Tag Archives: Flight 77

Aerial illusion: facts support 757 flying over, not into the Pentagon

By Craig McKee

You have to admire the creativity. And you have to admire the sheer scale of the deception.
One of the largest examples of misdirection ever attempted has, for the most part, worked. But that’s only because people haven’t looked closely at the evidence.
It seems clear that a large airliner did fly towards the Pentagon just after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001 (I’ll get to how we know this momentarily). It is also clear that there was a large explosion that rocked the outer ring of the building as the plane arrived at its supposed target. But there’s one more thing that is clear: the plane didn’t hit the building and didn’t cause the explosion.
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was supposedly flown into the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour by an incompetent pilot who was denied permission to rent a Cessna the month before because of his poor flying skills. After negotiating an incredible 330-degree spiral descent, alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour is supposed to have flown just a few feet above the ground, hitting five light poles before crashing into the ground floor of a newly renovated section of the Pentagon.
There are two main reasons why the evidence supports the conclusion that the plane the witnesses saw never hit the building – and that it flew over. One is that the Flight Data Continue reading →

The tilting south tower gives it away

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance – Albert Einstein
November 26, 2010

By Craig McKee

People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn’t possible.
There are so many examples: the too-small hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center towers that came down; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both of the twin towers; and that they couldn’t have been destroyed so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There’s another aspect to the destruction of the twin towers that doesn’t get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the destruction of the South Tower started at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Continue reading →

Official 9/11 story depends on a 'perfect storm' of blunders

Somehow no fighters were able to intercept any of the four hijacked planes.

November 20, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s a very tempting notion for a lot of people. Incompetence. Confusion. Bad luck.
For people who can’t bring themselves to believe that their own government would murder 3,000 people, it’s comforting instead to chalk up the attacks of 9/11 to a series of unfortunate mistakes. The Bush administration did not admit that catastrophic errors were made, but if 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, there’s no other explanation.
Somehow the idea that the terrorists were too fiendishly brilliant for anyone to be able to stop them just doesn’t cut it, even for “official story” believers. Claims by George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld that no one could have anticipated hijacked planes being flown into buildings have been discredited. We know for a fact that war games going on that very morning simulated this very scenario.
So that leaves people who don’t believe in official 9/11 complicity on the part of the government to settle on the idea that the country’s defences broke down inexplicably. It’s not a pretty theory if you believe in your government, but it has to do. The alternative, that the Bush administration planned the attacks, is unthinkable for many.
So how can someone make the case that it was a string of honest mistakes that allowed the attacks to succeed? Basically the scenario goes like this:

Law enforcement agencies like the FBI had their eyes on some of the future hijackers long before 9/11 but didn’t follow up or somehow lost track of them.
Airport security on 9/11 singled out the hijackers for additional screening but failed to Continue reading →

Fallen light poles undermine Pentagon official story on 9/11

November 15, 2010

By Craig McKee

It seemed that they would confirm for the world that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 just as the government said. But they might just have done the opposite.
“They” are the five light poles that lay on the ground after allegedly being knocked over by Flight 77 in the seconds before it is supposed to have hit the Pentagon.
The reason the existence of these poles is helpful in questioning the official story is that they provide us with an exact flight path that the plane would have to have taken if indeed it hit the building. If the flight path had deviated even by a small amount, the plane would not have hit these poles.
So is it possible that the actual flight path was different from the one outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report? That may depend on who you believe. The film National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team makes the case that the plane that people saw flying near the ground Continue reading →

How Occam’s Razor can be twisted to serve any 'official story'

November 13, 2010

By Craig McKee

Conspiracy “debunkers” have a number of weapons at their disposal to discredit those who try to expose deceptions and cover-ups.
They will often condescendingly brush aside what these people say by making fun of their ideas so they don’t have to actually refute them. If that doesn’t work, they can explain how the conspiracy would be too involved or that someone would give away the secret or that the powers that be “would just never do anything that terrible.” Failing that they can resort to putting their hands over their ears and singing, la la la la la la la la until their opponents go away.
But there’s another way touted enthusiastically by believers of official stories. That is to invoke the dreaded Occam’s Razor, which most people take as being “the simpler of two Continue reading →

Are we all hard-wired not to question 9/11 official story?

I’m not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true or involve dentists. – Michael Moore

November 11, 2010

By Craig McKee

The human brain is a fascinating thing. It controls everything we perceive. It is the vehicle through which all information passes, the filter through which all external events are processed. We can use it to search for the truth, but it can also stop us from looking.
We believe that any opinion we might have is based simply on our understanding of the facts. Sure we all have our biases, but we’re aware of them, right?
Not necessarily. We may be aware of the obvious ones, but the subtle ways we resist facts presented to us often slip under the radar. The things that motivate us to defend what we Continue reading →

Evidence points to bombs being detonated in the Pentagon on 9/11

November 9, 2010

By Craig McKee

A great deal has been written about the evidence for explosives in the World Trade Center, but not enough attention has been paid to the evidence that bombs were detonated in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
As I wrote in my Oct. 2, 2010 post, “How could Flight 77 have caused interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?”, there was a great deal more damage done to the interior of the Pentagon than a plane impact could account for – or any impact from the outside for that matter.
We know that the government’s conspiracy theory states that American Airlines Flight 77 penetrated the Pentagon at roughly a 45-degree angle and managed to go through three rings of the Pentagon, punching a round exit hole in the inside wall of the C Ring Continue reading →

‘Box cutter’ nuts and their wild theories: a gem of 9/11 satire

I came across this wickedly dry bit of conspiracy analysis from 2003 recently and really enjoyed it. Since the author offered it freely for reproduction (with credit given) I thought it would be worth including in this blog. Sadly, the author passed away from cancer earlier this year. He was just 51.
His piece goes to show that when the government and media offer an explanation of an event like 9/11, their story is never looked at as a theory. But it’s worth turning the tables occasionally – Craig McKee
November 7, 2010

Debunking conspiracy theorists: Paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11 distract from the real issues

By Gerard Holmgren (Copyright Gerard Holmgren, Jan. 9, 2003)

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will ususally be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. “The CIA killed Hendrix” ” The Pope had John Lennon murdered “, “Hitler was half Werewolf”, “Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone” etc,etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So it’s hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is – sadly – a small but Continue reading →

More impossible 9/11 ‘eyewitness’ accounts: Renaud and McIntyre

November 5, 2010

By Craig McKee

One of the most bizarre and unbelievable accounts given by anyone with TV network connections on Sept. 11, 2001 was that of Theresa Renaud, described as the wife of CBS Early Show producer Jack Renaud.
Her account is available on the Internet and was presented in the film September Clues, which alleges that video we saw on and after Sept. 11 was tampered with to deceive the public.
Renaud was recounting live on CBS how she had been at her window and had heard the North Tower explosion. While telling the story, she sees the second alleged impact. Her account of that, live, was very revealing.
Before that second impact, she explained to host Bryant Gumbel that her office building in Chelsea looked “directly on to” the towers (even though it was several miles north). She described how her building was the tallest in the area, giving her a good view of the World Trade Center.
Renaud described the first impact this way: “I would say that approximately 10 minutes ago there was a major explosion from, probably it looks like from the 80^th floor, it looks like it’s affected probably four to eight floors, major flames are coming out of the, let’s see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.”
Gumbel then asks her if she heard the explosion. She continues: “Oh yes, yes we did as a matter of fact, in fact we did hear because I was standing there pretty much standing looking out the window. I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact.” Continue reading →

Why did some media personalities lie about what they saw on 9/11?

November 3, 2010

By Craig McKee

One of the most disturbing aspects of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 is the strange and sometimes suspicious behavior of the media.
We have seen journalists who reversed their stories, stories that were reported on 9/11 but never after that, and huge questions that were never even asked by the media. And we have witnessed what can only be seen as intentional deception on the part of some media professionals or those connected to the media.
As the attacks were unfolding that morning, there was an apparent army of TV network executives and news staff who just happened to be near the World Trade Center or the Pentagon and were ready to report on what was going on within Continue reading →