"It's understandable some believe "no 757" hit the Pentagon due to the heavy promotion of that idea, but there's no actual evidence. The theory is being used to mock and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, & to give Congress and the media a reason to avoid real questions about 9/11. The military drilled for 9/11-style attacks, & they came after years of warnings that Al Qaeda intended to hijack planes for missiles.
::::::::
Since 9/11 happened, theories have been circulating on the internet, and by DVDs andbooks, that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. If all someone had to look at was certain DVDs, books and websites, it’s understandable why they might think a jumbo jet didn’t crash there; in certain photos, the “hole” appears to be too small to accommodate a 757, and there is not much debris visible in photos of the Pentagon taken soon after the attack.
However,when one views other, less heavily marketed websites, and examines the available photos together, it’s evident there’s an approximately 90-100’ gash along the first floor, with the fuselage-sized hole in the center on thesecond floor, and space for the engines to pass through. There are also photos of parts and debris that are consistent with an AA 757; landing gear, a wheel hub, an engine rotor, and aluminum aircraft skin- some even with the red and white paint that AA jets have on the fuselage. Available photos of the destruction, damage and debris in the interior appear consistent with damagethat would be caused by a jet liner crashing through the building at over 500 mph and getting shredded in the process.
Photos of other crashes show that, counter-intuitively, some jet crashes leave seemingly little debris. Jets are large, but they are mostly aluminum, and hollow. A Phantom F-4 was test-crashed into a wall; it was smashed to bits. A 747 crashed and burned, completely destroying the fuselage. A DC-8, a plane similar in size to a 757, crashed in a parking lot and was obliterated.
Thereis also damage at the scene consistent with witness reports of a jet liner; a damaged generator trailer some witnesses saw get hit by the right engine, and downed lamp poles consistent with the reported flight path and the wing span of a 757.
You can see all the linked photos and more, plus read a much more detailed analysis in The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net
In addition, this analysis by WhatReallyHappened.com of the video released by the Pentagon, A Plane Identified in the 9/11 Pentagon Security Video, shows what appears to be the exact form of a 757 partially obscured by the guard shack.
Further,nearly all of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts on record are consistent withan AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon. While some who were farther away from the crash thought it was a smaller plane, no one who was close described it as anything other than a commercial passenger jet. Some said it sounded or acted like a missile, but NO ONE said they saw a missile. Many said it was an American Airlines (no one said it was another airline), many remembered the colors being silver, red and blue, many noticed the AA logos, many were even close enough to notice the flaps and the landing gear weren’t down- and at least 100 reported seeing it hit the Pentagon. NO ONE reported seeing the plane fly OVER the Pentagon.
Extensive collection of Eyewitness accounts with sources, compiled by Arabesque.Blogspot.com
The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony
A breakdown of what witnesses claimed to see, by Arabesque.Blogspot.com
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described
So, if there’s all this evidence that an AA 757 crashed at the Pentagon, and if there’s no substantive evidence that anything other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon, why are the claims that “no 757 hit the Pentagon” so widely circulated that 12% of Americans (about 36 million people), according to this 2006 ScrippsNews poll, believe a missile hit the Pentagon? Certainly, very few people would believe it, if not for the numerous DVDs, websites, books- and now tens of thousands of perhaps well-intentioned “9/11 Truthers” that are spreading this claim along with other information that contradicts the Official Conspiracy Theory. The fuselage “hole”, in certain photos where much is obscured by smoke and foam, does appear to be too small for a 757 and there is perhaps surprisingly little debris outside the building and in available photos of the interior (there are not many available; why not?Many must have been taken). Many likely still accept the “no 757” claim at face value because they have not yet been exposed to less heavily promoted material. I believed the “no 757” claim myself at first; Loose Change 1 was my introduction to alternative ideas about 9/11, summer 2005. Previously I had accepted the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory without seriously questioning it. I naively assumed that people would not put out material with such extraordinary claims without checking all the facts first; once I did more research, I became skeptical of Loose Change as well.
Loose Change, one of the most widely-viewed full-length internet films of all time, made much of the “no 757” claim in its 1st and 2nd editions- Loose Change, Final Cut the 3rd edition acknowledges some of the reasons many people who question the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 do think a 757 hit the Pentagon- the damage path and eyewitnesses, for instance. However, Final Cut still incorrectly implies the damage to the Pentagon and “lack of large structural debris” outside is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building. It correctly points out that no part has been positively identified as being from Flight 77, but as you can see from my links above, parts have been identified as being from a 757. Researcher Aidan Monaghan, through use of FOIAs, lawsuits and Requests for Correction, has documented some serious discrepancies about “Flight 77”; for instance, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) aka “black box” provided to the NTSB by the FBI and represented as being from Flight 77 was “last modified” more than 4 hours BEFORE it was reportedly recovered (see also this Request for Correction filed with the NTSB). Also, the NTSB reports are missing part/serial numbers for the FDRs in question (see also this article about the FBI response to a lawsuit filed by Monaghan).
Loose Change Final Cut also correctly points out that “What hit the building MAY be important; however, our focus should be on why it was hit in the first place”.Why wasn’t the plane intercepted long before it reached DC? The Pentagon was struck at 9:38 am, nearly an hour and a half after the first sign of hijacking was received at 8:14 am, which itself came after years of warnings and intelligence on Al Qaeda-Bin Laden plans to hijack planes, use them as missiles and target the Pentagon and World Trade Center, as well as current intelligence that the hijackers were in the US. According to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey in a Nov 8, 2004 interview broadcast on CNN, “The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport [security], didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people…You [Bush] knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, Ithink correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.” At the Complete 911 Timeline you can review all the information that the US government had prior to 9/11, that has been made public so far, including what was left out of, or distorted by, the 9/11 Commission Report.
Hijacked planes being used as missiles was a scenario the US military had drilled for; they were even conducting war games on 9/11 that mimicked elements ofthe attacks. Why was the plane not shot down by the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles? How could the plane have been flown by Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Cessna? Why did it hit the recently reinforced section of the Pentagon, opposite the top brass, which was a matter of public record? This section was nearing completion of its renovations, and was mostly empty except for civilian contractors and some military staff, including defense accountants.
Some “Truthers” claim that 9/11 Truth activists who maintain that a 757 hit the Pentagon are circulating disinformation and are “Cointelpro” Agents. Cointelpro was an FBI program, supposedly discontinued in 1971, that was designed to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections". Likewise, the Church Committee’s investigation in 1975 found that the CIA had infiltrated most major media as part of a program called “Operation Mockingbird” intended to manipulate and control public opinion. At the time most of themajor media outlets were owned by 50 some corporations; now just 5 mega-corporations control almost all the news and information Americans see and hear- if they rely on TV, radio and print media. The claims by the US State Dept, Popular Mechanics and many, many corporate media that the “missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon” theory is one of the main tenets of the “9/11 Truth Movement” (and that it isn’t true) may also have actually contributed to the belief that it is. Most Americans understand the Democrats, Republicans and corporate media primarily serve Establishment special interests and are willing to subvert the Public interest to do so. People understand that information that might upset the status quo is frequently omitted from media and government reports, or distorted if mentioned. So when the government and corporate media deny something heavily, it likely causes some to give credence to what they’re denying. A 2007 Sacred Heart University poll found that only 19.6% of Americans can say they believe “all” or “most” media reporting; 23.9% said they believe “little”or “none”, and 55.3% said they believe “some”.
So why, after being FOIA’d and sued, has the Pentagon only released 2 grainy videos in which it’s difficult to clearly see anything? FOIA requests by Scott Bingham (link goes to Archive.org; Flight77.info is no longer run by Bingham) and JudicalWatch.org only sought records related to what hit the Pentagon; they did not request video or records pertaining to the approach of the plane, so that may be part of the problem. See also this timeline from 911Research.WTC7.net documenting their efforts. But why hasn’t the Pentagon released video, if they have it, clearly showing the hit, or even the approach of the plane, in order to dispel the “conspiracy theories”? Is it just reflective of the Pentagon and Bush Administration’s penchant for secrecy and control? Are they trying to cover something up? Are they purposely fueling the controversy about the Pentagon in an attempt to divide & confuse the 9/11Truth Movement, and divert people’s attention and activism from real questions and evidence of corruption and malfeasance? It may be some combination of these reasons, and/or in addition to others.
Why would they want to fuel speculation and controversy; aren’t they concerned about truth and their public image? The Pentagon’s public image has been consistently tarnished by revelations of lies and corruption, and it hasn’t resulted in greater oversight or budgetary restrictions, so why would they care? For instance, the “Pentagon Papers” leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, published by the New York Times and later made into a book, proved the DoD was lying about their illegal escalation of the conflict in Vietnam; the 2nd, and maybe not even the 1st, Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, but it was still used to justify war with Vietnam; Operation Northwoods showed the Joint Chiefs were willing to deceive and even kill Americans in order to create a pretext for invading Cuba. More recent examples of scandals without consequences include Donald Rumsfeld’s announcement on September 10, 2001 that, "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"; DoD obstruction and lies regarding the Able Danger program that had identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before 9/11; the DoD role in the lies and deceptions that led to the attack on Iraq, and their lies and deceptions about the occupation of Iraq.
Of course, they are somewhat concerned about their public image, which is probably why stories like these never get widely covered in the corporate media, when reported at all- unlike stories about missing white women, drunk-driving celebrities or candidates without flag lapel pins, which get covered ad nauseum. Perhaps a better question would be why would they be concerned about something only 12% of Americans believe, and that most people, including 9/11 skeptics, don’t take seriously- especially if it isn’t even true? I would say they’re probably more concerned that currently 81% of Americans suspect acoverup on some level regarding 9/11, according to a 2006 NYTimes/CBS poll. The number of people who believe the Bush Administration is “mostly lying” about what they knew prior to 9/11 has risen from 8% in 2002 to 28% in 2006.The ScrippsNews 2006 poll I referenced earlier in this article also found that 36% of Americans thought it "’very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them ‘because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.’" A ScrippsNews November 2007 poll asked a similar, slightly broader question, and discovered 62% think it “very” or “somewhat” likely “some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.” And 51% support Bush and Cheney being investigated in connection with 9/11, according to a 911Truth.org-commissioned Zogby poll September 2007.
It could be that the hype over the “Pentagon hole” is itself a massive propaganda-psyop-disinfo-neoCointelpro operation designed to get activists asking the wrong questions, distract from real questions, promote bogus "evidence" and set up the “9/11 Truth Movement” to be embarrassed, confused and discredited, if at some future date they decide to release demonstrably unedited video of a 757 approaching and hitting the Pentagon- perhaps if they start to feel threatened by shifting public opinion, and increased demands for answers and accountability regarding 9/11, and investigations by Congress or an international body? See these articles for more detailed analysis:
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net
The Pentagon Honey Pot by Arabesque.Blogspot.com
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation Posted by911Truth.org
The Complete 911 Timeline hosted by CooperativeResearch.org aka HistoryCommons.org, compiled by Paul Thompson, et al. This timeline contains over 5000 entries, exclusively from mainstream sources; the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 is thoroughly contradicted and discredited by the reports and statements put out by the US government itself, and by reports put out by the Operation Mockingbird media.
A new investigation is needed to determine the details about who in the US government knew what when and what they did and didn’t do about the impending 9/11attacks; it’s clear from the public record that the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 (that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden wasn’t infiltrated and manipulated by the CIA and allied intelligence services, that they didn’t have funding sources with ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA, that they acted alone, that our intelligence, law enforcement and defense agencies couldn’t “connect the dots” due to “system failure” and “failure of imagination”, and that no one should be held accountable or even investigated for dereliction of duty, criminal negligence and obstruction of justice, or prosecuted for complicity, mass murder and treason) is a fraud.
Articles 33-35 of Kucinich’s Impeachment Resolution are reason enough to immediately impeach and remove Bush; but if the Judiciary Committee wants to hold public hearings first, then let them do so.
ArticleXXXIII Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
ArticleXXXIV Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001.
ArticleXXXV Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.
The problems that led to the success of the 9/11 attacks will not be solved just with impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney, however; it may be that a Truth & Reconciliation Commission modeled on South Africa's will be necessary to uncover all involved parties and determine what safeguards are needed to protect our nation, Constitution and Republic; for instance, who made the single $5Billion purchase of US Treasury Notes early September 2001? Why have the results of the 38+ SEC investigations into 9/11 insider trading never been made public?
