Pentagon "Missile" Hoax
discredits and distracts from real evidence
- reasons for "missile" hoax
- discredits and distracts from best evidence
- what hit or where it hit?
- Sandia test: planes shatter on high speed impact
- false claims vs. 9/11 truth
Reasons for no-plane hoaxes:
- discredit the skeptics with a straw man argument
- redirect the skeptics into a false debate (no plane vs. no complicity)
- protect the plotters from political / military insiders thinking that it was an inside job
- the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook
- there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw Flight 77, no one who saw the crash saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, fighter jet or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards fly into the Pentagon
- the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax
- making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway, both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)
- the material on this page and all of
the websites that are linked here should finally extinguish the "no
plane" hoax -- except for those who have staked their credibility
on these claims and cannot admit a mistake, and those who intentionally
promote the hoax. Every claim for the "no plane" hoaxes is
refuted here or at a page linked from this page.
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
-- Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
|The purpose of "no planes" is to protect the plotters|
Lots of military people saw the plane and wreckage, and making the conspiracy dependent on the no plane hoax gets Bush and Cheney off the hook. The issue is not what the peons (us) think about these issues -- the real issue is what the military and civilian leadership in DC think about these issues. No plane speculations and hoaxes steer people away from real evidence of complicity such as how the plane was steered into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon and the role of the wargames in paralyzing the defense of Washington. Cui bono - who benefits? How long would Cheney and Bush be in office if the rest of the military thought that the PNAC gang allowed 9/11 to happen -- or deliberately flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon via some form of remote control?
The fact that "No Plane" is the cudgel being used against the 9/11 truth movement proves it is a counterproductive strategy for exposing real evidence of complicity. Whether these hoaxes are coming from deliberate disinformation agents, the aggressively naive, the gullible or the sloppy is not relevant, since the ONLY evidence for "no plane" is altered and misleading perspective photos.
What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
a. Flight 77, an American Airlines Boeing 757
b. a uranium tipped cruise missile
c. a Global Hawk robot plane
d. a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards from the planet Uranus
What are the issues of complicity regarding the Pentagon attack?
a. how the plane was not intercepted, even after the towers had been hit
b. how the plane managed to hit the nearly empty part of the building
c. why the fighter planes scrambled from Norfolk flew over the ocean, away from D.C.
d. the CIA's "plane into building" exercise conducted at the National Reconnaissance Office near Dulles Airport during 9/11
e. all of the above
What does the evidence from the Pentagon crash suggest?
a. the testimony from the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence are in agreement that Flight 77 hit the building
b. the eyewitnesses were confused about what they saw and are in contradiction to the physical evidence
c. the eyewitnesses were co-conspirators with Cheney and were deliberately lying
d. we have no idea what hit the building
Who first suggested that a missile hit the Pentagon?
a. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld on October 12, 2001
b. eyewitnesses on Interstate 395 and Route 27
c. eyewitnesses who saw the missile from the Pentagon metro station
d. the eyewitnesses are all lying, anyway, and should be ignored
What happened to Flight 77's "black box" data recorder?
a. Newsweek reported in September 2001 that it was found in the rubble of the Pentagon, but we are not allowed to know what it recorded
b. it was in the rubble of the plane, shot down over Ohio
c. it is at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean
d. Flight 77 never existed
Why are videotapes of Flight 77 at the Pentagon being kept secret?
a. The videos are withheld because the conspirators are having too much fun watching the 9/11 skeptics fall into the discrediting "no plane" trap, and want to fuel the endless speculations.
b. Because the video tapes show flying saucers circling the Pentagon on 9/11.
c. Nothing hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Is there evidence for any of the "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" theories?
Is remote control technology proven to work in Boeing airplanes?
a. Yes, Boeing has a patent for "auto-land," an uninterruptable autopilot that cannot be turned off from within the cockpit.
What evidence would confirm or refute the allegations of remote control / computerized piloting of Flight 77?
a. independent analysis of the "black boxes" from Flight 77 with a "chain of custody" to prove the data had not been tampered with after the crash (the "analysis" from the so-called "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is more misdirection to suggest Flight 77 really did not hit the Pentagon)
b. clear video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon
c. forensic examination of the plane debris found at the scene
d. reading lots of websites
the correct answer to all questions is (a) except for question 2 which is e: all of the above.
"no plane" hoaxes discredit 9/11 "truth" and distract from evidence of complicity
"No plane at the Pentagon" has been the most popular hoax, and has been promoted the longest (since a few weeks after 9/11).
The eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence disproves the "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" claims. Hundreds of people saw the plane from numerous vantage points. Photos of the impact zone show how the plane struck the first and second floors of the building. There are photos of plane debris in the wreckage.
Some websites try to make the issue of official complicity dependent on the "no plane" myth (some state there was complicity, others oppose the idea), but this is a red herring tactic. It is a big clue that the media efforts to discredit 9/11 skeptics focus on this claim (the absence of Flight 77) while ignoring evidence proven beyond reasonable doubt. Some probable disinformation efforts promoting hoaxes allegedly proving complicity focus on "no plane" and ignore other claims that actually have solid evidence (why the trillion dollar Air Force did not defend its headquarters).
None of the "no Boeing" theorists have explained why the perpetrators would have risked certain exposure by a bystander capturing video of something that wasn't a Boeing 757. Video footage from nearby surveillance cameras was immediately seized by the FBI. Workers at a nearby hotel did get to see their film (prior to its impoundment) and did not report seeing anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. Keeping the film footage secret allows extreme speculation to flourish, which serves the interests of the plotters.
A growing number of 9/11 skeptics have realized the "no 757" story was spread to discredit / distract us. It's a tempting theory in some ways, but if you trace the story back, there's no reality to it. Photoshopped images, claims by anonymous people on the web, a blatant disregard of all of the evidence -- these and more mental gymnastics are necessary to believe "no 757."
No judge, newspaper editor or political activist can use this sort of non-existent evidence to justify any of the "no plane" theories.
"No Planes" has been the most effective means to discredit issues of complicity inside the Beltway, both for the overwhelming majority who vote against Bush and the high level military and civilian officials who had too much personal experience with plane parts -- or friends who saw the plane and/or plane parts -- to buy this hoax.
There will never be complete agreement in the 9/11 truth movementgiven the widely varying quality of standards used by different people, the complete lack of peer review, and the presence of hoaxers trying to keep people off balance. It's more productive to persuade people outside the "truth movement" about the best evidence, and caution them about the hoaxes. There is zero evidence for any of the "no planes" claims for the Pentagon. All of the publications, websites, etc that argue for this use crappy sources and / or distortions of the evidence.
This hoax shows the limitations of doing research on the web about highly controversial topics with enormous political stakes. While the internet, and search engines, are an incredible invention that allows access to a huge collection of knowledge, they are also imperfect means of discovering the truth due to the ease that fake websites can be created and the reality that not all of human experience is archived in google.com With the Pentagon crash, some of the witnesses did tell the media that they saw the plane, but many more were not interviewed. Therefore, instant experts writing about this issue from several time zones away who ignore the need for some on-the-ground investigation (and ignore the fact that all of the photos do indeed show a 757 sized impact zone on the outside of the Pentagon) are likely to make serious mistakes. But even just using the media quoted comments, the fact of the plane crash becomes obvious and irrefutable.
Some of those promoting the no plane stories insult the eyewitnesses by claiming they are unreliable, had a poor view of the events, or are in great disagreement (when they were not). Some people got a very good view of it, others had a brief glimpse -- but none of the witnesses who saw a truck bomb, a missile, a global hawk, an A-3 fighter plane or a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards.
The no Boeing stories imply that the witnesses across Arlington County, especially those on the roads nearby the Pentagon, were part of the coverup, which is a great technique for alienating people in the Washington region. The people who saw the plane told their families, friends, co-workers, etc about the fact they'd seen a major, shocking, historical event (wouldn't you if you saw something like that?).
The"no plane" claims distract from evidence of complicity that is "hidden in plain sight" -- the Pentagon was struck in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. The alleged hijacker flunked out of flight school and even an expert pilot would not have chosen to fly the plane in a 270 degree spiral to hit the side of the least populated part of the Pentagon. Why would al-Qaida perform this bizarre flight maneuver to reduce damage the building. Who would have chosen to fly in a spiral around the building to hit the one place that would minimize casualties while maximizing the "shock and awe" of the event? Was the plane guided by remote control technology (which is commercially available)?
Why did the Trillion Dollar Air Force not defend its own headquarters, even after the second plane crash into the World Trade Center? The fighter planes that were scrambled from the Norfolk Virginia area after the WTC was hit, before the Pentagon strike, flew east over the Atlantic Ocean instead of northwest toward DC -- an "error" that has not been explained but could be related to "wargames" that apparently inserted fake blips into radar screens. Perhaps a future, authentic, independent investigation with subpoena power will examine the role of the war game exercises in confusing the military response to the hijackings.
What or Where?
redirecting / discrediting the 9/11 truth movement
The "no 757" story has been effective at discrediting 9/11 skepticism, especially in the DC area. It is not a coincidence that the defenders of the official "surprise attack" claim focus mostly on the "no plane at the Pentagon" story in their quest to discredit 9/11 skeptics.
Many efforts that correctly debunk the "no plane" claims make the issue of complicity dependent on whether the "no plane" claim is true or false. This is a false dichotomy -- that evidence for a large jet at the Pentagon therefore exonerates the government of complicity -- that avoids the issues of the NORAD, et al wargames, the failure to defend D.C. and the fact the plane was steered into the nearly empty part of the building.
The no-plane claims have distracted from what is 100% provable -- WHERE the Pentagon was hit: the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground. This fact is accepted by the media, and is a clue "hidden in plain sight" as to the level of complicity within the Bush administration.
WHERE the Pentagon was hit is strong evidence for official complicity. , since a flight school drop out would not have chosen (nor been able) to fly a plane into the mostly empty sector of the Pentagon. Hani Hanjour, a flight school drop out, clearly could not have performed this extremely difficult flying maneuver. While it is possible that a Saudi or Egyptian air force expert pilot could have been substituted for Mr. Hanjour, a terrorist would not have chosen to hit the Pentagon in the one way that minimized damage and casualties. This fact suggests that 9/11 was an "inside job," arranged by a faction in the US military. Those who are inclined to invent a statistic to explain this surreal "coincidence" should realize that the odds were not one in five -- but virtually impossible (and beyond statistical explanations).
Dov Zakheim, the PNAC member who was Pentagon Comptroller (the money man) from 2001 through early 2004, came from a military contractor that developed remote control systems for planes (System Planning Co.)
|Sandia test shows what happens in high speed plane crashes|
In 1998, Sandia National Laboratory conducted a test of what would happen if a plane crashed into a nuclear reactor containment structure (several foot thick concrete shielding). A military plane was flown at high speed into a reinforced object - and shattered into small pieces. This is similar to what happened to Flight 77 on 9/11.
|false claim||9/11 truth|
Pentagon hole was too small for a Boeing 757?
"the initial damage to the west wing's facade
was far too minimal to have been caused by the impact of a Boeing
The damage to the Pentagon was the width of a 757.
The famous 16 foot wide hole in the Pentagon was the diameter of the 757 cabin. The wings also gouged out a 90 foot wide swath in the building on the first floor (where it hit), and the wingtips caused additional damage to the outside (but not a hole).
|no plane parts found?||
Many tons of plane parts were found at the Pentagon.
One photo showing plane parts is on the cover of the book "Le
Pentagate," a science fiction story that pretended that the
Pentagon was hit by a missile - even though there was not a single
eyewitness who saw a missile hit the building. a bad
joke hidden in plain sight.
|no large pieces found?||
Airplane crashes into ultra-reinforced bunkers don't leave large pieces. There are not any photos of an intact plane after the crash, but there are many photos showing smaller plane parts inside and outside of the building.
www.planecrashinfo.com/w941031.htm shows the impact of a plane crash that left few parts
The website physics911 claims the wings should have remained outside of the building if they did not "fold" into the small hole.
The "folding wings" claim falsely assumes a small impact hole - in reality, the wings created a wide hole at the base of the building!
Photos of the damage clearly show the impact made by the wings and engines.
|Pentagon lawn undisturbed by plane||
Plane parts were scattered widely on the outside of the building.
Many eyewitnesses report seeing a rain of airplane parts onto nearby areas after the collision. Some photos claiming an undisturbed lawn were digitally altered. Suspicions about sand and gravel poured on the Pentagon lawn after the crash are easily explained by the fact a road was hastily built to access the damaged area in preparation for clean-up and reconstruction (heavy trucks needed a roadbed to avoid sinking into the lawn).
|exit hole implies a missile went intact through the building||The exit hole lines up well with the pattern of damage that the plane caused. A missile that blew up on entry would not have created the same damage pattern (with a wide, first floor hole in the shape of the wing cross-sections). Some sources claim that the exit hole was made wider by the firefighters to access the burning areas. A few conspiracy sites have said the exit hole was really the entrance wound. Thierry Meyssan's book "Le Pentagate" featured a picture of the exit hole (and some shredded plane debris!) on the front cover.|
the object punched
The gaps between the first three rings in the Pentagon only reach down to the second floor - therefore, the debris did not go six walls.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/three-rings-nine-feet-of-steel.html refutes this false claim.
|claim that "ground effect" would have prevented the flight||
this argument is refuted at
a website that is technically accurate about the "no plane" hoax but is not interested in good evidence of complicity
not match 757?
in reality, the plane parts found at the crash scene precisely matched the engines used in that 757
|Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence|
hundreds of people saw the plane and hundreds more were involved
in the cleanup of plane debris after the crash.
|eyewitnesses confused?||The eyewitnesses who were in the area of the plane crash reported seeing the plane. Some of them were more familiar with identification of different types of jets than others, some had better views of the plane than others. No witnesses saw a missile, a fighter plane or a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards. A few said that the plane was acting like a missile, but that is an analogy, not a literal description.|
|why were the surveillance videos hidden?||
Psychology: the dozens of surveillance videos that show Flight 77
are being hidden to fuel the "no plane" hoax.
|Perspective on the "no plane" hoax|
|"no plane" claims motivate people to think "inside job"||
".... if you think that the "no
plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless...
or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts
a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certainly does), please
think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others
are correct that its intention
was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded."
|It doesn't matter what hit the Pentagon.||
claim that most people have heard for an alternative explanation
for 9/11 is "no plane hit the Pentagon," which motivates
some people and discourages many more from looking at real evidence.
don't know what hit the building - the evidence is ambiguous.
"Four-and-a-half years later, we still don't have
definitive proof that a plane hit that building."
"photographs and eyewitnesses in the immediate
aftermath failed to provide unambiguous evidence of the remains
of a Boeing 757"
for "no Boeing" has been debunked for years - there is
no "debate" about the fact the plane hit the Pentagon.
|logical flaws with the no plane claims||
not any sensible arguments why the conspirators would have substituted
a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane.
from a website called "Inconvenient Facts: Thoughts on logic, critical thinking, and mind-numbing conspiracy theories" that frames 9/11 skeptics as the "9/11 Denial Movement" (linking it to Holocaust denial). Inconvenient Facts makes solid claims against the bogus claims from Gerard Holmgren and Dick Eastman (internet voices who have loudly promoted the "no plane" claims) but fails to note that there are other, real pieces of evidence of complicity.