reflect on who is responsible for the cover up?
          “I owe a great intellectual debt to the NIST studies on the 9/11 events and the investigation as reported by Popular Mechanics.”
          Paranoia is not healthy, sophisticated or otherwise.

          1. Thanks for a second completely unnecessary insult, CaptiveScientist. As you request explanation elsewhere, I’ll preempt that by asserting that, while I may exhibit general hubris, it’s commonly considered impolite to draw attention to it.
            The casual insult mentioned above was the word “ridiculous” referring to my article. It could easily have been described negatively in a non-insulting manner. “Incomplete” or even “apparently biased” are examples of this.
            Regardless, I’m unoffended, but it would be bad form for me to fail to acknowledge the remarks, as both were apparently intended to provoke a reaction. :o)
            Having said that, I’ll certainly stipulate that my own article starts off with a potentially offensive paragraph. I deliberately created a hook there (and below, with my reference to tinfoil hats) in order to generate dissonance as a way to promote discussion. It’s a tactic in rhetoric and negotiation, and I’ve been employing it in my writing to varied effect.
            In actuality, my article does not conclude that no missile or bomb was used, merely that I don’t believe they would be necessary. I don’t approach the subject on a basis of physics or debris scatter analysis for the simple reason that I haven’t got any access to that data.
            As well, I venture to disagree in one more area; I believe that a measure of paranoia is indeed healthy. It’s a survival trait. Granted, when taken to disorder levels, the negative impact is by definition greater than any positive side effect, but I’m merely talking about a healthy level of paranoia.
            Frankly, we’d all be happier if we just accepted the truth we’re spoon-fed by the media, but since we’re here, I’m going to operate under the presumption that we choose not to. :o)

    2. Your position is full of speculation, assumptions, and guesses. You assume mistakenly that the perpetrators would take the easiest way to do this. You can’t make the assumption that you understand their motives or strategy.
      You actually don’t offer any “proofs” at all in your article. And the video WAS faked as I explain in this article:

      1. I’ll check out your article.
        You are correct; my position is based on assumptions. I use situational logic based on initial premises that are reasonable. More particularly, I elise certain portions of my argument based on comprehensibility; complexity theory within a conspiracy — and there most certainly was at least some form of conspiracy here — is a relatively new field and hardly formal.
        In this article — I presume you’re the primary author, Mr. McKee? — you pose four specific questions. Given some time, I intend to present not definitive responses but reasonable and possible ones to three and possibly all four.
        But I contend that proof, on a military site, is going to be difficult to generate. This is why I’ve kept to the intangibles; absent evidence, they seem more reliable.
        Query: Would you prefer that I respond here in the comments or in more formal style elsewhere?

  52. Interesting theory, but I have talked to eye witnesses both on-site and nearby. Maybe you can find a different story to spread around.

      1. Mr. McKee: I’m not speaking for Ms. Weaver here. I’m a local resident, and I’ve spoken briefly with several people who witnessed the aftermath and one who witnessed the impact. I’m confident that there was a substantial amount of fragmented debris that was removed from the scene as rapidly as the US military was able to manage it — which is rather fast.
        I’m confident that it _could_ have been faked, but that the effort required precludes that as a likelihood.

        1. I am not confident that the “effort required” would have anything to do with whether a crash was faked. I look at the physical evidence, including the total absence of wings, tail section, and horizontal stabilizers outside the building. And where did the engine cores go?

          1. These are good questions.
            Personally, I’m fairly certain that, given the location, we’ll be unable to answer them definitively. I plan to do some assembly of site photographs when I’ve got the time and put together some speculations — but that’s all they’ll be. Crash physics is fairly simple when it’s automobiles, but when we’re talking high-impact fragmentation and detonation against a hardened target with indeterminate qualities… well, that’s a lot of variables.
            But you do raise good questions, and they deserve to be directly addressed.
            Having said that, my own personal belief remains: that the complexity of faking this makes it unlikely, impracticable even.
            But it’s not impossible.

  53. So… why would the “conspiracy” pretend a plane hit the Pentagon, and instead shoot it with some sort of missile or some such? Why would they do that, when they’ve already put two planes into the World Trade Center? What additional juice do they get from the Pentagon? Why does their narrative require all this? How did the planners, who seem pretty astute, not take into consideration the size of a plane and the amount of wreckage it would leave behind when they decided to try to deceive us? They’re sophisticated enough to get missiles, keep the conspiracy quiet, but not they’re not shape enough to figure out the wing span? There might be discrepancies, but what is the point of this attack?

    1. Luke, you imply that if you can’t see a reason they would do it, then they didn’t do it. But the evidence clearly shows that no plane crash took place at the Pentagon. And that means the official story is a lie. Perhaps they did things differently at the Pentagon than the towers just to prompt the kind of comment you’ve just made.

    2. Luke, to simply make the lie more believable. And the plane that went down in PA also left zero plane debris. ZERO! Google ANY plane crash that’s happened since we started putting them in the sky. There are only TWO that show no signs of wreckage. And they both happened less than an hour apart on Sep 11th, 2001. Coincidence? No way in hell.
      Even the Space Shuttle in 1986 left debris. We are suppose to believe these two just disintegrated. Sorry, but it just doesn’t happen that way.

    3. Here are some possibilities:
      The strike on the Pentagon, a military target, was essential to the “act of war” narrative that they were planning to use to push through the patriot act and go raise hell in Afghanistan asap.
      As for why hit with missile and not a plane… Unlike the WTC towers, which were designated for total collapse, the Pentagon just needed to be struck, but not destroyed. And, even that was done on reinforced wing of the building to reduce and localize the damage. They would have certainly done all calculations to extreme detail to ensure the depth of the penetration would be no further than the inner ring.

      1. There is absolutely no way that the US Military showed up on scene and had all plain debris picked up within 45 minutes. It would take longer than that to assemble them. Not to mention that’s not even a US military job. Someone from the news would have witnessed this. It didn’t happen and that’s fact. End of story.

        1. I’m actually looking at a 3-4 hour timeline for the major debris including most of the remains from outside the structure. That doesn’t strike me as unreasonable considering logistics and staging were undertaken onsite.
          Bear in mind: My own theories include one where Flight 77 impacted here in addition to other factors, possibly including the impact of an external explosive device. Thus far, that’s among the more likely scenarios that I’ve seen.

    4. WTC was only a civilian target, whereas the Pentagon was a prime military target, probably the best defended one in the country, EXCEPT on that strange day. The successful military stand-down and deceitful manufacture of the Pentagon event thus facilitated and launched the official Global War on Terror through the broad legal means contained in AUMF. Which is still 100% intact btw, so now Trump inherits the god-like power of AUMF. Not a pleasant thought, considering his twitter habits and “lets use them” policy on nukes.

  54. I’m noticing a pattern in the comments on this article. Every so often someone who “was there,” or who “talked to someone who was there” will comment here ONE TIME ONLY (often with a hearty dose of appeal to emotion). Steve, Tamera, “I Was In Crystal City” guy, and most recently Patti Weaver for example(s).
    When Craig asks for more information… SILENCE.
    If they have such enlightening information which will put the mysteries of what happened at the Pentagon that Tuesday morning to rest for good, why not share that earth-shattering information IN DETAIL? Hell- write a book, get a website/blog, do a podcast, go on “60 Minutes” for chrissakes!
    But to come here & make ONE (cryptic?) comment only on THIS particular article… hmmm.
    I could make ONE comment here claiming that I was on Mars on Tuesday 11 September 2001 & then disappear forever from the T&S blog. You would all likely conclude that I was completely & utterly FULL of shit, but I doubt anyone here could conclsively prove I wasn’t actually on Mars that day (provided THEY weren’t on Mars that day & could prove so conclusively).
    We did have the MSgt who posted here twice, huffing & puffing & trying to blow the blog down, but he seemed to want to leave/get banned as soon as he posted here (almost like it was an assignment he did not want).
    Still wondering who Anna’s dad was too…

      1. Perhaps disappointing/discouraging you Is the ultimate goal, but I suspect “sowing [vague, emotional] seeds of doubt” on THIS PARTICULAR Pentagon article is more of his/hers/its/their agenda.

    1. You are right. There are operatives obstructing justice who after failing to win arguments on Usenet in 2001 and 2002 would say “I was there.” As for the question of what happened to the passengers, it is very simple. Some were CIA agents at the end of their assignments or ready to abandon their birth identity to take on undercover identities. Flight 77 happened to have an exact Alex Jones look alike named Alexander Robert Napier. The National Geographic Societ headquartered in Washington DC is a CIA cover provider and Ann Judge who was “aboard” Flight 77 was the individual in charge of arranging acomodations for National Geographic writers and photographers around the world. That would definitely be a CIA position. Remember, the 9-11 false-flag operation involved cold-blooded murder of over 2000 people with designs on provoking frame-up wars in which millions would die — and this for a variety of purposes involving opium, oil, police state power, profitable short sells, reversing the information war which Israel was then losing, killing people investigating crimes involving Goldman-Sachs and the Federal Reserve Chairman as well as Mobil oil for selling oil to Iran in violation of sanctions, both investigated in the South Tower. These people think nothing of murder and are doubtless involved in all kinds of organized crime around the world. Finally, I have far better evidence that Flight 77 was not what hit the Pentagon which can be viewed here:

    2. That is because they were blown away by your stupidity and then realized it was not worth their time to talk with people that are falling right into the real conspiracies hands. Idiots! I have spent a few hours on this site looking at the comments, and I am sure you will give me crap you pore goofs because I will never be back. Get a life. Even if everything you think happened did what are you doing to make the world we live in better. I would say probably nothing. O Ya, I know I am attacking you with no substance! I say again, IDIOTS. Get an F-ing job and make yourselves useful. Right, I am sure I am some CIA FBI super-agent confusing your poor readers.

    1. With Rudolf Guiliani endorsing him and tagged to be his Director of Homeland Security? With Michael Bloomberg one of his closest friends (a golfing buddy of Clinton and Trump) when it was Bloomberg who was up for vote in the GOP primaries for governor of New York on what day? It was on September 11, 2001 which he likely would have lost. But after Guiliani became the father figure hero of 9-11 and endorsed Bloomberg to succeed him Bloomberg won. Also Trump and Bloomberg are close to Netanyahu. So you really thing Trump is going to send these friends up the river for 9-11 to reward you for voting for you. It’s people like you that make billionaires possible.

  55. two things that 99.9% of the time you see after a plane crash. engines and landing gear and every now and then a tailcone. I never saw any landing gear or engines. they are very very hard to destroy.

  56. It would seem to me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have had to have seen and heard a 747 flying low enough to crash into the pentagon at that angle.
    It would have had to fly at a very low altitude over buildings, traffic, homes, bossiness and people for a considerable time.
    Too many people would have had a “WTF” moment when they either heard the jet engines or saw the plane flying so lo. Of course they would have continued to watch it all the way to the ground, one would think. I know I would.

    1. My wife and her office mates saw an airplane pass by her office in Crystal City on the way to the Pentagon. She did not actually see a crash, due to her view being obstructed by other buildings. There are many other such eyewitnesses. The issue is not whether or not there was an airplane involved. The issue is what if anything hit the Pentagon.

      1. Do you think that anyone six miles away could see through the buildings in Crystal City to see a plane on the official flight path right before it gets to the Pentagon?

        1. Crystal City is within one mile of the Pentagon, part of it is along part of the flight path, and the north-most building has nothing between it and the Pentagon but an elevated highway. I don’t know exactly where she was in Crystal City. I also don’t understand what you are implying.

          1. Sorgfelt, I asked because there is an alleged witness named Don Chauncey who claims he was in a 10-story office building six miles from the Pentagon and that he could see the plane flying over Columbia Pike as it approached the Pentagon. Wayne Coste wants us to believe that because this witness did not report a flyover that this means the plane hit the building. Adam Ruff has researched Chauncey’s point of view and he contends that Chauncey’s view of the final seconds of the plane’s approach would have been blocked by the buildings in Crystal City. I just wondered if you would have any thoughts on that since you are familiar with the area.

          2. Looking at the map, Don could probably see the Pentagon and would have probably seen a flyover. The Crystal City buildings would not have obstructed his view of most of the Pentagon, just possibly a bit on the southern side. Regarding whether to make anything of this is another matter. His distance and the circumstances could have made it possible that he missed a flyover. There are conflicting eye witness reports and there is at least one analysis discrediting the possibility of wings folding up into the hole. I also think that there were at least two aircraft involved – a Global Hawk which did hit the Pentagon or the landing pad and a larger airliner. I am not committed to the flyover theory, but it is supported by some eye witnesses and there are no other theories that I know of that could explain everything.

          3. Dir Songfelt.
            I have previously expounded my hypothesis on the suspicious style of the alleged attack. Permit me now, as a mechanical engineer and sometime sport pilot, to address the matter of those bent lamp poles:
            These, though often ignored evidences, are, I content. The best proofs that the scenario was false and contrived. And supportive of the ‘no plane’ theory.
            If one should incline toward the ‘official conspiracy theorising’ about 9/11. Then, indeed, this was a remarkable day- when 300 year old, hard-won principles of physics- those same discovered rules of natural law, which bequeathed us all of our scientific advancement and comfort, were magically, and inexplicably suspended or reversed.
            Thus rendering one as either ‘A beliefist’- One whom accepts without question, the official conspiracy theory. Or one who doubts/ questions this official conspiracy legend. And is thereafter labelled as an 9/11 denier. An.anti-Semite, Neo Nazi, foil hat wearing crazed ,evilton.
            I tell you now that those bent lamp posts are a crude and silly sham, Intended to convince the uneducated and un-inquisitive, trusting Goymericans, Who know nothing about anything, and don’t want to know- (save for baseball etc) that an ae roplane had hit them. An aeroplane full of evil, Jew-hating-cave-dwelling, Arabs on its way to attack the seat of the wunnerfull, peace and democracy-and Israel- loving, USA-USA-Yeaaah!USA!
            The eternal and unchanging laws of physics- Mass -conservation, All stopped working on that day.
            How remarkable!
            Now let us imagine a sane world- an orderly physical world that pertained prior to 9/11, when Newtonian physics- such as you studied at school, proved adequate for explaining physical phenomena. Such as, to every action there is an equal ad opposite reaction.
            Conservation of mass.
            Therefore, should the alleged airliner’s wings have ‘clipped’. the light-poles, at 350+ mph- these would have been utterly shattered, not merely ‘bent’. Having been torn apart and cartwheeled some 250 ft into the air. Whilst also the wing leading edge would have been utterly destroyed, leaving a trail of shattered and pulverised aluminium, from each of it’s wings. .

  57. The problem here is that you just need an education. Nobody else questions that a plane, hijacked under an Alqaeda plot and flown by terrorists flew into the Pentagon. The issue is that you are so stupid, you are asking a question like if I robbed my own house at night, but I couldn’t see myself doing it, how do I know it wasn’t someone else? On the day of the most major Terrorist attack in history, where two buildings symbolizing the economic might of the U.S. are destroyed, that is a huge clue that another mass fatality and disaster would be nothing less than closely related. Plus, you know nothing about failure mechanics, this is all your own postulating. If considering ductility and fatigue cycles, you will hear that the wings of a plane are indeed very strong. When talking about impact and mechanical failure, there is no way that sharp appendages such as wing and tail would have made it to the inner rim of the pentagon. They are stress concentrators that would have been torn off immediately. There was footage of deformed aircraft parts, so there is not even a question of what did it. The sad thing is that I’m not saying this to convince you. You’re a moron. It’s just so that other people can see how wrong you are.

  58. I’m very familiar with the official circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks. I know this isn’t relevant to flight 77 but here’s a question for everyone:
    Who among you can explain how David Angell, the creator of TV show Frasier, died on september 11, 2001? Sources say that he was a passenger on Flight 11 into the north tower of WTC.
    I assume you agree that he was killed off as part of this elaborate inside job, right?
    I look forward to reading anyone’s response. It takes an incredible amount of fanaticism to believe this sort of shit. Being a conspiracy theorist is a lot like being a member of a religion. Trying to convince you that the conspiracy is wrong is just like explaining to someone that God doesn’t exist. Lost cause.
    Sorry about the previous paragraph. Try not to respond directly to that. I’m wondering about David Angell’s death and I can’t wait to be enlightened by you 🙂